LOVELAND, Colo. — Kathleen Folden walked into the Loveland Museum/Gallery Oct. 6 with a crowbar hidden under her clothes. She walked up to a now-infamous anti-Catholic painting and used the crowbar to repeatedly strike the plastic casing that was supposed to protect the rare print titled “The Misadventures of Romantic Cannibals.”
She yelled, “How can you desecrate my Lord?”
Folden, a 56-year-old truck driver from Kalispell, Mont., hit the protective cover so hard that at least one caller reported gunshots to a 911 operator. After breaking the plastic, Folden began hacking away at the painting.
“It was very dramatic and upsetting,” museum art curator Maureen Corey told the Register. “People were yelling at her to stop, and someone tried to stop her. She finally ripped part of the image out and went to the corner and began ripping it to pieces. Then she calmed down, sat on a bench and waited for police to arrive.”
The image had been the object of large peaceful protests initiated by Deacon Ed Armijo and his pastor, Father Frank Garcia, of St. John the Evangelist Church in Loveland, an artsy community north of Denver.
The obscene painting and its destruction have become the center of a First Amendment flap. Some complain Folden violated the First Amendment rights of the artist to create and display a controversial message. Those critical of Loveland city officials say government violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment by denouncing a specific religion with a government-sponsored insult to Catholics and other Christians.
“Because it is city-owned and operated, the decisions of the Loveland Museum Gallery are the decisions of government,” said Martin Nussbaum, a Colorado Springs, Colo.-based attorney who represents Catholic dioceses throughout the country and specializes in church-state conflicts. “When government decides to prominently ridicule the founder of a particular religion through pornographic images under the guise of artistic expression, such state action almost certainly violates the Free Exercise Clause’s prohibition on targeting a particular religion for special burdens and the Establishment Clause’s requirement of government neutrality among the various religions.”
Children Exposed
The pornographic artwork, created by Stanford University art professor Enrique Chagoya, went on display the first week of October in the art museum that’s owned by the city government and partly funded by the state.
In multiple cartoon-like panels, the painting depicts what appears to be the head of the Virgin Mary on the body of a scantily clad cocktail waitress. Another panel features the head of Jesus on an obese female body in a one-piece bathing suit riding a bike. The most controversial panel shows Jesus in a pornographic depiction, next to the word “orgasm” written in English.
“The artist created this as criticism of the Church’s handling of the sex-abuse scandal. I tend to align myself with his views,” Corey told the Register.
Nussbaum said those words alone, from a city employee, provide clear evidence the display was chosen to denounce the Catholic religion. He said the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that governments shall neither advance nor denounce religion.
“With that statement, the curator is saying ‘I did this with intent,’ and the intent was to denounce the Catholic Church,” Nussbaum said.
Deacon Armijo said he initiated protests after seeing the painting. He obtained a protest permit from the city government, and the protests quickly grew into multidenominational events.
“I have researched this artist,” Armijo said. “He refers to his own style as ‘Mexican pornography.’”
Armijo said a Spanish sentence near the sex scene describes an act of sexual intercourse with “someone that did not want to be seen.”
“I believe the artist was describing sexual intercourse with the Church,” Armijo said.
Chagoya did not return calls to the Register.
Armijo said another phrase near the sex act said “for 18 years or older” in Spanish.
“When I was in the museum, children were looking at the painting and giggling about it,” said Armijo. “It was the kind of image you would expect to see in Hustler magazine, not a public museum.”
Corey said city employees and elected officials in Loveland respect free speech, and she favored keeping the display because it inspired discussion. She could not tell the Register what was written in Spanish near the sex act.
“You would be better to ask someone who’s fluent in Spanish,” Corey said.
The city charter in Loveland defines pornography as something “so offensive on the face as to affront current community standards of tolerance.” Yet Loveland City attorney John Duvall, responding to complaints from the public, determined the display did not meet that standard. Three members of the City Council voted to remove the display from the museum after citizens packed a council meeting to complain, but four other members voted to keep it in defense of the painter’s First Amendment rights.
What About Muhammad?
As the controversy played out along Colorado’s Front Range, callers to talk radio frequently asked: Would the city display a painting that featured Muhammad receiving oral sex? After all, Islamic clerics have ordered the deaths of authors and artists who have portrayed Muhammad irreverently. And when a Baptist preacher in Florida planned to exercise his free-speech rights by burning Qurans in September, the president of the United States, the secretary of state, other federal officials and much of the media establishment begged him not to.
“I cannot speculate on what we might do regarding a painting that doesn’t exist,” Corey said, responding to the Register’s question about Muhammad. “To do so would invite debate about something that doesn’t exist.”
Folden faces charges of criminal mischief, a Class 4 felony. She was released Oct. 7 on $350 bail. County officials told the Register she was not speaking to the media on the advice of her lawyer. As she left jail, she declined questions but told reporters, “Just remember: God is real.”
Deacon Armijo said he wanted to resolve the conflict peacefully and would have tried to talk Folden out of destroying the painting had he known of her plan. Armijo said he has never heard of Folden and never met her. She was not part of the protest, which had shut down moments before her attack because the permit was good only until 4pm.
“But it’s gone, and I’m glad our children will no longer be exposed to it,” Armijo said.
A statement appearing on the town’s website said the destroyed artwork was a print, not the original, and that the remaining scraps of it are being held by police as evidence. It said the print will not be replaced at the museum.
Jeanette De Melo, director of communications for the Archdiocese of Denver, said Archbishop Charles Chaput and officials of the archdiocese had no involvement in the controversy other than to support Father Garcia and Deacon Armijo in their protest.
Said De Melo in an e-mail to the Register, “The illegal activity that happened yesterday is regrettable and not condoned by Father Garcia or the Church.”.
Wayne Laugesen writes from Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Comments
Post a Comment
She - Folden - has more guts than most.
“I cannot speculate on what we might do regarding a painting that doesn’t exist,” Corey said, responding to the Register’s question about Muhammad. “To do so would invite debate about something that doesn’t exist.”
She doesn’t have to. When will her museum display the Mohammad cartoons printed by the Danish newspaper? Could no one have asked her that?
I’m glad Ms. Folden did what she did. I’m tired of the state so often siding against the Church. Loveland should never have displayed this blasphemy in the first place. I hope Folden has enough money to take this to the courts. We do have the best justice money can buy.
Although it was wrong for the lady who did damage to the “art”, I understand why she did it….what a terrible thing to paint and then call it art. Our tax dollars are used for this type of thing all the time, sadly
Do Christians need to start committing suicide before politicians and the media acknowledge hateful expressions directed toward us?
Kathleen Folden is to be praised for her action. No physical harm was done to any person. This was a government-sponsored offense (to put it mildly) against all Christians and Christianity itself. Such a public mockery of religion should be illegal and most vociferously condemned. I only wonder where the Christian men were - why did it take a woman to act like a man?
The private exhibition of this so-called “art”, while vile and disgusting, should be a protected exercise of speech. No one wants to go down the road of censorship. However, the pubic display of this garbage in a taxpayer funded location should never be tolerated. I applaud Kathleen’s actions against this insulting filth, my only regret is that she didn’t follow up with gasoline and a match.
The unilateral liberal/progressive assault on Christianity must stop.
Good for you Ms. Folden for defending the your respect & belief in your Lord Jesus Christ. I back up your action completly & absolutely am sick & tired of the state at all levels using the US Constitution to defend sio called freedoms. We know the goal of the state as it is taken over by leftists. We’ve seen it for the past several hundred years in many countries. Thank God for all Christians & especially the Catholic Church which can be abused by those against her but never defeated. Soon we will need more Ms Foldenis as they try to push us in the corner.
I do not advocate violence, but I think Ms Folden did a good thing.
Why are some liberals such self-righteous hypocrites? They decry the Quran burning in FL, but defend this sacriledge!???? Maybe it just comes down to their fear of Muslims. Nonetheless, God still does love liberals!
I suppose that Folden should have simply issued a formal declaration calling for the death of both the artist and of the curator at the museum. This is evidently the new and approved method of public discourse on controversial matters, based on our government’s response to such things in recent history; the artist and curator would have been advised by the FBI to go into hiding,the painting would have been removed, and Obama would have issued another blather about sensitivity and everything would be fine. Get with the times Folden.
FB
State police had to take crosses down from roadside memorials. They were honoring fallen officers, but because it was paid for by the state, the crosses crossed the line of separation of church and state. The separation has to go both ways.
God bless Kathleen Folden.
I am a supporter of freedom of expression and the rule of law. That said, if someone placed in their front yard an effigy of our present President, and a noose and the branch of a tree were involved (can’t even bring myself to speak it; you do the math) and there were signs all over the tree and the yard “This and this should be done to the President”, etc.
and if someone came along at night and sneaked into their yard, and took it all down, and took it away, I would totally applaud them doing that. Applaud taking them away. Applaud their interfering with the homeowner’s freedom of expression, and even violating the rule of law.
Because freedom of expression is important, but it’s not absolute.
As friend once put it, “there are some things you just don’t *do*!”
And there are some things you just don’t *say*!
Indicating a desire to see our President come to harm is something you don’t do. And using images of Jesus Christ in X-rated contexts to make a statement about the Catholic Church is something you don’t do.
Or if you do, and then someone comes along and takes a baseball bat to your “artwork”, then I say, “good on them!”
This lady is a hero. God Bless her.
Although I like the fact that this painting is no longer displayed, I think it would have been better if someone followed a legal route, and got it removed on grounds of violating the first amendment. If that course of action was followed, a decision could prevent “art” like that from being displayed in public funded museums in the first place. However, I applaud her for her courage and for taking it down.
In principle we are non violent and non-destrucive. But there is a limit for everything. No amendment can sanction freedom to anyone to ridicule Christ, or Mohammed or Budha or Gandhi. Especially when people consider some as their God or Teacher. Even Jesus became angry and threw the tables of merchants who used the synagouge as marketplace. Why terrorists like Alqueda flourish ? Because they are taunted by such blasphemy. So I feel sometimes the christians may become angry and indulge in destruction when their Lord and Saviour is depicted as villains or womaniser. The Western secularism does not reform people, but make divisions and hatred and intolerance. Will any artist like to be told that his mother was a prostitute ? Of course these artists may not believe in any sexual morality
Amendment or no amendment, all have freedom to malign Jesus and christianity specially catholicism. HUman beings have limited capacity to suffer such humiliations So there will come up people like Kathleen
When asked by Fox News about the vandalism of his art, the artist Enrique Chagoya responded: “Should we as artists, or any free-thinking people, have to be subjected to fear of violent attacks for expressing our sincere concerns? I made a collage with a comic book and an illustration of a religious icon to express the corruption of something precious and spiritual. There is no nudity, or genitals, or explicit sexual contact shown in the image. There is a dressed woman, a religious icon’s head, a man showing his tongue, and a skull of a Pope in the upper right corner of the controversial page. I did not make a picture of Christ. I used symbols as one would use words in a sentence to critique corruption of the sacred by religious institutions.”
If they had any guts, they would attack Islam. Christianity is just seen as a soft target.
To answer the question, “What About Muhammad?”, if you look at the artwork panels, one of them (panel #10 of 12) shows an unveiled image of what some people allege to be Mohammad kneeling in front of a bed upon which scantily dressed pigs are dancing.
May I suggest Folden’s defense?
She was merely engaging in “performance art.” She might even get an NEH grant for it!
Well-done, Folden!!!
Whether or not the painting is pornographic and whether or not it should have been displayed in the Loveland Museaum /Gallery is something to be decided separately.
In the meantime, Kathleen Folden should at least be charged with vandalism because of the physical damage she caused to the artwork. She should also be required to undergo psychological testing to see if she is a danger to herself or others.
I am so tired of the so called “art” community standing up for the most repulsive, vile blasphemy against our Lord, but becoming filled with righteous indignation over any imagined slight of Islam. They are the worst sort of hypocrites. I am a Lutheran, but we need to stand together on this. I started to cry when I heard about this. Jesus is our Saviour, the dearest and the best as the old hymn says. Ms. Holden is a hero.
The painting she destroyed was a real, physical thing that someone created and invested time and effort in doing so. Ms. Folden was acting on behalf of a blind belief in something or someone that cannot be shown to even exist. She is no hero; rather she is delusional.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.