[Cicero]

I think you misunderstand. If true, this is evidently a folk tradition of introducing a little human naughtiness into the scene, not unlike the antics of one or two of the shepherds in the medieval "Second Shepherd's Play." In traditional pictures of the Crucifixion, similarly, the soldiers are usually seen dicing over Christ's robe, as in the Gospel account. In some Netherlandish pictures, while the holy women and St. John look on in anguish, some of the bystanders are yawning or chatting, ignoring what is happening on the Cross. Even when God comes into the world as the Christ Child, or offers Himselves for the salvation of mankind, that doesn't mean that suddenly everyone will turn completely good.

That's quite a different matter from deliberately insulting the Pope. This article is a real stretch, typical of the liberal media springing to the defense of blasphemous and offensive art. It's like when that fellow painted the Virgin Mary covered with elephant dung, and the media instantly started claiming that elephant dung was "holy" in certain Indian traditions. Nonsense. The painting was clearly a deliberate insult to the Virgin Mary, to all Christians, and to Catholics in particular.

[Library Lady]

Even when God comes into the world as the Christ Child, or offers Himselves for the salvation of mankind, that doesn't mean that suddenly everyone will turn completely good.

It also doesn't mean everyone will have good taste. Society as a whole has thrown out the ideas of class and dignity. out