This is further proof of the divisive insanity of religion. Note in the video that Cavallaro identifies himself as a Catholic and a Christian, and Donohue argues! Donohue also threatens Cavallaro with a fate worse than beheading. So much for "peaceful" religions!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a very proud EX-catholic (now an Atheist) I see Donahue as a stunning example of everything that is wrong with religion. He really is nothing better than a xtian taliban. He feels it is my way or the wrong way. What a jerk!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cavallaro is a well known established artist, and the Jesus is legitimate art; Donahue is a nutsy nazi.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He's the guy who did the "piece" called "ham on a bed." He seriously placed hundreds of pounds of shaved ham on a bed and called it art. I can think of some hungry people that would have like to eat this ham, and I can think of some vegetarians that would be very upset about this.

Ham on a bed

That being said, Donahue is still a douche.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this half wit claims to represent christianity and therfor has been given some right to censor generally the interpretation of what christ represented...
just remember, these 'religions' that call themselves christianity are generally full of shit.

this guy is gonna love my latest blog: WHO KILLED THE BABY JEBUS? (maybe i could send him a copy).

i'll give ya a hint: the pope killed baby jebus when he (them) approved slavery (it's ok to have slaves, just as long as they ain't one of my homeys), rubberstamped hitler's final solution, and ammased massive personal wealth. If anyone has defamed and destroyed the image of christ, it's been the god-dammned 'christian churches'...

it was one of the sweetest pass the buck operations ever purpotrated against western social development; HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, later to become the catholic church. has anyone even thought about that? the middle east was occupied by the romans much as it is by america now. Pilot washed his hands my ass. Pilot was in charge. Rome slit jesus' throat, not the Jews (sorry all you anti-semites)...
but baby Jebus' powerful example lived on. no matter how many christians (maybe the last genuine christians) the roman imperial muthafukers killed, more just seemed to pop up. UH-OH, big trouble in pax romania....
And then along comes Constantine, the smartest man in show biz.... anyways, he remembers the old salesman's mantra (if you can't beat em, buy em up), and wrestles the still warm corpse of the dead baby jebus away from the loving arms of the christians, and spins it into THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE.
In the process of shifting the blame for killing the cornerstone of this new corporation, they created one of the biggest lies of all time: IT WAS THE JEWS THAT KILLED YOUR SAVIOUR (nice touch), thereby redirecting all that guilt that would have eventually crushed their empire (and possibly western empires in general), onto a new kicking boy, which of course pisses directly in the eye of everything jebus stood for.
fuk organized christianity with it's 10 pound golden crosses and collection of little boys foreskin. long live the man in sandals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

lets see,
christains aren't being persecuted. they ain't bein pulled off planes or disappeared by the gov because of their religion. don't even begin to proport (sorry for my spelling i think) that christianity is under attack, that's just way too 1984...

and besides, i still don't get how this chocolate jebus is offensive? what the fuk is the problem. beacuse he has balls? which means what, that he was a man? is that the problem?
christians haven't been persecuted since constantine erradicated them way back when (see my posting below if you care)...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is a publicity loving piece of sh-t. Shame on Alternet for even acknowledging the existence of this blowhard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

have been trying to figure out why choco jebus would be offensive, and it finally donned on me- it ain't the balls, it's the color of his balls that has liddle donny in an uproar.

I'm guessing white chocolate would have been no problem...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's a piece of this hasn't been brought up - perhaps because it would re-inflame anti-Catholic sentiment in other Christians.

If you notice, Donahue complained at length about the fact that people were going to be invited to eat the chocolate Jesus. The symbolism there is clear to any Christian - it mirrors the Sacrament of Communion or Eucharist, wherein participants eat the body of Christ (consecrated bread) and drink the blood of Christ (consecrated wine) as a way of symbolically sharing in Christ's self-sacrifice.

The Catholic Church teaches that they alone perform a true and sacred Eucharist, every other denomination's sacrament is a sham and a sin - because, allegedly, only the Catholic Church possesses the spiritual authority. Lay people, in Catholicism, are restricted to receiving the "host" - the sacramental bread, deemd unworthy of the full sacrament. The Catholic Church is also extremely rigid in enforcing their claim and standards, teaching it as a requirement for salvation on one hand, and then denying it to people for a host of heretical reasons on the other.

In short, this is a subject on which the Catholic Church has a tremendous prejudice and bias, which it has used to control and coerce people of faith for centuries.

The Catholic Church is also obsessively threatened by full nudity, particularly male nudity, and anything that over-humanizes Jesus Christ. The psychology of it all is amazing and sad.

Catholicism, among other flavors of Christianity, teaches 'the Church (and thus believers) are the Bride of Christ - an intrinsically intimate and sexual image, and use concepts like surrender, to descibe the relationship between humans and God as personified by Christ. It is no stretch to see how uncomfortable some men are with the idea of surrendering and being filled by a male personification of their deity. Factor in that Catholicism emmasculates its clergy in more ways than one, and an image of a explicitly male Christ is extremely threatening.

One last factor - the Catholic Church has not gotten over losing its near-total control of Christianity. Until the Reformation, the Catholic Church had extraordinary and unfettered control over how Christ was portrayed. They've never gotten over losing that power.

All that said, I like the sculpture, and resent the disgusting image of Christianity that Donahue has presented. He certainly doesn't resemble the Christ I know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bill Donohue asks if the artist would do the same with Mary, exposing her genitals. What an assinine question!!! Mary was not crucified and there is no reference in the four gospels to her ever disrobing for whatever purpose.

Would Donohue have us believe that Roman soldiers allowed crucifiction victims the dignity of covered genitals? Oh, get real! The nakedness was part of the killing ritual.

Doh!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I see Donahue as a stunning example of everything that religion invokes in man..extreme programmed hatred. He is nothing more than a knukle-dragging cretin born far past the Spanish Inquisition! A five-year-old screaming death at an artist because of what he thinks is an abomination against Christianity. There was/is no christ! The bible is a nice, not well collated, collection of stories. Arguing over something like this, or any belief system, is an extraordinary waste of human thought and expression. Yuk!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think that people have been ignoring potential interpretations for this work. Has it occurred to anyone that this sculpture wasn't created to offend? A sculpture of Christ could be created out of chocolate not to minimize Him, but to revere Him. Many religions have communion in which they take bread or a wafer to symbolize eating the body of Christ. Creating the body of Christ out of an edible substance might just be to remind people that they are to "take in" Christ and his message.
As for the genitalia showing, who cares? There have been anatomically correct works of art for ages, some are pure genius. The Savior in the nude just shows that He is a man, human. What is so offensive about that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If JC does not like being portrayed in chocolate, then let him do something about it. I’m sure this omni-everything entity doesn’t need the likes of ranting buffoon and public embarrassment Bill Donhue to defend him. And surely JC knows the heart of the artist and whether or not he meant to be insulting. But, as usual, JC is silent on the matter, so perhaps we can assume consent or indifference from the silence. What should offend JC is having the likes of Donohue presuming to speak for him and actually causing death threats to be made against the artist. Donohue knows he can call the crazies from the woodwork and that death threats are a very likely result of doing so. Perhaps he is the one who should be facing legal action.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For me, it's just an artist's perfect reference to the common phrase, "Sweet Jesus!!", and timed perfectly for Easter! What a great laugh!!!

100% Congratulations to the artist, and ignore any detractors who don't get what for me, is a great joke.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If indeed all of Donahue's friends from all those different religions are boycotting this hotel, now would be a great time to book a suite for a weekend getaway!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am an artist that was also attacked by Donahue for my so called"anti-catholic" art work back in December in Corpus Christi, Texas.

Without seeing my work, he took it upon himself to take the word of a few hysterics who interpreted my artwork to be a slam against Mary, the mother of Jesus. These individuals did this prior to the hanging of the work (It was positioned for staff to hang and had not yet had explanations of the work posted..they were in the process of being printed by staff) without having read my explanations, clearly to be posted by each of 29 pieces, to explain what each allegorical piece was meant to depict. My piece under attack is of a pregnant human female whose head is a lotus blossom (Donahue didn't seem to know about this). the abdomen of the female figure is done in anatomical cut-away, so that the fetus is shown. The infant has a tiny spike that goes through the feet and uterine wall out into the world, depicting a future preordained to sacrifice. The child's umbilicus is a strand of pearls (do not cast your pearls before swine/ a pearl of great price) attached to a crucifix in the mother's left hand. Symbolism should be pretty apparent here...the mother holding onto her precious child's fate, knowing he will be sacrificed. The background of the painting is very deep indigo blue space. Behind the mother figure is a depiction of what was Vatican City 1643. The earliest depiction on paper that i could find of the Holy City. I used that city because for Christians, it is easily understood as a place of pilgrimage for worship. I painted a number of cardinals in the heavens and a pope. Holy Fathers with their shepard shanks, ready to usher the faithful to G*d.
All the hysterics saw, while my piece lay on the floor, was a naked "madonna" figure with a baby inutero attached to her hand by the umbilical cord. They deemed her obscene. They called their friends to rant over the "anti-catholic" message, without once consulting me, the artist as to the meaning of the piece, or reading the meaning of it off the wall. They protested, screamed, called the press out (I was called by Fox NY, but never returned the call, not wanting to make a stink worse). They defaced my piece by smearing it with white paint. They threatened (and continue to ) the Executive Director's job for allowing this piece to be shown with my other religious pieces. In short, they acted like (and continue to act like) uninformed idiots with no idea of art history, of religious history (any of the other religions who have a faith drawn upon a sacrificial child/ virgin mother motif...hence i used a lotus blossom for the Madonna head to depict those mothers). THEY WANTED TO BE OFFENDED>>>SO THEY WERE. The same goes for the gaseous howling about "Sweet Jesus," a marvelous piece depicting what likely really was Jesus's condition when he was nailed to a tree. Recall the scriptures whence it says that he was stripped bare and the soldiers drew lots for his robes. I can about guarantee the poor mane was indeed naked... it would have been to shame him, as he hung there for all the world to see. When we see loin cloths in paintings, it is for the sensibilities of those easily offended by our humanity. We all come with genitals. Come into and go out of this world naked. If you read Genesis, you will see it is only mankind who finds nudity offensive. God asked Adam and Eve why they covered themselves.God was offended by their hating themselves as created. God loves the form we are made in. Or so we are taught, bu the nakedness,indeed the form in which we are made somehow has been made shameful and a thing to despise, so people go mildly insane when they see a naked, human Jesus, or a naked, pregnant Madonna. Oh, ignorance is bliss, and the populace is truly one big blissful crowd.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jesus in unine, Chocolate Jesus. Any other religious symbol in the world that ended up in urine or carved in chocolate would never be considered art. It would be interpreted as blasphemous and in some cases a reason for war. It would not be tolerated. Period. I'm not particularly religious but the intention here is not to expand my artistic world. Free speech, religious expression ? I don't think so. And we already have plenty of good comedians. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

always has one for any occasion
"Obscenity is anything that gives a judge an erection"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

chocolate and jesus , that says a lot to me artistically. we are supposed to be celebrating the rise of jesus and we stuff our faces with chocolate. is there any holiday in america religious or other that hasnt been made into a capitalistic event for the consumer????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Overcoming this kind of self-inflicted madness is actually very easy - learn to reject all calls to leave your brains at the vestabule. Burn your "sarced" books. Cast the proponents of insanity from your life. Always strive to show them for what they really are - buffoons.

Teach your children to resist the madness. Start by asking that they visit WVCSRevery morning.

Rev. El

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just think of all the pornographic scenarios involving religious characters that could be rendered in chocolate, cheese, or other edibles. The mind boggles. Tha fragility of "true believers'" convictions are amply demonstrated in this instance. It's just too, too funny.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

............and is overdue for a fall. I favor almost anything that insults dogmatic religion. This excludes swastikas because Jews are an ethnic minority, not just a religion. Donohue is a fascist hypocritical pig worthy only of contempt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Has anyone who has been swept up in this controversy noticed that Chocolate Jesus looks suspiciously Western European (like most other paintings and sculptures). When will Christians figure out that Jesus looked more like Osama Bin Laden than Peter O'Toole? The guy was a Jew!! He was born in the Middle East.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the funny thing about Donahue is that he talks like a drunken nyc cab driver pissed off at his wife and dog because he hates his life and everyone else in the world. you'd think if you want to represent a religion you should be a little bit nice about stuff.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's frequently suggested these days that Muslims are culturally oblivious to free speech as it exists in Western democracies.

But don't we, even in the West, recognize--at least de facto--that there must be limits to freedom of expression, beyond those imposed by law, if we hope to live in a civilization? Not long ago Mayor Rudolf Giuliani of New York tried vigorously to have removed from the Brooklyn Museum a portrait of the Madonna which the artist had ornamented with cow dung and pornographic appliques, freedom of speech notwithstanding.

Now a chocolate Jesus offends.

Indelicate references to the Holocaust invariably meet with condemnation on all sides. B'nai Brith is watchful that certain lines are not crossed.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, too, is perpetually on guard.

At Harvard--where, alas, people should know better--the University community was forced, during the 1960s and in the name of freedom of speech, to tolerate distasteful parodies of the Nativity put on in the undergraduate houses during the Christmas season. I remember being part of a graduate-student delegation to then Dean of Students Archie Epps to protest. These Nativity enactments, gratuitously mocking Christians, were quickly terminated. The question of freedom of speech was never debated at Harvard in the aftermath.

Why, one wonders, is Islam expected to tolerate abuses which we Christians and Jews will not countenance in our own regard? Little wonder European Muslims are having hissy fits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe this would have been more acceptable to these so-called defenders of the faith if the work had been cast in white chocolate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Since Mr. Donohue brought up the topic of a future chocolate Mother's day sculpture (e.g., in a crude reference to the artist's mother's exposed genitalia), I have a suggestion for the artist, Cosimo Cavallaro.

How about a naked Mary, in chocolate, in the process of delivering baby Jesus, his body halfway out her vagina? Make it a family portrait, with Joseph and a midwife. What could possibly be obscene about something as natural as human childbirth?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The quotation you have there is actually from Kester Brewin of The Complex Christ|Signs of Emergence instead of Faith Commons. FC only syndicates links to Kester's and other blogs as part of our reading and discussion.

I'm sorry for any confusion but I wanted Kester to get due dredit.

FC

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just a diatribe against Catholics at every major religious holiday; Mary farting blood, Jesus humiliated; Christmas poop? Why shouldn't Donohoe be mad. Imagine if SP portrayed Moses or Ann Frank into whoring craven spectacles - Conservative Jews would be in an uproar. But Catholics and Christians are easy targets for biggoted Hollywood. Why not make fun of conservative Jew Dr Laura? Have her fart blood (So. Park is BIASED and is part of an effort to dismantle Christianity) If not it would also be Anti-Semetic but it can't because they are PC with their owners. WHAT COWARDS!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what a bunch of hypocrits they don't have to hear one bit of harmful rhetoric about their religion but everyone else has to take it?!!!??? SCREW THEM and their So. Park episodes

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]