I just came online to do some research - I needed photos of a couple of Catholic 'personalities' for my 'campy' painting.
Quick notes since I'm here...
This is so stupid - "Devil in the details" - restorers actually believing that Giotto, or one of his students painted the face of the devil in the clouds of a fresco. Remember the guy who made a film about the San Damiano crucifix with the embedded penis? Yeah, Michael Calaci and The Rape of the Soul. Geesh! People who think abstract expressionism is evil are willing to give their personal impressions credit when it comes to medieval and renaissance painting... and they make up all kinds of stories to support their 21st century POV.
I use the term eidolon for this type of image these folks claim exist or were intentionally worked in to a composition. Eidolon means 'an unsubstantial image: phantom'. popular culture has trademarked the term for other purposes, while Carl Sagan employed another similar term for such imaginary images: paeidolia. - Abbey Roads post: The Evil of Abstract Expresionism
Opinion page: I believer Herman Cain's accusers BTW. No big deal, really - if Cain hadn't lied about it. It's the lying that gets me.
Church talk: I do not know what the big deal is about the new changes in the liturgy - they are barely even noticeable, BUT - if my parish is any indication, the hymns and the music will continue to be sappy, sentimental, ass-slapping crap. Oh, and there should never ever be special Eucharistic prayers for children - IMO that is. Kids know the difference between disciples and friends.