Controversial Virgin Mary billboard destroyed by protester

[Dale_M]

A scissor-wielding protester has destroyed a controversial billboard of the Virgin Mary, just days after it went up outside a New Zealand church.

Hours after the attack, 100 or so Roman Catholics gathered to pray in the rain in front of the ruined billboard, which had shown Mary gasping in shock as she examined a pregnancy testing kit.

Arthur Skinner, a member of an organisation calling itself the Catholic Action Group, who described the Renaissance-style picture as “satanic”, was photographed attacking it.

“Yes, it is vandalism,” Mr Skinner proclaimed proudly outside the church.

"I’m guilty. If they want to arrest me, be my guest.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/8964941/Controversial-Virgin-Mary-billboard-destroyed-by-protester.html

Is anyone in New Zealand familiar with this organization?

 

[Holly3278]

I am not at all a fan or a promoter of vandalism which is what this was. I think vandalism is considered a sin, isn’t it? That said, I did not like the photo. It wasn’t as offensive as that other photo they issued a few years ago of Mary and Joseph in bed together though. Now that one was incredibly offensive. This recent one though was only mildly offensive in my own opinion.

I mean, I really don’t think the Blessed Mother would have even wanted to take a pregnancy test as I know she took the Archangel Gabriel at his words when he said that she would be with child. She trusted his words and therefore I am sure she wouldn’t have felt the need to confirm them and that is why I see the current/former billboard as mildly offensive because it seems to attack Mary’s faith and trust in God.

 

[incense]

I am not at all a fan or a promoter of vandalism which is what this was. I think vandalism is considered a sin, isn’t it?

Then why did Jesus whip the moneylenders in the temple? Isn’t that vandalism?

 

[Bearontherun]

One thing the picture does do is support the belief in Mary conceiving Jesus and still being a virgin.

I do agree it is somewhat offensive. These days we are used to seeing so many offensive things(sadly), that this does seem tame in comparison.

 

[Marybeloved]

One thing the picture does do is support the belief in Mary conceiving Jesus and still being a virgin.

How so?

 

[Bearontherun]

How so?

The image shows her looking in wonder at the test result. To me, this portrayed amazement supports belief in her virginity. That is how I see it.

 

[Dale_M]

News Update

Yesterday St Matthew-in-the-City Anglican church, which was responsible for the image, told Mr Skinner they would not be replacing the billboard and police had confirmed they would not be laying charges in relation to the incident.

nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10774643

 

[MrSylvester]

You know, there are circumstances where vandalism is unaaceptable and destroying a billboard blaspheming the Blessed Virgin is not one of them. As another poster said, this piece of rubbish of a poor excuse ‘honoring’ Mary deserved to be destroyed. I’m glad there are brave people today who love and honor the Blessed Mother.

 

[atheistgirl]

I’m not well versed enough in the nuances of the Catholic faith to understand why that poster is offensive. But what I’m more confused about is, wasn’t the poster put up by a Christian Anglican Church? Surely they would not do anything deliberately offensive to insult their very own Christian faith? I guess what I’m wondering now is if they find something offensive in a Catholic church billboard (are there even such things?) would they be equally justified in ‘vandalizing’ it?

Sarah x

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

You know, there are circumstances where vandalism is unaaceptable and destroying a billboard blaspheming the Blessed Virgin is not one of them. As another poster said, this piece of rubbish of a poor excuse ‘honoring’ Mary deserved to be destroyed. I’m glad there are brave people today who love and honor the Blessed Mother.

So basically I personally am NOT a “good catholic” because I oppose the vandalism?

I agree the billboard was mildly offensive (compared to other filth these days) but destroying it would not help. And would you say it is right for a pro-choice billboard should be destroed because Abortion is murder and against our dearest Catholic bekefs?

Jusy asking…

 

[Dale_M]

I’m not well versed enough in the nuances of the Catholic faith to understand why that poster is offensive. But what I’m more confused about is, wasn’t the poster put up by a Christian Anglican Church? Surely they would not do anything deliberately offensive to insult their very own Christian faith? I guess what I’m wondering now is if they find something offensive in a Catholic church billboard (are there even such things?) would they be equally justified in ‘vandalizing’ it?

The billboard was irreverent. Whether someone finds it offensive (I think it was in poor taste and inadvisable) depends on that person’s spirituality. The Anglican church in question seems to be looking for parishioners who have a light-hearted spirituality. Such persons might consider occasionally making fun about the faith to be acceptable and even fun.Christians, certainly Catholics, who have a more sober spirituality will be offended by such irreverence.

Yes, I have seen Catholic billboards. However, given the hierarchical nature of the Catholic Church, if a similarly offensive billboard was posted by a Catholic parish I think a protest to the bishop would be the preferred tactic. The bishop would then direct that the billboard come down.

 

[atheistgirl]

The billboard was irreverent… certainly Catholics, who have a more sober spirituality will be offended by such irreverence.

Thanks for that.

Yes, I have seen Catholic billboards. However, given the hierarchical nature of the Catholic Church, if a similarly offensive billboard was posted by a Catholic parish I think a protest to the bishop would be the preferred tactic. The bishop would then direct that the billboard come down.

What I was getting at was that a lot of Catholics seem to think it was fine to vanfalize the board, as it was offensive, and irreverent, to them. Fine. Let’s say a Catholic billboard had an image of a Cross, which some other Christian group found to be just as irreverent, (or whatever else they might find offensive, I dont know what passes as offensive between Christian groups) or offensive, would they be equally justified in cutting and vandalizing the Catholic board?

It would seem so.

This is the problem when people feel they can act out on their offendedness. I dont think people have the right not to be offended. Of course people find many different things offensive, but do people really have a ‘‘right’’ not to be offended?

Sarah x

 

[LiveCatholic]

Thanks for that.

What I was getting at was that a lot of Catholics seem to think it was fine to vanfalize the board, as it was offensive, and irreverent, to them. Fine. Let’s say a Catholic billboard had an image of a Cross, which some other Christian group found to be just as irreverent, (or whatever else they might find offensive, I dont know what passes as offensive between Christian groups) or offensive, would they be equally justified in cutting and vandalizing the Catholic board?

It would seem so.

This is the problem when people feel they can act out on their offendedness. I dont think people have the right not to be offended. Of course people find many different things offensive, but do people really have a ‘‘right’’ not to be offended?

Sarah x

Catholics are all familiar with vandalism. Our statues, icons, churches, and cemeteries are CONSTANTLY being vandalized–I would venture to guess, more than any other single denomination, including the Jews who notably suffer from this blight. **Most of the damage is done by atheists and secularists. **
a
So the Christian-on-Christian vndalism you’re fantasizing about here is ironically far more unrealistic than the widespread damage done by atheist and secularist hooligans.

Next, the ‘problematic’ dimension you’ve been working hard to insinuate here… of Catholics accepting the vandalism… isn’t as straightforward as you’d think. Many see the poster itself as a kind of sacrilege or ‘vandalism’ of something dear to them–the image of the BVM, which isn’t held in as much reverence in many of the Protestant Christian denominations. In a way, the ‘vandalism’ here can honestly be construed as a restoration.

For someone who professes unfamiliarity with the issues and emotions involved, you sure move in for ‘the kill’ pretty quickly.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Then why did Jesus whip the moneylenders in the temple? Isn’t that vandalism?

This. Sometimes, things have to be destroyed. Blasphemy is one of those things.

 

[Dale_M]

Then why did Jesus whip the moneylenders in the temple? Isn’t that vandalism?

Jesus considered the Temple to be his Father’s house, and the actions of the moneylenders to be a profanation of sacred space.

I don’t see how that relates to a billboard located in secular space.

 

[Dale_M]

What I was getting at was that a lot of Catholics seem to think it was fine to vanfalize the board, as it was offensive, and irreverent, to them.

I am not sure that many Catholics support such an action. We’ve had a handful of CAF members express support here. And the news indicates that a New Zealand organization turned out 100 people in support. However, the Catholic Diocese of Auckland expressed disapproval of the vandalism and distanced itself from the organization which supported the destruction of the billboard.

 

[atheistgirl]

However, the Catholic Diocese of Auckland expressed disapproval of the vandalism and distanced itself from the organization which supported the destruction of the billboard.

I think that’s good.

I guess, due to the low numbers, I wont get an answer then as to whether the catholics involved, or those that support them and who think it was fine to wreck the billboard due to some sense of perceived offense, would also agree that a group like the Jehovah’s Witnesses would be equally justified in wrecking any images of crosses (I found out they think the cross is a pagan symbol and think Christ was hung on a tree stump) displayed by a Catholic Church.

For clarity, I understand and am clear most think it is not justified - and I do not support any such act by anyone … I was just really curious about those that did, and their mindset if the tables were turned.

I think we could safely say they would NOT find the hypothetical actions of the imaginary group of Jehovah’s Witnesses (I understand this group is totally anti everything violent so would never do such a thing anyhow …) acceptable in any way.

As I said, although I dont deny there are many things many people may find offensive, this is what happens when people think they have a right NOT to be offended!

Sarah x

 

[OriginalJS]

Then why did Jesus whip the moneylenders in the temple? Isn’t that vandalism?

That’s called assault and battery, or, depending, attempting to inflict serious bodily injury.

 

[sw85]

Thanks for that.

What I was getting at was that a lot of Catholics seem to think it was fine to vanfalize the board, as it was offensive, and irreverent, to them. Fine. Let’s say a Catholic billboard had an image of a Cross, which some other Christian group found to be just as irreverent, (or whatever else they might find offensive, I dont know what passes as offensive between Christian groups) or offensive, would they be equally justified in cutting and vandalizing the Catholic board?

It would seem so.

This is the problem when people feel they can act out on their offendedness. I dont think people have the right not to be offended. Of course people find many different things offensive, but do people really have a ‘‘right’’ not to be offended?

Sarah x

Are you suggesting the two are equivalent? They aren’t.

Look, you cannot blaspheme falsehood. When we tear down images of the Virgin Mary that deny the Annunciation, we are *correcting *blasphemy. If someone else tore down an image of the Cross, they would be *committing *it. The two are nonequivalent regardless of what those other people feel.

There is NEVER a right to commit blasphemy against God, Mary, the saints, the angels, or the Church, hence there is NEVER a right to have one’s blasphemous deeds protected.

Our duties to God and to Heaven come FIRST. They supercede our obligations to civil law. Hence if civil law tells me I must not destroy blasphemous imagery, I am within my rights to disobey civil law. The same would be true if civil law commanded me to desecrate holy artifacts or something of the sort.

Anyone here who thinks we ought to refrain from destroying blasphemous imagery on the grounds that the Constitution (or whatever) forbids it will simply have to be prepared to explain their position when they stand before God for judgment. For myself, I am with the “vandals” 100% of the way.

 

[atheistgirl]

Are you suggesting the two are equivalent? They aren’t.

According to how you see things. To the person who finds the image of the cross a pagan symbol, it is just as blasphemous.

Look, you cannot blaspheme falsehood.

Who gets to determine for everyone what is true and what is false?

When we tear down images of the Virgin Mary that deny the Annunciation,

The image didnt deny the Annunciation.

The two are nonequivalent regardless of what those other people feel.

Ah… so a certain select few get to decide for everyone do they… and to heck with what other people feel or think.

There is NEVER a right to commit blasphemy against God, Mary, the saints, the angels, or the Church, hence there is NEVER a right to have one’s blasphemous deeds protected.

There is actually never a right not to be offended.

They supercede our obligations to civil law.

I dont think they do… isnt there something in the Bible about giving to Caesar what is Caesars?

So if a faith group, lets call them Sarahites, devout and fervent in their conviction of their fullness of truth and being filled with the Holy Spirit, as they see it, decide to with-hold taxes, burn down hospitals as they believe only prayer can heal, and kill those who are homosexual and have had abortions or support abortions, you think they’re right and you have no problem with that as their obligation is first to God?

Hence if civil law tells me I must not destroy blasphemous imagery, I am within my rights to disobey civil law.

No youre not.

The same would be true if civil law commanded me to desecrate holy artifacts or something of the sort.

It wouldnt as that would be vandalism and criminal damage, a crime.

For myself, I am with the “vandals” 100% of the way.

I’m with the civil and legal authorities that prosecute vandals and those that commit criminal damage, in whatever shape or form it takes, regardless of who commits it, all the way.

Sarah x