Time Magazine Loves Two Popes Propaganda Piece

Edit: even homophile Robber Baron didn’t like this movie on his Turd on Fire blog. As usual, Time puppets something false to be true. Of course, Robber Baron doesn’t go so far as to describe the scheming of his Old Liberal Bernardinian Patrons of the Sankt Gallen Mafia, against canon law, but he makes some interesting points.

Anyhow, you should probably not be shocked that the publication where Blair Kaiser got his break from Claire Booth Luce is a sly promoter of the progressivist agenda.

Of course the Bugmen and Pedos on Rotten Tomatoes love this film.

ALEJANDRO DE LA GARZA 

December 20, 2019

[Time] At the world’s oldest institutions, change is never something to be taken lightly. And nowhere is that more true than in the Roman Catholic Church, one of the oldest institutions in the world, where in recent decades the priestly leadership has faced a now-familiar debate: whether, in changing times, to adapt to new expectations or hold fast to the old ways. 

That debate is at the center of The Two Popes, a new film from writer Anthony McCarten (Darkest Hour, Bohemian Rhapsody) and director Fernando Meirelles (City of God), now streaming on Netflix. Inspired by true events, the movie centers around Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (Jonathan Pryce), the soon-to-be elected Pope Francis, and the aging Pope Benedict XVI (Anthony Hopkins). Their ideological and temperamental differences, and the theological debates that spring from them, drive the movie’s action as the leaders spar over the future of 21st-century organized religion. And though much of the movie is fictional, those very real debates have consequences far beyond the cloistered enclave of the Vatican, with the Church’s determinations on issues like celibacy among priests and the role of women in the Church having ramifications for the lives of the world’s more than one billion Catholics.

Here’s the true story behind The Two Popes

https://time.com/5753982/the-two-popes-movie-true-story/

Edit: a brief check of the author’s twitter feed reveals him to be a bugman.

AMDG

Time Magazine Understands that the Pope is still a Pope

Edit: the other day, National Public Radio's coverage of the Pope's remarks was unrealistically and enthusiastically hopeful. They manage to cruise to internet to find a dissident priest on sabbatical who made his own hopeful and heartfelt expectations that his predilection would one day be declared normative. On the other hand, Time Magazine seems to understand it. No matter how much this issue is sugar coated, it will never be enough. It's far more charitable to be clear than give false expectations or attempt to avoid the issue. Here's a google translation from fisheaters, with some editing from an Italian journalist at Altualita:

Patricia Zorzan:

“Speaking on behalf of the Brazilians. Society has changed, young people have changed and you see so many young people in Brazil. You did not mention abortion, marriage between persons of the same sex. In Brazil, a law was passed that extends the right to abortion and allowed marriage between persons of the same sex. Why did you not talk about this?”

Papa Francesco:

“The Church has already expressed this perfectly. It was not necessary to go back, as I have not even talked about fraud, deceit or other things on which the Church has a clear doctrine!”

Patricia Zorzan:

“But it is a topic that interests the young …”

Papa Francesco:

“Yes, but there was no need to talk about this, but the positive things that open the way to the boys. Is it not? In addition, young people know exactly what is the position of the Church!”

Patricia Zorzan:

“What is the position of Your Holiness, can we talk about it?”

Papa Francesco:

“That of the Church. I am a son of the Church!”

Here's the Time article:

Papal statements often get the same breathless scrutiny that’s usually lavished on cryptic symbols in Dan Brown novels. So it’s hardly surprising that the world, especially Roman Catholics like myself, is breathlessly decoding what Pope Francis told reporters on his flight back to Rome from Brazil on Monday regarding homosexuality: “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”

As TIME’s Stephen Faris has noted, while the Pope’s remarks might be a welcome and humane sentiment, they hardly represent a break with Catholic church doctrine, which still condemns homosexuality. The Vatican’s catechismal stance regarding the LGBTs in our midst remains the same: The church may love the sinner, but it hates the sin. And since Francis was referring specifically to gay priests—who like other Catholic clerics take a vow of celibacy and so don’t commit the “sin”— His Holiness wasn’t exactly going out on a theological limb.

But at a time when the world, including most U.S. Catholics, is increasingly accepting gay rights and even gay marriage, here ‘s what’s really significant about the Pope’s statement: The love-the-sinner-but-hate-the-sin trope no longer carries much if any moral credibility. How—given our awareness today that homosexuality is as biological as heterosexuality, and that homosexual relationships have proven as valid and socially enriching as straight ones— can we take any religious leader seriously when he claims to love gay people but at the same time demonizes the consummation of their love for each other?

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2013/07/30/pope-francis-and-gays-loving-the-sinner-is-still-intolerance/#ixzz2ajU28uRt