The David Bowie controversy continues after its allotted 15 minutes, thanks a perhaps unintentionally hilarious statement by Bill Donohue from the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. His review of Bowie’s recently released music video, “The Next Day” is apparently meant to trash the 66-year-old British dinosaur rocker, but it may only serve to give the work more attention.
If you haven’t yet seen the video, I posted it for The Inquisitr yesterday, but please be warned before you decide to watch “The Next Day” .
There is a lot of vaguely Catholic-themed imagery including a priest and a woman who suffers from bloody stigmata. Bowie kinda, sorta might be Jesus. There are boobies including bare nipples.
And there are bloody eyeballs on a plate. For me, that’s it, I’m outta here. Not gonna watch any more bloody eyeballs on a plate.
As leader of the Catholic anti-defamation group, Donohue has a rather stronger critique of the controversial David Bowie video:
“David Bowie is back, but hopefully not for long. The switch-hitting, bisexual, senior citizen from London has resurfaced, this time playing a Jesus-like character who hangs out in a nightclub dump frequented by priests, cardinals and half-naked women…”
Gosh. After a lead like that, how could you NOT watch “The Next Day”?
And there’s more:
“The video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women; self-flagellation is depicted; a dancing gal with bleeding hands makes a stigmata statement; and a customer is served eyeballs on a plate…In short, the video reflects the artist — it is a mess.”
Tell us what you really think, Donohue. Don’t be so bashful!
The rant goes on, concluding that Bowie “can’t stop thinking about the Cadillac of all religions, namely Roman Catholicism. There is hope for him yet.”
The Cadillac of religions. Why not a Rolls, a Bentley, or at least a BMW? Is this for real, or is David Bowie kicking back a few bucks to this guy to create a fake controversy?
These Catholic League guys have been around for awhile, since 1973, but they’re not a historic part of a church that has existed for centuries, and they don’t speak officially for the Catholic Church. My read is that they’re sincere in the desire to defend the Church but perhaps they don’t always use the best methods.
In my humble view, the over-the-top statement merely adds life to the David Bowie controversy.
[David Bowie photo by Photobra/Adam Bielawski via Wikimedia Commons ]
