.
I guess I'm not seeing why this is a good thing. [Should I] be happy that the Vatican is trying to hide it/make believe it never happened?
Yeah, I don't really get it either. I suppose the implication is that the Vatican is trying to mitigate the scandal caused by Francis' blasphemy and heresy, but considering it was up there for over a month I'm not really impressed. Neither have they issued anything in the way of an apology or an amended translation, they've just chose to completely ignore it.
Their attitude and manner remind me too much of Menzingen's!
I think coming out and calling a spade a spade would do much for mitigating the scandal. But that would admit to too much.
That's just it. And it's also the reason they refuse to publish
the Third Secret of Fatima: "It would admit to too much."
It seems to be good that it was removed, but it is not good that
a public abjuration of the scandalous content has not been made.
This will not be forgiven by God until it has been abjured. Error
must be identified if it is to be condemned.
Of course, there has been no condemnation of any errors since
the October 11th, 1962 M.R.S. of John XXIII.
I guess I'm not seeing why this is a good thing. I should be happy that the Vatican is trying to hide it/make believe it never happened?
It is damage control. But what damage could the interview have caused, but for giving fuel to traditionalists who have problems with hierarchy's apostasy but are still convinced that they can count on the pope. They cant. It is bad that it is now censored by the Vatican, but because this is the internet, it is now preserved for eternity, and will be accessed by trads who seek it out.
The interview as published, was at least weak in doctrine, and at
worst openly heretical. Whenever doctrinal weakness or heresy
is published, it
necessarily does great harm. Anyone who does
not understand that, has
grave deficiencies in basic thinking.
.