Virgin Mary crisps: storm in a lunchbox?

Are Virgin Mary crisps offensive or just in bad taste? Ekklesia reports on the Protect the Pope group who have taken offense. Did they make an "own goal?"

A small conservative Catholic group called 'Protect the Pope' has taken exception to a brand of crisps sold by the sandwich chain Pret a Manger. Adopting the already established brand name of 'Virgin Mary' used for a non-alcoholic cocktail derived from the better known 'Bloody Mary' mix of vodka and tomato juice, the offending crisps were flavoured with Worcester sauce and chilli. This is not pointless recipe information, but necessary knowledge as to the provenance of the name.

Protect the Pope chose to interpret this as an offence to Jesus' mother (it is perhaps worth recording here that every Catholic whose opinion I have sought on this has hooted in derisive disbelief) and the complaint has resulted in Pret withdrawing the offending snack. A spokesman for the company said it had noted complainants' “strength of feeling” and withdrawn the product in order to avoid offence. This may well have been a prudent commercial decision, but it does look rather like permitting a small, though forceful interest group to have its own way.

....

There is no right to be protected from offence. Equally, the giving of gratuitous offence should always be questioned, if not challenged. It is evident in this case that there was no intent to offend – a fact which makes the prickliness of Protect the Pope look rather foolish. Because criticism or mockery of those things which are dear to us may produce strong feelings, it is important to stand back and look at the intent behind the action. Where there an inclination to be offended, it seems both good sense and charity to also examine one's own reactions and to “consider it possible you may be mistaken.” I own that this may sometimes be difficult because both ego and partisanship are powerful forces.
...
It is, however, useful to ask why such groups should be so ardent in interpreting what, at the most sympathetic analysis could be described as slightly tasteless, as such a grave insult to their faith. Their own devotions and freedoms of worship are not infringed, neither is their liberty to explain to others why their beliefs about Mary are significant to their lives and faith. What they cannot expect, is that everyone will share these beliefs or, beyond the demands of courtesy, be required to tiptoe around them.

How much is too much when it comes to taking offense?

Comments (6)

Well, it was offensive when the bloody mary was a drink. The offense and the tactless, crass language goes way back. The question is, when do the offended decide to say that they're offended? We ought to remember that when somebody feels offended, they're really saying that their feelings are hurt. And that should matter, right?

"We ought to remember that when somebody feels offended, they're really saying that their feelings are hurt."

Except, Chris, they're not---not really.

When someone tells me their feelings have been hurt, they're inviting a conversation---dialogue, sympathy, empathy, mutual transformation.

When they just they're offended, they're trying to SHUT DOWN certain kinds of speech (usually, w/o any kind of conversation, as in "I refuse to discuss [ ]").

It's often frightening to admit when one is hurting . . . but it is, I believe, the ONLY way to Real Change. Would that ALL we "offended" (definitely including my oh-so-offended self) could speak our pain, and not hide behind "offense".

JC Fisher

Re Chris Arnold: I'm not sure how the drink can be considered offensive as the name doesn't refer to the Virgin Mary but to Queen Mary I and other "Marys." See link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Mary_(cocktail)

-Cullin R. Schooley

Lacryma Christi is a pleasant wine from the slopes Vesuvius just over two hours south of the Vatican.
But I'm sure the Holy Father needs protection from his native Liebrauenmilch ...........
There are just too many others to mention, all making this intervention rather late in the day and sniffing of rather unwholesome sentiment.
Martin Reynolds

Taking offense when none is intended is both weak and pointless. And it is always possible not to take offense even when it is intended. Someone once suggested turning the other cheek, and that should be relevant in the case of a church.

To be fair, both the "I find that offensive!" and "That hurt my feelings!" paths are taken with ridiculous frequency by lots of people and factions, some elements of progressive Christianity included. And pace JC, I don't think there's much of a difference between the "offense" and "hurtful" declarations. In my experience, neither is really an invitation to dialogue, but are often the attempted use of one own's emotional reaction as a trump card.

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space