Reuters reports on the scandal at the Vienna cathedral museum involving the artist Hrdlicka's homoerotic Jesus art. The good news is Cdl. Schoenborn ordered the Last-Supper-as-gay-orgy canvas removed. The bad news is what he left up:
The museum's director defends both Hrdlicka's work and his decision to host the artist's controversial versions of biblical imagery in a museum tied to the Catholic Church."We think Hrdlicka is entitled to represent people in this carnal, drastic way," Bernhard Boehler said in his small museum office, across the street from Vienna's imposing St. Stephan's Cathedral.
He said the museum never intended to offend people but that art should be allowed to provoke a debate.
"I don't see any blasphemy here," he said, gesturing at a Crucifixion picture showing a soldier simultaneously beating Jesus and holding his genitals. "People can imagine what they want to."
What kind of wastrel can look at a depiction of a Roman soldier masturbating the crucified Christ and not see blasphemy? More to the point: what kind of self-respecting cardinal archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church can decline to give someone with such a perverse point of view the sack?
Then again, maybe they do things differently in Austria:
Curator Martina Judt said the exhibition was meant to prompt this kind of balanced reaction. The museum wanted to show that controversial works inspired by religious imagery can be discussed without taboo."People have said the Catholic Church has become a lot more liberal," she said. "But in the end, the reactions show this perhaps isn't the case."
Yes, clearly Catholics offended by the cathedral museum depicting the Son of God and the saints as orgiastic homosexuals shows that the reactionary spirit of Pius IX is firmly in control of the poor old hidebound Catholic Church. Lord, have mercy. How breathtakingly deep the rot has set in there.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"Now, what of the term "the psychologically diseased", which seems to specifically be only a slur against all homosexuals and which Rod still continues to allow despite his recent blog about the pain caused to others?"
And let us not forget "objectively disordered."
For me the only problem I have with "objectively disordered" is that it's not used to describe enough things.
Reading stuff on the issue essentially the idea is that if homosexuality is to be deemed a grave sin a consistent desire to engage in in it is disordered. However by the same token alcoholics, compulsive eaters, people with rage issues, etc should also be deemed objectively disordered. Hence we should also ban reformed alcoholics and some obese men from the priesthood, because even if they've controled it they are still proned to an objective moral disorder.
I just don't think we do that and I find that unfair. Alcoholic priests are probably doing more damage then celibate gay priests. Although it was a minority of cases, many of the incidents of sexual misconduct involved people addicted to alcohol or drugs. However there's still some "ickiness" factor at play and that strikes me as curious bit of unreasonableness. In many people's eyes drunks, even now, are less "icky" than gay men. Therefore there's not so much on the objective disorder of alcoholism and the unfitness of such men for life.
Well that and the documents make having a disorder sound so gloomy. In Catholic thought celibates are more likely to become saints. In fact the idea that marriage was equal to celibacy was at one time made an anathema. So having a disorder that means you should be celibate should be almost a blessing in disguise. Instead it's treated more as a sorrow and an affliction.
(I'm speaking in Catholic terms. In terms of most Protestantism celibacy is rejected)
"Reading stuff on the issue essentially the idea is that if homosexuality is to be deemed a grave sin a consistent desire to engage in in it is disordered."
You have it backwards: Homosexuality is an objective disorder, to engage in the act is the sin. But yes, there are plenty of objective disorders to go around. Not many have their own "Pride" celebrations though.
"I'm speaking in Catholic terms." Thomas R
You could have fooled me. For example, you say things like this: " In fact the idea that marriage was equal to celibacy was at one time made an anathema."
That is just plain nonsense.
Thomas, your back door defense of homosexualism is one thing--knock yourself out--but please don't spout nonsense and call it Catholic thought in support of it.
I had to make one more post so that the "comments" count didn't read 69.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.