He continued: "He [the Pope] did not want me to kneel, he held my hand and when I presented myself as a transgender girl he responded that he did not care who I was, that we all have one Father, as if he wanted to tell me, 'you are my sister.'"

When the transgender gave the book to Francis, "he [the Pope] took it and told me, 'Brave girl, you did well writing your story.' Then, he recommended that I always be myself and not to let myself be impressed by prejudices of the Church. ... I felt myself welcomed, taken by the hand and embraced."

So, here's another case (as in all the stuff reported by Scalfari) where the heretical mindset of Begoglio is being reported second-hand.  Behind closed doors, with Scalfari, and here with the so-called transgenders, Bergolgio makes abominable statements, referring to "prejudices of the Church".  As you point out, in PUBLIC, Bergoglio will make some statements affirming Catholic doctrine (to keep up appearances), but then secretly denounces those same teachings, referring to them here as "prejudices".  In doing it this way, Bergoglio can keep a distance from his undermining of Catholic teaching, so his apologists could respond (well, this is what this person said, and it could be misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what Bergoglio actually said).  And yet there's never any denial coming out of the Vatican.  Scalfari reported clear-cut heresy from Bergoglio, and if he had mis-reported it, the Vatican was under obligation to immediately deny the allegations.  But no such denial ever came.  So by their silence, we can hold Bergoglio guilty as charged regarding what Scalfari reported.  On top of it, Bergoglio CONTINUED to keep giving interviews to Scalfari after some of the explosive allegations were made.  One would think that if Scalfari were distorting Bergoglio's beliefs, Bergoglio would at least stop giving him interviews.

First Scalfari said that Bergoglio denied the existence of a hell that lasts forever.  Then, after this, they gave him ANOTHER interview, after which he said that Beroglio told him that he didn't believe that Jesus is God.  That would be outright apostasy.

My guess is that Scalfari was accurately reporting what Bergoglio said.  Bergoglio wanted that stuff out there, since he likes to cause chaos, but then if he's called out in it, he can just pretend that Scalfari mist-reported it.

Got to ask here... are you affirming that mortal sin takes place when you have grave matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will? 

I normally use the circuмlocution "matter that is mortally sinful in itself, given the other two conditions" instead of "grave sin", and that is how I convey it to my son in homeschool religion class.  (He came out of six years of diocesan "Catholic" school not knowing the difference between mortal and venial sin, no surprises there.)

I know this doesn't describe you --- I am thankful for our good discussions both public and private --- but ever since the 1970s, I've picked up on this "grave sin" and "serious sin" business, as though some would like to be able to speak of an "intermediate state" of "grave sin" between venial sin and mortal sin, to allow for someone being able to commit (and, more often, to persist in without repentance and firm purpose of amendment) gravely sinful activity, yet somehow not be alienated from Almighty God and not be worthy of eternal damnation.  I have in mind here "pelvic issues" such as contraception, masturbation, cohabitation without benefit of marriage (which would include living in a non-Josephite invalid "marriage"), and even ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activity.  People who do any of these things are not normally warned in Newchurch that they must abstain from holy communion.

This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about "grave sin":

Other sins admit lightness of matter: they are grave sins (ex genere suo) in as much as their matter in itself is sufficient to constitute a grave sin without the addition of any other matter, but is of such a nature that in a given case, owing to its smallness, the sin may be venial, e.g. theft.

Sounds like yet another definition of sin rife for abuse by heretics, as you suspect.

And here's what St. Alphonsus has on the matter of "grave sin" from Grant's translation of Moral Theology:

When on Thursday, 24 August 1690, in the General Congregation of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition the two following propositions were brought into examination, namely:
1. Objective goodness consists in the agreement of an object with rational nature; but formal goodness consists in the conformity of an act with the rule of morals. For this it is sufficient that the moral act tend toward its ultimate end interpretatively. Man is not obliged to love this end, neither in the beginning nor in the course of his moral life. 

2. Philosophic or moral sin is a human act not in conformity with rational nature and right reason; but theological and mortal sin is a free transgression of the divine law. A philosophic sin, however grave, in a man who either is ignorant of God or does not think about God during the act, is a grave sin, but is not an offense against God, neither a mortal sin dissolving the friendship of God, nor one worthy of eternal punishment.

 The Supreme Pontiff declared the first proposition to be heretical; the second as rash, scandalous, etc.

I can see why the 2nd is considered scandalous, as it opens the discussion to abuses by those who would like to eliminate the culpability of all mortal sins as "grave sins" unworthy of eternal punihsmemt.punishment. 

"Pope gives audience to those in a state of mortal sin"
VCR, how do you know they are in a state of mortal sin?