Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Traditional Catholic Reacts to Blasphemous Poster of Our Lady by Destroying It-Was It Right Thing..
A Reluctant Sinner ^ | 12/22/11 | Dylan Parry

Posted on 12/22/2011 7:41:33 AM PST by marshmallow

A few days ago a man referring to himself as a traditional Catholic decided to vandalise a controversial image of the Blessed Virgin Mary. According to the New Zealand Herald, Arthur Skinner from the Catholic Action Group in New Zealand damaged the poster as he deemed it to be so offensive that he felt a responsibility to remove it.

The image showing the Virgin Mary holding a pregnancy testing kit with a shocked expression on her face had been commissioned by an Auckland Anglican church, St Matthew-in-the-City. This parish is already known for displaying controversial (some would say blasphemous) quasi-religious images - a few years ago its billboard depicted an extremely distasteful image of St Joseph and Our Lady in bed after sex (click here and scroll down to view - but be warned).

Whilst reacting to this story, many anti-Catholic commentators in New Zealand have not only criticised Skinner, but have also used this opportunity to take a dig at the Catholic Church as a whole. According to Richard Boock, who appears to be an embittered lapsed Catholic, Arthur Skinner's act of vandalism is further proof of Catholicism's "bullying" and "intolerant" attitude. Those who bother to read Boock's article will find his self-righteousness particularly bizarre, especially seeing that he begins his piece - with no apparent sense of irony - by referring to Catholics as "Micks" (an offensive and derogatory term for the Irish).

The vandalising of this poster was also linked by Boock to the much exaggerated clerical abuse scandals. How both things are connected is beyond me. It might be something to do, though, with the fact that the Auckland Anglican church which displayed the offensive poster of Our Lady seems to be very pro-homosexual, whilst - according to a much touted.........

(Excerpt) Read more at areluctantsinner.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Activism; Catholic; General Discusssion; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: vandalism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

1 posted on 12/22/2011 7:41:36 AM PST by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Of course he was right.


2 posted on 12/22/2011 7:42:38 AM PST by steve8714 (A-B-O-E-R-&G)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Either he was right -

Or we cede our society to the weak minded dogs who pretend to be humans.


3 posted on 12/22/2011 7:46:37 AM PST by Eldon Tyrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

“Catholicism’s “bullying” and “intolerant” attitude”

may it always be so..


4 posted on 12/22/2011 7:46:50 AM PST by RitchieAprile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

This man’s action goes against the liberalism of Vatican II.


5 posted on 12/22/2011 7:49:16 AM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

To a modern liberal, this is a horrific crime.

What should be done is to threaten the creator of the picture with death, and then bomb/stab/behead him.

It’s the muslim way, and the way of the future.

Islam, the religion of progressives.


6 posted on 12/22/2011 7:50:26 AM PST by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

They are saying she didn’t believe the angel? Kinda funny. So I went and looked up ‘blasephemous’. My first reaction was ‘no’, because Mary isn’t God. But the definition included ‘sacred’, so I could see how that word may fit. In both cases listed in the post, I can certainly see how Catholics would be offended.


7 posted on 12/22/2011 8:03:12 AM PST by LearnsFromMistakes (Yes, I am happy to see you. But that IS a gun in my pocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

More evidence of “Mary” worship.


8 posted on 12/22/2011 8:04:49 AM PST by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faucetman

I don’t worship Mary, but I respect deeply her devotion to God and His Christ. I also happen to think, even though I am not a Catholic, that it is possible that she is in Heaven and might have assignments from time to time to work with our Lord in the earth to do His work here.

Not trying to convince you, but just to offer it as food for thought. Placing respectful thought on His mother and thanking God for her from time to time could not be a bad thing imho.


9 posted on 12/22/2011 8:09:53 AM PST by TEXOKIE (... and Merry Christmas to all FREEPERS EVERYWHERE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
The image showing the Virgin Mary holding a pregnancy testing kit with a shocked expression on her face had been commissioned by an Auckland Anglican church

The Anglican Church (and their liberal cohorts in the USA) are determined to destroy themselves - and they want to take everyone else down with them.

10 posted on 12/22/2011 8:11:54 AM PST by PGR88 (Sic transit gloria mundi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
More evidence of “Mary” worship.

More evidence that private property rights mean nothing to Catholics.

11 posted on 12/22/2011 8:12:30 AM PST by Alex Murphy (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2703506/posts?page=518#518)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LearnsFromMistakes
true, it's not blasphemous, it's just 1. in bad taste and 2. trivializes something as momentous as the birth of God

I think most Christian folks would be irritated by this -- especially since it was a supposed church which put it up!

12 posted on 12/22/2011 8:27:02 AM PST by Cronos (Nuke Mecca and Medina now..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

“Catholicism’s “bullying” and “intolerant” attitude”

But hey, just ignore that Anti-Christian bullying and intolerance and we can all get along. /s/

Christ gave a finite number to turning the other cheek.


13 posted on 12/22/2011 8:27:50 AM PST by netmilsmom (Happiness is a choice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Yup, did you post one article about the defense of that guy who made a "Crucifix in urine" exhibit? Or was it the one about TV Evangelists Unite to Beam Gospel to the Stars that you had posted? All joke posts, right?
14 posted on 12/22/2011 8:29:07 AM PST by Cronos (Nuke Mecca and Medina now..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Let’s see that Church put up a bill board of Mohammed having sex with his nine year old wife.


15 posted on 12/22/2011 8:31:56 AM PST by MCF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TEXOKIE

Thank you for your very thoughtful post.

Merry Christmas


16 posted on 12/22/2011 8:32:37 AM PST by surroundedbyblue (Live the message of Fatima - pray & do penance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: faucetman

“Mary” was Jesus’s mom, whom He loved very much. I should think you’d at least be annoyed at this billboard.

But no; instead you use this to advance an anti-Catholic agenda.

Prayers for you. May the scales fall from your eyes.


18 posted on 12/22/2011 8:36:10 AM PST by surroundedbyblue (Live the message of Fatima - pray & do penance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Vandalism is a great way to get your opponent’s attention when you can’t make a coherent argument.


19 posted on 12/22/2011 8:44:55 AM PST by Méabh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
More evidence of “Mary” worship.

Really? How so?

reachin'

20 posted on 12/22/2011 8:48:50 AM PST by jtal (Runnin' a World in Need with White Folks' Greed - since 1492)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LearnsFromMistakes

You don’t need to be a Catholic to think it’s blasphemous. First, it contradicts the Bible. Mary knew that she had conceived a Son by God, because the angel told her so.

Moreover, it is not just an insult directed at Mary. It also denies the divinity of Christ. And, of course, it is timed for the Christmas season, when Catholics and Protestants alike celebrate the birth of Jesus, God and Man.

Whether to destroy the poster is another question, but I would certainly let this guy off if I served on his jury.

Would the authorities permit a poster insulting Mohammed in ssome similar way? I doubt it.


21 posted on 12/22/2011 8:59:01 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TEXOKIE

EXCELLANT response, and I DITTO every word.


22 posted on 12/22/2011 9:02:31 AM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Earlier I said that I could see how Catholics would be offended. I guess I was wrong, I didn't (and still don't) see it as denying the divinity of Jesus. And I agree, more than just Catholics may be offended.

We have talked about muslims on this thread, I am sure we haven't yet hit all of the 'sacred cows'...

23 posted on 12/22/2011 9:17:18 AM PST by LearnsFromMistakes (Yes, I am happy to see you. But that IS a gun in my pocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

You wrote:

“More evidence that private property rights mean nothing to Catholics.”

Since when have Christians been bound to respect blasphemy?


24 posted on 12/22/2011 9:29:03 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Since when have Christians been bound to respect blasphemy?

Oh yeah - I forgot.


25 posted on 12/22/2011 10:12:12 AM PST by Alex Murphy (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2703506/posts?page=518#518)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TEXOKIE
it is possible that she is in Heaven and might have assignments from time to time to work with our Lord in the earth to do His work here.

Starting to see the Light!

26 posted on 12/22/2011 10:26:52 AM PST by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurture (Could be worst in 40 years))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; marshmallow

I think it was the wrong thing to do.

I am hurt but grateful when the faith is mocked.

And I think this destruction was a violation of the commandment against stealing. The statement of the poster is an injustice,to be sure. So is the destruction of property not belonging to the destroyer.

If I were a judge I would have no problem finding the man guilty. If I were his pastor I would counsel him that his faith is weak if it cannot bear insults.


27 posted on 12/22/2011 10:36:33 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Jesus, I trust in you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
Christ gave a finite number to turning the other cheek.

Brilliant.

28 posted on 12/22/2011 10:38:52 AM PST by Daffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor
This man’s action goes against the liberalism of Vatican II.

Your post goes against the thread of common sense.

29 posted on 12/22/2011 10:43:34 AM PST by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad

I agree with this man’s action even though he violated the sign owner’s “immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom” according to Vatican II.


30 posted on 12/22/2011 11:00:01 AM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

More evidence that your kneejerk anti-Catholic underwear is showing.


31 posted on 12/22/2011 11:05:24 AM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LearnsFromMistakes

It blasphemes the Incarnation.


32 posted on 12/22/2011 11:10:54 AM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: faucetman

Do you have to be Catholic to see the problem with this poster?

If you’re not Catholic, is it a fine poster, no problem?


33 posted on 12/22/2011 11:12:15 AM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
....I think this destruction was a violation of the commandment against stealing. The statement of the poster is an injustice,to be sure. So is the destruction of property not belonging to the destroyer.

If I were a judge I would have no problem finding the man guilty. If I were his pastor I would counsel him that his faith is weak if it cannot bear insults.

I completely agree - bravo for stating it so succinctly. Unf. this view is in the minority among Catholics, as this thread demonstrates.

34 posted on 12/22/2011 11:18:48 AM PST by Alex Murphy (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2703506/posts?page=518#518)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

You wrote:

“Oh yeah - I forgot.”

Apparently you forgot to answer my question. Here, I’ll ask it again: Since when have Christians been bound to respect blasphemy?


35 posted on 12/22/2011 11:35:40 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: LearnsFromMistakes
I am sure we haven't yet hit all of the 'sacred cows'...

"Church is out - Drive Carefully"

36 posted on 12/22/2011 11:38:51 AM PST by Alex Murphy (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2703506/posts?page=518#518)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

By the way, Alex, after you’re done answering my first question, can you explain to me why you’re apparently relying on websites like this one: http://amazingdiscoveries.org/albums/a/3/European-History-and-the-Illuminati


37 posted on 12/22/2011 11:40:57 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Alex, do you seriously, for even a moment, think that that billboard would have been treated any differently if it had been put up in Calvin's Geneva, Knox's Scotland, Cromwell's Puritan England, or the Massachusetts Puritan colonies?

No, the PROTESTANT authorities would have taken it down, burned it, then gone after the individual(s) who put it up -- who would have been severely punished, run out of the community at the risk of their lives, or simply killed.

38 posted on 12/22/2011 11:47:04 AM PST by Campion ("It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins." -- Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Méabh

Mocking insults are a great way to get your opponent’s attention when you can’t make a coherent argument.


39 posted on 12/22/2011 12:24:31 PM PST by Flying Circus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
More evidence that private property rights mean nothing to Catholics.

Knock it off. That's a complete canard. What the division of opinion on this thread shows is that this is not a simple issue, with some (including the author of the article) being of the opinion that the action taken was wrong, while others believe it was justified.

All rights, including property rights, come from God but the right to own property does not come without constraints and responsibilities and I'd be interested to hear the opinion of a reputable moral theologian on this issue. Can the destruction of abortuaries be justified for instance, on the basis that it may save human lives, even though the facilities are privately owned? Neither the killing of unborn babies nor blasphemy are civil offenses and so both actions (tearing down blasphemous posters or destroying abortion facilities) would earn the displeasure of the law.

My point here, is that infractions, (even serious ones) of the moral law are often likely to earn nothing but a smile from the civil authorities and this raises the question of how far it is morally permissible to go in resisting this sort of thing.

It does not mean that "property rights mean nothing to Catholics"

40 posted on 12/22/2011 1:23:02 PM PST by marshmallow (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow; Mad Dawg
My point here, is that infractions, (even serious ones) of the moral law are often likely to earn nothing but a smile from the civil authorities and this raises the question of how far it is morally permissible to go in resisting this sort of thing.

Exactly what "moral law" infractions were committed by this billboard? Can these "morally lawful" destructive actions be extended, permitting Catholics to cause direct harm against the billboard's creator? Against the sign company that (re)produced the artwork and erected it, and that owns the underlying structure? Against the Auckland Anglican church that sponsored and paid for the advertisement?

41 posted on 12/22/2011 1:34:33 PM PST by Alex Murphy (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2703506/posts?page=518#518)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: surroundedbyblue; annieokie; steve86

Glory to God for all good things! Merry Christmas to you, my FReeper FRiends!


42 posted on 12/22/2011 1:51:38 PM PST by TEXOKIE (... and Merry Christmas to all FREEPERS EVERYWHERE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Exactly what "moral law" infractions were committed by this billboard?

Blasphemy.

Can these "morally lawful" destructive actions be extended, permitting Catholics to cause direct harm against the billboard's creator?

Try not to put words in my mouth. I did not say that the destruction was "morally lawful". My point is that this is not a simple issue and the actions taken by the protestor do not justify your ridiculous canard that Catholics have no respect for property rights.

Violence against those responsible for erecting the display in question would not be justified under Catholic teaching. The Church does not even recommend "violence" as a punishment for those convicted of murder, in most cases. That's common knowledge.

43 posted on 12/22/2011 1:57:42 PM PST by marshmallow (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: TEXOKIE

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU, AND A VERY HAPPY PROPEROUS & HEALTHY NEW YEAR.


44 posted on 12/22/2011 2:31:22 PM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Blasphemy

Did you read the article, view the pic there of the [adjusted] billboard, and the comments that followed?

Here's one that touches upon the way the thing came across to me;

It doesn't enter my mind that abortion would have entered her mind, if that is what is found blasphemous. Otherwise, I'm not sure exactly what rises to the level of "blasphemy".

If we look at the last two sentences of the woman's note, it appears possible that sort of reaction is what was intended? And that the church who displayed it did so as an anti-abortion statement? Like, "hey, ladies. don't do that. you may be interrupting something very important!"

Was that church trying to say something else? Please, no rumor mongering, opinion based innuendo, or the like. Just plain facts if possible.

45 posted on 12/22/2011 2:44:22 PM PST by 7MMmag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
More evidence of “Mary” worship.

I'm not quite sure why you feel this Anglican church was worshiping Mary by having an image of her holding a pregnancy testing kit with a shocked expression on her face. If that was their intent, then they need to be corrected and follow Catholic teaching. Catholics honor Mary as being Blessed and the Mother of God, but to worship her is sacrilege to a Catholic.

46 posted on 12/22/2011 3:02:19 PM PST by mtg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 7MMmag
It doesn't enter my mind that abortion would have entered her mind, if that is what is found blasphemous. Otherwise, I'm not sure exactly what rises to the level of "blasphemy".

Simply put, it's called the "Step On A Crack" apologetic - it's considered blasphemy to do anything that might depict the Virgin Mary(TM) in a less-than-Catholic way (including suggesting that Mary suffered labor pains in giving birth to Jesus).

The Virgin Mary(TM) is a registered trademark of the Catholic Church. All rights reserved.

47 posted on 12/22/2011 3:10:37 PM PST by Alex Murphy (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2703506/posts?page=518#518)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Registered trademark for the virgin birth? I'm not sure that's one of their own originating. In this instance, it occurred with a Jewish maiden. I accept the New Testament explanations of the event.

The other stuff though, like the hyper-inflation of the remainder of the tenets of "Immaculate" they do hold ownership of. I won't argue that. It took a few centuries to become fully fleshed out.

48 posted on 12/22/2011 3:36:37 PM PST by 7MMmag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: annieokie

((((((((((annieokie))))))))))

thanks so much and right back at ya!!


49 posted on 12/22/2011 3:46:32 PM PST by TEXOKIE (... and Merry Christmas to all FREEPERS EVERYWHERE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Alex, please answer my questions in posts 35 and 37.


50 posted on 12/22/2011 6:58:09 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson