Replies

I think what the cartoonist is trying to say is that the church has become the church of political correctness rather than stick to the Holy word . The homosexual scandle has earned them this cartoon and the ridicule that goes with it.
Putting Christ in the picture, I feel, was the part that went too far. He had nothing to do with it. He was the one who warned them about liberalism over 2000 years ago. Had they listened, they wouldn't be the butt of jokes today.
Jay Leno has some really funny jokes. He's still telling them!
By not speaking out against homosexually and their gay priests, and starting a gay outreach program instead, the church has earned anything the public chooses to throw at it. I have no respect for it myself.
I can see why Catholics would be offended, but when the priests were caught molesting boys, the word was "forgiveness." So where's the "forgiveness" for this cartoonists? He only drew a picture!

I think what the cartoonist is trying to say is that the church has become the church of political correctness rather than stick to the Holy word .

While you are correct, please remember that this has been a VERY painful year. This is somewhat rubbing it in and it hurts. Although, it is good that there are visible signs that the laity is not as apathetic as the media would like us to believe.

Putting Christ in the picture, I feel, was the part that went too far. He had nothing to do with it. He was the one who warned them about liberalism over 2000 years ago. Had they listened, they wouldn't be the butt of jokes today.

A drawing of a statue of Jesus has nothing to do with Jesus except for the point of the cartoon which is what would happen if a church were to try to peddle its message to the masses by PR that appealed to LCD appetites: a buffed Jesus, not a man of sorrows acquainted with grief; yummy chocolate chip communion wafers, not the body of Christ. The only way anyone could possibly imagine this cartoon to be offensive or "blasphemous" is if that person were illiterate and unthinking. Actually, the person who would find this cartoon offensive would be the same type of person who found offensive the way Jesus described the Pharisees as whitened sepulchres.

well said.
It is only a cartoon... and I think a few of the panels were quite funny... the one about sisters riding the holy golf cart.

The buff Jesus, was no shocker to me... Catholic Churches I have attended, ALL had some pretty buff "statues" and carvings of Christ, that presented him naked with a muscle bound physique. Jesus probably was muscle bound. It has been said that Jesus often walked, while talking, up to 15-20 miles EVERY day but one each week.

The statues portray that rather well.

The part that I found potentially most offensive was the "choclate chips" in the communion crackers... although there is no secret formula for communion crackers that I know of that would exclude flavoring them for the kids... except for leavening, which represents sin...

Until the leadership deals with the elephant in the livingroom, this stuff will only get worse... that elephant being the homosexual, gay male pedophiles in the priesthood... and a doctrine of forgiveness and relocation at tithepayer expense.

I don't see it as blasphemy to use offensive humor to make a point. I do see it as blasphemy to let immoral child rapists "represent" God to folks... because THAT assaults and tells lies about God's character to people. This cartoon only makes fun of the foibles of but one group of His followers, that even many of them, would admit privately.

In poor taste, or sacrilegious... perhaps to some, but actual blasphemy of God Almighty? No.
Making fun of a religious group's teachings with humor may make that group mad, but claiming blasphemy is a bit of a stretch.

"I think what the cartoonist is trying to say is that the church has become the church of political correctness rather than stick to the Holy word . "

That would mean that the cartoonist is trying to persuade the church to get back to its calling, and only a catholic would express that concern, however mis-guided by using a method such as this. But a catholic would not have brought Christ into the picture, or the 'Host,' and that would eliminate that possibility. Nor would any other religion of Christ scorn Christ. The jews are not a proselyting religion and would have nothing to gain by profaning Christianity. Atheists live and let live and use the courts to prevent what they perceive to be threats against their right to be 'non-believing.'

Who stands to gain by publishing crap like this? My guess? A proselyting religion or sect which dis-believes that Jesus Christ is the manifestation of the Father and is come in the flesh.