'Satanic' Art In Catholic Church Exposed

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 25, 2006 | Staff

[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."

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Ad Hominem now against WND?

Wow, you guys are really pulling out all the stops.

Please argue objectively, concretely and factually-based.

Logical fallacies not wanted.

Linking WND with the KKK, are you?

I sure hope not.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, though I believe something a little more substantive that that would be helpful to back up your assertion.

[netmilsmom]

>>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.<<

I don't mean to seem contrary here but when posters come onto a thread with the words Mary, Pope or Rosary in the title and are slamming Catholic beliefs in the first few posts, that is insult. The people who continually do this are not looking for a discussion, they are looking to condemn.

If it happened on a thread with the words Tallit, Shiva or Moses in the title, it would be call Anti-Semitic.

[netmilsmom]

Charlie Sheen?

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

And your opinion concerning WND is pure Ad Hominem.

As for the rest of that 'comparing apples to oranges argument' of yours, I said earlier that those who lived during the Apostolic Age as well as the Early Church Fathers, weren't opposed to art in and of itself - so they wouldn't be opposed to someone having pictures in their wallet of loved ones.

If you would have bothered look at all of the ECF quotes that I gave, you would have saw that they were against giving reverence to art and images or giving reverence to what the art and images supposedly represented.

To quote them in a nutshell: art and images cannot be sacred and divine, one should abstain from paying reverence to religious art and images/what religious art and images represent, religious images are nothing, it is vain to form religious images.

Hopefully you are learning a thing or two. I am trying to be patient with everyone here.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

That is what I say. I think it is ok to investigate and see if this is credible. We should be willing to at least investigate this more fully and take it as far as we can.

If it all eventually turns out to be bunk, then we will know. If not, then we will have possibly enlightened ourselves.

It seems that some on here, as you can see, apparently don't want this to be investigated at all.

Why do you think that would be?

[Religion Moderator]

Of course such conduct is an "insult" and of course the intent is to "condemn".

And evangelicals might likewise say your profile page moniker "Official Anti-Catholic troll hunter" is likewise condemning and insulting to them.

I will not protect a thread just because it has "Joseph Smith" or "Pope" or "Mary" or "L. Ron Hubbard" in the header. It must be clearly a church thread, a chapel or devotional for the assembly to be protected on my watch.

If witnessing is the intent of a thread, IMHO the posters should realize that seekers are drawn to open discussions and rigorous debates - not choir rooms - and they will pay as much attention to the demeanor of the poster as they will to the substance of the post.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

An Appeal To Authority?

Is the Seattle Times Company, or John Hartl somehow the ultimate authority to dispel all or any notions about this film or what the film asserts?

I don't see how they possibly could be.

Nor am I saying that the documentary is the end-all on this subject.

More investiugtion may be needed.

Please humor us all by keeping an open mind on this.

Thank you.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

What exactly, in your opinion, would one need to be to be fully qualified to produce a film as well as get the ball rolling?

I believe that Dr. Reisman, and three other Dr's, is enough to get the ball rolling.

[onedoug]

I love Catholicism by what it leant me in coming to Judaism. Though it would seem more difficult for one relatively unschooled in Catholic theology to see it for so many of the pantywaste clergy fluttering therein.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Ad Hominem. Mischaracterization.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

I will agree that someone should have put their name on the article.

[netmilsmom]

>> And evangelicals might likewise say your profile page moniker "Official Anti-Catholic troll hunter" is likewise condemning and insulting to them.<<

I must be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that all evangelicals are Anti-Catholic?

Check the number of times I have posted this on a thread. The insults were flying when I did. Perhaps stepping in and toning down demeaning posts that are not meant for discussion might be a good rule of thumb. Christians demeaning Christians is not really Christian is it?

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

It wouldn't hurt to take this matter as far as one can to see if it indeed is just a conspiracy theory.

If it is ultimately determined to be a conspiracy theory, then so be it.

Better to fully investigate with an open mind - and potentially find out something - than to just dimiss and bury this.

[siunevada]

Please humor us all by keeping an open mind on this.

Yes, please do keep an open mind. A movie review is just one person's opinion.

[Doohickey]

...hundred's...

It's well nigh impossible to carry any credibility when you can't properly pluralize a word.

[onedoug]

ping

[Religion Moderator]

Of course not all evangelicals are "anti-Catholic" but likewise, if they believed the Roman Catholic doctrine was the full truth they would be Catholic.

Christians demeaning Christians is not really Christian is it?

That is a point which should be made time and again.

But the root of the contentiousness is that some believe that their doctrine is the whole and complete Truth and therefore the other guy is in error, or worse, not "Christian" at all.

That, IMHO, is the great value of the Religion forum - to help other posters and lurkers "work out their own salvation" (Phl 2:12).

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

No one is asking that people believe everything they read or see on the internet. This thread only asks that one keep an open mind on this, and have a desire to see if anything ultimately comes of this.

This isn't over by a long-shot. More investigation is needed on this matter. But I welcome further inquiry, as should you.

As well, what is your basis for Church Tradition?

If there are no historical documents from the Apostolic age, to and through the time of the Early Church Fathers supporting, say, giving reverence to religious art or images, or giving reverence to what the religious art or images represent, then what do you base your Traditions on?

You ultimately would have to base it on supposition and presumption - that what the RCC teaches now (like giving reverence to what religious art and images represent) must be what the Apostolic fathers and ECF's taught, since the RCC teaches it now.

But that would be a classic case of circular reasoning, which the RCC has to rely on to support teachings which cannot be justified by the scriptures or the earliest written historical documents from pre-Nicene church times.

What the RCC teaches now must be what the Apostles and ECF's taught - because we teach it now. And because the RCC teaches this now, it must be what they taught then, etc, etc...

As I said, without the scriptures or the earliest written historical documents to support giving reverence to art/images, or what the art/images represent, the RCC has to rely upon circular reasoning to buttress its claims.

[netmilsmom]

>>Of course not all evangelicals are "anti-Catholic" but likewise, if they believed the Roman Catholic doctrine was the full truth they would be Catholic.<<

So why would any Evangelical who saw that graphic be offended by it, it he/she was not Anti-Catholic?
Would anyone be offended if it said "Anti-Christian"?

>>That, IMHO, is the great value of the Religion forum - to help other posters and lurkers "work out their own salvation" (Phl 2:12)<<

Somehow, I don't see where insulting another denomination helps with ANYONE's salvation. Allowing that insult without retrobution is hard to understand. When someone believes in Sola Scriptura how does that give them any right to insult a Jewish person's beliefs?