Steve Skojec Apologizes For Lying About Pope & Cardinal Müller Meeting....Sort Of....

Nicolas Bellord • 9 hours ago

But what are we make of this when CNA says that Cardinal Muller has denied the story of the five questions put to Mueller by Pope Francis? viz:


Inter alia it says:

'The cardinal was "flabbergasted to read this description of his meeting with the Pope", Horst writes, quoting Cardinal Müller as stating: "This is incorrect".

In fact, the whole meeting had run very differently Cardinal Müller asserted, and the claims made by the "anonymous German source" were quite false.

The comments echo a brief email sent by the Director of the Holy See Press Office, to both One Peter Five and Marco Tosatti yesterday. In it, Burke states that the claimed "reconstruction is totally false" and requests that the story be updated.'

It is a bit difficult to see how the story can be updated if he does not tell us what actually happened.

Steve Skojec Mod Nicolas Bellord • 2 hours ago

Yes. Mueller denies that the conversation happened the way we said it happened. Burke said the reconstruction is false.

Neither said the topics we said were on the table were not discussed. We continue to receive information confirming the broad outlines of our story. Did we get some details wrong? I think so. I think the 5 questions were more like 5 themes of the working meeting, not a set of yes or nos. I suspect that the eyewitness to the conversation either misheard or in some other way misrepresented what he heard. Our sources on this story have remained resolute that the version of events they gave to us is what they were told.

There is now another German, a Michael von Laack, who claims to have more information on this story and had said he would even divulge the transcript of the discussion (from his own sources' memories). Unfortunately, he made this claim on Facebook, and the next morning he had a cease and desist letter from someone whose identity he has not disclosed, threatening him with a 100,000 euro fine if he says any more.

We've also heard from a source in Rome who has been doing some digging that, again, we were thematically correct, but got some details wrong.

I accept this. We went out on a limb for that story. Took an editorial risk. Sometimes I do that when what I have is credible enough to move forward because by getting what is known out into the open, others (journalists, in particular) have license to dig more. We never presented that report as Gospel. We stated what it was and how we came by it. And we updated it with the denials as soon as we got them. From my perspective, if we're going to be faced with trying to ferret out the truth from those who can find a mental reservation to justify the denial of anything (if not an outright lie), forcing them to comment on things like this has to sometimes be on the table.

I found Marco Tosatti's anecdote yesterday about the former papal spokesman denying a story while journalists were playing back a recording of him giving them the information very telling. Source

Nicolas Bellord Steve Skojec • 36 minutes ago

As a retired lawyer I am puzzled by what is meant by a "cease and desist" letter with a fine of €100,000. Presumably defamation or libel is being invoked but these are civil torts. Only criminal acts attract fines and criminal libel was abolished some time ago - at least in the UK. I wonder what jurisdiction the writer thought he could bring a court action in. Damages for libel are assessed by the court. How can the writer put an exact figure on that at this stage? Who is his client? Quoting verbatim from such a letter may be a breach of copyright but telling other people what it is about in one's own words is seemingly okay.

I cannot give legal advice but my musings are that one should engage with the writer of such a letter and ask him exactly what he means. What exactly is he objecting to and on what grounds? Where is there any defamation or libel in what is being narrated? In what way is the narration wrong? Can he provide an accurate version of what happened so that it can be published to put the matter right? Is this not a matter of public interest anyway? etc etc. One should not give way to idle bullying.