This editorial cartoon ran in the Boston Globe on March 1st.
The backlash was swift and nasty. What the hey?! It's a joke, son? But no, tons of folks complained that they were 'offended' that the reputations of many a good and kind nun had been besmirched:
- Scores of readers quickly phoned or e-mailed their dismay and their disgust. They were as hurt as they were angry, and a couple were in tears. They spoke personally about nuns who dedicated their lives to teaching in poor neighborhoods for little pay. Such women didn't deserve to be cast as evil, they said, and the Globe must apologize. Some canceled the paper.
Let me repeat: it's a joke, son.
And for the record, I attended Catholic school, grades 1 through 3. I switched to public school for grade 4 because I was afraid of Sister Dulceline (eeek, that name makes me shiver). Also, my dad graduated from the very same school and he has many memories of bein' whacked with a ruler. He also said that he probably deserved it.
(First posted on Mark Is Cranky)
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - JR
Scores of readers quickly phoned or e-mailed their dismay and their disgust. They were as hurt as they were angry, and a couple were in tears.
Anybody that sensitive should probably avoid newspapers altogether.
2 - v.g.
Let me repeat: you are an idiot, son.
3 - Mark Saleski
gee, i always wondered what my problem was.
thanks!!
4 - NC
Yeah, it's a joke, but a lot of people are fed up with Catholic-bashing and aren't in the mood for jokes right now. Frankly, I wonder if one of the reasons the movie is doing so well is because Catholics (and other Christians, especially evangelicals) are grateful to see their religion shown some respect by the popular culture for once.
5 - Eric Olsen
NC, As with, for example, Islam, is it not possible and even reasonable to criticize aspects of an entity - in the Catholic case the workings of the hierarchy, the structure of the organization - without it being considered "blank-bashing"? The war on terror isn't against Islam, it's against radical fundamentalist interpretations of Islam, the concerns about the Catholic Church aren't about members or about their beliefs, but about the hierarchical structure that has led problems not worth rehashing at this point.
Since I caused such offense with an offhand remark about the pedophile priest scandal and Catholic doctrine, I will apologize for that and retract it. I hope that helps.
6 - NC
Yes, certainly it's possible to criticize without lapsing into Catholic-bashing. Every bit of criticism the Church has sustained on account of the pedophilia scandal is richly deserved. And to the extent that the structure and hierarchy of the Church has played a role in the abuse continuing, it's also fair game.
Where I think legit criticism crosses over into Catholic-bashing is when participants in a debate involving the Church seize the opportunity to introduce other criticisms that aren't germane to the discussion. That's the point I was getting at in my comments in the "Trap for the Unwary" thread. For Mac to criticize Mel Gibson's regressive brand of Catholicism (which is legitimate) and then suddenly turn on a dime and start complaining about Church "priorities" and the pedophilia scandal smacks of someone grasping for ammunition. The issue being debated is no longer the central focus at that point; the focus has become knocking the Church by any and all available means. To take your analogy about Islam, which I think is apt, imagine a debate about the meaning of a passage in the Koran. The debate goes back and forth for awhile until suddenly, and for no apparent reason, one of the participants brings up 9/11. A non sequitur like that would make me think the person who uttered it cares less about the meaning of the Koran, i.e., the issue ostensibly being debated, than the fact that he simply doesn't like/trust Muslims. The debate is merely a pretext for him to advance his anti-Islam agenda. At that point it's not criticism anymore. It's Muslim-bashing.
Another thing that bothers me, although I'm reluctant to label it "Catholic-bashing," is the fact that so many non-Catholics seem to have an opinion about the Church's hierarchy and structure and think nothing about airing that opinion whenever they feel like it. (Let me stress that I'm not trying to single you out here. This is a widespread problem.) As I said up above, insofar as that hierarchy is actually doing harm to innocent children/people, it's perfectly fair game for criticism. The thing is, though, I remember hearing it a lot even before the pedophilia scandal. People are perfectly entitled to their opinions, of course, but the thing is, despite the fact that Catholics disagree with the lack of hierarchy and structure in other Christian churches, I rarely hear any of us criticizing Protestants on that ground. Frankly, I rarely hear Catholics criticizing Protestants for anything. I dare say the attitude of most Catholics toward Protestantism is live and let live so that if having less structure is what floats your boat, so be it. Why isn't that a two-way street? When it comes to Church doctrine/structure/practice that doesn't seem to be hurting anyone and which Catholics themselves evidently seem to prefer, why can't people simply mind their own fucking business?
7 - Corinna Hasofferett
1.
Please enlighten me, not everybody - only the real sombre and serious:
How can it be that relating visually to some nun's educational method for teaching obedience is unacceptable while relating visually to some people's educational method of teaching the same is regarded as non-serious?
2.
How can it be that showing just 12 hours of one Jew's suffering brings so many people to tears and re-evalution of values, while the suffering of quite a few Jews for a bit more than 12 hours is not bringing about such serious catharsis?
8 - Shark
Corinna: "How can it be that showing just 12 hours of one Jew's suffering brings so many people to tears and re-evalution of values, while the suffering of quite a few Jews for a bit more than 12 hours is not bringing about such serious catharsis?"
PICK ONE:
1) Americans prefer tragedies that that are "fictionalized" and occur on the screen, be it large or small. Reality is only allowed to intrude if it comes between commercials --- and the protagonist must look like "us."
2) The average American attention span is equivalent to that of a chihuahua on cocaine. We just don't have the... wait, what was the question...?
3) We can deal with 'one Jews' special effects suffering by flipping a switch in the mind. Dealing with 'quite a few Jews' actual suffering might require us to think or take some action. (Besides, "Action" is only a term used by Hollywood directors.)
============
Maybe someone should film Shindler's List, Shoah, or Au Revoir Les Enfants?
9 - Corinna Hasofferett
I knew that only sombre people will respond to serious questions...
I haven't seen any of the three films you mention, nor much of others. Non-fictionalized Reality is bad enough and did suffice.
What is at the broken heart of the issue is that Christianity throughout ages has chosen to appropriate one Jew
at the expense of his people - The Other. It says and has said always: It hurts us that Jesus (Joseph) suffered while he is our prophet/God's son. This is not a truthful perception. He suffered because he was different, the Other. Will Christianity/Religions ever internalize such a revelation?