The dinner of the gods at the Olympics. What do we Christians LGBT+think about it?
Reflections by Massimo Battaglio
The crossed controversy on the living painting of the dinner of the EN Drag proposed during the opening ceremony of the Paris Olympics does not mention the subsidiary. Summer effect or mass distraction?
It does not matter: the topic, several days after the facts, continues to make people discuss, on the contrary, to make fighting mutually around.
What do LGBT+ Catholic people think? Cuckold and Mazziate on one side and the other? Do they start with the refrain of the "double discrimination"? I tried to browse in social networks and I seem to be able to record any of this.
At the beginning, I too felt uncomfortable, but not for a matter of irreverence towards religion or even blasphemy (who shoots it bigger?). What annoyed me is this chopped representation of homosexuality as a speckling phenomenon: the drags, forcedly sexy poses ... All the paraphernalia of the provocation in queer - sacrosanct style in other moments - brought to icon, institutionalized, monumentalized.
For heaven's sake: when, inside, we do or hear scurrilous jokes, it is self -irony. But if others do it, it is homophobia. When we slam the public in the face what the public judges "excess", we do it to show that our pride is stronger than social pruds. And if in a party there is the joke "there is too much froculinous", our intent is to play down. But if the Pope does it in a assembly of bishops, it is a drama. Point.
The provocation makes sense when it starts from the bottom and becomes an instrument of political struggle. If, on the other hand, it is taken from above, imposed by state TVs, it loses all its transgressive brought and becomes pure academy, regime satire.
And we, in Italy, of this type of satire, we mean: the various platinette, the various Malgioglio, the infinite variations on the theme of the "vice" of Tognazzian memory, made sense fifty years ago. Today they are nothing more than a kind concession of state that relegates us into the harmless enclosure of variety humor.
Why, to represent the freedom and equality, the fraternity and the inclusion on which the république is founded, has not been chosen to evoke the great canvas of the Marianne of Delacroix making it impersonate the protagonist by a man en cross -grade? This yes, it would have been a provocation, real disagreement, not only national-population bourlesque.
The demonstrations that the Arcobaleno Bourlesque does not produce anything revolutionary are many. Just remember that the most voted man in Italy is General Vannacci. Just note that the phenomenon of'homophobia Toni is increasingly close to "political" squadrismo.
However, when I began to read the broken reactions of the Catholic bempensants to the opening of the Olympics, my feeling of annoyance gave way to a sense of shame. And I'm not talking about being gay. On the contrary! I felt shame in the face of the ramshackle attitude of many who, in theory, have something important in common with me: nothing less than faith.
Shame for their susceptibility, for the unstoppable need to mark the territory; Shame for the ignorance and superficiality with which sentences are issued. But above all, I was ashamed because all this agitated showed the persistence of a fetiscist religiosity that has nothing to do with the Christian faith.
The friend rightly says Gianni Geraci In one of his posts:
"In the Gospel Jesus invites us to feed the hungry, he does not ask us to indignation for the parodies of the Last Supper ". And adds: “Take an examination of conscience. There are hundreds of Last Supper Vinci. Among other things that of yesterday does not erto Not even a parody of the Upper Cenacle but the parody of a banquet of the Olympus gods (certainly more themed since we speak of the Olympics). So why all this "can can"? Because the protagonists of this parody are transgender people. Transphobia is a bad disease and most of those who suffer from it do not even realize they have it. "
Really: it seems that Catholics are more fond of the defense of the brand, than to the practice of the virtues they should testify. San Paolo clearly lists them: "Faith, hope, charity" (1Cor 13:13). It does not speak of identity icons.
Giacomo raises the dose: “What do I benefit, my brothers, if one says he has faith but does not have the works? Maybe that faith can save him? (...) Faith, if it does not have the works, has died in itself " (GM 2, 14-17). No part of the Scriptures is invited to elect some category of people (in this case those transgender) to vent their own crazy. We already have one of goals in our religion. Loading our frustrations on a brother's shoulders is stupid: "Who of you is without sin, throw the first stone" (Jn 8,7).
But then, to worst the worst, why defend Leonardo's Last Supper in the sword, who has so little to do with the evangelical story? Have the Catholic lords with the pedigree ever look at her with a little attention? Let's examine it: the glass is missing; The wine is reduced to half a glass per head. The common bread is missing, replaced by a dozen sandwiches distributed on the table. The lamb is missing; Instead, two trays appear, one with fish and the other with a not well decipherable pastel.
Those present, in addition to Jesus, are twelve but, behind the figure of Judah, a hand with a knife appears, which seems to belong to a thirteenth hidden invited. Pietro grabs her, stopping it. We could continue: all those present have their feet fit despite Jesus has just finished washing them.
The last Leonardian dinner is not a philological reconstruction of historical facts nor an illustration of the Gospels. It is an unplanored: a fifteenth -century lunch in which something dramatic is about to happen. And all lunch are invited to this lunch, including the spectators. In fact, admiring the painting by their scrapers in the refectory of Santa Maria delle Grazie, they pretend to take part. It is for this reason that the master aligns the protagonists on one side: to underline that the table continues in the room, where all those present are invited to live as disciples.
Like all actualizations, the Upper Cenacle applies in its time. Then it becomes historical testimony. In any case, it is not truth but a representation of a truth in the light of the culture of those who made it. It is sacred art but it is not the sacred in itself. Its meaning is not immutable. And those who confuse these things have little to show off the orthodoxy of their faith. In reality he is falling into idolatry.
Is it ever possible that those who rise to custodians of Catholicism, French bishops on their heads, have never reflected on all this?
Another friend of ours writes, Paolo Spina:
“As a Catholic, I am surprised both the broken reaction of many, and the hasty press release of the French bishops, to whom I approach a metaphor that is dear to me: it is always a question of choosing whether to be bees or flies. A bee, even in a manure, will always try to find a flower to lay on, to enrich and generate life. Likewise, a fly, in a large flowery meadow, will always know how to find an excrement, albeit tiny, on which to lay and whose to serve. I do not grie the parody (non -existent: therefore nothing to worry unnecessarily). It grieves me, and also greatly, that those who believe in the lover and vital God revealed by Jesus often know only to see the rotten, everywhere, shouting and inaccurate: O tempora, or Mores! "
Two other things also decorate to me. The first is that many Catholics continue to prefer the paintings, the processions, the Madonnas of the fourteen swords and the twenty -eight pains, rather than the truth of the Gospel. Which is saving, liberating and inclusive truth. And the second is ignorance. Talks about it, just these days, Andrea Ricciardi, founder of the Community of Sant'Egidio, on the columns of The future:
“Today I think there is a world phenomenon: the decultation of religion and religious phenomena. I see it widespread in those movements that have become an important part of contemporary Christianity and its communication. And that are absolutely disinterested in confronting the themes of culture, understood in terms of history, future, reality, debate, books. They are perched in a full -type communication ". Later: "A faith that does not become culture is a faith that is not fully accepted, not entirely thought of, not faithfully lived".
And finally: “In the great history of Christianity we have witnessed precisely to this lived faith of the people of God who made themselves high culture and culture of people: remedying history, production of art, debate with other forms of thought and so on. The fragility of today's expression of Catholic culture was born from the fragility of the experience lived, indeed from the fragility of our communities and the renunciation to say a word of importance ".
Ricciardi certainly did not think of the opening ceremony of the Olympics. But the timing is impressive.
I must admit that the episode was, for many of us, an opportunity for reflection, as shown by the many opinions, meditated, which I read on my Facebook home. I still bring some of them.
Rosary, for example, with a slightly more colorful language than Ricciardi and Geraci, repeats its contents prison the dose:
“I think the most direct connection of the image is to the banquets of the Greek gods. You know how it is: Olympics, Greece ... complete with Dionysus/Bacchus imporrect on the table. What would Leonardo's Last dinner have to do? Even if it were an allusion to the Last Supper, why have they not raised the voice for all the other times when such a configuration was used in art, cinema, marketing? Perhaps the problem was that there was a woman instead of Christ, and moreover gr@ssa? Or why were Ballerini/Ee Drag instead of the Apostles?
Beyond the symbols (which do not belong to the specific religion but to the human itself), do you know what it matters to the others of the Christian religion, specifically Cattolica? A c@tzo, unless you are believers. Will this loss of influence determine the persecutory manias of certain Catholic bishops? Perhaps, in order to continue to feel important, they seek the denigration opportunity in any event ".
Tiziano Izzo, expert in popular religiosity and religious anthropology, proposes: “We think of the drag queen as a tacky character but, if we do some research, it was born as a narration of injured people, marginalized, bully and with a sense of discomfort with their body, in their family and in the community of origin. The drags therefore did what the ancients did: choose a non -compliant narrative, a caricature of their suffering. They decide to call art what the masses and the traditional canon of art does not consider art or fashion ".
And continue: “If the authors (of the event) They wanted to say something about the Eucharist, then the controversy made sense but since they meant something about the sense of celebration and on a banquet in which everyone participates with their differences, I find it difficult to understand their choices. The Gospel and the writing narrate parables of banquets open to marginalized, dinners with feet launders and in the house of sinners who more than anything else mean a reception message. The Olympics were a religious and civil narration of meeting between peoples to celebrate peace ".
Tiziano Fani Braga insists on the theme of the inculturation of Christianity: “That they ward for a bacchanal! Returning for a moment to the theme of the Olympics opening (then I finish it forever), a whole fringe of Catholics who have stopped, continuing to do so, in their position as ignorant, that is, they ignore that before Christianity there was more, the Roman and Greek culture, a culture that was also the cradle from the same Olympics ". “God has never erased history. Perhaps certain Christians have tried to do it but with poor results, thank goodness, just think of the devastating consequences of the tissue edict ".
“Much Christian culture resumes part of the pagan, Egyptian or other continents, works, venerated statues, tales, all our liturgy is a Christological reference of the whole history of salvation. Christianity, through the incorporation of pagan traditions and liturgies, managed to take root deeply in pre -existing cultures.
This process of syncretism not only facilitated the transition of pagan populations to the new faith, but also enriched Christianity, making it a versatile religion and capable of adapting to different cultural realities. By studying these pagan influences, we can better understand the historical evolution of Christianity and appreciate the complexity of its development. We do not deny our origins, our theology is also based on a very elaborate construction of over 5000 years ".
On the same line Marco: "But I say ... when will we Christians learn to be less hatefully boring? And when it will be that we will stop being happy when they take sides on our side those who, when it comes to the reception at the next, are the most distant from what should be the prerogatives of real Christians? ".
It almost seems that we have agreed. Instead, our places are almost contemporary. Therefore, they express a common thought and, I allow myself to say, a profound thought. Definitely deeper than that of many monsignors with a bigotte outline, which, so worried about shocking the roof of the shack, seem to have forgotten where its foundations are.
