I'm not sure this is intrinsically wrong - it may depend on the intent of the person making the chocolates. I don't think this is the first time anyone's done such a thing (anti-Catholic works of "art" aside). I googled chocolate Jesus and the first result was a company selling chocolates with the images of Jesus and Mary on them: http://www.chocolatefantasies.co...m/ religious.htm (thankfully they didn't put a corpus on the lollipop crosses). Their website has been up since 1998 and I don't see anyone condemning them. And I personally don't see anything distasteful about the Jesus and Mary chocolates they offer.

For an example of the difference intent makes, Catholics may burn blessed sacramentals that have become worn out as an act of reverence. An anti-Catholic person may burn blessed items as an act of hatred. They do the same thing but one is good and one is evil.

Maybe this is a case like liturgical dance at the parish hall after Mass (which I guess wouldn't be liturgical, but you know what I mean). Although there aren't any prohibitions against it and the intent of the people doing it might be perfectly good - it's such a turnoff to so many people that it just shouldn't be done.
Brian Walden | 12.03.08 - 11:23 am | #

Correction, that site I linked to does have a crucifix lollipop. That crosses the line for me - I'm a little freaked out by the whole idea of it.
Brian Walden | 12.03.08 - 11:26 am | #

This whole thing can't help but produce puns, only evidencing the fact that chocolate Jesi are altogether ridiculous. Would I eat one? eh, probably not. Do I disapprove of their existence? I would if the whole concept, including the lollipop crucifixes, wasn't completely silly. Are you sure Michael Palin or John Cleese aren't behind this?
Teep | 12.03.08 - 11:40 am | #

And here come the puns and statements of irony;

The ad campaign is a twist on the psalmal antiphon "Taste and See the Goodness of the Lord"
Mattheus Mei | Homepage | 12.03.08 - 1:39 pm | #

OK, this is probably well intentioned. It is probably also a bit too odd and somewhat irreverent. But not sickeningly wrong.

Regardless, Jesus "wrapped up gold foil and sold alongside chocolate bunnies" doesn't describe an evil act -- it describes packaging and marketing techniques. I'm pretty sure I've seen lots of statutes, crucifixes, etc. wrapped in packaging materials no less obnoxious than foil and sold in proximity to chocolates. If there's something mildly irreverent about God-shaped candy, then say that. Don't say something meaningless like "one ought not to sell images of Christ next to edible penguins."
Paul | 12.03.08 - 5:16 pm | #

Ok it has to be said:

Mmmm....sacrilicious.
Matt Gardocki | 12.03.08 - 7:34 pm | #

Sounds like a gimmick in a Flannery O'Connor story.
Tom | 12.03.08 - 9:49 pm | #

Matt G.,

Well done Homer Simpson reference!! I stand by my Monty Python statements from before.
Teep | 12.03.08 - 9:59 pm | #

"The German Protestant Church criticized the idea as “tasteless.”"

Well then, it should sell like hotcakes in this blog!
John Reid | 12.03.08 - 10:05 pm | #

Brian Walden said, "And I personally don't see anything distasteful about the Jesus and Mary chocolates they offer."

See what I mean?
John Reid | 12.03.08 - 10:29 pm | #

The traditional German stollen cake is eaten at Christmas and the shape of it is meant to resemble the Baby Jesus in His swaddling clothes. It is a wonderful Eucharistic symbol. I'll be baking some soon. As usual I'm behind.

The chocolates are a little odd, I think.
LvB | 12.04.08 - 6:18 pm | #

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for Easter?
Panda Rosa | 12.05.08 - 11:42 am | #