So what, I'm not very mature for my age. I don't care, I'm easily amused because of it, and I enjoy being amused. Like this picture of a crucifix which was hoisted a couple of months ago above the main altar at the St. Charles Borromeo Catholic church in Oklahoma:
I'm guessing that there are an awful lot of Okie parishioners down there at the church where this is hung for real, who I reckon wouldn't appreciate my sense of humor about it, either. They are, in general, hugely offended by it instead, because they see nothing funny whatsoever about displaying Jesus' ginormous penis in church, not in the least bit!
Seems as though this has caused quite a "deep divide" among members of the congregation which, from the looks of that thing, is completely understandable just how deep a division it could be. Pastor Phillip Seeton, though, claims that the dubious portion of the crucifix painting is meant to be only Jesus' distended abdomen (too much of that last supper, maybe? I dunno.) and not the Good Lord's engorged schmekel.
"I think it was painted according to the certain specific rules of iconography and church art," he says. Well, what I think is that Pastor Seeton is clearly getting his ographies mixed up, confusing the porn and the icon ones. And if indeed it was painted according to some "certain specific rules of church art", that would have to be rules according to St. Tom of Finland, then, if I were to wager a guess.
No doubt about it, that this crucifix is one blatant, pervy sacrilege, which I personally really don't have a problem with at all. Still, not to be overly disparaging of anyone making excuses for it, but come on... how could one possibly concoct any sort of plausible explanation how that right there is not, in fact, a huge painted-on penis? Seriously. It's not even in the least bit subtle, and those lady friends pictured to either side of him certainly seem not to have missed it.
[In fact, now that I look at the picture closerly (← really should be a word), that one specific indigo lady appears to be so impressed and affected that she can't even keep her hands off of her own self. I also notice taking a sharper look, I'm not quite so sure those are all lady friend admirers, either; some first century androgeny thing going on with a couple of them.]
Anyway, to be completely honest, I suppose I would find this particular crucifix somewhat disturbing if it was hung up in my church, too. Maybe "distracting" would be a better word to describe it rather than disturbing, just speaking for myself, but either way, it ought not be there. Sure, I appreciate inappropriate as much as (likely more so than) the next guy, even Boner Jesus as objet d'art is fine by me, but in church it seems just exceptionally bad taste.
Especially with so much of that "down-on-your-knees" time spent in front of it; I think Catholics do that a lot, don't they? I could be mistaken, but be that as it may, it's nonetheless wrong being up there. Strangely enough or maybe not so much, in spite of the churchgoers' ruckus, the priest guys in charge of the place don't seem overly concerned at all, and have no plans to get rid of it. Also students from the neighboring Catholic school regularly attend Mass in the church, but that's neither here nor there, I suppose.
I'm guessing that there are an awful lot of Okie parishioners down there at the church where this is hung for real, who I reckon wouldn't appreciate my sense of humor about it, either. They are, in general, hugely offended by it instead, because they see nothing funny whatsoever about displaying Jesus' ginormous penis in church, not in the least bit!
Seems as though this has caused quite a "deep divide" among members of the congregation which, from the looks of that thing, is completely understandable just how deep a division it could be. Pastor Phillip Seeton, though, claims that the dubious portion of the crucifix painting is meant to be only Jesus' distended abdomen (too much of that last supper, maybe? I dunno.) and not the Good Lord's engorged schmekel.
"I think it was painted according to the certain specific rules of iconography and church art," he says. Well, what I think is that Pastor Seeton is clearly getting his ographies mixed up, confusing the porn and the icon ones. And if indeed it was painted according to some "certain specific rules of church art", that would have to be rules according to St. Tom of Finland, then, if I were to wager a guess.
No doubt about it, that this crucifix is one blatant, pervy sacrilege, which I personally really don't have a problem with at all. Still, not to be overly disparaging of anyone making excuses for it, but come on... how could one possibly concoct any sort of plausible explanation how that right there is not, in fact, a huge painted-on penis? Seriously. It's not even in the least bit subtle, and those lady friends pictured to either side of him certainly seem not to have missed it.
[In fact, now that I look at the picture closerly (← really should be a word), that one specific indigo lady appears to be so impressed and affected that she can't even keep her hands off of her own self. I also notice taking a sharper look, I'm not quite so sure those are all lady friend admirers, either; some first century androgeny thing going on with a couple of them.]
Anyway, to be completely honest, I suppose I would find this particular crucifix somewhat disturbing if it was hung up in my church, too. Maybe "distracting" would be a better word to describe it rather than disturbing, just speaking for myself, but either way, it ought not be there. Sure, I appreciate inappropriate as much as (likely more so than) the next guy, even Boner Jesus as objet d'art is fine by me, but in church it seems just exceptionally bad taste.
Especially with so much of that "down-on-your-knees" time spent in front of it; I think Catholics do that a lot, don't they? I could be mistaken, but be that as it may, it's nonetheless wrong being up there. Strangely enough or maybe not so much, in spite of the churchgoers' ruckus, the priest guys in charge of the place don't seem overly concerned at all, and have no plans to get rid of it. Also students from the neighboring Catholic school regularly attend Mass in the church, but that's neither here nor there, I suppose.
Jesus, he's skinny!
ReplyDeleteEven the the skull at the bottom is ogling that thing, which also looks oddly like a butternut squash, which come to think of it, looks oddly like a ginormous penis.
I have to say that I looked at the picture intently for minutes and didn't "get it" until I read your post. I was studying the periphery, I suppose. It never registered in my mind because, honestly, anatomically speaking, that just isn't where the male genitals are located. I do find this very interesting from a psychological standpoint.
ReplyDelete"but in church it seems just exceptionally bad taste."
ReplyDeleteD-Ro ITA! People must learn to be respectful towards other people when it comes to religion and religious images.
I missed it at first too! (until I read the ginormous part). I originally thought they thought b/c of the color scheme it was too gaudy to display-ha. The location of it is odd, like it starts at his belly button.
ReplyDeleteD.R., I had to keep reading to notice the indigo lady's hands. I didn't even register the skull until I read Trinette's comment. Wow, I'm not very observant! Your observations were very funny though.
I really like how your readers looked intently at the picture before reading your post. I did too and had a good idea where you might be going. (I have a few gay friends. LOL) Seriously, your post made me laugh out loud. OK, Probably not my first, or second, thought about the painting;however, with all that goes on between churchy types, it IS a logical conclusion. I might have a hard time explaining to my wee ones, "Ask Uncle Doug." Yep, that would do it.
ReplyDeleteHe is sort of skinny, I was too distracted to notice that, all of his girth went elsewhere apparently. That skull, I'm not so sure if that's ogling, or just terrified being under it, lest when enough blood is shed for mankind that thing is bound to drop at some point.
ReplyDeleteWell, sure, anatomically speaking the location might be a bit off, even considering the low-rider loincloth. But also off would be those tiny ladies floating under his pits. I don't think proper perspective was the artist's intent. Psychologically it is interesting, I agree, just how different the perceptions of it.
ReplyDeleteTrinette obviously is the most observant, I didn't notice the skull either. But really, you people (that would be you and Doug B) ... I can't believe you didn't see that straight away. I guess I'm as pervy as the church folks there. Also I'm sort of a size queen, so...
ReplyDeleteThere is no rhyme nor reason to what I consider bad taste, I surprise myself sometimes. I would have expected myself to normally side the other way, I have no explanation why this. I will accept that it is about being respectful towards others as the reason, though. That seems admirable. :)
ReplyDeleteUncle Doug would be very uncomfortable with that. Better to ask a priest there instead. Surely they wouldn't have such a hard time with the wee ones.
ReplyDeleteOh sure, Priests are real handy with wee ones.
ReplyDeleteSize queen-lol! Did you ever see Shortbus? If not, you would definitely like the first scene for the whole perv factor-ha. It was shocking! It's like he was anatomically mis-located as well....
ReplyDeleteI'm not Catholic, but I confess... I did see Shortbus, but only because it premiered at the Cannes film festival and won bunches of awards. Not because of all of that explicit sex in it, of course. Mislocation happens. :)
ReplyDeletePretty mouthy, too.
ReplyDeleteThat's just wrong, but still kinda funny. Enjoying your blog!!
ReplyDelete