Full article is here
Full article is here
What a disgusting article.
What a disgusting, bigoted article.
The piece is astoundingly atrocious.
Rolling Stone has a history of printing poisonous trash, and this article merely continues the trend. What a gross misrepresentation of Pope Francis, Pope Emeritus Benedict, and the Church.
considering that it is the Rolling Stones which is very very liberal, they seems to want to emphasize swipes against the 2 previous Popes that didn’t fit their agenda or ideas. However, the author fails to note that Pope Benedict was very unprecedented in stepping aside and causing the election in the first place. When one wants to see the world in a certain way, everything will be judged by that. Even still, it is amazing that they did put him on the cover and are paying attention and just maybe the article will plant the seeds in someone to come back to the Catholic Church or desire to do so.
what are you thoughts of the article?
What did you all find wrong with it in specific?
The hermeneutic of discontinuity.
Sting and Paul Simon together might be interesting…then again it might be a snooze-fest.
Who even buys Rolling Stone anymore? It’s an awful joke! The piece on the Pope is blatantly antagonistic toward His Holiness, the previous Vicars of Christ and the Catholic Church. Hopefully some good will come of it–like someone’s interest being sparked etc., as has been mentioned.**
Well, it’s a blatantly uninformed, trashy article. Imagining a conversation with the author, it seems he/she would be the kind of person who would constantly ascribe hateful stereotypes to any Catholic who upholds the teaching of the Church.
I think they are right; the Pope is starting a conversation.
I think you mean that even magazines like Rolling Stones and the types of people that would read it are paying attention at least to this Pope and hopefully to the Catholic Church as a whole and maybe take steps towards it. I remember reading “Salt and Light” which an atheist reporter spent 3 days with then Cardinal Ratzinger, he came away converted to faith. I think it is kinda sad that the article took such swipes at the two previous Popes and tried to paint a picture in their view point that this Pope is doing something real different. The difference maybe in style and a more pastoral approach but not in doctrinal changes the author probably would really want to see. Maybe Pope Francis is really fleshing out the new evangelization started under JP II, which is to reach out to all, even liberals at Rolling Stone magazine. Maybe trying to start conversations with those we usually write off. Do I understand you correctly?
Friends, this is unrelated to these news, but after seeing a proposal to build a big statue of Satan in public square, and Katy Perry performing actual witchcraft on live television, this is a bit refreshing to read. We could do well without some of the editor’s twisted words though.
Just the anti-JPII and anti-B16 tone.
Many of my friends will praise Francis while disparaging the previous Popes.
I always emphasize that yes Francis is great, but for us a Pope is a Pope. THey have different things to teach at different times and that all modern Popes have been mainly holy and good men.
I think people like the writer of this article are going to find that, no matter how much they wish the Church to change towards what they think is right and proper, it’s just not going to happen.
Personally, I think it’s great that they’re seemingly unable to resist writing something about Pope Francis, even if they’re trying to use him to put their own spin on things. It’s like moths to a candle, and flame leaves a mark behind. Who knows what good will come out of their trying to do bad? They can’t “survive contact” with this particular flame without being unchanged somehow. That’s just how Pope Francis is.
(Years from now, when they’re good Catholics going to Church and obeying God, they can write a piece on how tragically wrong they were about the previous Popes, too. )
Looks like it came straight out of the Devil’s handbook. Step one, build up an image of the Pope that doesn’t really exist; step two, twist the real words of Pope Francis into something disgustingly anti-traditional; step three, reap the souls of people who actually fell for it.
Anyone else see the effects? I’ve heard people cheerfully say Pope Francis is pro-abortion, pro-gay, a liberal, a modernist, anti-church, and against ancient doctrines; they’ve called him everything but an atheist.
The writing, to start with. The author, apparently thinks commas, are a requirement, for a sentence.