This article is highly misleading. First of all, Fr. Thomas Rosica is not a Vatican spokesman. Even if he were, he did not say that "atheists are still going to hell", nor could he even be paraphrased as such. CNN (surprisingly) provides the relevant context:
The Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said that people who [are] aware of the Catholic church “cannot be saved” if they “refuse to enter her or remain in her.”
At the same time, Rosica writes, “every man or woman, whatever their situation, can be saved. Even non-Christians can respond to this saving action of the Spirit. No person is excluded from salvation simply because of so-called original sin.”
I think "aware" is a key term here. It's quite arguable that what Fr. Thomas has in mind is not an awareness of the Church's very existence (for we're all aware of that), but of the verity (as Catholics see it) of its teachings. In other words, those who are not "saved" are those who willingly reject what they otherwise recognize as the truth. Atheists who are convinced that God doesn't exist (however incorrect they are) don't fall in this category.
Second, Pope Francis's acknowledgement that even atheists can be redeemed is hardly an "evolved" position. St. Justin Martyr expressed similar views as early as the 2nd Century. One might further note that Church Fathers like St. Gregory of Nyssa are widely interpreted as promoting the view that everyone will be redeemed (of course, I am in no position whatsoever to comment on whether this interpretation is correct). In my view, to say so definitively that members of a particular group will or will not "go to hell" at least borders on heresy.
Yesterday, Pope Francis I reportedly blamed the "tyranny of capitalism for making people miserable."
I imagine that some right-leaning Catholics will be quick to stress that the Pope isn't speaking ex cathedra (thus, believers are under no obligation to endorse the views he expressed in yesterday's address). Others may suggest that his words were wretched out of context. After all, the word "capitalism" appears nowhere in his address. Arguably, though, that's just playing semantics; what the Pope refers to as the "absolute autonomy of markets" is what others prefer to call "capitalism", at least in its unrestrained form. The libertarian must resist the temptation to counter that there aren't actual examples of absolutely autonomous markets; even if we grant that there aren't empirical cases of true, unfettered capitalism, the point is that the Pope evidently believes that it isn't fettered enough.
Those who suspect that the Pope is being misinterpreted should always go to the original source. Here's a snippet from yesterday's address that should lay these suspicions to rest:
While the income of a minority is increasing exponentially, that of the majority is crumbling. This imbalance results from ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and thus deny the right of control to States, which are themselves charged with providing for the common good. A new, invisible and at times virtual, tyranny is established, one which unilaterally and irremediably imposes its own laws and rules. Moreover, indebtedness and credit distance countries from their real economy and citizens from their real buying power. Added to this, as if it were needed, is widespread corruption and selfish fiscal evasion which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The will to power and of possession has become limitless.
Whereas many on the right insist that only voluntary, charitable giving is what many ostensibly left-leaning Church hierarchs promote as solutions to poverty and inequality, it's noteworthy that the Pope explicitly recognizes the positive role that the State (or, "coercive giving", as many right-wing Catholics would have it) can play in rectifying socioeconomic injustice. It also bears mentioning that this view does not set a new and dangerous precedent in Roman Catholic social teaching. In a papal encyclical written over a century ago, Pope Leo XIII argued that:
It lies in the power of a ruler to benefit every class in the State, and amongst the rest to promote to the utmost the interests of the poor; and this in virtue of his office, and without being open to suspicion of undue interference - since it is the province of the commonwealth to serve the common good (Rerum Novarum, 1891).
