A Poem About Eve

Started by Matto, June 12, 2017, 09:11:26 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Carleendiane

Ches, not only Jerome. Me too. We are called to be modest, taught from an early age to cover up and not flaunt our booties. I am no more prudish than your average traditionalist. Nude art was  during an Era when the physical was literally exalted and portrayed excessively. The body was displayed naked or partially exposed. I do not believe the intent was pure. They did it because it reflected the Renaissance period. It was a time of lisenciouness, and intemperance. I love the human form, really I do. But shouldn't Catholic virtue be displayed in our arts. Modesty is a virtue. Breasts were hanging out and in everyone's face. The mystique of male and female bodies was destroyed. I dislike that period in art because it was so damaging, taking the lovely mysteries of man and woman, mysteries that could only be unlocked in the marriage bed within a sacramental marriage, and making it everyday and mundane.  Nakedness had an element of humiliation and shame when seen inappropriately. Even scripture says not to gaze upon our father's nakedness. The display of the body realistically within art was unnecessary. Four elements of art....TRUTH, BEAUTY, GOODNESS, AND ORDER. Realism in art is something I enjoy more than the abstract. It reflects the 4 components of art. But that being said, I can equate naked art with the statement of " not ALL truths NEED be spoken". Certain truths carry no benefit to the hearer. Such as telling a homely person, they are homely. Well, they probably know they are, but do not NEED to be told. We all know what is under the clothing. We don't need to be shown.
To board the struggle bus: no whining, board with a smile, a fake one will be found out and put off at next stop, no maps, no directions, going only one way, one destination. Follow all rules and you will arrive. Drop off at pearly gate. Bring nothing.

Gardener

Quote from: Pon de Replay on June 13, 2017, 05:25:55 PM
Quote from: Jayne on June 13, 2017, 05:20:29 PMThere was war in heaven and St. Michael the Archangel is consistently portrayed holding a sword in the midst of battle.  There is no Scriptural basis for the idea of feminine or ethereal angels.  The descriptions of angels sound terrifying and often their first words on appearing to a human are "Do not be afraid."

Yes, but that war was subsequent to a heavenly calamity where some of the angels fell.  The name "Lucifer," as you know, means "bringer (or carrier) of light," and he was said to have been the most sublime and luminous and beautiful among all the angels.  The reason he turned against God was because he felt threatened by the creation of humans, that they would surpass him.  Perhaps he feared the creation of Eve more than that of Adam.

The Franciscan tradition holds that the angels were given the outline of creation, especially of Man, and that God Himself would Incarnate and take on the form of mankind.

To this end Lucifer rebelled, desiring that the Logos should take on the form of Lucifer, since he was the most beautiful angel. Hence, if he could corrupt mankind through Eve, he could stop the Incarnation; roping in Adam ensured this. This was rather idiotic, of course, since God can do anything.

It was not between the seeds of Eve and Satan that God would put enmity, but the seed of Mary: Christ. To wit, Christ being the firstborn of many, all Christians.

It wasn't the creation of Eve per se, which he feared, but the Incarnation. The predestined Christ.
"If anyone does not wish to have Mary Immaculate for his Mother, he will not have Christ for his Brother." - St. Maximilian Kolbe

Mono no aware

Quote from: Gardener on June 15, 2017, 08:22:03 AMLucifer rebelled, desiring that the Logos should take on the form of Lucifer, since he was the most beautiful angel. Hence, if he could corrupt mankind through Eve, he could stop the Incarnation; roping in Adam ensured this. This was rather idiotic, of course, since God can do anything.

I think this is an ages-old question, but wouldn't the Incarnation only have taken place if he corrupted mankind?  They would presumably not need a redeemer if they never fell in the first place.  So by tempting Eve, he would've been ensuring the one thing he actually feared.  Correct?

Gardener

Quote from: Pon de Replay on June 15, 2017, 08:37:55 AM
Quote from: Gardener on June 15, 2017, 08:22:03 AMLucifer rebelled, desiring that the Logos should take on the form of Lucifer, since he was the most beautiful angel. Hence, if he could corrupt mankind through Eve, he could stop the Incarnation; roping in Adam ensured this. This was rather idiotic, of course, since God can do anything.

I think this is an ages-old question, but wouldn't the Incarnation only have taken place if he corrupted mankind?  They would presumably not need a redeemer if they never fell in the first place.  So by tempting Eve, he would've been ensuring the one thing he actually feared.  Correct?

Only if one strictly follows St. Thomas by way of Augustine. Duns Scotus states Christ would have Incarnated regardless ("[31] Playing in the world: and my delights were to be with the children of men." (Prov 8). That His Incarnation then took on redemption is due to the Fall, but He was predestined to Incarnate from all eternity.

The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate have a few videos on the Predestination of Christ, summating Scotus' teaching on this.

Scotus states that it's absurd (his words) that the Fall was the cause of the Incarnation, as if God's greatest work could be occasioned by man. That he had always planned to become His Art, that what came from within Him, He would come into.

When I first heard this teaching, it opened a French door into a garden of thankfulness. The Incarnated Christ suddenly sloughed off the "I'm here because you broke something" ideal and took on a true redemptive understanding for me. It became, "I'm here! ... oh, let's fix this broken thing."

Instead of God reacting to Lucifer's plot, we find the ultimate "gotcha!" punchline.

The opening of the French door into the garden of thankfulness reminded me of a scene I once saw on a video from Iran, where a young boy is masterfully reciting the Quran. When he finishes a hard passage, the congregation happily shouts, "Allah!" and sounds of cooing praise ripple forth, like children ecstatic that for the 100th and yet 1st time, you reappeared from behind the veil of hands. In this sense, innocent and joyful, the Incarnation is like the ultimate Peek A Boo. And the true Light Bringer, Christ, scares away all the monsters under our corporate, historical bed.
"If anyone does not wish to have Mary Immaculate for his Mother, he will not have Christ for his Brother." - St. Maximilian Kolbe

Lynne

Quote from: Gardener on June 15, 2017, 08:50:41 AM


Only if one strictly follows St. Thomas by way of Augustine. Duns Scotus states Christ would have Incarnated regardless ("[31] Playing in the world: and my delights were to be with the children of men." (Prov 8). That His Incarnation then took on redemption is due to the Fall, but He was predestined to Incarnate from all eternity.

The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate have a few videos on the Predestination of Christ, summating Scotus' teaching on this.

Scotus states that it's absurd (his words) that the Fall was the cause of the Incarnation, as if God's greatest work could be occasioned by man. That he had always planned to become His Art, that what came from within Him, He would come into.

When I first heard this teaching, it opened a French door into a garden of thankfulness. The Incarnated Christ suddenly sloughed off the "I'm here because you broke something" ideal and took on a true redemptive understanding for me. It became, "I'm here! ... oh, let's fix this broken thing."

Instead of God reacting to Lucifer's plot, we find the ultimate "gotcha!" punchline.

The opening of the French door into the garden of thankfulness reminded me of a scene I once saw on a video from Iran, where a young boy is masterfully reciting the Quran. When he finishes a hard passage, the congregation happily shouts, "Allah!" and sounds of cooing praise ripple forth, like children ecstatic that for the 100th and yet 1st time, you reappeared from behind the veil of hands. In this sense, innocent and joyful, the Incarnation is like the ultimate Peek A Boo. And the true Light Bringer, Christ, scares away all the monsters under our corporate, historical bed.

This is beautiful.
In conclusion, I can leave you with no better advice than that given after every sermon by Msgr Vincent Giammarino, who was pastor of St Michael's Church in Atlantic City in the 1950s:

    "My dear good people: Do what you have to do, When you're supposed to do it, The best way you can do it,   For the Love of God. Amen"

Chestertonian

Quote from: Jayne on June 15, 2017, 07:29:28 AM
Quote from: Chestertonian on June 14, 2017, 09:14:14 PM
So much nudity tsk tsk... What would Jerome say

It was bad enough that people mocked Jerome when he was here.  It is even worse to do it after he has left.

You are also making light of anyone who struggles with chastity and finds that image a source of temptation.  How uncomfortable it will be for anyone in that situation to ask for help, knowing that his struggles have been ridiculed.

You mentioned elsewhere that you do not struggle with chastity.  Many of us do.  I personally do not have a problem with that particular picture,  but there are other pictures that could be a problem, even if they have been labeled as great works of art. I am not willing to stake the souls of my brothers on a bet that nobody here is aroused by artistic nudes.

I had been internally debating whether I should report that picture, but you have made the answer clear.  Whatever problems that picture might cause in itself, it has already been used to mock those who strive for purity.  That is not something that should happen on a traditional Catholic forum.
have more of a temptation to be snarky, and perhaps I should have thought more before name dropping.  But I did find it a bit ironic that someone would express admiration for certain rigorist posters and then post something that would make said posters have a fit.  but of course, good catholics have their images turned off.

i do know what it is like to struggle with chastity, it just isn't a current struggle or temptation in my life.  But considering how easy it is to "get your kicks" on the internet, and the wide variety of porn options available, I have a hard time imaging how in this day in age, someone would look at the painting PDR posted and be tempted by what was intended to be a portrait of innocence and purity personified.  That's just....weird.  Like being tempted to binge eat foie gras or popping truffles (the fungus kind) into your mouth theway you'd eat a chocolate truffle.  When people binge eat, they often do it with garbage.  They pig out on Tastykakes and potato chips.  They're not eating caviar the way you'd eat a bowl of Cheerios (unless they are, I don't know, maybe I missed that reality show)

Perhaps a solution would be to add a content warning and link to the photo or put it under spoiler tags but I do think it's possible to look at nude art without being inflamed with lust
"I am not much of a Crusader, that is for sure, but at least I am not a Mohamedist!"

Mono no aware

Quote from: Chestertonian on June 15, 2017, 12:19:11 PMhave more of a temptation to be snarky, and perhaps I should have thought more before name dropping.  But I did find it a bit ironic that someone would express admiration for certain rigorist posters and then post something that would make said posters have a fit.

I hope I sufficiently answered that in my response to Jayne.  As much as I admired Jerome's level commitment, I do think there's an obvious problem when it comes to nudity in art.  Jayne said she is "not willing to stake the souls of my brothers on a bet that nobody is aroused by artistic nudes"—and yet the Catholic Church seems to have taken that bet.  There are artistic nudes in Catholic churches, which would seem to be a causa finita est against Jerome's objections on that particular point.

Chestertonian

Quote from: Carleendiane on June 15, 2017, 08:21:20 AM
Ches, not only Jerome. Me too. We are called to be modest, taught from an early age to cover up and not flaunt our booties. I am no more prudish than your average traditionalist. Nude art was  during an Era when the physical was literally exalted and portrayed excessively. The body was displayed naked or partially exposed. I do not believe the intent was pure. They did it because it reflected the Renaissance period. It was a time of lisenciouness, and intemperance. I love the human form, really I do. But shouldn't Catholic virtue be displayed in our arts. Modesty is a virtue. Breasts were hanging out and in everyone's face. The mystique of male and female bodies was destroyed. I dislike that period in art because it was so damaging, taking the lovely mysteries of man and woman, mysteries that could only be unlocked in the marriage bed within a sacramental marriage, and making it everyday and mundane.  Nakedness had an element of humiliation and shame when seen inappropriately. Even scripture says not to gaze upon our father's nakedness. The display of the body realistically within art was unnecessary. Four elements of art....TRUTH, BEAUTY, GOODNESS, AND ORDER. Realism in art is something I enjoy more than the abstract. It reflects the 4 components of art. But that being said, I can equate naked art with the statement of " not ALL truths NEED be spoken". Certain truths carry no benefit to the hearer. Such as telling a homely person, they are homely. Well, they probably know they are, but do not NEED to be told. We all know what is under the clothing. We don't need to be shown.

i think displaying the virtues of purity and innocence were precisely what bouguereau was attempting to do through the artistic choices he made

:shrug: i can see the connection between humiliation and nudity.  I have various people (my wife, my mom, nurses, doctors) see me naked  multiple times a day so modesty is something other people get to have but i don't anymore.  I've gotten so used to random people just walking right in and seeing me naked.  it's taken a lot of effort to get caregivers to give a fair warning before they take covers off, take clothing off etc.  humiliating is one word to describe it.   one could say that I have lost my dignity as a human being.  But really it is also up to my caregivers to see my dignity as a man.  I sincerely doubt these doctors and nurses are putting themselves in the near occasion of sin when they have to see their patients naked every day.  This is because their eyes have been trained to see the dignity of their patients. 

calls to mind the portrayals of the Last Judgment where all of the saved were clothed, but the damned are all naked, to show the degradation of their souls and bodies.  those artists chose to use nudity as a device specifaly showing degradation

if you're going to look at nude art, it is almost like you have to put on different eyes, the same way a nurse puts on her uniform and name tag, and enters into that professional role.  I remember when we looked at nude art in art museums, our parents didn't just throw us into it. we were told ahead of time that this was a different context than when you walk down 42nd street and everyone has their goods and services on display.  That's not to say that all nude art is acceptablebut who am I to say that should Venus de Milo should put a shirt on?  She doesn't even have any arms. 
"I am not much of a Crusader, that is for sure, but at least I am not a Mohamedist!"

Jayne

#38
Quote from: Pon de Replay on June 15, 2017, 12:29:10 PM
Quote from: Chestertonian on June 15, 2017, 12:19:11 PMhave more of a temptation to be snarky, and perhaps I should have thought more before name dropping.  But I did find it a bit ironic that someone would express admiration for certain rigorist posters and then post something that would make said posters have a fit.

I hope I sufficiently answered that in my response to Jayne.  As much as I admired Jerome's level commitment, I do think there's an obvious problem when it comes to nudity in art.  Jayne said she is "not willing to stake the souls of my brothers on a bet that nobody is aroused by artistic nudes"—and yet the Catholic Church seems to have taken that bet.  There are artistic nudes in Catholic churches, which would seem to be a causa finita est against Jerome's objections on that particular point.

In this situation there is no "Roma locuta est" (Rome has spoken) so one cannot conclude "causa finita est" (the case is closed).  Explicit teachings can have binding authority, but customary practices do not.  All sorts of things have been done that I would not accept as moral, not simply flagrant immorality, but things like the use of castrati in music.

While I have a great deal of respect for the past, I do not accept a blanket principle of "everything that was done in the past must be right."
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.

Chestertonian

Quote from: Jayne on June 15, 2017, 12:41:34 PM
Quote from: Pon de Replay on June 15, 2017, 12:29:10 PM
Quote from: Chestertonian on June 15, 2017, 12:19:11 PMhave more of a temptation to be snarky, and perhaps I should have thought more before name dropping.  But I did find it a bit ironic that someone would express admiration for certain rigorist posters and then post something that would make said posters have a fit.

I hope I sufficiently answered that in my response to Jayne.  As much as I admired Jerome's level commitment, I do think there's an obvious problem when it comes to nudity in art.  Jayne said she is "not willing to stake the souls of my brothers on a bet that nobody is aroused by artistic nudes"—and yet the Catholic Church seems to have taken that bet.  There are artistic nudes in Catholic churches, which would seem to be a causa finita est against Jerome's objections on that particular point.

In this situation there is no "Roma locuta est" so one cannot conclude "causa finita est."  Explicit teachings can have binding authority, but customary practices do not.  All sorts of things have been done that I would not accept as moral, not simply flagrant immorality, but things like the use of castrati in music.

While I have a great deal of respect for the past, I do not accept a blanket principle of "everything that was done in the past must be right."

maybetheresa difference between hiring castrati and endorsing the practice of castration
"I am not much of a Crusader, that is for sure, but at least I am not a Mohamedist!"

Jayne

Quote from: Chestertonian on June 15, 2017, 12:19:11 PMI do think it's possible to look at nude art without being inflamed with lust

I agree that it is possible for some people to look at nude art without lust.  I am not claiming that everyone who looks at such art is sinning.  But it is a big leap from that position to assuming that everyone is unaffected and that it is never an occasion of sin. 

It is one thing for you, knowing that you can handle it, to go to the museum where you will see nudes.  It is another to put such pictures where anyone might stumble upon them without expecting them to be there.  Your suggestion about linking to such pictures was good.  This allows people to decide for themselves if they are able to look at nude art without spiritual harm
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.

Mono no aware

Quote from: Jayne on June 15, 2017, 12:41:34 PMIn this situation there is no "Roma locuta est" (Rome has spoken) so one cannot conclude "causa finita est" (the case is closed).  Explicit teachings can have binding authority, but customary practices do not.  All sorts of things have been done that I would not accept as moral, not simply flagrant immorality, but things like the use of castrati in music.

While I have a great deal of respect for the past, I do not accept a blanket principle of "everything that was done in the past must be right."

I was offering the persistence (over several centuries) of nude art in Catholic churches as some sort of implicit "locuta," even though obviously there exists no formal decree.  As sinful as it may be to castrate a youth, I don't know if the Church ever sanctioned that practice, even though it did allow castrati to perform in Catholic venues, as Chester has pointed out.  Presumably listening to them sing would not have been an occasion for anyone to sin.  You are suggesting that nudie art does provide such an occasion, yet the Church permits that.

Mono no aware

#42
Quote from: Carleendiane on June 15, 2017, 08:21:20 AMBreasts were hanging out and in everyone's face. The mystique of male and female bodies was destroyed. I dislike that period in art because it was so damaging, taking the lovely mysteries of man and woman, mysteries that could only be unlocked in the marriage bed within a sacramental marriage, and making it everyday and mundane.

The Renaissance would not be my favorite period for art, but I would offer that the idea behind the nudity was not to make it mundane, but rather to exalt it, in the Platonic view that the contemplation of physical beauty is a stepping stone in the ascent to a contemplation of the divine.  (If the opportunity to gaze upon a beautiful human form was left strictly to the marriage bed, it would be an opportunity denied to many, as most of us are not beautiful.  I guess that's why the contemplation of beauty in ancient Greece consisted of middle-aged men watching beautiful youths sporting in the nude, as they would probably not have had much to contemplate by regarding one another). 

Almost certainly, though, the idea behind putting the naked human form into art was an intrinsically pagan one.  Both Christian and secular commentators have often agreed on this: that the Renaissance marked the smuggling of pagan notions into the Christian culture with the Church frequently unawares—to the point of even being a patron.  There is a good art history book on this subject, The Pagan Dream of the Renaissance.  The Catholic apologists for nudie art will contend that it simply marks the Church absorbing that which is good and fruitful from paganism, but the awkward fact is that it happened about fifteen hundred years too late and, as you have well pointed out, does not seem to gel with modesty strictures.

I think the problem with Renaissance art is that it sometimes contained elements of homoeroticism (which the classical Greeks had gone in for) as well as what the Pre-Raphaelites rightly deemed "sloshiness"—a florid extravagance, and even many of the female forms became doughy, gooey, and matronly, which may've subtly had something to do with a homosexual revulsion of femininity.  In my opinion this was not fully corrected for until the nineteenth century, when artists in France and England finally turned against the Renaissance and hearkened back to the Middle Ages, with Arthurian legends and finely-proportioned females.  In a sense, they were like the poet-knight Tannhäuser, returning to a worship of Venus.

John Collier, "Tannhäuser in the Venusberg" (1901)

Maximilian

Quote from: Pon de Replay on June 15, 2017, 12:29:10 PM

and yet the Catholic Church seems to have taken that bet.  There are artistic nudes in Catholic churches, which would seem to be a causa finita est against Jerome's objections on that particular point.

Michelangelo's nudes were considered scandalous at the time. A later pope ordered that clothes be painted over some of the nudes in the Sistine Chapel.

You won't find any nudes in the Catholic buildings painted by Fra Angelico. Nor were the few nudes permitted in places like the Sistine Chapel considered sensuous, like the Bouguereau posted on this thread.

So there certainly isn't any unanimous agreement or consensus on the permisibility of nudity in Catholic artwork. It is even speculated that the clothing painted over the Sistine Chapel may have saved the paintings from being destroyed at the time of the Council of Trent:

https://www.througheternity.com/en/blog/art/nudity-and-controversy-in-the-sistine-chapel.html

When the Sistine Chapel underwent a controversial restoration in the 1980s, many expected Volterra's "breeches" to be removed. But while some additions by later artists were removed, the restorers decided that Volterra's work had become an important part of the history of The Last Judgement. The director of the Vatican Museums, Fabrizio Mancinelli, believed that Volterra may have helped to preserve Michelangelo's masterpiece, as it was spared by the Council of Trent during their destruction of other artwork in Rome in the sixteenth century. Mancinelli's conclusion: "We must be respectful of these breeches."


Pheo

Something about Michelangelo's portrayal of men, at least in some of his paintings, has always struck me as odd.  They're almost comically muscular, something that goes beyond trying to portray an archetypal male form.  Actually that applies to some of his paintings/sculptures of women too.  I try not to read too much into it.
Son, when thou comest to the service of God, stand in justice and in fear, and prepare thy soul for temptation.