Connect with us

More Popular Than Jesus? Pope Francis Just Made The Cover Of Rolling Stone.

Published

on

var addthis_config = {“data_track_addressbar”:true};John Lennon was infamously (and unfairly) mocked in 1966 when he claimed that the Beatles were “more popular than Jesus.” His comment was not hubris, in fact, here’s the full quote:

“Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue about that; I’m right and I’ll be proved right. We’re more popular than Jesus now; I don’t know which will go first—rock ‘n’ roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It’s them twisting it that ruins it for me.”

Hardly hubris, but that’s how the media plays the game.

Fast forward forty-four years, and Pope Francis I has not only been named Time’s and the Advocate’s “Person of the Year,” but the popular pontiff has now made the cover of Rolling Stone — the same magazine whose first cover story of this year was, “How the Beatles Took America.”

The pendulum of fame has swung around, full circle, it would seem.

“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,” Rolling Stone’s Mark Binelli writes in “Pope Francis: The Times They Are A-Changin’.”

“But he had far more radical changes in mind. By eschewing the papal palace for a modest two-room apartment, by publicly scolding church leaders for being “obsessed” with divisive social issues like gay marriage, birth control and abortion (“Who am I to judge?” 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.”

The word “gay” is used fifteen times in Binelli’s profile of the pontiff. A few examples:

This is a common retort among conservative Catholics about Pope Francis: You guys in the secular liberal media just aren’t listening. Santorum has insisted the pope’s comments on gays and abortion were taken out of context. New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, a conservative who had made a number of papal long lists in March, also wasted no time in translating Francis’ message, telling CBS This Morning, “Pope Francis would be the first to say, ‘My job isn’t to change church teaching. My job is to present it as clearly as possible. . . . While certain acts may be wrong . . . we will always love and respect the person and treat the person with dignity.'”

While much of this sounds like wishful thinking, they also have a point: The pope’s tonal changes don’t necessarily signal a wild swing from tradition. Francis has ruled out the ordination of women, for example, and he still considers abortion an evil. But those obsessed with contextualizing Francis would do well to take a look at the impromptu press conference he granted last summer to gathered Vaticanisti (members of the Vatican press corps) during the flight back from a trip to Rio. Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, told me he’d expected the press conference would go about 20 minutes. It lasted for nearly 90, and ended up including the pope’s famous “Who am I to judge?” response, which is normally the only part of the exchange that’s quoted. But reading the full transcript or, better yet, watching longer excerpts on YouTube helps to convey the true context.

A reporter asks Francis, who is standing at the head of the aisle, about the existence of a “gay lobby” within the Vatican. Francis begins by making a joke, saying he hasn’t yet run into anyone with a special gay identification card. But then his face becomes serious and, gesturing for emphasis, he says it’s important to distinguish between lobbies, which are bad – “A lobby of the greedy, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of Masons, so many lobbies!” he says later in the press conference – and individual gay people who are well-intentioned and seeking God. It’s while speaking to the latter point that he makes the “Who am I to judge?” remark, and this part of the video is really worth watching, because, aside from the entirely mind-blowing fact of a supposedly infallible pope asking this question at all, his answer is never really translated properly. What he actually says is, “Mah, who am I to judge?” In Italian, mah is an interjection with no exact English parallel, sort of the verbal equivalent of an emphatic shrug. My dad’s use of mah most often precedes his resignedly pouring another splash of grappa into his coffee. The closest translation I can come up with is “Look, who the hell knows?” If you watch the video, Francis even pinches his fingers together for extra Italian emphasis. Then he flashes a knowing smirk.

The Beatles may have been more popular than Jesus, but has than honor — or curse — now been bestowed upon the Pope?

And what does that mean for the cause of progressivism?

Image via Rolling Stone’s Facebook page.
Hat tip: National Memo

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Absolute Nonsense’: Bondi Blasted for Saying Judge Has ‘No Right’ to Question DOJ

Published

6 hours ago

on

March 19, 2025

By

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi is the latest official to expand the Trump administration’s attack on the judicial branch of government, denouncing U.S. Chief District Court Judge James Boasberg, who is questioning their use of an 18th century wartime-only law and attempting to determine whether or not the administration violated his Saturday order to redirect planes sending detainees to an El Salvador “slave jail.”

Bondi appeared on Fox News on Wednesday afternoon (video below) to discuss the questions Judge Boasberg has asked the Trump administration to answer, after it had refused to order the planes to return, saying the aircraft were over international waters and therefore he had no lawful authority to make the order.

Bondi appeared on Fox News Wednesday afternoon (video below) to discuss the questions Judge Boasberg has posed to the Trump administration, which had declined to order the planes’ to turn around, arguing that once they were over international waters, Boasberg lacked the legal authority to order their return.

When asked how the Department of Justice will respond, Bondi lashed out.

“Well, well, our our our lawyers are working on this, we will answer appropriately, but what I will tell you is this judge has no right to ask those questions,” the Attorney General declared. “You have one unelected federal judge trying to control foreign policies, trying to control the Alien Enemies Act, which they have no business presiding over and there are 261 reasons why Americans are safer now. Because those people are out of this country.”

READ MORE: White House Press Secretary Schooled on ‘Democrat Activist’ Judge Trump Wants Impeached

She continued: “The judge had no business, no power to do what he did.”

Bondi also blasted the judge for recognizing that time was a critical factor in this matter.

Judge Boasberg “came in on an emergency basis on a Saturday with very, very short notice at any, to our attorney to run in the courtroom, you know, and this has been a pattern with these liberal judges you just spoke about that. It’s been a pattern with what they’ve been doing. This judge had no right to do that,” Bondi claimed, wrongly identified tidying Boasberg as a “liberal judge.”

“They’re meddling in foreign affairs, they’re meddling in our government, and the question should be, why is the judge trying to protect terrorists who have invaded our country over American citizens?” she asked.

Questions have been raised about why none of the 261 deportees have been publicly identified, why most were not criminally charged, and why none appeared before a federal judge before being sent to a brutal mega-prison in El Salvador—a country to which few, if any, have ties.

READ MORE: ‘Delusional’ Schumer Spirals in ‘Devastating’ New Interview as Leadership Crisis Deepens

“You know, TdA is a terrorist organization,” Bondi said, referring to Tren de Aragua, “they are organized, that they have a government structure within them. They are sending money not only throughout this country to each other, but back to Venezuela, they are a terrorist organization and we are not going to have that in our country.”

Attorney and immigration expert Aaron Reichlin-Melnick blasted Bondi.

“This is such absolute nonsense because the judge isn’t trying to control anything about foreign policies, he’s trying to figure out if his court order was violated,” Reichlin-Melnick remarked. “Bondi simply is refusing to engage with the reality of what is happening in the court case.”

The Guardian’s Hugo Lowell posted an excerpt from Judge Boasberg’s order: “The Court seeks this information, not as a ‘micromanaged and unnecessary judicial fishing expedition’, but to determine if the govt deliberately flouted its Orders issued on March 15, 2025, and, if so, what the consequences should be.”

With the video below or at this link.

RELATED: Trump Pushes to Impeach ‘Radical Left Lunatic’ Judge in Unhinged Morning Rant

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

White House Press Secretary Schooled on ‘Democrat Activist’ Judge Trump Wants Impeached

Published

10 hours ago

on

March 19, 2025

By

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt continued the administration’s attack on James Boasberg, the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, even after Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts strongly criticized President Donald Trump for his call to impeach the jurist.

NBC News’ Garrett Haake asked Leavitt if it is “a good use of Congress’s time and the president’s political capital to try to impeach and remove a federal judge, which would take 67 votes, you’re unlikely to get in the Senate?”

“Well, look,” she replied, “the president has made it clear that he believes this judge in this case should be impeached, and he has also made it clear that he has great respect for the Chief Justice, John Roberts.”

READ MORE: ‘Delusional’ Schumer Spirals in ‘Devastating’ New Interview as Leadership Crisis Deepens

Leavitt wrongly insisted that it is “incumbent upon the Supreme Court to rein in these activist judges. These partisan activists are undermining the judicial branch by doing so. We have co-equal branches of government for a reason and the president feels very strongly about that.”

Aside from the Supreme Court choosing to take a case and overrule a lower court judge, it has no authority to “rein in” district court judges whose rulings it does not like. The Supreme Court has no disciplinary authority to punish judges who have lifetime appointments to the federal bench.

When she was asked how the president decides who is a “bad” judge, is it “just someone who disagrees with him?” Leavitt replied, “No, it has nothing to do with disagreeing with the president on policy. It’s with disagreeing with the Constitution and the law.”

RELATED: Trump Pushes to Impeach ‘Radical Left Lunatic’ Judge in Unhinged Morning Rant

“And it’s trying to usurp the authority of the executive branch of this country,” she alleged.

Leavitt appears to be referring to what is commonly called “checks and balances,” and “judicial review,” part of the mechanism of the U.S. Constitution.

Leavitt also attacked Chief Judge Boasberg, saying, “this judge, Judge Boasberg is a Democrat activist. He was appointed by Barack Obama, his wife has donated more than $10,000 to Democrats, and he has consistently shown his disdain for this president and his policies and it’s unacceptable.”

That’s when Haake interjected.

Boasberg “was originally appointed by George W. Bush,” a Republican president, Haake informed her, “and then elevated by Barack Obama. It just feels like I should clear that up,” he noted.

Attorney Aaron Parnas blasted the Press Secretary:

“Karoline Leavitt is trying to gaslight the American public. Judge Boasberg was appointed by George W. Bush in 2002. He was elevated by President Obama in 2011 and was confirmed 96-0, with every Republican supporting his elevation to the federal bench.”

Chief Justice Roberts also appointed Judge Boasberg to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) where he served as presiding judge, and appointed him to the U.S. Alien Terrorist Removal Court as a chief judge.

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: Chief Justice Smacks Down Trump

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Delusional’ Schumer Spirals in ‘Devastating’ New Interview as Leadership Crisis Deepens

Published

12 hours ago

on

March 19, 2025

By

Senate Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, in an attempt to cauterize the self-inflicted wound from his decision to help Republicans pass their “CR,” continuing resolution, last week—a move backed by President Donald Trump—may have only deepened what some rank-and-file Democrats see as a crisis of leadership.

In what some are calling a “devastating” interview Tuesday evening with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, the Democratic leader appeared unwilling to grasp the full extent of the current threat level to American democracy, that our democracy is now at a crossroads—a fact well-documented by experts on democracy, and proclaimed by a Democratic U.S. Senator—and struggled to acknowledge that the nation is facing a constitutional crisis.

Trying to defend what is being seen as a lack of strategy, an inability to grasp the gravity of this moment in American history, and a refusal to fight the battle that is actually before him, Schumer made his argument to Hayes.

President Donald Trump’s approval “numbers have started to go down, from 51 to 47. If we keep at it and keep at it and keep at it, his numbers will be much lower. He will not only be less popular, but less effective,” Schumer insisted.

Schumer additionally claimed that “we will find the moments where we shouldn’t give them votes.”

READ MORE: ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’: GOP Senator Furious Over Judge’s USAID Ruling

But Schumer was sitting in Hayes’s studio exactly because he did give Republicans votes. He canceled his book tour that was supposed to start this week, reportedly due to security threats, and instead has been hitting the talk shows and cable news defending his decision — and his leadership position.

“There’s this weird asymmetry right now,” Hayes observed, noting that Republicans “are acting in this totally new way, in which they are ambitiously trying to seize all power and create a presidential dictatorship in the United States of America, and the Democratic opposition is acting like, ‘Well, if we can get their approval rate down a few points.’ Then what? Then what happens?”

“Well,” Schumer, still in defensive mode, declared, saying that “what happens is, look, first, we get it way down, he’s gonna have much like we—this worked in 2017.”

For some on social media, that appeared to be the inflection point—the moment that Schumer exposed that he is using the old playbook that the Trump administration, MAGA, The Heritage Foundation, and Project 2025 burned long ago.

“You say now it’s a different government,” Schumer acknowledged.

“It’s different, though,” Hayes pressed.

“Oh, it is different, but health care: we beat them. Taxes: we beat them, and guess what we did? Guess what we did, Chris? We took back the House and won in the Senate, and that got and then we were allowed to do all those good things.”

Hayes also honed in on Schumer’s 2017 reference.

“I don’t disagree with that, but the difference to me between 2017 and now,” he explained, is that it “is a full-fledged assault on the Constitutional order that has not been seen.”

And Hayes asked, “but then the question becomes, what is the role of the minority in resisting that, that’s distinct from ‘we’re gonna beat them on health care, we’re gonna beat them on spending with Medicaid.'”

Then Schumer said, “If our democracy is at risk—”

“It is at risk,” Hayes declared.

READ MORE: Chief Justice Smacks Down Trump

“Sorry. It is certainly at risk,” Schumer acknowledged, after Hayes made that declaration, but then he ignored Hayes’s question: “Do you believe” it is at risk?

Schumer moved on, appearing to say that if the federal courts ultimately fail to hold Trump, “we’ll have the court of public opinion, and if that happens, as you pointed out, we have had rule of law since the Magna Carta, okay?”

“The people will have to rise up, not just Democrats, not just Republicans, not just, you know, people everybody. But our democracy will be at stake then,” he said, again, not appearing to grasp that, as experts say, it is right now.

“And if the people make their voices heard as strong and stand up, and we join them, I believe we can try to beat that back.”

“We can beat that back, but it’s it’s it’s up on that one, if democracy is at risk, that’s a little different than what we’re talking about now — even a shutdown as horrible as it is.”

“We’ll all have to stand up and fight back in every way,” Schumer concluded.

Critics, and rank-and-file Democrats, and some elected Democrats, say the fight should have started when Trump was elected.

The Atlantic’s Dr. Norman Ornstein, a noted political scientist, responded to a clip of Hayes’ interview with Schumer, declaring, “Chuck is delusional.”

That word has repeatedly surfaced.

“‘This worked in 2017’ is all you need to hear. I can understand Schumer’s logic on the shutdown, but he’s delusional if he thinks that’s a winning strategy,” observed Cosmopolitan editor Olivia Truffaut-Wong.

“You know, I watched Sen. Schumer on Chris Hayes and really tried to hear him defend his actions in good faith,” wrote Charlotte Clymer, a former Human Rights Campaign press secretary who has called for Schumer to resign, “but by the end of their discussion, it just felt impossible for me to avoid this very deep sense of dangerous foreboding. Big ‘tempting fate’ energy in the worse way. Honestly scary.”

One day before Schumer’s MSNBC interview, Clymer on Monday had already made the case for “Why Chuck Schumer Should Step Down.”

“We have lost our way not because of what we believe in,” she wrote, referring to rank-and-file Democratic voters, “but because of our party leadership’s reluctance to fight for what we believe in.”

Sam Seder, the progressive political commentator and host of “The Majority Report with Sam Seder,” declared Schumer’s interview with Hayes was “devastating for Schumer. ..ignoring the criticism from all corners of the party..can’t articulate a strategy. It’s bizarre. He thinks it’s 2017.”

He also wrote that Schumer was “trying to justify his lack of leadership and strategy on his failed dirty CR. He’s panicked and should be. He is not up to the era. Instead of fighting against every other Democratic leader he should resign for the sake of the country.”

Emma Vigeland, Seder’s co-host, wrote that Chris Hayes “nailed Schumer at the end of tonight’s interview by getting him to equivocate about whether or not we are currently at risk of losing our democracy. This is entirely out of step with how the base feels and saying this on MSNBC could (and should!) cost him his leadership.”

Elected Democrats are starting to break their wall of silence and call for Schumer to resign as Senate Democratic Leader.

U.S. Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-MD) on Tuesday, as C-SPAN reported, said: “I was deeply disappointed that Senator Schumer voted with the Republicans. You know you’re on bad ground when you get a personal tweet from Donald Trump thanking you for your vote…I’m afraid it may be time for the Senate Democrats to pick new leadership…”

Christopher Webb, a social media political commentator with a strong following multi-platform following, posted edited video of the interview and also called it “devastating.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Welcome to Autocracy’: Trump Declaring Biden’s Pardons ‘Void’ Debunked and Denounced

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.