Of course our hierarchy is letting us down again. Perhaps they will do some of their famous shuffling of problem people by sending Boehler for some counseling and then put him in charge of another Catholic museum next to the Vatican where he decides to show 30 years of blasphemous “Hustler” pornographic religious cartoons because it is religious art that he cannot say no to. He is then sent for more counseling and they reassign him to a third Catholic museum where he…then a fourth…etc.

My analogy of ignoring the real problem and putting the person in a position to commit the same offense again and again is weak because what Boehler is doing is public, he is not preying on children, and we don’t have Church attorneys bullying and/or buying off parents who dared to speak up for the previous 30 years.

It is sad to say but I thanked God (no exaggeration)for plaintiff attorneys and juries who through their award of high damages hopefully brought an end to the scandalous activity. Of course moral right and wrong did not do it, public disclosure did not do it, it took huge jury awards to bring the hierarchy to its knees and forced it to take pedaphila seriously.

Whomever is the bishop of the diocese where the museum is should have rejected the idea and it should never have gotten this far. I am tired and disappointed in our hierarchy, who either look the other way, or are as troubled as others who have been stripped of their bishoprics.

Please, honorable Catholics, flood the Vatican with your requests to have this “exhibit” removed from any Catholic building. Thank you, BJ

If the artist wants to paint homoerotic imagery of the Last Supper, in a democracy he has the right. The museum director states, “We think Hrdlicka is entitled to represent people in this carnal, drastic way.” Yes, he does, but he is not entitled to show whatever art he wants in a Catholic museum. My issue is with the director at the museum. He works for the Church, and he should remember that. He states that “we can’t always choose how the artist will interpret them.” Why not? The Catholic Church is not the government; accordingly, the Church can decide to limit what it shows in its museums, what it prints in its publications, what it puts on its websites. People and organizations are allowed to censor themselves. Let us not confuse government censorship with a non-government organization controlling its own publications, museums, and messages.

In another article, the museum director compares the Mel Gibson’s movie and this art exhibit. Are you kidding me? It is not disputed by anyone that being tortured and crucified is violent. You may not like to see it, but it is historically accurate. It is also not disputed within the Catholic Church that Christ was tortured and died for our sins. On the other hand, it is clearly debatable that the Last Supper was a homosexual orgy, and it is absolutely not true for the Catholic Church. The museum director’s comparison is weak rationalization at best.

Another rationalization by the art director is that only a minority voiced complaints. First, he is comparing silence to not being offended. Having only a minority complain and making the leap in logic that only a minority were offended is huge and not intellectually honest. Second, who is he working for? Since when does the Catholic Church make decisions based on majority rule? I did not know we voted on the abortion nor whether using God’s name in vain was OK or not?

If the museum director worked for a non-Catholic museum, I would think that this art is offensive, but that is the cost for democracy. But since the museum director works for a Catholic affiliated museum, I am amazed by his absolute lack of judgment and offended by his weak rationalizations.