Ship of Fools: Mary the back door?

Thread: Mary the back door? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027786

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I didn't hear the beginning of the Archbishop of Westminster's 'thought for the day' this morning on Radio 2, but what I heard has disturbed me.

After a list of titles given to Mary - Star of the Sea, etc, - the aforementioned Archbishop Nichol told a 'whimsical' story about St Peter and Jesus walking through Heaven whereupon they came across a group of 'lowlifes'. Jesus remarked 'How did they get in here!?' To which Peter, the keeper of the gate, said 'They sneaked in by the back door.'
Jesus then asked, 'who is on duty on the back door??'

'Your mother', replied Peter.

Now this is just a silly story but the Archbishop thanked God, before millions of R2 listeners that this was true: Mary is indeed the back door into Heaven and that all those whom Jesus would have excluded have been 'smuggled-in' by his Mother, who evidently has more grace.

Please, please tell me the Archbishop was wrong!

Or else pass me a pen and I'll go through the bible and scribble out verses about Jesus being the only way to the Father and Jesus being the only name given under heaven by which we can be saved.

Actually, I'm really offended that this man would suggest that the grace of Jesus is somewhow deficient!!

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I'm not going to try and defend statements I've not heard. But, maybe there's a serious point somewhere we can all agree on.

Peter, and the other disciples, are recorded in the Gospels as trying to exclude people from Jesus. And, Jesus calls the people they would exclude anyway. In many ways we're no better than the first disciples, trying to make judgements about who can come to Jesus. We're guarding the gates of Heaven and turning people away. For an awful lot of people when asked why they don't believe their first answer would be something about the Church - their probably mistaken, but we are keeping them from the gates of Heaven.

I would probably agree with the reported statement by the Archbishop that there's a "back door to Heaven" by which the riff-raff the church excludes sneak in. Where I disagree is with who is guiding people to that gate. I would say that it's Christ Himself who guides people in to heaven, despite the actions of the church.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Yes indeed; I too am all for the back door.

If grace is the front door, then mercy is the back door.

But it's all of Christ and never done without his knowledge or against his will.

And actually, it's better to come through grace than presume on mercy.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Yes, I have to say that the only problem I have with the anecdote as related is the part where Jesus is the one getting upset about it. Reverse the roles played by Peter and Jesus and I'd find it completely unproblematic.

(To the extent that I'm wondering if you may have misheard which character was saying which line?)

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

No, it was definitely Jesus who questioned the presence of the lowlifes and Peter who said 'your mother' to the question, 'who let the in'?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Mudfrog: If grace is the front door, then mercy is the back door.

What exactly is the difference between grace and mercy?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Pause For Thought with Vincent Nichols, and he definitely has the joke as reported - it's Jesus who's offended by the people his mum has let in.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

yes - it's also anither take on the king/queen archetypes from Tarot, which crop up time and time again in spiritual matters. The king sits in judgement with clarity/discernment/discrimination and will chop off someone's head if that is the correct judgement. The queen loves and embraces everyone and wishes them all to return back to the family. Clarity/Love.

Interestingly, if you know anything about Chinese medicine and the meridien/5 element system, it's the heart and small intestine (both of which are fire organs).

I think Jesus transcended these archetypes and is both king and queen. So I would guess it was Peter getting uptight.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Pause For Thought with Vincent Nichols, and he definitely has the joke as reported - it's Jesus who's offended by the people his mum has let in.

Well then, that's just freakin' wrong.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Mudfrog: If grace is the front door, then mercy is the back door.
What exactly is the difference between grace and mercy?

Grace is where you are treated as you not deserve.

Mercy is where you are are not treated as you do deserve.

i.e. grace is the gift of eternal life to the non-deserving sinner

mercy is the witholding of judgment from the sinner who deserves condemnation.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Mudfrog: Grace is where you are treated as you not deserve.

Mercy is where you are are not treated as you do deserve.

i.e. grace is the gift of eternal life to the non-deserving sinner

mercy is the witholding of judgment from the sinner who deserves condemnation.

They still look the same to me.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

positive and negative of the same experience, I guess.

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :

Mercy and Grace: both sides of the same (glorious) coin.
I'm very glad I don't listen to R2 I would have been throwing things (anathema’s for a start [Mad]

) at the wireless.
Is there anything positive that can be said about this anecdote? ISTM right up (down more likely) there with modalistic baptismal formulae etc

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would say that it's Christ Himself who guides people in to heaven, despite the actions of the church.

And it's the church that gets in by the back door - Jesus said the publicans and harlots got in before the religious people.

I've heard the joke before but it was Jesus letting people in via the back door, not Our Lady.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

I liked the bit when he said "we can turn to her in any mess we create". I wonder if he had anyone specific in mind? [Two face]

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would say that it's Christ Himself who guides people in to heaven, despite the actions of the church.
And it's the church that gets in by the back door - Jesus said the publicans and harlots got in before the religious people.

I've heard the joke before but it was Jesus letting people in via the back door, not Our Lady.

Who was the other person in that version of the joke?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

There are a variety of jokes with Peter and Jesus walking in heaven, and Peter declaring "how did that lot get in? I turned them away this morning". Jesus responds in someway to the effect of "I let them in".

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Another version I heard was a newly-admitted man being given a guided tour and upon encountering a high wall asked, 'Who's behind that wall?' to be told 'Oh that's the Catholics, they think they're the only ones here.'

[Big Grin]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Also works with Baptists, Presbyterians and basically anyone else.

More radical, "Who's behind that wall", "Oh, it's Fred Phelps ... we don't want everyone to know he got in despite everything".

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are a variety of jokes with Peter and Jesus walking in heaven, and Peter declaring "how did that lot get in? I turned them away this morning". Jesus responds in someway to the effect of "I let them in".

Not very good management to give an employee a role, give him the tools, the training, the authority and the procedure, to then go behind his back and do the job a different way. Talk about disrespecting and undermining the employee.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Next thin you know He'll be paying the folks He employed an hour ago the same as those who've been working all day.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Next thin you know He'll be paying the folks He employed an hour ago the same as those who've been working all day.

touche

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

...but at least he told us back then what he's going to do.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Also works with Baptists, Presbyterians and basically anyone else.

More radical, "Who's behind that wall", "Oh, it's Fred Phelps ... we don't want everyone to know he got in despite everything".

I tend to the view that eternity is much the same whether you saved or damned. It's the company that makes it Heavenly or Hellish.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Also works with Baptists, Presbyterians and basically anyone else.

More radical, "Who's behind that wall", "Oh, it's Fred Phelps ... we don't want everyone to know he got in despite everything".
I tend to the view that eternity is much the same whether you saved or damned. It's the company that makes it Heavenly or Hellish.

Well yes indeed - 'Now the dwelling of God is with men' is Heaven. To be with Jesus and see him as he is - that's the place to be.

Hell is where God is not.

quote:
Where God is not! O aweful thought,
A realm deserted, cast aside,
With sin to full fruition brought
and evil crowned and deified.
Where dread remorse and vain desire
burn like an unconsuming fire.

[ 30. September 2014, 12:16: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Mudfrog: Hell is where God is not.

He's everywhere.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Mudfrog: Hell is where God is not.
He's everywhere.

He's everywhere else.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Mudfrog: Hell is where God is not.
He's everywhere.
He's everywhere else.

If the Glory can depart the Temple, he can surely depart from the lives of men.

It's what Jesus experienced on the cross.
Hell is the unredeemed's eternal cry of dereliction.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Mudfrog: It's what Jesus experienced on the cross.

And that's why God will never abandon anyone again. He knows what it's like.

[ 30. September 2014, 12:53: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

All of which just brings us back to the problem of Hell -- how people can be eternally alive in a place and state "where God is not," and what kind of God would keep them that way. But that's a bit off topic for the OP (in which, I agree, the anecdote is ridiculous -- as is anything that suggests anyone is better at showing us grace and mercy than Jesus is).

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Pause For Thought with Vincent Nichols, and he definitely has the joke as reported - it's Jesus who's offended by the people his mum has let in.

Notably, in the joke as it was actually told on the radio there is not indication that Jesus is angry about the "unsavoury characters" having been let in.

RCs consider Mary to be the Queen of Heaven, a role patterned after Jewish kings, for whom their mother, not one of their many wives, was the queen (Jeremiah 13:18, 1 Kings 2:19). One key role of this queen-mother is to bring intercessions to the king from those who fear being rejected, compare 1 Kings 2:20 and the Wedding Feast of Cana. The actual power, the decision and its execution remain in the hands of the king though. The mother of the king is simply expected to have his ear, that is her power.

In consequence, Mary has always been considered as the foremost saint to pray to for intercession. The Protestant reluctance about anything but a direct line to Jesus is alien to Catholic thought. We do not see this role of Mary as taking away from Christ's grace and mercy, as if they were in competition with each other about the souls that seek help. Rather, we see Mary as an instrument of Christ's mercy and grace. God has always worked through people, but in the Incarnation this does not get abandoned but highlighted. Christ did not just touch down on earth as an isolated human being. He entered the whole framework of human relationships. It is of course not fundamentally necessary for God to listen to His mother for pointers on whom to forgive. God has no need for her. God has no need for any of us, or indeed for anything. But God has chosen to create, He has made human beings, and He has become one of us. And He remains one of us. So he remains in the network of family and friendship that every human has (or should have...). Yes, God has a mum and like every good Son He will listen to what she has to say - but it is so by His own power and His own choice, and the decision and reign remain His.

It is perhaps important to note that the same considerations that apply to direct intercessory prayer apply to praying to Mary for intercession. Does God need you telling Him about your needs and wishes? Not in the sense that would not know of this otherwise. But that is not to say that intercessory prayer is useless. God appreciates precisely the human act of actively seeking help. The asking itself is what is important, not the information flow (of which God has no need). Likewise, Mary as an intercessory is not expected to tell God anything that He doesn't know, or to make up His mind for Him. The information flow is not needed in an absolute sense. Rather, it is our act of seeking her out to gain His grace that God values.

All this said, the question will still be "why not talk to Christ directly?" Well, I believe that there is psychological wisdom in the Catholic (in my opinion, God-given) approach of keeping all the typical human communication channels to the Incarnate God open, including those through His friends and family, and not reduce everything to a direct one-on-one. In particular, I believe that the hippiefication of Christ, the rise of the painfully kitsch softie that we see in many pictures and hear about in many sermons, derives to a large extent from rolling the mother figure of Mary into Christ, instead of considering her as an instrumental means of realising the "feminine" aspect of God through the Incarnation and the human relationships that brought about.

So, for Protestants my point is roughly this: look at Christ in the bible, how the Prophet, Priest and King is actually displayed there. Then look at what people make of Him in their prayers, due to their psychological needs that will come to the fore when they feel vulnerable. And then ask yourself whether it is not preferable if people occasionally can find their way to God through the "detour" Mary, that allows them to shed their psychological difficulties and anxieties - leaving those at the feet of Mary - so that their call to God arrives purified by her agency.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Pause For Thought with Vincent Nichols, and he definitely has the joke as reported - it's Jesus who's offended by the people his mum has let in.
Well then, that's just freakin' wrong.

The only way I could make moral sense of it is to suppose a Jesus who has delegated the role of showing mercy to Mary. He has declared that these "low-lifes" are damned, not so that they should go to Hell, but so that she should have the honour of saving them.

Which is not the Jesus of the Bible, nor of any orthodox Christianity I'm aware of, but I think it does at least allude to some truth about salvation, which is that we human beings can (by God's grace) help each other to salvation, and that in Heaven we will in some way participate in God's goodness. The story fails in that it suggests that Mary's role is to supply a remedy for Jesus's deficiency, rather than that she distributes grace because Jesus is so abundantly gracious that he wants to share that quality with her.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Which is not the Jesus of the Bible, nor of any orthodox Christianity I'm aware of, but I think it does at least allude to some truth about salvation, which is that we human beings can (by God's grace) help each other to salvation, and that in Heaven we will in some way participate in God's goodness. The story fails in that it suggests that Mary's role is to supply a remedy for Jesus's deficiency, rather than that she distributes grace because Jesus is so abundantly gracious that he wants to share that quality with her.

First, it's a freaking joke, OK? It's supposed to be funny (or at least mildly amusing...), not doctrinally pure.

Second, have you listened to the actual joke being told? There is not talk there about people who were pseudo-damned by Christ or anything like that. In fact, if one seriously wanted to orthodoxify this, one could consider the whole thing as an attempt of Jesus to teach St Peter a lesson. (Though of course, St Peter wouldn't have to learn this by the Socratic method, since he would have the beatific vision in heaven. Neither is he actually a selection guard at the pearly gates. Etc. If one starts taking this joke too seriously, it stops making sense long before we get to the punchline.)

The actual message beneath the fun of the joke is roughly this: Yes, there are all these rules and demands on you that come with the highest authority (St Peter guarding the front door to heaven, as a figure of the stern holiness of God and the doctrine and discipline of the official Church). But don't despair if you fail living up to them, you may sneak into heaven anyway (Mary opening the backdoor of heaven, as a figure of the loving mercy of God and the pastoral and healing work of the Church). The joke actually strikes a fairly good balance between delivering a message of hope and encouraging presumption. It does not say that all ways into heaven are equal (front door vs. backdoor) and it does not say that Mary will let everybody in (just more than St Peter). But it does tell you that St Peter's word is not the last word.

It's a good Catholic joke.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
a "back door to Heaven" by which the riff-raff the church excludes sneak in.

Nope it's the front door and they are welcomed in. No one "sneaks" into heaven.

The statement is as offensive in my eyes for "sneak" as it is in its references to Mary.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[QUOTE]It's a good Catholic joke.

Then it looks like the Catholic sense of humour is rather particular and unique ... and not one which is designed to be shared.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Gosh, I'd forgotten how fun annoying Protestants is.

The joke about xyz group thinking they're the only ones in Heaven was always told to me with evangelicals as the group - for Catholics it's just a part of doctrine, but evangelicals actually believe it.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Oh, for goodness sakes.

Are there really posters on this board who genuinely think that the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster seriously believes that our Lady is some kind of celestial people trafficker who smuggles sinners into heaven without God Almighty knowing about it?

[x-post]

[ 30. September 2014, 15:40: Message edited by: Gildas ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Oh, for goodness sakes.

Are there really posters on this board who genuinely think that the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster seriously believes that our Lady is some kind of celestial people trafficker who smuggles sinners into heaven without God Almighty knowing about it?

[x-post]

Well obviously. He's the representative for the Scarlet Woman after all.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[QUOTE]It's a good Catholic joke.
Then it looks like the Catholic sense of humour is rather particular and unique ... and not one which is designed to be shared.

Not designed to be shared with those who practice knee-jerk anti-Catholicism, perhaps. The rest of us were just about able to make sense of it without having it explained.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

What's all this about front doors and backdoors? In my copy of scripture there are twelve doors:

Revelation 21: 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. 11 It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. 13 There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west.

I agree with Mudfrog, Nichol's was spouting a load of dangerously misleading whimsical rubbish, as in cxxx!

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I understand that Thought for the Day is meant to be some sort of uplifting few words given by a person of faith. That 'faith' is not necessarily Christianity,but the person of faith can come from the Jewish,Moslem,Ba'hai,Hindu ,Buddhist or indeed other faiths.
Fair enough if some people cannot find comfort in what a Catholic bishop has to say,but do they object to what the Jewish rabbi says or what the Moslem imam says ? Would they start a thread if a rabbi said something which might strike a chord
more specifically with someone of the Jewish faith ?
Aren't there at least as many Catholics as Jews who listen to Thought for the Day.
Not all of them will however listen,nor will they all have to appreciate what the cardinal said.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Look, even I, who am a fairly proddy sort of prod, can see that this was meant to be amusing - and IMHO succeeded. So an Archbishop can't say anything that might be funny or a bit quizzical? Not, of course, like Rabbi Lionel Blue, or even St Paul, see Gal 5:11-12.

[ 30. September 2014, 18:24: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
First, it's a freaking joke, OK? It's supposed to be funny (or at least mildly amusing...), not doctrinally pure.

Of course I can see that it's a joke. I didn't think, though, that Mudfrog's OP was intended to discuss its merit as a joke but about what the story is purporting to say about Jesus and Mary and salvation.

It seems to me that it says (or, if you prefer, the joke depends on the assumption that...) Mary has a role in salvation, and that she is more gracious and merciful in fulfilling that role than "the rules" would appear to suggest that a legalistic-Jesus might be. I'm fine with that. I don't know exactly how that translates into proper theology, but there's something in that which is both good and true. Mary does show us something about how much good God can do through one person who loves and obeys him. Does she literally pray people into Heaven who might otherwise be lost? I don't know. But I like the picture. "God saves because of Mary" is certainly true in some sense.

It also says (or, perhaps, proposes as an ironic hypothesis) that Mary is more concerned to let people into Heaven than Jesus is. That's just plain false. That doesn't point to anything good and true. And, in my opinion at least, so long as you know that (and I'm perfectly sure the Archbishop does know that) then its quite safe to enjoy the joke.

If we're discussing the image and the story in relation to what we believe is actually true, pointing out where the story diverges from the faith is in order, surely? That's not a criticism of the joke as a joke, or the Archbishop as a teacher of the faith.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It also says (or, perhaps, proposes as an ironic hypothesis) that Mary is more concerned to let people into Heaven than Jesus is.

Except that it doesn't! It does say that the BVM is more concerned than St Peter about letting people into heaven. That is also untrue, presumably, but apparently not something anybody cares about deeply here. But the joke itself, at least as told by the Archbishop, leaves open where Jesus stands with regards to all this. It could be that Jesus' intention is to reprimand St Peter for letting the riffraff in. It could be that Jesus is trying to lead St Peter to some kind of realisation about the necessity for a "backdoor". Or it could be, and is so, that this is just a bloody joke assuming background knowledge, and was never intended to be understood at this level of theological scrutiny.

Here's another good Catholic joke. Let's see what all you terribly concerned people make of that one...

A crowd is about to stone a young woman to death whom they believe to be an adulteress. To diffuse the situation, Jesus says: “Whoever is without sin among you, be the first to throw a stone at her.” At His words, an old lady at the back of the crowd picks up a large rock, throws it hard and scores a perfect hit on the woman, breaking her skull and killing her instantly. Jesus frowns and looks over to the old lady: “You know, Mother, sometimes you really piss me off!”

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A crowd is about to stone a young woman to death whom they believe to be an adulteress. To diffuse the situation, Jesus says: “Whoever is without sin among you, be the first to throw a stone at her.” At His words, an old lady at the back of the crowd picks up a large rock, throws it hard and scores a perfect hit on the woman, breaking her skull and killing her instantly. Jesus frowns and looks over to the old lady: “You know, Mother, sometimes you really piss me off!”

I'm not entirely sure why you've told a joke which basically makes the point of pretty much exactly why the vast majority of Protestants don't believe anyone apart from the Son of God was sinless...

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A crowd is about to stone a young woman to death whom they believe to be an adulteress. To diffuse the situation, Jesus says: “Whoever is without sin among you, be the first to throw a stone at her.” At His words, an old lady at the back of the crowd picks up a large rock, throws it hard and scores a perfect hit on the woman, breaking her skull and killing her instantly. Jesus frowns and looks over to the old lady: “You know, Mother, sometimes you really piss me off!”
I'm not entirely sure why you've told a joke which basically makes the point of pretty much exactly why the vast majority of Protestants don't believe anyone apart from the Son of God was sinless...

Except that it does nothing of the kind. It's just a funny joke playing on the doctrine of the immaculate conception. Whether you believe the doctrine or not it's funny.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
IngoB: But the joke itself, at least as told by the Archbishop, leaves open where Jesus stands with regards to all this.

I don't think the joke is very funny unless Jesus is at least a bit pissed off over the actions of His mother.

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Except that it does nothing of the kind. It's just a funny joke playing on the doctrine of the immaculate conception. Whether you believe the doctrine or not it's funny.

Whether something is funny or not is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder, and I just find such a joke chronically sad and the poor (and in fact, un-Catholic) theology makes me cringe. Jokes like that which contain really bad explanations of the theology of the Immaculate Conception (the views held in that joke, like the views of most of the views of 90% of Catholic pew-sitters differ quite sharply from Catholic teaching on the subject) frequently make Catholic/Protestant relations incredibly strained. If you want to sort out Catholic/Protestant relations, starting by the church having a better programme of catechesis and teaching the Catholic faith properly would be a damn good start, and jokes like both of those in this thread hinder such progress.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It does.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I heard a joke long ago that went like this:

A young Israeli soldier who died in the Six Day War showed up at the pearly gates. St. Peter shook his head and said that since the man didn't believe in Jesus as the Messiah, Peter could not let him into Heaven. The young soul was at loose ends and started wandering along outside the high walls.

"Hey!" He heard a voice come from a window high above him, and a rope snaked down from the window. "Come on- climb up the rope!"

So the soldier climbed up the rope and found himself in a workshop with an old guy grinning in glee.

"Um, what am I supposed to now?"

The old man showed him to the door onto the streets of Heaven. "Walk around- enjoy!enjoy!"

So he did. Unfortunately Murphy's Law seemed to apply in Heaven as well as earth, and he bumped into St. Peter.

Peter did a double-take and said, "Hey, wait a minute. Didn't I turn you away a while ago? How did you get in? Tell the truth!"

And the young man hung his head and explained about the old man in the window. Peter didn't even stop to hear where the young man had gotten in. Peter knew.

He stormed down the street and into the old man's room.

"Joseph, you had your last warning! That was one time too many. Now get packing. You are banished from Heaven."

"Well, alright, if you insist. But the wife and the kid come with me."

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

ISTM that Nichols was telling the joke to support a series of theological propositions he had initially made regarding the status and influence of Mary. It was a joke with a serious illustrative intent. One is, therefore, entitled to theologically deconstruct its contents to explain it. To my non-Roman mind such an exercise demonstrates the vacuity of the Archbishop's suggestions, and I bet most serious Catholic theologians would be similarly embarrassed.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
the poor (and in fact, un-Catholic) theology makes me cringe.

Oh. My. Goodness.
The joke has naught to do with correct theology. It is funny* because punchline is unexpected. It only need loosely fit with any particular narrative. A joke leads you in one direction then the punchline make an abrupt, unexpected turn.
Most jokes do not survive deconstruction, they are not meant to.

The Archbishop might well have simply been making the point that humans get a bit too caught up in judging others.
It could well be like when people say I could care less when they mean they couldn't care less.
Even if the wrong wording is irritating, the point is understood.

*If one finds it so

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Even if the wrong wording is irritating, the point is understood.

That Jesus finds the presence of some people in heaven unexpected, and they're only there because his mum is watching the back door? That is what the wording implies. If that is how people listening to the show (predominantly non-Catholic and so likely to miss Catholic specific humour) heard the story then it is irritating because the point that they would understand is theologically inaccurate - from, I'm sure, a Catholic position as well as a Christian one.

If the archbishop wanted to make a theological point that through Mary people, who may find other routes intimidating or blocked by sanctimonious self-appointed gatekeepers, may approach God then he needed to think more carefully about his joke. All he needed to do was make Peter comment about the people in Heaven who he'd turned away, and have Jesus say He'd asked his mum to watch the backgate to let people in.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Not everyone can tell a joke.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

And, if you can't tell a joke, perhaps you shouldn't try to do so on national radio. I know there's advice to start and/or end a sermon with a joke or amusing anecdote - but surely only do that if a) you can tell a joke and b) if that joke or anecdote presents the message you want the congregation to hear. I'd have thought the same goes for radio thoughts of the day.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Not everyone knows they cannot tell a joke.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

True, but presumably by the time you get to be an archbishop you'll have preached a homily or two, and someone might have thought to say "By the way, you do realise that you stink at telling jokes? Probably best to avoid doing that in the future".

Although, actually I wouldn't want to comment on whether he can tell a joke. What seems certain to me is that that particular joke, in the particular circumstances of Thought for the Day on R2, gave a message I assume he didn't intend to give. It certainly succeeded in saying that Mary is (in his, and that of his church, opinion) a mediator between people and God. It just failed because it also presented Jesus as somehow selective about the sort of people he would let into Heaven if it wasn't for his mum letting some 'undesirables' in by the back gate.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I'm not defending the man. I am merely pointing out that there is a simple alternative explanation to him being a theological moron.
As to reaching his level without coming in contact with a clue bat, it would not e unprecedented.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

What was the gentleman thinking when he told such a tasteless joke in public hearing?

[ 01. October 2014, 04:35: Message edited by: bib ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

That was in reply to IngoB being in denial of course.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

I'm starting to think that the Archbishop's joke was just perfect, if it makes people with a certain sense of humour and Protestant convictions spit their dummy so hard.

Many, perhaps most, people posting here live in the Dowry of Mary. What the Archbishop gently pointed to with his joke are the sentiment and practices that traditionally were so strong here as to earn England that exalted title. Realise that you are dealing with your own ideology if you think that leading people to Mary leads them away from Christ. You are not a blank theological slate, and people who are that will not become Mariolators because of this joke. If the joke inspires them, then they will perhaps turn up at their local Catholic joint and learn more about the actual Catholic faith. And that will be great, because the world could use more Christians - and frankly, less sour-faced Puritans.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Jokes often poke fun. I don't have a problem with one which points to Mary as an eternally trusted agent of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.

She tells us "whatever he says to you, do it". And she is pictured in the NT as humble, obedient, the handmaiden of God.

The joke does poke fun at a kind of minimising of Mary within Protestantism. I think we're fair game for that sort of targeting. Mary is Theotokos, not Christotokos.

There is a joke against the Brethren which was told to me by a member of the Brethren. Poking fun at the narrow exclusivity sometimes found within that movement.

A Catholic and St Peter are walking through Heaven and Peter starts to walk on tiptoe and whisper as they pass a windowless mansion from within which can be heard some mournful unaccompanied singing about the cross. After they get past it, the Catholic asks Peter who was in that mansion in Heaven. "Oh, that's the Brethren. It's a kindness not to disturb them. They think no one else is here".

Well, it's a joke too. About our seemingly endless desire to exclusivise the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. I suppose it works well for me because the man who told it to me made a joke against himself and the movement he belonged to, to which he had a lifelong commitment.

Rabbi Lionel Blue used to do that a lot. Poke gentle fun at Judaism. I'm not sure jokes work as well when they are directed at groups other than our own. They come across as a bit partisan and can cause unintended offence that way.

But I think we Protestants need to get over ourselves a bit. The tendency towards Mary minimisation actually paints a big target. We shouldn't be that surprised if a Catholic points that out a bit tongue in cheek.

I quite liked the Joseph joke. Maybe there are a few other ropes in Heaven as a reminder of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Jokes often poke fun. I don't have a problem with one which points to Mary as an eternally trusted agent of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.

Well, I for one have no objection at all to such jokes. Nor, do I object to a Catholic stating, whether straight out or through a humorous story, a belief in Mary as a Mediator between us and Christ - though I would disagree with the theology, I have no problem with someone who believes that stating it.

The problem I have with this particular joke is the way it portrays Jesus.

Peter, representing the Church one assumes, as the sour faced gate keeper who turns away people he doesn't see as suitable for heaven - fine, the Peter of the Gospels does that, and the Church certainly does that. We need jokes like that targetted at us to remind us that the gospel is so much larger than our concepts of acceptability before God and that more are welcome than we often expect.

Mary showing Peter his error and letting in those he would exclude. No problem there either. An essential part of the joke directed at the Peter in all of us.

But Jesus, unaware of who is coming into Heaven? That, maybe, for the purpose of the joke is OK. But, the way the joke was told implies (I know, it's not explicit) that Jesus was OK with how Peter was handling access to Heaven. That is the point at which I feel the joke goes awry. All it needs is some form of chiding of Peter, entirely consistent with the way Jesus chided the disciples on several occasions in the Gospels, to make it clear that Peter was in the wrong by excluding people. A single line, "Good thing ma was at the back gate then".

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm astonished to be honest ... not at the Archbishop of Westminster's joke - and it was a joke for goodness sake ... but at the sheer po-faced pietistic prudery of some of the most persistent Protestant posters here ...

(Help, I'm beginning to run-out of Ps).

I'm sorry, but this isn't the first time I've known Mudfrog get his knickers in a twist about something in a poem, a hymn or some other 'artistic' creation in a way that leads me to conclude that he was innoculated with a 'literal' needle when he was baby ...

I'm not about to cross the Tiber but get over it guys ...

It was a joke, I tell you, a joke. J.o.k.e.

[Disappointed]

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

but a nice way to acknowledge that Grace happens and we have no idea how or why it happens

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Jokes often poke fun. I don't have a problem with one which points to Mary as an eternally trusted agent of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.
Well, I for one have no objection at all to such jokes. Nor, do I object to a Catholic stating, whether straight out or through a humorous story, a belief in Mary as a Mediator between us and Christ - though I would disagree with the theology, I have no problem with someone who believes that stating it.

The problem I have with this particular joke is the way it portrays Jesus.

Peter, representing the Church one assumes, as the sour faced gate keeper who turns away people he doesn't see as suitable for heaven - fine, the Peter of the Gospels does that, and the Church certainly does that. We need jokes like that targetted at us to remind us that the gospel is so much larger than our concepts of acceptability before God and that more are welcome than we often expect.

Mary showing Peter his error and letting in those he would exclude. No problem there either. An essential part of the joke directed at the Peter in all of us.

But Jesus, unaware of who is coming into Heaven? That, maybe, for the purpose of the joke is OK. But, the way the joke was told implies (I know, it's not explicit) that Jesus was OK with how Peter was handling access to Heaven. That is the point at which I feel the joke goes awry. All it needs is some form of chiding of Peter, entirely consistent with the way Jesus chided the disciples on several occasions in the Gospels, to make it clear that Peter was in the wrong by excluding people. A single line, "Good thing ma was at the back gate then".

I see something of a parallel here between the Jesus in the joke and the Jesus (at least initially) in the story about the gentile woman and the stuff about feeding the children's bread to the dogs.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

There are far worse examples and worse jokes around on similar themes.

I remember getting stony-cold looks from a trainee curate when I was in Sunday school when I relayed a joke I'd seen in a college rag-mag - and this was around 1970/71 so the language was rather hippyish.

It concerned Christ's intervention when the woman was taken in adultery. As he declares, 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,' and the crowd begins to melt away, an old lady emerges with a boulder, crosses over to the woman taken in adultery and drops it on her head, killing her outright.

'Gee, ma,' says Jesus, 'Sometimes you really put me on ...'

Now, had that been told on Radio 2 or Radio 4 or whatever it was then I could imagine people getting upset ...

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I like that one too! I suppose if jokes have lessons, the lesson from that one is

"Well, she could have you know. Just being obedient to her Son.

But, nah! She wouldn't, would she? That would have been completely out of character!"

I suppose it's also not very complimentary about Jesus, either. But I didn't really notice that.

Analysing jokes is a good way of killing them! But they do expose our sensitivities.

Taking Alan's point seriously, the story is also an interesting reminder of the "testing" element in some of Jesus' questioning as recorded in the gospels. I've listened to the clip and I don't hear Jesus being offended at all, rather asking questions which expose that Mary would let into heaven even some that the keeper of the keys wouldn't! Which is also a kind of finger pointing at any second guessing of grace within Catholicism! Obliquely done, of course, but I really don't think it points to Jesus being offended about the backdoor, simply Peter saying "well it wasn't me who let them in. It was your blessed mother!". So the Archbishop of Westminster might also have been pointing a finger at the dangers of judgmentalism within Catholicism for all I know.

[The epithet "unsavoury characters" doesn't come from Jesus, it comes from the story tellers.]

[ 01. October 2014, 08:46: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Unless I'm much mistaken the canonical scriptures of the Christian Church contains a book, the first few chapters of which are a black comedy in which God and Satan agree to ruin a good man's life to test his faith, for a bet.

I can't see how, taken literally, that is preferable as theology to a joke in which Jesus discovers that his Mum is letting people in through the back door. As any fule kno Job is not only Sacred Scripture but one of the classics of ancient literature. So there is a pretty good precedent for humorous exaggeration to make a point about God which, if taken literaly, would be absolutely intolerable.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Vincent Nichols is a scouser so I'm sure he'd be mortally offended by any suggestion that he can't tell a joke. Why is it that when any Roman Catholic says anything, hordes of supposedly liberal and tolerant protestants (in the widest sense) can't wait to light the torture-fires?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It does say that the BVM is more concerned than St Peter about letting people into heaven. That is also untrue, presumably, but apparently not something anybody cares about deeply here.

Of course not. Mary and Peter are both humans, so the idea that one of them may be more forgiving than the other isn't theologically problematic regardless of which one of them it is.

Jesus, on the other hand, is God - and as such is supposed to be eternally willing to forgive, always seeking the lost sheep, and so forth. So the idea that a mere human may be more forgiving than Him is ever-so-slightly more theologically problematic.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Jesus, on the other hand, is God - and as such is supposed to be eternally willing to forgive, always seeking the lost sheep, and so forth. So the idea that a mere human may be more forgiving than Him is ever-so-slightly more theologically problematic.

Where did you get the notion that God will be eternally forgiving, always seeking the lost sheep, and so forth? In my opinion: not from Jesus, not from the bible, not from Christian tradition, and it is a heresy that severely endangers souls... Any number of human universalists are more forgiving than God, if your criterion for forgiveness is the predicted head count in heaven.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Would this be an appropriate place to complain about those T-shirts with the slogan "Jesus is coming! Quick... look busy!"

Whoever thought that one up had obviously never heard the story of Martha and Mary.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm astonished to be honest ... not at the Archbishop of Westminster's joke - and it was a joke for goodness sake ... but at the sheer po-faced pietistic prudery of some of the most persistent Protestant posters here ...

As so often, Gamaliel, well said.

quote:

(Help, I'm beginning to run-out of Ps). ...

How about, 'pompous pillocks' or 'pasty-faced pontificators'?

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Actually, I think those T-shirts are funny *because* they're wrong.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Any number of human universalists are more forgiving than God, if your criterion for forgiveness is the predicted head count in heaven.

And I find that to be very theologically problematic. If a human is more willing to forgive than God, then that doesn't say much for God.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I sometimes wonder how many of us here would have got on with the Rabbis in 1st century Palestine with all their midrashes, glosses and ... yes, jokes.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Meanwhile, on other news ... the Catholics have something of a 'thing' going for the Virgin Mary.

Who ever would have guessed?

[Biased]

Move along now, there's nothing to see, apart from some starchy Protestant pietists revealing their lack of a sense of humour for everyone else to roll their eyes at ...

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Not to mention the lack of a sense of perspective ...

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
IngoB: Any number of human universalists are more forgiving than God, if your criterion for forgiveness is the predicted head count in heaven.

I'm more forgiving than God! Can I put that on a T-shirt?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

You could try putting it on a poster on the backdoor, Le Roc ...

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And I find that to be very theologically problematic. If a human is more willing to forgive than God, then that doesn't say much for God.

If you think that the primary purpose of god is to forgive all sins unconditionally, then that is true. I for one would ignore such a god, because there is no real reason to pay attention to it. Like any other automaton that reliably does its job, it can be left to its own devices. Perhaps have it serviced now or then...

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Regular application of 3-in-1 oil perhaps...

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Gamaliel: You could try putting it on a poster on the backdoor, Le Roc ...

I already have this poster on my backdoor, so it will fit rather well.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And I find that to be very theologically problematic. If a human is more willing to forgive than God, then that doesn't say much for God.
If you think that the primary purpose of god is to forgive all sins unconditionally, then that is true. I for one would ignore such a god, because there is no real reason to pay attention to it. Like any other automaton that reliably does its job, it can be left to its own devices. Perhaps have it serviced now or then...

I must say, dick jokes on a thread about God and the Blessed Virgin are in very, very, very poor taste.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Regular application of 3-in-1 oil perhaps...

Now that is a good joke.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you think that the primary purpose of god is to forgive all sins unconditionally

No, to love. To love perfectly, even. And as we know, perfect love keeps no record of wrongs.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Gamaliel: You could try putting it on a poster on the backdoor, Le Roc ...
I already have this poster on my backdoor, so it will fit rather well.

Oooh! I like that poster. [Smile]

That BVM could look after my back door any day.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It does say that the BVM is more concerned than St Peter about letting people into heaven. That is also untrue, presumably, but apparently not something anybody cares about deeply here.
Of course not. Mary and Peter are both humans, so the idea that one of them may be more forgiving than the other isn't theologically problematic regardless of which one of them it is.

Jesus, on the other hand, is God - and as such is supposed to be eternally willing to forgive, always seeking the lost sheep, and so forth. So the idea that a mere human may be more forgiving than Him is ever-so-slightly more theologically problematic.

I take the joke as saying there are things about God's grace and/or mercy that Mary illustrates that cannot be gleaned merely from focusing on the life of Jesus while leaving out the bits about Mary. As such it is a side-swipe at certain kinds of Protestant.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I must say, dick jokes on a thread about God and the Blessed Virgin are in very, very, very poor taste.

I've been trying to ignore the fact that "the back door" is UK slang for anus since the thread started. Some posts have made it easier than others...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I've writt and deleted comments regarding that. Out of respect for the delicate sensibilities exhibited thus far.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

Jesus eating a malteser.

(Just the punchline).

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I've writt and deleted comments regarding that. Out of respect for the delicate sensibilities exhibited thus far.

TBH, I've been waiting for the right time to mention that I regularly plough through St Mary's Butts.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
No, to love. To love perfectly, even. And as we know, perfect love keeps no record of wrongs.

One-verse-theology doesn't interest me. And in this specific case (1 Cor 13:5, if anybody wonders...), even next-verse-as-well-theology might have provided a clue that things are not quite that simple.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Yes, narrow legalism can be applied to all verses.

[ 01. October 2014, 20:33: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm astonished to be honest ... not at the Archbishop of Westminster's joke - and it was a joke for goodness sake ... but at the sheer po-faced pietistic prudery of some of the most persistent Protestant posters here ...

(Help, I'm beginning to run-out of Ps).

I'm sorry, but this isn't the first time I've known Mudfrog get his knickers in a twist about something in a poem, a hymn or some other 'artistic' creation in a way that leads me to conclude that he was innoculated with a 'literal' needle when he was baby ...

I'm not about to cross the Tiber but get over it guys ...

It was a joke, I tell you, a joke. J.o.k.e.

Gamaliel I am surprised at your prescriptiveness here. Surely it's a both/and and a let's wait and see if anyone laughs, then it might be a joke or it might not ....

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That's no funnier than Vincent Nicholl's original joke, ExclamationMark.

[Razz]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That's no funnier than Vincent Nicholl's original joke, ExclamationMark.

No I didn't think so either .... perhaps Vincent ought to try that one starry starry night

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... this isn't the first time I've known Mudfrog get his knickers in a twist about something in a poem, a hymn or some other 'artistic' creation in a way that leads me to conclude that he was innoculated with a 'literal' needle when he was baby ...

How do you get away with this shit?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Gamaliel's post is a bit overly heated, but I read it as within the rules. Unlike junior hosting...

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

IngoB:

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And I find that to be very theologically problematic. If a human is more willing to forgive than God, then that doesn't say much for God.
If you think that the primary purpose of god is to forgive all sins unconditionally, then that is true. I for one would ignore such a god, because there is no real reason to pay attention to it. Like any other automaton that reliably does its job, it can be left to its own devices. Perhaps have it serviced now or then...

There are many arguments against believing in Heine's (supposed) dictum: "Of course God will forgive me; that's his job."

But I find your reaction to an unconditionally-forgiving God, distinctly out of whack, for two reasons.

First, I can't see why, given that it is accepted on all sides that God is the supreme good, you would ignore him if you thought that there was no possibility of ending up eternally estranged from Him. It perpetuates the stereotype of christians more focussed on escaping punishment than knowing God.

Second, I don't see that it follows that God would then become an automaton.

This is a bit away from the main theme of a thread which seems to be about turning jokes into causes for outrage.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

Fair enough, Gwai.

Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on :

I enjoyed the broadcast (thanks for clip given above); including the interaction between the interviewer and the bishop.

"I thought a cardinal would sweep in and intimidate me!" and his modest , human response.

(trying to quote from memory).

[ 02. October 2014, 12:36: Message edited by: fullgospel ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I was rather harsh on Mudfrog. I understand that it was within the rules but even so, I overstepped the mark.

Our friend Mudfrog can strike me as rather earnest at times but that's not a crime. I can see why he was put-out by Vincent Van Nicholls's attempt at humour but felt he was over-reacting. But that's his business not mine.

I do tend to banter with him a bit and I think this was one of those occasions where I've overdone it.

So I apologise.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The joke is great if it is self-mocking of Roman Marianism.

[ 03. October 2014, 06:56: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That depends, Martin. Most jokes cut both ways, though. They can rebound on the teller.

For my own part, I don't object to the joke at all and don't see how it somehow diminishes the role of Christ. It's more a joke about the Pharisaiacal attitudes of His followers than a joke 'against' Him.

If the joke had Mary subverting all the decisions Christ made, tidying up the tables of the money-lenders after Christ had upturned them ... telling him off for healing on the Sabbath, telling him to go easy with the quantities when changing water into wine and so on on ... then I think we'd have a problem.

The RCs have a high view of Mary. Get over it already.

Ok, from a Protestant - and even an Orthodox - point of view some aspects of Roman Marianism goes way too far. Granted.

But in terms of the joke itself and the context of it I don't find anything in that to offend at all.

I mean, would we get offended at a Jewish joke about circumcision - say? Provided it wasn't in overly poor taste ...

Or a Presbyterian joke (if there is such a thing) about some aspect or other of Presbyterian polity and practice?

No, I don't think we would.

So why get all po-faced and pietistic and outraged when a senior RC figure makes a wise-crack - however feeble - based on some aspect of RC belief and practice?

I don't see the problem. It's not as if anyone listening to the radio is going to think, 'I don't think much of that Jesus bloke, his mum sounds a much more interesting character, I think I'll worship her instead ... in fact, I'll trust in her alone for salvation and not have anything to do with Jesus whatsoever ...'

[Roll Eyes]

I mean, keep things in perspective. Most people will have forgotten it less than five minutes after it was broadcast. Nobody's going to go to hell simply because they smiled at it or even laughed ...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... I mean, would we get offended at a Jewish joke about circumcision - say? Provided it wasn't in overly poor taste ...

You've probably all heard this, but just in case not:-

A Catholic and a Jewish family were near neighbours, good friends but a bit competitive. The Catholic household bought a new car, and invited the local priest to bless the car with holy water, which he did, wearing robes, in the street.

Not to be outdone, when the Jewish household had a new car, they invited the rabbi round to saw about an eighth of an inch off the exhaust.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

I like your joke, Enoch - hadn't heard it before, but thought it was funny.

But I think you just clarified why the archbishop's joke is offensive to some people; because the joke about the Catholic and Jewish families trying to outdo each other is a joke about people's behaviour (and let's face it, some of the things we do for religious reasons ARE weird). Whereas the joke about Mary letting people through the back door into Heaven (as told on the radio) is about the nature of God - and it's only going to be funny to you if you agree with its conclusions about what God is like. I don't find it particularly offensive, but I can see why Alan and Mudfrog object to it.

Take another example: this mural, featuring a group of dull, grey British pigeons picking on a smaller, more colourful bird. It could be a joke against 'Britain First', or a protest against racism and exclusivism; but someone who saw it complained to the local council that the mural was racist and offensive, and it was removed. The fact that it was created by Banksy is almost irrelevant here.

Humour is very subjective, as Emperor Cartagia once said.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I hadn't heard that story before. Tendring District Council could hardly have succeeded better in making themselves look stupid if they had set out with that explicit intention. People at minor levels of authority are far too afraid of telling some complainers to get lost.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Well, they might have reacted differently if they'd known it was by Banksy, but as I said, I don't think that's really relevant. Famous people can behave like arseholes too.

It's also quite possible that the person who gave the order to have the graffiti removed never actually saw it, just got complaints that there was some racist graffiti on this wall and sent some workmen to remove it.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

When the great Tao is forgotten,
Kindness and morality arise.
When wisdom and intelligence are born,
The great pretence begins.

When there is no peace within the family,
Filial piety and devotion arise.
When the country is confused and in chaos,
Loyal ministers appear.

Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on :

Not a brilliant joke and hardly told like a stand-up !

But the bishop's point was to do with helping listeners to 'get' the economy of salvation, but in a practical, down to earth way -

so that they might be be strangely moved, touched by grace, feel that they are included and loved. Opening hearts to the Saviour in maybe, a trice !

Of course in the heart of God, and the love, grace, mercy and peace of God, all binaries are overcome.

No back or front, no past or future.

All embraced in the love of God in Christ.

Mary the great evangelist down the ages...

"Do whatever he tells you."

Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on :

I like the gentle joke, in which our Lord welcomes a leading evangelical* to heaven.

Jesus says,"Let me introduce me to my mother - I don't think you've met her."

(* add a name if you like).

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

fullgospel

quote:
I like the gentle joke, in which our Lord welcomes a leading evangelical* to heaven.

Jesus says,"Let me introduce me to my mother - I don't think you've met her."

Of course, it depends who tells it, doesn't it? Told by an RC it's smug and patronising, told by an evangelical it carries a punch!

Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on :

That's telling me !

I love it - but then I'm both !

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Catholic and evangelical is a good combination, Fullgospel - provided we don't gravitate towards the worst points of each ...

[Big Grin]

Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on :

'gravitate'

a great word.

God's gravitational pull ?

Going in deep

Losing it ....

Worst / best :

Exposition and glossolalia

Billy Graham and Bl. John Newman

Who can say but ourselves

Just thinking aloud

This could be a nice excercise - pairing (or more) perceived 'extremities' of faith and love ...

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Now THAT'S a good joke fullgospel. Not that we need to know her except as a good girl, as Jesus' Mum. And strangely the realization of that feeds back in to the first joke. She could wrap her son round her little finger. In the first joke as at Cana. There wasn't anything He wouldn't do for His mother. ANYTHING. I can't see Him being an absolute pacifist if she were threatened. Of course His humanity was so complete He couldn't save her from widowhood.

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :

I like the joke about the various bra's made by differant denominations (feel free to insert): one made mountains out of molehills and the other lifted up the downcast!

Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on :

Nice one Twangist.

Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on :

I am glad you like that joke, Martin.

I like your reflection on her and himself.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

fullgospel. I'm troubled by it to be honest. I polarize further than I feel. I in NO WAY seek to diminish Mary. As a human being, one of us, she is second to none. And I've always liked what C.S. Lewis said about her particular devotees. One does NOT say ANYTHING against a chap's mother. Some Chap! Some Mother!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0