Here, from artist Cosimo Cavallaro's website, is an image of the Christ statue. Cavallaro is inviting gallerygoers to taste the statue before it's taken down on Easter Sunday. Boy, won't that be fun, watching people break off the Lord's penis and eat it on Easter Sunday. Just imagine the catty blasphemy you'll hear. Oh, what would we ever do without those oh-so-brave New York hipsters.
The thing is, they're cowards. If they had guts, they'd create and display a statue of a naked Muhammad, with his penis exposed, on Ramadan. To be clear, I would think it a terrible thing if they did that, would hope they wouldn't, and would denounce them if they did. But of course they wouldn't do that, because they know exactly what would happen to them if they did. Christians, though, are fair game to be shat on by our cultural betters.
Of course the Catholic League has gone ballistic:
"This is one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever," said Bill Donohue, head of the Catholic League, a watchdog group. "It's not just the ugliness of the portrayal, but the timing — to choose Holy Week is astounding."
No, it's not remotely one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities. Language like that makes it easier to dismiss Christian complaints. The heroic Msgr. Pius Ncube, a Catholic archbishop in Zimbabwe, recently announced his willingness to be shot to death by his government to stand up against the dictator Robert Mugabe. If the worst thing American Christians have to worry about is some jackass artist making blasphemous fun of Christ on Holy Week, we've got it better than most of our brethren in the world. That said, this really is offensive, and so completely gratuitous. I'm glad Bill Donohue is going to make some bad people miserable for a few days. What is to be gained by this exhibit? What artistic or public interest is served by it? If Christians had the reputation for threatening to silence critics through violence and threats of violence, you could see possibly the rationale. But there's no rationale, other than the ersatz thrill of blasphemy. That, and publicity.
Like my DMN colleague, former religion editor Bruce Tomaso, I'm glad we live in a country where people are free to be blasphemous creeps and not have to face criminal action, or the threat that their gallery will be firebombed, or the likelihood that some bishop will put a fatwa on their heads and some believer will attempt to carry it out. Still, this is rotten, and I hope no Christian ever again stays at the Roger Smith Hotel, in whose in-house gallery this thing is to be exhibited. In fact, I have to make a reservation today for a quick business trip to NYC, and was looking for a cheap hotel to stay in. Scratch that one off my list, forever. What a great thing it would be if Catholics and other Christians in NYC staged a peaceful Holy Week prayer vigil outside this hotel.
UPDATE: My Bnet colleague David Kuo has a somewhat different take on the matter, saying that this offensive artwork is a good reminder for Christians about how Our Lord was mocked and despised by the public in his day, and he patiently endured it out of his love for us. Thanks for that reminder, David.
UPDATE.2: The Chocolate Jesus exhibition has been cancelled. And Matt Semler resigned. I'm sure Bill Donohue has sent him a conciliatory bouquet of tulips.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Apart from the contoversy itself ; the antics and rhetoric of Bill Donahue was embarassing , as when he said to the artist during an interview on CNN; " You just showed your middle finger to the Catholic Church , and we broke it , pal."
Where is the outrage? Where is the truth? Why is everybody concerned with the naked Jesus? Its the chocolate part that gets me! This evil artist portrayed Jesus in DARK CHOCOLATE when everyone knows that WHITE CHOCOLATE would have been more appropriate and accurate. I ask all reasonable Christians to ask themselves, "Would I rather eat the penis of a DARK or WHITE chocolate Jesus?" Unless you're black and gay, the answer is simple. Obviously the artist didn't know Jesus was white and spoke English with a lilting Southern drawl. In fact he even called himself Jay-sus-uh, just like Jerry Falwell.
--Greg Forest
I'm not certain about this in any way. On one hand, I am annoyed at the subversive mannar that Easter has, like Christmas, been re-converted into a secular, capitalistic, non-alturistic theatrical event, with all Christian meaning kept low.
If this piece is an answer to all of that, a reply if one will that 'if you want to eat chocolate and forget meaning, then eat this because forgetting isn't a option', then I understand and sympathise with the piece in some respects.
If it is in any way a gimmick, without thought or an inherent instigation, or worse still any sort of parody, then it is by definition included with the sort of uneducated, brutishness of capitalist insincerity.
I am dark skinned, and definately batting for the same side (i.e. heterosexual).
The comments above my initial comment I think illustrate my sentiments clearly.
Bunnies and baskets full of candy do not keep you from celebrating whatever meaning you want to take in Easter. If the secular message means nothing to you, ignore it. Same goes for Chocolate Jesus; you're probably not the intended audience. BTW, more than one interpretation is not only possible, but necessary for any compelling work of art.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.