Ever since Pope Francis made his reveal in major cities in the U.S. a lot of criticism has arisen surrounding his actions in the air of this “holy” experience for any of those who attended. The topic Pope Francis intermixed with same-sex marriage and the now overly-publicized clerk, Kim Davis has led to some lost hope in the Pope’s sense of tolerance and hope for change despite his devotion to the church and the values it holds. Kim Davis is a now well-known, not in the best terms, for her repeated refusal in giving marriage licenses to gay couples, because it was against her faith. This brews a poisonous debate and publicity towards the amiable personality of Pope Francis. A New York Times article titled “The Pope’s Confounding Consistency”
…show more content…
From the outset, there’s an impression given by the question, “HAS the cool pope left the building?” This is disrespectful, but shows the passion of anger the author has towards the Pope. It’s also interesting to see how “pope” isn’t capitalized despite his status and his person in general. It makes me question whether or not this author is just going off on a rant over why he doesn’t like the Pope now or if he gives reasonable explanation. The author does some justice by adding evidence that defends the Pope, but it isn’t significant or done very fairly. One quote said by the Jesuit author James Martin, “not to put too fine a point on it but Pope Francis also met Mark Wahlberg and that does not mean that he liked Ted.” This is true. Despite the fact that the Pope met Kim Davis, doesn’t ultimately mean that he is totally against all sense of same-sex marriage or any form of advocating for the tolerance of same-sex marriage. However, the author thinks different. He deduces from this singular “meeting” of sorts, that the Pope has totally “lost it” and isn’t the “cool” Pope and people’s man as he appeared to be. The Pope has the reputation of being a compassionate man that wants to literally “reach out” to the …show more content…
He is the head of the Catholic church, and their ideologies aren’t in favor of same-sex marriages. He’s allowed to not be completely for it, but juxtaposing that fact with his so-called “secret meeting” doesn’t make him an uncool man. That’s just blowing the entire situation out of proportion. One of the main purposes of an opinionated article is to persuade the audience, and I’m not exactly persuaded. There’s some logic behind Peter’s argument, however; it just seems like he’s attacking a frail man that has an opinion, which mind you, is expected. The writer doesn’t give the opposing side much credit, and is just overly dogmatic. He does use language that makes it easier for a wide-range of audiences to read, but that juxtaposed with his burning passionate anger doesn’t make his side any convincing. Kim Davis is just a clerk who became a celebrity due to her involvement in a hot topic like same-sex marriage. The Pope reaching out to her, as he does to anyone else, doesn’t make him an anti-same-sex individual, just human. It’s important to voice one’s opinion, but it should be done justly, not just an article that seems to be written in one sitting whilst anger
From the outset, there’s an impression given by the question, “HAS the cool pope left the building?” This is disrespectful, but shows the passion of anger the author has towards the Pope. It’s also interesting to see how “pope” isn’t capitalized despite his status and his person in general. It makes me question whether or not this author is just going off on a rant over why he doesn’t like the Pope now or if he gives reasonable explanation. The author does some justice by adding evidence that defends the Pope, but it isn’t significant or done very fairly. One quote said by the Jesuit author James Martin, “not to put too fine a point on it but Pope Francis also met Mark Wahlberg and that does not mean that he liked Ted.” This is true. Despite the fact that the Pope met Kim Davis, doesn’t ultimately mean that he is totally against all sense of same-sex marriage or any form of advocating for the tolerance of same-sex marriage. However, the author thinks different. He deduces from this singular “meeting” of sorts, that the Pope has totally “lost it” and isn’t the “cool” Pope and people’s man as he appeared to be. The Pope has the reputation of being a compassionate man that wants to literally “reach out” to the …show more content…
He is the head of the Catholic church, and their ideologies aren’t in favor of same-sex marriages. He’s allowed to not be completely for it, but juxtaposing that fact with his so-called “secret meeting” doesn’t make him an uncool man. That’s just blowing the entire situation out of proportion. One of the main purposes of an opinionated article is to persuade the audience, and I’m not exactly persuaded. There’s some logic behind Peter’s argument, however; it just seems like he’s attacking a frail man that has an opinion, which mind you, is expected. The writer doesn’t give the opposing side much credit, and is just overly dogmatic. He does use language that makes it easier for a wide-range of audiences to read, but that juxtaposed with his burning passionate anger doesn’t make his side any convincing. Kim Davis is just a clerk who became a celebrity due to her involvement in a hot topic like same-sex marriage. The Pope reaching out to her, as he does to anyone else, doesn’t make him an anti-same-sex individual, just human. It’s important to voice one’s opinion, but it should be done justly, not just an article that seems to be written in one sitting whilst anger