Regarding your story “Hand of man responsible for obscuring face of God” (April 17):

I think your reporter missed the underlying problem that the Holy Cross Church and its parishioners have with the artwork. It isn’t that it is too scary to show the kids or that there is some issue with aesthetics. It has to do with the nature of the subject: the passion of Christ.

The temerity of the artist was bold. If his guide was medieval religious iconography, he missed. Recently, I stood in front of Antonin Gaudi’s “Passion of Christ” at the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, Spain. I was very moved by this world-class treatment of the most terrible suffering a human can endure.

The South Portland church sought to have a local artisan, a member of the congregation, take on this subject matter, rich in art history, and allowed his design to be realized. The result is a parody of the passion, which offends the pious. The result could be a set-piece for Monty Python’s “Life of Brian II.”

There are other sculptural structures around the globe where the public chides the artist with local monikers, such as the “Gherkin” in London, the “Bird’s Nest” in Beijing and the “Typewriter” in Rome.

And we have our “googly-eyed Jesus.” It is the perceived derision of the nickname that upsets the congregation. But I have another take. I think it is wonderful, an endearing folly.

This 90-foot work of art, only 12 feet from the public right of way, should be considered to be in the public realm. I recommend the church either embrace its contribution to the public square and let the artist himself cut down the pine or the church consider replacing it altogether if it offends so.

And who did plant the pine tree?

Thomas Burns

Portland