| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 03/28/2006 7:00:32 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
No thanks. |
Posted on 03/25/2006 11:29:40 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Could the Roman Catholic Church's sex abuse crisis be tied to embedded Satanic and occult imagery in its artwork - some of it hundred's of years old?
That is the seemingly incredible thesis of a new documentary, "Rape of the Soul," made not by anti-Catholic bigots, but by devout followers of the Church.
Rape of the Soul is in theatrical release in major cities, including New York and Los Angeles.
The documentary explores the prevalent use of satanic, sexual, and occult and anti-Catholic images in historical and contemporary religious artwork. The film also discusses the acceptance of the artwork at the highest and most trusted levels of the Catholic Church...
..."Artists from DaVinci to Botticelli have imbedded subliminal images into their art for centuries, said Calace...In this case we found penises on crucifixes, anarchy symbols, swastikas, demonic faces and in modern works even the word 'sex' encrypted into the images.
The works in question include modern artists' work currently on the covers of missalettes and hymnals that at this very moment sit in the pews of churches throughout the U.S. and on children's teaching aids."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
I looked into the backgrounds of the "experts" used in the film:
1) Robert Swan, an actor -- he's no expert.
2) Michael A. Calace, performer/inventor/now movie maker -- responsible for the film, and not really an expert.
3) Dr. Wilson Bryan Key -- an expert, at least at being an alarmist: http://www.uiowa.edu/~commstud/adclass/craig/clamplate.htm
4) Dr. Stanley Monteith -- is an MD, talk show host, he's no expert on this topic.
5) Dr. Marc Oster -- psychologist, professor. An expert at what other than psychology?
6) Dr. Judith Reisman -- now here is the first "expert" I have actually heard of from the group of six. Reisman really is an expert. She has a PhD in mass communications, has done extensive studies on pornography and ripped Alfred Kinsey a new one. She is not Catholic, but Jewish by the way.
With only one expert on the stated topic, one nut, and four wannabees, I am not holding my breath to see this film.
And when even their writers won't put their names to an article. well...
I gave up on worldnetdaily a long time ago.
This is only one of several attempts on their part to attack the Church.
If a perverted artist snuck some penises into a painting that just makes him a perverted artist.
I am so sick of conspiracy theories.
Definitely Catholic bashing.
Excellent research, thanks.
How gullible are some of you? Do you believe everything that you see in the movies or read on the internet? Thanks to this movie, which has not been proven to have any basis in fact, anti-Catholic Protestants and disaffected Catholics now have another opportunity to bash the Catholic Church.
The NT may not say anything about art, but the fullness of revelation is not found in Scripture alone but in Scripture and Tradition.
Nice try Protestants.
Some Mormons have the same complaint as do some Scientologists as do some Protestants as do some Jewish posters as do some preterists as do some atheists and so on.
We will not allow the assembly to be disturbed on devotional threads and those which are like church services – such as the daily mass readings.
But threads like this one are a town square or liberty tree, so every poster is free to argue the subject at hand. As long as the statements are not personal attacks of another poster, obscene, hateful, anti-Semitic or racist - issues can be raised for the next guy to knock down, like piñatas.
This thread (so far) is a great example of how assertions may be made and countered for the edification and amusement of the general forum.
The posters here – both by what they say and how they say it – are living testimonies of their own confessions. I would that all posters, when suffering ridicule and contempt for what or Whom they believe, would approach the town square as an opportunity.
The posters here – both by what they say and how they say it – are living testimonies of their own confessions. I would that all posters, when suffering ridicule and contempt for what or Whom they believe, would approach the town square as an opportunity. 29 posted on 03/26/2006 10:16:08 AM MST by Religion Moderator
Bless you. b'shem Y'shua Very anointed words indeed.
"..."Artists from DaVinci to Botticelli have imbedded subliminal images..."
Just in time for the DaVinci Code movie.
Funny, I have a wonderful reproduction of The Birth of Venus on my bedroom wall. Have loved that painting from childhood.
It's the clamshell, and the colors, not the nude which btw was Bocticelli's mistress, Simonetta, that are wonderous. Not to mention his technique.
All this embedded "Satanic" nonsense sounds like Savonarola burning art in the public square. ~Or a bunch of neo-Cromwells.
It will just add more hype to a movie that lends itself to the worst blasphemy.
Seemingly ludicrous assertions should be questioned regardless of the asserter's affiliation.
I think that that is an equally plausible theory to the theory that the makers of the documentary "Rape of the Soul" are presenting.
I believe that further inquiry into this topic is good. Right?
What is wrong with delving further into this subject to see what it leads to?
Nice attempt to muddy the waters, but you really are comparing apples to oranges. Not surprising, though.
If you would have bothered to look at all of the quotes(and there are others), you would see that the early church fathers (including Tertullian) had no problem with art in and of itself. This agrees with those who lived in the Apostolic Age.
What they had a problem was, was giving reverence to art and images, or what the art and images represented.
You have it totally backward. Look at modern Catholic Churches and they are lacking in the imagery while the Church of Old was packed full of them. Now which one do you thing was the bigger problem.
I am sure you don't need me to help cure that bit of wonder.
That was not my intent at all. But if certain ones which you allude to wish to avail themselves in such a manner as you have described, then I guess that that is something which they will have to decide for themselves.
Regardless, that was not my intent with this thread.
The church is evil? Hardly. The RCC, the EO, and all the various sects of Christendom are open to improvement.
Bar none.
bump with no comment
Are Muslims the only ones who are against art and images (Or what they represent) being reverenced?
Are you, in effect, calling the 1.) Early Church Fathers, 2.) those who lived during the Apostolic Age, and 3.) Apostles themeselves Muslims?
There are many non-Muslims alive today who also side with 1-3 on this issue.
Don't forget that either.
That is Ad Hominem cloaked within a Straw-Man argument.
You can do better than that. Right?
I seriosuly doubt that anyone on FR wishes to treat Catholics the same way that the Afghans are treating the Christian convert.
Ant-Catholicism?
I am hardly anti-Catholic, though I do disagree with them on some things.
Calling another person Anti-Catholic when they are far from it is theatrics, Ad Hominem, and dull and boring rhetoric.
More Ad Hominem cloaked in a straw-man argument...
And using guilty by association too to link some who may disagree with art/images being reverenced with those who somehow see the big "M"?
Surely you can do better than that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.