.
This obelisk was put in St. Peter's Square by a good and holy pope many centuries ago. You should have more respect when you talk about things like this, especially if it's something you don't know much about. Shame on you.
Ah, it's OK to have an opinion on such things. I for one would sand-blast Michaelangelo's homoerotic stuff out of the Sistine chapel
But if people can question things like whether various popes, some "good and holy", made mistakes in backing away from the Church's condemnation of heliocentrism, or usury, or in permitting the discussion of evolution, or NFP, or the 1950s Holy Week Rites, I think it's OK to (respectfully) question the appropriateness of some of this pagan art still floating around. So long as one doesn't cast aspersions on the Church per se, i think it's OK. Sometimes I think that SVism, in battling against the incredibly loose view of infallibility promoted by R&Rism, has overrreacted in the other direction. I've heard some SVs claim that we can't question anything that appears in any book that bears an
imprimatur ... effectively extending the scope of infallibility to an asurd extreme that could lend itself to mockery by anti-Catholics. I think that a healthy balance is called for, similar to how Msgr. Fenton articulated it.
Many popes have made prudential mistakes, Pope Leo XIII in articulating a principle about Sacred Scripture that, while not wrong, was inopportune in that the Modernists pounced on it to justify their udermining Sacred Scripture, Pius XII in the Holy Week Rites, evolution, NFP, Pius XI with regard to the Cristeros, Benedict XV with regard to rolling back St. Pius X's battle against Modernism, Pius XII in many of his episcopal appointments, etc.
This is not the same thing as saying, with R&R, that the Pope can use his legitimate authority to thoroughly corrupt the Catholic religion.
Topic: Obelisk (Read 5633 times)