(snip) You'd think there would be other more pressing matters than an ad campaign to occupy the attention of the Leader (?) of the Free (?) World, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ but apparently not. I think it's nice and sends a very Christ-like message and the White House and the Vatican should reflect on their priorities. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/17/white-house-slams-benettons-obama-kissing-ads/
I can understand why you'd think that about Barack Obama, but when you examine the teachings of the Catholic church, you should understand how that would offend the pope and the Catholic faithful. It's not intended to be "Christ-like." It's intended to be controversial and offensive and it achieves its goal of shocking people.
I'm afraid we're going to disagree on this one. To my mind your position smacks too much of the Islamic insistence that Isalm and the Prophet be out of bounds when it comes to humor, satire, simply making a point, or basically anything they feel is offensive. Historically I think popes have suffered far worse in the media of whatever age you'd like to chose and have survived with their dignity or at least their power intact. Basically I think that the Pope and Catholics should be bigger than that. I can't say for sure, obviously, but I doubt that God cares. Perhaps if the Pope were to play less of a political role in the world and more of a spiritual one he wouldn't be in this company. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.
It's very easy to dismiss something with an "I doubt God cares." How do you know what God cares about? Catholics have been taught for generations--whether you agree with it or not--that homosexuality is a sin against nature and a sin against God. No man who is or has been in a serious relationship with another man is allowed to be ordained as a priest--or even to enter the seminary to receive religious education. Whether you agree with it or not, men and women engaged in an intimate same-sex relationship are not allowed to receive any of the sacraments of the Catholic church. It is literally impossible to say that, armed with this knowledge, that this ad is not intended to offend both His Holiness and all of the Catholic faithful. Why is it all right to express outrage when PeTA compares broilers being killed to the Jews that died in the Holocaust and not permissible to express outrage at something that shows the leader of an international church engaging in a practice that has been forbidden by the tenets of that church for two millenia? How is that *not* intended to be offensive to the church and to its faithful?
Oh. I get it. Sorry. Seriously. I mean it might take a leap of faith on your part but I wasn't really making the gay connection, at least not to the degree that you and presumably some RCs are. And you know what. I'm not sure that Benetton was either. Although when it comes to the Pope, Italians seem as cynical and irreverent as anyone and more so than most. Familiarity and all that. I see the ad campaign including the Pope as just another politician, which in a number of respects he is. And he's certainly not the only politician driven by faith. It's sad in a way that the Papacy is seen in this way, but it seems to me that their temporal ambitions have over the course of history equalled or exceeded their spiritual ones and I don't think it's much different now. You play the game you take the knocks, whether intentional or not.
No, I take at face value what you wrote. But I honestly feel that the "gay connection" is the only reason that Catholics would become upset. Otherwise, what is there for them to be upset about (remember, I'm not Catholic). I agree that the papacy is almost as much a political venue as it is a religious one and that the pope must expect to be treated the same as--or nearly the same as--any other politician. However, unlike most politicians, the pope must consider the church first, then the country, then the faithful (and I'm not entirely certain that the last two aren't reversed). I don't believe for a second that Benetton did not make the connection, though, even if I believe 100% that you did not. Companies like that have a legal department that goes over any advertising campaign--certainly someone caught it.
If you are a public figure and don't want a picture of yourself kissing someone to be seen, you might not want to put your lips on that person in the first place. I saw a small bit of a show a while back that focused on world leaders and body language, etc as an expression of dominance. Bush walking with Tony Blair was analyzed and, (I think it was) Arafat and an Israeli leader in a door opening incident and who would go through first that actually got very uncomfortable. I wonder if anything can be gleaned about dominance by analyzing which leader cocks their head for a kiss.
I can see both sides being angry at Benetton. For the White House, the President's likeness is not to be used for commercial purposes. So I'd suggest they sue the *poof* out of them if they can. Same with the Pope. Sue 'em. Then again, I'm against making lawyers happy.
