Fr. James Martin touts blasphemous image of Jesus as a homosexual

[KMC]

The artist is probably going to get a lot of mileage from the title, but there is nothing there.

You seem to be divorcing the title from the art. If you see no connection, then answer me this: Why would the artist use the title he did? I see it. Mark 121359 sees it. So you don’t see it. Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean others don’t…especially under the label "The Passion of Christ: A Gay Vision”.

 

[Mark121359]

I’m not saying that you are the issue. Just that we apparently have differing views on the homosexual agenda.

 

[vz71]

answer me this: Why would the artist use the title he did?

To get people riled up.
It is no secret that working up Christians gains media attention. The artwork is substandard. But with the help of the Christian community, he can get business from homosexuals for what otherwise would be an average painting from an obscure artist.
All without painting anything overtly offensive.

 

[vz71]

o you don’t see it. Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean others don’t…

Right.
So perhaps one of those that does see the homosexual overtone can describe for me what exactly this looks like and where exactly it is.

 

[KMC]

KMC:

o you don’t see it. Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean others don’t…

Right.
So perhaps one of those that does see the homosexual overtone can describe for me what exactly this looks like and where exactly it is.

I get it. You don’t see it. I do. Others do. I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Mark121359]

I refuse to even call this art. It’s garbage! And it belongs in the depths of the Tiber River along with “Pachamama.”

 

[vz71]

I refuse to even call this art. It’s garbage! And it belongs in the depths of the Tiber River along with “Pachamama.”

Such a strong reaction.
“Pachamama” had specifics associated with it that made its dip into the Tiber justified.

Can you provide specifics on these paintings to justify such a strong reaction?

 

[Mark121359]

Such a strong reaction.

Actually, by my way of thinking not strong enough!

 

[vz71]

Do I assume that is a “no” you cannot explain why you have labelled the paintings as overtly homosexual and blasphemous?

 

[Feanor2]

KMC:

Did you look at the rest of his paintings (there is a link in the OP)? Painting of “a Jesus” getting his rear end grabbed by an angel…really?

Exactly correct! How any practicing Catholic doesn’t find problems with this “artwork” is astounding to me. Those paintings turn my stomach. To see our Lord depicted in such a way greatly offends me to no end!!!

I can see that by the use of not just one but 3 !.

 

[vz71]

Long on judgement.
Short on actual logic behind said judgement.

 

[Mark121359]

Long on judgement.
Short on actual logic behind said judgement.

Scroll up and reread @KMC’s last post. You said so yourself that you were offended by the artist depiction of Mary with dung thrown on it, and the crucifix in jar of urine some years back. I see this in much the same way. You seem to enjoy, and are actually defending this so called art. You look at that image and see fine artwork. I look at it and see obscene garbage. You seem to have difficulty grasping just who it is that those images are actually depicting. I don’t know what else you want me to say. Enough already!

 

[vz71]

You look at that image and see fine artwork.

Discourse would likely be more productive if you read others posts. Perhaps that explains the issue here.

I will quote the post you missed:

It is no secret that working up Christians gains media attention. The artwork is substandard. But with the help of the Christian community, he can get business from homosexuals for what otherwise would be an average painting from an obscure artist.
All without painting anything overtly offensive

As to your point. I can specify exactly what is wrong with the dung covered painting of Mary, I can specify exactly what is wrong with crucifixes inside jars of urine.
The difference here is that people condemning this art work cannot actually say what is wrong with it. They are going to such extremes, saying it churns their stomach, that it is blasphemy, that it is overtly homosexual.
And yet they cannot specify exactly where the blasphemy is…where is the overt homosexuality…what churns the stomach.

If I did not know better, I would say people jumped on a bandwagon because lifesite reported on it and a suspicious priest is involved.

 

[Londoner]

The image where the angel seems to be fondling Jesus’ left buttock is questionable from an orthodox Christian point of view, given that angels are not supposed to have gender or sexuality.

Not 100% certain why Jesus and God the Father both bear wounds from the crucifixion, but that’s a matter of theological interpretation, not blasphemy and certainly not homosexuality. Granted, God the Father looks a little on the young side, but it’s only convention that he’s depicted as an old man. God the Father doesn’t have an age and doesn’t have a human body, so it’s just for the benefit of our limited understanding that he is conventionally portrayed as looking old enough to have a 33-year-old son.

Given that the Holy Spirit is commonly depicted as a dove (a form adopted temporarily, we must presume), I don’t really see the objection to the Holy Spirit being depicted as a woman. The Holy Spirit has no human or anthropomorphic attributes, so ascribing gender is not possible. If the Holy Spirit is going to be depicted as human, he/she(/it?) could equally be a man, a woman, or anything in between.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

about one movement of a song composed by mozart and not listerning to the other movements that makeup the whole

That usually doesn’t happen. Vivaldi is a good example of beautiful music being reduced to a mere shadow.