Thanks for the info, but you left out some things, such as,
Eugenio Scalfari has said he did show the text to the Holy Father for approval, but it isn’t clear how closely the Pope read it... It [the Vatican] has nevertheless attested to the overall "trustworthiness" of the interview.
The obvious question arises as to why the Pope was not better advised, even if just to check that the interview was being properly recorded. Both this and the interview with La Civilta Cattolica the week before have raised many questions and concerns over the confusion they have caused, even if much of their content has been welcomed.
But the picture emerging is of a Pope who does whatever he wants with little or no consultation with his closest aides. “The irony is that the Pope is very much into consultation, and consulting across the globe,” said one Vatican source, referring to the international council of cardinals on curial reform that met earlier this week. “But he’s clearly not consulting too much here.”
He’s also viewed as being “totally unpredictable”, preferring to do things arbitrarily and on his own..-http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/vatican-scalfari-interview-misses-details-conflates-facts
Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ has attested to the overall “trustworthiness” of the Scalfari interview. Nevertheless, some minor, unprecise details have caused a stir among you. One of the details involves hesitation on the part of Pope Francis in accepting the election to the papacy and another, a so-called “mystical experience” of Pope Francis on the night of his election to the Papacy, March 13, 2013.- http://saltandlighttv.org/witness/msg-dario-vigano.php
While stressing the basic “trustworthiness” of a recent blockbuster interview with Pope Francis by Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari, Fr. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, left room on Oct. 2 for the possibility of small imprecisions. -http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/dolan-confirms-error-scalfari-interview
Thus your dismissal of this interview, which is not even the conversation the OP here is referring to, as being discredited for significant fabrication, is contrary to the Vatican's view, which sees it as trustworthy, with only some minor, unprecise details being a issue. And the pope himself gave the OK to it. And if he did not read even his own interview well, then that impugns his character (and the judgment of his electors) as a wise watchman over truth and papal reputation. While you can condemn the knee-jerk overreaction of those RCs who criticize the pope, the same is seen in overzealous defending him.
Second, even if Pope Francis had made a remark against proselytism (we don't know if he did or he didn't), that's not the same as being against evangelization.
There is no little warrant for doubting that he made a at least one disparaging remark against proselytism, while that is just what RCs do - incldg here - in seeking to convert their "separated brethren" to Rome!
As for the distinction between proselytism and evangelization, as one of many RC sites says, "Converting Protestants Is A Foremost Catholic MIssion..The tide of modernism greatly affected the perception of Catholics about evangelization. In our contemporary society the term Proselytism has a negative connotation, when people hear this word the first thing that comes into their mind is the act of forcefully converting a person to another belief. But this is not what it meant 2000 years ago during the time of the apostles, proselytism in the early church is the act of evangelizing Jews and Gentiles through preaching of the gospel without any coercion. " http://www.catholiceternaltruth.com/2011/09/converting-protestants-is-foremost.html
But at least Rome does not practice its overt carnal means of persuasion (though it has not rejected the use of force) for false members that it once did with papal sanction.
As even Aquinas counsels,
there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received". — Living Tradition, Organ of the Roman Theological Forum, http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html
Much like the very first Bishop of Rome, I should think. Jesus named him "rock," --- presumably meaning "solid" --but he seemed to move this way and that in small avalanches.
As for Aquinas, keep in mind that in his age (as in most ages), serious theological dissent was held to be socially and even politically seditious, understood by all: the accuser would say "This is sedition," and the accused would say "Damn right it is." So Aquinas was supplying more edifying reason for coercing true belief: not just saving the king's and bishop's britches, but primarily to push a person back into the way of salvation: if his body is compelled, his mind may follow.
Many would have derived that from Luke 14:23 - "And the lord said unto the servant, 'Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled."
That view fell during the 16th century Wars of Religion, where it drowned in blood: Catholic, Reformed and Anabaptist. No Christian would take that view now.
And besides, Aquinas didn't die for my sins.