C
Cider
Guest
What do you expect from Rolling Stone anyway? They aren’t reliable for music reviews, which is their raison d’être, did you really think they would have an articulate article on the Pope?
- Status
S
shelby_sun
Guest
Like I have said before, working with and around The Jesuits for almost 50 years, I am pretty sure that Pope Francis was well aware of exactly what this magazine was all about and how it works, so I don’t think he is at all concerned with how the article came out.
The only reason Pope Francis would give this magazine an interview was to try to reach people he might not otherwise reach. He is all about bringing people into the church, a church that focuses more on caring about others over focusing on ever single rule and sin that the Church has ever proclaimed.
Those that still focus on all those “rules” just want to justify their judgmental ways, pointing out the faults of others. Some Catholics need to get a grip and start loving more and judging less. That is what
this Pope is all about!
The only reason Pope Francis would give this magazine an interview was to try to reach people he might not otherwise reach. He is all about bringing people into the church, a church that focuses more on caring about others over focusing on ever single rule and sin that the Church has ever proclaimed.
Those that still focus on all those “rules” just want to justify their judgmental ways, pointing out the faults of others. Some Catholics need to get a grip and start loving more and judging less. That is what
this Pope is all about!
J
Joe_5859
Guest
After reading some of your comments, I had to go read the article for myself. Based on the comments here, I was expecting it to be much worse. 
It does display much of the typical cluelessness on all things Catholic in the secular press (Wow, it’s “revolutionary” that the Pope is asking for feedback from the world’s bishops for the upcoming Synod? They’ve been doing that for the past 50 years! Where have you been?
)
What encapsulates the clulessness to me is actually the penultimate paragraph of the article:
Down in the rainy square, the crowd cheers for its new friend, Cool Pope Francis, until he retreats back into the mysteries of the walled city he now rules. I’m reminded of another moment from the press conference on the plane, when a reporter attempted to pin Francis down on gay marriage and abortion. And what is His Holiness’ own position on these matters? The pope’s artful dodge struck me as brilliantly Clintonian. “That of the Church,” Francis said simply. “I’m a son of the Church.”
How one could construe that Pope Francis saying his stance on these issues is “that of the Church” constitutes an “artful dodge” to me seems only possible if one is intent on cramming Francis into their own set of preconceptions.
It always does pain me to see our previous popes unfairly maligned and the senseless contrast between Francis and his predecessors. But somehow I think they wouldn’t mind if it means more people are taking a favorable look at Jesus and the Catholic Church – perhaps for the first time in their lives. I pray such favorable impressions of the Holy Father are seeds that will someday blossom into genuine faith for at least some – even if most of the seed seems to be sowed in less than desirable soil.
It does display much of the typical cluelessness on all things Catholic in the secular press (Wow, it’s “revolutionary” that the Pope is asking for feedback from the world’s bishops for the upcoming Synod? They’ve been doing that for the past 50 years! Where have you been?
)What encapsulates the clulessness to me is actually the penultimate paragraph of the article:
Down in the rainy square, the crowd cheers for its new friend, Cool Pope Francis, until he retreats back into the mysteries of the walled city he now rules. I’m reminded of another moment from the press conference on the plane, when a reporter attempted to pin Francis down on gay marriage and abortion. And what is His Holiness’ own position on these matters? The pope’s artful dodge struck me as brilliantly Clintonian. “That of the Church,” Francis said simply. “I’m a son of the Church.”
How one could construe that Pope Francis saying his stance on these issues is “that of the Church” constitutes an “artful dodge” to me seems only possible if one is intent on cramming Francis into their own set of preconceptions.
It always does pain me to see our previous popes unfairly maligned and the senseless contrast between Francis and his predecessors. But somehow I think they wouldn’t mind if it means more people are taking a favorable look at Jesus and the Catholic Church – perhaps for the first time in their lives. I pray such favorable impressions of the Holy Father are seeds that will someday blossom into genuine faith for at least some – even if most of the seed seems to be sowed in less than desirable soil.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
As one who still focuses “all those rules” I’d like to thank you for your rather ironic judgment as to why some of us Catholics “focus on all those rules.” Not wishing to paint as broad as a stroke as you do by lumping all us rule followers into one group, I’ll just mention that I focus on “all those rules” because if I didn’t, “loving more and judging less” would turn into, at least for me, “do anything you want.”
T
Thorns
Guest
Exactly and once a person starts to love more, they realize how important all those rules are to uphold, as they are for everyones benefit.
All of the hot button topics arent about judging, they are about love.
Gay adoption is not love.
Gay marriage is not love.
Abortion is not love.
Contraception is not love.
Premarital sex is not love.
Divorce and remarriage is not love.
If you notice, all of those things are focused on selfishness, not love.
So i agree…we should all be more loving.
S
shelby_sun
Guest
Sorry, I think anytime a child who has no parents has a person who is willing to love them and give them a home and family is love, no matter who they are. Who are you to decide what God thinks love is? That is why Pope Francis was elected Pope by such a majority vote because those men wanted someone who would try to open people hearts and really have us love one another.
It always amazes me when people who call themselves Catholics spend so much of there time deciding or focusing on all the sins others have committed, but than I grew up with
T
Thorns
Guest
Pope Francis agrees that all the things I have listed are not love either
Pope Francis has also said that gay adoption is child abuse, in case you were unware.
Love is defined as caring for the well being of another person, and in all of those scenarios its not about the other persons wellbeing, but the persons themself and their vice.
M
McCall1981
Guest
Glad to see this.
ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/fr.-lombardi-censures-rolling-stone-article-on-pope
Vatican Spokesman Censures ‘Rolling Stone’ Article on Pope
“Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi has strongly criticised an article on Pope Francis that appears in the latest edition of Rolling Stone magazine.
Although he acknowledged that the Holy Father’s appearance on the publication’s front cover shows a diverse interest in the Pope, the Jesuit spokesman denounced the article’s negative portrayal of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s pontificate, saying the piece disqualifies itself as serious journalism.
“Unfortunately, the article disqualifies itself, falling into the usual mistake of a superficial journalism, which in order to highlight the positive aspects of Pope Francis, thinks it should describe in a negative way the pontificate of Pope Benedict, and does so with a surprising crudeness,” Fr. Lombardi said in a statement.
In the piece titled “Pope Francis: The Times They Are A-Changin’”, author Mark Binelli calls Benedict’s papacy “disastrous” and goes so far as to attack the former pontiff’s appearance and character. He also describes Benedict’s acclaimed apostolic exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis as “wonky” but without explaining further.
“What a pity,” Fr. Lombardi said. “This is not the way to do a good service even to Pope Francis, who knows very well what the Church owes to his predecessor.”
Published every two weeks, Rolling Stone was founded in 1967 and focuses on politics and popular culture. Last year its editorial judgement was strongly criticised when it pictured the prime suspect in the Boston bombings on its front cover.”
ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/fr.-lombardi-censures-rolling-stone-article-on-pope
Vatican Spokesman Censures ‘Rolling Stone’ Article on Pope
“Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi has strongly criticised an article on Pope Francis that appears in the latest edition of Rolling Stone magazine.
Although he acknowledged that the Holy Father’s appearance on the publication’s front cover shows a diverse interest in the Pope, the Jesuit spokesman denounced the article’s negative portrayal of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s pontificate, saying the piece disqualifies itself as serious journalism.
“Unfortunately, the article disqualifies itself, falling into the usual mistake of a superficial journalism, which in order to highlight the positive aspects of Pope Francis, thinks it should describe in a negative way the pontificate of Pope Benedict, and does so with a surprising crudeness,” Fr. Lombardi said in a statement.
In the piece titled “Pope Francis: The Times They Are A-Changin’”, author Mark Binelli calls Benedict’s papacy “disastrous” and goes so far as to attack the former pontiff’s appearance and character. He also describes Benedict’s acclaimed apostolic exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis as “wonky” but without explaining further.
“What a pity,” Fr. Lombardi said. “This is not the way to do a good service even to Pope Francis, who knows very well what the Church owes to his predecessor.”
Published every two weeks, Rolling Stone was founded in 1967 and focuses on politics and popular culture. Last year its editorial judgement was strongly criticised when it pictured the prime suspect in the Boston bombings on its front cover.”
M
mkmom4
Guest
Robwar,
You said “I remember reading “Salt and Light” which an atheist reporter spent 3 days with then Cardinal Ratzinger, he came away converted to faith”. Do you remember where that was, I would like to read it?
You said “I remember reading “Salt and Light” which an atheist reporter spent 3 days with then Cardinal Ratzinger, he came away converted to faith”. Do you remember where that was, I would like to read it?
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
The Pope disagrees with you and he is Jesuit you know.
The pope is against gay adoption and has states so on several occasions. He called it a form of discrimination and child abuse. You are against child abuse right? or is that just a “rule”
The Church is not a democracy. It matters not if the Pope were elected by a majority of 1 or unanimous. Many of those same voters voted for BXVI and the others were appointed by BXVI. I don’t think you understand the issue.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
We actually have no reliable clue whatsoever what the voting in the Conclave was like.
H
Havard
Guest
Forum rules (as well as basic charity) prescribe that we don’t call into question people’s faith descriptions.
C
CanMan86
Guest
Unfortunately Bill Maher accused Pope Francis of being an atheist. I’d post a link to the video but it gets pretty offensive.
C
CNA_News
Guest
Vatican City, Jan 30, 2014 / 05:07 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi has strongly criticized the tone of “crudeness” directed to Benedict XVI in a recent article published in the “Rolling Stone” magazine on Pope Francis.
feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/catholicnewsagency/dailynews?d=yIl2AUoC8zA
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/catholicnewsagency/dailynews/~4/UzuiZp7h5Wg
Full article…
Code:
Although Pope Francis’ face appearing on the cover of the magazine’s latest edition is “a sign of the attention that the news of Pope Francis draws in different environments,” Fr. Lombardi emphasized that the rest of the article falls short of serious journalism.
“Unfortunately the same article disqualifies itself, falling into the usual mistake of superficial journalism, which in order to highlight the positive aspects of Pope Francis, thinks it should describe in a negative way the pontificate of Pope Benedict,” the spokesman explained in his Jan. 29 statement.
In the Jan. 28 article “Pope Francis: The Times They Are A-Changin,’” author Mark Binelli refers to the pontificate of retired pontiff Benedict XVI as “disastrous,” and even insults his appearance, stating that his looks resemble “a staunch traditionalist who looked like he should be wearing a striped shirt with knife-fingered gloves and menacing teenagers in their nightmares.”
Referring to the harsh criticism of Benedict’s appearance, character and even insults to his writings that are left without explanation in the 7,000 word piece, Fr. Lombardi noted that Binelli’s critique is done with “a surprising crudeness.”
“What a pity,” the spokesman lamented, “this is not the way to do a good service even to Pope Francis, who knows very well what the Church owes to his predecessor.”
Rolling Stone magazine was founded in 1967, and is a bi-weekly publication that gives particular attention to politics and popular culture. The magazine’s editors were also heavily criticized last year when the cover depicted the prime suspect in the Boston marathon bombings.
Despite Fr. Lombardi’s strong rebukes of the article’s journalistic quality, there has been no response from the magazine’s editors.http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/catholicnewsagency/dailynews/~4/UzuiZp7h5Wg
Full article…
S
shelby_sun
Guest
So are you saying a gay person cannot love and take care of a child? What about single parents, are they not capable of loving and taking care of a child.Pope Francis agrees that all the things I have listed are not love either
Pope Francis has also said that gay adoption is child abuse, in case you were unware.
Love is defined as caring for the well being of another person, and in all of those scenarios its not about the other persons wellbeing, but the persons themself and their vice.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
No one is saying that they cannot love a child. A bank robber can love a child. What The Pope is saying and what we are saying is that they cannot provide for a child.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Personally I think the point about a single adult raising a child is a good one. Maybe I wouldn’t put him or her at the top of the list but with so many foster kids needing homes, I certainly wouldn’t rule against it. An aunt or uncle or grandparent does it all the time. The Pope doesn’t rule for specific cases AFAIK.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
The pope was speaking about homoseuxal adoption specifically. I suppose the case could be made for a single parent being better than a foster situation. But what you are doing really when you make that comparison is feeding into a stigma of foster families that is flat out not true. Many many foster families sacrifice in ways you and I never would for children that they do not have to. Lets not malign a group of people by saying it is worse than if the child had only one parent. Look, we can always say something is worse than something else. A gay couple would make better parents than a child molesting couple. No one argues that. What the Pope is saying and i agree is that exposing a child to a lifestyle of sexual disorder is child abuse in itself. I fully support this view just as much as I would support the Church being against adoption into swinging couples with open marriages.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Goes without saying in any environment IMO.
M
Marie5890
Guest
Of course there wont be. The Vatican’s response will only increase the sales of this edition, and RS knows this.
- Status