My stats counter tells me that a fair number of people come here to read about the interview that Eugenio Scalfari, editor of La Repubblica, had with Pope Francis. The most recent one, mind you, not the one that made headlines a year ago.
I’m not going to write much about it, though, because I think it is a highly problematic thing. Dutch Catholic blogger Anton de Wit says it best, in my opinion, when he writes about the percentage of pedophiles among the priesthood, allegedly given by the Pope as 2%: “A statistic conjured out of thin air, pure fiction, hearsay from a journalist who says he had heard it from the Pope, who had heard it from some unspecified personnel, who in turn, no doubt, had heard it from someone else again.”
Scalfari, as is generally known now, took no notes and made no recordings during the interview. The complete content of the article is taken down from memory. He nonetheless provides what appear to be direct quotes Pope Francis, but the way in which the data was collected makes the entire article inherently unreliable.
I wonder about the wisdom of granting such interviews. They sow confusion as words are put in the Pope’s mouth which we just have to assume are correct until the Holy See’s press office issues a statement, as they did, that none of the quotes can be assumed as attributable to the Pope. The first interview was already problematic, but Pope Francis grants a second one without, it seems, much concern. We are told that the Pope knows 2% of all priests are pedophiles, that there are cardinals among that number, and that he intends to find a solution for the problem of celibacy. And the memory of a 90-year-old atheist editor is the only source for this. The press office can do all it wants to deny it, but the damage is done as soon as the interview is published.
You can’t grant interviews to journalist who are known to be unreliable in collecting and sharing their information, and then hope to correct any errors that pop up.