Vatican Nativity scene rooted in occult symbolism

[pnewton]

Yes, and that is twice I have stopped short on the National Catholic Register. I hope they are going off the rails. This is where I stopped: “…like faces alongside the presence of an astronaut and a morbid, satanic-looking executioner — but no manger.”

I pulled it up elsewhere sans commentary. It is interesting, too arty for my tastes. The only thing I find distasteful though is how criticism of art that is seen as distasteful devolves into attacks an wild claims of evil art, insults to Mary, etc. That is distasteful to me, and of far greater import than whether realistic, classical art is preferred over impressionistic art.

I have had all sorts of nativities, some have been rather cartoonish, some modern, some classic, and one Lego.

 

[Rosarydevotion1]

No. My point is its the VATICAN that chose to display this blasphemous dipiction of the nativity, not the kids who created it all those years ago.

 

[Raxus]

Agreed, wholeheartedly. The sister that I lost this year in April was an amazing and talented artist, and it still makes my blood boil to have watched her struggle to get her name out there in our area, with works of art that were breathtaking and required great talent to achieve, while some “artists” would nail a bunch of shoes to a piece of wood, or tape a banana to a wall, and receive money and accolades like they were some kind of artistic genius.

Ugh.

 

[Raxus]

this blasphemous dipiction of the nativity,

There is nothing blasphemous about the Vatican’s Nativity this year. It’s tacky, not diabolical.

 

[tomarin]

He resembles a bit Dr. Honeydew from ‘The Muppet Show’.

 

[qui_est_ce]

In a world whose last year was spent fighting a terrible new virus, losing hundreds and thousands worldwide to it, with countries in lockdowns, millions losing jobs, churches themselves being closed, I just find it extremely “puzzling” that whatever committee makes the decision on ‘what to display’ chose something 50 years old and very much showing its age, instead of something ‘timeless’. For God’s sake (literally) art is supposed to show BEAUTY. The nativity shows the beauty of a HUMAN FAMILY. This is a contrived and alien mockery, especially in this year. In a way one expects an ‘upended’ Nativity as it has been an upended year, but we’re Catholics. Our New Year started the first Sunday of Advent. We should be blazing the way with a refocus on Christ’s gift to HUMANITY not to macaroni and barrels and ‘tributes to the moon landing’.

You said it better than I could.

 

[pnewton]

I also have a kneeling Santa (before the manger) in my office. This one is fairly common in Christian stores.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

For God’s sake (literally) art is supposed to show BEAUTY.

Not necessarily. Art is supposed to make us think. There’s a good bit of art that challenges our standard concepts of “beauty”. Often, new forms of art have been controversial because they weren’t conventionally “beautiful” according to the standards of the time. It doesn’t mean that those forms aren’t art, and sometimes in another time and place they’re actually seen as beautiful.

I think the issue here is not so much about art in general. It’s pretty well established that the Nativity scene in question is art. Rather, the question is whether the presentation of this Nativity scene as being THE scene chosen to show to a general audience outside the Vatican is an appropriate presentation for this particular work of art. It’s not something that can be easily appreciated by Average Joe Catholic who likely wants to see something more conventional when he looks at the primary seat of the Catholic Church on earth.