German Television shocks with Baby Jesus covered in slime

A bizarre mountain of slime, instead of the traditional nativity scene with Mary, Joseph, and the baby Jesus, is causing a stir in Germany.

Christmas Mass at St. Mary's Church in Stuttgart: An unidentifiable, slimy mass lies before the clergy.

The object is meant to represent the baby Jesus.

Responsible for the shocking Christmas Eve Mass: Father Thomas Steiger.

ARD broadcast a Christmas Eve service with a slime mountain instead of a nativity scene.

Politicians and internet users criticize the Christmas Eve service at St. Mary's Church in Stuttgart.

Parish priest Thomas Steiger says they didn't want to "provoke, but also didn't want to look the other way."

Instead of a cozy nativity scene with Mary, Joseph, and the baby Jesus, the German public broadcaster ARD showed an unidentifiable slime mountain on a haystack during the Christmas Eve service. The service was broadcast live from the Catholic Church of St. Mary in Stuttgart, as reported by "Bild." Father Thomas Steiger (61) celebrated the Mass there. Artist Milena Lorek was responsible for the nativity figure.

For many Christians, the slime mountain, reminiscent of an alien, was disturbing. Klaus Nopper (58), a Stuttgart CDU city councilor and candidate for the state parliament, is outraged: "This is disgusting! The Christmas story is being exploited here for the sake of wokeness." He believes that such programming undermines the ARD's legitimacy. "Boundaries are being pushed further and further, our values ​​are being thrown overboard," says Nopper. "This is how you destroy society."

"Taking religion to absurdity"

Former CDU member of parliament Maximilian Mörseburg (33), also from Stuttgart, criticizes those responsible: "Representatives of both major churches are increasingly taking our religion to absurd extremes and stripping it of its dignity. At the same time, they are surprised that people are turning away from the church."

According to Mörseburg, the focus at Christmas should be on beauty. Such an installation only further discourages people.

Priest defends himself

There was an actor inside the Stuttgart slime Jesus. He was covered with damp rice paper. At the shocking Christmas Eve service, Father Steiger said: "The nativity scene depicts a real person, lying there miserable, naked, and exposed."

In an interview with the "Stuttgarter Zeitung," the priest defended himself, saying they "didn't want to provoke, but also didn't want to look the other way."

But was this really what the churchgoers wanted to see on Christmas Eve? Furthermore, was the entire ARD television audience meant to witness this gruesome service? The show is being heavily criticized on social media. One user described it as "sick and deviant." "Because of the flu, I couldn't go to church for the service and hoped to find some peace and quiet on television," another comment read. "I thought I was seeing things!"

Source

Last year the artist, Milena Lorek was one of the contributors to Kratz! Body Rituals, Tales and Dreams

How a church spokesperson defended the Nativity outrage on Facebook

"Dear comment writers.

Artistic representations are often the subject of controversial debates. This is no different from religious forms of expression. They are subject to personal taste, and there is no harm in discussing them – for the sake of the truth, which we never fully possess.

However, what is unacceptable in some of the comments here is when they are offensive and tend towards total rejection, without even attempting to engage with something unfamiliar or new.

Christmas means that God becomes human. The fact that we identify this with a child, even stylising it into an idyll, is a product of the 19th century. Our human existence, however, is marked by great contrasts, including suffering and poverty, evil and ugliness. In the vicinity of St. Mary's Church in the south of Stuttgart in particular, the wealthy business world and many forms of human poverty collide head-on. Once you are there, you cannot escape this. That is why it was important to us to also show human weakness and vulnerability – alongside the tenderness and comfort that was present in our service, for example in the music.

Apparently, some people did not like this form of artistic representation and felt it did not meet their expectations. Perhaps it raised questions about certain expectations. That would be correct. Because art also has the function of confronting us with reality."

And one of the many responses

"It's understandable that you're now trying to defend this unfortunate idea. However, it's not just "some" people who disliked this depiction—it's clearly a great many! In any case, I haven't heard a single person in my rather large and by no means stuffy circle of acquaintances who found this depiction pleasant or appropriate. Aside from the fact that the whole thing actually looked like a person inside an egg membrane—which is biologically complete nonsense—it was simply creepy. If the artist's intention (is it true that she works for SWR?) was to frighten and provoke, then she undoubtedly succeeded. However, whether a Christmas Eve service is the appropriate setting for horror, for this kind of performance art, is certainly open to serious question.

As for your rather embarrassing defense here: As far as I can see, the artwork was indeed met with (in my opinion, accurate) negative comments. However, one cannot insult a work of art, and your accusation that some people simply haven't "engaged" with it is the height of arrogance. After all, it is everyone's right to express their opinion, and in this case, that naturally presupposes that these people have seen the artwork. If the majority of these people then express their displeasure, it takes a great deal of chutzpah to declare ex cathedra that they simply haven't "engaged" with it or didn't understand it.

And if you even go so far as to claim that the depiction of the Nativity story dates back to the 19th century, then the author is merely revealing a stupendous ignorance of Christian tradition: The depiction of a Nativity scene goes back to Francis of Assisi (1223 in Greccio), thus to the 13th century. The first permanent Nativity scenes, depicting scenes with carved figures, emerged in monasteries at least from the year 1300 onwards. This means that your form of performance art—the transformation of the Christmas Nativity as a symbol of salvation into a provocative, disgusting, and gruesome image—marks a break with a centuries-old Christian tradition! Considering that the entire Christian faith, indeed the Bible itself, is based on tradition, the leap from the Christ Child in the manger to the gooey, horror-movie-style mangle on straw is not only a massive break, but a complete misinterpretation of the theme.

In other words, your strained, arrogant apology adds insult to injury after the initial embarrassment!"