![o{]:)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Tebow commericial
What did you think of the Tebow commercial in the TV coverage of the 1st quarter of the Super Bowl?
UPDATE: 8 Feb 1442 GMT:
There is a good roundup of media reactions to the ad at Jill Stanek’s blog.
Here is one of my favs … from the Los Angeles Times:
Some were still angry after the ad aired.
NOW president Terry O’Neill said the ad glorified violence against women. "I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it," she said. "That’s what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don’t find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself."
That was it? Didn’t think it was very good, it just directed viewers to a website to hear the Tebow story rather then telling it. Most people that would go to the site probably already know the story. I was expecting something moving that might make someone considering an abortion think twice, something at least as good as the Obama commercial that was rejected last year, this came in below my expectations. I hope the impact on others was greater.
Comment by Jackie L — 7 February 2010 @ 6:58 pmJackie: Not only… I they may have purposely positioned that commercial after a spot that had a similar physical image, just to take some of the impact out of it. No? Yes?
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 7 February 2010 @ 7:04 pmWhat? This is what caused all the fuss? If Planned Unparenthood had just left it alone, it would have had its 30 seconds of attention and be over. But the reality is that the devil is furious when he is rebuked in public. His curtain is torn away. St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray, and do thou o prince of the heavenly host, cast into hell satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin and destruction of souls. AMEN!
Comment by DisturbedMary — 7 February 2010 @ 7:09 pmI thought it was a little too subtle for most people and most people will not go to the website. On the other hand, Superbowl commercial time is way too expensive to tell a story like that. And they may have already made their point simply by announcing the commercial and provoking the hyperventilation by pro-abortion groups last week.
Comment by MargaretMN — 7 February 2010 @ 7:10 pmI didn’t even realize it was the big Tebow commercial until after it was done. I guess the commercial made no impression on me. I was still thinking about Betty White getting tackled.
Comment by Jason Keener — 7 February 2010 @ 7:11 pmIs that all there is?
Comment by dallas — 7 February 2010 @ 7:12 pmIt may not have lived up to the hype, but I think it was still well worth the absolute tizzy into which it sent Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations. There is just no way for the other side to react to the ad now without looking even more absurd than it did before.
Comment by Girgadis — 7 February 2010 @ 7:16 pmGirgadis, I agree. I thought, that whas it? It was very sweet and so non-threatening. But, I think you a right about the tizzy the pro-aborts went into before hand. They went into hyper-screech, if you ask me. One Wymns Choice group even, without ever seeing the commercial, said it was Anti-American hate speech! Planned Parenthood was beside itself with animosity and pressured CBS to pull the commercial. So, their performance sure makes them look absurd, I don’t know how they will defend their position against such an innocent, sweet story. They’ll try.
I think the success of the Tebow commercial happened before it even went on the air.
Comment by wanda — 7 February 2010 @ 7:34 pmAfter watching the commercial, I said to myself, “Where is the ‘Pro-Life’ message?” Very subtle, indeed. No wonder CBS accepted this one…
It will be interesting if any of the ‘Pro-Aborts’ make any public comments. If I were them, I would be silent. If they continue to complain – which I hope they do – they are more idiotic than anyone could have imagined!
Comment by mfranks — 7 February 2010 @ 7:41 pmJason: You also caught my point… about the tackle.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 7 February 2010 @ 7:43 pmI think the point of the commercial is:
No matter what sort of blindside beating/challenge/tackle/setback you think your unborn child might be, you bounce back up.
No? Yes?
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 7 February 2010 @ 7:44 pmI can just hear the collective screeching of Planned Barrenhood: “Oh, $*&%, they got us. We jumped the gun!
They’ve exposed themselves with all this pre-game notoriety. They don’t like to be in the spotlight, but much prefer to be left to do their dirty work in darkness.
Comment by Catherine — 7 February 2010 @ 7:54 pmNo matter what sort of beating/challenge/tackle/setback [physical damage/social burden/unthinkable deformity] you think your unborn child might be [have], you bounce back [and stay by him till his natural end and allow the hand of God to work his will] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToNWquoXqJI
Comment by DisturbedMary — 7 February 2010 @ 8:07 pmI thought it was brilliant. It was pro-life in the fullest sense, in the sense that every mother (and father) in normal, everyday life undertands pro-life. The pro-aborts got their knickers knotted without knowing the contents, apparently. They heard “Focus on the Family” and “pro-life” and decided it had to be anti-abortion. But it wasn’t. It was pro-life, pure and simple.
Now, if the media would just hold their feet to the fire and point out how they jumped to a false conclusion based on their hatred for pro-lifers, for FoF etc., how they made fools of themselves.
I won’t be holding my breath for that, but we at least can talk it up this way. The hard-core pro-aborts won’t be fazed. But the people in the middle, your neighbors and friends who are in the “well, I’d never have an abortion myself but it should be legal for those who want it” camp—perhaps this can be used, in civil conversation around the water cooler, to ask, “why do you think the “pro-choice” people were so short-fused, so vitriolic, so bitter? Doesn’t that at least give you pause to think about whether they truly just want “choice” for women or whether something deeper and more sinister animates them?
Comment by Dennis Martin — 7 February 2010 @ 8:16 pmI think it’s great that the commercial was what it was, it shows opponents of life to be shrill fools for protesting against something simple and sweet as that. They expect us to make commercials like they do, centered on fear mongering. They know what they do, and are scared that people might see it; they know what images we could use if we wanted. So again, it is great the Tebow commercial was so sweet, makes those who deal in death look foolish.
Comment by Bthompson — 7 February 2010 @ 9:58 pmAt first, I was disappointed, but the more I thought about it, I was happy with it. Ditto to above said comments on pissing off the pro-aborts.
Comment by EnoughRope — 7 February 2010 @ 10:14 pmOther good news- I went to my first Latin Novus Ordo today. I liked it alot. It was at St. John Cantius. I also went to confession and thought the priest was awesome. He asked for clarification, clear penance, clear advice, etc. I very happy with the experience
I think it was never about the commercial itself which—however good it might have been—was going to play for 30 seconds and be over with. It was about the media the ad would generate, which it did, in buckets.
Also, I would bet that the ad as envisioned by Focus on the Family may well have been more pointed, and CBS balked at that; and FOTF cagily didn’t fight too hard…and then went to work generating lots of media buzz, knowing the pro-aborts would play right into their hands…which they did.
Net result is that they got a lot of bang for their buck, but not from the ad itself, but from the surrounding media. That’s exactly the right way to play it. Unless they could afford a massive ad campaign, which they couldn’t, this was the way to go.
Comment by Fr Martin Fox — 7 February 2010 @ 10:26 pmI’ll be the contrarian and say it was a waste of money and air-time. Anyone who didn’t already know the full context of the ad would have come away saying—What was that a commercial for?!?? Health care reform? Apple juice? Protective football gear?? Plenty of women (and men) can relate to the stress of a touch-and-go pregnancy, which Mrs. Tebow referred to obliquely. But I think they really missed the chance to follow through on that sympathy and identification by not tying it in more explicitly to the humanity of the unborn. Without being maudlin or in-your-face “anti-abortion,” they still could have plucked the heart-strings a bit more and perhaps provoked people to think a little…
Comment by Margaret — 7 February 2010 @ 10:31 pmMy reaction was “that’s it?” In fact, before Tim “tackled” his mom, I thought it was another commercial for some other product (maybe Campbell’s Soup; they had an ad not too long ago featuring NFL players and their moms).
If it hadn’t been for the enormous controversy beforehand, few people would’ve realized this was a pro-life ad. But as it turns out, the ad didn’t need to be more than subtle, since everyone in the country already knew about it ahead of time.
I’m actually very conflicted about the whole thing. On one hand, I’m pleased to see a pro-life message on such a national stage. Even better, the pro-abortion side made idiots of themselves by flipping out over an ad that ended up being pretty benign and non-confrontational. They hurt their cause which helps ours.
On the other hand, this will set a precedent for more “political” ads during future Superbowls. I don’t think that’s a good thing. Inserting politics into sports really rubs me the wrong way – as if a boundary has been violated. Sports are for so many people a diversion from often upsetting things like politics. I dread having to watch pro-abortion ads, pro-Obama ads, pro-socialism ads, etc during future Superbowls . . . but now the precedent for such things has been set by Focus on Family and the Tebows.
Finally there’s a troubling aspect that I haven’t seen anyone else discuss yet. Pam Tebow was pregnant with Tim while in the Philippines doing “missionary” work. The Tebows are fundamentalists, while the Philippines has been a Catholic country for 500 years. But as most of us are sadly aware, many fundamentalists don’t consider Catholics to be Christian or “saved” or whatever, and have zero qualms about going into traditionally Catholic countries in Latin America and elsewhere to “convert” the supposedly heathen Catholics to “true” Christianity. So unless I’ve missed something, it appears the Tebows were in the Philippines trying to convince Catholics to leave the Chruch for fundamentalism. That is an absolutely horrible thing to do; it endangers souls. Catholics really should be careful before embracing the Tebows as role models – not everyone who is pro-life is necessarily a friend of the Church.
In an ironic twist, some pro-abortion commentators have pointed out that Pam Tebow is being disingenuous about choosing life because abortion was and still is illegal in the Philippines. I don’t agree with that line of reasoning, but it sure raises an interesting point. Why is abortion illegal in the Philippines? Because it was and still is a strongly Catholic country. How insulting for Americans hailing from a country that has legalized the murder of 40 million plus unborn children, to look down on a country that hasn’t legalized infanticide as “non-Christian.”
Comment by AJP — 7 February 2010 @ 10:44 pmThe commercial was good. Any organizations that fuss with such a sweet commercial as presented there deserves to look like frothing nincompoops, so bravo!
AJP - I am familiar with the Tebows and their statements that “95% of Philippines haven’t ‘heard the Gospel’” but we simply must stand together with others on common ground, not begrudge them an opportunity to tell a really touching pro-life story in front of a hundred million people that in no way stands against good Catholic thought. That they are misinformed and ignorant of Christ’s Church does not diminish what they said this evening. In fact, the Catholic Church’s work in the hearts and minds of US citizens on the topic of abortion is a good place to start ending such ignorance.
Comment by ghlad — 7 February 2010 @ 11:27 pmWe were really disappointed. Like someone above said, who even knew what it was about ? They wasted a lot of money saying practically nothing. Perhaps God used the nothingness to stir up the other side so we would get more attention that way…...lemonade out of lemons…....
Comment by lucy — 8 February 2010 @ 1:32 amgirgadis: It may not have lived up to the hype, but I think it was still well worth the absolute tizzy into which it sent Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations. There is just no way for the other side to react to the ad now without looking even more absurd than it did before.
You are absolutely right.
One might mince and piece this commercial into finight parts; whether it was right here, or wrong there, or could have done more…
Nevertheless, it was what it was: a pro-life ad during the superbowl.
Sometimes the war is won by simple battles, this was a “small” gesture, but a great one too!....
Comment by Maltese — 8 February 2010 @ 2:02 amAs a Filipino, let me tell you that the Philippines is about as Catholic as Spain. The culture and heritage are there, but the flame of faith has faded to mere embers. If the Church in the Philippines does not re-evangelise her sheep, they will at best be lost to the protestants and at worst to the secularists. It’s been happening for a long time already, and isn’t going to stop by itself.
Comment by Anthony OPL — 8 February 2010 @ 3:32 amFr. Z.;
I took this occasion to write to our paper.
Editor;
NOW, no pun intended, let me get this straight. The Pro-choice folks are up in arms because of a commercial with Pam Tebow and her son Tim. She is the mother who 22 years ago, against her doctor’s advice to abort her baby, risk her own life exerciseing her choice not to do so. She now has a famous son who can be video taped in a commercial with his mom. Because of their choice the Pro- abortion side has no one to film.
Tom Lanter
Comment by idatom — 8 February 2010 @ 7:21 amWestwood
It was cute. I cannot imagine what all the fuss was about… except the pro-aborts hear “Pro-life” and their claws and fangs come out.
Comment by MrsHall — 8 February 2010 @ 7:47 amGosh, I’ve freeze-framed it to try and pick the point when the real Mom Tebow gets replaced by the dummy Mom Tebow for the tackle, but I can’t see it. Well done.
Comment by Thomas G. — 8 February 2010 @ 8:13 amIt is pointed that this ad appeared at a Super Bowl in which the New Orleans Saints were competing (and won) as it unintentionally points out why abortion is the will of this nation. We are capable of putting a man on the moon, we are using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs, Predator drones,etc.) to spy on and bomb armed men in Afghanistan, and we have a team competing in a nationally televised event with millions of viewers whose slogan is: WHO DAT? Conjure up images of Port au Prince, 2010 and New Orleans circa Katrina, unbridled immigration from Latin American countries, etc. and you have a clear picture of what concerns our national policy. It is the fear of becoming just another Third World country.
Comment by William H. Phelan — 8 February 2010 @ 8:15 amThomas G – I heard on the radio this morning that the “tackle” bit was run at a higher speed than it was filmed, that he gently swept up his mother and at the faster speed it looks like a tackle. Clever!
Comment by Frank H — 8 February 2010 @ 9:13 amThe bit about Tim using his Mom as a tackling dummy was outrageous in my mind and did nothing for the pro-life cause. We should be honoring mothers, not using them as tackling dummies. The lead-in by Tim’s Mom was also too short to properly set the stage for what was to follow. I didn’t watch too many of the commercials and just happened on this one by chance. Guess I wouldn’t do well in marketing, would I?
Comment by haleype — 8 February 2010 @ 9:14 amI’m not entirely sure what to say. In my view, this was a furor misplaced.
Essentially this was an advertisement to a Protestant/non-demoninational organization.
AJP bravely commented on something that has been on my mind for a while: the treatment some give to the issue of abortion (5th Commandmanent) is seriously detrimental to the foundation of the faith (1st). I think the way in which intermingling and ‘ecumenical approaches’ are made, there is a serious risk of indifferentism.
There are ways to work together with Christians who are not Catholic, but the direction is a little disturbing (e.g., Protestant preachers praying over and giving their blessing to marchers?!)
In RCIA, I found that the Church really does have an answer to everything and usually it is pretty specific. Sillonism comes to mind, especially given that Tim Tebow’s father apparently does not consider Catholics as Christians, at least in his literature.
For this same reason, I’m not too keen on the Manhattan Declaration because it incorrectly suggests that we as Catholics do not have a duty to make civil laws agreeable to the faith. This really should not be a tough problem; converts like myself who I know want to spread the faith because it is a gift. If we really believe in the Church, we should be always trying to bring others to salvation. How can one not want to help to salvation more of the human family?
Confessional states were the norm for thousands of years, up until freemasonic revolts…that’s another issue.
Anyway, I thought this whole this was a silly case of much ado about nothing. More a function of a popular, handsome football player than an earnest committment to the faith in my view.
Comment by JonM — 8 February 2010 @ 9:15 amA few years ago, a British band called “the KLF” burned a million bucks—took it out into a field and set fire to it, on camera. There was supposed to be some kind of point to the stunt, but honestly, who can tell? Of course, this superbowl ad was totally different. It was easily two million bucks.
Comment by SimonDodd — 8 February 2010 @ 9:19 amI’m going to ask this again. Could it be that Focus on the Family created a new ad after the fit that the baby killers had?
Also, as Tim Tebow is a quarterback, I don’t think he’s done too much tackling in the last 4 years. It would have been better to have him throw a pass at her that she couldn’t have handled.
Comment by Dr. Eric — 8 February 2010 @ 9:39 amI love the ad. Even this morning, some of the so-called pro-choice groups are still fussing over this. I am a mom and think that anyone with a difficult pregnancy would be moved by the ad.Some anger persisted after the ad aired.From the LA Times below:
NOW president Terry O’Neill said it glorified violence against women. “I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it,” she said. “That’s what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don’t find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself.”
nutty
Some anger persisted after the ad aired.
NOW president Terry O’Neill said it glorified violence against women. “I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it,” she said. “That’s what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don’t find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself.”
Comment by Supertradmom — 8 February 2010 @ 9:46 amsorry-having trouble with my computer
Comment by Supertradmom — 8 February 2010 @ 9:46 amI saw the ad and watched it few times, and I have to say that it made me smile. It certainly is a “feel good” ad. However, it might have been pro-life, but it really wasn’t anti-abortion either. It was too soft. I can see why it was done this way so the network wouldn’t balk. But isn’t it sad that in this society we can’t just come right out and say what we should say? That we need to tippy toe and be so ever meek with our message of Christ, which others NEED to hear? It was a beautiful ad, but it barely qualifies as part of the pro-life message. Let’s pray that this will be just the base of the mountain—of the pro-life message getting out en mass—and not the pinacle. Let’s hope this flame ignites a fire and doesn’t die in its happy flicker.
P.S. I think moms of boys would “get” the “tackle” part of the ad. It didn’t bother this mom, and we definitely do NOT nurture a home of violence.
Comment by Kathleen — 8 February 2010 @ 9:59 amI did not mean to repeat what Father Z said above. Sorry for the confusion. The message that Mrs. Tebow was strong is a great message for women who are trying to decide on pro-life issues. Sometimes women just need to feel they have options and are strong, despite difficulties.
Comment by Supertradmom — 8 February 2010 @ 10:08 amThe furor is just the kind of lather the liberal left loves to get themselves into, and they always seem to try to foment outrage in a way guaranteed to have the opposite effect.
Let’s just face it. . . the PC world is full of pillow-biting bed wetters who spend their lives being afraid of their own shadow, and looking for any opportunity to blame others for their pathological inability to deal with things like humor.
These are the same folk of questionable mental and emotional stability who insist that a grade school boy who brings a 2-inch solid plastic toy representation of a machine gun into school should be expelled for violating a “zero tolerance” gun policy.
I’m very afraid for the future of our world as long as folks like this continue to be taken seriously, even if only by their own pathetic kind.
Comment by david andrew — 8 February 2010 @ 10:09 amI suggest the angry people are angry because the ground beneath them shifted. That is, there was absolutely nothing political in the ad, and their ‘arguments’ are entirely political. Against decency and love they show up as vile, conniving, bitter, calculating, dishonest and very, very uncharitable. Who wants that face revealed in the public square? Decent people likely will ask, “Who could possibly oppose this mother and child, and why?”
Comment by Kerry — 8 February 2010 @ 10:15 amThe point of the commercial was that if she had aborted her child there would have been a great emptiness next to her.
Comment by momravet — 8 February 2010 @ 10:35 amPut me in the “That was it?” camp.
If you look at the ad standing by itself – it didn’t really come out and say anything about abortion or pro-life. It could have been alluding to any number of things.
FoF and other groups did quite a job hyping it up in advance, though, building curiosity and anticipation.
Comment by Charivari Rob — 8 February 2010 @ 10:36 amWas this same lady ‘blown away’ at the ad right before the Tebow one? Was she absolutley ‘blown away’ at the violence of Betty White being tackled to the ground in a football game? Should Snickers be ashamed of themselves for their blatant display of violence against women?
The NOW person must be getting eye-strain looking for a fault to find in the ad.
The ad was paid for by donations solicited from us little pro-life people who donated to an appeal over the internet by Catholic Vote.org.
Comment by wanda — 8 February 2010 @ 10:39 amSorry, sorry. It was NOT an appeal from Catholic Vote.org. It was indeed Focus on the Family, Brian Burch. I apologize. But it was all donated for the specific purpose of running the ad during the Super Bowl.
Comment by wanda — 8 February 2010 @ 10:42 amDavid Andrew: Let’s just face it. . . the PC world is full of pillow-biting bed wetters who spend their lives being afraid of their own shadow, and looking for any opportunity to blame others for their pathological inability to deal with things like humor.
...and your humor just had me laughing out loud!
Comment by Maltese — 8 February 2010 @ 10:44 amI thought it was a very sweet commercial-and very simple.
David Andrew-your comment, which Fr. Z put in bold print, is spot on!
I didn’t watch the entire game…I switched over to Animal Planet and watched ‘Puppy Bowl VI’. What can I say? I love dogs! The puppies were adorable!
But I did see the Saints ‘go marchin’ in’ to victory! Who dat dey say gonna beat dem Saints? WHO DAT? WHO DAT? Woo hoo!
And I’m sure that Archbishop Aymond of New Orleans is going to enjoy the Southern Indiana pork chops that the Archibishop of Indianapolis is going to send him!
Comment by irishgirl — 8 February 2010 @ 10:55 amThe NOW person is sooo typical. Violence against women? Give me a break. What a lame statement. These people have no sense of humor, either. I also noted that she didn’t voice objection to elderly Betty White being tackled. What a hypocrite. The commercial was less than the hype, but did direct the viewer to Focus on the Family, so – small (perhaps) gain in yardage for the pro-life team. Rah!
Comment by gloriainexcelsis — 8 February 2010 @ 11:05 amI didn’t think much of the ad by itself—there was nothing wrong with it, it was cute but not very memorable. I don’t know if it got toned down for CBS or if the whole point was to show how the pro-abortion people go insane over the most innocuous pro-life statements. If that’s the case, then it was spectacularly successful.
I think Fr. Z may be right—the tackle may be a subtle symbol for being “knocked over” by a crisis pregnancy. But if so, it is so subtle that I missed it. I just saw a football player tackle his mom, done in a funny way. Anyone who takes that seriously as “violence” (either the wacky NOW spokeswoman or the person on this list) has really got to get some humor implants.
And while it is problematic for us Catholics that missionaries try to convert Filipinos, this happened 22 years ago, folks. We can oppose that while also being happy that the misguided zeal of the Tebows also includes some well-guided zeal.
Comment by Gail F — 8 February 2010 @ 11:27 amI was disappointed (but not too surprised) by the many vicious, nasty, hateful comments on Twitter about the ad after it ran during the Superbowl. There are a lot of people who need our prayers for their conversion of heart.
I also saw somewhere that Gloria Allred, the attorney who shows up on TV every time there’s a celebrity scandal, was planning to file a complaint against CBS. Totally makes me ill.
Here’s a “news” item with a video of Allred, if you can stand to watch it: http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2010/01/exclusive-interview-gloria-allred-threatens-cbs-allowing-tim-tebow-anti-abortion
LifeNews.com response to Allred: http://www.lifenews.com/nat5943.html
Comment by Bill in Texas — 8 February 2010 @ 11:44 amSun Tzu must have been behind this commercial.
“Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”
The commercial, while completely innocous in itself has trashed the credibility of much of the political correctness (aka cultural marxism) of the other side. It made them look ridiculous.
Brilliant if it was planned that way. Dumb luck if it wasn’t.
Comment by chcrix — 8 February 2010 @ 11:58 amI must be getting old. I did not find the commercial offensive in the least. I thought it was rather tasteful. The way NOW and other looney organizations
Comment by TJerome — 8 February 2010 @ 12:16 pmwere ranting and raving you would have thought the commerical was going to show aborted babies on television. Tom
Yes, Father, that is how I see it also. Miss Terry is full of … I also was extremly abused by my husband physically and mentally and the only thing I saw was a playful show of love and one tuff lady.
Comment by Kimberly — 8 February 2010 @ 12:17 pmYou know I think that Drew Brees kissing his baby son and also remarking on the extraordinary year that included his birth was at least an equally good, if not better, pro-life message.
Comment by JosephMary — 8 February 2010 @ 12:41 pmghlad, JonM, Anthony OPL, et alia
This whole Tebow issue raises some difficult questions about what it means to find “common ground” with other Christians. Certainly we should all applaud Pam Tebow’s decision not to abort Tim. And I certainly am pleased that Pam and Tim are active in the pro-life movement, even though I have misgivings about whether this ad was the best way to promote the cause. But I am beyond disappointed to know that the Tebows (at least Pam and her husband – don’t know about Tim himself) don’t consider Catholics to be Christian and have actively worked to lead Catholics away from the Church, away from the sacraments, away from Our Lady, and potentially away from salvation. It may have happened 22 years ago, but the consequences may be eternal for many souls.
I know many Protestants who (obviously) disagree with certain Catholic doctrines but still consider Catholics to be Christians and don’t specifically target Catholics for proselytizing (sp?). It’s not difficult to see how Catholics and Protestants like that can work together on common intiatives like the pro-life movement, service to the poor, protecting the sanctity of marriage, etc. But when Protestants hold the view of Catholicism that the Tebows hold, that introduces some serious complications. I’m not saying it’s impossible to work together with such folks, but Catholics need a different and more cautious approach. We need to first of all be aware that some Protestants hold this view. We need to be explicit in condemning it and educating our own flock about it, as Anthony points out. And in some cases we may have to make difficult decisions about whether or not we’re weakening the 1st commandment in favor of the 5th, or ignoring the spiritual works of mercy in favor of the corporal works of mercy. Will this mean in some cases that Catholics will have to oppose the work of fellow pro-lifers, like the Tebows? Perhaps . . . I don’t know the answers to these questions. It’s a very difficult issue, but it needs to be brought to light and honestly discussed since it’s not going away any time soon.
Comment by AJP — 8 February 2010 @ 12:48 pmThis most certainly is not honoring or even humoring DV. NOW is just using that as a cheap diversion from the real issue of abortion. “Pro-lifers are women beaters” – bunk! Such a statement cheapens the suffering of women who actually are dealing with domestic violence. Like abortion, such a statement does nothing to further the cause of authentic feminism.
Comment by Agnes — 8 February 2010 @ 1:39 pmI’m still laughing… The least entertaining Super Bowl commericial maybe of all time had three weeks worth of of free MSM hype. I’m not sure if thats the best or the worst $2+ Million Focus on the Family ever spent, but it sure made the pro-aborts look even more crazy than they already are.
Comment by John 6:54 — 8 February 2010 @ 1:42 pmNOW President Terry O’Neill is herself a survivor of domestic violence? How tragic. That she was abused. Why? What did you think I meant?
Comment by boko fittleworth — 8 February 2010 @ 1:56 pmGail F. said: I think Fr. Z may be right—the tackle may be a subtle symbol for being “knocked over” by a crisis pregnancy.
I think radicial feminists see pretty much ALL pregnancies as violence.
Comment by Jordanes — 8 February 2010 @ 2:19 pmboko,
Occasionally I lurk on hard-left, extreme feminist, pro-abortion, etc blogs and internet forums. One thing that has always struck me is how many women who adopt this radical ideology have (or at least claim to have) suffered serious abuse in the past. Many of them claim to have been physically abused and many claim to have been sexually abused – as children or as adults. A lot of them also strike me as deeply troubled in a psychological/psychiatric way. Radical feminism and leftism is fundamentally focused on opposing and undermining the family, undermining Christianity, and undermining anything or anyone that is in some sense “traditional.” In short, it’s about undermining and destroying society as we know it. I can see how such an ideology would appeal to women who, because of an abusive past or because of mental illness, feel that society, the church, the family, etc have tried to destroy them. Not saying this excuses anything or even diminishes culpability in every case – but scratch beneath the surface of a hardcore leftist and you’ll usually find a very troubled person.
Comment by AJP — 8 February 2010 @ 2:35 pmDuring the game, I ended up following a live blog of football people who reacted more to the Dove commerecial whose reaction to the Tebow commercial was, “That’s what the fuss was about?!?” They were indeed aware of the context even though not spelled out.
Comment by Mary Kay — 8 February 2010 @ 7:05 pmI liked it. Mom was positive and upbeat; I liked the humor in the tackle and mom telling her son she was tougher than he is. It was cute.
I thought the graphic style was nice and clean, and stood out against the other commercials.
Comment by KAS — 8 February 2010 @ 9:27 pmI liked it, and was surprised by how low-key it was—something that some viewers seem to be criticizing. On reflection I think we should consider who it may have been meant for—not the committed on either side of the debate, but football fans who might go to the website and read the story because they admire Tim Tebow and thought the commercial was amusing.
Comment by Gulielmus — 8 February 2010 @ 9:39 pm@AJP
Good reply post.
I am really not trying to be a polemic. To be sure, it is good whenever someone correctly takes a position on abortion. That I’m sure we all agree on.
However, there is a serious problem that prominent anti-abortion Catholics have created in intermingling with non-Catholics in abortion demonstrations. The most obvious is that of contraception.
Notice that the Manhattan Declaration, which is getting a ton of attention (some rightfully so) does not touch the issue of contraception. Pope Paul VI, a man who made terrible mistakes but never did defect from the faith (despite what some fringe types want to believe) officially taught that artificial contraception is an evil. He warned about what would happen if it were allowed (he was right.) We never will make serious headway on abortion if we do not loudly condemn contraception.
AJP, you also raise the point of how sometimes it can be acceptable to work, in some capacity, with non-Catholics on ethical matters. This is true; my understanding of Pius IX’s position on Sillonism was that a form of it could be tolerated depending on the circumstance. I think that it is entirely likely that we could work together with others on the issue of abortion, but only by keeping within our own ranks so as to prevent indifferentism (which is pretty rampent among soi disant conservative Catholics.)
Given that the Tebows aggressively ‘evangelize’ Catholics to a false faith, I cannot understand how we as the Church are to in any way ally with them.
Again, I really think a big factor here is celebrity and ‘oooh he’s sooo dreamy’ rather than an earnest commitment to following Christ’s commands. Many, many women have childen even when raped and don’t expect kudos from society at large. Certainly, they are not offered nearly what has been in this case.
Comment by JonM — 8 February 2010 @ 10:10 pmJon M, Catholics who are firmly grounded in their faith can work with even those who “aggressively ‘evangelize’ Catholics,” maybe even work in some Catholic apologetics.
The operative phrase is “firmly grounded in their faith.”
Comment by Mary Kay — 9 February 2010 @ 3:51 pm