Crib Controversy

Date: 
Sunday, December 24, 2017 - 20:45
Article link: 
 
gemoftheocean said...

This is exactly the kind of junk pope make-a-mess promotes. He wants to divide and cause controversy. And the naked guy does look like someone hanging out in a bath house. 10-1 a hell of a lot of people at the Vatican have qualms about it, but fear the Bergolian clique that "himself" uses to report back to him those who may he personally "disloyal" to him as not being on board. Same with the garbage light display 2 years ago. He can dismiss and clean out the whole Vatican if he wants, and if people do speak out he gets rid of them. I bet people who are good there are just praying that when he is gone there will be enough survivors left to pick a pope faithful enough to teach the fullness of the faith, which all but he has upheld for almost 2000 years. My guess.

Nicolas Bellord said...

The resignations from the Sex Abuse Commission parallel the serial resignations and sackings of those dealing with the financial affairs of the Vatican. We were told that we would see reforms of the Curia - precious little sign of anything useful being done so far.

 

Anita Moore said...

Yes, I must join the ranks of those who look at this "creche" scene and do not find it edifying. The corporal works of mercy are good, but it is not the purpose of a creche to illustrate the corporal works of mercy. The purpose of a creche is to illustrate the Christ Child, God in the flesh, personally intervening in our world at a particular moment in history. Besides, if the intent was to depict the corporal works of mercy, and this isn't coming across, then it's a failure from that standpoint as well.

Several generations ago, our Elders and Betters told us we needed to rid ourselves of the "accretions" of tradition and go back to pure, unalloyed Christianity; but all they really ended up doing was to replace tradition with accretions of their own peculiar (and I do mean peculiar) tastes and agendas. Somewhere along the line, in snuck the idea that pastors can't really be pastors unless they are putting their own stinky personalities in our faces instead of the Gospel. They convinced themselves that we don't really want the same old pomp and pageantry and ceremony and tradition, imputing their own boredom to us and imagining that we need to be shaken up. But they are breaking the promise of the easy yoke and the still waters by which we were to have been led. We who are secular are already shaken up enough by the world. We neither need nor want to be shaken up by the Church, just for the sake of being shaken up.

I think I am not alone in crying out:

Why can't we just have the Gospel?
Why can't we just have the Mass?
Why can't we just have the Rosary?
Why can't we just have the Stations of the Cross?
Why can't we just have a Nativity scene?

And when are we going to be delivered from the Church of Hagan Lio?

Catholic 78 said...

Disgraceful people do disgraceful things that scandalize and harm faithful people

Liam Ronan said...

The Nativity scene is too 'noisy' for a silent night where we are to contemplate the mystery of the Incarnation, God made made.

"You have the poor among you always, so that you can do good to them when you will; I am not always among you." Mark 14:7

I see no representations of the Spiritual Works of Mercy here, i.e. admonish the sinner, counsel the doubtful, etc. The naked man is too much, a bit of gay smirking I sense.

Christ did not deign to appear as a naked beggar to St. Martin de Tours when St. Martin shared half of his cloak with Him.

This is too much. I detest this supposed 'art'.

Gerard Larkin Haverstock Esq said...

One more the word Mercy come up and one more the truth seems not go out the door.

 

Ignatius O'Donovan said...

Greetings Fr Ray for the festive season and thank you for the time and effort you put into your blog. I feel you may be overreacting a little on the "dangers" posed by Pope Francis. In the history of the papacy there has almost always been controversy and scandal.
If we consider Peter the first pope then even he was rebuked by no less a person than Paul "because he was clearly wrong". Down the centuries we have countless other examples. Leo x was an absolute disaster in his handling of Martin Luther. Some historians doubt that Leo was even a believer. Then we had Borgias, , Farneses etc few of them corrupted with piety. One could go on. We had the great examples of Leo the Great and Gregory who were inspirational impeccable characters. The gentle and saintly Pius VII in his heroic defence of the faith in the French revolutionary period. More recently the much maligned Paul VI who was virtually crucified over Humanae Vitae but bravely fought to keep the Church together in the turbulent post Vatican II era. He was assailed by both liberals and conservatives. As long as the throne of Peter is occupied by fallible human beings it will always be a rocky perch. It is likewise with Pope Francis. Just a thought.

Cosmos said...

It's fine, the way a lesson on confirmation, or canon law, or the cardinal virtues is fine. But why is it there?

The problem is, like everything else in the Church right now, this nativity scene is a novelty that springs from the head of one of our bored or over-eager contemporaries. That man/woman (obviously a man) apparently thought that adoring the Baby Jesus, contemplating his lowly birth, and reflecting on the incarnation has become stale. We need to be shaken up! We need something that challenges us! So he turns my attention to whatever he has decided is truly important: here, the corporal works of mercy.

Again, the corporal works of mercy are GREAT. But the point of the nativity scene is to focus you on the birth of Christ. Why am I being led away from that simple imagery?

So now my critical faculties kick in. And I look around and see a naked man with the physique of a very dedicated bodybuilder (with well defined abdominal muscles) in the midst of the scene. Who could possibly think that such a sculpture worked in that setting? Obviously someone who isn't very deeply involved in the life of the church. And from there its hard not to conclude that the motiff was chosen because this is the part of Christianity that is justifiable to the secular progressive world. "The Incarnation is just religious background noise, but helping the needy is worthwhile. So that must be what the religion is really about."

So while I could say, "it's not really so bad," my reaction is, "please give it a break."

...

Albrecht von Brandenburg said...

This is not true - there's no doubt Leo was a faithful believer (if we except his moral compromise over usury) and his moral reputation, was accepted as blameless as adverted to in at least one letter either by Luther himself or a diplomat. As for Alexander VI, people ha e to stop believing in evidenceless black legends. Even a South American anticlerical, masonic historian who investigated the standard claims against him was compelled to admit the typical historical portrayal of A VI was false.

...

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

The figurine (from the Robert Mapplethorpe school of art?) is attracting none of the eyes of the other figures in the scene.

Sodomites are naturally subversive and the presence of the figurine is the scene is witness to that fact and also the power of the sodomites whose perversions are so prevalent in The Holy City.

ABS remembers a few years ago it was revealed the Vatican owned a building that had a sodomite bath house in its basement and so one is disappointed, but not shocked, that what happens in the Holy City does not stay there.

...

Simple Simon said...

Ignatius, whenever a Pope can be fairly described as a disaster for the Church, it is the bad fruits of such a papacy that are so harmful and cause such great distress. It is cold comfort to know that Pope Francis may or may not be the best in the bad row.

...

Kathleen1031 said...

Ignatius O'Donovan, I could not disagree more, but I notice you have no problem with this scandalous debacle of a nativity scene, which is a blatant slap in the face to Catholics who still have a sense of spiritual discernment left. This nativity is a gross, vulgar insult. If Bishop Fulton J. Sheen were alive to see it, he would probably drop dead out of horror. We have all been corrupted and our sensibilities lowered due to this world and these horrible men, but if this outrageous spectacle, this insult to Jesus Christ and the Holy Family, doesn't fill us with revulsion then we may be too far gone.
That naked man is there for a REASON. He is there to give Catholics the middle finger. "There you go Catholics, we will flaunt our disgusting sodomy and obsession with the naked male figure right in your faces, and what are you going to do about it? Nothing. These men are ENJOYING this. A pox on them. May God rebuke them and may He end this madness and come to our rescue soon!
And that is 100% bona fide, genuine scandal and outrage Fr. Blake, not one bit of insincerity or falseness, I assure you. Thank you for your blog.

...

Unknown said...

Without or without consultation the "artist" (individual, most likely, or a workshop project) the naked man was designed to evoke homosexual references in the viewing public.

It did just that. Nothing trivial here. Intention matters here. What the artist(s) intended it got.

...

Sue Sims said...

While I agree that the crib is not edifying, some of the reactions (not on this blog, I hasten to note) are even less so. I first saw the image of the crib (or part of it) on another site which shall be nameless (mostly because I can't recall which it was, and don't want to waste time searching). Someone had Photoshopped the image so that the naked man, rather than being well off-centre and being offered a garment, was now in the middle of the Three Kings/Magi - the kneeling king/magus therefore looked as though he was adoring the naked man rather than the Infant Saviour. I was truly shocked by that - so much so that the authentic photo, seen on this blog, was actually a relief!

We don't help our cause (whatever that cause might be) by lying and cheating. The reality is bad, but it could be worse.

Unknown said...

A frail thin old man curled into a ball for warmth---might've bought that.

Kim

Annie said...

Sue Sims,

Vox Cantoris points out that the picture hasn't been photo-shopped; it's just the angle that makes it appear so.

Facebook btw has prohibited the Vatican's Nativity Scene from being displayed on its pages. The reason they give is that it is sexually provocative. I'm no fan of Facebook and am amazed that even they find they Manger display objectionable.

 

Sr. Marianne Lorraine Trouve said...

I think the problem with it is in downplaying the Incarnation in favor of works of mercy, as if what we do is more important than God's initiative. Like Pelagiaism.

Pelerin said...

Fr Z's blog has a picture of a 'Hipster Nativity' on display in a US cathedral.

Whilst I am amused to see the Three Wise Men enter on Segways carrying their Amazon presents (a clever modernisation), I am disgusted by the figure representing the Virgin Mary. It depicts her showing her underwear in a style which sadly is so popular among certain young girls today. Was this really necessary? She could have been shown in a t-shirt and still looked modern. I am surprised the Cathedral authorities allowed this 'crib' to be displayed there.

 

Own comment: 

I echo Anita Moore's anguish:

...

I think I am not alone in crying out:

Why can't we just have the Gospel?
Why can't we just have the Mass?
Why can't we just have the Rosary?
Why can't we just have the Stations of the Cross?
Why can't we just have a Nativity scene?

And when are we going to be delivered from the Church of Hagan Lio?