Would that be sister Wendy?

MK

Lauren,

I must have missed Religion class the day Sister taught us that the pope strictly forbids Catholics from admiring any work by any artist who does not believe everything the Catholic Church teaches.

You may well find such opinions expressed on the websites of wacky, schismatic, Latin Mass-only Catholics, but not here.

Lauren,

We agree on one thing: I too am glad I’m not an art critic.

And, for the record, the distributist in me takes umbrage at being called “right-wing”.

I’m not sure what you’re inferring about my thoughts on Salvador Dali, many of whose works I admire. A print of his Sacrament of the Last Supper has hung in my parents’ house since I was a wee lad — and probably even long before that. It’s the first artistic rendering I ever recall seeing of the Last Supper, and I’ve always liked it.

I’m also a fan of Christ of St. John of the Cross, and have always been intrigued by paintings like The Persistence of Memory.

So Salvador embodies truth beauty and goodness? Glad you’re a right-wing blogger and not an art critic.

You’re right…”tis.

MK

Lauren,

I appreciate the clarification.

‘Tis a pity your standards for what constitutes art are so pitifully low.

As for me, I hold to the belief that art must be measured up to standards of truth, beauty, and goodness.

Old-fashioned? Sure, and proudly so. As Chesterton said, “It is true that I am of an older fashion. Much that I love has been destroyed or sent into exile.”

Lauren,

Maybe I’m missing something, but what on earth do you mean by this?

On the one hand, you’ve hit the nail on the head, in that pornography (and sexual sins in general) can rightly be characterized as a form of idolatry.

But unless your comment was intended to be sarcastic, I can’t get my head around it.

I can’t understand why one would express incredulity at a group of Catholics being “so concerned about idolatry”.

It sounds as strange as someone saying, “I dont know why a group of Catholics are so concerned about blasphemy,” or, “I dont know why a group of Catholics are so concerned about the exploitation of the poor,” or, “I dont know why a group of Catholics are so concerned about abortion.”

Idolatry is on the short list of things Catholics (and all other Christians as well) must be concerned about.

It is art.. Upon my discussing it, I realized it is art.

Thanks. I should have recognized who she was talking about but I have never seen his name in print…duh! Not to mention the name was so out of context…The answer however remains the same. I would not accept the money. And instead of long sleeves and a high neckline perhaps he could use the money to buy some duct tape for his mouth…

MK

Lauren,

It’s clear you believe that Playboy doesn’t constitute porn. But then you confuse me.

First you say you “don’t think it’s art…”

Then you say, “The fact that we’re even discussing it, means it is a piece of artwork.”

Then you say, “I guess it pretty much is artwork..”

Is it art, or not?

As for your contention that “The human flesh has apparently upset you,” I can only say that you are completely wrong.

It is not the human flesh that upsets me (remember, gnosticism is a heresy). Base portrayals of human flesh, on the other hand, greatly upset me.

Pope John Paul II, of happy memory, once observed that the problem with pornography is not that it shows too much, but that it shows too little. I have never heard a more concise analysis of pornography than this.

A few months ago, Eve Grubin, blogging at Modestly Yours, had an excellent post titled Nude or Naked? that touched upon some of the arguments raised in some of the previous comments.

Here’s an excerpt:

What do those concerned about modesty make of the western tradition of “the nude” in art? In particular, what do we make of the traditional depictions of the female nude? My art history professors at Smith College in the 1990s were still responding to the impact feminism had on art criticism, which had ignited art critics to debate the nude’s place in the history of art.

At that time, I discovered the work of scholar Kenneth Clark.

Thirty years before, in the midst of the feminist movement, Kenneth Clark had famously defended the tradition in his prominent book of art criticism, The Nude: A Study in Ideal Form, where he wrote:

To be naked is to be deprived of our clothes, and the word implies some of the embarrassment most of us feel in that condition. The word ‘nude,’ on the other hand, carries, in educated usage, no uncomfortable overtone. The vague image it projects into the mind is not of a huddled and defenseless body, but of a balanced, prosperous, and confident body: the body re-formed.

Throughout his book, Clark justifies the nude’s place in western art from the ancient Greek sculptures of ideal male figures to the images of nude women in paintings that began to emerge regularly during the Renaissance period in Europe.

Clark’s main claim is that the great western artists were able to transcend the unclothed body. What do you make of this? Is there a difference between nude and naked?

In response to this question, I submitted this comment:

Definitely, and Clark is exactly right.

The difference lies in the presentation, which conveys the artist’s intention.

In a pornographic image depicting a naked woman, the clear intention is to incite lust in the viewer.

On the other hand, the clear intention of the classical Western artist depicting a female nude is to show woman’s natural beauty.

It’s interesting to note that when the Sistine Chapel frescoes were being restored (some 15 years ago), Pope John Paul II actually ordered the loincloths on a number of the figures to be removed. To my knowledge, Michelangelo depicted nearly all the figures in the Sistine Chapel as nude, but prudish clerics shortly thereafter added loincloths to several of them.

While some may be surprised that an avowed celibate would issue such a directive, in fact, it’s entirely consistent with John Paul’s writings on the theology of the body.

Yes.

Although it would be rather incongruous for him to do so, what with North Korea’s widely-known practices of forced abortion and infanticide.

I’m not asking you to subscribe to Playboy. I don’t personally, I don’t have any use for it. I don’t indulge in a lot of things that I can appreciate the existance of. I appreciate the attraction to alcohal for instance, yet I myself have no attraction to it. I simply never found any pleasure in it, or purpose. I don’t suggest that you should appreciate gay relationships at all, and so forth. Up till the part about abortion I agree with your list. I also include that any consenting adults should be able to participate in the marital ceremony if they wish and they can find a willing individual to perform the ceremony. The Constitution protects them.

I was responding to your assertion that the Pornography was linked to ‘intent’ not ‘content’ Which is very Kantian of you. I’m not a fan of Kant.

Of course Abortion should not be illegal. It infringes upon the rights of a woman to deny access to her body to something, anything. That something, which cannot possibly be counted as a baby, is certainly not the equal of the woman.

I’m sorry but I don’t know who this Kim person is. I assume she is in the porn industry, and I can’t answer for every pro-life group, but I myself would not accept dirty money. Turning it down would not be easy,no, but it would not be right, so I can honestly say that the money would be better spent somewhere else…like feeding the children that are already here. Or buying some clothes for this Kim person to put on…You know, long sleeved, high necked? (only teasing…)

MK

MK

You don’t really believe that Playboy exists to celebrate the woman’s body. It exists so men can get their rocks off. That is why it was created. I don’t think even Hugh would disagree.

I think you believe that if we had our way all of these things would be illegal. This is not true. We want abortion to be illegal. The rest we recognize as a necessary evil that insures our right to believe as we do.

Things that are immoral and offend us can remain legal as long as no innocent parties are getting hurt. Men can sleep with men. It’s a free country. I can speak my disapproval. It’s a free country. Men cannot sleep with boys. Because an innocent party is getting hurt. Woman can pose in playboy. It’s a free country. I can speak my disapproval. It’s a free country. 10 year olds cannot pose for playboy. Because an innocent party is getting hurt. A woman can sleep with anyone she wants. A man can sleep with anyone he wants. It’s a free country. I can speak my disapproval. It’s a free country. A man cannot force a woman to have sex with him. Because an innocent party is being hurt. In each of these instances a law was made to protect the weaker and more vulnerable party from the selfish actions of the stronger, more powerful party.

A woman can use birth control (providing it is not an abortificant). It’s a free country. I can speak my disapproval. It’s a free country.

But taking a baby’s life…well, it should be illegal because we must make laws that protect the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society from the stronger and more powerful members who wish to harm them…

Just because we say that we don’t approve of a certain behavior (homosexuality, contraception, promiscuity…) doesn’t mean we want to make them illegal. What we want is to make everyone not want to do them of their own free will, and so we try to educate and form consciences with information…

The only thing we want to make illegal is abortion…

MK