Replies

You are missing the key issue in this by insisting on focusing on the reporter. He doesn't matter anymore. If he had misquoted the pope somebody from his office would have immediately said as much. I am amused at the recent statements by people that the reporter did not take notes or use a recording device since they clearly are attempts to mollify Catholics without having to retract the words themselves so loved by Modernists. With this tactic they can just allow people to think that the statements may not be accurate even though it is obvious in every way that the pope sees them as perfectly fine.

And, this is where you miss the real issue and allow yourself to grab onto the convenient misdirection. Imagine that Scalfari twisted the pope's words entirely, and the interview is completely unreliable. What would any reasonable person do in that situation, especially somebody whose words are heard by millions and followed by them? Would they ignore the inaccuracies? Would they, rather than issuing corrections or denials, have their people simply put it out that no recording device was used nor notes taken, without ever actually saying that anything in the interview was wrong? And would they ever go so far as to print the interview on their website as one of their own speeches? (BTW, you can see the interview here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/speeches/2013/october/documents/papa-francesco_20131002_intervista-scalfari_it.html) No, I am sorry, but your insistence on taking the bait and assuming that the interviewer was unreliable and ignoring the fact that the interviewee has acted in every way like it is entirely accurate simply falls short of reasonable. Taken as a whole it is obvious that the Holy Father approves of this interview. That is enough for me on that point, even had the Devil himself done the interviewing.

And, btw, I am Catholic and have no dislike whatsoever for Holy Mother Church.