Firstly: if Scalfari, when speaking with the Pope distorts his words, why does the Pope continue to talk to him and at any rate treat him with deference as a serious and trustworthy journalist?

Secondly: it’s not enough to say that Scalfari’s words “cannot be considered a faithful account” of his conversation with the Pope. It has to be said that it was an absolutely false account, which overturns the Pope’s thought, deforms his words by making him say things contrary to what he thinks.

Thirdly: what does it mean that Scalfari’s words “represent, rather, a personal free interpretation of what he heard”? A personal and free interpretation?