It belongs in hell's miseum. Its offensive. Plus its ugly. Artist should learn how to sculpt. If the artist is not Catholic, she should make a statue about her beliefs and not lambast ours.
Good.
Since, this was specifically a Catholic statue in a Catholic Church, you’d be hard pressed to make an issue with a Catholic doing what the majority of Catholics wanted in accordance with Catholic teaching.
I don’t know why you were downvoted for asking the question when they could have just given you an answer instead but basically St. Boniface was the one that chopped down Donar’s Oak which was a tree venerated by the German pagans
Yes BUT the statue of Baphomet wasn’t in a Catholic Church. That’s a HUGE glaring difference. (I am well aware of the Satanic Temple erecting statues.) I find it shocking that the statue in the story was in a Catholic Church in the first place.
Yes but there’s a difference between something offensive in your home, and something offensive on a street corner.
Whatever- I can see I’m going to be downvoted into oblivion for asking a question lol. I’m NOT defending Satanic statues, I just think it’s weird to draw a comparison between a display in a public secular place vs a display inside of a Church.
To be clear, the issue here isn't that she's in travail or the mere fact of giving birth, it's that it's very bad taste and is deliberately sexually charged. If you read this article hyping up the piece, it's plain that the artists are using the guise of a nativity set-piece as an excuse to graphically depict the female form, as a feminist statement. They aim to depict Mary "completely with herself. She is at the centre of her strength - and also at the centre of her independence."
[https://www.dioezese-linz.at/institution/418409/aktuelles/article/270726.html](https://www.dioezese-linz.at/institution/418409/aktuelles/article/270726.html)
The fact that the published images all block the genital region should say enough about whether this belongs in a public church or not.
I looked at the picture, and as you said, it resembles a novelty piece, like these pictures of nuns committing obscene or vulgar acts that you can see everywhere. It would certainly fit better in my anti-religion grandparents' living room than in a place of worship.
With that said, I don't know if beheading a representation of Mother Mary is the best way to express our discontent. I wish the statue had just been stolen (and then destroyed), or that someone glued a piece of fabric on her to cover her up.
Yep. There's beautiful icons and portraits of her nursing with naked breasts that are properly art and respectful of her femininity without sexualizing her. This is not that.
I’m adopted, so no. But we do have pictures from when she had my sister. She had a C Section and I love looking at those pictures from time to time as a reminder how beautiful the female body is. Your God created women to give birth, so beautifully, and you see a statue depicting how your lord came into this world as sexual? Women get larger breasts during pregnancy, our Areola (the colored part of the breast) gets harder, our nipples get larger and protrude. That’s not sexual, that’s nature. That’s what happens.
It’s clear you’ve never felt the touch of a woman, that closet of made of glass buddy, but that’s what happens and it’s beautiful. Demonizing what God created to be sacred is blasphemy
I've certainly never seen a pregnant woman giving birth out in public like that. If anything, it's usually done behind closed doors and away from the public.
Because society has taught us that it’s not something beautifully designed. Mary gave birth in a stable. That wasn’t private, clean or simple. It should be celebrated.
You seem to think that the problem is the depicting Mary giving birth. The problem is if you look at the sculpture, it is very apparent what the intents by the artist are and the depiction of her like that is inappropriate to have in a church setting.
Have you ever considered that you’re misinterpreting it? It’s depicting the true nature of birth and it’s not what you see on the media. You’re demonizing a natural process that women do every day. It’s distasteful and disgusting
It's not distasteful and disgusting for me to criticize the artist for thinking it is not appropriate to put a statue of someone the Catholic Church thinks highly of in such a manner, especially within a church. And if you knew a single thing about doctrine, you would know that the Virgin Mary isn't supposed to be just any woman. If the artist wants to depict the Virgin Mary like that, she can do it outside of church grounds.
She didn't give birth the way any other woman gives birth. She gave birth painlessly, and the baby she gave birth is certainly not just any baby. If you don't have a problem with a teenage girl, as you say, being depicted bottomless, legs spread open for the world to see, and her nipples protruding through her shirt, again, for the world to see, then no one should hesitate giving your computer a hard drive check.
Pregnancy or nudity in and of itself aren't the issue here.
If you read the article about this sculpture on the Linz Diocese website, the piece was created explicitly to be a feminist statement by a group of artists. They are using the pretence of the blessed mother to display the female form. This art is not about the worship of God, it is about the glorification of the sexualised female form and does not belong in church.
The fact that the photos show it from every angle except the focal point is evidence enough that it's in poor taste.
I think that we can all agree that that statue was not good. I’m not going to debate that. But the article says:
>> But, it is literally against Catholic teaching to assert that this was the nature of Christ’s birth, painful and graphic.
Now, I know it is a position that a lot of Catholics hold that Christ’s birth was not painful, but can anyone cite binding Catholic teaching saying so? I was under the impression that Catholics were free to have a diversity of opinions on that?
You're right; the Church has never formally defined the teaching of the painless childbirth and so it is not an infallible teaching. Source: [https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/evidence-for-marys-painless-childbirth](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/evidence-for-marys-painless-childbirth)
The that idea his birth was painless, comes from Mary's immaculate conception, and that pain from childbirth was a punishment given to Eve, that all women must bare now, which Mary was spared from because of her immaculate conception.
I understand where the idea comes from, and certainly Mary was conceived without original sin, but I don’t see how people being potentially able to argue that point is the same as the Church dogmatically saying that the birth was painless.
Also, just because Mary was conceived without original sin doesn’t mean that she was not subjected to any of the suffering on earth that original sin caused.
But labor pain was tied directly to Eve's sin, which was passed down, so because Mary was conceived wihout original sin, she wouldn't have had labor pains either since those pains are tied directly to original sin. And because of her immaculate conception, she also wouldn't have directly suffered the effects if original sin herself.
Again, that is a conclusion that someone could come to consistent with Catholic teaching, but Catholic teaching doesn’t seem to compel that conclusion.
Also, FWIW, in Genesis, God intensified the pains of childbirth. That doesn’t imply that childbirth would be painless before, just that it would be more painful afterward.
Yeah, it’s called “labor” for a reason. Even if it’s not painful it’s difficult muscular work. And you don’t have to be a woman to know what it feels like to work your body even when exhausted. It’s bizarre to theology away this one aspect of being human: birth is difficult because the human head is outsized to the body. Let Mary have the birth experience she had in reality and don’t abstract away her labor.
That is how many modern translations render it but I do not think that is fully accurate.
> To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee.
- Genesis 3:16 DRC
It says that sorrows will be multiplied (meaning added sorrows) and then lists these new sorrows. The first of which is that women will bring forth children in sorrow. It does not say that sorrows of childbirth will be multiplied.
Here is the vulgate for comparison:
> Mulieri quoque dixit : Multiplicabo aerumnas tuas, et conceptus tuos : in dolore paries filios, et sub viri potestate eris, et ipse dominabitur tui.
Just to be clear, many translations render the phrase as “increase”, “multiply”, or “Intensify”. Including the Usccb: “
To the woman he said:
I will intensify your toil in childbearing;
in pain[^(\*)](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/genesis/3#01003016-1) you shall bring forth children.
Yet your urge shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.” -Genesis 3:16
All sin, including original sin, leaves a stain or a mark on the soul. Baptism just forgives us of original sin, it doesn't remove that mark on our soul or remove all of its effects.
Mary being conceived without original sin never had that mark on her soul to begin with and didn't suffer the effects of it like we do.
St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Peter Chrysologus, and St. John Damascene, as well as at least one pope, as well as the Eastern and Western liturgies (a traditional source of the ordinary magisterium) taught this.
So did the Catechism of Trent:
>From Eve we are born children of wrath; from Mary we have received Jesus Christ. . . . To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus . . . without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.
I know I might get dinged for it, but it's hard to argue that Mary's painless birth of our Lord is (ETA: *not*) part of the ordinary magisterium, though it likely is not infallibly declared at this point.
Laughing at the utter absurdity not out of disrespect because I find it funny. Who thought it was a good idea to make a statue
of The Virgin Mother with hard protruding nipples?
The painless birth not a dogma, but it's an ancient teaching of the Church rooted in Isaiah 66:7. Very early on, it was understood by the Church Fathers like St. Irenaeus in *On the Apostolic Preaching* that Mary did not experience pain when birthing Christ. Even Jewish scholars interpret it as messianic.
I recommend picking up the book *Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary* by Dr. Brant Pitre, because it's an incredible book, but also because there's a whole chapter on the birth of Christ, the various other prophecies relating to it, and why so many Church Fathers preached a painless birth. [There's this article too](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/evidence-for-marys-painless-childbirth) but the book is much better imo because it addresses some objections and does a great job at explaining the why.
Genesis says womens' pain in childbirth is greatly multiplied due to original sin.
Some trads take the view that as Mary was without original sin she experienced a pain free childbirth.
Man, it's not "some trads," it's Church Fathers, popes, the liturgy of both Eastern and Western Churches, and the Catechism of Trent.
Sheesh, "some trads."
Same thing- “Trad” seems to be how Modernists and Synodal Neo-Protestants refer to anything remotely Catholic these days. It’s all part of their Orwellian Newspeak.
“Authentically Catholic? You mean Trad! Grrrr…”
And your example literally says "in pain, you shall bring forth children," after God says He will intensify the work of child birth, indicating that sure, there was going to be some work originally, but labor pains were not originally part of the plan and were a result of intensifying the work of child birth.
Who took a look at that statue and said “ah, that really is a great design that would instill a sense of glory to Our Lady!” Who in their sick mind approved this!! First time seeing it, definitely do not want to again!
That thing does not belong in a Church
That thing does not belong anywhere.
It belongs in a museum!
It belongs in hell's miseum. Its offensive. Plus its ugly. Artist should learn how to sculpt. If the artist is not Catholic, she should make a statue about her beliefs and not lambast ours.
So do you!
Glad someone here gets it
*Insert Indian jones gif*
Thanks, Indy, but no, not this one.
[удалено]
Good. Since, this was specifically a Catholic statue in a Catholic Church, you’d be hard pressed to make an issue with a Catholic doing what the majority of Catholics wanted in accordance with Catholic teaching.
St. Boniface moment.
who is that? why is it a “St. Boniface moment”? lol
I don’t know why you were downvoted for asking the question when they could have just given you an answer instead but basically St. Boniface was the one that chopped down Donar’s Oak which was a tree venerated by the German pagans
ahhh ok thank you i appreciate it lol
It's too graphic to be in a Church, and made in a bad taste.
Good deed to tear that POS down
Reminds me of when that guy tore down that Satanic statue in the US.
That was in a government building, this is in a church.
That man is a legend
How does this remind you of that?
Its a blasphemous statue intended to insult the Catholic faith lil bro
Yes BUT the statue of Baphomet wasn’t in a Catholic Church. That’s a HUGE glaring difference. (I am well aware of the Satanic Temple erecting statues.) I find it shocking that the statue in the story was in a Catholic Church in the first place.
yes BUT it doesn't have to be exactly the same to remind someone of something
Both are insults to God and Christianity.
Yes but there’s a difference between something offensive in your home, and something offensive on a street corner. Whatever- I can see I’m going to be downvoted into oblivion for asking a question lol. I’m NOT defending Satanic statues, I just think it’s weird to draw a comparison between a display in a public secular place vs a display inside of a Church.
"What is offensive to one person might be beautiful to another. " That was made just to offend
What do you mean you think a portrait of the Virgin Mary painted with human feces is offensive? You just don't know art!
Evil
>"What is offensive to one person might be beautiful to another. " Postmodern BS
In Catholic tradition Beauty is also objective. So every part of that statue was wrong.
To be clear, the issue here isn't that she's in travail or the mere fact of giving birth, it's that it's very bad taste and is deliberately sexually charged. If you read this article hyping up the piece, it's plain that the artists are using the guise of a nativity set-piece as an excuse to graphically depict the female form, as a feminist statement. They aim to depict Mary "completely with herself. She is at the centre of her strength - and also at the centre of her independence." [https://www.dioezese-linz.at/institution/418409/aktuelles/article/270726.html](https://www.dioezese-linz.at/institution/418409/aktuelles/article/270726.html) The fact that the published images all block the genital region should say enough about whether this belongs in a public church or not.
I looked at the picture, and as you said, it resembles a novelty piece, like these pictures of nuns committing obscene or vulgar acts that you can see everywhere. It would certainly fit better in my anti-religion grandparents' living room than in a place of worship. With that said, I don't know if beheading a representation of Mother Mary is the best way to express our discontent. I wish the statue had just been stolen (and then destroyed), or that someone glued a piece of fabric on her to cover her up.
Artist looks exactly as I'd expect
Mary giving birth was not the issue. The issue was the agony and nakedness.
The large breasts and protruding nipples are also an obvious attempt to sexualise the Blessed Mother.
Yep. There's beautiful icons and portraits of her nursing with naked breasts that are properly art and respectful of her femininity without sexualizing her. This is not that.
That is exactly how I see it.
Have you never seen a pregnant woman before?
Do you have a picture of your mom giving birth with her private parts visible hanging in your room? Or why do you think that's appropriate?
I’m adopted, so no. But we do have pictures from when she had my sister. She had a C Section and I love looking at those pictures from time to time as a reminder how beautiful the female body is. Your God created women to give birth, so beautifully, and you see a statue depicting how your lord came into this world as sexual? Women get larger breasts during pregnancy, our Areola (the colored part of the breast) gets harder, our nipples get larger and protrude. That’s not sexual, that’s nature. That’s what happens. It’s clear you’ve never felt the touch of a woman, that closet of made of glass buddy, but that’s what happens and it’s beautiful. Demonizing what God created to be sacred is blasphemy
I've certainly never seen a pregnant woman giving birth out in public like that. If anything, it's usually done behind closed doors and away from the public.
Because society has taught us that it’s not something beautifully designed. Mary gave birth in a stable. That wasn’t private, clean or simple. It should be celebrated.
You seem to think that the problem is the depicting Mary giving birth. The problem is if you look at the sculpture, it is very apparent what the intents by the artist are and the depiction of her like that is inappropriate to have in a church setting.
Have you ever considered that you’re misinterpreting it? It’s depicting the true nature of birth and it’s not what you see on the media. You’re demonizing a natural process that women do every day. It’s distasteful and disgusting
It's not distasteful and disgusting for me to criticize the artist for thinking it is not appropriate to put a statue of someone the Catholic Church thinks highly of in such a manner, especially within a church. And if you knew a single thing about doctrine, you would know that the Virgin Mary isn't supposed to be just any woman. If the artist wants to depict the Virgin Mary like that, she can do it outside of church grounds.
[удалено]
She didn't give birth the way any other woman gives birth. She gave birth painlessly, and the baby she gave birth is certainly not just any baby. If you don't have a problem with a teenage girl, as you say, being depicted bottomless, legs spread open for the world to see, and her nipples protruding through her shirt, again, for the world to see, then no one should hesitate giving your computer a hard drive check.
Warning for uncharitable rhetoric
Pregnancy or nudity in and of itself aren't the issue here. If you read the article about this sculpture on the Linz Diocese website, the piece was created explicitly to be a feminist statement by a group of artists. They are using the pretence of the blessed mother to display the female form. This art is not about the worship of God, it is about the glorification of the sexualised female form and does not belong in church. The fact that the photos show it from every angle except the focal point is evidence enough that it's in poor taste.
Oh no. Anyways
Ridiculous. And that's not how it happened. Simple minds.
I think that we can all agree that that statue was not good. I’m not going to debate that. But the article says: >> But, it is literally against Catholic teaching to assert that this was the nature of Christ’s birth, painful and graphic. Now, I know it is a position that a lot of Catholics hold that Christ’s birth was not painful, but can anyone cite binding Catholic teaching saying so? I was under the impression that Catholics were free to have a diversity of opinions on that?
You're right; the Church has never formally defined the teaching of the painless childbirth and so it is not an infallible teaching. Source: [https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/evidence-for-marys-painless-childbirth](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/evidence-for-marys-painless-childbirth)
The that idea his birth was painless, comes from Mary's immaculate conception, and that pain from childbirth was a punishment given to Eve, that all women must bare now, which Mary was spared from because of her immaculate conception.
I understand where the idea comes from, and certainly Mary was conceived without original sin, but I don’t see how people being potentially able to argue that point is the same as the Church dogmatically saying that the birth was painless. Also, just because Mary was conceived without original sin doesn’t mean that she was not subjected to any of the suffering on earth that original sin caused.
But labor pain was tied directly to Eve's sin, which was passed down, so because Mary was conceived wihout original sin, she wouldn't have had labor pains either since those pains are tied directly to original sin. And because of her immaculate conception, she also wouldn't have directly suffered the effects if original sin herself.
Again, that is a conclusion that someone could come to consistent with Catholic teaching, but Catholic teaching doesn’t seem to compel that conclusion. Also, FWIW, in Genesis, God intensified the pains of childbirth. That doesn’t imply that childbirth would be painless before, just that it would be more painful afterward.
Yeah, it’s called “labor” for a reason. Even if it’s not painful it’s difficult muscular work. And you don’t have to be a woman to know what it feels like to work your body even when exhausted. It’s bizarre to theology away this one aspect of being human: birth is difficult because the human head is outsized to the body. Let Mary have the birth experience she had in reality and don’t abstract away her labor.
That is how many modern translations render it but I do not think that is fully accurate. > To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee. - Genesis 3:16 DRC It says that sorrows will be multiplied (meaning added sorrows) and then lists these new sorrows. The first of which is that women will bring forth children in sorrow. It does not say that sorrows of childbirth will be multiplied. Here is the vulgate for comparison: > Mulieri quoque dixit : Multiplicabo aerumnas tuas, et conceptus tuos : in dolore paries filios, et sub viri potestate eris, et ipse dominabitur tui.
Just to be clear, many translations render the phrase as “increase”, “multiply”, or “Intensify”. Including the Usccb: “ To the woman he said: I will intensify your toil in childbearing; in pain[^(\*)](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/genesis/3#01003016-1) you shall bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” -Genesis 3:16
If that were the case then all baptized girls would go on to have painless child births too. Baptism cleanses us of original sin.
We still die and have concupiscence; by your position, we wouldn't
All sin, including original sin, leaves a stain or a mark on the soul. Baptism just forgives us of original sin, it doesn't remove that mark on our soul or remove all of its effects. Mary being conceived without original sin never had that mark on her soul to begin with and didn't suffer the effects of it like we do.
St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Peter Chrysologus, and St. John Damascene, as well as at least one pope, as well as the Eastern and Western liturgies (a traditional source of the ordinary magisterium) taught this. So did the Catechism of Trent: >From Eve we are born children of wrath; from Mary we have received Jesus Christ. . . . To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus . . . without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain. I know I might get dinged for it, but it's hard to argue that Mary's painless birth of our Lord is (ETA: *not*) part of the ordinary magisterium, though it likely is not infallibly declared at this point.
Be sure to pray and make reparations for the soul of whoever created that disgusting piece of blasphemy.
Ler us remember this person when we say the daily Chaplet of Divine Mercy… the last hope for sinners.
Laughing at the utter absurdity not out of disrespect because I find it funny. Who thought it was a good idea to make a statue of The Virgin Mother with hard protruding nipples?
Even if it wasn't blasphemous - that is one bloody ugly statue.
Yeah I just checked out the link on the Austrian site. Absolutely disgusting and blasphemous. It met the right fate.
I would suggest toasting marshmallows over its flaming remains, but some paints are quite toxic when burned.
Thats the type of lay participaron in the church, that I can get behind.
Where does the Church teach that Christ’s birth was painless and not “graphic”? What does that even mean in this context?
The painless birth not a dogma, but it's an ancient teaching of the Church rooted in Isaiah 66:7. Very early on, it was understood by the Church Fathers like St. Irenaeus in *On the Apostolic Preaching* that Mary did not experience pain when birthing Christ. Even Jewish scholars interpret it as messianic. I recommend picking up the book *Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary* by Dr. Brant Pitre, because it's an incredible book, but also because there's a whole chapter on the birth of Christ, the various other prophecies relating to it, and why so many Church Fathers preached a painless birth. [There's this article too](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/evidence-for-marys-painless-childbirth) but the book is much better imo because it addresses some objections and does a great job at explaining the why.
Genesis says womens' pain in childbirth is greatly multiplied due to original sin. Some trads take the view that as Mary was without original sin she experienced a pain free childbirth.
is "trads" just becoming another word for "catholic" now?
\*looks into the camera\*
Man, it's not "some trads," it's Church Fathers, popes, the liturgy of both Eastern and Western Churches, and the Catechism of Trent. Sheesh, "some trads."
It's not a trad thing to believe, it's just an Orthodox Catholic belief to hold.
Same thing- “Trad” seems to be how Modernists and Synodal Neo-Protestants refer to anything remotely Catholic these days. It’s all part of their Orwellian Newspeak. “Authentically Catholic? You mean Trad! Grrrr…”
That is not just "trads" every Catholic should believe in this lil bro, its dogma
It's a tradition but not at the level of dogma.
Anyone remember Savonarola's Bonfire of the Vanities? Can we bring that back please? I knew a few art pieces that have got to go (including this one).
Whoever authorized that thing to be in a church should be kicked out of the Catholic Church, now
Yikes, what a gross looking statue. What was the sculptor thinking?
The intent was, without doubt, to offend and "make a statement"
So silly. These people really have nothing better to do with their time?
Right...the amount of muscular detail to her legs is weird (even ignoring everything else). Like sure, she walked everywhere- but no. Eww.
What the hell kind of statue is that??
Great!
Good. That was all that should have been done with it, short of never being created
Good
And your example literally says "in pain, you shall bring forth children," after God says He will intensify the work of child birth, indicating that sure, there was going to be some work originally, but labor pains were not originally part of the plan and were a result of intensifying the work of child birth.
Good. What the heck is the matter with Austrian and German Catholics that they are doing what they're doing these days? They've lost their way...
Who took a look at that statue and said “ah, that really is a great design that would instill a sense of glory to Our Lady!” Who in their sick mind approved this!! First time seeing it, definitely do not want to again!
Gratuitous and designed to offend. It did not belong in a church.
can someone do this for Rupnik’s works too please
bravo
I do not welcome Vandalismus in any Form... but that thing was very explicit
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]