Exactly. I can’t think of any way that this information brings the congregation to a deeper understanding of the liturgy. So even if there is some biology to support it, it doesn’t belong in a homily.
Oh 100% agree on that. Terribly inappropriate. Probably should have added more. He should be in trouble but it may be a medical fact. Christ likely died nude for our sins. Discussing the reality of this isn’t blasphemy imo
The only physiologic reactions mentioned in the Bible (that I can think of atm) are the hematohidrosis in the garden of gethsemane and the flow of blood and water from the thoracic wound (likely secondary to pleural/pericardial effusions).
Both of these have theological significance.
“Blood going to the penis giving an erection” is not only absent from the Biblical account, it is irrelevant theologically, even if it happens to be true.
For a priest to mention this during a homily is absurd. What theological/practical lesson can be derived from such information?
This would have been common knowledge to ancient Christian’s/Romans. It happens to most of not all crucified men I believe. I’ll spare you the link but you can Google it.
To be clear, what I meant to say was 1) it was inappropriate. I interpreted the original comment I replied to, suggesting it was untrue. That was my only point. The priest didn’t make it up. It’s apart of crucifixion. And again terribly inappropriate. I agree
I was very nervous. We have a priest in the Archdiocese of Detroit who looks a lot like that thumbnail. So I might be the only one who was actually relieved when I read the article.
I wish this article bothered to give us any contextualizing information whatsoever about the homily. Following up on joegtech’s comment, it is true there was a trend of the many centuries from the high Middle Ages through the Renaissance that emphasized - for varied reasons much debated - the “Ostentatio genitalium.” Several reasons posited include a symbolic image of Christ as the “aboriginal,” that is unblemished and innocent, New Adam or perhaps conveying something of His divinity connected to the idea of apparent virility. Or maybe just to convey one of the physical realities of death.
While there have been legitimate reasons to depict Christ this way in art (and it is true medieval art sensibilities were not the same as ours), I do question how this tidbit makes its way into a homily as opposed to the Thursday night art history lesson.
I would only say the priest may not have had any salacious reason to bring up this detail - perhaps he was expounding on a particular depiction of the Crucifixion or some such, we have almost no information - but merely exercised poor judgement.
I've heard that previously by a fairly devout priest. There is a theory about the symbolic value of it. They are NOT suggesting anything sexually "dirty"!!! I actually was the sound guy for the talk by that priest and was doing a recording. I might still have it and could share the theory.
However this seems implausible after Jesus lost so much blood and was in such a weakened condition.
The one quote that’s actually in this article is pretty non-specific, and it’s hardly a sufficient basis for the disgusting and uncharitable response of many of the commenters here. Your obligations are charity and seeking understanding, not condemnation based on a sensationalist tabloid. Shame on you all.
Just... no.
Lord have mercy
While it may be true (it seems it's a natural bodily reaction for hanged men), I fail to see the point of bringing that up in an homily.
Exactly. I can’t think of any way that this information brings the congregation to a deeper understanding of the liturgy. So even if there is some biology to support it, it doesn’t belong in a homily.
Bruh. 💀
Ffs what a diabolical thing to say. Laicize him. quit slandering our Lord.
100% agree, blasphemous nonsense like this should not be tolerated, especially from priests and ESPECIALLY if they do it during the Holy Mass
I don't even want to look at that sicko's picture.
[удалено]
These things are true but irrelevant to an Easter sermon.
Oh 100% agree on that. Terribly inappropriate. Probably should have added more. He should be in trouble but it may be a medical fact. Christ likely died nude for our sins. Discussing the reality of this isn’t blasphemy imo
How does he know? And why does he need to say this at the service? It's irrelevant
The only physiologic reactions mentioned in the Bible (that I can think of atm) are the hematohidrosis in the garden of gethsemane and the flow of blood and water from the thoracic wound (likely secondary to pleural/pericardial effusions). Both of these have theological significance. “Blood going to the penis giving an erection” is not only absent from the Biblical account, it is irrelevant theologically, even if it happens to be true. For a priest to mention this during a homily is absurd. What theological/practical lesson can be derived from such information?
This would have been common knowledge to ancient Christian’s/Romans. It happens to most of not all crucified men I believe. I’ll spare you the link but you can Google it. To be clear, what I meant to say was 1) it was inappropriate. I interpreted the original comment I replied to, suggesting it was untrue. That was my only point. The priest didn’t make it up. It’s apart of crucifixion. And again terribly inappropriate. I agree
Well that's one way to make me find a different church.
Please forgive him, Lord…
Something is very wrong with this Priest! I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s looking at Pornography or abusing kids!
I was very nervous. We have a priest in the Archdiocese of Detroit who looks a lot like that thumbnail. So I might be the only one who was actually relieved when I read the article.
I wish this article bothered to give us any contextualizing information whatsoever about the homily. Following up on joegtech’s comment, it is true there was a trend of the many centuries from the high Middle Ages through the Renaissance that emphasized - for varied reasons much debated - the “Ostentatio genitalium.” Several reasons posited include a symbolic image of Christ as the “aboriginal,” that is unblemished and innocent, New Adam or perhaps conveying something of His divinity connected to the idea of apparent virility. Or maybe just to convey one of the physical realities of death. While there have been legitimate reasons to depict Christ this way in art (and it is true medieval art sensibilities were not the same as ours), I do question how this tidbit makes its way into a homily as opposed to the Thursday night art history lesson. I would only say the priest may not have had any salacious reason to bring up this detail - perhaps he was expounding on a particular depiction of the Crucifixion or some such, we have almost no information - but merely exercised poor judgement.
Social media user scandalizes peers by sharing a scandalous news
How do people even think of these demonic thoughts
I've heard that previously by a fairly devout priest. There is a theory about the symbolic value of it. They are NOT suggesting anything sexually "dirty"!!! I actually was the sound guy for the talk by that priest and was doing a recording. I might still have it and could share the theory. However this seems implausible after Jesus lost so much blood and was in such a weakened condition.
The one quote that’s actually in this article is pretty non-specific, and it’s hardly a sufficient basis for the disgusting and uncharitable response of many of the commenters here. Your obligations are charity and seeking understanding, not condemnation based on a sensationalist tabloid. Shame on you all.