I mean, Pope Francis could have made a distinction between redemption and salvation by just quoting these EXACT verses in John 3:
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but[b] have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”
All Pope Francis had to do, to spare Fr. Longnecker the ink, was to stick to the Scriptures. Those few verses right up there from John 3 would avoid such 'misquotes', 'mistranslations' etc.
But perhaps maybe we should look at why Pope Francis did not make the remainder of the Gospel message clear.
Do the pope a favor. Mail him a Bible.
The interpreters need interpretation. "But this is not infallible teaching" is the cry. Yet that it held to make up a minority of RC teaching, though just what is and its meaning is subject to debate,