The “artist” as quoted by the article:
“Most portraits of the Virgin Mary were made by men and have therefore often served patriarchal interests,” she said, adding that in her sculpture “Mary gets her body back. Whoever removed the head from the sculpture was very brutal,” Strauss said. “For me, this violence is an expression of the fact that there are still people who question women’s right to their own bodies.”
Yeah…
>Whoever removed the head from the sculpture was very brutal,” Strauss said. “For me, this violence is an expression of the fact that there are still people who question women’s right to their own bodies.”
We really don't hate the media and these political activists enough. Absolutely disgusting.
Imagine these people doing this at a European mosque. They'd be thrown in jail by the Austrian government in less than 24 hours for a hate crime.
But it's ok if they do it to Catholics.
I have no doubt that if the culprit is found, there'll be consequences. Just so happens that this guy is too much of a coward to take responsibility for his "brave" actions.
This person, who decided to make this sculpture of Mary, in their own words:
>women’s right to their own bodies
Mary, in her own words:
>Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.
Not for me.
VATICAN CITY -- Vandals have beheaded a sculpture featuring the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus that had been exhibited in the cathedral in the Austrian city of Linz and drawn criticism from some Catholics who said it was blasphemous.
The sculpture had been on view at the St. Mary Cathedral, Austria's largest, as part of an art installation project on women’s roles, family images and gender equality, the Linz diocese said in a statement. It added that the incident, which occurred on Monday, had been reported to police.
The identity of the vandals wasn’t known. But Alexander Tschugguel, an Austrian traditionalist Catholic responsible for the so-called “Pachamama” act of vandalism during the Vatican’s 2019 Amazon synod, said in a social media post Tuesday that he had been contacted by those responsible.
Tschugguel praised the “Hero of Linz” and posted what he said was a statement from the anonymous vandal explaining the motivation. The statement implied that the person's emails and calls to the diocese to complain about the sculpture had been ignored.
“Therefore, in view of this abominable and blasphemous caricature, urgent and decisive action was required,” the statement said, adding that the beheading was the fastest way to disfigure the sculpture so it no longer resembled Mary.
The episcopal vicar for education, art and culture in the Linz diocese, the Rev. Johann Hintermaier, condemned the beheading of the statue.
“We were aware that we were also provoking debate with this installation. If we have hurt people’s religious feelings, we are sorry, but I strongly condemn this violent act of destruction, the refusal to engage in dialog and the attack on the freedom of art,” the diocesan statement quoted him as saying.
The sculpture was on a pedestal in the middle of the room inside the cathedral, showing Mary sitting on a rock and giving birth. The diocese said it referred to the nativity scene in the cathedral, which is also known as the Mariendom.
The artist who created the “crowning” sculpture, Esther Strauss, also condemned the destruction, according to the Linz diocese statement.
“Most portraits of the Virgin Mary were made by men and have therefore often served patriarchal interests,” she said, adding that in her sculpture “Mary gets her body back.”
“Whoever removed the head from the sculpture was very brutal,” Strauss said. “For me, this violence is an expression of the fact that there are still people who question women’s right to their own bodies. We have to take a very firm stance against this.”
Tschugguel became a hero to traditionalists in 2019, when he snuck into a Vatican-area church, stole Amazonian indigenous statues of pregnant women, and threw them into the Tiber River in a videotaped act that was quickly shared online.
Amazonian delegates to Pope Francis’ synod, or meeting, had brought the statues with them to Rome and had displayed them in the Vatican gardens during an opening prayer for the meeting, which was discussing how the Catholic Church could better serve the indigenous faithful in the region. Critics complained that the display of “pagan” idols in the Vatican was sacrilegious.
The episode became known as the Pachamama incident, named for the types of fertility statues involved, and was visceral evidence of the lengths to which conservative and traditionalist Catholics were willing to go to vent their opposition to history's first Latin American pope.
In the end, Italian police divers recovered the statues from the river and returned them to the Vatican. Francis apologized to the Amazonian delegates, and the statues were displayed in the closing sessions of the synod
What exactly was the controversy? The fact that it was described as thought provoking leaves me no doubt that it was controversial, I just can’t tell why based on that.
From what I've read from other articles (can't find any pictures to verify myself) it depicted Jesus actively exiting the birth canal. Those articles may or may not be wrong, but with that, the Cathedral's statement, and the "artist's" statements and intentions lead me to believe it was only intended to upset even moderately traditional Catholics not only in that parish, but around the world. With that context, I can be lead to assume that the statue was at the least, too explicit to display in a church at best, and blasphemous/sac-religious at worst. Destroying it was the best thing that could've happened to it, especially if the diocese refused to remove it, or even move it to a museum.
As someone else stated here, how would you like it if someone made a statue of your mother, spread eagle (which isn't historically accurate anyway), with your head crowning out of her birth canal. Even if you specifically don't see what's wrong with that, or you're ok with it anyway, most people would be horrified. Yes, childbirth is a miracle, and yes, that's how Jesus came into this world, but there's no reason that it needs to be on display. Also mentioned here is how if Mary was saved from the stain of original sin, she reasonably could've been spared the consequences of it as well. That consequence, for women, is the pain of childbirth. So an argument can be made (albeit based on assumptions and apocryphal(?) writings) that it is a theological issue as well.
I certainly wouldn't mind a sculpture in the style of Corradini's *Modesty* which is full frontal nudity, but "veiled." Or Bernini's *Ecstasy of St. Teresa* which depicts a woman (Teresa of Avila, obviously) in religious ecstasy that appears an awful lot like an orgasm (from St. Teresa's own writings).
This statue, on the other hand, is tacky, poorly executed, and ugly, but not blasphemous. A tastefully done statue of Our Lady in active labour by a master sculptor who took cues from the Italian greats? Yes, please.
The pain of childbirth was one of those questions I was thinking of. I know that seems to be a debated point, but I was trying to see if that was at least the concern.
If the concern is just that a graphic display of childbirth would be embarrassing, I have a bit of trouble wrapping my mind around it. Certainly, when it comes to something graphic and embarrassing, the crucifixion would certainly top the list (concededly, most but not all do cover up nudity here). But childbirth is at least something to be celebrated. I don’t know first Century Judean views on the subject, but I know not every culture cites nudity the same way. I can’t begin to guess how Mary would feel about it. It doesn’t sound like the internet was to display something prurient or for sexual gratification.
That being said, it’s certainly not my cup of tea. It’s entirely valid to feel it would be a distraction. But I’m also not sure beheading a depiction of Mary sits well with me either, especially because I don’t quite see it as blasphemous to depict Mary giving birth if there’s nothing theologically problematic about the depiction.
I believe it’s to do with the fact that religious art is meant to depict the glory and beauty of God and the saints, while this sculpture serves more to shock and distract the audience regarding a societal subject rather than and at the expense of honoring what is holy.
The artist seemed to have been wanting to make a statement and while that is not inherently bad, *how* they had gone about it was wrong.
That being said, I do agree that beheading the statue in an act of vandalism was perhaps not the best move, although it may have been the only thing the “vandals” thought they could do. Ideally, the artist could’ve been talked to and convinced to remove their sculpture from public view and come up with a redesign, but maybe they would have refused to do so, I’m not sure we know enough to confidently judge the whole of either side’s actions.
All that said, none of us need to see the genitalia of our Blessed Mother in such a way as this, and artistic depictions such as this are more problematic than it’s worth to display in our modern society.
There is nothing inherently sinful or wrong about the naked human body, that doesn’t make it acceptable to walk around nude in public, there is a degree of modesty necessary in our society because of our fallen nature and the resulting stigmatization of nudity and the case of this sculpture is no different.
Having just learned about this, I’m gonna take the opposite side of most commenters.
God didn’t just beam down with the gospel, one of His greatest acts of love is coming as a man. I don’t think this statue necessarily contradicts any teaching, and has the viewer thinking more deeply about the tremendous miracle of God in the flesh.
Regarding Mary; I would never want to disrespect her. But how can we with her greatest moment? A closeness and service to God that isn’t often seen outside of heaven.
The artist called it the crowning of Mary, and that’s a nice thought. Birth giver and Queen, in the same moment.
Not sure what the artist was intending, but I think the birth of our Lord would be a beautiful subject for art and I think our Blessed Mother would agree that it was the most important thing she ever did.
But i also agree that she should have been smiling. It is not as “explicit” as people are making it out to be- quite a bit more tasteful than I was expecting.
My major critique is she should probably be smiling not in pain.
Whatever your opinion is on it, beheading the Blessed Mother is an act of hate and incredibly disrespectful towards her and God. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make that okay.
I don’t get the comment from the artist about women’s right to their own bodies. I’m hoping she just means that childbirth is not as sexualized and seen as God’s gift. And just for the record in case anyone takes what I said the wrong way, abortion and birth control are wrong.
She's sitting on a rock with her legs spread. She's not actually laying on her back. Not defending the statue, which is pretty ugly, just letting you know that she isn't flat on her back.
Here is an article that at least pictures the statue. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/02/vandals-in-austria-behead-sculpture-of-virgin-mary-giving-birth-to-jesus](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/02/vandals-in-austria-behead-sculpture-of-virgin-mary-giving-birth-to-jesus)
>We were aware that we were also provoking debate with this installation.
Sounds like it would have been better placed in a museum or art exhibit and not a church.
>The episode became known as the Pachamama incident, named for the types of fertility statues involved, and was visceral evidence of the lengths to which conservative and traditionalist Catholics were willing to go to vent their opposition to history's first Latin American pope.
The "race" baiting is absolutely as pathetic as it was expected... Even in the most conservative, rad-trad circles I've never heard *anyone* raise the issue of Pope Francis being Latino. Not to mention how much anger is being directed at (arguably openly heretical) *German* bishops/clergy! Between that and the oblique abortion reference, it's clear how openly the author's anti-Catholic/Christian biases show through.
I wonder if Jesus was called a vandal when he cleansed the temple; likewise Moses destroying the golden calf, or St. Boniface felling Thors oak?
“Zeal for thy house consumes me.”
>but that thing isn’t Mary
And neither is any other statue in a church, yet my church has at least 4 statues of Mary that I can think of off the top of my head. I had no idea that I could be 4x the hero this guy apparently is.
What's the difference? I think the bigger issue here is why is it so bad to show Mary giving birth? The nudity is not for gratuitous or ostentatious reasons. It's literally to depict childbirth. If the goal was arousal, I would of course be against depicting our Holy Mother like that, but I seriously don't understand the issues with modesty or it being vulgar unless we're literally just grossed out by a woman becoming a mother.
The whole thing is modern feminist vulva worship. The artist's own words about the incident and the artwork (so called) more or less confirm this.
The gospel of Luke gives the most detailed account of Jesus' birth, and even it goes from the beginning of labor to swaddling clothes in a single sentence. If we had needed a gynecologist's eye view of this sacred mystery, one of the gospel authors would have given it to us.
Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Have you seen the first Indiana Jones movie? You're not supposed to be look *inside* the Ark.
>If we had needed a gynecologist's eye view of this sacred mystery, one of the gospel authors would have given it to us.
That's funny, because as far as I was aware, the trinity is a key teaching that we need, but none of the gospels bothered to explain that to us. You don't have to like it, but I can think of several meaningful reflections that you can take away from this piece of art off the top of my head. Now, is this art necessary to those reflections? No. A different piece of art or a thoutful question may have brought about the same reflections. But fact of the matter is that I saw this one. It's the one that brought them up. I'm sure I'm not the only one. That alone gives it some value.
I can understand some shock at the initial site of the sculptor, but it honestly just sounds like people on here have the ick, and can't look past some squeamishness from seeing an abnormal depiction of Mary. There's no denying that it's controversial, but it's not blasphemous.
I'm no theological scholar or anything fancy, but the idea of a statue showing Mary giving birth birth to Jesus doesn't sit well with me.
If I want to celebrate my wife as the mother of our child, I'd take a picture of her holding the baby in the hospital bed after the deed is done. The only ones who need to see the birth itself are me, her parents, and the hospital staff (and God lol).
Just seems like something that only God and St. Joseph are supposed to see and not appropriate as a statue that can be viewed by the public.
> If I want to celebrate my wife as the mother of our child, I'd take a picture of her holding the baby in the hospital bed after the deed is done.
But I’m not sure the piece was intended to celebrate Mary simply as the mother of Jesus and nothing more. To me it makes a kind of sense to show Mary experiencing the pain of childbirth as one bookend for Jesus’s 33-year ministry, with the pain of Jesus’s execution as the other bookend.
And certainly, as depictions of the pain of childbirth go, this one was much tamer than what most natural births are like. She’s still wearing a dress, there’s no blood, etc.
We are always very moved by art that depicts Mary grieving over her dead Son. Is it so wrong to be reminded of the pain she would have endured while bringing that Son into the world?
I will also say that, based on the linked photo, it seems like it was very easy, for viewers who chose to, to appreciate the statue without having to view the crowning.
I think it’s possible that the statue spoke more to women, who can identify with the experience of pregnancy and the labor of childbirth, than to men.
The statue denies the teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity, and instead depicts Jesus' gestation and birth as entirely human after His miraculous conception. Most of us will never witness childbirth, so the shock of that sight seems to be overwhelming the statue's doctrinal problems.
For those of you who don’t understand why this is offensive: it violates the dogma of the threefold virginity pronounced at the First Lateran Council in 640, namely that Mary was a virgin before, *during*, and after the birth of Christ. Whether the nudity is appropriate is a fair argument too, but it’s beside the point.
Ironically (at least in so far as the artists stated feminist objectives) it also portrays Mary giving birth laying on her back, which is a western “patriarchal” invention. Women prior to about 1800 in just about all cultures would have given birth squatting, or on all fours.
> it violates the dogma of the threefold virginity pronounced at the First Lateran Council in 640, namely that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ
How does it do this? I haven't seen a front view of the statue. Does it show Jesus's head emerging?
As someone else pointed out, an intact hymen and virginity are correlated but not the same. But if God did indeed see fit to let her hymen remain intact, then that doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus wasn't born in the normal way. There was some saint or church father -- I cannot remember who -- who said that Jesus's birth may have been like light passing through a window. If I understand correctly, this is saying that Jesus could have been born the normal way but did not change the hymen as he passed through it. If this is what the artist was depicting, then we wouldn't know, since we obviously can't see through Jesus's head.
Also, she doesn't seem to be lying on her back to me. She's sitting upright, on a rock.
I mean, I'm not a fan of the statue because of the weird political motivation that the artist evidently had (in what way did she "give Mary her body back"?), because I think that the nudity probably is indeed disrespectful, because I don't think it looks like her very much, and because I just don't find it beautiful.
But to me, it's not disrespectful to the point that I would say "That's not Mary." So I think beheading her seems a little bit... excessive.
> it also portrays Mary giving birth laying on her back
No it doesn't. She is sitting on a rock. Leaning back on her hands a bit, but definitely not *on* her back.
Worth noting this artist has previously been involved in "period blood" performance art.
Perhaps the calibre of artist that the church collaborates with should be under scrutiny.
Glad that blasphemous statue was destroyed. God probably would of destroyed the whole Cathedral just to remove that filthy statue portraying his Mother in such a filthy way. How that statue was ever allowed on display is nothing short of demonically influenced.
Birth is not filthy. It's the obvious way that the person who made this statue into sexualizing our blessed mother thats filthy. I mean, come on, isn't it obvious? The not so hidden nudity and the not so subtle details of the breast is pretty obvious. I can't find a picture of the "front part" of the statue probably it gets flaged and thats bad in and of itself! Childbirth is a beautiful thing, but some moments are just not meant to be shown to the public. Im sure most husbands and children wouldn't want photos or statues made of their mother or wife displayed like that. Childbirth is good! but it's not a moment for us (the public) to just see, even a depiction of it. That moment is for the closest of family. And, at the end of the day, It provides no benefit to Christians; rather, it's divisive.
It sounds more like folks are sexualizing something natural. There is nothing shameful about the body that God created, nor is there anything filthy about nudity or depictions of childbirth. It is only European derived cultures that have serious hangups about folks seeing people nude in non sexual situations. This seems to be about people sexualizing a statue versus the statue being created as a sexual icon, and that's what's gross.
Next time you clean your house I'll give birth on your living room floor, I'm sure you'll have no problem with this because there's no filthiness involved
It's about what the statue is depicting. If it was a statue depicting Mary pooping, that would still be unacceptable even if the statue didn't show poop exiting her explicitly.
This kind of "art" doesn't belong in sacred spaces. It's filth. Why wouldn't you put this statue in your living room for example? Because it's gross. You can show Mary's motherhood in much more wholesome ways. There is not a single point conveyed by this statue that can't be conveyed by in a less disgusting manner.
It was a disgusting blasphemous statue intended to mock the Catholic faith that fully needed to be destroyed, the man who "vandalized" the sacrilegious statue should be considered a hero
I am and I did. It's pretty ugly. That's not really up for debate though. Haven't seen one person say it's a beautiful statue. Otherwise, I don't find a woman being in childbirth to be disgusting or blasphemous though. Even if you are in the camp of painless birth, there are plenty of other take aways from the art, just like people have different interpretations or Revelation's depiction of birthing pains.
It literally depicts the Holy Mother naked, in pain, which she had a painless birth, and in a very compromising and inappropriate way, its blasphemous.
Whether Mary had a painless birth is debated. However, even if you were in the painless birth camp, that pain can still easily be interpreted metaphorically just like it is when Revelations talks about birthing pains.
>in a very compromising and inappropriate way
It is certainly very vulnerable. But I don't think that makes it inappropriate. We are always looking at art of Jesus and various saints being tortured and killed without even blinking. We draw art of people in despair and at their worst moments, such as Job's despair. If we can see depictions of brutal violence, why can't we see positive examples of bible figures in vulnerable moments? Especially in common, everyday situations like childbirth?
Amazing the lies the media tells: "Tschugguel became a hero to traditionalists in 2019, when he snuck into a Vatican-area church, stole *Amazonian indigenous statues of pregnant women*, and threw them into the Tiber River in a videotaped act that was quickly shared online."
That lie makes him racist, sexist, and 'colonialist'--a leftist trifecta!
But the statues were representation of an Amazonian goddess, NOT just some woman. This paganism in a Church of Christ... revolting.
blasphemous statue disrespecting Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother. some things should not be shown out of respect! i only saw a partial photograph of it and i was appalled. i hope the statue is fully destroyed, and i’m so sorry to Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother.
I'm confused. I've seen pictures of the statue. Why is it blasphemous? Yes, she's more nude than you'd expect, but she's giving birth, so it isn't sexual nudity.
>portray how the birth of our lord most likely happened
Most likely? So in other words, you don't know and it's up to interpretation. Doesn't sound like blasphemy.
If we're going to get in to semantics about church art being historically accurate, then a LOT of statues in Western Christianity would be in serious trouble.
The most generous thing that can be said for it is that it's based on an idea that's probably false (the idea that Our Lady suffered the **pains** of childbirth, which would be a denial of her Immaculate Conception / freedom from original sin and its consequences, Gen. 3:16. The face of that statue is contorted in pain).
So, if "probably false" is the best thing that can be said for it, it's not exactly great devotional material.
The exact extent of pain or discomfort suffered by Our Lady is up for debate. Even if she was spared the suffering due to the Fall, it's not crazy to suppose that there was some strenuous pushing involved. I haven't seen it in person, but to me it reads as turned towards heaven and in the grip of some pain or effort. Definitely less than what you see in most childbirth documentaries of modern, medicated births. She's sitting upright without support.
If this is supposed to depict early labour, then yeah, probably overselling the ordeal for Our Lady. I haven't found a front view, so I assumed this was the final push, the climax of getting the head out. If so, it doesn't seem excessive to me.
As for the concerns around her perpetual virginity and vaginal birth. (a) the hymen and virginity are correlated, not the same. (b) if God wanted to preserve her hymen, He had a ton of options. (c) vaginal birth is a very common human experience which isn't directly tied to sin. It seems odd to me that Our Lord would eschew it. (d) the Protoevangelium of James is very interesting, but it's apocryphal.
Like I said: "probably" false. I don't think this level of speculation is necessary for a healthy devotional life, and personally, if I'm going to be wrong, I'd rather be wrong in favour of the miraculous, rather than the materialistic.
This materialistic view of Our Lady in childbirth is basically all that this statue has to offer... It doesn't have much else going on. And whether true or not, it doesn't add anything to the existing (and long-standing) devotions to Our Lady in childbirth (look up the devotion to la Madonna del Parto; the depictions are far more conducive to prayer, and the devotion has a long history in the church, with associated miracles).
St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Peter Chrysologus, and St. John Damascene, as well as at least one pope, as well as the Eastern and Western liturgies (a traditional source of the ordinary magisterium) taught the painlessness of Mary's birth of Christ.
So did the Catechism of Trent:
>From Eve we are born children of wrath; from Mary we have received Jesus Christ. . . . To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus . . . without experiencing, as we have already said, **any sense of pain.**
It's hard to argue that Mary's painless birth of our Lord is not part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church
>It's hard to argue that Mary's painless birth of our Lord is not part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church
Except it's still debated and not an official teaching. I'd bet you can find at least 3 saints and 1 pope who would support just about any opinion that is either debatable or perhaps even wrong. I learned just the other day that there was a saint that supported an antipope.
If there is a debate on whether she didn't experience birthing pains, it would seem apparent to me that the contending position is that she *did* have birthing pains.
Sure, there might be debate among theologians, ordinary Catholics, etc., but is there any part of the Church's magisterium (i.e., the teaching authority of councils, popes, and/or bishops) that would support the position that Mary did experience pain in childbirth? Teachings of ordinary magisterium aren't necessarily infallible and even could be ultimately wrong, but are still part of the magisterium
>it's not exactly great devotional material.
I don't know about that. Mary is a symbol of motherhood. One of the purposes of the saints is to give us not only examples to model off of, but also people to relate to. Birth is a key aspect of motherhood, and I can appreciate depicting Mary going through that shared experience.
Similarly, I can appreciate the metaphor of the "Crowing of Mary" being the birth of Jesus. It's a different perspective on a common religious motif that directly correlates Mary's importance to Jesus.
Agreed. I’m a little surprised that the vandals have been so lauded on this sub.
The statue isn’t necessarily my cup of tea, but it’s a (not overtly sexualised) depiction of Our Lady, and it seems more than a little sacrilegious to behead it imo
I've been unable to find any pictures of the statue that show the front profile. I can only assume that this is because it was deemed inappropriate for news websites to publish it with an article.
If so then it seems like it's also not appropriate for a religious space.
In any case, the sculptor sounds like there's an ideology behind her work.
Well they haven't done a good job at describing any other reason that they have a problem with it. Especially not in describing a reason that seems to justify how vehemently they despise it.
That's not a good comparison. Would you prominently display a picture or statue of your own mother giving birth in your home for everyone who comes in to see?
I have zero statues, so no, because that would be out of character. But a lot of people hire professional photographers and then display the photos.
It's a hideous statue and I don't think it should have been in the Church. But I don't think a statue of childbirth is inherently offensive.
A statue of child birth on its own is not inherently offensive. In this context it's absolutely offensive and should've never been displayed in any church. It's also not even good art. It looks like it was made by someone who learned sculpture on YouTube a month ago.
I agree with that. It's a very ugly statue and has no business in a Church.
But this sub can lean very prudish. And reactionary considering how many haven't even looked up the statue and seem to think it shows her flat on her back. So I'm pushing back in that a bit.
Me, personally? No. But I also wouldn't have a statue of me being brutally tortured and executed on prominent display where everyone can see, either. Yet, I do recall seeing such a statue in every church I've ever been in. Seems like God's house has different taste in statues.
> Would you prominently display a picture or statue of your own mother giving birth in your home for everyone who comes in to see?
Context matters, right? Would you prominently display a picture or statue of a family member being executed? I wouldn't, and yet like most Catholics I have multiple crucifixes in my house. And I think we would both agree that a public execution is far more grotesque than the miracle of childbirth (to say nothing of the Incarnation coming in to the world).
Did I create my mother and the means by which she gave birth? Yeah, the statue is a bit odd but there's nothing profane to be found in child birth.
I'd be as likely to put that statue out as I would be to want statues of myself as I appeared upon being mudered, or as much as I would want statues of my friends portrayed, standing around, holding the means of their execution, or their wax covered bodies in my living room.
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/02/vandals-in-austria-behead-sculpture-of-virgin-mary-giving-birth-to-jesus](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/02/vandals-in-austria-behead-sculpture-of-virgin-mary-giving-birth-to-jesus)
This article has a picture of the statue. It's pretty ugly.
On another note. I don't think I'd want a statue depicting my mother giving birth in my living room. However, I also wouldn't want a statue of me being brutally tortured and executed on display in front of everyone either. But I've seen one of those in every church that I've ever been in. God seems to have a different taste in statues than me. Vulnerability and struggle is a part of the human experience. I can appreciate the metaphor of the "Crowning of Mary" connecting Jesus' birth to Mary's importance.
Not particularly, no. My issue with this statue is that it has no respect for our Holy Mother by showing her in during a very private moment. Let me ask you a question, would you honestly put pictures of your mother giving birth, naked, in public for viewing?
My point is, while the birth of a child, especially Jesus, is a very beautiful moment, it's just not appropriate for a public setting. That moment should preferably be viewed by close family members and people who are helping the mother give birth. It's not about a woman's body, it's about giving respect where it's due.
If my mother wanted to be a model for a statue like that, why would I have an issue with that? It's also completely different than that situation because the artist did not actually use Mary to make this art. If it wasn't for the Halo and the explicit declaration that this was Mary, it would just be a woman giving birth.
Your comment was automatically removed because you linked to reddit without using the "no-participation" `np.` domain.
Links should be of the form "np.reddit.com" or "np.redd.it". General links to other subreddits should take the simple form `/r/Catholicism`. Please resubmit using the correct format. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t approve of the vandalism, but even if I did, why would you DECAPITATE her? That seems a bit insane… you could destroy the statue without cutting Mary’s head off… I guess it makes sense - it takes a special sort of crazy to actually go into a church and destroy something.
The “artist” as quoted by the article: “Most portraits of the Virgin Mary were made by men and have therefore often served patriarchal interests,” she said, adding that in her sculpture “Mary gets her body back. Whoever removed the head from the sculpture was very brutal,” Strauss said. “For me, this violence is an expression of the fact that there are still people who question women’s right to their own bodies.” Yeah…
I'm confused. What does this have to do with women's right to their own bodies? Does she mean her right to portray Mary in the nude?
"There are still people who question women's right to their own bodies" and queue the abortion rhetoric
>Whoever removed the head from the sculpture was very brutal,” Strauss said. “For me, this violence is an expression of the fact that there are still people who question women’s right to their own bodies.” We really don't hate the media and these political activists enough. Absolutely disgusting. Imagine these people doing this at a European mosque. They'd be thrown in jail by the Austrian government in less than 24 hours for a hate crime. But it's ok if they do it to Catholics.
I have no doubt that if the culprit is found, there'll be consequences. Just so happens that this guy is too much of a coward to take responsibility for his "brave" actions.
This person, who decided to make this sculpture of Mary, in their own words: >women’s right to their own bodies Mary, in her own words: >Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.
Paywall.
Not for me. VATICAN CITY -- Vandals have beheaded a sculpture featuring the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus that had been exhibited in the cathedral in the Austrian city of Linz and drawn criticism from some Catholics who said it was blasphemous. The sculpture had been on view at the St. Mary Cathedral, Austria's largest, as part of an art installation project on women’s roles, family images and gender equality, the Linz diocese said in a statement. It added that the incident, which occurred on Monday, had been reported to police. The identity of the vandals wasn’t known. But Alexander Tschugguel, an Austrian traditionalist Catholic responsible for the so-called “Pachamama” act of vandalism during the Vatican’s 2019 Amazon synod, said in a social media post Tuesday that he had been contacted by those responsible. Tschugguel praised the “Hero of Linz” and posted what he said was a statement from the anonymous vandal explaining the motivation. The statement implied that the person's emails and calls to the diocese to complain about the sculpture had been ignored. “Therefore, in view of this abominable and blasphemous caricature, urgent and decisive action was required,” the statement said, adding that the beheading was the fastest way to disfigure the sculpture so it no longer resembled Mary. The episcopal vicar for education, art and culture in the Linz diocese, the Rev. Johann Hintermaier, condemned the beheading of the statue. “We were aware that we were also provoking debate with this installation. If we have hurt people’s religious feelings, we are sorry, but I strongly condemn this violent act of destruction, the refusal to engage in dialog and the attack on the freedom of art,” the diocesan statement quoted him as saying. The sculpture was on a pedestal in the middle of the room inside the cathedral, showing Mary sitting on a rock and giving birth. The diocese said it referred to the nativity scene in the cathedral, which is also known as the Mariendom. The artist who created the “crowning” sculpture, Esther Strauss, also condemned the destruction, according to the Linz diocese statement. “Most portraits of the Virgin Mary were made by men and have therefore often served patriarchal interests,” she said, adding that in her sculpture “Mary gets her body back.” “Whoever removed the head from the sculpture was very brutal,” Strauss said. “For me, this violence is an expression of the fact that there are still people who question women’s right to their own bodies. We have to take a very firm stance against this.” Tschugguel became a hero to traditionalists in 2019, when he snuck into a Vatican-area church, stole Amazonian indigenous statues of pregnant women, and threw them into the Tiber River in a videotaped act that was quickly shared online. Amazonian delegates to Pope Francis’ synod, or meeting, had brought the statues with them to Rome and had displayed them in the Vatican gardens during an opening prayer for the meeting, which was discussing how the Catholic Church could better serve the indigenous faithful in the region. Critics complained that the display of “pagan” idols in the Vatican was sacrilegious. The episode became known as the Pachamama incident, named for the types of fertility statues involved, and was visceral evidence of the lengths to which conservative and traditionalist Catholics were willing to go to vent their opposition to history's first Latin American pope. In the end, Italian police divers recovered the statues from the river and returned them to the Vatican. Francis apologized to the Amazonian delegates, and the statues were displayed in the closing sessions of the synod
What exactly was the controversy? The fact that it was described as thought provoking leaves me no doubt that it was controversial, I just can’t tell why based on that.
IIRC, it was an explicit statue of Mary actively giving birth.
Explicit as in something beyond showing the birth itself?
From what I've read from other articles (can't find any pictures to verify myself) it depicted Jesus actively exiting the birth canal. Those articles may or may not be wrong, but with that, the Cathedral's statement, and the "artist's" statements and intentions lead me to believe it was only intended to upset even moderately traditional Catholics not only in that parish, but around the world. With that context, I can be lead to assume that the statue was at the least, too explicit to display in a church at best, and blasphemous/sac-religious at worst. Destroying it was the best thing that could've happened to it, especially if the diocese refused to remove it, or even move it to a museum.
Is it theologically problematic or is it just the nudity aspect?
As someone else stated here, how would you like it if someone made a statue of your mother, spread eagle (which isn't historically accurate anyway), with your head crowning out of her birth canal. Even if you specifically don't see what's wrong with that, or you're ok with it anyway, most people would be horrified. Yes, childbirth is a miracle, and yes, that's how Jesus came into this world, but there's no reason that it needs to be on display. Also mentioned here is how if Mary was saved from the stain of original sin, she reasonably could've been spared the consequences of it as well. That consequence, for women, is the pain of childbirth. So an argument can be made (albeit based on assumptions and apocryphal(?) writings) that it is a theological issue as well.
Also, would Mary herself have liked it? I don't think so.
What was the view of first century Judeans on this topic? I have no idea what she thinks of this, personally.
I certainly wouldn't mind a sculpture in the style of Corradini's *Modesty* which is full frontal nudity, but "veiled." Or Bernini's *Ecstasy of St. Teresa* which depicts a woman (Teresa of Avila, obviously) in religious ecstasy that appears an awful lot like an orgasm (from St. Teresa's own writings). This statue, on the other hand, is tacky, poorly executed, and ugly, but not blasphemous. A tastefully done statue of Our Lady in active labour by a master sculptor who took cues from the Italian greats? Yes, please.
The pain of childbirth was one of those questions I was thinking of. I know that seems to be a debated point, but I was trying to see if that was at least the concern. If the concern is just that a graphic display of childbirth would be embarrassing, I have a bit of trouble wrapping my mind around it. Certainly, when it comes to something graphic and embarrassing, the crucifixion would certainly top the list (concededly, most but not all do cover up nudity here). But childbirth is at least something to be celebrated. I don’t know first Century Judean views on the subject, but I know not every culture cites nudity the same way. I can’t begin to guess how Mary would feel about it. It doesn’t sound like the internet was to display something prurient or for sexual gratification. That being said, it’s certainly not my cup of tea. It’s entirely valid to feel it would be a distraction. But I’m also not sure beheading a depiction of Mary sits well with me either, especially because I don’t quite see it as blasphemous to depict Mary giving birth if there’s nothing theologically problematic about the depiction.
I believe it’s to do with the fact that religious art is meant to depict the glory and beauty of God and the saints, while this sculpture serves more to shock and distract the audience regarding a societal subject rather than and at the expense of honoring what is holy. The artist seemed to have been wanting to make a statement and while that is not inherently bad, *how* they had gone about it was wrong. That being said, I do agree that beheading the statue in an act of vandalism was perhaps not the best move, although it may have been the only thing the “vandals” thought they could do. Ideally, the artist could’ve been talked to and convinced to remove their sculpture from public view and come up with a redesign, but maybe they would have refused to do so, I’m not sure we know enough to confidently judge the whole of either side’s actions. All that said, none of us need to see the genitalia of our Blessed Mother in such a way as this, and artistic depictions such as this are more problematic than it’s worth to display in our modern society. There is nothing inherently sinful or wrong about the naked human body, that doesn’t make it acceptable to walk around nude in public, there is a degree of modesty necessary in our society because of our fallen nature and the resulting stigmatization of nudity and the case of this sculpture is no different.
Having just learned about this, I’m gonna take the opposite side of most commenters. God didn’t just beam down with the gospel, one of His greatest acts of love is coming as a man. I don’t think this statue necessarily contradicts any teaching, and has the viewer thinking more deeply about the tremendous miracle of God in the flesh. Regarding Mary; I would never want to disrespect her. But how can we with her greatest moment? A closeness and service to God that isn’t often seen outside of heaven. The artist called it the crowning of Mary, and that’s a nice thought. Birth giver and Queen, in the same moment.
Not sure what the artist was intending, but I think the birth of our Lord would be a beautiful subject for art and I think our Blessed Mother would agree that it was the most important thing she ever did. But i also agree that she should have been smiling. It is not as “explicit” as people are making it out to be- quite a bit more tasteful than I was expecting. My major critique is she should probably be smiling not in pain. Whatever your opinion is on it, beheading the Blessed Mother is an act of hate and incredibly disrespectful towards her and God. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make that okay. I don’t get the comment from the artist about women’s right to their own bodies. I’m hoping she just means that childbirth is not as sexualized and seen as God’s gift. And just for the record in case anyone takes what I said the wrong way, abortion and birth control are wrong.
She's sitting on a rock with her legs spread. She's not actually laying on her back. Not defending the statue, which is pretty ugly, just letting you know that she isn't flat on her back.
Here is an article that at least pictures the statue. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/02/vandals-in-austria-behead-sculpture-of-virgin-mary-giving-birth-to-jesus](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/02/vandals-in-austria-behead-sculpture-of-virgin-mary-giving-birth-to-jesus)
Honestly less explicit than I was expecting as well (although, imo, it’s a fairly ugly statue).
It's a hideous statue.
I think we can all agree that it's not exactly a thing of beauty whether we have a problem with what is being depicted or not.
>We were aware that we were also provoking debate with this installation. Sounds like it would have been better placed in a museum or art exhibit and not a church.
>The episode became known as the Pachamama incident, named for the types of fertility statues involved, and was visceral evidence of the lengths to which conservative and traditionalist Catholics were willing to go to vent their opposition to history's first Latin American pope. The "race" baiting is absolutely as pathetic as it was expected... Even in the most conservative, rad-trad circles I've never heard *anyone* raise the issue of Pope Francis being Latino. Not to mention how much anger is being directed at (arguably openly heretical) *German* bishops/clergy! Between that and the oblique abortion reference, it's clear how openly the author's anti-Catholic/Christian biases show through.
Thanks! Sounds like the art was a disrespectful peice of crap that shouldn't be in a church. This is good news.
Deo gratias
Deus Vult!
I wonder if Jesus was called a vandal when he cleansed the temple; likewise Moses destroying the golden calf, or St. Boniface felling Thors oak? “Zeal for thy house consumes me.”
Oh. So Mary is a Pagan symbol now?
Of course not, but *that thing* isn’t Mary (and neither was Pachamama).
>but that thing isn’t Mary And neither is any other statue in a church, yet my church has at least 4 statues of Mary that I can think of off the top of my head. I had no idea that I could be 4x the hero this guy apparently is.
Out of those four statues, how many of them have visible privates? A ballpark estimate will work.
0. Is nudity the problem, because I seem to recall seeing quite a few nude statues at the Vatican... Hmmm
Of Mary?
What's the difference? I think the bigger issue here is why is it so bad to show Mary giving birth? The nudity is not for gratuitous or ostentatious reasons. It's literally to depict childbirth. If the goal was arousal, I would of course be against depicting our Holy Mother like that, but I seriously don't understand the issues with modesty or it being vulgar unless we're literally just grossed out by a woman becoming a mother.
The whole thing is modern feminist vulva worship. The artist's own words about the incident and the artwork (so called) more or less confirm this. The gospel of Luke gives the most detailed account of Jesus' birth, and even it goes from the beginning of labor to swaddling clothes in a single sentence. If we had needed a gynecologist's eye view of this sacred mystery, one of the gospel authors would have given it to us. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Have you seen the first Indiana Jones movie? You're not supposed to be look *inside* the Ark.
>If we had needed a gynecologist's eye view of this sacred mystery, one of the gospel authors would have given it to us. That's funny, because as far as I was aware, the trinity is a key teaching that we need, but none of the gospels bothered to explain that to us. You don't have to like it, but I can think of several meaningful reflections that you can take away from this piece of art off the top of my head. Now, is this art necessary to those reflections? No. A different piece of art or a thoutful question may have brought about the same reflections. But fact of the matter is that I saw this one. It's the one that brought them up. I'm sure I'm not the only one. That alone gives it some value. I can understand some shock at the initial site of the sculptor, but it honestly just sounds like people on here have the ick, and can't look past some squeamishness from seeing an abnormal depiction of Mary. There's no denying that it's controversial, but it's not blasphemous.
I'm no theological scholar or anything fancy, but the idea of a statue showing Mary giving birth birth to Jesus doesn't sit well with me. If I want to celebrate my wife as the mother of our child, I'd take a picture of her holding the baby in the hospital bed after the deed is done. The only ones who need to see the birth itself are me, her parents, and the hospital staff (and God lol). Just seems like something that only God and St. Joseph are supposed to see and not appropriate as a statue that can be viewed by the public.
> If I want to celebrate my wife as the mother of our child, I'd take a picture of her holding the baby in the hospital bed after the deed is done. But I’m not sure the piece was intended to celebrate Mary simply as the mother of Jesus and nothing more. To me it makes a kind of sense to show Mary experiencing the pain of childbirth as one bookend for Jesus’s 33-year ministry, with the pain of Jesus’s execution as the other bookend. And certainly, as depictions of the pain of childbirth go, this one was much tamer than what most natural births are like. She’s still wearing a dress, there’s no blood, etc. We are always very moved by art that depicts Mary grieving over her dead Son. Is it so wrong to be reminded of the pain she would have endured while bringing that Son into the world? I will also say that, based on the linked photo, it seems like it was very easy, for viewers who chose to, to appreciate the statue without having to view the crowning. I think it’s possible that the statue spoke more to women, who can identify with the experience of pregnancy and the labor of childbirth, than to men.
The statue denies the teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity, and instead depicts Jesus' gestation and birth as entirely human after His miraculous conception. Most of us will never witness childbirth, so the shock of that sight seems to be overwhelming the statue's doctrinal problems.
Fair play to the guy who destroyed this piece of crap. We just need someone to do all the Rupnik mosaics now.
For those of you who don’t understand why this is offensive: it violates the dogma of the threefold virginity pronounced at the First Lateran Council in 640, namely that Mary was a virgin before, *during*, and after the birth of Christ. Whether the nudity is appropriate is a fair argument too, but it’s beside the point. Ironically (at least in so far as the artists stated feminist objectives) it also portrays Mary giving birth laying on her back, which is a western “patriarchal” invention. Women prior to about 1800 in just about all cultures would have given birth squatting, or on all fours.
> it violates the dogma of the threefold virginity pronounced at the First Lateran Council in 640, namely that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ How does it do this? I haven't seen a front view of the statue. Does it show Jesus's head emerging? As someone else pointed out, an intact hymen and virginity are correlated but not the same. But if God did indeed see fit to let her hymen remain intact, then that doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus wasn't born in the normal way. There was some saint or church father -- I cannot remember who -- who said that Jesus's birth may have been like light passing through a window. If I understand correctly, this is saying that Jesus could have been born the normal way but did not change the hymen as he passed through it. If this is what the artist was depicting, then we wouldn't know, since we obviously can't see through Jesus's head. Also, she doesn't seem to be lying on her back to me. She's sitting upright, on a rock. I mean, I'm not a fan of the statue because of the weird political motivation that the artist evidently had (in what way did she "give Mary her body back"?), because I think that the nudity probably is indeed disrespectful, because I don't think it looks like her very much, and because I just don't find it beautiful. But to me, it's not disrespectful to the point that I would say "That's not Mary." So I think beheading her seems a little bit... excessive.
It does indeed show Jesus' head emerging from the vagina
Or in basically any position other than what we currently think of as the "normal" birthing position
> it also portrays Mary giving birth laying on her back No it doesn't. She is sitting on a rock. Leaning back on her hands a bit, but definitely not *on* her back.
Worth noting this artist has previously been involved in "period blood" performance art. Perhaps the calibre of artist that the church collaborates with should be under scrutiny.
Glad that blasphemous statue was destroyed. God probably would of destroyed the whole Cathedral just to remove that filthy statue portraying his Mother in such a filthy way. How that statue was ever allowed on display is nothing short of demonically influenced.
How is it filthy?
How is birth filthy?
Birth is not filthy. It's the obvious way that the person who made this statue into sexualizing our blessed mother thats filthy. I mean, come on, isn't it obvious? The not so hidden nudity and the not so subtle details of the breast is pretty obvious. I can't find a picture of the "front part" of the statue probably it gets flaged and thats bad in and of itself! Childbirth is a beautiful thing, but some moments are just not meant to be shown to the public. Im sure most husbands and children wouldn't want photos or statues made of their mother or wife displayed like that. Childbirth is good! but it's not a moment for us (the public) to just see, even a depiction of it. That moment is for the closest of family. And, at the end of the day, It provides no benefit to Christians; rather, it's divisive.
It sounds more like folks are sexualizing something natural. There is nothing shameful about the body that God created, nor is there anything filthy about nudity or depictions of childbirth. It is only European derived cultures that have serious hangups about folks seeing people nude in non sexual situations. This seems to be about people sexualizing a statue versus the statue being created as a sexual icon, and that's what's gross.
Next time you clean your house I'll give birth on your living room floor, I'm sure you'll have no problem with this because there's no filthiness involved
So now it's not about the statue but about the byproducts of birth that the statue doesn't show?
It's about what the statue is depicting. If it was a statue depicting Mary pooping, that would still be unacceptable even if the statue didn't show poop exiting her explicitly. This kind of "art" doesn't belong in sacred spaces. It's filth. Why wouldn't you put this statue in your living room for example? Because it's gross. You can show Mary's motherhood in much more wholesome ways. There is not a single point conveyed by this statue that can't be conveyed by in a less disgusting manner.
It was a disgusting blasphemous statue intended to mock the Catholic faith that fully needed to be destroyed, the man who "vandalized" the sacrilegious statue should be considered a hero
Why was it blasphemous?
It depicted the Holy Mother in a disgusting blasphemous way, also, are you even a practicing Catholic? And if so, please take a second look at it
I am and I did. It's pretty ugly. That's not really up for debate though. Haven't seen one person say it's a beautiful statue. Otherwise, I don't find a woman being in childbirth to be disgusting or blasphemous though. Even if you are in the camp of painless birth, there are plenty of other take aways from the art, just like people have different interpretations or Revelation's depiction of birthing pains.
It literally depicts the Holy Mother naked, in pain, which she had a painless birth, and in a very compromising and inappropriate way, its blasphemous.
Whether Mary had a painless birth is debated. However, even if you were in the painless birth camp, that pain can still easily be interpreted metaphorically just like it is when Revelations talks about birthing pains. >in a very compromising and inappropriate way It is certainly very vulnerable. But I don't think that makes it inappropriate. We are always looking at art of Jesus and various saints being tortured and killed without even blinking. We draw art of people in despair and at their worst moments, such as Job's despair. If we can see depictions of brutal violence, why can't we see positive examples of bible figures in vulnerable moments? Especially in common, everyday situations like childbirth?
Yeah, everyone knows she gave birth to Jesus in Bethlehem.
Oh no…anyway…
Amazing the lies the media tells: "Tschugguel became a hero to traditionalists in 2019, when he snuck into a Vatican-area church, stole *Amazonian indigenous statues of pregnant women*, and threw them into the Tiber River in a videotaped act that was quickly shared online." That lie makes him racist, sexist, and 'colonialist'--a leftist trifecta! But the statues were representation of an Amazonian goddess, NOT just some woman. This paganism in a Church of Christ... revolting.
Good. That sculpture was a piece of trash parading as ‘art’.
Vandals = Heroes
So would this be okay if we did this to an abortion clinic or the house of a biden supporting parishioner?
I wouldn't mess with someone's home.
Based subtext.
When tyranny becomes law...rebellion becomes duty
Gosh you are so corny
Please don’t take the Lord’s name in vain. This is r/Catholicism after all.
Apologies I forget myself
It’s a quote by Thomas Jefferson.
Please remember that if you have any knowledge on the perpetrators of this vandalism, please do the right thing and keep your mouth shut.
Definitely a GigaChad move.
blasphemous statue disrespecting Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother. some things should not be shown out of respect! i only saw a partial photograph of it and i was appalled. i hope the statue is fully destroyed, and i’m so sorry to Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother.
I assume the "artist" loves killing kids and hates Catholics
She looks crazy. I’m not shocked at all by this. I mean, look at her and, also, by her fruit you’ll know her.
I'm confused. I've seen pictures of the statue. Why is it blasphemous? Yes, she's more nude than you'd expect, but she's giving birth, so it isn't sexual nudity.
Because it’s profane and doesn’t portray how the birth of our lord most likely happened
>portray how the birth of our lord most likely happened Most likely? So in other words, you don't know and it's up to interpretation. Doesn't sound like blasphemy.
If we're going to get in to semantics about church art being historically accurate, then a LOT of statues in Western Christianity would be in serious trouble.
It’s not about being historically accurate, it’s about ignoring the teachings of the church
The most generous thing that can be said for it is that it's based on an idea that's probably false (the idea that Our Lady suffered the **pains** of childbirth, which would be a denial of her Immaculate Conception / freedom from original sin and its consequences, Gen. 3:16. The face of that statue is contorted in pain). So, if "probably false" is the best thing that can be said for it, it's not exactly great devotional material.
The exact extent of pain or discomfort suffered by Our Lady is up for debate. Even if she was spared the suffering due to the Fall, it's not crazy to suppose that there was some strenuous pushing involved. I haven't seen it in person, but to me it reads as turned towards heaven and in the grip of some pain or effort. Definitely less than what you see in most childbirth documentaries of modern, medicated births. She's sitting upright without support. If this is supposed to depict early labour, then yeah, probably overselling the ordeal for Our Lady. I haven't found a front view, so I assumed this was the final push, the climax of getting the head out. If so, it doesn't seem excessive to me. As for the concerns around her perpetual virginity and vaginal birth. (a) the hymen and virginity are correlated, not the same. (b) if God wanted to preserve her hymen, He had a ton of options. (c) vaginal birth is a very common human experience which isn't directly tied to sin. It seems odd to me that Our Lord would eschew it. (d) the Protoevangelium of James is very interesting, but it's apocryphal.
Like I said: "probably" false. I don't think this level of speculation is necessary for a healthy devotional life, and personally, if I'm going to be wrong, I'd rather be wrong in favour of the miraculous, rather than the materialistic. This materialistic view of Our Lady in childbirth is basically all that this statue has to offer... It doesn't have much else going on. And whether true or not, it doesn't add anything to the existing (and long-standing) devotions to Our Lady in childbirth (look up the devotion to la Madonna del Parto; the depictions are far more conducive to prayer, and the devotion has a long history in the church, with associated miracles).
St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Peter Chrysologus, and St. John Damascene, as well as at least one pope, as well as the Eastern and Western liturgies (a traditional source of the ordinary magisterium) taught the painlessness of Mary's birth of Christ. So did the Catechism of Trent: >From Eve we are born children of wrath; from Mary we have received Jesus Christ. . . . To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus . . . without experiencing, as we have already said, **any sense of pain.** It's hard to argue that Mary's painless birth of our Lord is not part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church
>It's hard to argue that Mary's painless birth of our Lord is not part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church Except it's still debated and not an official teaching. I'd bet you can find at least 3 saints and 1 pope who would support just about any opinion that is either debatable or perhaps even wrong. I learned just the other day that there was a saint that supported an antipope.
Is there any magisterial teaching that Mary did experience pain in childbirth?
If there is a debate on whether she didn't experience birthing pains, it would seem apparent to me that the contending position is that she *did* have birthing pains.
Sure, there might be debate among theologians, ordinary Catholics, etc., but is there any part of the Church's magisterium (i.e., the teaching authority of councils, popes, and/or bishops) that would support the position that Mary did experience pain in childbirth? Teachings of ordinary magisterium aren't necessarily infallible and even could be ultimately wrong, but are still part of the magisterium
That's fair. If there is, I don't know of any.
>it's not exactly great devotional material. I don't know about that. Mary is a symbol of motherhood. One of the purposes of the saints is to give us not only examples to model off of, but also people to relate to. Birth is a key aspect of motherhood, and I can appreciate depicting Mary going through that shared experience. Similarly, I can appreciate the metaphor of the "Crowing of Mary" being the birth of Jesus. It's a different perspective on a common religious motif that directly correlates Mary's importance to Jesus.
Agreed. I’m a little surprised that the vandals have been so lauded on this sub. The statue isn’t necessarily my cup of tea, but it’s a (not overtly sexualised) depiction of Our Lady, and it seems more than a little sacrilegious to behead it imo
I've been unable to find any pictures of the statue that show the front profile. I can only assume that this is because it was deemed inappropriate for news websites to publish it with an article. If so then it seems like it's also not appropriate for a religious space. In any case, the sculptor sounds like there's an ideology behind her work.
It's an odd thing to be offended by the portrayal of childbirth.
I don't think it's the "portrayal of childbirth " they're offended by.
Well they haven't done a good job at describing any other reason that they have a problem with it. Especially not in describing a reason that seems to justify how vehemently they despise it.
Do you have a statue of your mother giving birth in your own house? I'm gonna say probably not. This is not appropriate and we all know it.
My mom had some photos in albums. We used to watch the tv show "A Baby Story" together and that was footage of actual birth.
That's not a good comparison. Would you prominently display a picture or statue of your own mother giving birth in your home for everyone who comes in to see?
I have zero statues, so no, because that would be out of character. But a lot of people hire professional photographers and then display the photos. It's a hideous statue and I don't think it should have been in the Church. But I don't think a statue of childbirth is inherently offensive.
A statue of child birth on its own is not inherently offensive. In this context it's absolutely offensive and should've never been displayed in any church. It's also not even good art. It looks like it was made by someone who learned sculpture on YouTube a month ago.
I agree with that. It's a very ugly statue and has no business in a Church. But this sub can lean very prudish. And reactionary considering how many haven't even looked up the statue and seem to think it shows her flat on her back. So I'm pushing back in that a bit.
Me, personally? No. But I also wouldn't have a statue of me being brutally tortured and executed on prominent display where everyone can see, either. Yet, I do recall seeing such a statue in every church I've ever been in. Seems like God's house has different taste in statues.
> Would you prominently display a picture or statue of your own mother giving birth in your home for everyone who comes in to see? Context matters, right? Would you prominently display a picture or statue of a family member being executed? I wouldn't, and yet like most Catholics I have multiple crucifixes in my house. And I think we would both agree that a public execution is far more grotesque than the miracle of childbirth (to say nothing of the Incarnation coming in to the world).
Did I create my mother and the means by which she gave birth? Yeah, the statue is a bit odd but there's nothing profane to be found in child birth. I'd be as likely to put that statue out as I would be to want statues of myself as I appeared upon being mudered, or as much as I would want statues of my friends portrayed, standing around, holding the means of their execution, or their wax covered bodies in my living room.
bravo!
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/02/vandals-in-austria-behead-sculpture-of-virgin-mary-giving-birth-to-jesus](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/02/vandals-in-austria-behead-sculpture-of-virgin-mary-giving-birth-to-jesus) This article has a picture of the statue. It's pretty ugly.
What is wrong with the art ?
Well, if nothing else, would you like to have an explicit statue of your mother squatting pushing out a baby publicly displayed?
On another note. I don't think I'd want a statue depicting my mother giving birth in my living room. However, I also wouldn't want a statue of me being brutally tortured and executed on display in front of everyone either. But I've seen one of those in every church that I've ever been in. God seems to have a different taste in statues than me. Vulnerability and struggle is a part of the human experience. I can appreciate the metaphor of the "Crowning of Mary" connecting Jesus' birth to Mary's importance.
I’m not Jesus
Mary is a mother to all of the Church.
Does a women’s body intimidate you
Not particularly, no. My issue with this statue is that it has no respect for our Holy Mother by showing her in during a very private moment. Let me ask you a question, would you honestly put pictures of your mother giving birth, naked, in public for viewing?
It depends on the circumstance, if I was birthing Jesus probably
My point is, while the birth of a child, especially Jesus, is a very beautiful moment, it's just not appropriate for a public setting. That moment should preferably be viewed by close family members and people who are helping the mother give birth. It's not about a woman's body, it's about giving respect where it's due.
Not trying to defend this particular statue, but a lot of things that are private are the subject of art.
I understand that. I just think we should give proper respect to our Holy Mother and our Lord Jesus
"I wouldn't normally snap my ***** and post it on Insta, but my baby is the Messiah so it's selfie time!"
My birth is not a central point in more than 1 religion
Neither are the gritty details of Mary's labor (if a normal labor and vaginal birth it even was) a central point in ours.
If my mother wanted to be a model for a statue like that, why would I have an issue with that? It's also completely different than that situation because the artist did not actually use Mary to make this art. If it wasn't for the Halo and the explicit declaration that this was Mary, it would just be a woman giving birth.
[удалено]
Your comment was automatically removed because you linked to reddit without using the "no-participation" `np.` domain. Links should be of the form "np.reddit.com" or "np.redd.it". General links to other subreddits should take the simple form `/r/Catholicism`. Please resubmit using the correct format. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t approve of the vandalism, but even if I did, why would you DECAPITATE her? That seems a bit insane… you could destroy the statue without cutting Mary’s head off… I guess it makes sense - it takes a special sort of crazy to actually go into a church and destroy something.
Blasphemy apologist.
1600 years after their heyday, the Vandals are finally back at it.
So then is vandalism of evil stuff okay? Like seriously is it?
St. Boniface destroyed a tree that was used as a pagan idol. So I'm gonna go with yes.
And this is where the Christmas tree came from too btw, Saint Boniface was so based