Gay Magazine Names Pope 'Person of the Year,' But Why?

his-grace-foter-CC-BY-NChis-grace-foter-CC-BY-NCThe Advocate, a national LGBT-interest magazine, followed Time's lead and named Pope Francis as their “Person of the Year.” Although the pontiff's popular appeal has snowballed this year, the decision and its reasoning still come as surprises.

Editorial Director Lucas Grindley explains the magazine's pick. He writes that we shouldn't “underestimate any pope's capacity for persuading hearts and minds in opening to LGBT people, and not only in the U.S. but globally.” He also details the compassion Francis has demonstrated to individuals in the community and in dialogue with LGBT groups.

Grindley suggests that Francis is “all the more daring” and deserving because he has allegedly reversed the trend of past popes. But, has he really? And, should that warrant him the honorific title?

The Advocate contrasts Francis with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, asserting that the latter was homophobic. This is the same Benedict who said, "It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church's pastors wherever it occurs.” The emeritus pope's statement was not an isolated incident.

Oddly, but to Grindley's credit, he doesn't overlook the fact that Francis, like Benedict and the authoritative texts of the Catholic Church, has for religious reasons in no way endorsed gay marriage. Grindley simply banks on his hope that this will change, as if the views of a foreign religious leader ought to have any impact on the democratic process in the United States.

Pope Francis, who has stated his commitment to promoting the dignity of “every man and woman” regardless of their identity, is not necessarily a bad pick on The Advocate's part. However, Grindley's decision to pick this pope – for ostensibly being different than the last man to hold his role – is a shaky argument. The situation recalls President Barack Obama's reception of a Nobel Peace Prize essentially for not being former-President George W. Bush.

Spiritual and social understanding are important, but it may have made more sense had the magazine picked those who demonstrably and favorably affected U.S. law for the LGBT community. Grindley does dedicate deserved time to explaining the merits of those involved in striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) earlier this year. He lauds:

Edie Windsor... is a hero to LGBT Americans for taking the final punch in the fight against the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, and section 3 is no more.

[...]

Also at the Supreme Court that day, for example, were the four plaintiffs in the related Proposition 8 case from California, and they should be lauded. Or, any of their lawyers... Then there's attorney Roberta Kaplan, one of us, who eloquently refuted Chief Justice John Roberts when he suggested times have changed and LGBT people are no longer an oppressed minority.

Yet, that is apparently not enough to warrant "Person of the Year" for any of them. The Advocate's choice can be seen as goodwill extended from the LGBT community to the Catholic community, an optimistic response to Francis' own efforts. But, that is difficult to do while pretending Francis is an advocate for anything different than his predecessor, and sidelining the America's own LGBT advocates who triumphed over considerable legal burdens this year.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    "Although the pontiff's popular appeal has snowballed this year, the decision and its reasoning still come as surprises."

    What, gays aren't into snowballing? Asking for a friend.

  • Almanian!||

    Precisely - was wondering the same - for a friend as well...

  • ||

    is this the same friend I am privileged to know?

  • Doctor Whom||

    I have yet to meet anyone with a kind word for The Advocate's journalism.

  • John||

    Why? Because gay rights organizations and media are leftists organizations with deceiving names. These groups would happily send gays to prison or their deaths if doing so was the price of achieving leftist policies.

  • Tony||

    I think this comment created a miniature black hole in the Internet.

  • John||

    The truth hurts. Which is more important to you Tony, gay rights or social justice?

    You wouldn't volunteer for the firing squad yourself. But I have no doubt you would send your fellow gays there. Sending others to their deaths in the name of politics is what leftists do.

    This is just a small example of that. The fact that the Pope supports the idea that gays are immoral and guilty of the worst sin doesn't matter. What matters is that he said nice things about socialism. And that is good enough to make him person of the year.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Good grief John, they stated their reason, because he changed the tone of the Church towards gays. So you bypass that and go directly to firing squads?

    You are certainly revved up today!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    because he changed the tone of the Church towards gays

    Has he really? I remand skeptical.

  • wareagle||

    Bo,
    how is the church's view toward gays different, from a policy standpoint? How?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think it is the tone he changed, and I can see why gays might reward that alone.

  • wareagle||

    so he's saying homosexuality is wrong in nicer words? Wow. Are gays that starved for a pope's approval? More likely the leftists within the movement will applaud for any global leader who attacks capitalism and embraces collectivism.

  • Agammamon||

    Apparently - Obama made some noises about 'evolving his views' on gay marriage and the LGBT community went crazy for him in the 2012 election.

  • ||

    Kinda how Obama changed the tone of America's foreign policy before having actually done anything?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    He didn't say being gay is a sin. As a loyal son of the Church (as he called himself) he can't condone the sin of sosomy any more than he can approve fornication or adultery. But he said that if a gay person is sincerely seeking God, "who am I to judge?"

    It was the Church's nztional socialist and marxist socialist enemies who put gays in camps.

  • John||

    If sodomy is a sin, then the Pope has to admit that it is his duty to try and convince gays not to do it anymore. Lets see how the Advocate likes priests telling gays to cease and desist.

    I understand what the Pope is saying. I am just saying that there is no way to sugar coat it enough to satisfy the Advocate. They just like his views on socialism and are willing to ignore the rest. That is because they are not a gay rights organization, they are a leftist organization pretending to be a gay rights one.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I admit I don't know the Advocate's motives.but Francis has had an effect on lots of unlikely people, not just this one magazine.

  • Tony||

    John, there is not a movement anywhere on the left to line up anybody and shoot them. The left, indeed, has traditionally been by definition against things like authoritarian death squads. Get a grip before a loved one puts you in a room with a tiny window.

    First of all, if Christianity expresses an economic philosophy, that would certainly be socialism.

    And while I'm glad to see a pope talking that way, I do have a policy of not supporting the leaders of theocratic, hegemonic, child fucking cannibal cults, no matter how swell they are.

  • John||

    there is not a movement anywhere on the left to line up anybody and shoot them.

    Sure if you don't count fascism and communism.

  • Tony||

    Fascism doesn't count as a leftist movement, and feel free to point out some communists in this country if you can find any.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Fascism doesn't count as a leftist movement

    Why? Because you said so? Congratulations on your new editorship of the Oxford English Dictionary.

  • Tony||

    The term is notoriously fuzzy, but it is traditionally considered on the extreme right end of the spectrum (being authoritarian nationalism).

  • Tony||

    Which is what's so pathetic and funny about you idiots. Libertarianism is by appearance on the far left of the spectrum. But you guys don't actually have your hearts in the liberty movement. It's just a bunch of slogans you employ to distract from your actual desire to control everyone else and take away their choices--a lexicon spoonfed to you by right-wing media personalities.

  • kbolino||

    a lexicon spoonfed to you by right-wing media personalities.

    I hate talk radio and cable news. Who are these personalities and through what mechanism are they spoonfeeding me?

  • Long Range Boredom||

    "It's just a bunch of slogans you employ to distract from your actual desire to control everyone else and take away their choices"

    Tony, your projection is delicious.

  • ||

    What choices might those be, oh he is so wise in the way of Libertarianism?

  • Agammamon||

    . . . The left, indeed, has traditionally been by definition against things like authoritarian death squads.

    I got a pile of bodies in Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, and throughout most of Central and South America that would disagree with you.

    As a matter of fact, I would say that the vast majority of people in the last century lined up against the wall and shot were shot by leftists. I mean, how many far right revolutions were followed with large-scale purges? Pinochet's and who else?

  • Agammamon||

    Duh, and of course Nazi and Italian fascism.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Yes, every gay person knows how the left has been a constant thorn in their side.

    I mean, seriously John, you pick like the one issue the left is pretty good on to dump on them for?

  • Tony||

    John's gone off a ledge. He sees human-sized ovens around every corner.

  • John||

    Yeah Tony, that is why the American left is always so concerned about the rights of gays in Cuba and the Muslim World. They care about you so much. But you don't care about gays in Cuba or much of anything beyond leftist politics either, so I doubt that bothers you much.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John, before you go charging forward on this, where do you get that most of the concern that exists about LGBT rights in Cuba and the Muslim world do not come from the left? I am pretty sure groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other such organizations have entire sections of their organizations devoted to those issues. Are they not leftists?

  • John||

    I am pretty sure those groups do nothing but write the odd report and spend about 1/10th of the amount of effort on those issues that they spend on criticizing the US.

    Moreover, as I say below, there has been an endless stream of praise for both Cuba and Venezuela on the left with no mention of their treatment of gays. Politics are more important than gay rights. And this award is just another example of that.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What weasel words! You know they have stood against it, so you attack it with weasel words ('nothing but write the odd report and spend about 1/10th of the amount of effort on those issues') because that we you can dismiss any amount of links or contrary evidence as 'not enough' to disprove your reckless generalization.

  • wareagle||

    when do they stand against it, bo? Leftist groups have forever sided with teh Muslims whenever faced with the challenge, be it Israel & Palestinians, the US & Middle East, etc. Always.

    That part of the world has been barbaric not just to gays but also to women, and the folks who claim themselves the champions of those groups are silent. It's always blame/hate America first.

  • John||

    Yes Bo, we know. This is, like every other issue happens to be at the time we discuss it, is the one issue the left is pretty good on.

    No actually they are not. The left is utterly silent about the appalling treatment of gays in Cuba and in the Muslim world. The left is quite good on this issue when being so furthers their politics.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -The left is utterly silent about the appalling treatment of gays in Cuba and in the Muslim world.

    Where do you get such nonsense?

  • John||

    Can you utter anything but lies? You show me where they ever say anything or do anything but give a yeah but..

    And lets not forget Chavez. Show many any criticism of Chavez on this subject. I can show you a million links to leftist praising both leaders and regime and never mentioning the treatment of gays. What do you have other than your usual "well of course the left is good on this issue"?

    You really are incapable of making an honest argument.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Can you utter anything but lies? "

    John, what is wrong with you today? Is there some new medication you are on? I mean, how could my question to you 'where do you get this from' be 'lies' (sic)?

  • John||

    Yes Bo, don't answer challenge to you to produce any proof of leftists actually caring about gay rights in Cuba. Lets change the subject.

    My God you are mendacious twat.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I asked you about your generalization, and then you say it is up to me to disprove it? And for that you curse me? You are a rude person, and the speed with which you display that rudeness speaks poorly of you. You are acting deranged today.

  • John||

    I asked you about your generalization, and then you say it is up to me to disprove it?

    Yes you half wit. All you have to do is produce something that shows the generalizing is not true. That is proving a positive not a negative and something that is a perfectly rational argument.

    Sometimes I forget just how slow witted you actually are.

  • ||

    No John, if you want to claim something is true you need to actually prove it first, it's not upon someone else to prove a negative. God you're such a self-righteous nutjob.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I agree with John quite a bit here, but today something is off with him.

  • John||

    Look DArius if the left is actually critical of treatment of gays in Cuba and Venezuela in a meaningful way, show me a link showing that they are. If you can't, my point stands. I can't prove a negative. But you can certainly provide a positive example disproving my assertion, assuming one exists, which I maintain one doesn't.

    It is simple logic. It is not difficult.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    First, what kind of world do you live in where when someone makes a generalization and is questioned on it the burden is on the questioner to disprove the generalization?

    Secondly, 'All you have to do is produce something that shows the generalizing is not true' is not true, as I have shown with your weasel words about HRW or Amnesty International above. Whatever evidence is brought up you will just wave away as not meeting your mystery criteria.

    You are trolling at this point.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You've read Greenwald's essays on the subject, haven't you?

    As usual, Pat Condell speaks truth to power.

  • John||

    Have you seen the treatment Ronald Dworkin got from the European left for criticizing Islam's treatment of homosexuals?

  • ||

    can you all get back to the main point? namely, and what I want to know, are the firing squads going to be comprised of gays?

  • ||

    and if not, why not?

  • Heedless||

    DODT

  • waffles||

    Once the gay rights movement has succeeded and has nothing left to do but bully fundamentalists what will happen? Many of them will have nothing left for them on the left. And being less likely to have children they might rationally head for the other team. Unless political inertia and team loyalty is too hard to overcome, and i doubt that.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If the GOP did not insult gays so I bet a fair amount could be lured into their tent. From what I understand the average income for gays is quite high, and no one likes taxes.

  • John||

    If the GOP did not insult gays so I bet a fair amount could be lured into their tent.

    If only the GOP was as smart as Democrats, we would all be Democrats and have a merry Christmas.

    Concern troll is concerned.

  • ||

    Concern troll is concerned.

    You sure have the weirdest ways to talk to yourself. God you're such a hypocritical jackass.

  • RBS||

    Don't be silly John. Democrats don't celebrate "Christmas"

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John you are bizarre today.

    First, you attacked me for suggesting the GOP would do better to not insult immigrants. Now because I suggest they should stop insulting gays. In your feveredly partisan mind that can only mean I love the Democrat Party or something.

    You are like the person who thinks that if you ever tell your friend something they do not like you are a bad friend or something.

  • waffles||

    Most people don't pay much attention to who insults what. It's professional journalists and bloggers who do pay attention and then tell me how to feel about it. And even then that requires some attention. Party political affiliations are tough to overcome.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Those insults mean a lot to a lot of people. Gun supporters rightly still condemn Obama for his 'bitter clingers' remark, Hispanics are going to deplore King's 'calves like melons' remark, and many GOP's comments about gay love being like man on dog action do not attract votes either.

  • waffles||

    They mean a lot to a few people, then get parsed into soundbites and trumpeted around. In fact those snippets are often all these people know about who they are voting for. It's pathetic.

  • waffles||

    A lot of those GOP insults aren't so much insults but a dedicated effort to take offense at every conservative politician. I lived next door to a gay couple with two incomes that hated taxes but not as much as republicans. It's easy to believe there are gay conservatives, but they aren't a vocal group.

  • Tony||

    There absolutely are. And there are black conservatives. The inexplicable problem is that the Republicans treat them all with total disdain.

  • kbolino||

    The inexplicable problem is that the Republicans treat them all with total disdain.

    We all remember the noose hanging in the RNC headquarters when they appointed Michael Steele to be chairman, and also all the Klansmen who showed up to the Republican convention because Herman Cain was the frontrunner for a while.

    I used to believe this lefty bullshit about how Republicans hate minorities, until I realized that it was actually just the media picking and choosing who and what to portray. There are just as many homophobes and racists on the left, but they're (rightly) treated as nuts and not given national attention.

  • ||

    Wasn't it the log cabin reps who actually fought against DADT? I'd say they're pretty vocal.

  • Curtisls87||

    While I confess I like some of the quotes coming from this Pope, only when he sells the Vatican and all its treasures to provide for the poor will I believe that there is a fundamental change in the Church.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So he should be a socialist?

  • JWatts||

    No, a socialist would be taking other peoples money and giving it to the poor.

    If the pope want to give away the churches vast wealth then (assuming the Cardinals will go along with it) it's not socialism. It's charity.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The property of the Church isn't a private possession of the Pope. The Pope holds it basically in trust. Of course, the poor are among those for whom it's held in trust, and indeed lots of church wealth is constantly going to the poor.

    But a trustee can't just spend down the trust in a self-indulgent moral gesture. And if he did, some years down the road some poor peoplw would notice there's no nore aid from Catholic Relief Services, Catholic Disaster Services, etc. And the Pope would shrug and say, "sorry, I got nothing left, why not ask Bill Gates?"

  • Fluffy||

    The Vatican's art collection does exactly shit and squat to support its relief services or disaster services.

    This is not a "spending principal" type situation. We're talking about non-interest-bearing luxury goods the Church keeps because they kinda like owning a lot of art, and because prior Popes who liked art bought, conquered or stole a lot of it and institutionally they aren't willing to surrender one fucking square inch of canvas or one marble chip of it.

  • John||

    But who ever said the church's only duty to the world was giving welfare to the poor? That art collection is basically the church's propaganda arm. It is how it sells itself to the world. It has a duty to spread its message to the world.

    because prior Popes who liked art bought, conquered or stole a lot of it

    I am a pretty die hard Protestant. But I see that as just not true. They commissioned all of it. Saying they stole it is just leftist bullshit along the same vein of "the West got rich on the backs of the third world".

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    But who ever said the church's only duty to the world was giving welfare to the poor?

    Hm, well, if a rich-ass organization is going to go around telling poorer organizations, "give up more of your stuff", well...I think something about beams and motes would be applicable.

  • John||

    Hm, well, if a rich-ass organization is going to go around telling poorer organizations, "give up more of your stuff", wel

    That just means the pope needs to shut the fuck up about other people's money. And I agree with you there.

    Beyond that I don't think having that art makes them rich. If anything that art is a burden and a duty. Do you how much money it takes to maintain all of that? A ton. But again, someone has to maintain it. I don't see why them doing it is such a problem.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I gotta challenge you a little here, Ed. How is anything that Curtis said above different than what St. Francis of Assisi said concerning the Church's wealth?

  • John||

    Where do you want that art? You could sell it sure. And it would just end up in the collection of various rich people. That is fine and all. But I don't see how that result is any better a situation than what we have now. Something like the Sistine Chapel is a treasure of humanity. Someone ought to be a caretaker for it. Why not the Church? They did commission its creation and it was created to spread the Church's word.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Where do you want that art?

    I'd like part of it in my living room and a few other pieces in my den, thank you.

    However, this is not about me. It's about the tension between many Church monastics' advocacy for holy poverty as part of the path for salvation and the Vatican's adornment.

  • John||

    However, this is not about me. It's about the tension between many Church monastics' advocacy for holy poverty as part of the path for salvation and the Vatican's adornment.

    I don't see how maintaining various cultural treasures is inconsistent with the vow of poverty. Again, those things are expensive burdens not really wealth. And they do serve a function in the Church.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I don't see how maintaining various cultural treasures is inconsistent with the vow of poverty. Again, those things are expensive burdens not really wealth

    You hit the nail on the head. What the monastic vow of poverty is about is not being burdened with material wealth. Having to worry about maintaining these art objects is less time that can be spent in contemplation of God.

  • John||

    Having to worry about maintaining these art objects is less time that can be spent in contemplation of God.

    Sure. And by that logic there shouldn't even be a church. And that is a position that more than a few people have taken over the years. But it is not the position the Catholic Church has ever taken. So there is nothing hypocritical about them maintaining it. People who say otherwise are just people like Fluffy looking for an excuse to hate the Church. It is a nonsense argument.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    St. Francis may have disagreed. There was actually something of a debate over that after his death. He's a saint, not infallible.

    He's admired because he gave up his possessions to embrace poverty and persuade othets to do the same. Yes, it eas certainly a rebuke to worldliness in the Church. But he extendedhis love to all, even the rich. And the rich gave him donations.

  • John||

    The Church is guilty of a lot of worldly sins. But maintaining an art collection is not one of them. You guys act like the Pope keeps all of this shit in some private collection only him in the Cardinals can see. No, these things are public monuments and are maintained at church expense for the benefit of the public.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Absolutely. My point really is that there is an on-going debate within the Church about this subject, so no one can really give a definitive answer, outside the Pope himself speaking ex cathedra, of course.

  • wadair||

    But a trustee can't just spend down the trust in a self-indulgent moral gesture.

    Yeah, like that's happened before.

    Can you say Medici? Of course that one wasn't a "moral" spend down--just a "self-indulgent" one.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    So he should be a socialist?

    As if he already isn't one?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It's because of Francis's recent leftist rantings. That put him over the top. Socialist regimes have been so good to the gay community that their leaders gravitate to the latest to hit the rightwingers where they live.

    Either that, or this is the same mentality that got Obama a Peace Prize.

  • Apple||

    Refresh...

  • General Butt Naked||

    Exactly.

    If he got up there and gave some Randian speech extolling the virtues of capitalism, and actually took a hard line in favor of gay rights he'd be panned and ridiculed by these fucks.

  • John||

    Now Bo has assured us that these people are not leftists and the left is fabulous on all things gay.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John, are you so slavishly devoted to having your TEAM be the best at everything that you want to argue that the US left is not a smidgeon more pro-gay than the right?

    What in the world?

  • John||

    There is lots of anti gay on the Right. Who ever there wasn't? There is lots of anti gay on both sides. The difference is, you can only see it on one side because you never see never see fault with the left.

  • ||

    you never see never see fault with the left.

    Wow, I'm starting to believe you're blind. Can you actually read? Are you really illiterate and are hiring someone else to read for you? Someone who likes to lie to you? He criticizes the left all the time you retard.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    He sees only today, and even that through darkly it appears.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    through a glass darkly

  • ||

    You're making an opinion counter to John's? I can't believe the gall of your mendacity, since no one could ever honestly disagree with John! You're really a Secret Socialist™ in disguise!

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    What, did Bo get a new boyfriend? Today, I agreed with Bo on one perspective, but his schtick is to remind us all that oh hey the Left's alright too you guys.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Yes, saying 'seriously John, you pick like the one issue the left is pretty good on to dump on them for?' is such an endorsement of the left!

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Bo, if you think that kind of language inoculates you from this criticism, well, sorry, but that's not how the real world works.

    You don't just get to say, "Well, you guys all know how much I hate the Democrats BUT..." 999 times and then expect me to take it on faith you'll be different on the 1,000th.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You think saying the Left is good on one issue is an endorsement of the left?

    That is crazy.

    This discussion is about gays, and if I were gay I would quite obviously see the left as having historically and currently been more for my basic rights than the right.

    If we were talking about almost any other issue I would find the left to be worse. I have said before, and I will say again, the left is currently the biggest threat overall to libertarian values nationwide.

  • John||

    He criticizes the left all the time you retard.

    No he doesn't. He is the worst most mendacious concern troll on here. And I am not alone in this view.

    And feel free to put up some links to all of this "criticism". Bo never seems to be able to produce any. Maybe you can help him out.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John, search my name+Obama or my name+ACA.

    The astonishing thing is, I have on several times blasted the left, Obama and the Democrats in conversations with YOU!

  • ||

    Ok, now I'm convinced. You're not actually reading comments on H&R, someone else is doing it for you. I see him in conversations all the time where he criticizes leftist policies and/or praises people on the right like Rand Paul, but you simply can't see any of it, can you? It must be hard living in your own asshole, John.

  • John||

    see him in conversations all the time where he criticizes leftist policies and/or praises people

    Okay. I must have missed all of that. Enlighten me by providing some links. Until then, I am going to assume you are talking out of your ass and believe my eyes over your ass.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John, if I produce you some links of this, you will do what? Admit your gross mistake and apologize for that and flying off the handle about it?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Thing is, it doesn't matter if you are taking the side of John or Bo.

    What matters is if you believe that the pope would have gotten this award, merely for making some squishy comments positive to gays, if he'd have made speeches singing the virtues of capitalism instead of some socialist sounding horseshit.

    Hint: He wouldn't have.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Perhaps, but that is a negative that can not be proven. What one can ask themselves is, if you were a gay rights magazine, and what you perceive as the head of largest social entity opposing gay rights suddenly announced the entity should focus less on opposing gays, would that not be enough to warrant award? I think it sounds reasonable to me.

  • General Butt Naked||

    It's like you're autistic or something. Perhaps you were cloistered away form people during your childhood?

    You have this focus to argue incessantly over meaningless details but have no fucking idea how people actually work.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You have this focus to argue incessantly over meaningless details but have no fucking idea how people actually work

    He's a law student. Occupational hazard.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    And you know how people work, such that when a gay rights magazine awards a new leader of an organization that it sees as a major impediment to gay rights publicly calling on their organization to lighten up on opposing gay rights, and says that is why they are doing it, you know they really did because of socialist sympathies?

    I do not know much of anything about the Advocate, and of course they might have done so, but then again an invisible elf may have made them choose the Pope as well. Both are as verifiable, and to be honest as long as their stated reason makes sense I accept that as the best one.

  • ||

    This.

  • ||

    Meaning, to General Butt naked.

  • ||

    I will be honest that I am hard pressed to think of an instance where Bo has seen fault with the left.

  • Apple||

    He says the right things, just give him the Nobel Peace Prize already!

  • Almanian!||

    Obama's already got one!

    Oh! You meant Francis...

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Gay Magazine Names Pope 'Person of the Year,' But Why?

    Because that outfit is fabuuuulous!

  • Almanian!||

    It's the hat, isn't it?

  • Jerry on the boat||

    Girl, look at those matching shoes.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Pope Francis hasn't changed the doctrine, but he's changing the tone. As the pilot of the Bark of Peter, he hasn't thrown Church teaching or traditions overboard, but he's certainly steering a new course, especially regarding evangelization.

    People see his warmth and openness and respond to it...atheists, gays, lapsed Catholics, and others who previously wouldn't give a Pope the time of day...or the benefit of the doubt.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think Eduard is right. The Pope has just changed the tone, making it more Christ-like in my opinion, but he has not repudiated any teachings that I am aware of.

    But I can see why gays would find the change in tone deserving of award.

  • John||

    But I can see why gays would find the change in tone deserving of award.

    I am so sure they would if he hadn't come out so favorably for socialism. Really?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am not sure the Pope came out for socialism, first of all, though I deplored his comments criticizing markets when made them.

    But why wouldn't his statements about focusing on gays not be enough for a gay magazine to note?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Eduard can speak to this better than I, but he argued the other day that while the Church may not be libertarian it has consistently fought socialism for quite a long time, and supposedly nothing the Pope said changed that.

  • John||

    Because lots of religious leaders have said much the same thing and it has never placated them before. And the Advocate is an avowedly leftist magazine. Why would the comments about socialism not appeal to them?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Could it be, I do not know, because the Catholic Church has long been seen by gays as being anti-gay, and so when the head of that Church talks about lightening up on that gays might see that as worthy of lauding?

    No, it must be closet socialism!

  • wadair||

    The church will never lighten up on gays because it sees homosexuality (or, at least homosexulal sex) as a sin and it will never lighten up on sin.

    Jesus came to forgive sin, while the church remains to condemn it. This will forever get in the way of the church reconciling with minorities that Jesus himself would surely have partied with. Sin, and the presumption of it, will always be a stumbling block for institutional religion.

  • Agammamon||

    . . . People see his warmth and openness and respond to it

    Well, I *did* - until his little 'free markets cause untold misery and must be brought under the heel of Compassionate Top Men' spiel.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    "Pope"? They still do that?

  • Almanian!||

    It's Popes all the way down

  • Tim||

    Caffeine Free Diet Pope is my fave.

  • Killaz||

    On the one hand he is preaching tolerance, on the other hand, Catholics can no longer engage in commerce in good conscience, nor can others do so with them without treading on their religious sensitivities. Is that really a wash?

  • John||

    Not if you write for the Advocate. The commerce part is why you are giving him the award.

  • Killaz||

    Pretty much. I didn't even know about the dower pope's admonishments until I read them above. They are actually stronger than Francis'.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    He said business could be a noble calling. Goodness, it's as if you see every non-libertarian as part of an undifferentiated statist blob.

    Would Karl Marx have suggested that business could be a noble calling?

  • Killaz||

    It's always a case of special pleading with you Catholics, isn't it? No, you need to make a choice. He put you on the line with his irresponsible words. What Francis wrote really does make that big of a difference between what Catholicism meant before and after he made them. Either you denounce your creed or you denounce capitalism, that being commerce outside of either Marxist or Feudal communist sanction. Obfuscations don't cut it any longer.

  • Killaz||

    And, I didn't pick this fight. He did. I pretty much stayed silent during the reign of Benedict because he came across as a serious fellow. But it is different now. His going after capitalism is going to cost you Catholics big time.

  • John||

    In fairness I am not seeing how what he said was a repudiation of all commerce. It stuck me as just simple minded nonsense more than anything else.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    No John, it was socialism! Stick to your guns before they put you in ovens!

  • Killaz||

    If capitalism, and it is clear in the pope's words he means unrestricted commerce outside of authoritative sanction is evil, than what is a proper Catholic suppose to do at this point? Rebuild a feudal order?

    That is the thing. World leaders get away with saying simple minded leftist non sense and they and their followers pay no consequences for those words. It's as if he wasn't serious. He is suppose to be the heir on the Throne of Peter, a different criteria applies. It should be costly for all of them when he does shit like this, just as it would be if he were to suddenly endorse the racial policies of Nazi Germany. It is exactly the equivalent of that given the true evil of anti-capitalism and the misery it has brought to the world.

    The problem Eduard's problem with me is that in my facetiousness, I take the hat the Church has to say more seriously than they do themselves.

  • Killaz||

    The problem Eduard's problem with me is that in my facetiousness, I take the what the Church has to say more seriously than they do themselves.

  • John||

    He is promoting the sins of envy and greed. But it his duty as the heir to the throne of Peter to once in a while remind protestants why they are protestants.

  • Killaz||

    Lol! My dad was born into Catholicism, and knew the poverty inducing teachings first hand. Married the first protestant girl who looked his way. His siblings tended to stay in the school with one being a big fish in the Louisiana pond.

  • John||

    My wife is a good Catholic. I respect the Church for not rolling over and becoming a leftist social club the way the mainline Protestant denominations have. I would join the Priesthood before I joined one of them. But at the same time I am just way too much of an individualist to ever be a Catholic.

  • Tony||

    I don't get it. You are bitching about liberals not being as universal in their concern about human rights as they could be--but you're better because you are consistent in your opposition to those rights?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Protextants, bless their hearts, are all over the map on economics. Some are good capitalists. Others make Pope Francis look like Murray Rothbard.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Nothing could make Pope Francis look like Murray Rothbard. Perhaps you should read the economic pieces of the exhortation for yourself.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Perhaps you should...the Pope wouldn't want me to complete that sentence.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    You are mistaken. He said his remarks simply restate Catholic social teaching, that he opposes marxism, and that the only original thing in his remarks was denying that trickle-down *always* and *automatically* benefits the poor.

    I know that Catholic social doctrine clashes with libertarianism. I won't pretend it doesn't. But it also clashes with socialism, Marxism, fascism, and naziism. Now that the Pope has (surprise!) specifically reaffirmed the social teachings of his predecessors, it will be tough to claim he's just made up some new doctrine.

  • wareagle||

    seems this pope has waded into economic doctrine, too, and that's where some new ground is being plowed.

  • Killaz||

    This. That is exactly what he did.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control.

    Fuck your Statist Roman father in his ear.

  • John||

    He is a Latin American communist. It is very sad he can't understand the kind of horrible harm these ideas have done to people.

    What the hell kind of idiot could grow up and live in Argentina and actually think that governments are going to act for the common good?

  • Tony||

    What kind of blind, deaf moron would you have to be to live through 2008 and still be a neoliberal capitalist?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What kind of blind, deaf moron would you have to be to live through 2008 and still think neoliberal capitalism had anything to do with the economic crash?

    You.

  • John||

    And you wonder why everyone here thinks you would put people in ovens Tony. You are so amazingly stupid that you have no idea the misery and harm leftist politics have inflicted on Latin America.

    Anyone that stupid, is capable of anything.

  • Tony||

    You're the only one who actually thinks I desire to put people in ovens. Because you're fucking nuts.

    Socialism has done pretty well by people in Latin America, Europe, North American, Asia, Australia, even parts of the Middle East. Talking specifically about Latin America, what really caused misery was when meddlesome free marketeers came in and overthrew democratically elected leaders in order to run horrifying social experiments on whole populations.

    But you're not going to think this through, like actually look at which places have the highest standards of living and what kind of economies they have--you're fucking nuts.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Fernando Ferfal called to say, "Fuck you."

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    But you're not going to think this through, like actually look at which places have the highest standards of living and what kind of economies they have

    Why don't you live in Scandinavian Socialist Paradise? Oh, that's right, the North African immigrants who flocked there to sop up all those yummy social welfare benefits have led to the fact that currently a Swedish woman has a 25 percent chance of being raped in her lifetime, and these same Islamist wildlings running amok would beat your gay ass into a pulp.

    But then again, that would only effect you if you were a real person, which you're not.

  • Tony||

    Wow. Considering an American woman has a 20% chance of being raped, we must have our share of "Islamist wildlings running amok" as well.

  • Agammamon||

    Sexually assaulted, not raped - and in America that's defined as being looked at lasciviously.

  • kbolino||

    Considering an American woman has a 20% chance of being raped

    According to the FBI, the rape rate for the last couple decades is on the order of 40 per 100,000 per year (and declining, latest was under 30). Assuming each rape is an independent event, rapes are distributed uniformly among the population, and no woman is raped more than once, with an average lifespan of 75 years, a woman has a 1-(0.9996)^75 = 3% chance of being raped in her lifetime, and that's a liberal estimate given the assumptions.

  • wadair||

    But what does this mean:

    Some observers of the Catholic theological scene are saying that a personal meeting between Pope Francis and Dominican Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez could mark a thaw in decades of frosty relations between the church's hierarchy and liberation theologians.


    Is this a reversal of Benedict's stand against Liberation Theology as too Marxist?
    http://ncronline.org/news/theo.....gy-pioneer

  • ||

    This reminds me of the time some art magazine named Glenn Beck one of its "influential people in art" (or somesuch) in one of their issues. A little manufactured controversy can go a long way.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It seems to be ss I said above - all non-libertarians are part of an undifferientiated evil blob. So once you learn someone's not a libertarian, he must he a marxist national socialist.

  • Killaz||

    Socialism is not a dirty word. It is the heart of democracy where people vote about the very substance of the law and hence how resources are distributed. However, I'm not in favor of democracy, either. I use the word 'socialism' only when it is properly descriptive. The better description for what Francis believes is communist. Not Marxist communist, but a more idealized society in the form of feudal era communism where work was a shared obligation and resources were pooled together, like in the various orders. I don't have any problem with a voluntary communist association. So, don't treat it as a smear, it's merely objectively accurate. A socialist economy is a separate matter. Has a denoted meaning different than the more general connoted one of socialist political systems due to progressive era economic theorist use of the word in describing their own values.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    The pope specifically called on States to "control" the marketplace.

    WTF do you call that, exactly, but socialism?

  • Killaz||

    You're right. I actually gave him too much credit. This is where what he is advocating isn't just a specie of the usual church idealization of Feudal communism, but an endorsement of economic socialism. It's even more terrible than what I can get my head around.

  • Tony||

    That's a bizarre way of seeing things. Every economy is to some degree controlled by a state. Every economy is to some degree socialist. There is no fundamental disagreement among any of the political factions in this country about whether states should have some control over the market. Only anarchists believe otherwise, and they are too silly to pay attention to. Francis is suggesting that economies restore some of what has been taken away in the realm of social concern. That, put one way, the Reaganist/Thatcherist experiment in unfettering markets has gone too far. This is not controversial or strange, especially for a leader of a religion that is socialist at its core.

  • Agammamon||

    Except Tony - what has been taken away in the 'realm of social concern' has been taken away by larger and unfettered *government*.

    Remember things like mutual societies? those went away when government coopted their function (and their resources) - involuntarily.

  • Agammamon||

    Pretty much - either you're *for* a minimal state and maximizing personal autonomy or you're against it.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So the universe is divided between libertarians on the one hand, and marxist socialist fascists on theother?

  • Loki||

    Trying to muster up a shit to give... nope, can't do it. If some shitty rag* wants to name Pope Francis their person of the year for no good reason that's their problem.

    *Am I talking about The Advocate or Time here? Trick question! The answer is "both."

  • Agammamon||

    He writes that we shouldn't “underestimate any pope's capacity for persuading hearts and minds . . .

    So they're just following in the footsteps of the Nobel committee who give out Peace Prize based on what someone *might* do in the future.

    Plus, the pope is anti-free market - never underestimate the ability of nominally single-issue groups to find some way to slip their Marxism into the debate.

  • Long Range Boredom||

    Didn't Francis say that gay adoption was a form of child abuse?

  • Invisible Finger||

    Gay Magazine Names Pope 'Person of the Year,' But Why?

    Christfag.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement