Will the Pope Appreciate This Painting of a Crucified Gay Porn Star?

Sagat

Australian painter Ross Watson is showing off his newest work — a painting of French porn star Francois Sagat, who on the last World AIDS Day worked with the French Health Department on a series of HIV prevention videos.

Said Watson of his new work:

"I was motivated by the Vatican's position on homosexuality, and its ban on condom use, to create a painting which references Caravaggio's 'Crucifiction of St Peter'. Francois Sagat continues to play a valuable role in the area of HIV/AIDS prevention and education. I wanted to acknowledge that in the painting, whilst tying it to the Vatican. In contrast, the Vatican uses its status in the UN General Assembly to obstruct the promotion of condoms as protection against HIV/AIDS, and sexuality education in school curricular. Some will regard the painting as provocative, but I don't believe it is in contrast to the Vatican's position on these issues. The Pope's 2nd in charge recently claimed homosexuality and pedophilia are linked. That enraged me. It seems just and deserving to depict Francois Sagat as a contemporary saint, given he is helping to save lives, rather than contributing to causing illness and deaths for millions. The great majority of Caravaggio's patrons were from the Catholic church, and his paintings were sometimes rejected as they were viewed as inappropriate for a religious theme. I'm reminded here of my freedom as an artist. Imagine what Caravaggio might paint if he were alive today?"

Comments

  1. stephen says

    LOVE IT!!!

    Those that would be outraged SHOULD be asked why they’re not outraged over Katholic Khurch’s position against contraception, secrecy & education… responsible for countless needless deaths & perpetuation of HIV.

  2. Steve says

    The Catholic Church is certainly responsible for more deaths than Mr. Sagat. Between their stance against condom use, their cultural imperialism, and the religious wars they continue to inflame, the Vatican is a major negative political force in the world.

  3. says

    I find it offensive only because its Francois Sagat. Can someone explain the appeal of Francois Sagat? Great body? Sure. Its gotta be the tattooed scalp otherwise I can’t figure it out. O.K. I’m ready for the backlash

  4. Tyler says

    No of course they’re not going to approve of it. I think it’s great and very true to what religious people do to homosexuals or any not like them, they’re essentially crucifying them, they’re doing what they did to the one they worship, Jesus himself.

  5. Alfonzo says

    As a theologian, I’m more concerned with what what recourse the vatican is taking to correct it’s own internal issues than it’s opinion of anything.

    Want an interesting read, look up The Council of Trent and your care for their opinions will greatly diminish.

  6. Aaron says

    Finds it interesting that the artist chose a Muslim model for this piece! Will Catholics now call for the death of the model and artist for depicting its savior in an unfavorable image?

  7. John Williams says

    The painting is well executed from a technical standpoint, except that his portrayal deprives Sagat of his beautiful chest hair. (No Hans Holbein here, evidently.) However, to the extent that the work suggests that the supposed sufferings of Sagat or any other porn stars and fornicators (gay or straight) are in any way analogous to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, it is offensive and disgusting.

    I am not Catholic and carry no brief for the Pope, but I don’t believe that he deserves blame for upholding the received moral standards of the Church, misguided and anti-scriptural though some of them (such as prohibiting priests from marrying) may be.

  8. says

    At least the pope is consistent. As former head of (what was once known as the) Inquisition, the former Joseph Ratzinger’s job was to coat and recoat the papacy with thick theological teflon so every edict emanating from the Vatican is received by the flock as God’s word by proxy. I wont be surprised, for instance, if he tried to restore Galileo’s excommunication not because he (Ratzinger) is geocentric but because Galileo’s ideas, by being contrary to church dogma, dared to question the pope’s infallibility. Same with the pedophile priests issue. To Ratzinger, a priest, by virture of having undergone ordination, is more valuable to the church than an ordinary person, more valuable certainly than a child who, by its nature, can make up stories about, well, anything under the sun. None of the abuse cases resulted in the death of a child, for instance, would be one of the things that would go through the mindset of an Inquisitor, and that at least those priests were hygienic and disease-free and certainly spiritually way more enlightened than your run-of-the-mill secular child molester, and so on. It’s beyond denial.

    Or actually more likely fossilized ignorance. Ratzinger grew old perfecting a theological universe that has no place for sexuality whatsoever. Immaculate conception was the first warning. Sex for ordinary mortals, yes, for procereation, but apparently (unless an illegitimate child pops up somewhere someday) Ratzinger didn’t go that way. And if by any slim chance he’s a closet case, the very verses of Leviticus and Romans could have exorcised any thought of acting on it early on, so that by the time he hit 50 he wouldn’t know where to start if he had decided to give in just once. Ratzinger, in all likelihood, is a very rare case of successful sublimation. Male, that is. Mother Theresa did it by applying and living and practicing her beliefs on the ground, among real people, of all sexes, all ages. She developed an actual physical immunity to all temptations of the flesh. Ratzinger did it by simply ignoring all external stimuli for 50 years until it became second skin. On issues of church dogma in a roundtable discussion Ratzinger is said to be articulate and decisive. But let a whiff of the real flesh and blood world seep into the room and he gets slightly nauseated. I believe he really and literally doesn’t understand why Catholics, of all people, don’t see where he’s coming from: By criticizing me you criticize the Church, by criticizing the Church you Criticize God. That’s what INFALLIBILITY means.

Leave A Reply