So... if Christians are really that touchy, maybe you shouldn't even be using the expression "irredeemably offensive." Don't be having any fun with The Redeemer.
***
Did you used to play "Communion" with with Necco wafers? Was that okay in a way that Doritos would not be?
Posts
69 comments:
It tugs at my protestant heartstrings.
I don't know, I think its funny...the 'sacrilege' light did not go off for me. Ya gotta have a sense of humor, people...
YES to the Necco wafers!
As a Christian I think it's rather funny. Most of us can take a joke. Hey and if you draw a picture of Jesus we won't even try to cut off your head.
Communion is a Christian ceremony with food and wine to remind Christians of Jesus's sacrifice of himself for us until he returns. The Catholic doctrines have additional requirements for a licensed priest who treats the bread and wine as real blood and flesh, and is limited to its members in good standing.That is not included in the Reformed Tradition's beliefs. So the offense would be to the Catholic Church Tradition, and not to all Christians. Jesus can take a joke until he returns.
Glad to see there are a few things that can outrage somebody who doesn't have HD's pathology.
Ann Althouse said...
Did you used to play "Communion" with with Necco wafers?
I can imagine the "Catholic" family where something like that would have been done.
My mother wouldn't have left enough for the birds, let alone McConaghy's, if she'd caught us pulling a stunt like that.
Actually, it sounds more like something some Protestants would pull.
What do communion wafers taste like, anyway?
Althouse wrote: There are over 5,000 entries in the contest, but this was so "irredeemably offensive" it couldn't even be permitted to contend.
And yet it is here. The lady doth protest too much.
This sort of governmental censorship is a lot more offensive than anything in that ad.
I mean, if we limit the mockery of Christianity to comedians, Hollywood, the artistic community and day-to-day human interaction, what does that say about us as a culture.
Unless we extend that mockery to national, communal experiences and the corporate world a la the Super Bowl, can we seriously call ourselves a free society?
I'm Catholic... you know... a real Catholic.
The commercial was funny and didn't offend me, but you can easily see why a corporation should not want to be associated with it.
The only thing that is offensive is the knowledge that nobody will be making a commercial mocking the rituals of Islam because they're afraid of being blown to Kingdom Come.
@Maguro
"What do communion wafers taste like, anyway?"
Not much in the way of 'taste'. Kind of a paper/cardboard-tasting construct that dissolves in your mouth. Pretty sure they're made with some kind of wheat.
"Althouse wrote: 'There are over 5,000 entries in the contest, but this was so "irredeemably offensive" it couldn't even be permitted to contend.' And yet it is here. The lady doth protest too much."
I'm not protesting at all. I'm quoting someone else reporting the offense, which Pepsi took seriously. It is what it is. I'm not offended, and unlike the person I'm quoting, I put up the video, which obviously means I think it's okay.
It don't bother me none, in fact it was kinda cute; along the lines of the movie Dogma.
Wanna see some humorless religious nuts? Watch the Pepsi commercial about Mohammed sneaking a few Doritos during Ramadan.
"The only thing that is offensive is the knowledge that nobody will be making a commercial mocking the rituals of Islam because they're afraid of being blown to Kingdom Come."
The other reason not to mock Muslims is that they aren't the majority and they don't feel solidly secure as Christians do. You should appreciate the extra security you have because your religion is the majority's. That difference makes the humor different.
As a Methodist by way of Episcopalean, I'm more upset at using grape juice instead of wine. Jesus would not be offended by this but probably good to keep it off the Superbowl..
I used to play poker with Necco wafers....good times!
You should appreciate the extra security you have because your religion is the majority's. That difference makes the humor different.
You're wrong on both counts.
I lost my last full time job because I was openly a traditional macho man and a Catholic. This was completely unacceptable in an almost entirely gay art shop. (It wasn't that way when I started.)
The young gay men I worked with (generally 30 years younger than me) liked to fantasize that the evangelicals were massing on the Hudson for a genocidal attack. My traditional upbringing and my residence in suburban Jersey was my undoing at that job.
It hasn't been all a disaster. I'm glad I got out of that environment, and I have been able to continue to find work.
But, you are entirely wrong in your assumptions. I am an artist living in an uber liberal environment. My religious beliefs are considered toxic.
Althouse wrote...You should appreciate the extra security you have because your religion is the majority's. That difference makes the humor different.
That sounds like a Copt-out, but I take your point.
Well, unlike muslims, I don't think anyone will be tracked for the rest of their lives until their heads get cut off.
But it's really not a smart idea if you want to attract customers that are christian.
And what little kids do has little relation to what is smart for adults who want to find customers.
Funny, but bad taste. But lots of humor is in bad taste. While it's not "irredeemably offensive", it's probably not the best thing to put on the TV, however. Also, I notice part of the gag is that there are people in the communion line who are obviously not Catholic or Episcopalian. On one viewing I noticed one person in a Hindu/Hare Krishna outfit and one in Amish dress, for example. Probably not PC for those groups, either.
chickelit, Arrrggghhhh!
That was BAAAAD!
:)
PS As to taste, none at all.
This sort of governmental censorship is a lot more offensive than anything in that ad.
Where was the government involved in this? It was a contest done by a private corporation. No state action as far as I can tell from the article.
" the extra security you have because your religion is the majority's.
The US is 75% Christian, but only 25% Catholic.
Communion refers to Catholics.
Not a majority.
Our hostess scolded, The other reason not to mock Muslims is that they aren't the majority and they don't feel solidly secure as Christians do. You should appreciate the extra security you have because your religion is the majority's.
This is utter nonsense. I've seen what Muslims do to little children who don't comply with their ultra-sensitivities to anything they don't like while they are in muslim countries.
There are almost no christians in Afghanistan, yet they still are brutal savages to their women. They mutilate and kill men for not growing beards. The list of systemic barbaric outrages is too long to detail.
Don't give me any of that moral equivalency between western civilization and islamic barbarity. Tell it to the Marines. I know better.
Wanna see some humorless religious nuts? Watch the Pepsi commercial about Mohammed sneaking a few Doritos during Ramadan.
Pogo nails it.
Of course there never will be a Pepsi commercial or any commercial even gently joshing the extremely touchy religion of peace.
"The other reason not to mock Muslims is that they aren't the majority and they don't feel solidly secure as Christians do."
...and you know how people are when they feel insecure. They blow stuff up and behead people, uncontrollably. They just can't help it.
I mean, just last week, a guy -- I'm sure he was in some majority, vis a vis me -- looked at me crossways, I'm sure of it. So I killed his family, poisoned his dog, burned down his house, and salted the earth so that no Kentucky bluegrass or Zoysia will ever grow on his plat again. And I ask, who among you would not do the same?
"The other reason not to mock Muslims is that they aren't the majority and they don't feel solidly secure as Christians do. You should appreciate the extra security you have because your religion is the majority's. That difference makes the humor different."
So we should wait to mock them when they feel solidly secure, i.e. like they do in Saudi Arabia and other parts of the world where other religions are banned and you can be sentenced to death for blasphemy (among other offenses)? Should we wait until then? There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. I think that's solid enough for any mockery threshold to be met. They're not the weak little sisters you seem to think they are.
Which reminds me of your Cornel West comment. If the man deserves mockery he deserves it, whatever his skin color. There's no reason to hold back on deserved mockery in 21st century America. If you're going to hold back because he's black and the PC police have cowed you into setting a lower standard in that circumstance, then you've fallen prey to the "soft bigotry of low expectations." You're being patronizing, not sensitive.
I don't get how it's offensive.
From communion to poker? Neccos are almost as versatile as bacon.
WV - terious. Yes, teriously.
The problem is with those claiming offense, for it reveals a lack of confidence in their faith. The source of this anxiety is at least two-fold:
1) The act of 'finding offense' is a vocation taught at all school levels. The left can claim considerable success for ensconcing class struggles for all.
2) The rise of atheism, the rise of anti-Christian media efforts, and the rise of violent and litigious Islam make many feel quite insecure.
Their error is being unaware how Christianity has been persecuted for ages. Get used to it.
As I recall, didn't a celebrity guest on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show a long time ago, I think it was Sammy Davis Jr., have to come back the show days later to apologize for joking that "Communion is like pizza"?
More, Archie Bunker on Edith's possible conversion to Catholicism: Did you eat a cookie!
There are plenty of examples worthy of outrage. The tax payer funded "Piss Christ" comes to mind. But, IMO, only the hypersensitive could find outrage in this one.
Catholics can take a joke about communion. As can episcopalians.
The key here is that a marketing campaign should not expect to be successful when it mocks its customers. That's the only reason why this is a dumb idea. If it were a comedy sketch on a tv show or a movie, no one would complain.
I don't see anything to suggest that this ad is set in a Catholic church. The pastor is wearing a wedding band, suggesting that he is married.
Okay, so it turns out that a few Catholic priests wear wedding bands. Still, is there anything about this ad that makes it clear that it's set in a Catholic church and not, say, a church of the Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism?
Ann sez:
"The other reason not to mock Muslims is that they aren't the majority and they don't feel solidly secure as Christians do."
OMG! Ann! You've been in academia too long! You're beginning to sound like a Cultural Marxist.
Considering that some churches use Krispy Kreme for communion, this ad isn't much of a stretch.
EDH said...
As I recall, didn't a celebrity guest on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show a long time ago, I think it was Sammy Davis Jr., have to come back the show days later to apologize for joking that "Communion is like pizza"?
Bill Cosby as a guest host, his wife is Catholic, so he may have thought he had some immunity (and did he catch Hell). I remember seeing him do it (just before I Spy, IIRC) and it seemed a little dumb to me, but no more.
Sammy, having converted to Judaism, probably would have stayed away entirely.
peter hoh said...
I don't see anything to suggest that this ad is set in a Catholic church. The pastor is wearing a wedding band, suggesting that he is married.
2 men with Roman collars, although being called, "Pastor", instead of "Father", was probably intended to deflect the Catholic image. It was still pretty obvious where they were going.
When we played communion with Neccos, we weren't trying to sell Neccos. Pepsi IS trying to sell Doritos and Pepsi and it might not be wise to risk offending a wide swath of their customers. Is there another instance of a large religious group reacting badly to an otherwise funny commercial? Other than the nutcases who thought the old P&G logo means the devil owns the company...or whatever their beef was.
Oh, wait! There was the time when the Muslims got all miffed about some cartoons...
Irredeemably tacky.
Communion refers to Catholics.
Not a majority.
Actually, no. There are many Protestant churches that have a communion ritual.
I thought that it was funny. (and I'm Catholic.)
I don't see anything to suggest that this ad is set in a Catholic church. The pastor is wearing a wedding band, suggesting that he is married.
What lead me to believe that they're not necessarily Catholic (not, I guess, that it matters) was that they handed out the "wine" in little individual cups. In Catholic churches, everyone sips from the same Chalice; Protestants use dixie cups.
Also (OK, this is getting way too technical), the characters in the line appeared indicate a wide variety of mixed cultures and religions. I'm sure that was part of the joke- everyone wants to take that Communion- but Catholics do require conversion first, which takes several months.
- Lyssa
As a Christian who regularly takes communion, it does not offend me in the least. But then it is not me the commercial producers have to worry about.
"This is body which is broken for you...this is my blood which is shed for you."
Don't give me any of that moral equivalency between western civilization and islamic barbarity. Tell it to the Marines. I know better.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
And thank you for your service, as well.
Pretty stupid ad, if you ask me, but far from the most offensive (partly because it IS so stupid).
Catholic priests aren't the only ones who wear collars like that, nor are Catholics the only denomination for which Holy Eucharist is a central part of worship liturgy.
The use of individual little glasses ( as opposed to the use of the chalice) is more indicative of other than, say, Catholic or Episcopal.
The ad strikes me as rather a mish-mash of reference, which is another reason I can't take it that seriously. And a big reason why I think it's stupid.
Writ Small said...
"This sort of governmental censorship ..."
what sort of government censorship? hello?
I'll mix things up a bit.
I'd argue this is not only not irredeemably offensive, but probably even more accurately interprets the original intent of communion more than many, if not most, ritualistic, over-theologized, interpretations of the Lord's Supper.
The main passage we have for interpreting this activity is found in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. Like most of Paul's letters, he is responding to a crisis in a particular church. The crisis here is not how to interpret what the bread is or what drink to use, but how the rich people are alienating the poor people. Paul insists on unity, and for this celebration of unity to be meaningful. They have to understand the "body of Christ" right, which as connected passages suggests is not simply the wafer or bread, but relates to the gathered people of God.
So, by mixing up the usual expectations, the ministers here have de-ritualized the event, bringing in again a wide mix of people who may not otherwise gather together. This allows for a celebration in unity, even as particular tastes and expressions are still celebrated. The Lord's supper once again is honored as a way of pointing to the unity and diversity that Christ calls us to in the church.
By emphasizing the particular elements and what they are and should be, the church misses the priority that Christ gives to the people who gather, and brings judgment on itself for doing so.
I wrote more on this approach a few years back.
The dumbest statement here--even dumber than the add--is Ann's statement@10:53--for which she has properly been taken to task. Only demonstrating how insidiously osomotic is PC, i.e., cultural Marxism--especially in the academic setting.
peter hoh said...
"I don't see anything to suggest that this ad is set in a Catholic church. The pastor is wearing a wedding band, suggesting that he is married."
I thought catholic as well until
I looked at it again and saw the church in the opening frames....note the location of the crosses. Second, they called the head guy "pastor"..not telling in itself but generally "father" would have been it. Most telling was the communion wine served individual servings...some churches (protestant) do this so do not. most catholic churches that i've gone to do not serve wine to the flock but the priest takes the sip and all else get the wafer...
just saying.
So... if Christians are really that touchy,
Damn Christians, threatening to blow up Frito Lay's, and murder the people who wrote and appeared in the commercial..........oh wait......
The other reason not to mock Muslims is that they aren't the majority and they don't feel solidly secure as Christians do. You should appreciate the extra security you have because your religion is the majority's. That difference makes the humor different.
Bullshit. Typical academic elitest bullshit.
There is no indication in the video that the church is Roman Catholic. It could be Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist or even Unitarian. All of them have been known to wear collars and observe communion.
It's nice, however, to be reminded, yet again, of what a threat Roman Catholics were and still are to freedom lovers everywhere.
They used to burn you alive for things like that. Would you rather be burned by the Pope or stoned by the Imam?
Anyone sense the sexual tension between the younger cleric and the blonde woman in line?
"There is no indication in the video that the church is Roman Catholic. It could be Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist or even Unitarian. All of them have been known to wear collars and observe communion."
I've been to a lot of Episcopal churches, and they never served the wine in separate cups. I was brought up in Presbyterian church, and we got tiny little glasses, but they were passed around. You didn't come up to the front to get them.
Professor--you have gone around the PC bend--that was about the dumbest comment I have ever read.
As for the ad? being unchurched as I am, I thought it was hilarious. And while I never done RC communion wafers, I hope they are better than what the protestants dish up--those are repulsive. And whats with grape juice thing--did not Christ change the stuff into wine--I am thinking a good carmenere
1. Kids used Necco wafers in their reenactments of what they saw in church. They did not do it in a har-de-har-har knee-slapping ironic, aren't I cool way. Most of that kind of play was very serious in my experience, very much the opposite of what is meant by this ad.
2. We achieved a certain cohesiveness in this country by aiming our mockery at the minority groups and the Irish and Poles and Italians fell in line to the point that they were indistinguishable from the then dominant culture. Now our self-loathing compels us to mock ourselves, to find our very best instincts the subject of hilarity, a cause of embarrassment.
3. Like most of this kind of art/humor it is derivative, tiresome and something of a self-parody.
4. I wish it had won and had been shown.
5. Some ideas for future Super Bowl ads: Muslims eating pork rinds during Haj. Hanes featuring underwear worn by Mormons with some attendant hilarity. Hasidic Jews selling curling irons.
My dear lady I am sure it has been quite some time since you have been in a church.
Perhaps we should ask someone who has worshiped in the last thirty years or so?
Jimbino: I would prefer neither, but it would be swell for you to have been burned at the stake inasmuch as you appear to still live in that age. It is quite possible to be stoned to death by an imam in the present. I would think that radical Islam poses a much greater threat to our freedoms than does the Catholic Church. But then I am not a moron.
Edutcher, the clerical collar is not a clear sign that the ad is set in a Catholic church. Nearly all of my pastors have worn the clerical collar -- and not just on Sundays.
Yeah, big whoop.
Treating the Body and Blood of Christ like a joke? Big deal. So what if the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Faith? So what if a major company basically just pisses and craps, not only on many of its customers, but on God too? It's not like He matters anymore.
True, Jesus is a big boy and can handle the mockery quite well. But it is because of such treating God like a joke that He gave up His life on the Cross. This is just one more pounding of the nail into His flesh. No biggie.
(And let's not kid around here -- notwithstanding the mixed imagery here, this was purposely intended to be a joke about the Catholic faith.)
Eh. That's not offensive, not to me anyway.
Contrary to Paddy's self-made theology, the main passage we have for interpreting this activity (the Eucharist) is found in chapter six of the Gospel of John (the Bread of Life discourse).
Holy Communion is not merely about social fellowship -- it is, as the name suggests, "communion," from the Latin meaning "to be one with," not merely in a symbolic or poetic sense, but in a true ontological and existential sense of two persons become one in the fullness of being.
When someone prays to God, a certain spiritual communion can be obtained. But we are not mere spiritual creatures, we are not like the angels. Rather, we are spirit and body together -- ensouled bodies and embodied souls. It takes both body and spirit to make up the whole person.
Thus, when one prays and has spiritual communion with God, it is merely a partial communion, it involves only part of one's being.
However, with the Eucharist, the Blessed Sacrament -- being the Real Presence, the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, even though under the appearance of bread and wine -- one can obtain true Communion in the fullness of one's being. Receiving His glorified Body literally into yours, in the most intimate of interpersonal actions, your body becomes one with His Body, your soul becomes one with His Soul, your humanity becomes one with His Divinity.
Just as the Trinity is a loving communion of three persons in one divine being, just as Jesus the Bridegroom and His Bride the Church are two become one reality, so too are Jesus and the person who receives Holy Communion two become one in the fullness of being. Not merely in a symbolic sense, but in the realest of real senses, on the fundamental level of being.
The encounter with Jesus in the Eucharist is not the encounter of a friend or a mentor or a teacher. It is a parental and spousal encounter. It is because the Eucharist is the Real Presence that such an encounter is the most intimate of intimate touchings. The person literally takes Christ within him- or herself both bodily and spiritually, so as to become one with Him in a mystical fashion, as in marriage, which also involves entering into another bodily and spiritually so as to become one in a communion of persons (unitive) and so as to receive life (procreative).
Eating a slice of every day bread, be it Wonder sliced bread or a freshly baked French baguette, and drinking a glass of every day wine, even when that wine is Château Lafite-Rothschild, is still ordinary in every sense and not at all spiritual. But the food that we receive in Communion is not ordinary food, but extra-ordinary food. It is the bread of life; not merely earthly life, but the real life -– life eternal in the One who is Love and Truth. As St. Ignatius of Antioch put it, the Eucharist is “the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live forever in Jesus Christ.”
So, yeah, it is a big deal.
Bender, Just cuz you disagree, doesn't make my version self-made. I suggest you click the link I provided.
As to John 6 being the key passage, it certainly is, but 1 Corinthians was written earlier and cannot be dismissed.
Your interpretation is more self-made than mine, as I at least dig into the Scriptural references with some exegesis, and theological support.
And John 6 is not necessarily about the Eucharist, as it is not in the context of the Last Supper in the Gospels nor the discussion of the celebration in the early church. You can interpret the words in the context of Communion, but that's stretching the passage a bit, especially if you use to to dismiss 1 Cor. 11.
I also commend Tertullian's Apology ch. 39 for a perspective on the early church understanding of the "Love Feast" which incorporated communion as part of a larger meal.
The other reason not to mock Muslims is that they aren't the majority and they don't feel solidly secure as Christians do. You should appreciate the extra security you have because your religion is the majority's. That difference makes the humor different.
At a billion plus adherents, Islam isn't a "minority" religion. And the wee tender bairns are just as touchy about mockery, if not more so, in places where Muslims are the overwhelming majority and their religion is officially privileged. So the "insecure minority" excuse doesn't fly.
The video, however, was funny.
The essence here is that ridicule is an attack aimed at discouraging believers and implying guilt for their faith. So it is reacted to by sensitive folks. As a lawyer, we see attacks as a tennis player sees an opponent's shots. That said, we do get tired of always being the target of evil people.
The other reason not to mock Muslims is that they aren't the majority and they don't feel solidly secure as Christians do. You should appreciate the extra security you have because your religion is the majority's. That difference makes the humor different.
Jewish people seem to handle mocking humor quite maturely.
Your rule would make it so only the majority could be comfortably lampooned. Not sure I agree with that.
As to the ad: A bit tasteless (like a communion wafer) and I can see why a major sponsor might back off (not worth the potential fuss).
As to the imagery: Pretty typical mish mash of religious/Christian as others have suggested. The collar is an easy visual.
As to the Professor:
These two statements:
So... if Christians are really that touchy
and
The other reason not to mock Muslims is that they aren't the majority and they don't feel solidly secure as Christians do.
are disconcerting.
"The other reason not to mock Muslims is that they aren't the majority and they don't feel solidly secure as Christians do."
Oh, I don't know -- they're pretty touchy even in countries where they make up about 99.9% of the population.
Paddy -- what I wrote is Catholic doctrine. What you wrote is, well, not. It certainly would be what some Protestants would assert, and that is all well and good if you choose to be Protestant, but as for me, I do not.
Since you inquired, my sources are John Paul II's encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Cardinal Ratzinger's book, God is Near Us (2003), multiple homilies by Pope Benedict, Vatican II' Sacrosanctum Concilium and Lumen Gentium, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, among others, as well as the sources cited therein.
I should clarify when I say that what you say is not Catholic doctrine --
To be sure, there is a communal aspect to Holy Communion, but that communal aspect does not merely involve sharing a meal with people in the same room, as you suggest. A communion so limited would be a rather poor one, a mere symbol.
And to quote Flannery O'Connor, if it is merely a symbol, then to hell with it. We Catholic prefer the real deal, where the substance and essence of the bread and wine become the actual Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Christ, also known as the fundamental dogma of transubstantiation.
Rather than the limited communion of community meal -- the functional equivilent of holding hands and singing Kumbaya -- because the Blessed Sacrament is exactly that, a sacrament, that is, an outward visible sign, instituted by Christ, to convey (invisible) grace, namely, inter alia, the grace of being one with Him, if you are one with Him and He is one with you and others are one with Him and He is one with them, not only in the here and now, but across time, including both the present faithful and the saints in heaven, then all of the faithful that have ever been are one. THAT is real Communion.
I know that, for some, "this saying is hard," and there have been many who have refused to accept it (John 6:60). Many leave because of it. Nevertheless, Jesus specifically and explicitly said, "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you." (John 6:53)
Post a Comment