Rome is chaotic at its calmest, but three weeks working there in May suggested that the chaos has intensified to what may be unprecedented levels. Public transport is regularly stymied by strikes. Graffiti is everywhere. As always, traffic is a nightmare, but the usual insanities of Roman driving, (which include daredevil motorini drivers careening in and out of lanes) have been magnified by the rush to complete Line C of the local subway, which involves digging up large chunks of the city, often in already-congested places like Piazza Venezia. (Years ago, local wags of a theological temper said that the opening of Line C was an eschatological concept, i.e., something that would happen the day after Christ returns in glory. We shall see.)
So, a word to the wise: if you’re planning a visit to the Eternal City in the next few months, don’t count on tranquility.
The all-court press to finish Metropolitana Linea C reflects the city administration’s determination to be prepared for the tens of millions of pilgrims expected in Rome for the Jubilee of 2025, which was formally announced by Pope Francis in the “bull of indiction” issued on May 9, the Solemnity of the Ascension. Prior to that, however, Vatican and local diocesan agencies were issuing preparatory materials for the jubilee year. Some of them warrant comment.
First, the jubilee logo.
It’s often said, and rightly, that in a world confused about truth and goodness, beauty, the third “transcendental,” can be an invitation to reconsider modern skepticism and moral relativism. If we see (or hear) something beautiful, we know it’s beautiful in itself – it’s not a matter of “my” beauty or “your “beauty.” And we instinctively grasp that this beauty is good – not just “good for me.” Hans Urs von Balthasar built an entire theological edifice on the foundation of an extended reflection on God’s beauty: “the glory of the Lord.” Bishop Robert Barron’s Catholicism series is such a powerful tool of evangelization because it’s visually beautiful – and thus opens viewers up to Catholic ideas of the true and the good.
Why, then, did the Vatican come up with such a tacky jubilee logo? Can’t the Catholicism that inspired Fra Angelico, Michelangelo, Raphael, Caravaggio, and Henry Ossawa Tanner produce a beautiful logo, rather than kitsch that looks like a sixth-grade art project? This aesthetic self-degradation began with the logo for the Great Jubilee of 2000 and has continued ever since. Basta!
If, in this world of marketing, we must have logos, let’s have beautiful ones. For as Benedict XVI insisted, beauty is one of the “proofs” of the truth of Christian faith.
Then there are some of the preparatory materials currently being circulated by dioceses. One of them is a video entitled “Towards the Jubilee 2025.” The narration fails to use the words “Jesus Christ.” Yet, as the pope noted in his bull of indiction, 2025 is the 1,700th anniversary of the first ecumenical council, Nicaea I, which proclaimed in its Creed the divinity of Christ, “consubstantial with the Father,” against the Arian heretics who insisted that “there was a time when the Son was not.” As forms of Arianism are widespread today in the world and the Church – Jesus is a human exemplar, a spiritual guru, an avatar of a generic, divine will-to-save – Nicaea I’s confession of “one Lord, Jesus Christ: God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God” is an urgent reminder of the bedrock truth of Christian faith. Thus the absence of the words “Jesus Christ” from that Jubilee-2025 promotional video is, to put it gently, striking.
Then there is the Hymn for the 2025 Jubilee. As contemporary Catholic music goes, it’s acceptable melodically and the text is tolerable. But the official Jubilee 2025 hymn has none of the robust, unapologetic Christocentrism of the hymn for the Great Jubilee of 2000, Gloria a Te, Christo Gesu [Glory to You, Christ Jesus]: at its most stirring when performed by Andrea Bocelli and the Chorus of Rome’s National Academy of St. Cecilia. Gloria a Te, Christo Gesu is entirely and intensely Christological, as befits a hymn composed for the celebration of the 2,000th anniversary of the Incarnation.
So why the Christological reticence of the hymn for Jubilee 2025, which will mark the anniversary of the Church’s dogmatic definition of the divinity of the Lord Jesus? What has happened to the Church over the past twenty-five years?
Now, as ever, the lesson of Acts 3:1-7 is pertinent. Like Peter speaking to the lame man in the Temple, the Church has nothing to offer but what is most important: “Jesus Christ of Nazareth.”
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I know we need to “take back the rainbow,” but the logo is a bit sus
Maybe I’ve had too much coffee this morning, but your comment is suspect. Those aren’t rainbow colors. Further and just in case: the logo includes the anchor – a well known symbol of God and faith. It has the addition of the Cross on top. The 4 hugging symbols in what I see as the boat over troubled waters are Jesus (red) with 3 of his closest friends/apostles. The author saw it as tacky. You saw it as suspect. I see it as how we all ought to be hugging Jesus for safety.
I find the logo more refreshing to look at than reading this article. The author must have a burr under his saddle. Of all the positive things that could be the focus of an article, we get this uninspiring episode finger wagging.
QUESTION: Weigel asks, “Why, then, did the Vatican come up with such a tacky jubilee logo?”
ANSWER: Because the logo replaces the corpus on the Cross with the colors of a polyhedral church (lower case) wrapped around an insipid couple (!) of sticks. The confusing element is the retained symbolic “anchor,” but now this is probably a concession to foot-dragging backwardists.
Moreover, and about Nicaea, the new meaning might be that the first ecumenical council was not really about remembering what had been believed from the beginning–and therefore excluding (!) Arianism, but really only about inclusive synodality and procedural consensus building. Nicaea protected the Church from the reintroduction of polytheism. A created Second Person, and what else(?)—like pre-Christian Pachamama and post-Christian Gnosticism, and offhandedly blessing the LGBTQ anti-lifestyle.
SUMMARY: The Jubilee logo is prefigured by Synodalism’s ambulatory logo…
huh?
Jesus is absent from most of this pope’s writings, along with the documents associated with the synod on synodality. The pope himself essentially doesn’t celebrate the Mass anymore, meaning he avoids Christ physically, not just verbally. It seems clear that many in the Vatican seek a church of human fraternity, rather than a Church which proclaims Christ, Who is the penultimate sign of contradiction to the world. Christ’s Church would have less parties with Whoopi Goldberg and apostate politicians, which would be boring and lame on Instagram.
Francesco is a Jesuit and this is the “anonymous Christianity” schtick of Karl Rahner that insanely thinks we bring people to Christ by not talking explicitly about Him.
The 2025 “Jube-ilee” Logo of The-Pontiff-Francis-Magis-terium” is their “Queer-Kath-o-lik-Church” emblem.
That answers the question “what has happened to the Church in the past 25 years.”
If the Pontiff Francis remains the Pontiff come 2025, and perhaps if he is succeeded by another man of his ilk, this “Jube-ilee” will be the grim, 12-month-loyalty-pledge to “The-Church-with-the-Mind-of-McCarrick.”
The 2025 Jubilee hymn, “Pilgrims of Hope” is a nice hymn, but it is not one that clearly proclaims the divinity of Jesus Christ and his infinite sacrifice for each of God’s children.
The logo is a non-starter for me. The colors of the rainbow have been completely destroyed for me. Unfortunately, the rainbow represents a single group and I want no part of it. I acknowledge that this is my problem, and my perspective is skewed.
At the end of day, this conversation is one of degrees. The logo and the hymn for Jubilee are sufficient. Could they have been better? Could they have more fully celebrated the Council of Nicaea? Of course they could.
The Catholic faith has been under Jesus Christ’s judgment for many years now. He is in control not the Vatican, we can see that men in control do not follow The Lord Jesus and do not want Him around,their power is diminished when He is glorified. The Vatican will no longer matter when Jesus returns for all His bride.
Even as Weigel’s concerns about keeping a Christocentric focus are valid, his critique here of the Jubilee 2025 preparations for supposedly lacking explicit references to Jesus Christ misses the broader, more nuanced ways in which the Church is seeking to engage and evangelize the modern world. The Jubilee’s themes and materials are best seen as part of a bigger tapestry of faith expression that ultimately aims to draw people closer to Christ, even if this is achieved through contemporary and sometimes indirect means. Take for example the Jubilee’s logo pictured here. While not explicitly featuring the name “Jesus,” it is imbued with Christian symbolism, like most especially the cross, designed to resonate with a broad audience including those who may not be immediately familiar with traditional Christian imagery. Weigel’s insinuation that Christological faith is lacking on the part of the Jubilee preparations media overlooks the comprehensive nature of the Church’s mission, which includes addressing contemporary issues and engaging with the modern world in relevant and accessible ways. Pope Francis, especially, has always emphasized the imperative for the Church to reach out to the margins addressing the existential questions and struggles of today’s society. This pastoral approach does not negate Christ but rather incarnates his teachings in action.
Enough of this “indirect engagement.” The same nonsense was on display last summer at WYD in Lisbon: we don’t make converts, we put Jesus in tuppernacles under the table, we seem to be ashamed of the Name. The Apostles did not go out and proclaim, “You know, THAT guy, Him, yeh….” They spoke the name of Jesus. I expect the same from their successors, ESP. from a Pope whose order takes that Name (often in vain).
Believe that this is an excellent piece and agree fully with your comment, John. It reminded me as well of the recent WYD and the Cardinal-elect Bishop America Aguiar’s insipid welcome at that event promoting the notion of religious and doctrinal indifferentism.
Fortunately those comments drew a timely rebuke from Bishop Robert Baron.
How does not referring to Christ engage & evangelize?
Osmosis?
OR
🎼 Yeah, they’ll know we are Christians by our luv. 💋
You neglected to mention Deacon Dom that anonymous christianity pleases the Chinese and every other economic power. We wouldn’t want to upset the Dear Leader and our Euro buddies.
Speaking of embarrassing public displays of christianity, if Biden wasn’t away with the fairies, he would know that it is uncouth to make the sign of the cross during an abortion rally. Nancy Pelosi knew better. She saved her rosary for Vatican visits…
Wow! Deacon Dom!
What a pretzel your popesplanations have twisted you into!
I will admit that I admire your persistence, but I can’t help thinking that you might have found a worthier recipient of your extreme loyalty.
I mean, come on. We evangelize for Christ more effectively by *not* mentioning Him?
By this logic, my fitness regime of sitting on the couch and watching old TV westerns is bound to pay off.
(Sigh.)
My guess is Bergoglio doesn’t mention Jesus because he just finds Him so backwardist.
Re: deacon Dom’s the…”more nuanced ways in which the Church is seeking to engage and evangelize.”
I wondered if the apostles were more nuanced in their evangelization whether they might have avoided martyrdom.
“Why, then, did the Vatican come up with such a tacky jubilee logo?”
********
When has this not been the case for logos in general?
Please tell me, when is the church going to leave the 1970’s behind? How about hiring a decent graphic artist to create a logo that’s not subtly gay?
I guess the Church will finally leave the 1970s behind when the last person from the 1970s leaves the room.
Fingers crossed.
LOL
You’re the best, MrsCracker
Happy 4th of July, Mrs. Hess. And thank you.
🙂
Cutesy, quasi-abstract ‘art’ in logos typifies a shift in traditional Catholic art from realism to vagueness that visually diminishes the impact of God’s self-revelation in the Incarnation of Christ, a unique and history-defining event that inspired proclamation in the Apostles, not mere gnostic speculation as a method of evangelisation.
Art teaching and competitions in Catholic schools should be integrated with religious instruction and close familiarity with biblical scenes from both the Old and New Testaments.
Thank You!
Some graphic artists produce instantly forgettable banality, and others produce work that goes down in history:
Understanding the $200k Logo, by Alex Stewart.
Another good comment from Deacon Dom. Good work, Deacon. A few years ago I spent two weeks in Italy, and of course we visited Churches every day, especially while in Rome. But I was getting very tired of the marble and baroque art. I love Padre Pio, and of course visited San Giovanni Rotundo. I wasn’t aware that his body was there, and I wasn’t aware of the new open concept Church at the back. His body was in the Church below that, which was also rather modern in art and design. I do remember feeling refreshed and rejuvenated sitting in this modern Church. The logo here is very simple, but it has a beauty on its own. It doesn’t have to be a Giotto or a Raphael to be beautiful. All the pretentious talk of beauty in this article is nothing but snobbery.
With respect Mr. Thomas, I personally encounter less pretentious vocabulary from those who appreciate tradition. Just my 2 cents.
Just for clarification, there is no such thing as “another good comment from Deacon Dom” because there’s no such thing as a good comment from him based on his track record here.
I am going to do something for the sake of beauty, i.e. for the sake of showing that true beauty should also express true meaning, including in graphic design. I appreciate that some may think of the logo as “refreshing, nicely simple” etc. however a good graphic design should also adequately express the ideas which it claims to express. I found the explanation of the logo on the Vatican website ( ‘Official Logo of Jubilee unveiled’) so I will use the quotes from that article.
When I studied graphic design, we were taught to ask the question “What for?” regarding each element of our work; the visual language would be determined by that question. Nowadays people seem to look at the explanations more, forgetting to look at how the visual elements match the explanations and what they really express – perhaps this is why the level of design is so often poor. I am going to utilize here a method of Bauhaus “functionality + beauty = good design”.
The explanation says: “The Logo shows four stylized figures to indicate all of humanity from the four corners of the earth. They each embrace one another, indicating the solidarity and brotherhood that must unite peoples.”
It is impossible to see the idea of “four corners of the earth” because the sight of figures coming from one point in a row is contrary to it. Also, Christian art has an aged-long symbol for “four corners” which are depicted as the corners of a square (in icons) or the ends of the Cross (one of solutions could be the Cross with people streaming to its center, Christ, from four ends).
Maybe then different colours represent different corners of earth? From another website “The colors also have a meaning, as he[designer] explained: “Red is love, action and sharing; yellow/orange is the color of human warmth; green evokes peace and balance; blue recalls security and protection. The black/gray of the Cross/Anchor, meanwhile, represents authority and the inner aspect.”
Hence, the four colours have nothing to do with “four corners” thus they destroy the idea of “four corners” even further – it is unlikely that all people from one corner are all about “love”, from another – about “human warmth” etc. Noteworthy, the symbolism of colours is not Christian but more of popular colour therapy. In Christian art blue does not symbolize “security and protection” but Heaven. Black/grey which in Christian art are the colours of mortification and death (monastic clothes, hell, tomb etc.) and never of “authority and the inner aspect”.
The explanation says: “They each embrace one another, indicating the solidarity and brotherhood that must unite peoples.”
No, they are not embracing each other, they cling to each other from behind – this is not an embrace i.e. face to face. Again, the explanation is contrary to the impression created by the design.
The explanation says: “… the lower part of the Cross is elongated, turning into an anchor, which dominates the movement of the waves. Anchors often have been used as metaphors for hope.”
Well enough, but alas, an anchor is bent thus making no effect of being secure.
“The Cross is not static,” Fisichella suggested, “but dynamic, bending toward and meeting humanity as if not to leave it alone, but rather offering the certainty of its presence and the reassurance of hope.”
My impression is that the Cross is not bending “towards people” but is moving together with the people. A bent Cross cannot provide any sense of security and hope. Christ Who is absent can bend towards humanity indeed (like on an icon of St Francis being embraced by Christ on the Cross). To me that Cross looks like it is made with rubber, a very convenient cross indeed.
The explanation says: “The image shows how the pilgrim’s journey is not individual, but rather communal, with the signs of a growing dynamism that moves more and more toward the Cross.”
I noticed, communal to the point of losing even a hint of anything personal in those paper sheets = figures. From impersonal figures to “Cross” without the Person, Christ.
My conclusion is that the logo expresses not our faith but more Gnostic stuff/general whatever. As such it is probably OK because Gnosticism borrows from any source and has no meaning, for a Christian.
Thomas James, I believe that you are incapable of discerning art when you see it. You misconstrue progressivism and Alinsky-type thinking for aesthetics.
Life is unjust. George gets three weeks working in Rome when the weather is good. My friends and I are stuck pontificating in Hundeluft, Darmstadt and Schweinfurt, despite being fully integrated and developed humans. We each embrace integral ecology, and affirm everyone as a Virtuosi al Pantheon. Not a centesimo of Peter’s Pence comes to our Synodal Council (just massive tax money;) And yet, we have copious culture, education and tireless interreligious dialogues. We discuss katholisch things like charity, bishops, not-yet bishops and laws we want changed – all of this so that we can begin evangelization. We rarely meddle with AVEPRO; nor have many of us tested the penitentiary. All we get is the occasional opportunity for a few of our big wigs to compare notes with the DDF.
Good for you George. Good for you…
I understand that your foolishness masks subtle but profound truth and wisdom. I had to look up much, but so far I smelled a dog’s bad breath in Hundeluft, got high on Ecstasy pills from Darmstadt, and engaged the enemy, attempting to kill its industry in Schweinfurt. What should I understand may happen in the next act?
The logo, it is explained is about
‘people moving forward together’.
Disembodied souls without sin towards a cross without a Christ.
Is this a God without wrath who brings men without sin into a kingdom without judgment ?
Disembodied souls in hot pursuit of an abstract cross without a Christ, towards St Peter’s Holy Door, the only bit of realism available.
The Holy Door is not part of the logo; it’s a contrast.
Feast Day of St.Thomas today – who for mysterious reasons chose to be known only as
the ‘Twin ‘ – who was blessed in surprise to have touched the Light and Love of the wounds of The Risen Lord to proclaim in Faith anchored in trust- ‘My Lord and my God ‘-words to ring through generations that His mercy is powerful enough to bring the New Life that can erase much from the past ..
St. Paul too would come to know same – relishing his genertaional line of being a Benjaminite, wiping clean in His mercy all that came into that line over the centuries …the Levite and the concubine and all that ..
‘To the victor I will give the white stone ‘ -? as graces of the Immaculate Conception to see oneself and others as blessings for generations, children too seen in that Light , as blessings for past generations too …every Holy Mass , priests acting in Persona Christi acting in the Divine Will bringing similar blessings for generations .. Our times much wounded , in great need of such a Light in line with that of St.John Paul 11 – being gifts ..seeing others too in that light even when it might seem to need much help to be reborn into The Love in The Mother and The Church ..
Interesting tidbit about line C – as a glipmse of the messy purification needed for the C line of clarity and concordance to reign in hearts !
Blessings !
And why was St. Thomas known as the “Twin”?
As an identical twin, and who also was married to a sainted identical twin (1949-2001, another story), yours truly humbly proposes a theory…On a good-hair day, did Thomas look like Jesus Christ?
If so, his appearance later at the same time and place as Christ, in the upper room, empirically discredits the theory of non-believers that a look-alike double (Thomas?) was crucified on Calvary in place of a hidden Christ who then could fake His resurrection.
Omniscient God thinks and has thought of everything!
The Diocese of Madison still has Rupnik “art” on the homepage of the cathedral website under the section Celebrating the National Eucharistic Revival!, something I noticed 1.5 weeks ago when considering where else in Wisconsin my wife and I might visit on pilgrimage. I just confirmed it when I read GW’s article this afternoon. It’s still there even after Cardinal O’Malley’s public request that the Vatican cease. My wife and I began our pilgrimage in Champion and concluded in La Crosse at the National Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe before returning to Illinois to the National Shrine and Museum for St. Therese. My point: go and pray. Go to good sites, whether online or in person. Go and pray. Make reparation. https://www.sbmsn.org/
I am troubled by the figures on the logo most, and not because of their colours. To me they look like pieces of paper, very impersonal, like bureaucratic spreadsheets (this is a free association). Another annoying thing to me is “a bent soft Cross” (with soft ends). Bent possibly to match a round shape of the emblem but it looks bad; the whole thing is reminiscent of the beer bottles’ tops – “relax mate” etc.
I don’t know what made me look at this logo in comparison with the logo for the “Synod of Synodality” but I noticed something interesting. The “S of S” logo features, as the description says, a tree with the sun above it. However, I do not see a tree and sun at all; I see “a tree-person”, more of Carlos Castaneda’s “guaho” (“a secret ally”) than of Tolkien’s treebeard, with the round head instead of sun, ushering the crowd who knows where. That “tree-person” has exactly the same angle of movement as the empty “pieces of paper” on the jubilee logo; the two are really very similar. There is also a kind of strange evolution of more or less personal multicolored people on the “S of S” logo to the thoroughly impersonal multicolored sheets of paper on the Jubilee logo.
I am not making anything out of it, I just shared my observations (of an artist).
It would be interesting to see other versions of the logo. I have searched briefly but unfortunately could not find anything.
First, I suppose the marketing staff for the 2025 Jubilee will say that there has to be a logo to “brand”. the event. If you are going to use a logo for branding purposes, the concept should be clearly defined to be effective and all elements should merge to convey it. But this is not a well-thought out logo because the connection of separate elements to the concept aren’t clear, however clever the merging of the parts may have seemed.
First, the use of a four primary colors and the animated 3-D effect makes me think of the Windows XP “waving flag” logo, which, if you liked it, fine. No comment.
“The Logo shows four stylized figures to indicate all of humanity from the four corners of the earth. They each embrace one another, indicating the solidarity and brotherhood that must unite peoples. The first figure is clinging to the Cross. The underlying waves are choppy to indicate that the pilgrimage of life is not always on calm waters.
Because often personal circumstances and world events call for a greater sense of hope, a description of the Logo says, the lower part of the Cross is elongated turning into an anchor, which dominates the movement of the waves.”
But that’s not what the design shows, and frankly, the explanation is overburdened with “meaningfulness.” The merging of Cross – boat mast – boat anchor may have seemed clever when sketched out but it doesn’t make much sense conceptually. What does it signify to make the Cross both the mast and the anchor of the boat? And are the figures also supposed to evoke sails on the boat? That’s what the shapes suggest to me. Again, if so, does that signify something and how does that relate to the rest of the logo concept as explained by the designer? Or did the designer just think that looked cool?
Then, having the figures cling to the mast and each other wasn’t a good way to represent the intended meaning because you don’t cling to the mast that way unless a boat is in trouble. Maybe they are actually parasailing? The bubble-heads also remind me of Windows XP design.
Finally, the extreme simplification of the Cross makes it hard to see Jesus Christ anywhere in the scene, in fact, the sail-figures seem to be clinging and flying on their own.
“The image shows how the pilgrim’s journey is not individual, but rather communal, with the signs of a growing dynamism that moves more and more toward the Cross.”. No, the image doesn’t show that at all. The figures aren’t dynamically moving towards the Cross. At best, they are clinging on the Cross-mast for dear life – which may have been the basis of a better logo concept.
Honestly the figures make me think of something (I won’t mention here), just NOT Catholic. I mean with all of our beautiful monstrance, crucifix, chalice & Consecrated host, Tabernacle, Holy images, why does this have to look so “cartoony”. Those floating multicolor robes and round heads all overlapping each other is really STRANGE. The cross attached to the anchor might work if done in a more clear depiction. NOTHING in that image says Catholic to me, NOTHING. With all of the talented people in this world somebody could come up with something better than this to give this whole event a CATHOLIC projection. Like I said in my previous post, “This could be for any Protestant denomination out there. Who can tell from that?” Very very sad. Our Church deserves better.
I am sure that the logo represents what the Jubilee Team expect for 2025: the complete acceptance of gay ways with gay marriages, openly and practicing gay priests, and a laughing put down for all backward-thinking traditionalists. The logo is sailing on into the future–without Jesus Christ–because of course He is old-fashion and out of date and is loved by those awful traditionalists. Ban them, like the Latin mass, for the church has changed. Ah! they forget that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. Come, Lord Jesus!
Weigel says he’s seen better artwork by sixth graders. I’ve seen better banners by second grade First Communicants.
The logo is shameful. If it intends to represent the barque of Peter, why is bow more wide than the stern? The anchor suggests the Lucifer’s horns. The rainbow people cause the straight and steady vertical beam of the cross-mast to warp, curve, or bend. This cross-mast lacks sails. No wisp of a breath of the Holy Spirit will catch any human instrument here. Rainbow people, pulling down a cross, anchored by a demon, heading nowhere. The people’s heads don’t connect with their bodies. Raw.
The church of Francis gives these images and suggestions. What type of Jujubee year does the church of Francis intend to celebrate? (Jujubee is the name of a discontinued fruity candy as well as the name of an infamous American drag queen.)
Shameful. Obtuse. Juvenile. A further disgrace to the Catholic faith. But we can take it. In the name of Jesus the Christ.
Evangelization needs to be explicit, in words and deeds. In cannot be “indirect” or “nuanced” lest it can become prey to misinterpretation. The Crucicfix (= a Cross with the Corpus of Christ) speaks more convincingly than a Corpus-less Cross embraced by rainbow-colored people. The logo leaves itself open to more than one undesirable interpretations. At the very least, it bespeaks the steady rise of LGBTQ within the Church under this pontificate.
A queer logo [rainbow colored figures embracing each other from behind bending a cross] issued by a Vatican that promotes homosexuality. I wrote a response comment in Extra extra on the Rupnik scandal afflicting Catholicism,
“I can only add that the propensity of this pontificate toward normalizing diverse forms of sexual activity, the record of pardons, recent documents Fiducia Supplementum and Dignitas Infinita, frequent elevation in rank of the convicted, appointments of homosexual friendly clergy to ranking positions appears consistent with a theological approach to human sexuality in its diverse forms as a natural expression of human behavior”. I’ve been regularly adding the conditional ‘appears’, as in “appears consistent with a theological approach to human sexuality in its diverse forms as a natural expression of human behavior”. We’ve reached the point where candor is a virtue and finessing is not. After reading Fr Thomas Weinandy’s candid piece Pride and Prejudice in TCT where he provides reason to indict His Holiness for promoting homosexuality, it’s time I drop the word appears and correctly say “it [is] consistent with a theological approach to human sexuality in its diverse forms as a natural expression of human behavior”.
Please see my commentary on the above article at:
http://myfaithandlifeblog.com/2024/07/06/the-universality-of-beauty-what-is-it/