|
 |
Question III
In The Soul of Sex, Thomas Moore says "religious institutions remain close to pornography, sometimes in their art . . . because ultimately both are concerned with life's deepest meaning and mystery." Do you see any connection between Catholicism and porn? Did Catholic artists ever purposely infuse their art and iconography with suggestions of sexuality in order to help convey the power of spiritual ecstasy to the masses (consider such Christian-themed works as the illustrated "O" in Bede's commentary on the Song of Songs, Donatello's David, Caravaggio's Doubting Thomas, and Bernini's The Ecstasy of St. Theresa)? And, if so, how should that affect the way we interpret contemporary renditions of Christianity such as Andres Serrano's photograph Heaven and Hell, Martin Scorsese's film The Last Temptation of Christ, Madonna's video "Like a Prayer," and Terrence McNally's play Corpus Christi (all of which many religious fundamentalists have condemned as pornographic and blasphemous)?
|
|
No doubt that artists throughout time have infused art, perhaps especially religious art, with sexual imagery and that church leaders have tried to get that stuff out of the paintings. Artists weren't always official transmitters of the faith, or even blind followers; artists were often in trouble with religious authorities whose teachings and control hurt and damaged them. And their work reflects that. In our own time, much "sexual" and "blasphemous" art is related to the church's condemnation of homosexuality, contraception and abortion. The work of Serrano, McNally, Durang and even Frank McCourt in Angela's Ashes reflects the pain Catholicism caused these artists. The extent to which blasphemy today is seen by the right only in relation to sexual images and themes is a reflection of the extent to which the hierarchy of the church has reduced moral teachings to issues of sexuality and reproduction, ignoring justice and relationship. For example, if a priest were castigating a woman as immoral, one would immediately assume (and probably correctly) that the castigation was about sex. You could bet that the woman was not being called immoral because she had $250,000 worth of GM stock and never used them at a shareholders meeting to vote for labor rights. |
|
|
| HOT TOPICS |
| our most discussed articles: |
| our most forwarded articles: |
|
|
|
|
