The Vatican’s Hideous and Sacrilegious Nativity Scene

CP&S comment – This is already common news: but how sad to have to report on such a blasphemy in Advent! The Vatican is displaying a homoerotica Nativity crib, that is shockingly sacrilegious rather than edifying for the general public coming to view it. The scene is purportedly demonstrating the ‘corporal works of mercy’ (but it fails miserably even on that score, due to its suggestive and/or sinister figurines) and thus deliberately obscures the celebration of the greatest event taking place in the entire history of mankind – the Birth of the Son of God made Man. Criticism has come from all sides, ranging from mild to very harsh. Even the figures of the Holy Family are ungainly, unattractive, especially the one of the Blessed Virgin Mary. How could Pope Francis have allowed this horror from hell to stand? It should be bulldozed out of sight. Not even Facebook (no ‘friend’ to Catholic values) refused to display this mostrosity on its pages. Are we now at the point where Facebook has a greater degree of moral rectitude than the Pope and his inner circle?

 

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

48 Responses to The Vatican’s Hideous and Sacrilegious Nativity Scene

  1. “Are we now at the point where Facebook has a greater degree of moral rectitude than the Pope and his inner circle?”

    Yes.

  2. Mary Salmond says:

    Unbelievable!

  3. kathleen says:

    Yes, Mary, I agree… Unbelievable, and yet unfortunately true. Surely, only really evil minds could devise something so blatantly homoerotic within a Christmas Nativity scene. It’s a mockery of everything Catholics hold most dear.

    I have just come across an interesting article on ‘La Salette Journey’ that gives the origin of where (plus how and why) this horrible crowd of ugly crib figures was made. It makes for hard reading – beware!

    “It turns out that the whole Vatican Nativity scene was made in the Sanctuary of Montevirgine, and Benedictine monastery outside of Naples. ….

    The Sanctuary of Montevirgine has long been notoriously and blasphemously claimed as a mascot and meeting place for sodomites and transvestites. Here is an Italian newspaper piece from February of ARSH 2017 describing this. The headline reads: ‘Gay Outrage: Our Lady Also Siezed: It Happens In Italy, Where and How’.

    A false story was started by sodomites that two sodomite men,…”

    What remains a mystery however is HOW COULD THE VATICAN HAVE PERMITTED THIS SACRILIGEOUS ‘NATIVITY SCENE’?

  4. Toad says:

    ”Are we now at the point where Facebook has a greater degree of moral rectitude than the Pope and his inner circle?”
    Since when has Facebook been considered a paradigm of moral rectitude? It”s nothing but ”social media,” mostly preoccupied with videos of dogs farting the Star Spangled Banner
    Anyway, who’s the naked man in the ”nativity” scene? Is he important.
    Don’t know how ”suggestive” it is. It makes no sense to me, but it seems innocuous enough. Matter of opinion, no doubt.
    But we all love being shocked and horrified, don’t we?
    I certainly do.

    ”A false story was started by sodomites that two sodomite men,…”
    Oh, yes? Then what?

    [A moderator: Click into the link given and you’ll find out. And watch your language when you are talking about sacred things, or you will be put into pre-moderation once more.]

  5. johnhenrycn says:

    “homoerotic (and sadistic”)

    You shouldn’t be allowed you speak like that about the crucified body of Jesus on this site. Go to your local tavern to flap your tongue. You wouldn’t like people speaking in a disgusting way about someone you love after they die.

  6. johnhenrycn says:

    We (Christians) should not scorn or make jokes about traditional images of the Crucifixion. For us (Christians) they are important symbols of our Faith, and non-Christians ought to respect them. That said, here’s a contemporary artist (now deceased) who I recall having linked here before and who I hope will not arose Toad’s unwanted fantasies – homoerotic or otherwise – about the Holy Family:

    Our RCIA catechumens are appreciative when I give them Rosary booklets each year featuring the paintings of Bradi Barth shown in this video.

  7. Toad says:

    I’m not making jokes about anything here. What I’m asking is why single out the man in the nativity scene above as ”homoerotic”? I didn’t call him that – someone else did . Of course he’s naked (or almost) that’s the point. He needs to be clothed. Christ was also naked when he was crucified – really naked. But he’s never ( well hardly ever) shown that way. He’s bowdlerised.
    Would we rather the nativity scene had depicted a naked woman, instead of a man? I think not. Someone at the Vatican has attempted a mildly original variation on the usual annual manger scene.
    Ooh! Heresy! Sinful!
    ”You shouldn’t be allowed you speak like that about the crucified body of Jesus on this site.”
    That’s not like you, JH. Where’s my ‘disrespect”?

    ”The Sanctuary of Montevirgine has long been notoriously and blasphemously claimed as a mascot and meeting place for sodomites and transvestites.”
    If Montevirgine really is, ”…a meeting place for sodomites and transvestites.” why should it be either notorious or blasphemous to claim it as such?

  8. johnhenrycn says:

    Toad now says: “I’m not making jokes about anything here.”

    Toad before said: “What could possibly be more homoerotic and sadistic than any regular crucifix? Have I misquoted Toad? $100 CDN to St Vincent de Paul if I have.

    Toad now pleads:” What I’m asking is why single out the man in the nativity scene above as ”homoerotic”?

    No, you did not ask that at 22:01 where you chose to speak exclusively of the Mother of God – before calling regular crucifixes “homoerotic and sadistic”. I did not comment on the salacious image introducing this post that you given us your artistic opinion about at 22:01. Beneath me to do so. Sniff. It was when you offered gratuitous offence to Christians by calling crucifixes “homoerotic and erotic” (nothing to do with this thread) that I stepped in to say something.
    ___
    My goodness, this is good port!

  9. johnhenrycn says:

    Okay, you did not call regular crucifixes “homoerotic and erotic”, which would have been redundant. You are always never hardly ever redundant. You called crucifixes homoerotic and sadistic”, which is not a redundancy.

  10. Toad says:

    No, JH – you haven’t misquoted me, but my comment was not a joke.
    In my opinion, the homoeroticism of crucifixes is at the root of a lot of the Church’s problems with paedophile priests. I may be quite wrong on that ,of course. Just a theory. Probably nuts.
    Nor was my question a ‘plea.”
    After you with the port, but is a bit early here – 8.10 am – even for me.

  11. johnhenrycn says:

    You say now that your comment (22:01) was not a joke when you typed (if I may paraphrase) that regular crucifixes are “homoerotic”. You presented what I took to be a merely vulgar, jokey, rhetorical question, but which you now actually, sincerely admit was a true accusation, whilst also admitting that you are “probably nuts”. Forgive me for not recognising your Ciceronian (rhetorical) bent in all that persiflage, or should I say silage not intended for human consumption?

    Because (you think) I’m not the sharpest tool in the box, you now take the time to explain that what you actually, sincerely meant to say is that the crucifix “is at the root of a lot of “ paedophilia in the priesthood, meaning (I assume) homosexual paedophila because you say (supra) the crucifix is “homoerotic”. Any further words of wisdom without contradicting your previous ones?

    I await your answer in a state of piloerection, which has nothing to do with homoeroticism.

  12. mmvc says:

    Here’s what Dr Robert Moynihan and his friends saw at St Peter’s square:

    December 20, 2017, Wednesday
    I was walking through St. Peter’s Square this cold December evening, and I ran into two old friends.
    We were all in front of the manger scene by the obelisk in the middle of the square.
    “What do you think of the manger scene?” I asked.
    “Terrible,” one said. “The idea of depicting seven scenes showing acts of corporal mercy may have been a valid idea, but the execution of it is quite disturbing. I have never seen any manger scene quite like this one. The depiction of the naked man being clothed in an act of charity overpowers every other aspect of the manger scene, including the figures of Mary and Joseph themselves, and the hidden manger where Jesus will be laid on Christmas morning, in five days time. I do not like it at all.”
    I took pictures of the manger scene with my Iphone.
    Here is what my friend was referring to: a naked man, with only a wisp of cloth over his private parts, illustrating the work of corporal mercy of “clothing the naked.”
    “But this is not the thing that most concerns us,” the second person said. “We are concerned about the decorations on the Christmas tree from Poland. We have not seen a single religious symbol, not a single Christian symbol, on the tree.”
    “Really?” I said. “Let’s look at it.”
    So we walked around the tree.
    And I too saw that there seemed not to be a single Christian symbol on the tree, unless the star on the top of the tree could be considered a sign of the star that led the Magi to the Christ-child.
    “Look,” said my friend. “There are peace signs, and the oriental yin-yang signs, but no angels, no depictions of the Magi, no images of Mary, nothing but universal symbols. Many nuns in Rome say they are shocked and are very worried about the message these decorations are sending to the youngest. I wish I knew the Pope’s secretaries to tell them to tell the Pope what is on the Square, if really the Holy Father wants to go and to bless such things. The worst thing for all these sponsors would be for the Pope not to come to the Square on December 31.”
    “What has happened to us?” my other friend said. “What is our message? Where is Christ? There are no longer Christian signs on the Christmas tree! Really, we find Nativity scene this year just scandalous. What we are teaching our children? I feel sorry that people may think the Pope agrees with this.”
    In past years, they said, the Christmas tree was decorated with brilliant white and yellow balls, the Vatican colors.
    The two said they had written a letter to the Government of Vatican City, protesting the decorations on the Christmas tree.

  13. Toad says:

    ”Here is what my friend was referring to: a naked man, with only a wisp of cloth over his private parts…”
    Oh, really?, what does that seem like a description of of anything else we recognise?
    Now does anyone get the point I’m trying and clearly failing, so far – to make?
    By the way – is Michelangelo’s David homoerotic? Should it be banned?
    ”I too saw that there seemed not to be a single Christian symbol on the tree, unless the star on the top of the tree could be considered a sign of the star that led the Magi to the Christ-child”. At least there wasn’t a fairy on top of it. One with Elton John’s face. (Make that ”Sir Elton.”)
    ”In past years, they said, the Christmas tree was decorated with brilliant white and yellow balls, the Vatican colors.”
    Ah – I see white and yellow balls are suitably religious.
    …Pink balls aren’t.

  14. mmvc says:

    Ah – I see white and yellow balls are suitably religious

    Colours of the Vatican flag and everything that’s supposed to stand for: the Catholic Church, the Catholic Faith, Catholic Truth…Catholic Religion.

  15. Toad says:

    Three ( well, two and a half) cheers for the red white and blue. Or the red and yellow. Or the gree, white and gold. Or for the Vatican’s yellow and white. Or you name it.
    Although, as Mencken once put it, ”Every normal man must at times be tempted to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats.”
    He meant pirates of course – not Isis. He was right.
    ”Colours of the Vatican flag and everything that’s supposed to stand for: the Catholic Church, the Catholic Faith, Catholic Truth…Catholic Religion.”
    Big responsibility for two pale little colours, which are available to everyone on the planet.

  16. kathleen says:

    The corporal works of mercy are, of course, important (as are all the Church’s teachings). They have their time and place.

    What Toad fails to get into his thick atheistic head is that a Nativity scene is not the place to display them. The whole main focus of any crib or Nativity scene should be SOLELY the wondrous, miraculous Incarnation of Christ.

    There are wonderful Nativity scenes all over Spain at this time (called “belenes” here) where one can gaze at small figures going about daily activities in the little town of Bethlehem, but in all of these intricate crib scenes, the overruling focus is always on the Holy Family: Our Lady, Saint Joseph, and the Divine infant.

    “Homoerotica” (the word used to describe certain aspects of the Vatican Nativity scene) was not a word invented by us. In fact we were slow to report on this whole scandal! Other websites we have looked at noticed its homoerotica, provocative aspects and reported on it days before we did. Look up Vox Cantoris, Ann Barnhardt, Rorate Caeli, Father Z, Adelate La Fe, etc. (Sorry, I’ve no time to give the links.)

    The naked man in the Vatican Nativity scene is not a down and out, a poor beggar unable to clothe himself. He looks fit and healthy, as though he’d just been working out at the gym! A sodomite’s delight. This model was an intentional snub at believers by members of the notorious lavender mafia we all know have infiltrated the Church.

    They get away with these crimes because they can; because nothing has been done to clean up this diabolical infiltration of real evil into the holy Bride of Christ. Pope Benedict XVI was unable to do it, and one of the reasons quoted for his stepping down from the Papacy was so that a younger, stronger Pope could tackle this grave problem at the very heart of the Church. But as we know, Pope Francis has done nothing about it at all.

  17. Toad says:

    ‘The naked man in the Vatican Nativity scene is not a down and out, a poor beggar unable to clothe himself. He looks fit and healthy, as though he’d just been working out at the gym! A sodomite’s delight.”
    Is it possible you feel the slightest tinge of shame over this comment, Kathleen?

  18. GC says:

    at the gym! A sodomite’s delight

    Toad, get googling! It’s even quite prevalent here in the Golden Chersonese. In the press here it’s called introduced “western social evils” in the gyms and dimly lit urban corners, care of the Internet and social media.

    IOW, do your own homework (DYOH).

  19. kathleen says:

    Not in the slightest, Toad. It’s the truth, and far greater minds than mine, on well-known Catholic blogs, have noticed the seedy faggot-laden tone of this Nativity scene. So why should I feel any “shame” for agreeing with them?

    You, on the other hand, who on this thread* has blasphemed and mocked all that Catholics (in fact all Christians) hold as sacred, pure and holy, should be desperately asking for the earth to swallow you up in shame. You are a real toad in every way to dare express your scorn for Our Saviour and His Blessed Mother in this way.

    * at least three of your vile comments were eventually deleted by a moderator, but much too late, when many had already had the misfortune of seeing them.

  20. johnhenrycn says:

    The guy at 14:21 asks: “Is it possible you feel the slightest tinge of shame over this comment, Kathleen?”

    What reason does Kathleen have to be ashamed for pointing out the obvious truth – that this orgy of innuendo pretending to be a Christian tableau is nothing more or less than unadulterated faggotry, if I may be excused the oxymoron?

    No really, please do explain. It will be fun, as always, watching you get twisted into mental knots.

  21. Toad says:

    Ok, JH – I will be as brief as possible.

    ”..the obvious truth – that this orgy of innuendo pretending to be a Christian tableau is nothing more or less than unadulterated faggotry, ”
    None of that is obvious to me – honestly . I see a statue of a naked man, among a lot of other stiff. Nothing evil or’ ‘homoerotic,’ about it – but ‘homoerotic,’ is entirely a matter of opinion. Look at the Belen again – where is the ”unadulterated faggotry’?
    In the minds of the obscene, everything is obscene. Don’t know who else said that, but someone surely must have. Anyway, I have now.
    It may well be a lousy Belen, as Belens go – too unconventional. That is an understandable, way to criticise it. ‘‘Why isn’t it like any other mindless, brainless, manger scene in history, which is what we want? Why is it different? We hate it.” ”’
    But that’s entirely another thing. The Belen in question certainly doesn’t do much for me.
    But then, why should it?

    Oh, the hell with it.
    I could point out that Christian churches all I’ve ever seen contain at least one image of a generally fit and healthy , near naked, young man in extremis – being tortured in some detail.
    ( and I don’t necessarily mean St. Stephen.) In fact, I have done.
    But none of the homoerotic labels may ever be pasted on him (or them) – ‘or reasons of ”blasphemy.”
    OK. But it is senseless and illogical.
    I was going to go on at even greater length, but I can’t be bothered.
    House full of pilgrims. Give me a break. From it all. Please God.

  22. GC says:

    ..Fantastically homo-erotic picture by Ribalta.
    Very nice – If you like that kind of thing.
    Could lead to “Gay Marriage, ” likely.

    …I’m indifferent, myself, too old to care…. Takes all sorts though, dunnit?

    Now who was that said that nigh on three years nine months ago, in reference to a painting of St Bernard embracing the crucified Christ, wholly without pecs and abs? Hmmmm?

    Yes, off to your pilgs, Toad.

    We others will have to stay here and put up with the very fishy smell.

  23. johnhenrycn says:

    More salientian sewage: “In the minds of the obscene, everything is obscene” says he who calls the Crucifix “homoerotic and sadistic”.

    The above scene depicts a Manger of Darkness to anyone in his right mind and/or possessing an ounce of aesthetic judgment, thank you very much.

  24. johnhenrycn says:

    That guy at 20:12 pleads: “House full of pilgrims. Give me a break.”
    Are they those rejects who’ve been booted out of Maynooth” for using Grindr, whatever that is?

  25. kathleen says:

    Thank you JH. In a few sentences and without losing your cool (like I tend to do 😔) you put the answer to Toad’s issues into a nutshell.
    GC,(CP&S’s own “Sherlock Holmes”), great too, as always 😉.

    Undo your “mental knots”, Toad – with all that ^ unnecessary babble – and try to understand the difference between nudity in true art, and what is intentional vulgarity and provocation. Really, not so difficult; even children can distinguish between the two.
    Seeing as how you haven’t bothered to read any of the earlier explanatory links given to you, take a look at this LifeSiteNews article bellow proving the gay-activists’ intent in the creation of the hideous figures in this Nativity scene. It is a much milder criticism too than either Vox Cantoris’ article, or Ann Barnhardt’s. (Mustn’t shock the toad too much!)

    The Vatican Nativity scene featuring a naked man, a corpse, and no sheep or oxen is the artistic offering of an abbey which is the focus of Italian LGBT activists, it has emerged.

    […]

    “The presence of the Vatican Nativity Scene for us is a reason to be even happier this year,” Antonello Sannini, president of homosexual activist group Arcigay Naples, told LifeSiteNews on Tuesday. “For the homosexual and transsexual community in Naples, it is an important symbol of inclusion and integration.”

    […]

    “This horrendous exhibit, a sacrilegious, highly deceitful and malevolent attempt to turn the holy innocence of the manger in St. Peter’s Square into a lobbying tool for the homosexual rights movement, is just the latest fiendish act, but one that’s symptomatic of this entire pontificate,” one source close to the Vatican told LifeSiteNews.

    Meanwhile, the Neapolitan artist who crafted the crèche, Antonio Cantone, appeared to suggest that he intended it to be provocative.

    […]

    Italian Church historian Roberto de Mattei of the Lepanto Foundation sees this as the latest attempt to “paganize Italy and Europe” through indirect means, in what he calls “soft neo-paganization.”

    Read the rest THERE … but only after you’ve dealt with caring for your pilgrims of course!
    (And you’re not the only one who is busy at this time with large families arriving for Christmas.)

  26. johnhenrycn says:

    Last comment from me possibly – on this thread, possibly 🙂 – that guy chooses not, despite my request (17:54) to explain why he asks (14:21) Kathleen if she is ashamed of her comment (19:37) which he hints she might or ought to be. He then writes an apologia for his lack of artistic discrimination, by relativizing beauty as no better than transgression, saying that he sees no difference between them. “None of that is obvious to me – honestly“, he says (20:12); but again, despite his seeing no difference between beauty and transgression, he slides away from explaining why Kathleen might or ought to be ashamed for making such distinctions.

  27. johnhenrycn says:

    I guess we must to put this thread to bed on the Eve of Salvation, even though Toad thinks it no better than, or at least no different than, the Eve of Destruction.

  28. Toad says:

    Well, it got you all frothing merrily away in the seasonal spirit, anyway, didn’t it – and that’s the main thing.
    GC quotes a comment of mine from over three years ago. A great compliment. Heartening to see she takes so much notice of my drivel. Best present I will get this Xmas.
    I can’t even remember what I wrote three days ago.
    Church two days in a row! What a treat.

  29. Toad says:

    PS, I was going to explain why I thought Kathleen should be ashamed.
    Then I realised I didn’t care.

  30. johnhenrycn says:

    “Then I realised I didn’t care.”
    Oh, come on! I sent my lesbian sister an e-mail less than 30 minutes ago saying she shouldn’t be reading Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings to her son (well – adopted son) as she says she now is, unless she’s prepared for him to turn Catholic 10 years from now. Surely you’re as brave as she is when confronting things you don’t agree with and as able to explain to adults (as she is to a child) why you don’t? Are you unable or afraid to do so?
    ___
    Mind you, I’m glad GC doesn’t mention (20:28) things I posted here “nigh on three years nine months ago” ha, ha 🙂 My lord, this is good whiskey whisky.

  31. kathleen says:

    A shamed Toad whines:

    PS, I was going to explain why I thought Kathleen should be ashamed.
    Then I realised I didn’t care.

    No, you weren’t, you old hypocrite…. You had no possible valid explanation to squirm out of this one!

    But Merry Christmas all the same. Believe it or not, the Divine Infant came down to Earth to save you too.

    (It would not be to toads’ liking, but my family and I have set up such a BEAUTIFUL traditional Christmas crib!)

  32. Toad says:

    All together now… ”A Gay in a Manger..”
    (Oops – must get off to church.)

  33. mmvc says:

    This perversion of angels confirms that the exhibit in St Peter’s Square is nothing other than a “malevolent attempt to turn the holy innocence of the manger in St. Peter’s Square into a lobbying tool for the homosexual rights movement“:

    https://www.barnhardt.biz/2017/12/22/vatican-gaytivity-um-the-flying-baby-angel-heads-have-bewbs/

  34. johnhenrycn says:

    Ann Braveheart (sic) takes no prisoners.

  35. Toad says:

    Well, Mmvc – I had no idea it was possible to pervert angels.
    Crickey. I must be more careful in future.
    What an amazing and splendid amount of paranoid, (and let’s not forget, ‘homophobic,’) frenzy that a few boring and (to me) tedious Vatican tableaux have manged to provoke.
    The power of advertising, maybe. Or the power of suggestion?
    But then, I’m a thick Atheist, apparently. Actually, I’m a thick Agnostic.
    Same difference to Catholics. Might as well be a thick Lutheran. Or a thick Hindu. Just as long as we’re thick.

    Wonderfully funny link from Barnhardt. Thanks to Mmvc.
    What an amusing, agreeable, and charming woman she clearly demonstrates she is – and what a lively sense of fun!.
    Love to go on my holidays with her.
    (Probably fail the medical, though.)
    Good stuff, eh, Burro?

  36. Toad says:

    ‘A shamed Toad whines:”
    True, Kathleen. Utterly shamed . He’d better turn it in, really.
    But he won’t . He’s too thick.
    But, supposing he did – who would you have to make lame jokes and schoolyard insults about?
    …Well, there’s always the Pope.

  37. mmvc says:

    ‘Well, Mmvc – I had no idea it was possible to pervert angels.’

    ‘Perverted depiction of angels’ is what I suspect you really knew I meant. As for ‘perverted’ angels, those strange looking creatures from the link to Ann’s blog look more like the fallen variety…
    Anyhow, I’ll say a prayer for you and everyone on CP&S tonight as I gather with my family around the beautiful Bavarian hand carved nativity set I inherited from my late Mum.

    A happy and holy Christmas to you all! x

  38. Toad says:

    ‘Perverted depiction of angels’ is what I suspect you really knew I meant.
    Sorry. Mmvc – but no. Why should it interpret it that particular way?
    Never mind. As Kathleen will confirm, I’m very thick. Hopeless, it seems.
    So , it doesn’t matter.

  39. johnhenrycn says:

    Here’s a stained glass window:

    from St Mary of the Assumption (Catholic) Church in Banff, Alberta:

    Perhaps not the most striking nativity scene, but a traditional and quintessentially Canadian one. The river in the window’s background is the Bow River, which leads me to think that the mountain behind the church in the above photo may be Bow Summit, where my beloved brother Robert died whilst off-piste skiing 30 years ago on May 29th, 1987. I never would have made the connection but for this thread about the Vatican freak show, which led me to do a little nativity scene research, thus again showing how God can bring goodness out of sadness.

    “Do not stand at my grave and weep. I am not there, I do not sleep. I am a thousand winds that blow, I am the diamond glint on the snow, I am the sunlight on ripened grain, I am the gentle morning rain. And when you wake in the morning’s hush, I am the sweet uplifting rush of quiet birds in circled flight. I am the soft stars that shine at night. Do not stand at my grave and cry, I am not there, I did not die.”

    Mary Elizabeth Frye, 1932

  40. johnhenrycn says:

    Through God’s serendipitous grace, I have now learned that St Mary’s Church, Banff, has many beautiful stained glass windows – all Canadian themed – including this Memorial To Skiers:
    http://glassincanada.org/our-archives/memorial-to-skiiers-with-horse-detail-2/
    I must send a link (for the picture, not this website!) to my sister who will probably visit the church. There again, God’s grace in action.

  41. kathleen says:

    Well, JH, that brought tears to prick my eyelids!
    A lovely stained glass window… (Why don’t they make them like that anymore?) and an idyllic picture of the little grey-stone church and forecourt with the jagged mountain in the background. If only the memory of the tragic premature death of your brother did not tinge the scene with sadness.

    But as Mary Elizabeth Frye says so truthfully in her moving poem, he did not die; he lives on in God’s care now, with you to pray for him still here on Earth. “All will be well, and all manner of things will be well” if we trust in God’s promises.

  42. kathleen says:

    Sigh…. Looks like there have been other coarse Nativity scenes around this year, even in Fatima! (It is rumoured the Masons have.managed to get themselves well established there, hoping to chip away at the faith of the innocent pilgrims by cunning, surreptitious means.)

    An especially coarse nativity scene is on display in the Basilica of Our Lady of the Rosary, the most prominent building belonging to the sanctuary of Fatima. It is made up of two huge, barely carved trunks, looking like pagan effigies, which are supposed to represent Our Lady and Saint Joseph. Between them is a wood-block which arguably is the crib.

    Twitter-User Antonio Carrabino posted a picture of this negativity scene. User describe it as “shameful”, “ugly”, “decadent”, and “modernist”.

    User Gina has found a more positive interpretation, “At least they don’t have the naked man from the Vatican.”

  43. I don’t know why everyone is seeing this as something Putrid and Vile we all know what happens to the baby in the crib when he reaches adult hood. We are not so naive as to shy away from that. Only a little child could not possibly, nor should they understand that the baby in the crib will on reaching adult hood at the age of 33 be crucified. Yet when we look at the crib as an adult we see that crown of thorns upon the adult babies head, we mark his life for him with the gifts of the Kings, we know through the Presentation that the baby not only suffering in circumcision but in crucifixtion. So here an artist has taken the baby forward to a 33 year old man, a man who will be naked upon the cross, mortified, flesh and bone and whipped and scourged. I do not see any depiction of homoerotica in that image and I can see why it was excepted by the Pope. Just as I can accept that there are Black, Chinese and Japenese Nativity Scenes. I can also see that Jesus and his family are not white Americians nor are they English peaches and cream complexions, they infact like most men and women of the time of Christ, of an Arabian Olive Skin. In so far as I have painted the virgin marys hair black in our nativity scene, and Joseph has a brownish olive toned skin. Take the plank from your own eyes before you remove the splinter from your brothers, so you may see the splinter more clearly. God Bless and to all a Blessed Merry and very peaceful Christmas where we all walk in the footsteps of Christs, naked and shameful and sinners.

  44. JabbaPapa says:

    I’ve been loathe to comment on this story, but the attack by the scandalous Femen person does tend to show that sexualised Nativity scenes can attract sexualised nutjobs.

  45. johnhenrycn says:

    To paraphrase the psalmist, who is Andrea Farrell (19:38) that I should be mindful of her? She speaks as if she were the *artiste* in question (“I have painted the virgin marys [sic] hair black in our nativity scene, and Joseph has a brownish olive toned skin.”). She (I presume she is a she, although in this day and age…) also says, or suggests rather (she is unclear) that the naked man is Jesus, even though she later says “Jesus and his family are not white Americians [sic] nor are they English peaches and cream complexions…”. The naked man in this work of farts looks like a white buff male to me. Possibly Andrea Farrell is a troll?

  46. johnhenrycn says:

    Hmm, this ( the above ^) is my third comment today placed in “pre-moderation”. Maybe it’s someone who doesn’t appreciate my cluttering this blog or maybe it’s a technical glitch, which is what I thought before now.

  47. kathleen says:

    Yes JH, it certainly is a glitch, or a mistake. I noticed earlier today that all our regulars were going into pre-moderation and reported it to those in the Team of CP&S who hold the “keys” to the app (not me). It appears that, finally at the end of our patience with Toad’s insults and school yard behaviour, he was being put back into the pre-moderation process. But something went wrong and now everyone else’s comments are going there too!! Sorry about that and hope it soon gets fixed.

    P.S. I couldn’t really make out what Andrea Farrell was getting at either. What is the point he (or she) is trying to make?
    (Andrea is the equivalent to the male name of ‘Andrew’ in Italy, but usually the name is given to females in other countries.)

  48. Toad says:

    ” …with Toad’s insults and school yard behaviour, he was being put back into the pre-moderation process. But something went wrong and now everyone else’s comments are going there too!! ”

    As Toad’s dear old Mum used to say, ”God pays His debts without money.” Take heed of the celestial warning, ”Moderating team.”

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