I enjoyed reading the article. Fr Robert P. Imbelli’s words represent his opinion, and interpretation of a professional relationship between Pope Francis, and a 95 years of age internationally recognised journalist, Eugenio Scalfari with a reputation for needling the establishment whether it be the Italian deep state, or the institutional church.
Palace politics as represented in The Vatican, or The White House teaches the observer that challenging powerful figures to speak out can, and does expose the intrigue that wallows beneath the surface when self appointed guardians "of the truth" believe that they are divinely inspired to manipulate events.
One of the challenges with wordsmiths is their determination to prove that their words are worth our time reading, therefore proof that they are effectively influencing us to embrace their arguments that they are an authority on divine truth.
Dogma is stated to be “a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.” This definition evidences the power of authority over those easily led by those in power, and its potential abuses by those in authority. This is as true in the political arena, as well as within the ecclesiastical world.
The Sanhedrin evidenced the role of religious leaders in coercing, and abusing those who sought refuge in its declarations.
Ironically one of The Sanhedrin's rising stars and brilliant theologian, Paul of Tarsus would face his moment of truth on the road to Damascus, leading him to understand that all he had previously believed to be divine truth revealed through the Mosaic Laws, would be replaced by faith in The Christ.
Fazian Evasion Tactics 101. Spin, distortion, call it what you like, so long as you try to change the meaning of what has been said or written to what was not said or written.
It was never a matter of shock/horror that the Pope dines with sinners. The essential objection is that the Pope continues to allow this journalist, (to use the term quite loosely) to continue his false reporting despite the number of times he has been caught out at it. That is what these two early paragraphs in the article are declaring.
Scalfari, an avowed atheist, has nonetheless received privileged access to the pope on numerous occasions. He has then written of the encounters in his newspaper, quoting Francis liberally, while admitting that he neither records the pope’s words nor takes notes during their conversations. He merely questions, listens, responds and transmits – indulging, to be sure, a certain creative freedom.
The result of these idiosyncratic, if not irresponsible, procedures is that on several occasions the Vatican Press Office has been forced to issue vague retractions of the rather extreme views attributed to Pope Francis, such as calling into question the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. Scalfari reported just last fall that “Pope Francis conceives Christ as Jesus of Nazareth, man, not God incarnate.” This last claim eventually evoked a more robust disclaimer from Paolo Ruffini, the layman who heads the Vatican Dicastery for Communications.
As for contempt dripping off the page, get a grip, Faz. Imbelli’s reporting is a whole lot more factual than Scalfari’s. You don’t seem to notice the latter’s contempt for the Church dripping off his pages as he delights in presenting, as quotes, statements that, according to the Vatican, were never made by the Pope.