Ford Motor Co. has decided to pull a Super Bowl ad that depicted a clergyman, a young girl, and a moment of lust.
In the church parking lot, he finds the new Lincoln truck and begins caressing the vehicle but stops when a parishioner arrives with his young daughter and explains that the child dropped the keys into the plate by mistake. After collecting himself, the clergyman posts his next sermon’s theme—“Lust”—on the church’s outdoor sign.
Some people just couldn’t see what was so funny about this. I meanauthor_email>
“Lust” doesn’t refer to this sin by the way, it is envy.
Remember, the only acceptable prejudice among elites is anti-Catholicism.
]]>
It is just too soon to be airing funny commercials that hint at priest abuse. Priests as the butt of a joke, okay. But a wink and a nod at celibacy (“Oh, those sexually repressed priests!”) and the inability to control one’s urges is just a little too close to home. Notice that it wasn’t priests or the Church complaining to Ford about this ad, but victims of abuse. I think that says something.
After all, would it be okay to air a funny ad about Muslim terrorists flying planes into high rises? You’re darned right it wouldn’t. It’s just too soon. Maybe after some time has passed, but not now.
Hey, a funny ad about Pearl Harbor would probably go unremarked.
Here’s a f’rinstance: This is not a real ad for a Volkswagen, but if it were, would you think it would be appropriate to air on TV? Sure, it’s kind of funny in a sick way, but on TV? No way.
(For those of you who are broadband-impaired, it’s a mock VW commercial showing a suicide bomber trying to use a Volkswagen to commit suicide and kill others, but the car “prevents” him.)
I think I’ll also post this on the main page to see what others think.
]]>
All due respect and all that but I watched the banned commercial and it had NOTHING to do with “priest abuse,” and NOTHING to do with “celibacy.”
It had to do with a minister wanting—okay, lusting after—a bleepin’ FORD, for heaven’s sake!
What really bothers me is your repeated comments about it being “too soon” to air commercials regarding priest abuse.
It will NEVER be “soon enough” to do so. Nor will there be a “soon enough” time to air an ad making light of a 9/11 attack.
And there will never be a “funny” Pearl Harbor attack ad (although there was once a funny book title in the ad biz called “From Those Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Pearl Harbor”).
But this ad has nothing to do with “priestly abuse” or “celibacy” and anybody who watches it can see that clearly.
Come on. At first you thought the ad had to do with a priest “lusting” after a little girl. Now that the ad has been seen, that notion—along with the “SNAP” objection, is obviously a mistaken one. The cleric never even notices the little girl.
The gimmick is, the little girl puts the car keys in the collection plate without her dad’s noticing it. The cleric obviously thinks that somebody is giving him a Ford. He is mistaken. He is sad. He deals with his “tragedy” by changing the sermon title for the, presumably, following Sunday.
End of story, end of ad. End of imagined persecution.
(Continuation of SNAP’s blackmail for those who are willing to fall for it.)
And what the fake VW ad has to do with this discussion is beyond me.
]]>
The fake VW ad, if it were real, would also elicit the same kinds of reactions. I wonder if people would think it okay to air it if it were real.
It had to do with a minister wantingail>
Canisius made a collosal error by allowing her to speak there. Many of her positions are an anathema to Catholicism. The only bigger weasels in this scenario are the bishop who tap danced his way through the affair, and the administration of Canisius that was in the chorus line behind the bishop.
]]>
I don available here. Beware—that site isn’t exactly “Catholic”.
“We wonesent a particular strain of Catholicism or even Republican: conservative on certain things, but definitely liberal on social or moral issues.
]]>
4876
2005-02-02 12:48:31
2005-02-02 16:48:31
open
open
katz_on_sullivan
publish
0
0
post
I think I have made it clear that I am not one of those people sitting in my recliner just waiting to be outraged by someone. I have a sense of humor, a dark one even, and will gladly laugh at what others find offensive sometimes. But there is a difference between what might be darkly funny between friends and what should be shown on network television. It’s a question of appropriateness.
It is just too soon to be airing funny commercials that hint at priest abuse. Priests as the butt of a joke, okay. But a wink and a nod at celibacy (“Oh, those sexually repressed priests!”) and the inability to control one’s urges is just a little too close to home. Notice that it wasn’t priests or the Church complaining to Ford about this ad, but victims of abuse. I think that says something.
After all, would it be okay to air a funny ad about Muslim terrorists flying planes into high rises? You’re darned right it wouldn’t. It’s just too soon. Maybe after some time has passed, but not now.
Hey, a funny ad about Pearl Harbor would probably go unremarked.
Here’s a f’rinstance: This is not a real ad for a Volkswagen, but if it were, would you think it would be appropriate to air on TV? Sure, it’s kind of funny in a sick way, but on TV? No way.
(For those of you who are broadband-impaired, it’s a mock VW commercial showing a suicide bomber trying to use a Volkswagen to commit suicide and kill others, but the car “prevents” him.)
I think I’ll also post this on the main page to see what others think.
Dom,
All due respect and all that but I watched the banned commercial and it had NOTHING to do with “priest abuse,” and NOTHING to do with “celibacy.”
It had to do with a minister wanting—okay, lusting after—a bleepin’ FORD, for heaven’s sake!
What really bothers me is your repeated comments about it being “too soon” to air commercials regarding priest abuse.
It will NEVER be “soon enough” to do so. Nor will there be a “soon enough” time to air an ad making light of a 9/11 attack.
And there will never be a “funny” Pearl Harbor attack ad (although there was once a funny book title in the ad biz called “From Those Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Pearl Harbor”).
But this ad has nothing to do with “priestly abuse” or “celibacy” and anybody who watches it can see that clearly.
Come on. At first you thought the ad had to do with a priest “lusting” after a little girl. Now that the ad has been seen, that notion—along with the “SNAP” objection, is obviously a mistaken one. The cleric never even notices the little girl.
The gimmick is, the little girl puts the car keys in the collection plate without her dad’s noticing it. The cleric obviously thinks that somebody is giving him a Ford. He is mistaken. He is sad. He deals with his “tragedy” by changing the sermon title for the, presumably, following Sunday.
End of story, end of ad. End of imagined persecution.
(Continuation of SNAP’s blackmail for those who are willing to fall for it.)
And what the fake VW ad has to do with this discussion is beyond me.
I never said it had anything to do with the priest lusting after the little girl. Re-read my words. “… The juxtaposition of clergyman and lust with a little girl in the scene is in bad taste.” The presence of the two things together in the same space.
The fake VW ad, if it were real, would also elicit the same kinds of reactions. I wonder if people would think it okay to air it if it were real.
It had to do with a minister wantingail>
24.13.50.242
2005-02-02 18:21:29
2005-02-02 22:21:29
Of all the public figures in the United States, Hillary is one of the very most visible. Her positions are well-known, although her ability to weasel around them seems not as evident to the public. She is a consummate politician in many respects and manipulates institutions.
Canisius made a collosal error by allowing her to speak there. Many of her positions are an anathema to Catholicism. The only bigger weasels in this scenario are the bishop who tap danced his way through the affair, and the administration of Canisius that was in the chorus line behind the bishop.