This year, an ad that features a priest serving Doritos and Pepsi Max presumably for Communion has the faith community all abuzz — and it  got pulled before it ever made it to Super Bowl Sunday.

The ad from Media Wave Video Productions is called “Feed Your Flock” and it was one of the entries in the Doritos/Pepsi Max “Crash the Super Bowl” ad contest.

I viewed the video myself, but chose not to embed it here because it is deemed very offensive to some people. 

However, I’d like to get readers’ opinion about the ad’s premise.

Now, the actor portraying the pastor,  Michael Lyons, has said that he is not shown offering the chips and soft drinks as Communion because the ad never shows him praying a Eucharistic prayer over the food. Still, some faithful have complained that the advertisement is an obvious parody of sacred Communion.

Here is some of the commentary regarding the video. I just rounded up some of the commentary, at random (in case you wondered) : “Ad playing Doritos for  Eucharist yanked from Super Bowl contest.”

Aliveandyoung.net: “Feed Your Flock: Potential Super Bowl Commercial Blasphemous?”  

Philly Chat Chat: “Feed Your Flock-Crash the Super Bowl Commercial Contest Filmed in Philly-As Prince Would Say Controversy.”  

And here is a list of the videos that did make it in as contest finalists, click here: “Crash the Super Bowl” finalists.

At stake is $5 million, an ad contract and an ad spot during the highly sought-after air time during Super Bowl XLV.  Apparently only six of the ads will be aired during the game, but nobody will find out which will receive that distinction until game day on Feb. 6 in Dallas, Texas.   

So what do you think?

Is the ad’s premise offensive?

I don’t know why the ad didn’t make the final cut, but do you think it should have been rejected based on its premise?

Incidentally, there is an ad called “Adam and Eve” that did make it to the contest finals. You might see what you think of it and compare it to the “Feed Your Flock” ad: “Adam and Eve”

Carla Hinton

Religion Editor

The ad continues to cause talk as football fans await the game between the New Orleans Saints and the Indianapolis Colts.

I’ve seen lots of opinions on the issue being bandied about  on the Internet in the days since I last posted a blog on this issue. I just got a news release today that says an anti-abortion group called Wisconsin Right to Life has produced a Tim Tebow mask that people can wear on Sunday to show their support for Tebow and his mother Pam. For those who haven’t heard about the ad yet (it’s possible, I guess), CBS has agreed to air a Focus on the Family ad featuring Tebow’s mother, who will share her decision against abortion when she was pregnant with the young college football star. Some pro-choice groups are upset about the ad and demanding that CBS refuse to air it, while anti-abortion groups are rallying in its favor.

Back on the masks, Barbara Lyons, executive director of Wisconsin Right to Life, said in a news release that they are a way to have a little fund and show the public that Tim and his Mom and Dad are “an inspiration to all of us.”

Learn more about the mask at www.wisconsinrighttolife.org.

Meanwhile, I saw lots of comments concerning my last posting on this issue.

I asked what people thought about the ad, whether CBS should air it or not. Here are a few responses:

“I hate Tim Tebow, as any Sooner should, but I say run it. How one-sided are we as a country if we cannot at least allow both side to be heard?” — EJP

“I’m confused by this reaction. Isn’t the pro-choice movement in support of choice? Why is it wrong for this mother to say she chose to have her child? — Cara

“Absolutely not. I will boycott not only the game but all the sponsors if they don’t retract this.” — Carolyn

Stay tuned for more on the issue …

Carla Hinton

Religion Editor    

In these days leading up to the game, a “pro-life” ad featuring Florida quarterback Tim Tebow’s mother Pam (pictured at right with Tim in a 2009 AP photo) continues to provoke some folks who are angry with CBS for agreeing to give it some air time on Sunday.

That’s right, it hasn’t aired yet but it’s causing a stir.

Several news releases on the topic are being sent out via the Christian Newswire every day. The New York Times has written an opinion piece on the issue and today I learned that  the NFL is being pressured by some “pro-choice” advocacy groups to demand that CBS drop the ad.

Apparently the ad in question is sponsored by the Christian organization Focus on the Family. It reportedly features Pam Tebow telling about her decision not to follow a doctor’s advice to terminate her pregnancy when she was pregnant with son Tim. The doc reportedly gave this advice because of  her difficult pregnancy and illness.

The National Organization for Women is one of the ”pro-choice” group that is incensed that CBS still plans to run the ad.

“Make no mistake about this ad: it’s offensive to women. Yes, it features Heisman trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother, who had been advised to have an abortion after a serious illness. Standing alone, it sends the message that all women who give birth are heroes; it sends a message that abortion is always a mistake; and it is insulting to the one in three women in this country who have abortions,” Erin Matson, NOW Action vice president, wrote in a posting on the organization’s Say It Sister blog.

Matson said CBS is accomodating Focus on the Family after previously denying ads from the United Church of Christ which depicted “a welcome environment for same sex couples.”

Meanwhile, several pro-life or anti-abortion organizations, are trying to counter opposition to the ad.

Catholic Families for America has started a petition in favor of the Tebow ad.

“It doesn’t take long for the pro-abortion crowd to mobilized their members so those of us on the pro-life side need to be sure we do the same,” Kevin Roberts, executive director of the Catholic grassroots advocacy group, said in a news release.

What are your thoughts? Should CBS run the ad?

Carla Hinton

Religion Editor 

We reported this last year, but for those churches that didn’t get the word: It’s OK to broadcast the Super Bowl game on Sunday.

Lots of churches offer Super Bowl watch parties to bring congregations together and also as an outreach opportunity to football fans in the surrounding community.

The Religion News Service sent out a brief today noting that the Rutherford Institute, which joined members of Congress in challenging the National Football League’s previous rules, has reminded churches that they can host viewing parties on Sunday on large-screen televisions in their buildings.

“As long as they follow the basic guidelines set forth by the NFL, churches can now rest assured that they are free to have football parties and show the Super Bowl game,” said John W Whitehead, president of the Charlottesville, Va.-based civil liberties organization, told the RNS.

The Pittsburgh Steelers and the Arizona Cardinals face off in Super Bowl XLIII in Tamp, Fla., on Sunday.

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said the modified policy eliminated past rules regarding the size of the screens on which the game is shown.

McCarthy said the only thing his organization asks is that churches not charge admission and that they hold the parties at locations they regularly use for large gatherings.

McCarthy told the RNS that his New York offices continue to receive calls from churches about the policy. “We had always had calls throughout the history of the Super Bowl,” he said. “It hasn’t been that substantial this year.”

Members of Congress and church leaders objected to the NFL’s previous ban on widescreen televisions. The league had said churches could not hold Super Bowl parties featuring TV screens larger than 55 inches, even though sports bars routinely did.

Last February, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, sent NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell a letter with a series of questions about the policy, and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., introduced legislation that would permit churches to show the game on widescreen TVs.

Goodell wrote back to Hatch to inform him of the rule change and noted that the league believed the legislation was not necessary.

(AP PHOTO above)

Carla Hinton

Religion Editor