Apparently Franz Jalics (one of the 2 priests that Bergoglio supposedly denounced) issued a statement in the German Jesuits website where he categorically denies Bergoglio having any involvment in his kidnapping.
He says that at first the7y were inclined to think someone denounced them but later, in the 90's, he realised it wasn't the case (at least as far as Bergoglio is concerned).
Here is the statement in Germany, if someone could translate at least part of it, he'll be doing us a huge favor (don't really trust Google Translate
Alright, here a translation for the non- German speakers (I skip the introductory first paragraph):
These are the facts: Orlando Yoro and myself were not denounced by Padre Bergoglio.
As already pointed out in my earlier statement [of March 15, 2013], we were arrested because of a female Catechist who initially cooperated with us and later joined the guerrilla. We had not seen her for three quarters of a year. Two to three days after her arrest, we were arrested as well. The interrogating officer asked for my documents. When he saw that I was born in Budapest, he thought I was a Russian spy.
In the Argentine Jesuit community and within the church, it had already for some years been incorrectly rumoured that we had moved to the slums because we ourselves were part of the Guerrilla. That was not the case. I suspect that these rumours were the reason why we were not released immediately.
Earlier, I tended to think that we had fallen victim to denouncement. In the late 1990s, after multiple discussions, I realised that this suspicion was unfounded.
It is therefore wrong to state that our arrest took place on Padre Bergoglio's initiative.
While the statement is pretty clear in denying Bergoglio's direct involvement, it does not comment on his role with regards to the "rumours". One wonders why Franz Jalics in this context separately speaks of the "Jesuit community" (headed by Bergoglio) and "the church".
The statement also does not include any comments on the allegation in the Daily Mail article, Bergoglio's direct intervention had resulted in Argentine authorities denying renewal of Jalic's passport.
I furthermore read Jalic's initial statement of March 15. It gives a more detailed description of the situation before and after his arrest, without any reference to Bergoglio other than that he had agreed to Jalic taking residence in the slums. The March 15 statement closes:
After our release, I left Argentina. Only years later we had the opportunity to discuss the events with Bergoglio, who in the meantime had become Archbishop of Buenos Aires. Afterwards, we jointly celebrated public mass and embraced ourselves ceremonially. I have reconciled with the events and regard the matter for myself as closed.https://www.jesuiten.org/aktuelles/details/article/erklarung-von-pater-franz-jalics-sj.html
I wish Pope Francis god's' blessings for his office.
In short: Jalics was not happy about Bergoglio's role in the events, but has forgiven him. Whatever Bergoglio did (or did not do), it was not so grave that Jalics considers it as a fundamental burden to papacy.