Hmm . . . someone obviously is a bit over sensitive today. Tomorrow morning you should try getting up on the OTHER side of the bed, pal.
The only thing I'm sensitive to is bullsh*t and holierr than thou attitudes.
I understand the point you are making John, rank and file Catholics should not be broadbrushed with the apostasy of the leader of their Church, nor am I (and I think) anybody else is advocating that. Nobody has been harder on this guy than me, I was baptised Catholic but raised Episcopal (left that when they began to drift progressive) and am currently Lutheran (ARC) and it pains me to see what the Church is embroiled in because I have seen too much of it in other denominations. I admired JP II immensely, he was without a doubt the most devout, sensible and wise Pope the Church may have ever had. The office of Pope has an inherent poison pill within it since the holder of that responsibility is not only the top Bishop of the Church but the leader of a sovereign state. It is the latter I think that was a mistake to make the Vatican a sovereign state as it creates a political function as well as a cleric function. Our Founders saw a danger in the merging of Church and State and I think this case illustrates that. And I mean Church and State in the official sense, not the idiotic State free of Church BS spewed by Progressives who bastardized Thomas Jefferson's words. This is a problem I lay not at the feet of the rank and file Catholics, their role as a Christian still means their primary relationship with God is a personal one not an institutional one. Having said that I think it proper and necessary for them to express their displeasure with this Pope's statements to their leaders. It is to the first rank of leaders in the Church - the Cardinals to rectify this situation. I know not the real reason for Benedict to step aside, but the Cardinals need to assert themselves here because the continued reign of Francis is going to have a detrimental effect on the Church and how others view it. I would urge everyone to keep this focus in mind and not castigate the genuinely faithful with another's sins.
I understand what you're saying but I've been down thisa road before "He is the Vicar of Hell, the chaff, the seed that's fallen on fallow ground yielding no fruit & leading his sheep astray."
This is an email from my cousin who is a journalist in Rome at this time. He's still in University.
Dear John,
There is no link in your email, but I'm sure that you are talking about Scalfari's interview.
The problem is that the Santa Sede's office says that what Scalfari said in his article in not true because is right that him and Pope had spoken, but not about hell and paradise.
However, the press talked a lot about this.
I link you the agi's article about this; they said that this debate is no sense because Scalfari said nothing of special about hell but this concept was misrepresented by the Italian press.
I'd like to translate you the concept of the interview, but my English doesn't help me, is very complicated to translate correctly something like that.
The simplest way I think is that Scalfari said that there is no hell for who lives in sin and don't ask forgiveness when is going to die. Their soul simply disappear. Who ask forgiveness goes to paradise. This idea is agree with what theorized by Pope Giovanni Paolo II and Pope Benedetto XVI.
Pope Francis didn't taken a clear position about that.
I hope that I was clear.
Let me know.
Here is hi link to what was said,you like to practice Italian see if you can translate what was reported. and what it means. What you will find was that the translation into English is the problem.
https://www.agi.it/blog-italia/il-papa-pop/papa_francesco_frasi_inferno_scalfari-3713466/post/2018-03-30/