Skip to comments.Newspaper's online image called 'blasphemous' [Catholics / Lady of Guadalupe]
Posted on 06/25/2013 11:41:40 AM PDT by Alex MurphyEdited on 06/25/2013 7:26:23 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
SANTA FE, N.M. A newspapers recent online design, which depicts a woman who looks like Lady of Guadalupe in a bikini, has drawn controversy from Catholics across the state.
The cartoon woman in The Santa Fe Reporter's "Summer Guide 2013" issue is wearing a yellow bikini, along with a blue cloak that covers the top of her head and nothing else. Behind the woman, there are yellow sun rays. She is sipping from a margarita glass.
The cover design has angered Catholics because of the woman's uncanny resemblance to Our Lady of Guadalupe.
I think that's very offensive, said local Catholic David Rodke. "(The paper) seems to be posing her as the Virgin of Guadalupe. That's blasphemous!"
Alexa Schirtzinger, the editor of The Santa Fe Reporter, declined to do an interview. However, Shirtzinger posted a blog in response to the outrage over the image.
"The intent of our Summer Guide cover design was not to insult or denigrate any religion or ethnicity, but rather to incorporate an important part of Santa Fe's culture into an image that also unites other diverse cultures that flourish in our city, Schirtzinger wrote in the blog.
Resident Terence Lente said the picture may be in poor taste, but theres no reason to censor it.
I can see how this could offend many people, Lente said. It [snip] people off but at the same time. Its freedom of speech.
The Santa Fe Reporter distributes close to 20,0000 copies each week to Albuquerque, Santa Fe and parts of northern New Mexico.
The cartoon woman in The Santa Fe Reporter's "Summer Guide 2013" issue is wearing a yellow bikini, along with a blue cloak that covers the top of her head and nothing else. Behind the woman, there are yellow sun rays. She is sipping from a margarita glass. The cover design has angered Catholics because of the woman's uncanny resemblance to Our Lady of Guadalupe.
And the gay cowboy is an insult to all cowboys.
Did you design the cover?
With all due respect, seriously, I think that this fuss is over-reaching, really.
How do they know what Guadalupe Lady looks like in the first place?
To be fair, they should have had Mohammed in a Speedo.
I remember the first Dick I drew... think it was Nixon lol
When can we expect you to chop off heads and riot over this. . . oh. . .that’s right. . . never mind.
My understanding (based of the definition of blasphemy) is that this was not blasphemous unless Catholics want to admit she is a goddess/deity.Oh, hooey! When you insult the Mother of God, you ARE insulting Jesus Christ. That can't be that difficult to figure out.
Let’s test the bravery of these “artists”.
Do that with Mohammed, sukkahs.
Oh, a bit chicken, are we?
Of course, because youze are liberals.
Does it matter?
actually point #3 would not be accurate since the church’s teachings are “By his power as God, the Savior passed through the closed womb of the Virgin Mary as light passing through glass, as thought proceeding from intellect. He did no harm to the physical integrity of our Ladys virginal cloister, but rather consecrated it!”
I claim the similarity to be an intentional slight to the primary population of the area served by the publication. Hispanic Catholics hold the Virgin of Guadelupe in very high regard, Protestant views on the relevance of the Mother of Jesus notwithstanding.
And yet many of the people doing the complaining doubtless pull the Democrat lever at every election.
When you call her the Mother of God, you are making her God the Father’s equal. She is not the Mother of God. God has no Mother. He is the Alpha and Omega, the Creator of mothers and fathers. She was merely a vassal and birth giver.
I didn’t realize the ten commandments said “do not take the Lord’s name in vain...and now Mary’s.” I would love to see you use Scripture to show how insulting Mary equated to insulting the Lord Jesus Christ, but most likely you will just counterattack rather than use a reasonable effort.
Ironically, Mary is also called the Queen of Heaven, which is also the name given Asherah (the Mother of the Gods) and Hera/Juno (the Mother of Gods).
False gods never die. They just change faces.
A view not shared by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.
Medically, a woman can't conceive unless sperm migrates to the fallopian tube and fertilizes an egg. Do you reject that portion of Scripture that states that didn't happen?
Birds of a feather ...
And when Joseph had more kids with her, she was no longer a virgin. Besides, withholding sex from her husband would be against church teaching, unless she transcends that as well.
3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. - 1 Corinthians 7
Who’s to say God doesn’t have sperm? We are made in his image after all, maybe sperm included.
Scripture contradicts you.
"And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke 1:43
God has no Mother.
God Incarnate does, just as Scripture teaches.
I would love to see you use Scripture to show how insulting Mary equated to insulting the Lord Jesus Christ
"For Moses said: Honor thy father and thy mother; and He that shall curse father or mother, dying let him die." Mark 7:10
Scripture is wasted on the obtuse just as St. Peter wrote.
"And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16
There is a resemblance. It can’t be denied!
If it were in Manitoba, people probably would not see it, But the symbols surrounding the woman (Full length blue veil, scalloped glowing background, the moon beneath her feet, etc) would be very obvious to people in the Southwest, who see this image all the time. Especially as a prison or gang tattoo.
Come to think of it...why is it OK to use the symbol as a gang tattoo? Would that not also be offensive to Catholic people?
And who wears a helmet and a backpack to drink beer? or PINK Cowboy hats?
Odds are that you’re a member of the 78% 2008 and 69% 2012 Jewish voting block that pulled the lever for Soetoro.
That’s pretty bad, and the gay cowboy is, like, totally gay!
BTW, our lady of Guadalupe is the patron saint for the Americas.
Here is a link to the wikipedia entry, which I did not in its entirety.
I take it that you're a Mormon?
Sounds ominous. Is there supposed to be two photos in your post, I only see one.
First, there is a big difference between the use of Mother of God and mother of my Lord. Mother of God is a proper noun while mother is a common. God is Yahweh, I am who I am, the Greek for Lord in this verse is master, not LORD as in Yahweh.
Second, do you not remember when Christ on the Cross rejected His mother’s claim to Him? In a sense, transferred such mothership to John? He wanted to ensure no one would deify or worship her. She was just as human as the rest of us.
Third, you are taking that commandment out of context. The son or daughter is commanded to not curse the father or mother. I am not the son of Mary.
18What profit is the image, that its maker should carve it,
The molded image, a teacher of lies,
That the maker of its mold should trust in it,
To make mute idols?
19 Woe to him who says to wood, Awake!
To silent stone, Arise! It shall teach!
Behold, it is overlaid with gold and silver,
Yet in it there is no breath at all.
20 But the Lord is in His holy temple.
Let all the earth keep silence before Him.
well, 1. this would have been written about 30 years after the death of Joseph.
2. the only reason why you’d accept that Corinthians is holy scripture is because the church canonized it
Whatever one’s doctrine or theology, the fact remains that the “artist” who drew this, the editor that approved it, and the publisher who disseminated it are all very foolish, knowing that they are deliberately mocking a symbol that is very dear to a large segment of their population.
(Incidentally, the “Moon beneath her feet” is taken directly from the Book of Revelation, and has been a part of Catholic iconography for centuries. I interpret the “Woman” in Revelation to be Israel, which would make “The Moon Beneath her feet” symbolic of the eventual DEFEAT of islam Just My Opinion...and hope.)
"Queen of Heaven" just creeps me out, though. She may be a good example for a believer to follow (she is, after all, the only solely-human being in the Apostles' Creed to be referenced favorably--the other one who gets a reference is Pontius Pilate), but so are all the saints (whether it's an Eastern Orthodox saint like St. Tikhon Zadonsky, a Western Catholic saint like St. Francis de Sales, or a Protestant saint like Catherine Booth or John Fletcher, Vicar of Madeley).
” How do they know what Guadalupe Lady looks like in the first place?”
The image is from St. Juan Diego’s Tilma, or cloak, which is on display in the Basilica of Guadalupe in Mexico City. It’s a famous image and story.
Lol no I wasn’t born dead
Aren’t we all saints in Christ?
Point of order: The Tetragrammaton never occurs in the Greek New Testament. It is consistently rendered following Masoretic convention as kyrios, even in places where it quotes the Old Testament (Romans 9:29, for example, quotes Isaiah 1:9 and translates it with kyrios, not the Tetragrammaton.)
Right, the point being that the word “Lord” used in this verse is proper noun for master in the Greek, not Yahweh, Jehovah, Adonai, or any of the names for God.
You’re the product of an outcome based education system, aren’t you?
Your post had suggested that God the Father has sperm, and fathered Jesus physically. It just so happens that this is an actual Mormon belief about how Jesus was conceived.
It’s nice to see someone counterattack rather than use reasoned defense. Chicago-style religion, right?
He didn’t divorce her. They were married. How you perceive that he would’ve been committing adultery is beyond me. She was married to Joseph, she was never betrothed to God. Being a faithful Jew, he would’ve wanted to keep one of the first commandments God gave, “be fruitful and multiply.”
In your unlearned opinion
Second, do you not remember when Christ on the Cross rejected His mothers claim to Him? In a sense, transferred such mothership to John?
If Joseph and the Blessed Mother had had other children as you erroneously claimed, then why would Christ entrust the care of His mother to someone other than a sibling? Especially since He condemned the Pharisees for neglecting to care for their parents; the Korban rule, in Matthew 15?
Third, you are taking that commandment out of context.
In your unlearned opinion.
I am not the son of Mary.
John was not the son of the Blessed Mother. John was the son of Zebedee and Salome and the brother of James the Great. Why entrust the care of His mother to someone who was not her son?
Is God your biological father?
How about your unlearned opinion? Try actually reading and reasoning rather than just using Ailes-style debate tactics.
I think I’d rather entrust my mom to some close friends rather than to some in my family. He might have been doing the same.
God is my Spiritual Father, Mary is not my mother in any context.
Not surprising that you'd reach that conclusion. You're not unlike a failed community organizer who plays the race card when he knows he's losing the argument.
He didnt divorce her.
He was prepared to divorce her, just as Scripture teaches, until he found out that she had conceived the Messiah.
"Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately." Matthew 1:19
How you perceive that he wouldve been committing adultery is beyond me.
Your lack of knowledge of the Oral Law of Kiddushin and Scripture; both Old and New Testaments, is quite obvious.
Being a faithful Jew, he wouldve wanted to keep one of the first commandments God gave, be fruitful and multiply.
Was not Moses also a faithful Jew when he became a celibate for the remainder of his life after receivng the written Word and leaving Mount Sinai?
Your problem is that you project your limited acumen upon others. Quite simply, you're in over your head on this topic and I'd venture most others you foolishly opine on.
Agreed, but heeeeeeere they come...