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 ...
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?
Glory to God for all good things! Merry Christmas to you, my FReeper FRiends!
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.
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU, AND A VERY HAPPY PROPEROUS & HEALTHY NEW YEAR.
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;
Sorry I am still trying to understand how that picture was blasphemous. I believe it shows Mary in a modern light and allows all of us to better appreciate the possible thoughts that could have entered her mind during Annunciation. It didn't change the story outcome nor assume she sinned. Pardon my Catholic immaturity I guess.
Honestly this picture was the catalyst of long reflection on Mary; I have a deeper more complex appreciation for the Holy Mother thanks to a different perspective.
One man's blasphemy in another man's spiritual lesson
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.
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.
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.
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.
((((((((((annieokie))))))))))
thanks so much and right back at ya!!
Alex, please answer my questions in posts 35 and 37.
That indicates, at minimum, that she did not believe the word of the Angel Gabriel who said that she would conceive by the power of the Holy Spirit. There was no need for a test. "Let it be done unto me according to thy word", makes that clear.
It's also suggestive of the idea that Jesus was conceived by sexual intercourse, which in turn requires that Mary was not a Virgin. This suggestion is strengthened by the fact that this same church has previously erected a billboard which showed an image of Mary and Joseph in bed after sex.
That fits my definition of blasphemy.
So it depends on what the viewer reads into it.
It’s a denial of the Annunciation in a crass way. There’s no reading into it.
What had this to do with blasphemy? The real issues were political. Part of the royal family was Huguenot. The Queen Mother and her very young son was threatened by a coup. The French Religious Wars were civil wars, and each side did terrible things .Paris, which two centuries later would be the center of the Terror, was then a hotbed of Catholic fanaticism.
It was a bit like the Spanish civil war. Foreign powers got involved. Spain was on the side of the Catholics and England on the side of the Huguenots.
St.Bartholomew’s Day is like the Reichstag fires in 1933. A preemptive strike on the Huguenot leaders to prevent them from controlling the government. Catherine d’ Medici was involved in order to protect her young son’s throne.
The idea of the Immaculate Conception went much further bad than that. John Duns Scotus was a champion of it and provided an argument that was used almost exactly by Pius IX five hundred years alter when he proclaimed the dogma. It is corollary to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth.
Well yes. Sort of like a joke, right? They are saying to the public, look, we don’t believe this stuff either, not really.
You read "denial of the annunciation" into it.
To my own eyes, the billboard is sacrilegious, quite crass at the least, but were they really trying to convey "denial of the annunciation"?
Why jump so hard at the WORST possible interpretation of what idea they were trying to convey? Ask yourself that.
Has there been any explanation from the creators of the offending work, just what they were trying to say? You're probably the wrong guy to ask that question of, for you seem to have your own mind completely made up.
You wrote:
“You read “denial of the annunciation” into it.”
Nope. That’s what the pregnancy test image negates. There’s no reading into it. That’s the image.
“To my own eyes, the billboard is sacrilegious, quite crass at the least, but were they really trying to convey “denial of the annunciation”?”
That is what the image denies. Logically there is no other possibility. Why would a woman - any woman - need a pregnancy test if God just told he was was going to conceive?
“Why jump so hard at the WORST possible interpretation of what idea they were trying to convey? Ask yourself that.”
I am not jumping on the worst possible interpretation. That is THE ONLY POSSIBLE interpretation. Ask yourself why you realize the obvious meaning of the image. That’s a better question.
“Has there been any explanation from the creators of the offending work, just what they were trying to say? You’re probably the wrong guy to ask that question of, for you seem to have your own mind completely made up.”
And you don’t? You’re denying the only possible interpretation. You must have your mind made up as well. Go ahead and suggest an interpretation. How far-fetched will yours be? Feel free to continue to embarrass yourself denying the obvious reality.
Amazing.
You use the word "logically". Would it not be logical to go to the originators of the billboard to see what THEY were trying to say?
Here, I'll do it for you, from an article at New Zealand Herald;
The Christmas billboard was erected last week to raise discussion about Mary's circumstances coming into Christmas.
[snip]
In a statement St Matthew-in-the-City spokesman Reverend Clay Nelson said the Catholic Action Group had vandalised the billboard to gain publicity for Mr Skinner's point of view and to further his supposedly Catholic organisation's agenda.
"Our agenda is to get people to think about Christmas a little more deeply. Some people chose to be offended, but that's not our intent. But there are those who can get past that and reflect on Christmas," Mr Nelson said.
underlining for emphasis, my own.
The above indicates you have jumped to conclusions, and read into the sign what it is you claim to have seen as the only meaning, for you did say;
That is THE ONLY POSSIBLE interpretation.
Well, since the makers had an intent that differs from your own interpretation of what you think they meant, I guess that makes you wrong not only as to the billboard's meaning, but that there could be more than one possible meaning, too. That makes 2 strikes for you, in one pitch. Swing an uh miss! Swing an uh 'nother miss!
Why try to bully me into believing your own shallow, limited understanding and take of things, while also tossing off insult in my direction? As it turns out, it is not me who should be embarrassed, if anyone.
You said;
A better question you say?
I was under the impression that they were trying to "get people to think" about Christmas, just is explained above, which is why in a previous comment on this thread, I quoted a Catholic woman's comments concerning the matter. Obviously, SHE got the intended message. I guessed about the same. What church would be saying that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, whom is known as Mary? Well guess what? THEY WERE NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT. Period.
I understood the general thrust of the message-- but you didn't. I don't need ask myself "why"? I already know why. Must I need explain that, also? Don't ask, for I series/moose/cheese doubt you'd like the answer!
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.