Well that doesn’t really answer this question...
“And is it correct to come into a discussion on Rush’s bigotry and use “Barack the Magic Negro” as an example of it?”
Qualia is only a theory. It is not an absolute. There are many critics of it. So let’s put that aside for a moment.
If one is offended by a idea, with no explanation of the intent of that idea, should it be used as an example of a way to prove something?
In otherwords, is using “Barack the Magic Negro” as proof that Rush is a racist correct understanding that the song was a parody of one person rather than any black?
Simply, I’m not seeing proof that this was carved by a Catholic nor that it is on a Catholic grave and especially the context of the carving. We don’t even know that this was “Mary” and not the woman burried there. There is nothing but a title on a photograph by Ivan.
Yet, it was brought onto a thread with a heated discussion about “Catholics” putting Mary on a cross. Could it be that a Presbyterian carved it? A Lutheran grave? Or would that just be silly?
Here's a better question, how did this subject even come up on a Pentecostal End Times thread?
Oh yeah, because whenever arguments between anti-Catholic get too uncomfortable they can do one of two things:
A. Face the reality that the man-made invention of "sola scriptura" is inherently flawed, otherwise ALL Christians would reach the same conclusion about EVERY verse.
or
B. Unite around their mutual hatred of Catholics and change the subject.
It seems that they invariably choose option B.
I also do not think an artist's rendering depicts Church dogma or teaching - unless of course it is done by commission for the Church, according to it's specification and approved by it's authority.
All that we know of this is the image itself and the photographer's description: "Mary's Sacrifice, Granada, Nicaragua."
He doesn't appear to have any motive other than to make money from prints, so I deduce his description is sincerely written.