Posted on 12/30/2005 11:40:04 AM PST by NYer
“Several news stories today are reporting on the decision by Comedy Central to pull a scheduled rerun of the ‘Bloody Mary’ episode that was shown on ‘South Park’ on December 7-10. The decision reflects what I asked for in our news release of December 8. Therefore, I commend Comedy Central for finally making the right decision. That it aired in the first place, however, does not speak well for the bigots responsible for creating it.
“In our December 8 news release, I also said, ‘Remember, they chose to insult Our Blessed Mother on the eve of the Immaculate Conception, and the holy day itself.’ The episode in question featured a statue of the Virgin Mary spraying blood from her vagina. It was one of the most vile TV shows ever to appear, and that is why I asked Joseph Califano, a practicing Catholic and member of Viacom’s board of directors (Viacom is the parent company of Comedy Central) to issue a public condemnation of the ‘Bloody Mary’ episode; I also asked that he do whatever he could to pull any scheduled reruns of the episode.
“On December 9, the day Califano received our request, he released a statement condemning the episode. He also said that any further decisions would have to be made by Tom Freston, president and chief executive of the New Viacom. For the past few weeks, we have been in touch with Freston’s office awaiting his decision. Yesterday, we received a phone call from Tony Fox, executive vice president for corporate communications at Comedy Central, informing us that there were no plans to rerun ‘Bloody Mary.’
“Already, we are being deluged with hate mail that is as obscene as it is viciously anti-Catholic. All because we exercised our First Amendment right to request that Comedy Central not offend Catholics again! But we’re used to such things and will not be deterred.”
I wonder if the Scientolgists have sued Parker and Stone yet?
Written by: John Smith
Voices by: John Smith
Concept by: John Smith
Music by: John Smith
Animation by: John Smith
The line that is crossed is blasphemy, not just any offensive humor. And yes, if a show blasphemes other religions, and they object, it should be pulled as well.
LOL
you forgot a couple Jane Smiths in there as well :)
We don't look to Bill Donohue for theological guidance, do we? His contribution is to make the purveyors of the vilest forms of mass entertainement accountable. More power to him.
That’s subjective. The publicity bump from this controversy isn’t.
Blasphemy is not subjective to those who know anything about the subject. The publicity, I think, is good, because it signals to everyone that Catholics are not going to take abuse silently. The offensive episode was pulled and a similar offense is now less likely to recur. If people have been attracted to the stupid show without the blasphemous episode, we have no objection to that.
They've made fun of Jesus from their beginning but no one complains about that.
I have little knowledge of South Park, yes. Incidentally, I saw about 2 min total of it once, channel surfing, and found it funny. But I don't imagine any media executive enjoys making a show, then receiving angry letters, then pulling it, shaking up the staff, and apologizing. If South Park executives are somehow an exception, well the exercise can be repeated. With repetition, even dogs learn.
I think that Blasphemy is as subjective as the word “anti-American”. If Parker and Stone had Bush sprayed with fluids from a statue, most of this forum would call it anti-American. If X-42 got it 6 years ago, most would cheer. What changed? Our opinions of what and who represents American.
I don’t think Catholics agree that fluid dripping icons are miraculous is or that people flocking to them is central to your religion. Therefore, I suspect most would not agree with your claim of blasphemy, despite cringing when the Pope got splattered. Even I cringed a little at that, but figured it was just their usual attempt to be outrageous by taking potty humor and anti-authoritarianism to the edge.
I suspect that Parker, Stone and Comedy Central are no more upset with the controversy than you.
If you ever want to know the real qualities of a person, judge them not by their attitude of the world of commerce, their outlook on business, or their manners, but judge them on their attitude towards their own mother. If you want to know the quality of a religion, judge it exactly the same way, not by the way it seeks to please men, but rather by the attitude that it bears to the Mother of Our Blessed Lord!!!!
Blasphemy is an obscene reference to God, a holy person, or holy object. That is all. Anti-American has several connotations, most refer to acts rather than speech. One can say that making obscene references to a president for his faults is not anti-American because the American constitution allows it as political speech. There is no similar exception with respect to blasphemy.
On the other hand, humor or criticism that does not cross into obscene is OK.
After someone on FR alerted us to the episode, we watched it.
It was pretty stupifying...and almost as offensive as the pilot episode about Jesus, which they're rerun many times.
South Park has offended people for 9, count 'em, NINE years.
This won't change anything and you can bet Matt and Trey are making notes.
LOL -mandated humor is so socialistic and PC...
Like I said to another poster, offending people is permissible. Making fun of Christianity is also permissible. Blasphemy is not permissible. I just did some research and found descriptions of some other episodes making fun of Christ or Christmas. While they offend me personally, I would not demand that they pull them, because they put Christ in a comical context but not obscene context. For example, the episode where Santa tosses Christ like a lollypop is offensive, but it is also a valid commentary on how many Christians treat Christmas, and that excuses the episode as a valid satire. The menstrual blood of Mary episode is purely obscene and crossed the line into blasphemy for that reason.
For the love of God, I'm a Catholic and it didn't bother me in the least. Instead of freaking out about this stuff, we should be working against the Da Vinci Code movie or something IMPORTANT.
I’m light-years from an authority on Catholicism or blasphemy, but there looks to be a difference between that definition of blasphemy and this, no mention of “a holly person” unless the Pope is a “sacred entity”. :
1)A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity. b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.If the Pope was really maligned, I might still agree if the Pope qualifies as "sacred", but he looked more like a feeble old man who was victimized rather than slandered. He was then the one who proclaimed that there was no miracle in the ovulating statue. I don’t think there was any intention to slander the Virgin Mary. A statue of her was just a vehicle for lampooning miracle groupies. I think the episode approached your definition of blasphemy, but stopped short.
2) An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.
The definition you cite is not substantially different from what I provided off-the-cuff. "Sacred entity" is a collective term for "sacred person or thing", and "holy" is synonymous with "sacred". Both the Virgin Mary and the Pope are holy persons to a Catholic, and the reference to the mentrual blood is obscene by any standard.
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.