"Little Books" Diocese of Saginaw - thoughts?

[Amnagrla]

Hello!

I was wondering… Does anyone use the “Little Black Book” for Lent? Or the other Little Books? littlebooks.org

They are often given out for free by the doors of my church but I’ve never really read one before.

Part of my Lenten observations is to read something every day to help me to understand more. I have a Magnificat for this season as well as the Little Black Book.

I am REALLY enjoying this so far, however, I would enjoy doing this both all year round and every year but I feel like there is a better, more permanent book out there for me, one that I don’t have to re-buy every month or season.

Does anyone have any suggestions on this? Thank you!!

 

[Jaypeeto4]

The Little Books (black and white) from the Diocese of Saginaw
are actually quite nice.

This is a bit surprising to me, cuz they began under the former
controversial (i.e. dissident) Bishop Kenneth Untener, though I don’t know
how much Untener, himself, had to do with them personally.

The books though, are helpful.

 

[Crumpy]

The books seem to fill a need and have been published in great quantities.

I was scandalized by them, however.

In the lenten book several years ago, the year Untener passed away I think, there was a line drawing titled “blasphemous picture of Christ on the cross.”

It was a reproduction of some graffiti found in the tombs of Rome. It was a mocking depiction of a Roman (mentioned by name) who was looking upon the crucified Christ. What was blasphemous was that Christ was depicted with the head of a donkey.

I don’t know WHAT PLACE a “blasphemous” picture had in a Catholic publication, in the first place, much less in a supposedly popular booklet.

If you recall the FUROR over a depiction of the prophet Mohammed that was published in Europe several years back – furor by Muslims – and the recent FUROR among Muslims by the careless burning of their holy book by American soldiers in Afghanistan – I wonder why there is no outrage over this “blasphemous” image that was published here in the D. of Saginaw.

I seem to be the only one who took offense to it.

Is it reasonable to publish a blasphemous picture, if you even say that it’s a blasphemous picture? If it’s blasphemous, and the little black book said it was “blasphemous” well, then, OK! Why are they publishing it?

If there was a stretch in judgment to publish it, it may have been to show one of the early depictions of Christ on the cross.

I went to a rectory to complain about this, and I was literally shoved out the door and down the sidewalk, and the priest called me an a**hole. I kid you not.

I mention all this, because you asked. you came to the right person for a negative view on the little books.

 

[Amnagrla]

THANK YOU for your opinion. I did ask for any and all thoughts on the book.

You know, not just about religious things but about life, it often takes many great experiences with a product or a service to be as passionate about that product as one can get from one bad experience. Just human nature, right?

Anyways, thank you and I will certainly keep an eye out.

 

[piejesu]

Stick with the Magnificat. The Little Books, while more authentically Catholic than they used to be, still manifest some of the liberal, progressive, non-normative teachings that prevailed in the Diocese of Saginaw during Bishop Untener’s time. Many of the reflections have been taken from the writings of Bishop Untener and over time tend to be recycled here and there.

 

[patrick457]

The books seem to fill a need and have been published in great quantities.

I was scandalized by them, however.

In the lenten book several years ago, the year Untener passed away I think, there was a line drawing titled “blasphemous picture of Christ on the cross.”

It was a reproduction of some graffiti found in the tombs of Rome. It was a mocking depiction of a Roman (mentioned by name) who was looking upon the crucified Christ. What was blasphemous was that Christ was depicted with the head of a donkey.

I don’t know WHAT PLACE a “blasphemous” picture had in a Catholic publication, in the first place, much less in a supposedly popular booklet.

If you recall the FUROR over a depiction of the prophet Mohammed that was published in Europe several years back – furor by Muslims – and the recent FUROR among Muslims by the careless burning of their holy book by American soldiers in Afghanistan – I wonder why there is no outrage over this “blasphemous” image that was published here in the D. of Saginaw.

I seem to be the only one who took offense to it.

Is it reasonable to publish a blasphemous picture, if you even say that it’s a blasphemous picture? If it’s blasphemous, and the little black book said it was “blasphemous” well, then, OK! Why are they publishing it?

If there was a stretch in judgment to publish it, it may have been to show one of the early depictions of Christ on the cross.

I went to a rectory to complain about this, and I was literally shoved out the door and down the sidewalk, and the priest called me an a**hole. I kid you not.

I mention all this, because you asked. you came to the right person for a negative view on the little books.

You mean this graffiti?



I’m very sorry the priest treated you harshly and called you words. But I do think that it has a place, because (1) it is one of the earliest surviving representations of the crucified Jesus, or for that matter, a crucifixion in general, (2) it is a testament to the anti-Christian sentiment prevalent in a number of circles at the time it was drawn. (It was a common urban legend among many people at the time that Jews and Christians worshipped a donkey - the crude Greek inscription below reads: “Alexamenos worships [his] God”.) Not to mention that it proves that crosses were used at the time and was an identifiable Christian symbol, contrary to the allegation that Jesus was actually nailed to a stake and that the cross was a later pagan importation into Christianity.

Yes, the Alexamenos graffito is probably the last thing you’ll expect to find in a book like this, but aside from being a valuable historical artifact, it is a very good reminder just how serious and shameful a business crucifixion is, and just how much ridicule early Christians had to endure by worshipping a crucified criminal as Son of God, just how Christianity was the ‘impossible faith’. (Which kind of makes for a great Lenten meditation, does it not?) IMHO this ancient anti-Christian graffiti drives that point better than the sanitized, pious later portrayals we are used to.

(For the record, a Latin riposte is etched into the wall of the next chamber: “Alexamenos [the] faithful.” )

 

[Crumpy]

well, the caption of the drawing in the little black book said it was a 'blasphemous" picture which it is.

so, what does this mean, in general. Can they put a pornographic picture in there, as long as they label it “pornographic”?

See, I think blasphemous is WORSE than pornographic. If pornographic has no place in those books, then blasphemous doesn’t have a place either.

I guess I AM the only one who has an objection to what they printed.

See, on the chance that I was wrong, I thought (if I had the money) I’d have that image reproduced on T-shirts and lots of stuff that could be distributed in Church. After all, if it belongs in the little black book – in a Catholic church – then well lets have the head of a donkey on all our crucifixes. Yeah, I thought of having small plastic crucifixes and maybe rosaries made up with Christ having the head of a donkey.

And, we could combine THAT with Christ naked on the cross, because that is how he was crucified, after all.

 

[patrick457]

well, the caption of the drawing in the little black book said it was a 'blasphemous" picture which it is.

so, what does this mean, in general. Can they put a pornographic picture in there, as long as they label it “pornographic”?

See, I think blasphemous is WORSE than pornographic. If pornographic has no place in those books, then blasphemous doesn’t have a place either.

I guess I AM the only one who has an objection to what they printed.

See, on the chance that I was wrong, I thought (if I had the money) I’d have that image reproduced on T-shirts and lots of stuff that could be distributed in Church. After all, if it belongs in the little black book – in a Catholic church – then well lets have the head of a donkey on all our crucifixes. Yeah, I thought of having small plastic crucifixes and maybe rosaries made up with Christ having the head of a donkey.

And, we could combine THAT with Christ naked on the cross, because that is how he was crucified, after all.

And depict Him bleeding and bruised all over and really suffering…hey wait…

Well, Michelangelo did make this one crucifix which shows Jesus nude. And THAT was placed over the high altar. And that Last Judgment he painted in the Sistine Chapel…

But to be serious, I can see your point: it is probably ill-advised to put a picture of the graffito accompanied only by a very vague caption, on a church book. But I think my point still stands: I don’t think the picture is meant to be understood or viewed in a devotional context (if that was the case, there are loads of other images of Christ on the Cross with human heads that one could use), but in an historical one.

Yes, there’s no denying that the graffiti is offensive - it is intended to be so after all - but that does not mean it no longer has some significance from an historical and artistic POV (it is as of now the first surviving depiction of the crucified Jesus we have after all, even if He is caricatured). But in your defence, if they would include it, I just wish they put in a more detailed description of it to put it in its proper context and to keep folks from being scandalized. Or just don’t include it.

Still, whenever I look at this graffiti it usually brings to my mind the horror of crucifixion (right up there with the heelbone of a 1st-century crucified man named Jehohanan with a nail sticking out of it) and (precisely because of its offensiveness) the cost we pay in following Jesus. That doesn’t mean I would use the image in a devotional way though: even I have limits.

(Still, it does not prevent me from thinking of making a T-shirt with the graffiti on the front and John 15:18 or some such verse on the back. Or something like: “The Catholic Church: mocked and persecuted repeatedly like her Lord yet still standing.” )

Let’s face it: long before orthodox Christians have gotten around to portraying the crucified Savior, other people (read: anti-Christians, non-Christians and heterodox Christians) were already doing so to an extent. Here’s a little more palatable ancient portrayal of the crucifixion for the moment:




Here’s another sketch of a crucified victim, this time found in a tavern in Puzzuoli. Not as offensive as the Alexamenos graffito, but still of nearly-equal antiquity.

 

[Crumpy]

I don’t see what defense there is for publishing a “blasphemous” drawing of Christ.

I don’t have to prove that the drawing is blasphemous, it’s printed right there with the drawing that it’s blasphemous.

Just because it has some historic significance does not justifiy its inclusion in a Lenten meditation book, does it?

Could you justify a whole booklet of blasphemous images, based on historic significance?

You could argue that any depiction of Christ on the cross is blasphemous. But, a mockingly blasphemous image seems to cross the line? If this didn’t cross the line, then, where is the line?

 

[patrick457]

I don’t see what defense there is for publishing a “blasphemous” drawing of Christ.

I don’t have to prove that the drawing is blasphemous, it’s printed right there with the drawing that it’s blasphemous.

That’s the original term for the drawing when it was first discovered after all: graffito blasfemo.

The inscription is accepted by authoritative sources, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia, to be a mocking depiction of a Christian in the act of worship. Both the portrayal of Jesus as having a donkey’s head and the depiction of him being crucified would have been considered insulting by contemporary Roman society. Crucifixion continued to be used as an execution method for the worst criminals until its abolition by the emperor Constantine in the fourth century, and the impact of seeing a figure on a cross could be compared with the impact today of portraying a man with a hangman’s noose around his neck, or seated in an electric chair.

So yeah, it’s insulting on purpose.

Just because it has some historic significance does not justifiy its inclusion in a Lenten meditation book, does it?

That is why I said: “But in your defence, if they would include it, I just wish they put in a more detailed description of it to put it in its proper context and to keep folks from being scandalized. Or just don’t include it.” I think the best way (and probably the way the publishers intended it to be - I don’t know since I never read the book) is to treat it like a picture in an encyclopedia for example and not like a holy icon: something that is intended to show a relevant image related to the subject matter at hand, and not as a target for veneration.

By the way, in what context did this picture exactly appear? I mean, surely the publishers did not just put that image there because they felt like it.

Could you justify a whole booklet of blasphemous images, based on historic significance?

Well, are there other blasphemous images on it? If it contained, say, a bunch of highly problematic pictures and insulting texts, that’s a different matter.

 

[patrick457]

By the way, in what context did this picture exactly appear? I mean, surely the publishers did not just put that image there because they felt like it.

I hope the mods won’t mind, but I would just like to clarify this question further, if I may.

According to you, the Alexamenos graffito appeared in the booklet. If you can recall, what was the context in which it appeared? Was it talking then about the practice of crucifixion, or representations of the crucifixion in art, or something along those lines? Context is everything, after all. I find it hard to believe that the author(s) would just choose to put the image inside the book if it did not have some sort of relevance to whatever they wrote. Sure, it would be utterly offensive and unacceptable if they just decided to put it in there out of whim for the sole purpose of scandalizing people, but I believe that there’s a reason for it.