The art world is in an uproar about the museum's decision, with critics, collectors, and curators yelling censorship and warning that this is no way for an up-and-coming museum to behave. Nitsch is calling the decision "a different kind of shocking" and that it wasted his time and money. Who's being bourgeois here exactly? But I can imagine the inconvenience and can feel the indignation about a perceived act of censorship even though the contemporary art world, of which Museo Jumex is part of, wholeheartedly embraces violent, scatalogical images.
From what I've seen, Nitsch's works look relatively benign. But in Mexico the concept of law-and-order does not exist and chaos and corruption rule. The director of the museum said in more diplomatic language that there was concern about the "political and social times Mexico is going through." Recently, 43 rural college students were abducted, then detained by police who handed them over to members of a local drug gang. The gang killed them by incineration, the images televised. When we exist in a society that abides by law-and-order, with its people moving comfortably and with clock-like regularity then disemboweling sheep as performance art might be considered radical. Not so much otherwise.
Also, the museum is showing this power to continually decide in life. Maybe it had never been correct for them to show these works in the first place? Maybe the real reason Nitsch's works aren't allowed at this time, at that place, is for larger, mysterious reasons that have nothing to do with censorship or violence? This is the power of a decision. You don't need any reason, or to find a reason, to make one. This is the whole ethos behind this way of living, to have the courage to make a decision based on no reason at all other than it feels right, or doesn't.