Aboard the papal plane, Sep 11, 2017 / 10:10 am (CNA/EWTN News).- In his conversation with journalists on the return flight from Cartagena to Rome on Monday, Pope Francis touched on a variety of topics, notably the US government’s decision to end DACA and the crisis in Venezuela.
He also touched on the peace process in Colombia, Hurricane Irma, climate change, and migration during his Sept. 11 flight.
Please find below CNA’s full transcript of the Pope’s in-flight press conference.
Greg Burke: Thank you, Holy Father, for the time you are dedicating to us today after an intense, tiring trip; very tiring for some, but also a very fruitful trip. On several occasions you thanked the people for what they taught you. We also learn many things in this culture of encounter and we thank you for it.
Colombia in particular, with its recent past, and not only recent, offered us some strong testimonies, some emotional testimonies of forgiveness and reconciliation. But it also offered us a continuous lesson of joy and hope, two words that you used a lot in this trip. Now perhaps you want to say something, and then we can go to the questions. Thank you.
Pope Francis: Good afternoon and thank you very much for your work. I am moved by the joy, the tenderness, the youth and the goodness of the Colombian people. A noble people that isn’t afraid to express how they feel, isn’t afraid to listen and to make seen how they feel. This is how I perceive it. This is the third time I remember [that I have been in Colombia] – but there is a bishop who told me: no, you have been a fourth time – but only for small meetings. One time in Laceja and the other two in Bogota, or three, but, I did not know Colombia well, what you see on the streets. Well, I appreciate the testimony of joy, of hope, of patience in suffering of this people. It did me a lot of good. Thank you.
Greg Burke: Okay, Holy Father. The first question is from César Moreno of Radio Caracol.
Moreno: Thank you, Your Holiness. Good evening. First of all, I would like to thank you on behalf of all the Colombian media that are accompanying us here on this trip, and all of the colleagues and friends for having come to our country, for having given us so many beautiful, profound and affectionate messages, and for such closeness that you demonstrated to the Colombian people. Thank you, Your Holiness.
You arrived, Holy Father, to a divided country. Divided on account of a peace process, between those who accept and those who don’t accept this process. What concretely can be done, what steps can be taken, so that the divided parts grow closer, so that our leaders stop this hate, this grudge? If Your Holiness returns, if you could return to our country in a few years, what do you think, how would you like to see Colombia? Thank you.
Pope Francis: I would like the motto to at least be: “Let us take the second step.” That at least it is this. I thought that there were more. I counted 60, but they told me 54 years of the guerrillas, more or less. And here it accumulates a lot, a lot. A lot of hatred, a lot of resentment, a lot of sickness in the soul. And the sickness isn’t to blame. It comes. The measles grabs and drags you…oh, sorry! I’ll speak in Italian. The sickness is not something to blame, it comes. And in these guerrilla wars – that they really waged, whether they were guerrillas, paramilitaries, or others – and also the corruption in the country, they committed gross sins that lead to this disease of hatred, of…But if they have taken steps that give hope, steps in negotiation, but it has been the last. The ELN ceasefire, and I am very grateful for it, very grateful for this. But there is something else that I perceived. The desire to go forward in this process goes beyond negotiations that they are being done or should be done. It is a spontaneous desire, and this is the strength of the people. This people wants to breathe, but we must help them with the closeness of prayer, and above all with the understanding of how much pain there is inside so many people.
Greg Burke: Now Holy Father, José Mojica, from El Tiempo.
José Mojica: Holy Father, it’s an honor to be here, to be here with you. My name is José Mojica and I am a journalist for El Tiempo, the editorial home of Colombia, and I also greet you in the name of my Colombian colleagues and all communications media in my country.
Colombia has suffered many decades of violence due to the war, the armed conflict and also drug trafficking. However, the ravages of corruption in politics have been just as damaging as the war itself, and although corruption is not new, we have always known that it exists, now it’s more visible because we no longer have news of the war and the armed conflict. What can we do in front of this scourge, up to what point can we stand the corrupt, how do we punish them? And finally, should the corrupt be excommunicated?
Pope Francis: You ask me a question I have asked myself many times. I put it to myself in this way: do the corrupt have forgiveness? I asked myself like this. And I asked myself when there was an act of…in the province of Catamarca, in Argentina, an act of mistreatment, abuse, the rape of a girl. And there were people stuck there, very attached to political and economic powers in this province.
An article published in La Nacion at that time moved me a lot, and I wrote a small book which is called “Sin and Corruption.” …always we are all sinners, and we know that the Lord is close to us, that he never tires of forgiving. But the difference: God never tires of forgiving, the sinner sometimes wakes up and asks for forgiveness. The problem is that the corrupt get tired of asking for forgiveness and forget how to ask for forgiveness, and this is the serious problem. It’s a state of insensitivity before values, before destruction, before the exploitation of people. They are not able to ask forgiveness, it’s like a condemnation, so it’s very hard to help the corrupt, very hard. But God can do it. I pray for that.
Greg Burke: Holy Father, now Hernan Reyes, from TELAM.
Hernán Reyes: Holiness, the question is from the Spanish language group of journalists. You spoke of this first step that Colombia has made. Today at the Mass, you said that there hasn’t been enough dialogue between the two parts, but was it necessary to incorporate more actors. Do you think it’s possible to replicate this Colombia model in other conflicts in the world?
Pope Francis: Integrating other people. Also today in the homily I spoke of this, taking a passage from the Gospel. Integrating other people. It’s not the first time, in so many conflicts many people have been involved. It’s a way of moving ahead, a sapiential way of politics. There is the wisdom of asking for help, but I believe that today I wished to note it in the homily – which is a message, more than a homily – I think that these technical, let’s say ‘political’, resources help and interventions of the United Nations are sometimes requested to get out of the crisis. But a peace process will go forward only when the people take it in their hands. If the people don’t take it in hand, it can go a bit forward, they arrive at a compromise. It is what I have tried to make heard during this visit: the protagonist of the peace process either is the people or it arrives to a certain point, but when the people take it in hand, they are capable of doing it well… that is the higher road.
Greg Burke: Now, Elena Pinardi.
Elena Pinardi (EBU): Good evening, Holiness. First of all, we would like to ask how you are doing. We saw that you hit your head… how are you? Did you hurt yourself?
Pope Francis: I turned there to greet children and I didn’t see the glass and boom!
Pinardi: The question is this: while we were flying, we passed close to Hurricane Irma, which after causing … deaths and massive damage in the Caribbean islands and Cuba, it’s feared that broad areas of Florida could end up underwater, and 6 million people have had to leave their homes. After Hurricane Harvey, there have been almost simultaneously three hurricanes in the area. Scientists say that the warming of the oceans is a factor that contributes to making the storms and seasonal hurricanes more intense. Is there a moral responsibility for political leaders who reject collaborating with the other nations to control the emission of greenhouse gas? Why do they deny that climate change is also be the work of man?
Pope Francis: Thanks. For the last part, to not forget, whoever denies this should go to the scientists and ask them. They speak very clearly. The scientists are precise. The other day, when the news of that Russian boat came out, I believe, that went from Norway to Japan or Taipei by way of the North Pole without an icebreaker and the photographs showed pieces of ice. To the North Pole, you could go. It’s very, very clear. When that news came from a university, I don’t remember from where, another came out that said, ‘We only have three years to turn back, otherwise the consequences will be terrible.’ I don’t know if three years is true or not, but if we don’t turn back we’re going down, that’s true. Climate change, you see the effects and scientists say clearly which is the path to follow. And all of us have a responsibility, all… everyone… a little one, a big one, a moral responsibility, and to accept from the opinion or make decisions, and we have to take it seriously. I think it’s something that’s not to joke around with. It’s very serious. And you ask me: what is the moral responsibility. Everyone has his. Politicians have their own. Everyone has their own according to the response he gives.
I would say: everyone has their own moral responsibility, first. Second, if one is a bit doubtful that this is not so true, let them ask the scientists. They are very clear. They are not opinions on the air, they are very clear. And then let them decide, and history will judge their decisions. Thanks.
Enzo Romeo (TG2): Good afternoon, Holy Father. I unite myself to the question my colleague made earlier because you frequently in the speeches you gave in Colombia, called again, in some way, to make peace with creation. Respecting the environment as a necessary condition so that a stable social peace may be created. The effects of climate change, here in Italy – I don’t know if you’ve been informed – has caused many deaths in Livorno…
Pope Francis: After three-and-a-half months of drought.
Romeo: … much damage in Rome. We are all concerned by this situation. Why is there a delay in taking awareness, especially by governments, that nevertheless appear to be solicitous perhaps in other areas, for example, in arms trade? We are seeing the crisis in Korea, also about this I would like to have your opinion.
Pope Francis: Why? A phrase comes to me from the Old Testament, I believe from the Psalm: Man is stupid. He is stubborn one who does not see, the only animal of creation that puts his leg in the same hole is man… the horse, no, they don’t do it… There is arrogance, the sufficiency of “it’s not like that,” and then there is the “pocket” God, not only about creation, so many decisions, so many contradictions (…) depend on money. Today, in Cartagena, I started in a part, let’s call it poor, of Cartagena. The other part, the touristic side, luxury, luxury without moral measure… but those who go there don’t realize this, or the socio-political analysts don’t realize… ‘man is stupid,’ the Bible said. It’s like that: when you don’t want to see, you don’t see. You just look in another direction. And of North Korea, I’ll tell the truth, I don’t understand. Truly, I don’t understand that world of geopolitics. It’s very tough for me. But I believe that what I see, there is a struggle of interests that don’t escape me, I truly can’t explain… but the other important thing: we don’t take awareness. Think to Cartagena today. Is this unjust. Can we take awareness? This is what comes to me. Thanks.
Valentina Alazraki, Noticieros Televisa: I’m sorry. Holy Father, every time you meet with youth in any part of the world you always tell them: ‘Don’t let yourselves be robbed of hope, don’t let yourselves be robbed of the future.’ Unfortunately, in the United States they have abolished the law of the “dreamers.” They speak of 800,000 youth: Mexicans, Colombians, from many countries. Do you think that with the abolition of this law the youth lose joy, hope and their future? And, after, abusing your kindness, could you make a small prayer, a small thought, for all the victims of the earthquake in Mexico and of Hurricane Irma? Thank you.
Pope Francis: I have heard of this law. I have not been able to read the articles, how the decision was made. I don’t know it well. Keeping young people away from family is not something that brings good fruit. Every young person has their family. I think that this law, which I think comes not from parliament [sic], but from the executive, if this is the case, which I am not sure, I hope that it will be rethought a little, because I have heard the President of the United States speak as a pro-life man. If he is a good pro-life man, he understands that the family is the cradle of life, and unity must be defended. This is what comes to me. That’s why I’m interested in studying the law well.
Truly, when youth feel, in general, whether in this case or another, exploited, in the end they feel that they have no hope. And who steals it from them? Drugs, other dependencies, suicide…youth suicide is very strong and comes when they are taken out from their roots. Uprooted young people today ask for help, and this is why I insist so much on dialogue between the elderly and the youth. That they talk to their parents, but (also) the elderly. Because the roots are there…[inaudible] to avoid the conflicts that can happen with the nearest roots, with the parents. But today’s youth need to rediscover their roots. Anything that goes against the root robs them of hope. I don’t know if I answered, more or less.
Alazraki: They can be deported from the United States…
Pope Francis: Eh, yes, the lose a root. But truthfully, on this law I don’t want to express myself, because I have not read it and I don’t like to talk about something I don’t understand.
And then, Valentina is Mexican, and Mexico has suffered a lot. I ask everyone for solidarity with the dean (Editor’s note: a reference to the journalist, who is a veteran reporter and on friendly terms with the Pope) and a prayer for the country. Thank you.
Greg Burke: Thank you, Holy Father. Now, Fausto Gasparroni from ANSA.
Fausto Gasparroni: Holiness, in the name of the Italian group, I’d like to pose you a question about the issue of immigrants, particularly about what the Italian Church has recently expressed, let’s say, a sort of comprehension about the new policy of the government of restricting the exit from Libya in boats. It has been written also that about this you had a meeting with the President of the Council, Gentiloni. We’d like to know if effectively in this meeting this topic was spoken about and especially what you think of this policy of closing the exits, considering also the fact that after the immigrants that stay in Libya, as has also been documented by investigations, live in inhuman conditions, in very, very precarious conditions. Thanks.
Pope Francis: The meeting with Minister Gentiloni was a personal meeting and not about that topic. It was before this issue, which came out later, some weeks later. Almost a month later. (It was) before this issue. Secondly, I feel the duty and gratitude toward Italy and Greece because they opened their hearts to immigrants, but it’s not enough to open the heart. The problem of the immigrant is: first an ever open heart, it’s also a commandment of God, no? “Receive them, because you have been a slave in Egypt.” But a government must manage that problem with the virtue proper of a governor: prudence. What does that mean? First: How many places do I have? Second: Not only to receive… (but to) integrate, integrate. I’ve seen examples, here in Italy, of precious integrations. I went to Roma Tre University and three students asked me questions. One was the last one. I looked at her and said, “I know that face.” It was one who, less than a year earlier, had come from Lesbos with me in the plane. She learned the language, is studying biology. They validated her classes and she continued. She learned the language. This is called integrating. On another flight, I think when we were coming back from Sweden, I spoke about the policy of integration of Sweden as a model. But also Sweden said prudently: this number I cannot do. Because there exists the danger of no integration. Third: it’s a humanitarian issue. Humanity takes awareness of these concentration camps, the conditions, the desert… I’ve seen photographs. First of the exploiters. The Italian government gives me the impression that it is doing everything, in humanitarian work, to resolve the problem that it cannot assume. Heart always open, prudence, integration, humanitarian closeness.
And there is a final thing that I want to say, above all for Africa There is a motto, a principle in our collective consciousness: Africa must be exploited. Today in Cartagena we saw an example of human exploitation, in any case. A chief of government said a truth about this: those who flee from war are another problem, but there are many who flee from hunger. Let us invest there so that it may grow, but in the collective consciousness there is the issue that when the developed nations go to Africa it’s to exploit it.
Africa is a friend and must be helped to grow. Today, other problems of war go in another direction. I don’t know if I clarified with this.
Xavier Le Normand (iMedia): Holy Father, today you spoke in the Angelus, you asked that all kinds of violence in political life be rejected. Thursday, after Mass in Bogota, you greeted five Venezuelan bishops. We all know that the Holy See is very committed to a dialogue with this country. For many months you have asked for an end to all violence. But President Maduro, on one hand, has many violent words against the bishops, and on the other hand says that he is with Pope Francis. Would it not be possible to have stronger and perhaps clearer words? Thank you.
Pope Francis: I think that the Holy See has spoken strongly and clearly. What President Maduro says, he can explain. I don’t know what he has in his mind, but the Holy See has done a lot, it sent there – with the working group of four ex-presidents there – it has sent a first-level nuncio. After speaking with the people, it spoke publicly. Many times in the Angelus I have spoken about the situation, always looking for an exit, helping, offering help to get out. It seems that it’s a very hard thing, and the most painful is the humanitarian problem, the many people who escape or suffer…we must help to resolve it in anyway (possible). I think the UN must also make itself heard there to help.
Greg Burke: Thank you, Holiness. I think we have to go.
Pope Francis: For the turbulence? They say there is some turbulence and we need to go. Many thanks for your work. And once more I’d like to thank the example of the Colombian people. I would like to conclude with an image. What most struck me about the Colombians in the four cities was the people in the streets, greeting me. What must struck me is that the father, mother, raised up their children to help them see the Pope and so the Pope could bless them, as if saying, ‘This is my treasure, this is my hope. This is my future.’ I believe you. This struck me. The tenderness. The eyes of those fathers, of those mothers. Precious, precious. This is a symbol, a symbol of hope, of future. A people that is capable of having children and then shows them to you, make them see as well, as if saying, ‘This is my treasure,’ is a people that has hope and future. Many thanks.
[…]
Frankly, and having a degree in Art History and having taught art in public school four years and exhibited in galleries and in the National Academy of Art on Fifth Ave. before 21 and having won two state wide prizes before I was 21 ( how long is this shameless plug going to be), I think they took this nude from another context entirely and simply laid him down in such a manner that he looks like he is trying to catch an M&M in his mouth which an angel has dropped from the sky above. He is not looking at the man clothing him but rather trying to catch that M&M. Look at it again. He could have been running in his original context while holding a spear which would explain the muscles instead of our seeing the body of a poor emaciated man. What man can afford a perfect diet for a muscular body but cannot afford clothes. They took this figure from another context and that’s why he is looking skyward instead of at his helper.
I wish I could up vote your comment. Made me chuckle, M&M’s. Your not so shameless plug was well needed so that art noobs like myself understand that you know what you are talking about, rather than opinion.
Thank you. 🙂
In my opinion, a lot of people refuse to be honest about the gravely evil nativity pictured above because if they were honest about it, their own credibility would be shattered. Many bishops, priests, deacons, and papalotrous laity have ignored the evils of this pope and have supported him, much to the loss of their own credibility. By “calling a spade a spade” – that is, by calling the above picture gravely evil – they would have to admit they were wrong about Pope Francis, that he clearly lacks sound judgment and is committing grave evils, and thus many years of their preaching is basically shattered and requires apologies and repairs.
Really, most of this debate is not really a debate. There are those who are honest, saying that the above is not at all art, while there are those who are trying to maintain credibility by supporting Pope Francis while he leads many off of a cliff. Its like the spouse who marries a drug addict thinking they can change them – they refuse to admit that they were wrong because they hold their credibility higher than honesty.
Does one really think that God the Father Almighty and the Blessed Mother approve of a naked man depicted in one of the most solemn and holy mysteries? One’s conscience is dead if one thinks God and the Blessed Mother approve of the above trash.
You may be right.
Focus on the argument, says the editor. Ok. The only argument possible with Pope Francis’s nativity scene is “the duck argument”. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck. If Pope Francis hired notoriously gay Msgr. Battista Ricca (from Bergoglios old stomping grounds in Latin America) as director of the Casa Santa Marta, where Francis resides, and if Pope Francis supports such male nudity in a nativity scene, and if Pope Francis is notorious for being friends with other Lavandar Mafia members… Well, isn’t it likely a duck? Don’t try to suggest the above picture is “art”, otherwise you May be committing mortally sinful lying. It aint art.
I would encourage readers to take in Ann Barnhardt’s comment about this present disgrace at the Vatican. She’s her own brutal self, but she nails it. Brumley’s comment that people do not ‘focus on their own argument ‘ makes about as much sense as anything you hear from the intelligence-poor left. A real snowflake runs Ignatius Press, evidently.
Way to prove the author’s point—attacking him personally instead of critiquing the display itself. Stop parroting what someone else says about it and offer your own thoughts, and leave off the political “left” or “right” polarization. I think it’s tacky, and poorly done, and as another commenter noted, the man doesn’t even seem to belong in the scene, as he’s not looking at the one helping him. What are *your* thoughts on why it’s inappropriate?
Madame, much to your point, I am not ‘attacking Mr. Brumley personally’, rather I am taking aim at his inane statement. The ‘display’ does not deserve ‘a critique’ as it is pornographic. In addition, to reference Ann Barnhardt is not ‘parroting’ her, but rather indicating agreement with her thought. Do you not know the difference? For what is the purpose of footnotes in good writing? To cite the words of others. The ‘political left or right polarization’ that you obviously despise is the absolute state of reality within our country and within our Church. Are you so naive as to not realize that the liberal left is now running the Catholic Church with purposeful intent of destroying her and fashioning a ‘new church’ in line with the godless, global cabal? My thoughts are that for some unknown reason it disturbs you greatly that I am taking on Mr. Brimley.
Brumley’s comment that people do not ‘focus on their own argument ‘ makes about as much sense as anything you hear from the intelligence-poor left.
Brumley never made that comment. Brumley said focus arguments on the art, not on attacking people who disagree with you about it.
No, but it certainly is propaganda, consistent with this papacy’s agenda. Oh, and it’s truly evil, too.
You are correct! It’s a duck!
I see your point about the man not being crafted for this particular exhibit but removed from another scene and laid down to represent the poor man with no clothing.
What strikes me about this particular nativity scene, however, is its horror vacui. It resembles paintings by both Breugels. It seems that, while we have advanced technologically, culturally, we are reliving a sort of manic middle ages.
I’m not an artist at all, but even I noticed that the naked young man also was sporting a rather stylish ‘3-day stubble beard’ and nicely trimmed hair. Perhaps he was doing something else before he got a boo-boo on his left leg, lost all of his clothes, and needed to be dressed with what? A white toga? Was this portion of the tableau suggested by Archbishop Paglia?
Working out at the gym?
It could be, Mr. Brumley. Perhaps after a good workout, he showered off only to discover that someone had stolen his gym bag with all of his clothes. While searching the locker room, he slipped on the floor and scraped his leg on a bench. Then this kind gentleman offered him a towel. Yeah, that’s it! It’s not a toga that he’s offering, it’s a towel!
This commentary is utter nonsense. I don’t recall any brouhaha about Adam’s nakedness in the Sistine Chapel. This is just porn being paraded as having something to do with the Nativity. What that is is anyone’s guess. But “who am I to judge?”
Exactly!
As someone who has frequented gyms for almost 30 years and who also works with the disadvantage in several capacities, I can assure you that this nude figure fails as both realism and symbolism. The down-on-their-luck folks whom I work with do not sport bodies like this guy’s. Even among regular gym goers, very few look like this. To get this body, you have to work out all the time and keep to a consistent and long-term nutritional program. Or you use steroids. Why not show a nude figure of man who has an imperfect or even an ugly body? Or are we called to have a preferential option for the Beautiful?
I disagree that this is about “the Art”. This is not “Art”. It might pass as “arts & crafts” but it is not “Art”.
Well, your comment indicates that you think the question is about art, even if you don’t think much of the “art” in question.
No, I don’t think it’s about “art” although I do think it is about taste. And this is really bad taste. And it does not belong in an nativity scene, especially at the Vatican.
Please stop it, it is not art, the person posting was not thinking or saying it was a question of art: it is demonic propagandizing of the blessed Lord and Gospel, His mysteries – His Nativity….how is it we do not know how to read the spiritual signs of the times….the Beloved said something about this….
If you look at the rest of this section of the nativity scene it looks like the star of Bethlehem is crashing to earth and that the dome of St. Peters is in ruin.
It’s homoerotic, and who is surprised? But who am I too judge? The inanities of this Peronista papacy cannot end soon enough. I miss the normal over-reaches and progressive compromises of previous popes. Francis’ Catholic spin on magical realism is both offensive and tired.
Here is another example of a person of note in the Catholic world who cannot see what the common Catholic does. It is happening on a regular basis in this Age of Francis. Mr. Brumley wants to discuss the TREES, but the man in the pew is seeing a FOREST in the initial stages of fire.
Mandatums, canon law degrees, directorship of establishment Catholic publishing houses, bishopric rings, are now twirled about among the unwashed hoi polloi to tell us how we really should interpret.
We little people have already seen Paglia’s Diocese of Terni-Narni-Amelia mural. We have seen the porn-ed “The Meeting Point: Course of Affective Sexual Education for Young People”. We know about the homosexual & cocaine orgy at the Vatican apartment hosted by Capozzi & his patron Cocco. Need one continue?
Why cannot this “nativity” be seen for what it is: a politicized, sexualized blasphemy. Can’t they just leave Holy Mother Church alone?
Great, we’ve gone from that wretchedly bad “Jubilee of Mercy” logo to this cluttered, messy, crude, vulgar tripe.
Is that sufficiently “artsy” a critique?
I don’t want to talk about trees. Feel free to talk about forests. just don’t be a jerk when people disagree with you. That’s the point.
And they just had to pick clothing the naked when feed the hungry would have been much easier to depict. Aaah, but then there would not be a muscular naked man on the scene would there?
Homoerotic this is.
It’s a gaytivity scene.
It’s another pope Francis ‘in your face’ insults (whether he designed it or not) to the pharisees, rigorist, prudes and generally anyone else who doesn’t think he walks on water.
My Oh My!
They never miss an opportunity, do they?
Chiping away, little by little. Absolutely no respect.
This needs investigating: the relationship of Bergoglio with Gustavo Vera.
Context:
Let’s not forget that (a decent portion) of informed Catholicism) – not too many months ago – had to digest the frankly homoerotic mural on an Italian cathedral wall whose archbishop, not only commissioned the “art”, but who was promoted to oversee and overhaul John Paul II’s legacy.
The artist was well-known & much lauded, in large part because his artistic temper themes, and approach was permeated with homosexuality as a spirituality, as a stab at theosis.
The result was disturbing, disturbing – with it all setting well and fine with the archbishop. Pope Francis, apparently, assumed this man was a worthy candidate as John Paul’s II’s demolisher.
Many, if not most, of the responders to this nativity creche would have had this prior insult to their Catholic imagination in mind at its unveiling. The Catholic imagination can take only so much ridicule.
Know how much things work. Artistically, understand how a project such as this is pulled together. The naked man – from its design stage – was meant to provoke: in its own aesthetic way move the Overton Window (now safely installed in the Church) closer to the acceptance of full-frontal homosexuality. Considering the larger context of this papacy – from which it was commissioned – there is no other interpretation.
It has nothing to do with nudity.
‘Mascular Christianity’? In a gay infested Vatican? Mascular would be Christ, or his Vicar, whipping the lavender mafia out of the Church. But after all, who am I to judge?
My comment about the naked man indicating a new muscular Christianity was satirical.
Just more chaos from the era of Pope Francis. The flush of Vatican II has finally reached the sewer.
Yup. Spot on.
Marc Alan has very insightfully explained the motive of distorting the nativity scene, by what Austin Ivereigh calls his “Team Bergoglio.” The other commenters aptly describe it.
As a father of 4 who has strived at great cost to impart a serious Catholic identity to my children, I am ashamed of Pope Francis and his “team,” and he and they are enslaved to a disfigured, disintegrated and deranged ideology of human sexuality. Their enslavement is manifested in continuously in their acts, omissions and ambiguities.
Having witnessed 4.5 years of showmanship by Ivereigh’s “Team Bergoglio” and learned of the ideology of Pope Francis’ trusted “theologians,” I realize it would be child abuse to allow my children to be alone in a room with these people.
With all that’s going on in the church and in the Vatican now, this piece as it was presented was either profoundly oblivious (to how it might be perceived in the context of the current problems) or intended as a sign (that the lavender lobby is in full control).
Is there a piece depicting – admonish the sinner? (i doubt it, we’re only interested in the corporal works right?) or instruct the ignorant?
not likely admonish the sinner has turned into accompany the sinner and give him communion, Instruct the ignorant has turned into dialogue with the ignorant.
What would make the scene complete would be some nice scene of Francis not judging someone.
As to your final sentence:
“Someone” like Cardinal Burke or Cardinal Sarah or Cardinal Mueller. That would be most apt…..
This “Nativity” scene is a great example of the errors of this papacy! It is an example of what Cardinal Biffi said when he gave the retreat to papal household when Benedict XVI was pope. He predicted a new gospel would be put forth. A gospel that sounded very much like the original Gospel. Yet it was missing something. The new gospel is all about the works of mercy, yet is very short on Jesus Christ! In fact if you look at this display, what gets everyone’s attention is not Jesus Christ, but the poor naked man. Jesus is forgotten when he should be front and center. The King is background, for the priorities of “man”. Man is glorified, and worshiped, and God is placed secondary. In this new gospel, The woman who anointed Jesus with expensive oils, is all wrong! Judas is the hero! She should have sold the oil, and given it to the poor, or… the pockets of Judas. “…and if the time were not shortened, even the elect would be deceived.” Maybe this is why he said he thought his papacy would be short.
it’s not all of the works of mercy that they are encouraging. The spiritual works are done, at least until they can rework them – accompany the sinner, for example.
we should i guess be grateful there is no scene depicting a haloed Francis giving communion to an adulterous couple while a bunch of Pharisaical bishops look on from a distance in disdain.
Homoeroticism or tasteless trash, whatever this is, it is certainly no surprise coming from the Bergoglian Vatican. It fits right in with placing a soccer ball and jersey on the high altar at St. Mary Major. Quite apart from being hostile to true manifestations of the Faith, the Pope and pals don’t even know what Catholicism is.
The commenter named “taad” has made a very profound observation – the eclipse of Jesus – in exchange for what captivates the minds of Ivereigh’s “Team Bergoglio.”
If the work of mercy is clothing the naked it doesn’t look like it’s being carried out very effectively or that the beneficiary wants it all that much.
Sigh. Just how very bad do things have to become before naïveté about the Francis papacy finally ends. These are NOT normal times. This is NOT remotely a normal papacy. In the context of this current papacy and its horrendous, implied acceptance or “accompaniment”, “discernment” of homosexual relationships, this large, dominating figure of a super buff male nude is a blasphemy in the nativity. It boggles my mind that there are still notable, faithful Catholics are still in such damaging public denial. You saw the Paglia mural. You know about the terrible LGBT prayer service just conducted by one of Francis’ favourite theologians Christoph Schönborn, you know about the Pope’s appointment of Msgr. Battista Ricca to important Vatican positions despite his past homosexual publicly known proclivities, you know about the strongly pro-gay events and statements by some of his appointed cardinals and others that are never held to account, you know he has welcomed openly homosexual and transgender friends for private but also publicly known visits in which he only affirms them .. and on and on– and yet you give this atrocity the benefit of the doubt. It is distressing.
Well stated, Steve. It is distressing indeed (not the horrible pope as much as his apologists).
Amen!
Spot on. Thank you.
I’m baffled by this Nativity display. I grew up Southern Baptist and it’s my belief the focus of the Nativity should be the birth of Jesus Christ. I haven’t seen any naked, well muscled men reclining with their mouths agape in any other Nativity scene and frankly, I don’t get the, “art” of it at all.
I respectfully disagree.
I don’t see a moral equivalency between the two.
The ‘Nativity’ is at the least, made to be provocative. At most, near-blasphemy.
Reminds me of the ‘female’ Jesus at the inaugural World Youth Day in Denver.
It was wrong then, this is wrong now.
You respectfully disagree with what?
Can it be done, Mr. Brumley? Yeah, sure, it ‘can’ be done? The better question is ‘should’ it be done…at the Vatican…at Christmastime? In addition to damaging the faith of Catholics, there is also the pagan world, the Protestant world, the Muslim world, the atheistic world…any and all who might have considered His Church and, now, say, I can get this where I’m at, already.
I’m not sure why your question is directed at me. My article argues for engaging the art, not insulting its critics or defenders. If you don’t think the naked man should be in the art, I don’t take issue with you. My point is that there are Catholics who disagree and they shouldn’t be treated as “perverts”, etc. for disagreeing about it, any more than you should be treated as a “Puritan” or ignoramus for criticizing it.
Let me see – isn’t the focus of a nativity scene at Christmas supposed to be the Baby Jesus? And with Mary and Joseph at His sides? If works of mercy were to be encouraged just maybe, some thing more tasteful? Are people who gaze upon the scene supposed to be moved in a spiritual and holy way? Does the vatican really believe that my first thought when seeing this image of such a well-nourished and built person is that this “poor” guy needs my sympathy? Seriously? I would be thinking “This turkey better put some clothes on.” What an embarrassment to make this a part of the VATICAN’S nativity scene. Art is fine, but make it appropriate for the time and place.
Perhaps when discussing that photograph of a crucifix immersed in urine we should, instead of being outraged, have concentrated instead on the skill of the photographer, the effectiveness of the lighting, the artistry of the balance of positive and negative space, etc., and not said anything about the utter vileness of the content of the picture.
The most incredible event in the history of the world, God comes to earth as a baby, born of woman, to bring salvation to sinners. THAT is the Nativity. This disgusting mess is not art, it is profaning the miracle of the birth of Christ. So, whomever chose this, whomever created this and whomever allowed this, did not agree to some beautiful art to give glory and praise to God, they agreed to basically take a dump on the baby Jesus. Nice going. Just for the record, this has nothing to do with anyone being offended by nudity in art. It has to do with faithful Catholics being fed up with the trashing of our religion by those who proclaim to also be Catholics. Talk about wolves in sheep clothing.
As an artist and a devout Catholic, I think the issue is both theological and aesthetical. The entire scene does not evoke a sense of magesterial and supernatural awe which one normally feels (or wants to feel) when gazing at a nativity and contemplating the mystery of the incarnation of God the Son. In this particular nativity scene, there is no invitation to share in this monumental event with the Holy Family – nothing is drawing us in to “feel”. A nativity scene allows us to participate in this most holy and sacred SINGULAR MOMENT – the glorious and incredibly intimate moment when God became man and the union between the newborn Jesus and His earthly mother and father – no fanfare…no bright lights, music or cameras – just a silent and peaceful event overflowing with love and hope. An event that most parents who have experienced childbirth can relate to and even those who haven’t are aware of – this is a moment so sacred and profound that it is normally only shared by the mother and father. By gazing at a nativity scene, it makes us feel that we are part of that intimate moment of birth – that we are there at His side as part of His family and are participating in something we know to be holy and extraordinary, and the love and appreciation we recognize in that, is emotionally overwhelming… it’s personal…it’s life altering. Sadly, this scene lacks that invitation and sense of awe and feels about as intimate as an outing at a zoo. Aesthetically, it’s very jarring. Our eyes are frantically searching for that one focal point in which to rest – Jesus and the Holy Family. There is too much activity for the eye to make sense of the scene as a whole. The Holy Family gets lost amid the jostling figures and bustling scene. The different costumes make it difficult to process the biblical scene that we all know and come to lovingly expect every year. Much can also be said about the figures representing the corporal works of mercy (such as none of the figures are shown with any love or compassion in their expressions) but the reclining, almost naked man who looks in robust health is probably the worst figure. His startlingly posed position looks almost comically bacchanalian! I understand the point that this particular nativity scene was trying to impart, but I feel they missed the point entirely. This scene lacks the due and appropriate Adoration that we give to our Lord Jesus at this PARTICULAR moment in history and lacks the invitation to join our mother Mary and Joseph in total abandonment of ourselves to Him in praise and wonder.
Diane you summed up my thoughts. Man has an interior sense given by God that enables us to apprehend goodness and identify evil. The adage you know it when you see it has helped judges make the case of distinguishing porn soft or hard from Art. Similarly with the case of Rodney King despite all the arguments by defense attorneys for the police charged with excessive force, and slow time exam of the film seeing it in real time enabled the jury to determine it was excessive.
Here is Dr. Robert Moynihan’s Letter #67, 2017 describing the controversial manger scene. Unfortunately, the images didn’t seem to copy. But I think that Moynihan’s description about the Christmas tree belie the claim that this Nativity scene is about “Art”. Why are yin-yang ornaments on a Christmas tree in a Nativity scene in St. Peter’s Square?
“I was walking through St. Peter’s Square this cold December evening, and I ran into two old friends.
We were all in front of the manger scene by the obelisk in the middle of the square.
This is what we saw:
“What do you think of the manger scene?” I asked.
“Terrible,” one said. “The idea of depicting seven scenes showing acts of corporal mercy may have been a valid idea, but the execution of it is quite disturbing. I have never seen any manger scene quite like this one. The depiction of the naked man being clothed in an act of charity overpowers every other aspect of the manger scene, including the figures of Mary and Joseph themselves, and the hidden manger where Jesus will be laid on Christmas morning, in five days time. I do not like it at all.”
I took pictures of the manger scene with my Iphone.
Here is what my friend was referring to: a naked man, with only a wisp of cloth over his private parts, illustrating the work of corporal mercy of “clothing the naked.”
“But this is not the thing that most concerns us,” the second person said. “We are concerned about the decorations on the Christmas tree from Poland. We have not seen a single religious symbol, not a single Christian symbol, on the tree.”
“Really?” I said. “Let’s look at it.”
So we walked around the tree.
And I too saw that there seemed not to be a single Christian symbol on the tree, unless the star on the top of the tree could be considered a sign of the star that led the Magi to the Christ-child.
“Look,” said my friend. “There are peace signs, and the oriental yin-yang signs, but no angels, no depictions of the Magi, no images of Mary, nothing but universal symbols. Many nuns in Rome say they are shocked and are very worried about the message these decorations are sending to the youngest. I wish I knew the Pope’s secretaries to tell them to tell the Pope what is on the Square, if really the Holy Father wants to go and to bless such things. The worst thing for all these sponsors would be for the Pope not to come to the Square on December 31.”
Here is a poor Iphone photo showing one of the yin-yang images on the tree:
“What has happened to us?” my other friend said. “What is our message? Where is Christ? There are no longer Christian signs on the Christmas tree! Really, we find Nativity scene this year just scandalous. What we are teaching our children? I feel sorry that people may think the Pope agrees with this.”
In past years, they said, the Christmas tree was decorated with brilliant white and yellow balls, the Vatican colors.
The two said they had written a letter to the Government of Vatican City, protesting the decorations on the Christmas tree.
Robert Moynihan reports that there are “yin-yang” symbols on the Christmas Tree in the Nativity scene in St. Peter’s Square. For me, this belies the argument the scene should be judged solely as “Art”. The person or persons who assembled this clutter seem to have a point of view that aims to distract from the centrality of the Light that comes into the world.
Parts of the Sistine ceiling look far more gay than one naked gym rat—-nude dudes frolicking all over heaven and even God’s naked bum on display. Also there are lots of nude dude statues in the corridors leading to the Sistine. I opted NOT to take “gay Vatican art tour” that was advertised when I visited. That no popes after Michaelangelo did anything about that abomination speaks loads to me. I’m done.
Converting to Eastern Orthodoxy now.