Why on Earth has every pope since Paul VI continued to use this horribly blasphemous depiction of Our Lord?
Look up expressionism on google and click on the images. If this school of art does not amount to pure evil then I do not know what does.
This also reminds me of an argument that I had with a classmate studying the Irish whistle. She said that she and her husband had visited the Julliard school to see his cousin perform. After describing the music for a bit, it became clear that she was trying to describe really ugly, repulsive music, without admitting that she was repulsed by it, because that would have been a concession that she was not cultured enough to appreciate it. I called it as I saw it and proceeded to talk about how stupid, unnecessary, and repulsive I found modern music to be. She countered that by saying that some people have trouble with modern music because it's not as "accessable", a veiled insult, saying that I did not have enough knowledge of music to understand the modern genres. Yeah, I think it is really much more simple than that. It is not difficult to see what kinds of art are pleasing to the Lord. He has made us in His likeness. If it sounds ugly, looks ugly, etc, it is not pleasing to the Lord. This depiction of the Crucified Christ is nothing short offensive and I find the fact that it continues to be used, to be very suspicious.