Oh yeah - I forgot.
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 ...
You don’t need to be a Catholic to think it’s blasphemous. First, it contradicts the Bible. Mary knew that she had conceived a Son by God, because the angel told her so.
Moreover, it is not just an insult directed at Mary. It also denies the divinity of Christ. And, of course, it is timed for the Christmas season, when Catholics and Protestants alike celebrate the birth of Jesus, God and Man.
Whether to destroy the poster is another question, but I would certainly let this guy off if I served on his jury.
Would the authorities permit a poster insulting Mohammed in ssome similar way? I doubt it.
EXCELLANT response, and I DITTO every word.
We have talked about muslims on this thread, I am sure we haven't yet hit all of the 'sacred cows'...
You wrote:
“More evidence that private property rights mean nothing to Catholics.”
Since when have Christians been bound to respect blasphemy?
Oh yeah - I forgot.
Starting to see the Light!
I think it was the wrong thing to do.
I am hurt but grateful when the faith is mocked.
And I think this destruction was a violation of the commandment against stealing. The statement of the poster is an injustice,to be sure. So is the destruction of property not belonging to the destroyer.
If I were a judge I would have no problem finding the man guilty. If I were his pastor I would counsel him that his faith is weak if it cannot bear insults.
Brilliant.
Your post goes against the thread of common sense.
I agree with this man’s action even though he violated the sign owner’s “immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom” according to Vatican II.
More evidence that your kneejerk anti-Catholic underwear is showing.
It blasphemes the Incarnation.
Do you have to be Catholic to see the problem with this poster?
If you’re not Catholic, is it a fine poster, no problem?
If I were a judge I would have no problem finding the man guilty. If I were his pastor I would counsel him that his faith is weak if it cannot bear insults.
I completely agree - bravo for stating it so succinctly. Unf. this view is in the minority among Catholics, as this thread demonstrates.
You wrote:
“Oh yeah - I forgot.”
Apparently you forgot to answer my question. Here, I’ll ask it again: Since when have Christians been bound to respect blasphemy?
"Church is out - Drive Carefully"
By the way, Alex, after you’re done answering my first question, can you explain to me why you’re apparently relying on websites like this one: http://amazingdiscoveries.org/albums/a/3/European-History-and-the-Illuminati
No, the PROTESTANT authorities would have taken it down, burned it, then gone after the individual(s) who put it up -- who would have been severely punished, run out of the community at the risk of their lives, or simply killed.
Mocking insults are a great way to get your opponent’s attention when you can’t make a coherent argument.
Knock it off. That's a complete canard. What the division of opinion on this thread shows is that this is not a simple issue, with some (including the author of the article) being of the opinion that the action taken was wrong, while others believe it was justified.
All rights, including property rights, come from God but the right to own property does not come without constraints and responsibilities and I'd be interested to hear the opinion of a reputable moral theologian on this issue. Can the destruction of abortuaries be justified for instance, on the basis that it may save human lives, even though the facilities are privately owned? Neither the killing of unborn babies nor blasphemy are civil offenses and so both actions (tearing down blasphemous posters or destroying abortion facilities) would earn the displeasure of the law.
My point here, is that infractions, (even serious ones) of the moral law are often likely to earn nothing but a smile from the civil authorities and this raises the question of how far it is morally permissible to go in resisting this sort of thing.
It does not mean that "property rights mean nothing to Catholics"
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.