So you now agree that I did give you some proof. This is a bit different from your earlier "No proof of the above".
In general terms:- What I am attacking is (a) your partial selection of sources; and (b) the wrong conclusions that you draw from your partial selections.
This is not 'ad hominem' attack. 
Nor is it 'slander'.
However, if you really believe either of these things, I suggest that you write in to 'CC'. They are very fair, and prepared to discuss points with you.
Rather, what I am doing, is making very specific critique of your whole method of reporting.
BTW - I do understand why you have chosen your method. It is because every news' story and every analysis must fit your pre-set agenda; namely, that this Church and this Pope are corrupt and un-reformable.
Well, you are welcome to your agenda. But there is no reason why I cannot 'see through it'. Often, this is easy to do, simply by referencing those news' reports that you have chosen to ignore in your partial reporting.