You do not know what Pope Francis said, since it was a private meeting; neither do you know whether this woman is confused, deluded, or has a conscious agenda and is lying.
Two can play your game. Since it was a private meeting you don't know whether Francis is confused, deluded, or has a conscious agenda of lying.
All I know is the woman said she left the meeting in peace with intentions to marry another woman. And the Vatican has not made one peep saying the Pope discouraged her or disapproves of the upcoming marriage. Silence in many cases is complicit to the actual sin.
Ah, but here's the difference. As a matter of ordinary fairness, one gives anyone the benefit of the doubt when their actual words or actions are unknown; and this rises from the level of "ordinary fairness" to the level of "filial obligation" when one is talking about the unknown words of the Vicar of Christ. And as a matter of justice, one cannot impute a bad act or a bad intention to another person in a doubtful case. That is, objectively, the sin of rash judgment or even calumny.
Don't you get that? It is ordinary fairness, charity and respect to make the assumption that, in matters where the facts are unknown, the person is innocent. Heck, ebb tide, that's even the assumption in civil law. And to tacitly assume bad actions or intentions when the facts are unknown, is objectively a sin against the Eighth Commandment.