If Scalfari denies his claim, the newspaper "La Repubblica" loses credibility. On the other hand, the "negation" of the Vatican has not been given. The Vatican gives a pseudo-explanation to calm the scandalized Catholics while Scalfari speaks to the world on behalf of Bergoglio.
New York Times: "Mr. Scalfari said that he remembers the pope saying that hell does not exist"
New York Times:"but the pope who is surrounded by a court full of politically attuned cardinals, yes men and conservatives trying to undercut his mission, keeps coming back to Mr Scalfari"
As we have not yet seen a satisfactory explanation of what might be happening, we are going to venture our hypothesis based on an event that occurred when the then archbishop of Buenos Aires, now Francis, granted an interview to Omar Bello. This is what Bello personally refers to in his book "El Verdadero Francisco".
At the end of 2012, with Bergoglio I was already retired and knowing that I knew him personally, Editorial Perfil asked me for a portrait of the current pope. The original idea was to interview him, but I discouraged them by assuring him that beyond "El Jesuita" and some other exception to the rule he preferred to avoid journalism, in fact they had done only one journalistic interview in his life.
When I called to tell him that I would write a note about him, I was surprised to discover that not only did he give me the note but he made a space in his diary with amazing speed, something practically impossible for a public man whose offices parade important people all the days.
We're going to do one thing, "he said over the phone.
Whatever Monsignor wants ...
You come, interview me but do not tell anyone who did it, in other word, you writes your note without telling Perfil who has interviewed me, you writes it as your impressions. It is understood?
Something similar may be happening with what Scalfari attributes to Francis.
"THE TIMES" BELIEVE IN SCALFARI
Why Bergoglio invites him if he knows that then there is the risk that he will make his own "explosive" unauthorized report, attributing to him the enormity that he does not think? They want to make believe that this time we have fallen for the umpteenth time, without wanting?
There is to be doubted. How is it to doubt that "Republic" prints these interviews without any form of consent of the interested party.
"The Times" questioned an expert who "tends to believe Scalfari more than the Vatican" because if you know that someone turns your thoughts upside down, you "do not keep to inviting him".
There is therefore a game of the parties between Scalfari and Bergoglio that has been going on for five years and which allows the Argentine pope to use a sort of double magisterial track: when he speaks to Catholics he expresses himself in a certain vague and theologically ambiguous way. It avoids explicit tears by slowly demolishing the doctrine (the tactic of the boiled frog).
Instead, through Scalfari he lets the secular world know its real, modern ideas, to credit its "revolution" and to have popularity among the media and non-Catholics.
It is no coincidence that "The Times", published on the front page on Friday, credits those statements as essentially authentic and praises Pope Bergoglio because with this "suggestion" on the non-existence of hell he would try to "reconcile eternal truths with costumes and the mentality of the modern age ".
ALREADY THE CARD. MARTINI…
On the other hand, that idea about hell for a long time has been a notorious feature in the pastoral theology. Card. Martini - who is considered the great forerunner of this pontificate - in his last months, as a pensioner, wrote something like this in his book-testament:
"I have the hope that sooner or later everyone will be redeemed. I am a great optimist ... My hope that God welcomes us all, that he is merciful, has become ever stronger ... On the other hand, it is natural, I can not imagine how Hitler or a murderer who has abused children can be close to God. It's easier for me to think that such people are simply being annihilated."
With these ideas, the pro-government wants to be more merciful of God and of Jesus himself who instead in the Gospel describes with terrible words the pains of hell. Here is the sense of bergoglio's mercy: overcoming that of Jesus.
On Hell he had let Scalfari go on ahead. For three times, on "Repubblica", over the years, he had already attributed that thesis to Bergoglio, without reporting direct quotation marks. The Vatican had never denied.
Reactions within the Church, confused and annihilated, there had been none. So this time someone must have thought it was time to quote those bergogliani concepts.
The newspaper came out, Thursday morning, no denial left from the Vatican. Until 15.00 when, with many hours of delay, that release came out. Because? What had happened?
It seems that this time - in front of a quotation that directly attributes to Pope Bergoglio two explicit heresies, in contrast with two fundamental dogmas of the Church - an important cardinal (not Italian) is indignant, has called some colleagues and then, even on their behalf , has directly suggested to Bergoglio what that interview could mean (professing heretical theses is one of the four causes of cessation of the Petrine ministry).
Bergoglio consulted with the Deputy Msgr. Becciu and decided to immediately run for cover with that statement of his spokesman, whose prior notice was given to Scalfari who - until today - has been at the game.
This would explain why "Republic" did not disclose the "denial" and did not respond. But will the story end here?
From "Libero", 1 April 2018