Then why do they do so? Especially when two different authors attack Catholic converts?
If you want to see an attack article, that’s what you’ll see. In the first one, I see basic fact ... yeah, Francis has a convert problem. The problem is him, not the converts. He’s saying things that are getting twisted around (or are just outright wrong) and he is confusing the recent converts. Is the author wrong about this? And then there’s this part ... “Of course, you don’t need to be a convert to be critical of Francis, and plenty of converts are delighted with him (which is why Bullivant was wrong to think that Winters was getting at converts per se.) But this isn’t about liking or disliking Pope Francis. It’s about an attitude to the papacy on the part of some.” SOME. Not all. Keep in mind, converts are coming from churches that don’t follow a pope. This is new to them. They’re still learning.
And in the last link, I see good advice for new converts ... listen - a lot ... being new to the faith, they still have some unlearning to do. I know I did when I first converted 25 years ago.
You can take these as attacks, but I see something different.