[Maas]

source

A work of art by one of Vienna's most celebrated artists has been taken down after offending members of the Catholic community.

The painting is part of a large collection of works that depict Jesus and his disciples engaging in homosexual acts.

To celebrate the 80th birthday of artist Alfred Hrdlicka, the gallery attached to St. Stephen's Catholic Cathedral decided to put on a retrospective of the artists work.

There was surprise that the work received the endorsement from Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Schonborn, who is known for his Orthodox views.

Entitled, Religion, Flesh, Power, the exhibition includes a number of works that depict Christ in a sexual context.

One piece that caused particular offence was a sculpture of Christ on a crucifix having his genitals fondled by a Roman soldier.

It was, however, Mr Hrdlicka's portrayal of The Last Supper that caused the biggest outcry of anger from Catholics.

The paintings, loosely based on the original by Leonardo Da Vinci, depicts the 12 apostles engaging in a homosexual orgy.

The exhibition has prompted protests from Catholics worldwide, in particular America where a number of websites and bloggers have voiced their disgust.

The American Society for the defence of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP), described the exhibition as, "an unimaginable blasphemy."

"I honestly feel that creating a more offensive blasphemy would take a lot of imagination," said TFP spokesman Michael Whitcraft.

"I can't think of how it could be worse."

The Society hit the headlines in America two years ago when they organised a 2000 strong protest against the film, The Da Vinci Code, claiming that the film was deeply offensive to Christians.

The museum's curator, Bernhard Boehler, replied to the complaints saying, "I don't see any blasphemy here. People can imagine what they want to."

Boehler told Reuter's news service, "We look for art on biblical themes, but we can't always choose how the artist will interpret them."

The verbal complaints from Catholics around the world were compared by Boehler and Hrdlicka to the riots, bombings and killings that followed the publication of the Danish newspaper cartoons of Mohammed.

US columnist Rod Dreher wrote on his popular conservative blog:

"I'm glad that we don't have to worry about Catholic mobs worldwide burning down Austrian embassies and attacking screenings of The Sound of Music to protest this blasphemy.

"But quietism from church authorities in the face of something like this - and not only quietism, but tacit endorsement, given the venue! - sends a powerful message of how deep the rot has gone."

The most offensive pieces have been taken down due to the massive international interest.

However, a spokesman for the cardinal refused to condemn the works:

"It is an act of respect towards those believers who feel this portrayal offended and provoked them in their deepest religious sensitivity."

Seems like the artistic freedom is only about being able to redicule others but not the people close to you.

[Bright]

This "art" is an insult to both Christians and Muslims. The Holy Koran clearly writes that Jesus is a prophet. Muslims and Christians should join together to protest this attack on their common religious beliefs. Freedom of speech cannot be interpreted as the freedom to slander and defame billions of Muslims and Christians.

Atheistic propaganda on a scientific basis should be actively encouraged and promoted in public discourse. However, all antireligious work can be conducted only by means of explanation and persuasion, without insults to the religious feelings of believers or infringment of their rights.

[naked_turk]

LOL @ the absurdity, but seriously, this seems like something someone would draw simply to offend someone he doesn't like rather than art.

The church putting this on display reeks of them trying desperately to prove how "liberal" and "accepting" they really are!

Reminds me of a Simpsons episode: "The Cathlic Church - We've made a few... Changes."

[Lightman]

The art isn't the problem (I find it distasteful, but what I find distasteful shouldn't be the law). The problem is that they put this into a church. If you put something that is offensive to an organization inside that organizations' buildings, even with the consent of the local chapter, you should expect outrage.

[W01f]

"Look at me I'm so controversial, put me on TV and give me money please!"

Art, hah. This has to do with anything but art.

[Nets]

Who's up for a good ole' Embassy Burning?

I hate "art" that is just insulting for the sake of insulting, and that's what this is.

[Maas]

"Look at me I'm so controversial, put me on TV and give me money please!"

Art, hah. This has to do with anything but art.

oh yeah all true.
It's all about the money

Than again a cartoon aint considered art as well.
It's just a way to earn an EU.

Some people got offended by cartoons.
"we" didn't give a damn.
Now somebody else tries to make some money the other way.
And now it's: it is offensive, it aint art, it's only about money.

[Potemkin]

Some people got offended by cartoons.
"we" didn't give a damn.
Now somebody else tries to make some money the other way.
And now it's: it is offensive, it aint art, it's only about money.

Quoted for truth. I think the same of this 'art' as I do of the anti-Muslim cartoons. They are both merely an attempt to deliberately provoke certain groups of people by blaspheming against what they hold most precious. I condemn both equally.

[Lensky1917]

Man, this article is rich. I pretty much support anybody who portrays religion in a negative fashion.

[Todd D.]

Some people got offended by cartoons.
"we" didn't give a damn.
Now somebody else tries to make some money the other way.
And now it's: it is offensive, it aint art, it's only about money.

I don't think anyone denies that an image with Muhammad carryign a bomb is "offensive". Likewise I don't think anyone can deny that an image of Jesus' genitals being fondled is offensive.

It's the REACTION that led to the condemnation of the former. Unless someone kills an Austrian consulate in Vatican City, then any comparison is really superficial.

[Infidelis]

It seems as though the same or at least similar group of people who protest military funerals, overtly condemn and degrade homosexuals, non-Christians and single mothers and display gory pictures of fetuses outside abortion clinics out of the name of the First Amendment is upset that their hateful and distasteful tactics are used against them.

Boo-freaking-hoo.

The atrocities that are created out of the name of organized religion deserve far more severe and yes, far more constructive backlash than the Mesiah getting his junk fondled in some pictures.

[Nets]

Are you serious Infidelis? Are you saying all Christians (or any Christians who would be offended by this) are equivalent to Fred Phelps.

It seems as though the same or at least similar group of people who protest military funerals

Cause the Military is known for its overtly secular nature

[smashthestate]

I gotta agree with Todd D. on this.

I'll place a bet and provide steep odds on the prediction that you won't see any Catholics shooting an editor in the back with a high-powered rifle, or driving a car loaded with fertilizer into a cafe over this.

This art is made for the purpose of offending, that much is obvious. What else can we do about it other than point this out?

[Infidelis]

Christianity is too wide-spread for me to lump them all together, however I do not think that they should complain when their members are amongst the biggest offenders of offending others.

The presence and support of Christianity in US Military does exist, but that's a whole other thread...I was merely pointing out one example of the offending done in the name of God.

[sploop!]

The 21st Century, and we're still whinging about blasphemy. I could cry, I really could...

[stalker]

This episode demonstrates the need to intensify the war on religion on all planes - intellectual, economic, physical, spiritual, etc.

[NoRapture]

Don't worry. That's Free Market Jesus up there. The designer thorns are a dead givaway. I think it's for a promo on the new Cher tribute album he's just finished. Due for release in May. I could be wrong about that.

[Andres]

Seems like the artistic freedom is only about being able to redicule others but not the people close to you.

It was being showed within a space provided by a church. The owner of the paintings has the artistic freedom to take his paintings to another gallery.

[Ripple Effect]

Seems like the artistic freedom is only about being able to redicule others but not the people close to you.

The gallery is legally free to leave it up

[Abood]

Where can I see/buy this beautiful work of art?

It's the REACTION that led to the condemnation of the former.

No it's not. It's the fact that Muslims do not tolerate freedom of speech and expression. Well, the Catholics do not tolerate it either.