Agreed.  Sodomites like Michaelangelo spewed their filth everywhere, and we had a series of worldly (and even perverted) popes that encouraged this stuff.  Some Popes tried to do something about it, such as the so-called "Fig Leaf" campaign that came out of Trent.  Of course Wojtyla had the fig leaves removed and the genitalia restored to their full glory.  If I were Pope, very early on I'd order the Sistine chapel sandblasted, and the statues of the various pagan gods in the Vatican museum pulverized.  I would never offer Mass there at the Sistine.  You elevate the Sacred Host during Mass to, what?, see genitals hanging down over Our Lord or naked butts?  Ridiculous.  None of that had any business ever being in a House of God.

It just so happens that many most of the men who have great artistic talent are sodomites, along the lines of the "Queer Eye" syndrome.

From what I understand, Saint Pius V was considering painting over the Sistine Chapel, but didn’t. While I’m certainly not a fan of those particular paintings, I defer my opinion to the much more competent authority and judgment of the great Saint and Pope and to all of his divinely appointed and guided successors.

This attitude exemplifies a bit the extremes to which some SVs have taken it in over-reaction to the R&R, to the papalotry of which many SVs have been accused by R&R, with some justification here ... as if there's any protection by the Holy Spirit whatsoever over minor prudential judgments down to how the Popes have decided to decorate the Vatican.  Be careful that such exaggerations don't actually undermine and delegitimize the other (legitimate) claims made by SVs.  We've had many delinquent, worldly, and even perverted popes in the history of the Church.  And if some Popes haven't corrected these things, for the good/holy ones, it's probably because they had many higher priorities (bigger fish to fry) just battling against the Church's enemies and dealing with issues in the Church, whereas the less good/holy ones simply didn't care.  God's protection over their dogma and doctrine is made even more manifest against the backdrop of these popes, since even despite all these types, the Holy Ghost prevented them from corrupting dogma, doctrine, and moral teaching.  There's also a bit of a 1950s-ist mentality among some SVs, where everything was great in the Church, close to the ideal, until some magical moment in, perhaps 1962.  Before that magical moment, all approved theology manuals were 100% orthodox and after that they all became worthless, even though it was the same men producting these works both before and after that time.  I've butted heads with some who felt that it was impious to question anything that had a pre-1960s imprimatur on it, where he was basically implying that these things were protected by some kind of infallibility.

So, just be careful that in exaggerating the claims of your position you aren't actually undermining its core principles, or at least rendering them less credible and persuasive.  Just imagine if SSPX put up a new building near you, and the walls were covered with depictions of genitalia and various homo-erotic art.  So, if that would be wrong ... and it would be ... it doesn't make it less wrong just because some Pope did it.  Most SVs also rejected the Pius XII Holy Week changes (the CMRI being the major exception) and think that Pope certainly made some prudential judgments (at least) where it comes to the acceptance / endorsement of those proto-Modernist changes.  So if that's the case, what protection is there over their choice of art at the Vatican?  We should also then defer our opion regarding the "judgment" of the "divinely appointed successors" of St. Peter about whether they should have mistresses and father illegitimate children?

And if some Popes haven't corrected these things, for the good/holy ones, it's probably because they had many higher priorities (bigger fish to fry) just battling against the Church's enemies and dealing with issues in the Church, whereas the less good/holy ones simply didn't care.

Someone just told me a story the other day about good catholics who asked Pope St Pius X to get rid of all the immodest statues in Rome.  He agreed that such should be removed but basically told them, "I've got bigger things to fix and protect at the moment."  He certainly did. 

Pope St Pius V only reigned for 6(!) years.  He did a WHOLE lot in 6 years.  He too, had bigger fish to fry than repainting the Sistine chapel.

Pope St Pius V only reigned for 6(!) years.  He did a WHOLE lot in 6 years.  He too, had bigger fish to fry than repainting the Sistine chapel.

His predecessor already had loincloths painted over:

Pope Pius IV ordered the placement of fig leaves and loincloths on Michelangelo’s nudes during the 1560s.