Vatican archbishop featured in homoerotic painting he commissioned

vincenzo-paglia_810_500_55_s_c1

CP&S comment: The torrent of disturbing news from the Vatican has left many feeling that nothing could shock them anymore. The following article from LifeSiteNews contains material that is so hideous and sickening that we are posting it for our readers with an obscenity alert and a request for prayers of reparation to Our Lord:

March 3, 2017

LifeSiteNews.com

The archbishop now at the helm of the Pontifical Academy for Life paid a homosexual artist to paint a blasphemous homoerotic mural in his cathedral church in 2007. The mural includes an image of the archbishop himself.

The archbishop, Vincenzo Paglia, was also recently appointed by Pope Francis as president of the Pontifical Pope John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family.

The massive mural still covers the opposite side of the facade of the cathedral church of the Diocese of Terni-Narni-Amelia. It depicts Jesus carrying nets to heaven filled with naked and semi-nude homosexuals, transsexuals, prostitutes, and drug dealers, jumbled together in erotic interactions.

Image
Cathedral mural depicts Jesus lifting nets full of prostitutes, homosexuals, and other lascivious characters, into heaven. 

Included in one of the nets is Paglia, the then diocesan bishop. The image of the Savior is painted with the face of a local male hairdresser, and his private parts can be seen through his translucent garb.

According to the artist, a homosexual Argentinean named Ricardo Cinalli who is known for his paintings of male bodies, Bishop Paglia selected him out of a list of ten internationally-known artists specifically for the task of painting the inner wall of the facade. Bishop Paglia, along with one Fr. Fabio Leonardis, oversaw every detail of Cinalli’s work, according to Cinalli, who approvingly notes that Paglia never asked him if he believed in the Christian doctrine of salvation.

“Working with him was humanly and professionally fantastic,” Cinalli told the Italian newspaper La Repubblica in March of last year. “Never, in four months, during which we saw each other almost three times each week, did Paglia ever ask me if I believed in salvation. He never placed me in an uncomfortable position.”

“There was no detail that was done freely, at random,” added Cinalli. “Everything was analyzed. Everything was discussed. They never allowed me to work on my own.”

Image
Bishop Vincenzo Paglia appears in one of the “erotic” nets clutching another semi-nude man. 

Cinalli admits to La Repubblica that the naked people in the nets are meant to be “erotic,” although Bishop Paglia drew the line when Cinalli proposed to show people actually copulating.

“In this case, there was not – in this sense – a sexual intention, but erotic, yes,” said Cinalli. “I think that the erotic aspect is the most notable among the people inside the nets.” He later added, “The one thing that they didn’t permit me to insert was the copulation of two people within this net where everything is permitted.”

The reason he wasn’t allowed to be so explicit, says Cinalli, is that his painting had already done enough to demonstrate the notion that man has “freedom” in this life and even in the next, apparently to engage in whatever sexual behavior he deems appropriate. “The bishop and Fr. Leonardis . . . told me that they didn’t think it was necessary to arrive at that extreme to demonstrate the freedom that man, in reality, has in this world and in the next.”

The Catholic Church condemns all forms of sexual behavior outside of natural sexual intercourse between a man and a woman united in marriage, including homosexual sodomy, and warns that those who die unrepentant of such sins will suffer eternal damnation.  The doctrine, which is found in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, is reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which calls homosexual acts “intrinsically disordered,” and adds, “Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

Under the supervision of Paglia, Cinalli painted the bishop himself in one of the “erotic” nets, semi-nude and clutching a bearded man wearing nothing but a loose loincloth. He also painted Fr. Leonardis, then head of the Office of Cultural Heritage, as a naked, muscular man with a tattoo of a cupid’s arrow running through a heart containing the word “love,” entangled with others in one of the “erotic” nets.

Image
Artist Ricadro Cinalli says the people in the nets are meant to be “erotic.” 

Click here to learn about St. Peter Damian’s struggle against an epidemic of sodomy and corruption among the clergy of the eleventh century, a story with great relevance for the Catholic Church today.

Cinalli told La Repubblica that Fr. Fabio, who died soon after the painting was finished while still in his fifties, was a very “open” man, but declined to say if he was a homosexual.

“Fr. Fabio was completely open,” said Cinalli. “It’s not for me to say if he was a homosexual or not – it’s not important, but his openness was absolute.”

Cinalli explained to La Repubblica that he modeled the face of Jesus on that of a local male hairdresser because people see Christ in a way that is “too masculine.”

Cinalli admits that his work was not well-received by many in the Diocese of Terni-Narni-Amelia, who were so outraged by the work that Cinalli believed it might be destroyed after Fr. Fabio’s death. However, Bishop Paglia resisted such pressures until he left the diocese in 2012, and his successor has also left the mural in place.

Image

LifeSite asked Archbishop Paglia’s office for comment but no response was received by press time.

Vincenzo Paglia placed in charge of life and family issues by the Vatican

Although the mural generated controversy in Paglia’s diocese, it passed under the radar of Italy’s national media, and Paglia’s promotion to archbishop and appointment as president of the Pontifical Council for the Family in 2012 generated no controversy. Soon, however, he began to give hints of his liberal attitudes regarding sexual morality, claiming in 2013 that the Catholic Church favors “legal protections and inheritance for people living together but are not married” and opposes making homosexuality a crime. When his comments received negative coverage from Catholic media, he claimed his intentions had been “derailed,” but didn’t retract the statements.

In early 2015, under the direction of Archbishop Paglia, the Pontifical Council for the Family hosted a series of lectures that raised the possibility of giving Holy Communion to people living in adulterous remarriages, after some period of public penance. The lectures were then published as a book, ironically named “Family and Church: an indissoluble bond.”

In July of 2016, still under the direction of Paglia, the Pontifical Council for the Family issued a new sex-ed program that includes lascivious and pornographic images so disturbing that one psychologist suggested that the archbishop be evaluated by a review board in accordance with norms of the Dallas Charter, which are meant to protect children from sexual abuse.

“My immediate professional reaction was that this obscene or pornographic approach abuses youth psychologically and spiritually,” said Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist who has been a consultant to the Congregation for the Clergy at the Vatican and has served as adjunct professor at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at the Catholic University of America.  “As a professional who has treated both priest perpetrators and the victims of the abuse crisis in the Church, what I found particularly troubling was that the pornographic images in this program are similar to those used by adult sexual predators of adolescents.”

Image
Fr. Fabio Leonardis, now deceased, appears in one of the “erotic” nets totally naked. 

In August of last year, Pope Francis moved Paglia from the Pontifical Council for the Family to the presidency of the Pontifical Academy for Life, as well as of the Pontifical Pope John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, two organizations founded by Pope St. John Paul II to defend the sanctity of human life and family values. Soon it became apparent that the Academy was being radically transformed when new statutes were issued that no longer required members to sign a declaration of fidelity to the Catholic Church’s perennial teachings on the right to life. On February 17, it was confirmed that all Academy memberships had been terminated, leaving only Paglia and his staff at the top of an otherwise empty organization.

On the same day, Archbishop Paglia gave a speech praising the recently-deceased founder of Italy’s Radical Party, Marco Pannella, a promiscuous bisexual whose career was largely spent attacking the values of the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church itself. Although Pannella had fought vigorously for the legalization of abortion, homosexual “marriage,” transgender “rights,” divorce, and free unions, and sought to dissolve the concordat between the Church and the Italian state, Paglia called him a “man of great spirituality,” and said that his death was “a great loss, not only for the people of the Radical Party, but also for our country.”

“His story shows how a man can help history to go forward towards the defense of each and every person’s dignity, especially those who are marginalized,” said Paglia. “I take great pleasure in saying that Marco was truly a spiritual man who fought and hoped against all hope.” Paglia concluded, “We must receive and keep his (Panella’s) vitality.”

See the La Repubblica video of their interview with Ricardo Cinalli (in Spanish and Italian), which contains images of the mural:

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Vatican archbishop featured in homoerotic painting he commissioned

  1. johnhenrycn says:

  2. Bible Junkie says:

    😦

  3. Loretta says:

    I feel sick to my stomach. How is this painting still up? I’m sorry but these are not men of Christ! Jesus have Mercy.

  4. marysong says:

    It gives one a definite sense of ‘desolation’ (as in abomination) Words fail when trying to comprehend. I sent for the book. Might as well get educated to talk to the ones I love, who have fallen into that net. The vineyard has been attacked.

  5. 000rjbennett says:

    When will the grip of the demonic “spirit” of the Council finally be loosened? “(O)ne psychologist suggested that the archbishop (Paglia) be evaluated by a review board….’My immediate professional reaction was that this obscene or pornographic approach abuses youth psychologically and spiritually,’ said Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist who has been a consultant to the Congregation for the Clergy at the Vatican and has served as adjunct professor at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at the Catholic University of America.”

    We should all be praying that this obscenity of a pontificate will soon end and that Our Lady will crush the head of the serpent in the Vatican.

  6. kathleen says:

    The vineyard has been attacked.

    It has indeed, Marysong, and Her guardian – the one who swore to protect Her – has not only joined the ranks of the attackers, but has kicked out the faithful defenders of the “vineyard” and brought in extra attackers in their place!!

    A pro-sodomite as president of the Pontifical Pope John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family? Does anyone still doubt the revolutionary intentions of Pope Francis?

    @ ooorjbennett

    I agree, Robert. In a growing long list of shocks, betrayals, abuses and “filth” Catholics have been subjected to in recent times, the news of the commissioning of this blasphemous painting for a cathedral (no less) must surely be one of the worst! A “homoerotic” mural painted on the cathedral wall facing an altar where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated? What an absolute scandal! What a terrible affront to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour!

    I’m not surprised either that the homo artist, Cinalli, expected the painting to be destroyed after the death of ‘Father’ Fabio (surely a sodomite too) or that ‘Archbishop’ Paglia (another one) warded off pressure to have it destroyed. But the fact that it has not been destroyed since Paglia left the diocese does surprise me!

  7. David O'Neill says:

    Has his superior not spoken to him about this sacrilege & told him to remove it? If not should not he & his superior be laicised for the tremendous sin?

  8. toadspittle says:

    “We should all be praying that this obscenity of a pontificate will soon end “

    Why not just leave it all to God? The only reason we are enjoying, “..this obscenity of a pontificate.. “ is because God has not intervened so far. If He doesn’t like what’s going on, He can easily fix it. Same as He could with the Holocaust.
    But He seems to have made some sort of “100-year arrangement” with Satan, we are told.
    …So He may not bother.
    In short, He knows, we must suppose, exactly what He is doing.
    So, let’s have a little faith.

  9. toadspittle says:

    “A “homoerotic” mural painted on the cathedral wall facing an altar where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated? “
    Practically all Christ-centred art is “homoerotic.” Certainly, virtually all crucifixions, visions of Hell, stations of the cross, and depictions of St, Steven, are. Others are merely sadistic.
    Unless we had had the “scandalous” mural pruriently explained to us, would any of us have considered it any more than a normally mediocre work of modern Catholic art?
    I think not.

  10. johnhenrycn says:

    I’m sorry, Toad, but your imaginings about homoeroticism in art from days-gone-by betray more about you than anyone else. Michelangelo, Da Vinci and others may have had issues – I don’t know and neither do you – but depictions of human anatomy in great art, certainly Catholic art, were rarely meant to celebrate sodomy, buggery and what have you. Mind you, the above is not great art by any stretch. I look at my expensive facsimile edition of The Holkham Bible (reputed to be the first picture bible in England, c.1340) handwritten in Anglo-Norman French, with drawings of penises, vulvae and the peritoneal area in general without seeing any sexual messages at all. Jesus is always discreetly presented.

  11. johnhenrycn says:

    I’m looking at Phaidon’s 15th edition of the great E.H. Gombrich’s The Story of Art, and I turn to the index: “Buggery”? Nope. Buddha is followed by Burgundian. “Homosexual”? Nope. Homer is followed by Honduras. “Sodomy”? Nope. Socrates is followed by Soulages. Yes, Socrates is mentioned, but only as a minor sculptor or critic of art, with no mention of his lifestyle.

  12. johnhenrycn says:

    Correction: The Socrates reference in Gombrich’s index is immediately before ‘Sohier’, not ‘Soulage’ (which is after ‘Sohier’ obviously). I mention this just in case Jack Kehoe also has a copy of the 15th edition, which I doubt. [The Moderator – JohnHenry, please stop teasing Mr Kehoe. We place limits on his ability to post here, which means that he is not able to defend himself.].

  13. toadspittle says:

    .”.. depictions of human anatomy in great art, certainly Catholic art, were rarely meant to celebrate sodomy, buggery and what have you. “
    True, JH – but they were, certainly from the Renaissance on, celebrations of the human body, rather than of the purely divine. Man The Measure Of All Things, and so on.
    And every crucifixion from then on is a “celebration” or at least a depiction of both physicality and what we now call Sado-masochism.
    This might account for so many priests being “gay.” I don’t know – and neither do you.

    However, one nice thing about being Catholic is that they can read sin – usually sexual. “immodesty,” “indecency,” and so on – into practically anything, and so have far more fun than atheists.
    The story above is an amusing example.

  14. The Raven says:

    To be honest Toad, I’m surprised to find myself on the other side of this debate to you. But there is a very troubling element to this painting, which leaves me thinking that it should be effaced (and I’m not just talking about the clumsy rendering of some of the figures).

    While it is true that a lot of great art since the 15th century has concerned itself with accurately depicting the human form, it has always been theologically consistent with the teaching of the Church.

    In this case the people in the nets are not shown in adoration of God, but instead continuing in their sins and earthly affectations. That does not accord with the Faith and should have no place in a Church.

  15. toadspittle says:

    “In this case the people in the nets are not shown in adoration of God, but instead continuing in their sins and earthly affectations.”

    Well, that’s a different aspect of things, Raven – and I take the point.
    I fail to see “pornography” there, but maybe I’m not looking closely enough. Hand me my magnifying glass.
    However, I’d have thought the idea of Christ netting, and rescuing, all sinners – (i.e. everyone ) was theologically impeccable. – that they are continuing in their wickedness because they are only “netted,” and not yet “landed.”
    But I might well be wrong on that.

    Incidentally, in the Middle Ages, many churches possessed “erotic” or visually explicit sexual images, often in the form of column capitals. Near me, the beautiful church of San Martin, Fromista, had some so rude that they were removed, and then “mislaid.” Wonderful.
    We might wonder what the original point of the “art” was.
    This gives a very vague idea:

    Champagnolles carving
  16. Rumpelstiltzkin says:

    Toad is broadly right in his comment on post Enlightenment presentation of the body. He is right too that some Catholics see sin in every direction but forgets that this is in a Catholic cathedral and not a pastiche in Amsterdam’s red light area. .Toad ignores context which is crucial to understanding. Even the obnoxious Brian Sewell included context. Medieval masons’ figures are another topic entirely.
    . However Raven is also right from a Catholic point of view. Some of the images of the body shown *are* homo-erotic, for example in the voyeuristic peep at the male’s backside with lifted covering, as is a later image of a tumescent male. Perhaps the artist is also having a bit of a giggle.. Except artistically, I neither approve nor disapprove of these images but in Raven’s Catholic context this highly sexualised content is alien and unacceptable. As Raven says they are shown to continue their ‘sins’. In the orthodox Catholic world this has ”no place in a Church’ which in theory at least teaches against it.

  17. mmvc says:

    @ 9:34

    Incidentally, in the Middle Ages, many churches possessed “erotic” or visually explicit sexual images, often in the form of column capitals. Near me, the beautiful church of San Martin, Fromista, had some so rude that they were removed, and then “mislaid.” Wonderful.
    We might wonder what the original point of the “art” was.

    From a quick google search:

    Gargoyles serve as a reminder to always do the right thing and to follow the word of God so as not to go to hell. Gargoyles are usually monsters that are half beast and half man. They are often depicted eating or harming humans. Most gargoyles were carved in Western Europe during the 10th and 15th centuries.

    When the gargoyles were used as water spouts on buildings, most of the figures would have open mouths so that the water could flow through. They helped to clear rain water from the building. In fact, the word gargoyle means “throat” and comes from the Middle English and Old French languages. It was first used around 1250-1300.
    The gargoyles were also often designed in ways that imitated European paganism. They could be seen with disembodied heads and with different species combinations. They also sometimes used crude sexual imagery as a way to showcase the evil of pagan fertility rituals.

    The primary use of the gargoyle was to illustrate evil through the form of the gargoyle.

    Quite different from this graphic depiction of a priest and bishop entangled in ‘erotic’ nets with LGBTQI…XYZ folk and prostitutes as a perverse expression of “sexual freedom in this world and in the next.”

  18. toadspittle says:

    Well, however we view the “context,” it’s stimulating to see such keen interest interest in “erotica,” (though unsurprising.)
    “Toad ignores context which is crucial to understanding.”
    No I don’t. Relative context is everything.
    “.. for example in the voyeuristic peep at the male’s backside with lifted covering, “
    True, Rumpelstiltzkin ( Lovely name, is it Serbo-Croat?.. Oh, shut up, Toad.) I hadn’t noticed that particular backside until you pointed it out. Must sharpen up my voyeuristic skills, to your levels.
    But I’m more than half-blind these days, and so am blessed to miss a lot of filth.
    “Rump,” is less fortunate, as we see.

    “They also sometimes used crude sexual imagery as a way to showcase the evil of pagan fertility rituals.”
    …Rather like the old “News of the World” newspaper running sex-based court cases to demonstrate the evils thereof. And also to sell four million copies every Sunday.

  19. J.P. says:

    Moderator I object to your allowing my name to be insultingly introduced into this blog by johnhenrycn@01:54 where I have not posted and have expressed no interest. It is poor form to say the least and reduces the quality of discourse on this blog.

    In your dealings with him and with me you have shown your continuing bias, allowing him a licence to ridicule me and my name, simply on the basis that he dislikes with my opinions, and ‘moderating’,editing, or omitting altogether anything I offer. [The Moderator – May I suggest that you look at what has been edited in your posts, John; you’re not averse to a little ‘sledging’ yourself.]

    [I note that the last post I offered on March 4 on the ‘St Padre Pio never said the Novus Ordo Mass’ blog, in which I merely asked you a relevant and crucial straightforward question, was not posted, presumably because it might have affected this man and his allies on this blog] [The Moderator – Your question was just a repetition of the point that you made in your comment on March 2, 2017 at 15:16. I have omitted your last paragraph, as it repeats JohnHenry’s rude comment, which has been edited out.]

  20. J.P. says:

    The Moderator @20:06. Thank you.
    In my March 2 @15.16 post [St Padre Pio never said… blog] I did not ask for my opponents to say wherein the Church had declared the Tridentine Mass to be superior to the Novus Ordo Mass, I merely said, inter alia, that it was not Church teaching, whereas in my March 4, unpublished post, I did ask that question the answer to which is relevant to Kathleen’s earlier opposite assertion that it is superior. The question, then asked for the first time and not a repeat, remains unanswered.

  21. johnhenrycn says:

    “Hey Jude(aka John), don’t make it bad,
    Take a sad song and make it better…
    And anytime you feel the pain, hey Jude (aka John), refrain
    Don’t carry the world upon your shoulders,
    Nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah”

    I’m awaiting moderation on a favourite website for mentioning the abandonment of civilization and law by black Africans as depicted by this killing in Kenya, and I had a comment removed by another one yesterday (asking whether Michelle Obama was going to be on the cover of next month’s Cowsmopolitan magazine) so I suggest you also take things in stride – like Toad does – and not think of blogs as beholden to the same rules of etiquette as in face-to-face conversations. But I do respect your thin skin and shall try (again) not to scratch it. Poor boy.

  22. johnhenrycn says:

    Here’s the thing: you come to this place with the sole intention of insulting orthodox believers (99% of commenters here) at every turn; and then you scream with pain when I return the favour. Here’s some advice, buster – you start treating orthodox believers with more respect (whilst disagreeing with them) and I will return the favour by not attacking your shallow self in a cruel way.

  23. J.P. says:

    johnhenrycn@21:43. I am not amused by your attempted humour, nor by your derogatory personal comments, … ‘your thin skin’, nor by your condescension .. Poor boy’. Perhaps the moderator might consider a similar curtailment of your comments as he/she does on mine.

    How would it go down with you, or the moderator either, if, and no offence at all intended I assure you, I were to call you a naturally rude Canadian bumpkin ?

  24. johnhenrycn says:

    Speaking of Cowsmopolitan Magazine (a real one published by a friend of mine 17 years ago) reminds me of its sister publication PlayBoar, in which my beautiful daughter appeared (not as the Littermate of the Month mind you) fully clothed a few months later.

  25. johnhenrycn says:

    oops! Memory fail. My beautiful daughter was never in Playboar. She did have a 4-page spread (fully clothed) in Vague Magazine [sic] 20 years ago, but she’s not the girl on the cover.

  26. J.P. says:

    johnhenrycn@22:08. I do not insult orthodox believers and have no such intention. I am one myself having been born into a Catholic family with practising Catholic parents, having gone to Catholic schools, was taught religion and classics by Catholic priest-teachers before Vatican II, and Plain Chant, with daily attendance at Tridentine Mass at the school chapel, and evening Benediction, thereby well versed in the Latin liturgy. Most people would not regard that as a ‘shallow’ Catholic background as you do of mine.

    I have always been, and remain a practising Catholic.I find it dismaying that Pope Francis is continually attacked on this website, which I had originally thought was orthodox and loyal to the Vicar of Christ on earth, being regularly accused of heresy, referred to disrespectfully by his family name only etc. And wanting to have him replaced.
    Addressing another as ‘buster’ as you do me is a disrespectful form of address, but from you I do not take offence.

  27. johnhenrycn says:

    “I do not insult orthodox believers and have no such intention.”

    Pants on fire. Or maybe you’re just thick and insensitive. The fact that your Catholic provenance is far richer than mine makes your descent into liberal progressivism that much more mind boggling.

  28. johnhenrycn says:

    John/Jude (22:13) – You ask how I would like to be called…a naturally rude Canadian bumpkin”“. I would not be totally gutted if you called me that, and likewise, you should roll with the punch if I were to [Be less than flattering]. Which I never would.

    [The Moderator – Let’s leave it there, Gents (and yes, that is written in the imperative case).]

  29. johnhenrycn says:

  30. toadspittle says:

    “I suggest you also take things in stride – like Toad does – “
    “Moderators,” I object most strongly to JH needlessly dragging my name into his sordid and incomprehensible internecine bickering.
    It is a stench in the very nostrils of civilisation.
    If I had an M.P., I’d write a complaining letter to her.
    What is the world coming to, indeed?
    Yous truly,
    “Disgusted,”
    The Old Vicarage,
    Surbiton-on-Sea.

    P.S. It only remains to state that, while I do not normally agree with “the Moderators,” in this case I don’t, either.

  31. kathleen says:

    Only someone holding no sincere love for Christ and His Holy Bride, the Church (and even for the true role of the Papacy) could see criticism against those who permit such an abomination as this vile homoerotic painting on the wall inside a Cathedral, as something to be “dismayed” about.
    To not criticise such a sacrilege – and yet to condemn those who have done so – is to align oneself with the mindset of its perpetrators.

  32. toadspittle says:

    Poor Kathleen.
    Suffering from an attack of the little-known medical condition, known familiarly to doctors as “dismay.”
    The world turned upside down. …As it is, every few hundred years. Never mind.Tempi cambi…T.here will be another does of dogma along in a minute. (Or even a century.)
    “.an abomination as this vile homoerotic painting ..” Forget the silly, dreary, painting and take a closer look at any crucifix. Then remember that – as was the invariable Roman custom – Christ would have been – and almost certainly was – crucified stark naked.
    So, even that singular piece of “homoerotica” is bowdlerised to suit people’s mealy-mouthed taste.
    …But you needn’t believe me. Not that you would, and I don’t blame you.
    http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/roman-crucifixion-methods-what-did-jesus-endure/

  33. The Raven says:

    It may be a failing of my imagination, Toad, but I don’t see anything erotic (homo or otherwise) in an image of a man being tortured to death. Even in the most sanitised versions of the image (such as that of Velazquez), it remains an image of suffering.

  34. Figus Religiosa says:

    ”Poor Kathleen. Suffering from an attack of the little-known medical condition, known familiarly to doctors as “dismay.”. Surely it is reasonable for a Catholic to be dismayed at a cathedral decorated as a brothel?

    ‘“.an abomination as this vile homoerotic painting ., Kathleen says. .” Forget the silly, dreary, painting ….” This homosexually charged painting is the whole sorry point yet Kathleen is told to forget it.and have look at something else, namely Christ’s nakedness at execution. Does that make the bordello painting valid?

    As Raven says ” I don’t see anything erotic (homo or otherwise) in an image of a man being tortured to death”.

    Toad might be better returning to comment on the bawdy gargoyles he keenly seeks out high up in churches.. Very Page Three.

  35. johnhenrycn says:

    My goodness – another highly opinionated person for me to put in his place, eventually. Bye, Jude!

  36. kathleen says:

    Toad @ 17:36

    “Poor Kathleen.
    Suffering from an attack of the little-known medical condition, known familiarly to doctors as “dismay.”

    No, you twaddling old tw*t 🙄 , I am much more than just “dismayed” by the news of this homoerotic painting being displayed in a Catholic Cathedral; I am horrified, as any true Christian would be! It is an abomination, and if you possessed even a speck of sensitivity in your heart of stone, you would be too…. if not for your own sake, than at least for those Catholics you call your friends. But what do you care? You think yourself funny (nope – sorry) whilst getting your daily kicks in a snide mockery of everything we hold dear.

    FYI, I was responding to J.P.(sock puppet of Mr Kehoe) who had said that he was “dismayed” by criticism of Pope Francis…. but noticeably failing to mention any dismay for the fact that PF had promoted this treacherous cleric, Paglia, who had commissioned this sacrilegious painting, to the position of President of the Pontifical Pope John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family!
    (Why don’t you ever bother to properly read the previous comments before responding?)

    Time to stop messing us around, hypocritically pretending to be an agnostic, curious about religion. You are an out and out atheist. Admit it! Only an absolute unbeliever would dare to mock Christ and His Church as you do.

    Toad might be better returning to comment on the bawdy gargoyles he keenly seeks out high up in churches.. Very Page Three.

    Well said, Figus Religiosa! Another way poor old Toad gets his daily kicks! 😄

    (P.S. Just seen that the moderator on the Fatima thread has told you to “get a life”! Sounds like good advice to me.)

  37. toadspittle says:

    “Time to stop messing us around, hypocritically pretending to be an agnostic, curious about religion. “
    I have no trouble in stating that I find religion very curious indeed, Kathleen. I’d have thought you did, too.
    In fact, religion gets curiouser and curiouser by the minute, these days . Surely you must agree? Schism, anyone?

    As to being an atheist, no. Far too dogmatic. Too fundamentalist.

    “PF had promoted this treacherous cleric, Paglia, who had commissioned this sacrilegious painting, to the position of President of the Pontifical Pope John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family! (Why don’t you ever bother to properly read the previous comments before responding?)”
    I did read it “properly.” I just didn’t care what job Paglia got. Still don’t.

  38. Figus Religiosa says:

    ”My goodness – another highly opinionated person for me to put in his place, eventually” Says jh. Well, a pleasure deferred is a pleasure denied.

  39. J.P. says:

    Kathleen March 6 @23:09 Since my name keeps cropping up critically in this blog unbidden may I suggest that people are getting unnecessarily worked up about this matter ? If you have been to the Sistine Chapel you will see many of Michelangelo’s nude representations of scriptural subjects which some might call obscene. But only the prurient or fastidious are bothered by them. We are supposed to be adult. Even your great favourite, Pope John Paul II, never did anything about having them removed, or obscured, as he could have done if he was as offended as those on this blog.

  40. toadspittle says:

    …It may be a failing of my imagination, Toad, but I don’t see anything erotic (homo or otherwise) in an image of a man being tortured to death.:
    I wouldn’t call it a failure of imagination Raven, just touching innocence on your part.
    There are, Believe it it not – people who derive sexual pleasure from torturing. or being tortured by, other people. …Or from images thereof.
    I don’t do so personally, but I gather it’s not all that uncommon.
    Krafft-Ebing is the Johnny for you!

  41. kathleen says:

    @ J.P.

    I refer you back to the second two paragraphs of The Raven’s explanation at 07:11 on March 5 of the distinction to be made between nude art vs. erotic art (and in this case homoerotic art):

    “While it is true that a lot of great art since the 15th century has concerned itself with accurately depicting the human form, it has always been theologically consistent with the teaching of the Church.

    In this case the people in the nets are not shown in adoration of God, but instead continuing in their sins and earthly affectations. That does not accord with the Faith and should have no place in a Church.”

    Those who object to this piece of obscenity being displayed in a Catholic Church are not doing so through any type of puritanical motivation* but because this is a horrible depiction of an effeminate ‘c’hrist, and it is lauding orgies, sodomy, impurity and immorality, and it is saying that those who commit these grave sins will be drawn up to Heaven anyway, even without repentance. A very dangerous lie!

    * The human body is indeed a beautiful work of God’s creation – that is undeniable – and the magnificent works of Michel Angelo (and other great artists) manifest that to our eternal delight. There is a world of difference between the intentions of artists whose nudes are in poses adoring God in their pure human bodily form…. compared to those of artists whose intentions are to display pornographic images where unlawful sex is their only ‘g’od!!

  42. J.P. says:

    Kathleen@13:11. I understand all of that but Michelangelo’s nude figures shown in Hell in the Sistine Chapel, as I saw them, are not exactly shown ‘in adoration of God…’ The Raven’s test of acceptability which you cite, but are in fact starkly obscene by the standards of those who may object.. I am afraid it is all very much a matter of personal taste, broad or fastidious, as the case may be.
    Please remember that Pope John Paul 11, and other saintly pontiffs, were elected in the Sistine Chapel under these very representations, without presumably getting upset about it, and one has to ask why he did not have them removed or obscured during his pontificate if he considered considered them offensive ?
    I have visited many art galleries from the Louvre in Paris to the Prado in Madrid, and well beyond, and therein have seen desolate physical representations from the Bible,obscene or erotic as may be, of murder, martyrdom,and mayhem by Christian artists without viewers getting upset. The great Cathedrals are often the site of these works. The Sacristy, Chapter House, Choir,and the Main Chapel of the Cathedral in Teledo, Spain come to mind, as just one example, where I have seen some lurid representations of the passion of Christ ; The Disrobing of Christ by El Greco, ghastly crucifixions etc. I would recommend a visit, but not if it is going to upset you.

  43. kathleen says:

    J.P. @ 14:51

    “Please remember that Pope John Paul 11, and other saintly pontiffs, were elected in the Sistine Chapel under these very representations, without presumably getting upset about it, and one has to ask why he did not have them removed or obscured during his pontificate if he considered considered them offensive ?”

    Why on earth have them “removed” when they are anything but “offensive”* AS I HAVE ALREADY STATED?
    *(Except perhaps to Manichaeists!)

    Oh dear, Mr Kehoe, you appear to suffer from the same total lack of comprehension in what people say (or write) as the poor old Toad!
    (Are you really a lawyer? How do you manage when you constantly misunderstand your own clients? And I assume you do, if your offerings here are anything to go by!)

    I thought I had made it ABUNDANTLY clear that there is NOTHING OFFENSIVE in the sublime works of art in the Sistine Chapel (or in any of the nude or semi-nude paintings by Michelangelo, as far as I know); quite the contrary! I’ll repeat what I said above and put it in bold for your benefit. Perhaps second time round the penny will drop.

    “The human body is indeed a beautiful work of God’s creation – that is undeniable – and the magnificent works of Michelangelo (and other great artists) manifest that to our eternal delight.”

    I shall also repeat what I said about the DIFFERENCE between the depiction of a human figure in the nude and one in an erotic, or homoerotic position is in the INTENTION of the artist. The “intention” – get it?
    In the video in the article above (I speak fluent Spanish, by the way), the Argentinian artist, Ricardo Cinalli, ADMITS his intention to demonstrate God’s acceptance of transsexual and homosexual lovemaking. IOW, no repentance is necessary!! In his obscene painting of poor quality art, he is showing these men indulging in their grave sins, but still being swept up in a net to Heaven. THAT IS A LIE AND AN ANATHEMA. IT FLIES IN DIRECT CONTRAST TO THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH.

    And please don’t get “upset” by the capital letters. I am not intending to shout at you (as you peevishly accused me of doing once)… I only want to make key words stand out for you in your obvious difficulty in understanding plain English.

  44. kathleen says:

    “Michelangelo’s nude figures shown in Hell in the Sistine Chapel, as I saw them, are not exactly shown ‘in adoration of God…’ The Raven’s test of acceptability which you cite, but are in fact starkly obscene by the standards of those who may object.

    Yes, Mr Kehoe (J.P.), and that is EXACTLY why Michelange placed these “nude figures” in Hell… They refused to turn away from those obscenities the artist describes and fall on God’s loving mercy for forgiveness.

    (Edit. They are not “erotic” poses you cite. They are intending to warn people of the terrible reality of where we shall end up, and why, if we refuse to repent of our sins.)

  45. J.P. says:

    Kathleen@19.24.
    Your personal attacks .. ‘constantly misunderstand your own clients’ ‘And I assume you do…’ are no substitute for argument. Equally, your imperious lecturing style ‘ I thought I had made it ABUNDANTLY clear there is NOTHING OFFENSIVE…’ is grossly presumptuous. What you have indeed made abundantly clear is your opinion with which you and I are at odds, and with which not everybody else is obliged to agree.

    I never had any problem in understanding plain English. If you were better at writing English yourself you would refrain from writing in capital letters to emphasize what you say. It does not add to your argument but instead diminishes the quality of what you say. Syntax provides the proper way to be emphatic.

    Where you have the advantage over me, on this blog at least, is that you have the assurance that all of your contributions will be posted without question, whereas those of mine which do not conform to the party line are ‘binned’ as you triumphantly proclaimed on one occasion. Hence I would not expect that this will be posted.

    If you need verification that I am a current practising barrister please write or email The Bar of Ireland, Church Street, Dublin 2, Republic of Ireland and they will give you the necessary confirmation.

  46. kathleen says:

    Well, Mr Kehoe, I have released your comment from the “trash” intact, where it had been sent by one of our moderators for its offensive tone. So now, please cheer up!

    What you call my “impervious lecturing style” (look who’s talking!) was simple frustration with your continuous comebacks to everyone you disagree with here (not just me) demonstrating a plain misunderstanding of their arguments, and often padded with undisguised disdain for the other person. The capitals and bold was in order to explain to you what I had said that you’d twisted into something else.
    Why do you think I’ve kept away from making any comment to you for ages? It’s a lost cause.
    (Even our scholarly Team-mate, The Raven – a hundred times more patient than me – called you up on your stubborn refusal to argue any of the points he brought up.)

    No, Mr Kehoe, I don’t need any “verification” to check up on you!! Of course I believe you.
    Honestly, you only take me seriously when I am not being serious! 🙄
    And I apologise for my cheekiness that got you into such a paddy.

    Pleeeese let’s just leave it there now.

  47. J.P. says:

    Kathleen@21:45. Gladly, thank you. Quot homines tot sententiae.(Terence from memory.) I didn’t say ‘impervious lecturing style’ -happily we do get through to you and you do respond- but rather ‘imperious lecturing style’, a different quality. I accept we all get words mixed up in the speed of our keyboarding. Indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus !

  48. johnhenrycn says:

    “…you only take me seriously when I am not being serious!” Kathleen says to Hey Jude.
    Here are some things said of me this past week by a woman (a fake blonde, unlike Kathleen, so count yourself lucky, Hey Jude):

    “Highly insulting to the intelligence…even peroxide enhanced intelligence…
    Have you ever exchanged pleasantries with lady logic, johnhenry?
    Try again s.l.o.w.l.y…
    Your red herring bombs make you look like an uneducated fool…
    And then there’s this mental puss…”

    But then she had a Come To Jesus epiphany earlier today:

    “Johnhenry… I’ll be honest. I don’t like the way which this conversation went. I especially don’t like what I said to you in my previous reply. You are right…”

    So here’s the point, my friend at the Bar (hic!) – lighten up, loosen your tie and try not to lose sleep over people who laugh at you. We (people laughing at you, but with deep respect) may also, in the fullness of time, when all is said and done, at the end of the day, embrace your liberal progressivism and relativistic interpretation of the meaning of life. Good luck with that.

  49. kathleen says:

    @ J.P.

    Ah, yes, I was thinking “imperious”, but typed “impervious” by mistake. (Grrr… Blow automatic typing via iPads! My laptop is off sick at present.)
    Sum ita vigil, Mr Kehoe. Sed non multo amplius… 😴

  50. kathleen says:

    @ JH

    😆

    Would choose you any day to be my defence attorney, gallant Mountie!
    That way I’d be sure of winning my case. 😙

  51. johnhenrycn says:

    …actually Kathleen, I was primarily a personal injury insurance defense lawyer throughout most of my career, and I never won a case at trial as such, despite which my insurance company clients were generally pleased with my results. Hey Jude can perhaps explain why that might be.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s