Archbishop Commissions Homoerotic Mural For Cathedral


                                                          Feels a little more like The End Times each day.

Also, someone should let the artist know that painting Jesus casting nets out to lead prostitutes, transsexuals, drug dealers, etc, to Heaven makes no sense unless they're repentant and receive the grace of God. Having a mural of Jesus leading homosexuals in nude/semi-nude, homoerotic poses to Heaven doesn't portray shouldn't be portrayed at all, but you get the idea.
[quote='Eric F' pid='1335936' dateline='1488659']

Ya, if Jesus doesn't come sometime soon, He may have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah!
Not surprised by any of this.

But, I can't help thinking how low, so low, that western civilization has sunk to; and how "normal" and "acceptable" it is to display depraved behavior such as what's on that mural. To mimic classical art with what essentially looks like individuals in extreme sexual pleasure. Even worse, knowing that our priests/bishops/archbishops, etc. who are blatant sodomites (and perhaps, pedophiles/ephebophiles as well), displaying their homoeroticism in public a cathedral, in an otherwise holy place for worship.

This archbishop obviously did this because he knows no one is going to bother ousting him from his position. I mean, who would? He obviously doesn't care and perhaps is doing it as a "joke" to all faithful Catholics. Homoculture is impressed upon us by liberals, elites, and even our own church leaders. It's so ugly no wonder it leads to nothing but spiritual and physical death; which ironically is exactly what the mural appears to display.
                                                  What really get's me is the people who will say that you can't speak too critically of this guy because he's still a Bishop, and I have to ask, why is he still a bishop ?
How significantly does this mural depart from historical norms in Catholic religious art? The consternation over the fact that a local androgynous-looking hairdresser was chosen to model the face of Christ strikes me as especially petty, considering that even great Renaissance artists routinely used prostitutes and others from the dregs of society as art models.
(03-04-2017, 09:57 PM)Cyriacus Wrote: How significantly does this mural depart from historical norms in Catholic religious art? The consternation over the fact that a local androgynous-looking hairdresser was chosen to model the face of Christ strikes me as especially petty, considering that even great Renaissance artists routinely used prostitutes and others from the dregs of society as art models.

:clap: :clap: :clap:
                                                                I think you need to take a closer look at the mural again.
It looks disturbingly like an orgy.

The takeaways from the article, my emphasis:

Quote:“Working with him [Vox: Bishop Paglia] 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."

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.”

I have no problem whatsoever with artists using non-Catholics and (fellow!) sinners as models, and am well aware and welcoming of the artistic talents various homosexuals have brought to the Church over the centuries (though I know nothing about whether they were continent, or at least striving for chastity, or unrepentantly active). But I have a huge problem with hierarchs promoting artworks that imply that Christ's admonition to the woman at the well to "go and sin no more" is outdated, that because we have the political freedom to do all sorts of things, then that means we have a moral right to do so. And that is exactly what this piece implies with these people being shown as being inside the draw net -- people who are shown in a  way that intimates they're active and unrepentant with regard to their pet sins.

There's the obvious problem, too, with various hierarchs being depicted as homosexuals. Homosexuals are not called to ordination (they can be ordained if they are completely cured of their disorder, of course --  but complete cures aren't common, and this mural shows them as not cured).

And then there's this:

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.”

Christ IS masculine. He is the Perfect Man and more than Man. Feminization or effeminization of Lord Christ is exactly what we don't need, most especially at this point in time, a time in which we're being confronted by Islam.

I'm one of the last sorts of trads to go looking for problems, and, as a Catholic and an Italian, I loathe Puritanism. In fact, after reading the title of this thread, I was prepared to read the OP and go on the defense. But this mural is demonic.  And that Bishop Paglia was the head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, and is now, thanks to Francis, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, as well as of the Pontifical Pope John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, is outrageous.  In that former position, according to the article, Paglia:

Quote:... 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.”

In his latter position:

Quote:...the Academy [Vox: that Paglia headed] 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.”

While, obviously, the fact that Paglia is pushing for radical changes in Church teaching (an ontological impossibility) doesn't mean that the mural he pushed for is bad, in this case I see the spirit of the mural as totally reflecting his demonic agenda.

The new FE page on homosexuality:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)