FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: The Pope's Favorite Painting is Blasphemous
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3


I'm going with the assumption that Pope Francis doesn't know about what Chagall, in this painting, calls Our Lord --- but even with that blashemy (and I'd bet you 500 Yankee Dollars that Chagall knew exactly the difference between "Yeshu" and "Yeshua"!), why would the Pope choose THIS painting -- one that uses Christ to portray the sufferings of the Jewish people -- above allllllllllllllllll the paintings of Christendom? What the heck?!

First, the painting (click to enlarge):

[Image: chagall.jpg]

And now an article about it from the National Catholic Reporter:



Pope's favorite painting returns to Chicago after seven-month exile
Menachem Wecker  |  May. 10, 2014


When the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth, Texas, advertised its exhibit "The Age of Picasso and Matisse: Modern Masters from the Art Institute of Chicago" on its website, it didn't mention that Marc Chagall's 1938 painting "White Crucifixion" was part of the trove migrating south during Chicago's seven-month renovation of its modern wing.

Writing last February in The Dallas Morning News, Michael Granberry suggested that the painting deserves its own study. "It's telling that Chagall, a Russian-born Jewish artist, painted it in the same year as Kristallnacht, the 'Night of Broken Glass' that offered a grim foreshadowing of the Holocaust," he wrote.

But both Granberry and the museum may have buried the lede, or eliminated it altogether. With the Chagall painting and 100 other works from the Art Institute's modern European painting and sculpture section now back home in Chicago, it's important to note that the work, which depicts a decidedly Jewish Jesus on the cross, is also reportedly Pope Francis' favorite painting.

To be fair, site-wide searches of the websites of the archdioceses of Boston, Chicago, Washington, Galveston-Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco yield no mention of the painting. And in several conversations with visitors during the member preview of the restored section at the Art Institute, not a single person knew about the papal preference for the Chagall painting.

The Art Institute's renovation, according to a press release, responds to "wear and tear" on its third-floor galleries from the millions of visitors who have come since the modern wing opened in 2009. The newly opened galleries feature repainted and refinished walls, floors, podiums and cases, as well as improvements to the "energy-efficient light harvesting system for the galleries" that will "ensure consistent light levels across all rooms."

Under newly consistent light and amid the slick renovation, Chagall's Jesus wears a sort of turban on his head, and instead of a loincloth he dons a Jewish prayer shawl, or a tallit. Surrounding the central crucifixion scene, a synagogue burns to the right, rabbis fly in the air above (where one might expect angels), and a pogrom ensues to the left. Above Jesus' head, on the titulus, Chagall writes the Latin acronym "INRI" and, in jumbled Hebrew and Aramaic, "Jesus the Nazarene, king of the Jews."

[html]Whether Chagall, who grew up with extensive Jewish instruction despite the multitude of errors in many of his Hebrew inscriptions, knew that the way he spelled Jesus' name in Hebrew also doubled as the rabbinic acronym "May his name and his memory be wiped out" is debatable. [/html]But it's certainly clear that the work "owns" Jesus as a Jew. And as the Art Institute website observes, it aims to "dramatically call attention to the persecution and suffering of the Jews in 1930s Germany."

Vox Wrote:So the Pope of the Catholic Church chooses a painting that is about the suffering of Jewish people. Not a Crucifixion that is about the Crucifixion. Not one of the thousands of glorious Nativities. None of the great Madonnas. Not a painting of a Saint. But a picture about Jewish suffering (which came about for no reason whatsoever) and which includes the blasphemous name religious Jews use for Jesus, which is "May His Name Be Blotted Out." Wow.

Gretchen Buggeln, professor of Christianity and the arts at Valparaiso University's Christ College in Indiana, admitted she didn't know that Chagall's "White Crucifixion" was a papal favorite. But she wasn't surprised, given the pope's view of Jesus as a human and divine "exemplar of compassion."

"In this painting, Jesus is at the center of some of the most horrific suffering Chagall can imagine," she said. "And he is not just among the suffering, but truly identified as one of the suffering."

Chagall, who has always been a "very popular painter," has a way of appealing across religious grounds, according to Margaret Olin, who holds appointments at Yale University's Divinity School as well as its departments of religious studies, Jewish studies, and art history. But "White Crucifixion" is quite controversial, she noted.

"The appropriation of Jesus as a Jew is an implicit criticism of Catholicism for viewing the Jew as other, for not recognizing one's own suffering in that of the Jews. Taking over Christian iconography is a critical move," she said. "For the pope, the Jewish Christ may be enough to make the point about the failure of the church, and this might well speak to him."

Vox Wrote:Oh, blow it out from where the sun don't shine, Mz. Olin. We Catholics are very aware that Jesus was of the Tribe of Judah. We even honor His Circumcision every January 1. I mean, really, enough is enough. And all your jibber-jabber won't confuse us as to the fact that the Old Testament religion folks call "Judaism" is very oposed to the post-Temple religion also known as "Judaism," but which is a radically different religion from the one Jesus practiced (and is a religion that is explicitly anti-Christ, as the name for Jesus, used by post-Temple Jews -- as admitted in this very article! -- reveals).

Servite Fr. John Pawlikowski, director of the Catholic-Jewish studies program at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, agreed.

"The painting comes out of the movement, particularly among Yiddish-speaking, nonreligious Jews, to see Jesus as sharing in the sufferings of Jews at the hands of Christians. However, few, if any, Christians are really aware of this movement," he said.

Vox Wrote:If Yiddish-speaking, nonreligious Jews identified with the Christ in any way, how could we know about it when all WE hear is about how Jesus (er, May His Name Be Blotted Out) is boiling in excrement in Hell, along with his "whore" Mother, and that the Church is the root of all evil? 

And once again, "the sufferings of Jews at the hands of Christians." Yawn.

Most Christians will interpret the painting as displaying a direct link between Jesus' suffering and Jewish persecution during the Holocaust, according to Pawlikowski. But that can lead Christians to identify "themselves as victims, especially of the Nazis, rather than as a community of faith that contributed to Jewish suffering over the centuries," he said. "The painting, as moving as it is, can send an inaccurate message."

Vox Wrote:Because, you see, Catholics weren't put in camps. It was only Jewish people. 6,000,001 of them (oops! I'm a Holocaust denier! I didn't say 6,000,000!)

[Image: St%20Maximilian%20Kolbe.jpg]
This man did not exist!

Pawlikowski suspects the pope's adoration of the work has something to do with "his longstanding commitment to Catholic-Jewish relations in Argentina," he said. "He showed particular sensitivity to Jewish suffering at the time of the [1994] bombing of the Jewish center in Buenos Aires."

I genuinely do not wish Jews any ill-will, I find Jew-haters instinctually repugnant, and I have even always been interested in the modern Jewish religion and culture. I would say I was phillo-semite.

In spite of this, because I am a Traditional Catholic, and also, because my philo-semitism is not of the same character as Pope Francis' philo-semitism, I am therefore an anti-semite. Additionally, if I lived in the US or Germany for example, I would be considered anti-semitic for being critical of Israel. That's actually really uncharitable to me, it's a slander.


I find this painting really distasteful. I also find this video distasteful.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jakewa...ever-made/

I agree with the writers view that this is offensive and distasteful, but for different reasons. But how is this video different to various other depictions of the Holocaust in the media, especially Hollywood?
(05-13-2014, 04:11 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]Whether Chagall, who grew up with extensive Jewish instruction despite the multitude of errors in many of his Hebrew inscriptions, knew that the way he spelled Jesus' name in Hebrew also doubled as the rabbinic acronym "May his name and his memory be wiped out" is debatable. But it's certainly clear that the work "owns" Jesus as a Jew. And as the Art Institute website observes, it aims to "dramatically call attention to the persecution and suffering of the Jews in 1930s Germany."

It says it's debatable whether he knew that he was using that acronym while also translating INRI into Hebrew. 

I'm sure this wasn't how the artist originally intended me to see it, and maybe it is because I am of Jewish heritage as well, but I kind of like the fact that the Jewishness of Christ is emphasized.  It's a bit of a departure from the pale-faced, blonde haired, blue eyed Jesuses and Marys that dominate Western art.  Don't get me wrong, I love artists like Fra Angelico but it's unlikely that Baby Jesus was born with these golden curls:

[Image: fra_angelico-infant-jesus1.jpg]

The picture depicts the disillusionment of Jews in the 20th century.  There's no real perspective connecting all the events surrounding Christ to the center.... they're just happening on the periphery, all disjointed from the Cross which is the answer to all human suffering.  It's very modern that way.  When I look at the painting, it kind of reminds me that Christ is there in all the suffering we experience, regardless of whether we want Him there, or whether we acknowledge that  He is there. 

I agree that it is weird for a Pope to list this as his favorite painting ever.  But, it wouldn't be the first weird thing Pope Francis has ever said...after all he's talked about baptizing extraterrestrials and has said that the worst problems facing the world are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the elderly.
My favourite depiction of Christ remains the shroud of Turin, whether or not it is the relic it claims to be. I can see why the Chagall would appeal to Pope Francis - it does send a powerful message about the centrality of Christ in the lives of the Jews, even as some of them are at pains to ignore or vilify him. But equally, what of the wonder that Jewish converts have brought to the faith?
Just.  Wow.
(05-13-2014, 10:14 AM)Chestertonian Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-13-2014, 04:11 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]Whether Chagall, who grew up with extensive Jewish instruction despite the multitude of errors in many of his Hebrew inscriptions, knew that the way he spelled Jesus' name in Hebrew also doubled as the rabbinic acronym "May his name and his memory be wiped out" is debatable. But it's certainly clear that the work "owns" Jesus as a Jew. And as the Art Institute website observes, it aims to "dramatically call attention to the persecution and suffering of the Jews in 1930s Germany."

It says it's debatable whether he knew that he was using that acronym while also translating INRI into Hebrew. 

He had to have known, given his education. From Wiki:

Wiki Wrote:Most of what is known about Chagall's early life has come from his autobiography, My Life. In it, he described the major influence that the culture of Hasidic Judaism had on his life as an artist. Vitebsk itself had been a center of that culture dating from the 1730s with its teachings derived from the Kabbalah. Chagall scholar Susan Goodman describes the links and sources of his art to his early home:

    Chagall's art can be understood as the response to a situation that has long marked the history of Russian Jews. Though they were cultural innovators who made important contributions to the broader society, Jews were considered outsiders in a frequently hostile society... Chagall himself was born of a family steeped in religious life; his parents were observant Hasidic Jews who found spiritual satisfaction in a life defined by their faith and organized by prayer.[10]:14


Quote: I'm sure this wasn't how the artist originally intended me to see it, and maybe it is because I am of Jewish heritage as well, but I kind of like the fact that the Jewishness of Christ is emphasized.  It's a bit of a departure from the pale-faced, blonde haired, blue eyed Jesuses and Marys that dominate Western art.  Don't get me wrong, I love artists like Fra Angelico but it's unlikely that Baby Jesus was born with these golden curls:

I have no problem with Jesus being depicted as Jewish (as long as any of the Jewish-ness doesn't involve post-Temple stuff). That just makes sense. But for this picture to include the word "YESHU" is blasphemous on its face, though I am giving Francis the benefit of the doubt about knowing it's even in the painting. But that blasphemy aside, why the Pope would choose as his favorite a painting that is about Jewish suffering -- and esp. given the tremendous, glorious History of Catholic art -- is surreal.

Quote:
The picture depicts the disillusionment of Jews in the 20th century.  There's no real perspective connecting all the events surrounding Christ to the center.... they're just happening on the periphery, all disjointed from the Cross which is the answer to all human suffering.  It's very modern that way.  When I look at the painting, it kind of reminds me that Christ is there in all the suffering we experience, regardless of whether we want Him there, or whether we acknowledge that  He is there. 

I can see seeing it that way, but I can't imagine that's what Chagall intended given that he never became a Christian.

Quote: I agree that it is weird for a Pope to list this as his favorite painting ever.  But, it wouldn't be the first weird thing Pope Francis has ever said...after all he's talked about baptizing extraterrestrials and has said that the worst problems facing the world are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the elderly.

LOL That's a fact!
(05-13-2014, 06:41 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]But that blasphemy aside, why the Pope would choose as his favorite a painting that is about Jewish suffering -- and esp. given the tremendous, glorious History of Catholic art -- is surreal.

And this art is in no way glorious, aesthetically.  No, I'd say it's pretty clear that this is simply one more example of Bergoglio's partisanship in favor of Jewish-Catholic false ecumenism.  Very sad, but very clear.
Really this is in no way surprising. If Francis announced that he'd be asking for an extra collection to be taken up to help rebuild the temple in Jerusalem or that he was selling historic churches to raise money for Israel I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest. Honestly there's nothing these post conciliar Popes do that could possibly be shocking anymore.
I tend to agree with Junior Councilor. Couldn't the Pope be saying that this is his favorite painting to ease a bit the relations with the Jews, now that this trip to Israel is coming up?
Of course, if that is the case another problem presents itself: would it be OK for the Pope to lie just to appease things (or lie in any case)?

As for the painting itself, it kinda clearly depicts the Crucifixion as just another violence against Jews, which, of course, is baloney.
(05-13-2014, 08:55 AM)Miles Immaculatae Wrote: [ -> ]I genuinely do not wish Jews any ill-will, I find Jew-haters instinctually repugnant, and I have even always been interested in the modern Jewish religion and culture. I would say I was phillo-semite.

In spite of this, because I am a Traditional Catholic, and also, because my philo-semitism is not of the same character as Pope Francis' philo-semitism, I am therefore an anti-semite. Additionally, if I lived in the US or Germany for example, I would be considered anti-semitic for being critical of Israel. That's actually really uncharitable to me, it's a slander.

Not digging the "in spite of this" line, friend. Unless you're just referring to the stereotype of the "Jew-hating traddie." Catholics are commanded to love everyone -- even our enemies (I'm writing for folks reading over our shoulders, Miles. I know you know this LOL).

Quote: I find this painting really distasteful. I also find this video distasteful.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jakewa...ever-made/

I agree with the writers view that this is offensive and distasteful, but for different reasons. But how is this video different to various other depictions of the Holocaust in the media, especially Hollywood?

The article you linked to:



Jesus, the Nazis and Holocaust kitsch. Is this the most offensive religious video ever made?
By Jake Wallis Simons
Last updated: April 24th, 2014



Even as I write, I'm wondering whether this is really some kind of sick joke.

Deep breath. So Holocaust Remembrance Day will take place on 26 April. To commemorate this, Jews for Jesus – an organisation that "exist[ s ] to make the messiahship of Jesus an unavoidable issue to our Jewish people worldwide" – has released a video. Already it has garnered more than a million hits. And already it has become notorious as possibly the most offensive video ever made.

Vox Wrote:And I'd bet it's considered offensive not because it intimates various untrue things about Our Lord (that He was killed for being Jewish rather than having been killed, proximately, by Jews, that He was a Jew in the same way that post-Temple Jews are Jews -- i.e., that He believed the post-Temple Jewish religion, etc.) but because it "insults" people who see the Holocaust as the most sacred event in History, something caused, in their minds, by Christians (see the original post and note the quote from Fr. John Pawlikowski, director of the Catholic-Jewish studies program at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, who said, "The painting comes out of the movement, particularly among Yiddish-speaking, nonreligious Jews, to see Jesus as sharing in the sufferings of Jews at the hands of Christians."), and so forth. I'd bet you that at least 80% of the people who find that video offensive are offended for the latter reason.

The aesthetic is full-on Holocaust kitsch, complete with homemade Nazi uniforms, suspicious-looking peasant rags, and badly superimposed depictions of the Auschwitz gates. Cheesy string music swells throughout, and the film is shot in predictable black-and-white. Only Jesus – or rather, a bloke with a dodgy wig carrying a cardboard cross – appears in colour. When he approaches the selection desk, a hammy (and rather camp) Nazi looks him up and down and says "Showers (gas chambers)! Just another Jew".

Vox Wrote:While I found the video offensive, I think he's really overstating the case here. This wasn't a 6 million dollar budget Scorsese flick; it was a little video. Get real.

Apart from the appalling bad taste, what is wrong with this video? Well, for one thing it attempts to hijack the Holocaust to undermine adherence to the Jewish faith. For another, it conflates the sacrifice of Jesus with the killing of millions of Jews in modern times, which is problematic on any number of levels. But mostly, I think, it is offensive because it a) assumes a right to blithely portray the Holocaust, and b) assumes the right to use it in the service of its own narrow theological ends.

Vox Wrote:Look at that first line:  "hijack the Holocaust" -- because Christians weren't thrown into work camps? Is that it? And it's "offensive" to try to convert the Jewish people to Christianity? Is that what he's really saying here?

Note the object of his concerns in the rest of this: it's offensive not because it "blithely" portrays Christ, using, according to him, "cheesy, campy kitsch," but because it "blithely" portrays the Holocaust. 

And note what it is OK in Western culture to mock and be "blithe" about. It's fine to post crap like this on the net -- http://www.banderasnews.com/howto/wafer.htm (I mean, isn't it just so edgy? Uber-kewl, man! Hahahaha!) -- but to make a sincere video in an attempt to convert Jews to Christianity and using Holocaust imagery in the process -- well, now, folks, THAT'S over the line! Call Foxman! Fast! Someone's name and career must be destroyed!

The Holocaust is treated as a more sacrosanct event than the Crucifixion of the Son of God. It is treated as THE most important event in the History of the entire world. There are dogmas that must be accepted regarding it (e.g., 6 million instead of 3 or 4 or whatever million, the presence of gas chambers, etc.), and violating these dogmas result in fines and/or imprisonment in many countries, and social shaming and disgracing, the loss of employment, etc., in pretty much every country. Children are taught about in pretty much every school grade. Memorials abound. Remembrance Days are almost universal. It truly is a religion unto itself.

Put it this way. If somebody mocked up a video of your grandmother dying, and superimposed a second-rate Jesus into the film, it would be an outrage whether she was Christian or not. This is because death is a highly personal, private and sacred thing; the appropriation of the death of a human being by a stranger with an agenda is an act of exploitation, whether you come from a Jewish or a Christian perspective.

Vox Wrote:? There is no individual with a name portrayed in the entire video, aside from Our Lord. There are Holocaust movies coming out every year. Kids in classes all over the world are forced to read books about some young kid or other going through this particular period of History. And now he's suddenly worried about depicting it --- just because Jesus is shown in it? OK, man!

Jews for Jesus offers a number of woolly and confused explanations. It suggests that “Jesus has often been wrongly associated with the perpetrators of the Holocaust” (even if that were true, how would this video help?), and argues that “The Holocaust, perhaps more than any other event or topic, has kept Jewish people from being open to considering Jesus as the Jewish messiah” (ditto).

Clearly, the evangelists who made this video were acting out of some misguided sense of religious purpose, combined with an underlying trivialisation of the Holocaust, blended with a healthy dose of ignorance. That they are unable to appreciate the fact that it is offensive only compounds the tragedy.

Vox Wrote:The Jews for Jesus people are -- guess what!:  Hebrews! They don't have any "claim" on the Holocaust either, just because they converted -- and in spite of the fact that tons of Catholics (and homosexuals, Rom, Jehovah's Witnesses, handicapped people, etc.) also died during all that? Whatever.

Hannah Arendt, I think, said it best: "it was not stupidity but thoughtlessness".

Vox Wrote:Jesus said, while on the Cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." He was referring to the Jews who put Him to death. As Maimonides put it, "[Jesus of Nazareth] impelled people to believe that he was a prophet sent by God to clarify perplexities in the Torah, and that he was the Messiah that was predicted by each and every seer. He interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment, to the abolition of all its commandments and to the violation of its prohibitions. The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him."


Pages: 1 2 3