I’m loathe to say this after the last time, but I’m pretty much more than certain we’ll all agree on this…
The esteemed editor of our national newspaper recently wrote a very well-balanced editorial calling for a boycott of Hell Pizza following the recent condom-in-the-mailbox stunt, and our not-so-esteemd national newspaper picked it up online and ran with it.
I have read a small selection of the comments posted in response to the boycott call. Only a small selection because my blood pressure and work commitments won’t allow me to trawl through the endless garbage comments.
Point number one: Hell makes pretty, relatively, damn fine pizza (pun intended). It’s not gourmet but it sure is tasty! While I’m not overly comfortable with the concept behind the chain, I’ve never had a real issue eating it.
Point number two: What Hell did with the recent promotion for the Lust pizza was a step too far. Catholic or not, Christian or not, it’s not ok to expose children to condoms without their parents’ knowledge or consent. Hell doesn’t have the right to make that decision.
Point number three: People love to bash the Catholic Church! Not sure where the logic is in comments along the lines of: “The Catholic Church encourages sodomy of young boys, perhaps it should clean up its act before it attacks harmless things like condoms” but unfortunately that point-of-view isn’t entirely uncommon.
My view: We have a responsibility to stand up against stupid acts that seek to undermine the importance and integrity of family, like the recent promotion. We also have a responsibility to stand up for our Church, and ensure Kiwis see it for what it is.
Saying condoms don’t work leaves us open to be dismissed and/or ridiculed. Saying putting condoms in letterboxes exposes them to heat, thus rendering them useless, is smart.
Given the current climate, when so many are just hankering to pounce on the Church for anything it says or does, wouldn’t it be in our best interests to keep our heads on and make sure our messages are clear and intelligent?
The now-dubbed (by me, so not sure if that counts) Boycott Editorial is a perfect example of exactly this. It lays out an argument, without taking it too far. It represents our Church in a reasonable, loving but firm light.
And yes, for now, I have stopped eating Hell Pizza. Damn them.
Well, our local Catholic secondary school buys in Hell Pizza’s at their evening activities so, no, all Catholics don’t agree about boycotting Hell Pizza.
If this campaign is to work, Catholics will need to put their money where their mouths are — something we’re not particularly good at as those posts about priests abusing children make quite clear.
I’m pretty sure most Catholics will carry on buying Hell Pizza and probably haven’t even heard about this boycott or give a stuff about it.
At the end of the day, sadly there are not that many prepared to go out of their way to make a moral point.
I watched the Bloody Mary episode and I didn’t find it offensive. I thought it actually portrayed Mary in a very good way and showed the way she actually acts in the world, bringing love to and healing humanity. I think the reaction against Bloody Mary was a somewhat hysterical overreaction by people who never saw the episode or understood what it was really saying. One has to grasp the genre of satire, just as one has to understand the genres of scripture, and look behind the surface humour (often gutter humour in South Park) and get to the hidden meaning.
Mary is pretty much always a hidden meaning.
Merry Christmas
Most of the responses I read just attack the Church even though the Church was not the one calling for a boycott. The only constructive responses I read seemed to be in support of the boycott. I think that just goes to prove your point that some people love to bash the Church.
Captain,
Nice post. As you explain, and Chris seconds, there is a real need to “stand up for our Church”, but many don’t see that as important. They leave it to others.
I used to be one of those people, but I’m glad I’m no longer that way. I live about 250m from a Hell outlet and did purchase from there previously. Like you, I have boycotted them indefinitely. The campaign was offensive and the response to being found in breach of advertising standards (twice in a month) has been unrepentant. On radio this week, a Hell spokesman didn’t even recognise what the company had done was wrong.
Will the boycott make a difference? Only if Catholics, and other people who recognise the erosion of family values that is taking place, make a point of it.
Keeping in mind that NZ Catholic is, as segfault rightly points out, not THE Church, Catholics reading this might ponder the following question:
What gifts do we receive from the Church? How does that compare with the gifts we give the Church?
Putting our money where our mouth is might be a small gift we can offer this Christmas — and beyond.
Chris,
I disagree with you on this. I have heard more about this boycott in the past few days than I ever thought I would. Moreover, I would say the majority of my Catholic friends are now boycotting Hell pizza as a matter of principle.
This is a first. I don’t know of many who actually boycotted CamWest during the previous sagas, but they are boycotting Hell.
That’s fine and good for you (although I must say I’m surprised, as you must have a higher tolerance for offense than most). However…
Again, I disagree. I think the reaction to the Bloody Mary episode was similar to the reaction to the Popetown rubbish – people were offended and were expressing their distaste at the programmes. How is that hysterical or overreacting?
It’s like the “Virgin in the condom” piece a few years ago. You can sit back and say “well, it’s art” and “people need to just get over it” and “I can’t see why anyone would be offended.” But if someone were to hold that view, I don’t think they’re truly being honest with themselves. You can state “I wasn’t offended” but you can’t honestly say you’re surprised that others were offended…surely?
James,
Actually, I was surprised that I didn’t find Bloody Mary offensive.
I expected to be offended and I’d written a letter opposing the show and had rung up TV4 to express my concerns (after 15 minutes I managed to persuade the rather bored receptionist that there were real concerns about Bloody Mary).
I seldom watch TV but that evening, by some act of providence, I had the opportunity to watch it so I did.
I wasn’t surprised by the gutter humour of South Park (and I’m not surprised when people react against gutter humour) but I was surprised that the programme was actually very respectful of Mary, showing her role of bringing beauty, love, and healing to the the world. It showed the news media in their usual role distorting the events. I thought it was disrespectful to the Pope, who’s comment about menstruation was ridiculous and offensive in the circumstances.
The programme doesn’t show Mary menstruating but bleeding from the back. In the programme, it’s the Pope’s speculation that the statue menstruated.
I’d be interested to know how many of those offended by Bloody Mary actually watched it.
On the other hand, people have actually seen the Hell advertising and can react on what they’ve seen for themselves, rather than what someone has told them about it.
I think there’s a big difference.
I rather think Mary is more concerned at the real social impact of Hell’s advertising than the alleged offense given by South Park.
In that sense, I agree with you, the damage of Hell’s advertising is a real damage to the Common Good, that of South Park is only imaginary.
One of the problems with the South Park thing is that there’s a whole youth culture around South Park, many of the participants in which do see the deeper stairical meaning of the programme. If we rubiish the surface image and don’t see the deeper meaning then we’re really failing to engage and evangelise the culture. We ought to have engaged positively with Bloody Mary, as St Paul did with the idols in Athens, rather than boycott it. Then we could have said something spiritually usefull to the South Park youth culture. Instead, our offense just turned them off the Church.
God Bless
Chris,
I did watch Bloody Mary, and I found it absolutely disgusting and totally blasphemous to Our Lady and our faith.
The programme mocked Mary, it mocked belief in a higher power and it made the absolutely false and dangerous assertion that alcoholics who choose to abstain alcohol are actually weak – because true discipline is about being able to drink without getting smashed.
This is complete bollocks. I have friends who have struggled with addiction, and saying that it is weak to avoid the substance you are addicted to is complete shite.
It was clear that the statue was squirting blood from the genital region (complete with foul sound-effects, and into the faces of the Pope and priests, etc).
Chris, it saddens me that a Catholic wouldn’t find such an obscene and disgraceful depiction offensive.
Even local Muslims joined Catholics to pray outside CanWest on the night of the broadcast.
Oh, and you don’t need to watch something to know that it is offensive, you just have to be certain about what the content actually is – I abhor child pornography, yet I have never, ever seen any, and I don’t need too to be offended.
Captain, great post – I agree; to win a war you need to first know how to fight a war.