The Vatican has hit back against Benetton’s insult to the pope ‘in uncharacteristically swift fashion’. Good for them, I say

I agree, but feel that legal action would be counter-productive. Plus I would question whether it is wise for us as Catholics to be pushing the right not to be offended card? You may have seen that I said something similar on Archbishop Cranmer’s blog this morning.

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/11/pope-kissing-sheikh-is-evocative-of.html

i feel a brick though the offending window(s) would be an intuitive and yet creative reply that would be understood by all fellow travellers. I would call it Up Yours Art.

Like The Life of Brian, or P**s Christ, or whatever, this advertisement is a monument to the spatially and temporally located, infinitely and eternally effective Salvific Work of the Incarnate Logos, Jesus Christ.

It therefore needs to be evaluated by reference to other such monuments. Durham Cathedral. Saint Peter’s Basilica. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The statues of Christ the King overlooking Lisbon and Christ the Redeemer overlooking Rio de Janeiro. Dante’s Comedia Divina. Milton’s Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained.

And so on.

Benetton is whiter than white compared to the Papacy – I’m not aware than Benetton has denied justice to thousands of Irish children (to name no-one else). Nor does Benetton confuse fine words with repentance & conversion – but Rome is hard-hearted & impenitent, as its behaviour shows. The Vatican is behaving like the Pharisees, who were punctilious in observing religious niceties, while overlooking the “weightier matters of the Law”.  

“This isn’t a matter about whether or not to turn the other cheek. The Pope himself, a man of deep humility, might well do so, if it were simply left to him. But those around him have a duty to hit back hard in his defence, and they have done so, in the Guardian’s words “in uncharacteristically swift fashion”.”

## IOW, when push comes to shove: stuff what Jesus said, & how he lived & how many Saints have lived So much for “taking up the cross” as per Mark 8.34 – a former vicar needs no explanation of places likes that.

What is the point of claiming to be Christian if one ”hit[s] back hard” ? Christ did not, forbad the doinmg so, and healed a man wounded by St. Peter in Gethsemane. I’m sorry, but that is not humility; a humble man would not tolerate the idea that anyone should hit back on his behalf, nor would he hit back by letting them do the dirty work as his proxies. He would see God’s Providence in such things, and “offer it up” in union with the Passion. Are we not supposed to “offer up” the bad stuff that comes our way ? Then why does the Pope get a free pass, to dispense himself from the teaching of Christ when it suits him ? And what became of that well-known opposition to relativism ? Disparu, it seems. The religion of the NT & of Christ is light-years distant from the values of the Vatican

Think very carefully about what you are saying, and please acquaint yourself with a modicum of objectivity and rationality. Then realise that one day we shall all have to make an account of the things we have done and said.

Our Lord tore down the money-lenders’ stalls in the Temple. In like manner, the Holy See is letting Benetton know that using religious / personal symbols / images, especially ones it does not own, for the sake of corporate profit is both possibly illegal and always immoral / unethical. His commandment to turn the other cheek relates to personal morality, and refers to the fact that Christians should not respond to personal insults with insults or violence – a slap on the cheek was a way of humiliating someone in 1st century Palestine. In that sense, it’s like advising someone who has been slapped as means of inviting them to a duel not to respond – to rise above it. This does not diminish one’s duty to defend oneself and / or others. In that respects, the Holy See is defending the Pope’s image – which has been used for monetary gain by a seemingly anti-Catholic business – not so much on behalf of the Pope (I am sure he pays little regard to such slurs) but on behalf of all those millions of Catholics who love Christ and the Church and Petrine Ministry he himself has given us.

It might also surprise you to know that some saints – such as the very holy and passionate St Louis de Montfort – would often hit blasphemers in the face, especially if they happened to be in a church when they uttered their offensive words against God. St Louis was not alone in getting physical when showing his love for God and the things of God.

 Also, as you say, Peter struck out at the high priest’s servant, cutting off his ear. The high priest’s servant was called Malchus, and therefore symbolises “kings” (secular governments or organisations) who oppose Christ. Although Our Lord told Peter to put back his sword, he did so only because Peter had acted without  recognising that at that particular moment the Passion was necessary – upon his return to earth Our Lord will be coming as Judge of the living and the dead, and his angels will avenge him in ways that Peter never could! In fact, if it weren’t necessary for Jesus to suffer at that point in history, as himself said, legions of angels would have come to defend him. In fact, Jesus even instructed his disciples to carry swords (cf Luke 22), and seems to have approved of the fact that some had two (symbolising spiritual and temporal power). Although warning Peter of the dangers of exercising his temporal power, he did not condemn him when he tried (out of human love) to defend him, but recognised that Peter was acting out of love, panic and a desire to fight for his God. Jesus healed Malchus to show that wishes all to be reconciled to him, even those whose ability to hear his words might have been deafened by the power of his legitimate Vicar. Sometimes, Popes (who are universally represented by Peter) have had to excommunicate people or nations who stubbornly accepted the truth. In so doing, more often than not this was a means for Christ to heal those people and eventually restore them to Christian dignity. In that sense, Peter’s actions in the Garden were more than providential.

The Pope, like all Catholics, also has a moral obligation to rebuke sinners, for it is often the only way that some of them actually find out that they have done something wrong. It is only then that they can repent.

False humility is no humility at all, it is inverted pride. Allowing people to get away with evil is also indefensible – it means that we do not really care for the salvation of their immortal souls.

It’s only a matter of time till some Muslim extremist starts something about this issue then Benetton is really screwed. 

Rather than castigate and take legal action, I wonder what would happen if the Vatican responded along the lines of: “Through our fallen nature, human weakness and sin, we sometimes act in offensive and hurtful ways. As the true Church of Christ, the Vatican and all the faithful will be praying for those who created this poster in the hope that they come to know the true redemptive power of Christ – a power which casts out sin and enables men and women to act in the ways God intended.”

That is, after all, what we believe isn’t it? So let’s use such events to preach the Gospel. God knows, the world needs to hear it.

A gallon of gasoline.

Why did not Benetton publish posters of Mr Benetton blowing himself?

Bennetton? They are soooooo 20th century! They have always been into shock-ads but this takes the garibaldi to another level.

Actually, their clothes are nothing to write home about – they’re mostly worn by the humus and raw carrot-chomping classes, not punks or rebels.

So The Guardian said the Vatican acted with ‘uncharacteristic swiftness’ –  well done and good on you, the Vatican! Keep shifting up the gears and mean business.

What spoil sports. When the Vatican media react with uncharacteristic swiftness it usually shows that Tarcisio Bertone still suffers from advanced foot and mouth disease. It certainly had me rushing to Google to see what the fuss was about. Once again Benetton has grabbed acres of free publicity across the world, even – what a wheeze – in the catholic press! A rueful grin, with the slightest hint of  a shrug would have been a far more adequate response. Weren’t Italians having a hard enough time already without  trying to deprive them of something to laugh about?

Bennetton violates the most basic of intellectual property rights of others, while lining their pockets, all the while cloaking it in a message of “love.” Those who were violated are in a designed catch 22.

Sinister.

I’m with you! Yuck!

Benetton sells clothes produced in sweatshops for vast profits to gullible customers:

“Sweatshops are prevalent throughout the world and big companies readily utilize their rock-bottom prices and catering attitudes. The apparel industry is one sector of popular commerce that uses and abuses sweatshops, but they are not alone; sporting goods, electronics, shoes, sneakers, coffee, and toys are among the industries that are guilty of turning their heads to obscene working environments and slave wages. The conditions of sweatshops and the effects they have on the workers were introduced in last month’s issue, and J. Crew, Ann Taylor, Eddie Bauer and Abercrombie & Fitch were among the exposed companies using sweatshop labor. Now we will take a deeper look into some of the most popular brands in the clothing and shoe business: Nike, The Gap, Benetton and Wal-Mart.Once dubbed as the “McDonalds of the clothing industry”, Benetton has over 7000 shops and a total turnover of $2 billion. Benetton has been largely criticized for its publicity advertisements that over-simplify social issues in an attempt to portray itself as “socially committed”, but meanwhile, the company utilizes sweatshop labor in the manufacturing of their products.
Benetton’s unresponsible labor practices have been publicly announced and documented. Although its foreign suppliers locations and numbers are unknown (and will not be revealed), information has surfaced that shows Benettons true colors, which are far from “united”. Female workers at Riese Maglieria in Sicily (one of the poorest areas in Italy) were told to schedule their marriages and pregnancies in shifts as to not disrupt production. The Bermuda factory in Istanbul has been exposed heavily in the media, showing eleven and thirteen year old kids at work. (Meanwhile, Benetton has run ads portraying child labor and designates a portion of their website to child labor issues!) Corriere della Sera (a leading Italian newspaper) published an interview with one of the children who told reporters of exploitation and physical abuse. A female worker at one of Benetton’s suppliers in Romania was interviewed by researchers. She reported that she had to work an average of 240-260 hours each month to reach her quota and receive her basic wages, which are far from adequate.” http://www.theearthcenter.com/templates/firefly/archives/ffarchivessweatshops1.html

The Catholic Church whilst it has had evil wrong-doers within it, is also amongst the largest providers of aid, education and healthcare in the world. Therefore I find your characterisation deeply crass.

Where?

So glad to bring out the best in you.