This is What You Get When Rolling Stone Puts Pope Francis on the Cover

There's something weird about Pope Francis being on the cover of Rolling Stone. Seems kinda' sad to me. I do find it hilarious when publications which have declared the Church irrelevant for years put the pope on their cover in order to seem relevant.

Anyway, here's some of the quotes that jumped out at me:

They compare Pope Benedict XVI to Freddy Kruger.
After the disastrous papacy of Benedict, a staunch traditionalist who looked like he should be wearing a striped shirt with knife-fingered gloves and menacing teenagers in their nightmares, Francis' basic mastery of skills like smiling in public seemed a small miracle to the average Catholic

They compare Pope Francis to Bill Clinton. Ugh.
But Francis, like Bill Clinton, thrives on personal contact, and he spends the better part of an hour greeting believers
OK. Is Rolling Stone the only publication in the world that doesn't realize putting the words "personal contact" and "Bill Clinton" in the same sentence isn't a metaphor, it's a punchline?

Rolling Stone thinks it knows Jesus better than previous popes.
Francis famously replied when asked his views on homosexual priests) and – perhaps most astonishingly of all – by devoting much of his first major written teaching to a scathing critique of unchecked free-market capitalism, the pope revealed his own obsessions to be more in line with the boss' son.
Cornel West said the same thing Cornel West always says, which is just liberal boilerplate responses. Namely, it sounds like he hates the Catholic Church but loves Pope Francis.
The reaction on the other side of the spectrum has been less complicated. "Pope Francis is a gift from heaven, a prophetic voice willing to be a critic of capitalism and imperialism," says Cornel West, long a leading voice on the Christian left. "I don't want to fetishize the pope. He heads a deeply patriarchal and homophobic organization that I'm critical of. But I love who he is, in terms of what he says, and the impact of his words on progressive forces around the world."
I'm sure there's more but I got kinda' bored reading it. It's pretty long. But the undercurrent of the piece seems to be that Pope Francis is going to change everything.

All in all it just seems a little silly to me. Silly. And kinda' sad.



  1. Considering the Vatican came out insisting that people get their information directly FROM the Vatican, I'm not worried about the Pope. I'm concerned is how do we have a conversation with people who get their Catechism from this 'crap'.

    It's like Rolling Stone has become the National Enquirer.

  2. It's not like they had an interview with the Pope either....

  3. The fact that they compare the Pope to Bill Clinton as if that's a positive says it all.

  4. esquire, time, rolling stone.............more praise from the left for pope
    gee, i wonder why they like him so much?

  5. gracem, they don't. They just want you to think the Pope is something he isn't.

    Consider the background of the privately owned Rolling Stone...

    "In the summer following the start of Rolling Stone, Wenner and Schindelheim were married in a small Jewish ceremony.[13] Wenner and his wife separated in 1995, though Jane Wenner still remains a vice president of Wenner Media. She and Wenner have three sons, Alexander Jann, Theodore "Theo" Simon, and Edward Augustus.[14]
    Since 1995, Wenner's partner has been Matt Nye, a fashion designer. Together, Wenner and Nye have three children, Noah and twins Jude & India Rose.[15]"

  6. Renee: Sadly, they do like him, or they wouldn't be writing these puff pieces. Yes, there is a bit of wishful thinking on their part, but let's face it: Francis has been supplying them with plenty of "ammunition" thus far.

    If Francis ever decides to speak strongly, clearly and courageously about sodomy, abortion, etc., and play down the Mr Nice Guy approach, then we should see a separating of the sheep from the goats.

  7. @Aged parent: Yeah, because they didn't try to spin everything Paul VI and John Paul II said and did, either, or anything. I wasn't even born when John Paul II was elected, but even I know about how Paul VI got glowing press as a "humanist" "modernizing" Pope, right up until Humanae Vitae.

    The media narrative depicted Benedict the way it did solely because they'd already been invested in vilifying him when he was a cardinal. Seriously, did you pay no attention to news coverage of the Vatican at all until 2005?

    Only someone with the memory of a goldfish, or who has a massive collection of wooden nickels and a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge, would think Francis is markedly different from either of his predecessors.

  8. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not the Perrian spring. I suspect the rolling stone knows its audience. THe media cherry picks what they will to fit their narrative. I cant say Im shocked, I just try to innoculate my family against the 'unbiased' media.

  9. @Sophia's Favorite

    Only if the media realize the Pope Benedict XVI help write Vatican II....

    @Aged Parent

    Pope Francis has made it very clear not to fall into the trap of the media.

  10. WOW. Thank you for reading that so I don't have to.

  11. It's hard not to be mildly pleased that they're getting close enough to Hell to feel the flames.

    Calling our beautiful, holy Pope Benedict XVI an ugly monster really shows how satanic these evil, baby murdering leftists are!

  12. Wow. The writer of the RS article has just revealed himself to be completely and painfully ignorant on the topic. The disastrous papacy of Benedict?? Where does this guy get his information?? LOL!

  13. Remember how the liberals used to promote "the spirit of Vatican II," which was opposed to what the documents of Vatican II actually said? Now they pretend that Pope Francis is going to excommunicate Pope Benedict XVI (who, as a forty-something theologian, was a major influence on the real Vatican II.)

  14. @Aged Parent: Well said. Hear, Hear.


Post a Comment