Friday, October 23, 2015


I will no longer buy Campbell products or whoever the company that produces it.

Recently I saw this commercial on television and had a visceral negative reaction to it, a sick feeling in my stomach. It didn't make me want to go and buy any soup let alone drink it.

I hope these are just actors. But I thought to myself how sad that this little boy didn't have a mother in the home and that two men were acting this way with him and confusing him in the process about fatherhood.

Pope Francis has said that it is a basic human right that a child should have one father and one mother. We know that this doesn't always happen because of death, abandonment or divorce but usually not intentionally contrived.

How sad for this small child, how tragic! No mother! Do you sell soup by glorifying a child's victim-hood and tragedy?  I think not! That's why I am staying as far away from Campbell's as possible!


Vox Cantoris said...

The Campbell Soup Company Limited has for nearly a century been a part of my community. When the wind blows from the northeast, we get the smell of tomatoe soup and vegetable soup. I will never, ever buy their products again. We can add to the list Cheerios and any other from General Mills and on down the list. Soon, we will have little commercial products to buy and we will have to make our soup and cereal from scratch - already doing that!

Why? Why do corporations believe this need to wade in on social issues? Make your product, sell your product.

Stop telling me how to think.

Stephen Conner said...

I am so sick of the homosexual agenda being shoved down my throat by companies of everyday products. And now to use an innocent child? Indeed, how disgusting! Will the CEO of the company that makes Campbell's soup next scold us for being pro-life, pro-God-designed-marriage and Christians? Remember the Starbucks CEO made similar comments? Maybe Campbells can now be exclusively sold at Starbucks? Neither company EVERY has to worry about getting my or my family's business ever again. Like we were ever supporting a Godless company like Starbucks to begin with!

Gene said...

Ah, censored again. This stuff is the wave of the future, and the Church seems hell bent on joining the spirit of the age. All bets are off from here on out.

Gene said...

Also notice that one of the perverts looks like a Muslim. You see this crap in all kinds of advertising on TV...showing us social and domestic situations that never occur or those that occur rarely and are desired to be the norm by Leftist propagandists. If they ever start dragging these peddlers of this social porn out in the streets and shooting them, I'll be first in line with plenty of ammo.

Rood Screen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James said...

I'm with Gene on this one. This kind of advertising is so insidious, serving to normalize gay parenting by treating it as "real, real life." But the reality isn't some normal-looking kid being fed beans by two regular guys: it's a deeply confused boy who is missing out on the most important formative relationship a child can have.

I've got to know one pair of gay parents quite well over the last four or five years, as their children attended the same nursery as our three. One daddy was the biological father of their son, the other of the daughter. This seemed to work out okay at the start, and both seemed to be kind and well-meaning parents. But as the children have grown older, things started to go off the rails. Increasingly, each father only gives attention to his own biological child, so that they now seem like two single-parent families living together rather than one family. This is already having a bad effect on the children, and the boy in particular has become introverted and listless. Regardless of the religious rights and wrongs, this kind of family just doesn't work in practice, and it's sick of the media to pretend that it does.

Aged parent said...

More evidence, as if any were needed, that Big Business has been promoting this degeneracy for decades. They're just more open about it now. Coca-Cola has also had ads like this recently, and you will see more. Always boycott these people and buy locally whenever possible (most of the junk they make is usually near-poisonous anyway).

Dr E Michael Jones of Culture Wars has been writing about this collusion for awhile now, and his stuff is worth reading.

Big Government, Big Business and Big Buggery are working hand-in-hand on this project. Just opt out of their pig pen.

Aged Parent
The Eye-Witness

Gene said...

It is all sick beyond measure. I cannot believe that decent people have not risen up in significant protest about it. But, we are plied with entertainment, diversion, and titillation that puts us morally to sleep.

Jenny said...

We hadn't seen this ad, so thanks for "airing" it, Father. Addimg Campbell's to the list to avoid! Wow, we grew up thinking of them as the family friendly comfort food for lunch with Mom and kids. So so sad. But as Gene et al have pointed out, we must expect this around every corner from now on. Politically correct is not only the new religion and daily fare for will be shoved down our throats from every imaginable source. I'm glad and gladder we don't watch much network programming.

George said...

I haven't bought Campbell's products in so long I can't even recall how far back its been. I would like to think that there is more of us than people who support this, even taking into account all the people who have left the Church. We do not have much influence in the corporate boardrooms anymore though. The secular-humanist philosophy is predominant in the advertising world and much of the media.

Anonymous said...

As Catholics, Father, which do we consider more objectionable?
Showing a gay couple and a child on TV?
Or dragging people out into the street and shooting them?
Just curious.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I would have a visceral negative reaction to a Campbell soup ad that you describe.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Campbell's owns Swanson, Pace Foods (salsa), Prego, Pepperidge Farms.

No more Goldfish or Milano cookies...

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I can avoid and in fact don't buy any of those but the swanson's which a small premium can of chicken in water is only 2 points.

Gene said...

The support of perversion and globalist crap on the part of manufacturers is so vast that boycotts such as this make no impact. What is needed is a law that forbids political messages in product advertising. But, see how far you get with that.

George said...

Fr Kavanaugh:

I have not bought any of those products in so long I can't recall how far back it's been. I was not engaged in a personal boycott against Campbell's-it just happened that I quit purchasing their products-they no longer appealed to me.

Gene said...

Daniel, I think showing a gay couple on tv is more objectionable than doing combat against the enemies of the Church.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Among the other possible boycott targets because of their political stance:

JC Penny
Levi Strauss
JP Morgan
American Airlines
Wells Fargo
Hewlett Packard
General Mills
Proctor and Gamble
Jet Blue
Smart Car
Whole Foods
Old Navy
Ben and Jerry's
Coca Cola
Absolut Vodka

Gene said...

Like I said, perversion and unnatural behavior are so widely supported by big business that a boycott of this type won't be effective. We need law forbidding political messages in advertising...unless it is a truly political campaign ad. Most corporations are globalists...they do not care where their profit comes from...terrorists, communists, socialist, perverts all are consumers and that is all most corporate types care about. Most large scale commerce is amoral.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Is showing an interracial couple "political"? What about a TV show with a woman President? Is a commercial that shows a truly massive American flag, such as some car dealerships like to display, " political"? How do we determine what to ban and how do we square that with freedom of speech?

Gene said...

That is a good question, Kavanaugh. But, as one Supreme Court Justice said regarding pornography, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it." At any rate, to express any concern at all about free speech is a joke because that went by the board years ago with the media censorship of conservative views on TV, so-called hate speech, PC, and the war against Christian expression in this country. It seems that Blacks, Muslims, and liberals are the only ones allowed truly free speech.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

It's a good question because it eviscerates your suggestion for a "law" that would be opposed to the Constitution. We don't make laws that cannot pass "Constitutional muster" because to do so is an exercise in futility.

There are no limitations on conservative views on TV - none whatsoever. If it happens that the great majority of those who write for TV or who control what's on TV, then that's the luck of the draw. But to turn that into "media censorship" is just a farce.

We could put together a long list of conservative publications, none of which us limited by PC concerns or the completely imaginary "war on Christianity."

Gene said...

Well, you are a Leftist/liberal and would naturally feel as you do. The fact is, if you cannot see the dominance of all media and advertising by the Left, then you are either blind or approving of their tactics. With you, it is the latter.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Gene - I not approving or disapproving. I'm simply stating the facts as they are known.

TV broadcasts shows that people want because that's what makes them money. Producers of TV commercials turn out what they believe will sell their products.

It is, I suggest, as simple as that. If we, the people, stop watching this or that programming, it will, quickly, disappear from the airwaves. If we don't buy the products for which commercials are made, the commercials will change.

I maintain that TV is reactive. It does what is does for the best of capitalist motivations - making money.

George said...

Michael Kavanaugh:

Thanks for that list. With the exception of two, I have not bought anything from any of those companies in ages. Even the two I have purchased something from, I rarely shop at. The thing is, I was not engaged in a personal boycott against these companies, it just transpired that way. Interesting how it worked out that way.