Yes, I agree. Also, one of the things I find disturbing about Pope Francis is that he frequently says things that sound pretty standard and are meant to pacify the uneasy... but he has his own meaning for the words, which emerges when you examine the statement more carefully. I think that’s nominalism in action, and it’s a favored intellectual trick of the left.
Allow me to pose this statement, in regards to the meaning of words:
I never said you stole money.
Do you know what the statement means? Are you sure? Are you really sure? It seems a pretty unambiguous statement. However, it can be taken at least 6 different ways. Is it possible you could be taking his meaning in a way that suits your notions, preconceived or otherwise, of the Pope?
When you speak of the motives of the Holy Father, your are walking a fine line between mind reading and opinion.
I think it is reasonable to suggest he has his own meaning for words.... However, it is not reasonable to claim he means to pacify. Neither of us can know what he is truly thinking, unless he tells us.
In my opinion, Pope Francis is great fodder for the 24-hour news cycle. Any number of articles can be written about him, regardless of the truth. Articles full of innuendo, half-truths, and out-right distortions might “tickle the ears” of readers, but ultimately stand to discredit him.
People make any number of assumptions about him because he is Jesuit, he is an Argentine, he lives Santa Marta, etc. However, those are assumptions (you know what happens when you assume). What matters is the preaching of the Gospel, the continuity of Church teaching, and a greater understanding of God.