Madam, - Bishop Joseph Duffy (October 6th) laments that his objection to the Paddy Power bookmakers' 'Last Supper' advertisement serves to give Paddy Power more publicity. And so it does.
May I suggest to the bishop that when commercial groups use religious imagery to shock and cause public outrage and therefore gain more publicity, knee-jerk condemnations should be resisted and a little more thought given to an appropriate response?
As someone who sat through what can only be described as a dire sermon at church last Sunday, I believe Paddy Power gave priests great material to preach on. Jesus was a gambler of sorts: he took risks. Sometimes they worked and at other times they didn't - e.g., his home village tried to kill him, Judas betrayed him and most of his disciples doubted him. There was gambling at the foot of the Cross when the soldiers threw lots for his belongings.
Also, the image of the Last Supper is of a Jewish rabbi surrounded by 12 Jews celebrating the Jewish Passover, so there was an opportunity to preach on the Jewish roots of the Eucharist. And so on.
In short, while Christians are entitled to be offended, I think we should also have thicker skins and turn negatives into positives. The next time Paddy Power brings out a potential "shocker", perhaps the bishops' Communications Commission would be better off issuing a preaching plan using the material for priests throughout the country.
Not so long ago, a small fortune was spent by evangelicals in the advertising campaign "Power To Change". Courtesy of Paddy Power, here's a ready-made national ad campaign for the Church to use to its advantage. "Paddy Power Can Change" could be an interesting theme for a seminar for priests and preachers on how to change something that ridicules and exploits into an opportunity for preaching the Good News of the Gospels of Jesus. - Yours, etc,
GARRY O'SULLIVAN, Editor, The Irish Catholic, Lower Gardiner Street, Dublin 2.
Madam, - I reject Bishop Joseph Duffy's belief that religion should be protected from mockery and exploitation by the world's advertisers. I also reject his claims that offence taken by religious people should be enough of a reason to ban anything (though he may have a point about the legality of the issue).
Why is is that when liberals are offended nothing is done but when conservatives are up in arms the roof starts shaking? I happen to find the whole concept of advertising offensive on grounds of taste, intellectual relevance and ethical content. I also happen to find many religious concepts offensive. Does this mean I can petition to have all religious references removed from the public eye?
Many different notions may conflict with what I hold dear but I don't petition for the elimination of any of them. Why? Because I choose to ignore them. I deem them beneath my concern and get on with what is important.
Surely the bishop realises the great irony of his letter? That even though he is aware of the billboard's mission to offend him and his, he decides to give in to the wishes of the advertiser and write his letter of protest.
Here is the answer he has been looking for: refuse to buy any product or service for which the advertising is tasteless and encourage others to do so too. Never forget: you don't need the products, the products need you. - Yours, etc,
MICHAEL KEARY, Monaleen Heights, Castletroy, Limerick.