Gay sex Jesus at Catholic museum, cont'd

Er, had nobody ever considered the sadomasochistic elements so obvious in the Crucifixion and humanity's obsession with it?

It's always been fairly obvious to me.

Rebecca Winters,

The "sadomasochistic element" in the Crucifixion is your "obsession" not "humanity's." It is "obvious" to you only because you are -- pardon my French -- [Hey, no personal insults here -- RD.] If this seems like a rude reply to you, then it is no more rude than your own reply to Rod's post. If an artist created, say, a giant bronze sculpture of Barack Obama wearing a turban while performing fellatio on Jeremiah Wright, I wouldn't be offended personally, but I would nonetheless understand why supporters of Barack Obama would be. Regardless of one's personal response, such things are outside the realm of civility and should not be condoned. The artist in this case or in my hypothetical case has every right to make whatever sort of art he or she wants to make -- regardless of its puerile or sophomoric nature. But everyone else likewise has every right to condemn the artist for violating standards of civility and certainly no obligation to underwrite the artist's work or to support those institutions that do.

Rod,

I apologize for crossing the line on personal insults. I twitted (ahem) Rebecca Winters only to make a point about how intentionally -- and yes personally -- offensive I found her post to be, with its implication that everyone shares her view of the Crucifixion as sadomasochistic and anyone who denies they do is being dishonest. Anyway, again, I'm sorry and will be more careful in future.

I believe art was intended to do exactly what was done here. It is designed to move people in new directions, consider things they haven't considered before, move them to rethink beauty and narrative and aesthetic.

All of that said, there is the question of whether this is an appropriate place for such works. There are plenty of galleries that could have shown similar work. Admittedly, those galleries would not have had the same impact as the one next to a cathedral, but people are just to complain about this art in that place.

I actually find the art quite beautiful and moving and it is not nearly as pornographic or sexual as Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," which was shown in churches. The homoeroticism of this art is not nearly as homoerotic as Gibson's work.

Would someone do this to Mohammed? Probably not, but it is an absurd comparison in some ways. While Christian's don't riot in the streets and issue death threats, they use their heckler's veto to silence (and, arguably, encourage such art). This art wouldn't be as provocative if it didn't create the outrage it creates. In that sense, it is no different from the Danish cartoons. It is meant to provoke.

So why do we view the Danish cartoons as a First Amendment lesson and not these sculptures? Because cartoons elicited riots and death threats, while these sculptures merely elicit hundreds of thousands of blog posts?

Daniel wrote (in part) --

"So why do we view the Danish cartoons as a First Amendment lesson and not these sculptures? Because cartoons elicited riots and death threats, while these sculptures merely elicit hundreds of thousands of blog posts?"

Answer: Exactly. The sculptures merely elicited blog posts, editorials, and words words words. The cartoons triggered riots and death threats. That is the difference.

Daniel's attempt to equate criticsm (no matter how harsh) with death threats and riots betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of free speech. Those offended by the display in the museum have the absolute right to criticize it (and maybe a moral duty to do so). Those who in turn disagree with the critics can feel free to chime in. Artists who are so thin skinned that they are intimidated by opposition in print, in a blog, or in a speech have no business in the public square. To suggest that such opposition is the moral equivalent of violence or the threat of violence is simly foolish.

Also remember this. The First Amendment does not have any application to either the original publication of the cartoons, or the museum display which is the subject of this thread. It is a restriction on the government of the United States, and (through the application of the 14th Amendendment) the governments of the various states and their political subdivisions. The First Amendment has no applicability on the decision of a private museum to display or not to display any work, and would not (even in the U.S.) prevent a Catholic museum from deciding not to show something it deemed inconsistent with its mission.

It should also be obvious that the First Amendment has no application to either govermental or private entities outside of the U.S.

Franz, you are correct. I should have said "Free Speech" instead of "First Amendment." I still argue the heckler's veto of upset Christians is as powerful as rioting Muslims and that both stifle Free Speech.

"I still argue the heckler's veto of upset Christians is as powerful as rioting Muslims and that both stifle Free Speech."

Are you serious? Why does this art qualify as "free speech" but criticism qualifies as a stifling "heckler's veto" ???

Can you explain that double standard?

Daniel:

Did we see different version's of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" ? In your 9:52 AM post you referred to Gibson's film as "pornographic" "sexual" and "homoerotic." Are you kidding? I didn't see any of those things in the film -- although the lady who played the "Devil" seemed kind of, well, odd. Did I miss something? -- help me out here, please :-)

You know, Jesus is one of the major symbolic figures of our culture, and as such, he is bound to be attractive for use by artists. Christian artists made social and political statements as they re-envisioned pagan deities and legendary heroes. It shouldn't be surprising that post-moderns re-envision the figure of Jesus and put the Christian mythology to their own uses. Whether those uses are legitimate or not, and how Christians will respond to them is, of course, the subject under discussion.

I have a couple of questions for those who are outraged by this art. Is there, or can you imagine there could be, any artistic depiction of Jesus that was not based in your own version of religious orthodoxy and yet could still be considered legitimate by you? And is there, or can you imagine, an artistic depiction of Jesus that was not orthodox, but was still good art?

Those aren't rhetorical questions. I'm genuinely interested, and if I weren't technically working at the moment, I'd probably go off on a research surf of my own. Here, for your consideration, is one quote I found about Rouault.

When the young Rouault finally found his unique pictorial voice, putting behind him a style much indebted to Rembrandt, his spiritual mentor, Leon Bloy, attacked his new work in the harshest terms: "This artist that I thought was capable of painting seraphim seems only able to imagine the most atrocious and avenging caricatures." Bloy savaged not only Rouault's art, ".. you are attracted exclusively by the ugly; you seems to be enthralled by the hideous," but through it, his faith, "..if you were a man of prayer...you would not be able to paint such terrible canvases."

Daniel: I believe art was intended to do exactly what was done here. It is designed to move people in new directions, consider things they haven't considered before, move them to rethink beauty and narrative and aesthetic.

Please do explain how showing a Roman soldier jacking off the crucified Saviour moves us "in new direction." It certainly made me consider things I've never considered before.

Daniel: I actually find the art quite beautiful and moving

This does not surprise me. Alas. Same planet, different worlds.

I recall seeing a sculpture depicting the Christ as a WOMAN!!! Gasp, eh?

Meanwhile, let me echo Alicia's cal above re: "... a much greater scandal that I hope you will post about soon, Rod. That's the story from Texas about the raid on the Fundamentalist (Warren Jeffs') LDS Polygamist compound."

All the things your followers have posted that they believe legalizing gay marriage will "lead to" - namely, polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, under-aged marriage, forced marriage (nevermind rape, mind control, and child abuse) - are already extant in America - and performed under the auspices of a church, no less. Your thoughts will be enlightening I'm sure.

I wonder if Cardinal Schoenborn would have allowed to be exhibited in his cathedral museum a painting depicting his father being masturbated by another man (or by anyone, for that matter).

If not, why does he allow this abominable image of Jesus Christ in a museum under his control? I'm not asking rhetorically. I really want to know.

Those are some really interesting questions, sig. I think what's important here is that Jesus is not a mere symbol, and He is not a mythological figure or an idea in the way that pagan deities and some legendary heroes were; He was also not a mere human. Of course, the artists who treat it as such would not agree, and quite possibly it is because the question of whether or not it is true that Jesus was the Son of God who came to save humanity has such huge implications depending on how you answer that we see such a stark difference in how he has been depicted by believers (and those who were perhaps not believers, but were heavily influenced by, and continuing in the tradition) and by post-moderns.

I think before answering your questions, its important to address a few things. I think it is clear by looking at Christian art through the ages, especially the art of Europe in Late Antiquity through the Reformation and the art of Byzantium, that there is a good deal of space for creativity when depicting Christ in art while staying within the boundaries of orthodoxy-which are not meant to be arbitrary or limiting, but expressions of the truth, which is part of what makes art good. Depictions of Jesus did change quite a bit through these periods, but those changes, as far as I know, were almost always connected to deeper understandings of theology (and philosophy) rather than innovation for innovation's sake. Also, I think the answer to this question hinges somewhat on how we view art, which is in turn guided by our worldview and basic philosophy, because it is from these things that we come to our definition of good art. To me, as a Christian (and an old fashioned art lover), art is good when it depicts, overall, what is good, beautiful and true (though within those boundaries I think there is space for depicting things that are bad, ugly and untrue), and the best art, I think, takes the deep truths that are woven into the very fabric of the universe and depicts them visually. So I would not consider unorthodox depictions of Christ to be good art (and I think-correct me if I'm wrong-Christian orthodoxy is universal, though I know Protestants and Catholics have slightly different approaches to art). And, as I think post-modernism to be a problematic philosophical system, I'm not too crazy about pomo art in general. Though I will say that one of the things I find really interesting about art is how it reflects the philosophical and cultural beliefs of the society that produced it, and so for that reason I like to look at and study art that I wouldn't consider good. So I certainly might consider some unorthodox depictions to be though-provoking and interesting, though not when it is so disgusting as the works described. I was not familiar with Rouault before you mentioned him. I was just looking at some of his Miserere series. Moving, compelling, and what I saw would fit the definition of good. I think I've come to an understanding about what it means for art to be good and true, but I'm not quite sure yet about the nature of beauty to the two, particularly in the sense of whether or not something is aesthetically pleasing. Something to think about :-)

One more thought-I'm more saddened by the whole thing than anything. It's not just that people would paint such a thing and that a Catholic museum would display it, and that the discussions that follow seem to assume freedom is an absolute and a positive good (when it is really a negative good that simply allows us to do things that matter) and completely cast aside the public's legitimate authority and responsibility to set boundaries (something that the Founders would have almost certainly agreed with; towns and cities had laws against obscenity for most of our history, after all) but that shock is considered such a negative reaction to these sorts of things. A society in which nothing is shocking is a society in which nothing is sacred, and I don't think that is a society anyone would want to live in.

I want a bouquet of flowers on my dining room table as a centerpiece, Daniel wants a pile of dog crap. Who are we to say that my taste is any "better" than his? Come on, Erin! This is 2008!

I'm not an art historian or critic, so I'm really out of my league here, but it seems no more than most of the rest of you. First of all, Erin, under the category of "I do not think that word means what you think it means": puerility, in my dictionary, is defined either as the state of childhood, or as "That which is puerile or childish; especially, an expression which is flat, insipid, or silly." Your objection doesn't seem to be that this kind of work is just silly. Rather, you seem outraged by it. Also, how can it be a mark of childishness to add sexual content, since the mark of childhood is that it is pre-sexual? Maybe you should pick another epithet. This one isn't working for me.

Further, are you really trying to divorce sexuality from all other modes of human expression? That would mean that sexual content could only be expressed in pornography, since it would have no other place in human art. Or are you just saying that human sexuality and human religion can't ever be in the same room?

I don't think I'm saying anything very startling by reminding you all that it has been almost a truism for some time that much orthodox-seeming Christian art does involve a strong element of eroticism associated with pain and the exhibition of the triumphantly tormented human body. Numerous St. Sebastians have been cited as examples. Much Christian art depicting Hell--Bosch, anyone?--portrays very explicitly sexual torments.

To bring nuance to this subject would take something like a master's thesis, I fear. Read at least the chapter on "Italian Art" from "Sexual Personae," by Camille Paglia (the lesbian conservatives love). Personally, I think this is a deeply perverse and misogynistic book, but it will give you much to think about. Or try Frank Schaeffer's "Addicted to Mediocrity" or "Sham Pearls for Real Swine."

What about St. Teresa in Ecstasy? Is Bernini to be rejected because he clearly introduced an element of sexual ecstasy into a religious portrait?

When you say that art should depict "the good, the true, and the beautiful," it's that "truth" that is the kicker. Sometimes, in the service of the truth, art has to show things that are ugly and terrifying. "Oh, they shouldn't show such things! Nobody should have to look at that!" has been the cry of many decent and sincerely distressed people. But if we never saw pictures of the infamies of our age, how could we understand the human experience? How could we know what was wrong and be motivated to correct it?

I'm not saying these particular art works are good, or truthful. I don't know. I'd have to study them first, and understand what the artist was trying to say. But I am defending their right to be seen and judged according to the standards of art, not piety. And I'm saying that, just as science should not be falsified out of a misplaced concern for dogma, neither should art be confined to that which does not give offense to anyone.

If you want orchids and bamboo, why are you praising dog shit?

By way of a p.s.--it does seem that it would be more in line with the mission of the Church to give gallery space to art that handled religious themes in a way that was direct, intense, accessible to contemporary sensibilities, and at the same time, imbued with the orthodox version of religious truth. But . . . is there any such art? Can someone suggest candidates to replace Hrdlicka? Could it be that the real problem is that there aren't enough high-quality Christian artists? I'd love to see contemporary art that came from the heart of Christianity and rivaled Michelangelo, Raphael, Rubens, Rembrandt, Durer, etc. etc. So where is it?

Wow, a museum affiliated with the Catholic church has homoerotic 'art' and you ask "...what kind of self-respecting cardinal archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church can decline to give someone with such a perverse point of view the sack?...? The same kinds of Cardinals and other church officials who continue to not sack pedophile priests...It seems to me, omnce a practicing Catholic who now is a non-denominational Christian, much of the male hierarchy of the Catholic church are also member's of a gay mens' club.

Kathleen Simons is spot on. There have been numerous studies documenting the homosexual subculture in the Catholic Church. I know from personal experience at a Jesuit university that the sexuality of many of the scholastics was, to be charitable, dubious. The clerical life has always been a haven for misogynists and homoerotics. It has also, parenthetically, attracted many good men who in this era have been marginalised by the psychologically diseased.

But there is a more important point to be made. Since the second Vatican Council, there has been a gutting of the liturgy of the Church and, implicitly by extension, its dogmas. Many of my contemporaries, who thrive in the Novus Ordo sect, are psychopathological about issues such as abortion. They are not, I emphasize, NOT, opposed to priestesses, episcopisses, homoerotic "marriage", and probably not to the gratuitous, if preposterous, handjob accorded their Saviour as depicted by a pervert and self-nuncupated "artist". But they are titillated by gruesome images of amorphous embryos.

They want freedom - freedom for women to be priests, freedom for pathics to cavort openly with their "lovers" even unto the sanctuary, freedom to pervert the Bible to their distorted and blinkered viewpoint, freedom to turn two millenia of history on its arse. They want, in a word, to be Anglicans, but to preserve the pomp and circumstance of Rome.

When Hannibal Bugnini and his cadre of Protestant cohorts eradicated the Roman Mass, Rome capitulated. The first Rome is dead. The second Rome is the catamite of the Turks. The third Rome only survives, incredibly, and contrary to all historical plausibility, yet consonant with the prophecy of Fatima. Москва стоит и стоять будет, Moscow stands and will ever stand, to paraphrase Aleksandr Nevskij. Ex oriente lux.

Christianity will be renewed from Moscow. One only hopes that Patriarch Aleksej continues to resist the blandishments of the "oecumenical" Benedict and that infamous and iniquitous papabile Chrisoph Schönborn.

Ecrasez l'infâme. Et que le Bon Dieu nous sauve.

Oh, yeah, and in that painting everyone was depicted as beautiful and noble EXCEPT Shephard who would be depicted as a diseased rat.

Wouldn't you speak out against that?

Basically, Max, I save my efforts to "speak out" for significant things like poverty and injustice, not provocative art. Life's too short to worry about blasphemous art.

As I said, it's the wrong art for the wrong place. In a different setting, the art is ultimately harmless and not worth tons of drama and teeth-gnashing. Reserve that for really important stuff, not art.

"Of course, Matthew Shephard is not an iconic figure like Christ..."

Nonsense. Among gay rights groups Matthew Shephard is worshipped as a martyr and his death is frequently invoked in discussions over the morality of homosexuality. I have no doubt that such a painting would provoke outrage from those within the gay community - and understandably so.

The motives behind such a painting and Hrdlicka's would be much the same - they are created merely to provoke outrage and controversy, and gain the artist attention that would not otherwise be granted based on their merits as an artist alone. Clearly, not admirable motives in any sense of the word.

Do you ever actually think independently about these things, Daniel, or do you just go to some Marxist handy-dandy reference guide, look them up, then write the answers down here?

Har. Arguably, all this "outrage" about "moral rot" is more an example of sheep-bleating than actually thinking about it more abstractly.

Still utter and complete silence from Rod re the LDS Church's polygamous, under-aged, incestuous "marriages", yet we get 2 outraged postings and dozens of reactions regarding (what I perceive to be) bad art.

Strange but not surprising.

Maybe it's because the Church is in Texas and involves heterosexuals???

Just a guess.

You will get your comment once I figure out what to say about it. I will not be baited by that hysteric into posting anything.

I read this blog pretty much everyday, but I post very infrequently. One of the reasons is that I find the lack of civility rather distressing. What ever happened to manners? One can disagree without being obnoxious. I wonder sometimes if the people I read on this site would speak to others so rudely if they were sitting face to face with them. I assume most who post here are adults. Am I wrong?

"I wonder sometimes if the people I read on this site would speak to others so rudely if they were sitting face to face with them."

Teena, the answer is of course "no"; they would fear the obvious consequences. But that is the game played on all blogs about politics and religion.

The nice thing about this blog is that our host has learned, and taught us, how to manage the game so that it can be played with a minimum of both incivility and intervention; he has to step in only rarely, given the nature of the members: Marxists to Conservatives; Church-haters to saints; pathological baiters to teachers; and everything in between.

Even Christ, in the Temple, got righteously angry; the operative word being "righteously", which I suppose is your point, and something we all should take to heart.

If you're so concerned about Rod's "silence" on the LDS compound issue, maybe you should email him instead of derailing the conversation with your obnoxious whining. Rod has every right not to write about things he doesn't think are worth writing about - it's his blog after all.

"...given the nature of the members: Marxists to Conservatives; Church-haters to saints..."

OMG, there are saints who comment here? LOL

Pauli

"Lavender Mafia" means exactly what you think it means, Quinn. It doesn't refer to all homosexuals. I allow the term. I understand this is in contradiction to the polestar of REP's blogging, but life, somehow, goes on.

"Still utter and complete silence from Rod re the LDS Church's polygamous, under-aged, incestuous "marriages""

So far as I know Rod was never LDS and certainly not FLDS. Why should he feel any intense need to discuss some strange Mormon splinter group? Do you think he's under a moral obligation to do so? Could you explain why?

As far as I can tell he is not particularly interested in the world of new religious movements. True FLDS is something like 80 years old, but that's new in religion terms. Now I have to turn off the computer due to storms.

Okay, I accept that the term "lavendar Mafia" has a very specific meaning and is not merely a broad-blanket slur against all homosexuals. Thanks for clearing that up, Quinn.

Now, what of the term "the psychologically diseased", which seems to specifically be only a slur against all homosexuals and which Rod still continues to allow despite his recent blog about the pain caused to others? This "polestar" (new word, thanx Rod) is only the "centre" of my posts because it very particularly pertains to me, a gay, Christian man, and it is so because of the Christian principle of doing to others the things we would have done unto ourselves. Rod isn't gay, so I don't really expect he understands the pain and grief these attacks cause, and I doubt he would have people attack him in a similar fashion. Trust me, if the attacks were to stop, I'd stop complaining about the attacks.

"Why should he feel any intense need to discuss some strange Mormon splinter group? Do you think he's under a moral obligation to do so?

No, of course Rod doesn't have any "obligation" to post on the FLDS events, certainly no more than he does on hippies, bombing in the Balkans, General Petraeus, the Red Sox, Bratz dolls, dirtbags, sluts and the moral decline of civilization in general that he so often blogs about.

I thought it would catch his attention because of the sheer magnitude of it, and because it happened in Texas where he resides, and because it also touches on the oft-repeated (though entirely mythical) 'threat' - as perceived by the right - of allowing gays to marry, since that would "lead to" the very things that are, in fact, already happening in America - as mentioned, underaged marriages, incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages - ALL of which my actual real legal marriage gets compared to, and ALL of which he regularly blogs about as well. That's why I thought he'd talk about it.

For me the only problem I have with "objectively disordered" is that it's not used to describe enough things.

Reading stuff on the issue essentially the idea is that if homosexuality is to be deemed a grave sin a consistent desire to engage in in it is disordered. However by the same token alcoholics, compulsive eaters, people with rage issues, etc should also be deemed objectively disordered. Hence we should also ban reformed alcoholics and some obese men from the priesthood, because even if they've controled it they are still proned to an objective moral disorder.

I just don't think we do that and I find that unfair. Alcoholic priests are probably doing more damage then celibate gay priests. Although it was a minority of cases, many of the incidents of sexual misconduct involved people addicted to alcohol or drugs. However there's still some "ickiness" factor at play and that strikes me as curious bit of unreasonableness. In many people's eyes drunks, even now, are less "icky" than gay men. Therefore there's not so much on the objective disorder of alcoholism and the unfitness of such men for life.

Well that and the documents make having a disorder sound so gloomy. In Catholic thought celibates are more likely to become saints. In fact the idea that marriage was equal to celibacy was at one time made an anathema. So having a disorder that means you should be celibate should be almost a blessing in disguise. Instead it's treated more as a sorrow and an affliction.

(I'm speaking in Catholic terms. In terms of most Protestantism celibacy is rejected)

"I'm speaking in Catholic terms." Thomas R

You could have fooled me. For example, you say things like this: " In fact the idea that marriage was equal to celibacy was at one time made an anathema."

That is just plain nonsense.

Thomas, your back door defense of homosexualism is one thing--knock yourself out--but please don't spout nonsense and call it Catholic thought in support of it.