The most troubling aspect of Viridiana is not the desacralization of Catholic symbols, but the mockery of fundamental morality.
The film can be read either as a provocation against established dominant views, or as a critique of superficial morality, one based on slogans with no understanding of the underlying principles.
It’s interesting because, as a provocation, it would be a rather superficial exercise itself. As a critique of shallow morals, it touches more deeply because the questions are difficult to answer. When someone acts in the best way possible out of conviction, is that a stupid act? Or is it only stupid because the actor has not scrutinized her convictions more deeply? How deep is deep enough? In this regard, it echoes Middlemarch.
So is it a provocation or a deeper look? The bias towards sexual drives hints at a superficial exercise in provocation. The incident with Jorge relieving the dog only to find another one in the same condition points towards a more profound reading.
I guess there’s a bit of both. Kudos to a film that doesn’t want to explain itself and leaves interpretation open.