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 ...
I had my own subjective response to the image, but yes, along with that, and the testimony of another's response which I pointed out again (and you say is nothing?) I will take into account also, the sponsors explanation of their own intent.
If you were to create an image, should I simply dismiss your own explanation, if it were to some how challenge some position I had previously & hastily taken?
That is just so much more unintelligible hand-waving denial. I addressed that point. Quit pretending I didn't. If there is some way you could logically refute it, the by all means say so.
Uh, Vladi. Check again. I addressed those points you claim I ignored. Your statements suggest to me that either you are being completely dishonest, or you didn't bother to read.
The "other poster views" which I quoted, were found at the link at the heading of this thread. http://areluctantsinner.blogspot.com/2011/12/traditional-catholic-reacts-to.html
It is evidence that there is not as you say "only one possible" interpretation. To dismiss that out of hand is just so much more dishonesty, while insultingly claiming I'm desperate. It's me that's desperate here? Ok Vladi. I'm desperate. Desperate for guys like you to have anything other than a reactionary, "me and my religious views have been offended" discussion of the issues.
All the while all you have is the wind of your own puny, subjective opinion.
What proof of your firmly stated opinion do you have, other than continuing to try to double-down on an empty, busted hand?
Anti-protestant bigotry, like most all other forms of bigotry, if one keeps it up long enough, will result in blindness.
Is it too late?
Do you come by such immaculate projection naturally, or did you have to go to catechism school to learn it?
If that was the reasoning behind the imagery of the poster, it's at best a stupid poster.
"To get people to think when Mary knew she was pregnant"?
There's nothing to "think about" there, even the most staunch "bible alone" type of Christian must agree with that. After all, the Bible is clear about when Mary knew she was pregnant: after the Angel Gabriel told her!
There's nothing to ponder there. There is no "debate", at least not for anyone who considers themselves Christian. I would think that Anglicans consider themselves Christian.
So, if that's the reason the poster was made (to get people to think about when Mary knew she was pregnant), then it's again, an absolute waste of time and talent. At least.
Now, given the same group has also made a poster apparently depicting Mary and Joseph in bed "after sex", I think it's reasonable to conclude their intentions are hardly pure in nature. It seems to be yet another sad group of "modern" Anglicans pathetically trying to garner some attention and "relevancy" by commissioning "art" on the "edge".
I don't have much of a problem with it being destroyed. Alex can determine, if he wishes, whether or not I'm joking in the previous sentence. Shouldn't be much of a problem for him, given his comedic genius.
You still have not presented any evidence. You seem to think you have, but you haven’t.
Your “own subjective response to the image” and “the testimony of another’s response” simply doesn’t cut it. Neither do the words of known liberals.
You never dealt with the problem of the pregnancy test, nor did you show that there was any Christmas imagery in the poster. Again, when you have evidence, let me know.
You wrote:
“Do you come by such immaculate projection naturally, or did you have to go to catechism school to learn it?”
Lash out all you like, but you have failed to present any evidence. That’s how things are going to stay too aren’t they?
Mary had nothing to ponder? Really? The scripture tells us differently. Throw that card in the discard pile. It's out of play, permanently.
Now we are getting to the real heart of the matter, one I wished to address previously.
"The same group". Yes, and boy howdy did folks howl sat that previous one. Hardly "pure"? That assumption is based on what? That poster strongly hinting at Mary not being perpetually a virgin? Ok, it offends Catholic sensibilities. Big whoopedee do. It doesn't mean that the one and only possible interpretation of this latest (coming some YEARS later, I take it) should immediately be interpreted to have meant the worst one can imagine of it. To take the memory of the response of that previous billboard, tacky as it was, and to project that completely upon this newer one, is all from the subjective viewpoint & opinion of the viewer.
There could be some of that, some of them wanting to be "edgy" as opposed to stuffy & stodgy. Lord knows we've all been subjected to reams of stodginess. So much so, many folks just walk right on by, taking in images or views expressed in traditional "religious" manner only superficially, if at all.
But then again, remember, what are we talking about here, but our own subjective responses to the poster?
So far, all you've brought is your own say so. Others may agree, but they too share the same "stop" along the road of contemplations, and it a subjective one.
I think it could be what has been previously referred to on this forum as one of the Stations of The White Hanky
Again, you provide no evidence whatsoever. And so it will continue in post after post of yours.
Now, as far as the poster showing Mary and Joseph in bed together. 1, I don't know as a matter of fact, maybe you do, but maybe that TOO was made to "make people think more deeply about Christmas", and if it was, any Christian, not just a Catholic should have a problem with it.
2, let's say it wasn't. Let's say it was made, for some bizarre reason, to show its "possible" Mary wasn't a perpetual Virgin. What would be the reason for that? Only to offend Catholicism of course. A clearly "impure" motivation.
Or wait, I guess it could be one of those jokes we "fuddy duddy Catholics" just don't get cuz we have no sense of humor. After all, why do we take all offenses against Catholicism so darn seriously, right? We should just take it when Catholic beliefs are insulted. Otherwise, we just have no sense of humor if we don't, right?
Now, as far as the poster showing Mary and Joseph in bed together. 1, I don't know as a matter of fact, maybe you do, but maybe that TOO was made to "make people think more deeply about Christmas", and if it was, any Christian, not just a Catholic should have a problem with it.
2, let's say it wasn't. Let's say it was made, for some bizarre reason, to show its "possible" Mary wasn't a perpetual Virgin. What would be the reason for that? Only to offend Catholicism of course. A clearly "impure" motivation.
Or wait, I guess it could be one of those jokes we "fuddy duddy Catholics" just don't get cuz we have no sense of humor. After all, why do we take all offenses against Catholicism so darn seriously, right? We should just take it when Catholic beliefs are insulted. Otherwise, we just have no sense of humor if we don't, right?
Sorry for the double post. My iPhone is acting strangely.
As far as that previous image goes, I don't know what they were thinking. Someone there had to know THAT one would undoubtedly offend, and for what purpose would they risk it, what good things would be gained? I have no idea. I really can't see much good coming from that previous one, if at all.
Yet that image leaks over into this one, since it came from the same sponsors. I'm not enough of an art expert to determine for a certainty if was a different artist, even if I had not but briefly glanced at it, which is the case. It looked like a different artistic style, but a similar editorial style, if you will allow.
Even if you, I, or others could take that for granted, I will submit again that that thought is provoked by our own personal knowledge and points of view, ie., what we know of it in scripture (in my case) and what other "stories" are commonly told and associated with the facts of her pregnancy, thus our responses are subjective in nature.
Since Mary had nothing to compare things with, as I spoke of previously, which remember she asked "how could I as I know not yet a man?" then we are left ASSUMING she had no doubt whatsoever, no wondering "is this what I think has been happening, really happening?"
The scripture does not go into that much detail, telling us explicitly that was the case or not, at least for that brief span of time before she met with Elisabeth, and before Elisabeth could break the news, make the announcement as to Mary's condition, and particular circumstance herself. We see in the Word that Lord moved upon Elisabeth and the child in her womb, with Elizabeth miraculously receiving the Holy Ghost right then when the as yet unborn John leaped in the womb, and prophesying that which would not only give confirmation to Mary, but place herself in the position of also knowing the truth, thus helping to equip them both with what they needed to know.
Modern women, in the course of their own lives, do not always receive such inner knowledge. Nor have their relative be filled with the Spirit prophesying to them what the condition is. (although there are bound to be exceptions to that statement).
And that is who the poster was designed to reach, to provoke thought, but those whom otherswise know of the story, but have never thought much on what Mary herself may have thought or felt, beyond what little scripture has to say?
I brought evidence here that at least for one catholic poster, it did prompt deeper contemplation (as she? said in her own words).
The argument that she wouldn't have needed to have a test to confirm her condition, is immaterial, as far as this art work is concerned. The rather obvious purpose was not to give a "bible lesson" or attempt to accurately portray the record, (as I have previously stated in other comments, not addressed to you).
To continue to completely discount the sponsor's stated intent, is to confuse the issue, mixing it in with the previous (regrettable?) image.
Perhaps women viewing the image, whom may have otherwise been living too loosely which is ALL TO COMMON nowadays, may take their own reproductive powers a bit more seriously, too? Some might, others would just keep going on with life as they had been living it, thinking that they too will one day birth someone significant, even if on accident. There's not much reaching and getting through to this latter category...they'd need something more than a single image poster to help prompt them reconsider their own ways (in light of the wider reality, including Christ).
Who said this latest art work was planned as a joke?
You’re the only one digging himself a hole. You keep avoiding posting any evidence.
I doubt it. So far, I've heard no refutation. There are those whom understood it to mean other than you dully insist, which flatly disproves your own claim. I even took pains to underline key points, provided links where the quotes came from, etc.
For all the trouble I've taken with you in this, apparently it has all just dinged off your forehead. What's the problem? Is it like some set of thoughts foreign to you may jeopardize salvation or something?
What evidence have you brought? Other than mere opinion, formed by your own subjective reaction You Haven't Done Nothin'.
Not that any of that stops the little choo-choo train of your own immaculate projection, it keeps going around in the same small circles, on the same small track. You can even blow the horn.
Merry Christmas! Some little boy just got himself a new train set, to go along with his small boy's Sunday trousers
Here, try this link
and maybe, just maybe you might be able to put what I highlighted there, into context that would fit here, and actually understand, just where it is I'm coming from.
You still haven’t presented any evidence. You have provided no logical argument at all dealing with how this is about Christmas - the Nativity of Christ - but is completely devoid of such imagery. You have yet to deal with the obvious problem of how the pregnancy test comntradicts - both anachronisticly and as a statement denying revelation - scripture. You still believe liberals. You apparently will continue to fail.
That question has been asked, and answered. Quit lying about the what I have said or not said....
Anachronisticly? That word doesn't make sense in context. In fact, since pregnancy test were not available back in the Gregorian year zero, or the year 2, or -5 or -6, whenever one wishes to set the date of the birth, it is painfully obvious that the image WAS NOT a representative example of just how she knew. It would be an impossibility. As I have explained, including touching upon why such was used as a prop, or device to invoke thought.
That has all been asked and answered too. How many times do I have to say it, before you will drop the ridiculous lies that I didn't? One hundred times? When will you tire of your childish game?
Perhaps you should ask yourself why you continue to deny, even lie about what I have said, or not? I think I already know...
I would repeat and or rephrase the entire argument, but to what avail? Nothing so far I have said so far, has been acknowledged to have even been said at all. But all one has to do is scroll up, to find the answers you say do not exist.
You still believe liberals.
Well, that particular Anglican congregation doesn't have a record of lying to my face, and lying about what I myself have said or not, trying to create the impression that such lies are true, like SOME PEOPLE I know!
If expecting anything like an honest discussion from you was part of things, I'll need to wait for another day. That much is abundantly obvious, but was not unexpected.
One thing I have not failed at, is bringing to light the underlying pathology which lead many to be so immediately offended by the image. You'll have to go re-read my admittedly too lengthy comments to ferret out what I mean by that. Thank you for your assistance. It has been invaluable.
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.