Nude Art

[jim111]

Say that to a woman's face and I can pretty much guarantee you that she will slap you. If you said that to my face I would. 

Woman are not "an occasion for sin". Learn some respect. 

 

If your body is not covered you are, according to a woman I have talked, men with their shirts off can be an occasion for sin.

[EmilyAnn]

If your body is not covered you are, according to a woman I have talked, men with their shirts off can be an occasion for sin.

You clearly have some issues with women. If you can't look at a woman without objectifying her, then that's your problem. 

[Nihil Obstat]

I thought original sin made it very potentially sinful to look upon the opposite sex when they are naked. Yes it is possible to not, but it is an unnecessary occasion for sin.

Consider yourself like an alcoholic. Alcohol is great. It is tasty and it is a 'social lubricant'. But it is also dangerous. You can have too much, or you can let it influence you into doing stupid things.

For a normal person, this is a danger that they can face without being led into sin. For an alcoholic, perhaps they do not have the strength to avoid those temptations. So the alcoholic should avoid alcohol. That is not something to be ashamed of. Everyone has their particular temptations, and must overcome them.

But you are saying that everyone should avoid alcohol at all times, because you have a problem with alcoholism. That is the issue here. Maybe for you it is that bad. For most, not at all.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[jim111]

Also I think your notion of an occasion is sin is flawed too. An occasion of sin is different from a regular temptation. An occasion of sin is a situation in which you are so weakened that you are led into sin, and will vary from person to person. For example it may very well be true that a hardcore alcoholic who has only been sober for 1 week will find it literally impossible not to drink if you place him alone in a room with a bottle of Jack and a glass. That is an occasion of sin for him, and he is obligated to avoid such situations not because they are merely tempting, but because he WILL SIN if he wanders into it. His negligence in that situation is his own downfall, and he is then culpable for not avoiding the near occasion of sin.

 

However, we cannot be culpable for other people's near occasions of sin.

 

There are undoubtedly times where it is our responsibility. However the church clearly teaches they sin if they cause others to lust after them, the same is true for the artist.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

You clearly have some issues with women. If you can't look at a woman without objectifying her, then that's your problem. 

EmilyAnn, I don't think he's intending to do that. It's probably just really bad word choice. The fact that he's concerned about not lusting after women probably means he doesn't want to objectify them. If you (jim) have problems with this, then you might have an inflated sex drive or you're over thinking things. 

Edited May 1, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[jim111]

You clearly have some issues with women. If you can't look at a woman without objectifying her, then that's your problem.

 

It does not matter what I think, if they provide the temptation then they sin regardless of weather or not I lust.

 

St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the
Church, taught:
"When you have made another sin in his heart, how can
you be innocent? Tell me, whom does this world condemn?
Whom do judges in court punish?Those who drink poison or
 those who prepare it and administer the fatal potion? You
have prepared the abominable cup, you have given the
death-dealing drink, and you are more criminal than are
those who poison the body; you murder not the body but the
soul. And it is not to enemies you do this, nor are you urged
on by any imaginary necessity, nor provoked by injury, but
out of foolish vanity and pride."

[arfink]

There are undoubtedly times where it is our responsibility. However the church clearly teaches they sin if they cause others to lust after them, the same is true for the artist.

 

No, you are wrong. I believe you what you mean to say is "The Chirch clearly teaches they sin if they knowingly and intentionally cause others to lust after them." This should be obvious from reading St. Thomas Aquinas' description of sin, which requires that sinful acts be consented to and done with knowledge of their sinful nature.

 

Yes, despite what you may think, intent actually does mean something!

 

[AnneLine]

I only have a few seconds, but I want to get this into the discussion... but won't be back until LATE tonight....

 

 

Jim, I think perhaps you need to pray about this a little more.  And perhaps discuss it with your spiritual director or a confessor.

 

Your concerns about the human body -- male or female -- your belief that it is ugly, sinful or in any other way an 'evil' thing. I don't think that is correct.

 

By definition, we were created by God - 'male and female He created them' -- and God looked (!!!LOOKED!!!) at all He had created and found it GOOD.

 

All that God creates is GOOD.... However, from OUR standpoint, created things are by deinition NEUTRAL. They are designed (by a Most Intelligent Creator!) to lead us to God; we can corrupt them but they don't start that way.  So we can use them for good or evil... but of themselves, they are NEUTRAL.

I was reading a very interesting book on the spirituality of St. John of the Cross  this morning.  No one would accuse John of the Cross of not being aware of the dangers of things leading people astray.... and he is a Doctor of the Church) -- and he was a fairly good artist and poet.

 

This quote from the book seems relevant:

 

NOTE:  John routinely refers to the soul as 'she' - that will help make sense of the imbedded quotes from St. John's book, The Ascent of Mt. Carmel....

 

###########

 

For John, created beauty is beautiful -- people, art, nature. What concerns him is not so much the people or the things being loved, as the loving heart. That is where freedom and slavery are played out.

 

'We are not talking here about giving up things, because that does not strip the soul if her affective drive remains set on them. We are talking about stripping away the craving for gratifiation (gusto, apetito) in those things. That is what leaves the person free and empty in their regard, even though she still owns them. Because it is not the things of this world that take up space in the person or do her harm. [...] No, it is the will and the hunger for them that dwells inside her.' [1 Ascent 3.4]

 

The focus is on desire: if this gets out of place -- 'disordered' -- it curls in on itself and chokes the person's openness to the other. Then the 'bonds of ownership' 'occupy the heart'. At stake, then, is our ability to love; and the stakes are high:

 

'The person has only one will, and if this gets caught up in a particular thing, it will not be free, complete, single or pure -- yet that is what is needed if God is to transform it.' [1 A 11.6]

 

When people, things, events are loved within God, there is harmony.  When they get set alongside God -- 'set in a balance with God' -- a process is begun in which affectivity groans under the violence it is inflicting on itself.

 

 

From The Impact of God, Fr. Iain Matthew, OCD pg. 40-41)

 

==============

 

There is more there, but I don't want to make TOO long a post.  The reason I post it is that I can understand you want to focus on God and worry that the human body might distract you from Him.   I think that is happening because you are setting your sight on something(s) (created things) rather than Someone (the Lord).    If something is distracting you, John would be the first to tell you to leave it behind... but he would also tell you that you are missing MANY beautiful things and that their purpose is to lead you TO Him.

 

And.... we are all here to help each other to find God and it's important, I think for ALL of us to remember that no one has the full repository of TRUTH except God.... and we can all help each other by searching for His Truth together.

 

Praying for all....

 

Edited May 1, 2013 by AnneLine

[jim111]

EmilyAnn, I don't think he's intending to do that. It's probably just really bad word choice. The fact that he's concerned about not lusting after women probably means he doesn't want to objectify them. If you (jim) have problems with this, then you might have an inflated sex drive or you're over thinking things. 

 

I over think things. I believe men and  women should have to dress a certain way, so as not to cause lust, or they sin. I don't see how I can have theses stirct standards for women, but then approve of these paintings where they are naked.

[Nihil Obstat]

I over think things. I believe men and  women should have to dress a certain way, so as not to cause lust, or they sin. I don't see how I can have theses stirct standards for women, but then approve of these paintings where they are naked.

Perhaps because you are considering the body to be inherently shameful, when it actually is not.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

It does not matter what I think, if they provide the temptation then they sin regardless of weather or not I lust.

 

St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the
Church, taught:
"When you have made another sin in his heart, how can
you be innocent? Tell me, whom does this world condemn?
Whom do judges in court punish?Those who drink poison or
 those who prepare it and administer the fatal potion? You
have prepared the abominable cup, you have given the
death-dealing drink, and you are more criminal than are
those who poison the body; you murder not the body but the
soul. And it is not to enemies you do this, nor are you urged
on by any imaginary necessity, nor provoked by injury, but
out of foolish vanity and pride."

But nude paintings don't lead most people to sin. 

[Nihil Obstat]

I am facing an enormous temptation to spam this thread with classics of nude art. :P But that would be highly tasteless and inconsiderate of me.

[EmilyAnn]

I am facing an enormous temptation to spam this thread with classics of nude art. :P But that would be highly tasteless and inconsiderate of me.

Same :P

[jim111]

Matter of Expiation of Scandal from Immodest Paintings

Extracts from 'Purgatory' by Rev. F.X. Schouppe, S.J.

 

THOSE who have had the misfortune to give bad example, and to wound or cause the perdition of souls by scandal, must take care to repair all in this world, if they would not be subjected to the most terrible expiation in the other. It was not in vain that Jesus Christ cried out, Woe to the world because of scandals! Woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh! (Matt. 18:7)

Hear what Father Rossignoli relates in his Merveilles du Purgatoire. A painter of great skill and otherwise exemplary life had once made a painting not at all conformable to the strict rules of Christian modesty. It was one of those paintings which, under the pretext of being works of art, are found in the best families, and the sight of which causes the loss of so many souls.

True art is an inspiration from Heaven, which elevates the soul to God; profane art, which appeals to the senses only, which presents to the eye nothing but the beauties of flesh and blood, is but an inspiration of the evil spirit; his works, brilliant though they may be, are not works of art, and the name is falsely attributed to them.

They are the infamous productions of a corrupt imagination.

The artist of whom we speak had allowed himself to be misled in this point by bad example. Soon, however, renouncing this pernicious style, he confined himself to the production of religious pictures, or at least of those which were perfectly irreproachable. Finally, he was painting a large picture in the convent of the discalced Carmelites, when he was attacked by a mortal malady.

Feeling that he was about to die, he asked the Prior to allow him to be interred in the church of the monastery, and bequeathed to the community his earnings, which amounted to a considerable sum of money, charging them to have Masses said for the repose of his soul. He died in pious sentiments, and a few days passed, when a Religious who had stayed in the choir after Matins saw him appear in the midst of flames and sighing piteously.

"What!" said the Religious, "have you to endure such pain, after leading so good a life and dying so holy a death?" "Alas!" replied he, "it is on account of the immodest picture that I painted some years ago. When I appeared before the tribunal of the Sovereign Judge, a crowd of accusers came to give evidence against me. They declared that they had been excited to improper thoughts and evil desires by a picture, the work of my hand. In consequence of those bad thoughts some were in Purgatory, others in Hell. The latter cried for vengeance, saying that, having been the cause of their eternal perdition, I deserved, at least, the same punishment. Then the Blessed Virgin and the saints whom I had glorified by my pictures took up my defence. They represented to the Judge that that unfortunate painting had been the work of youth, and of which I had repented; that I had repaired it afterwards by religious objects which had been a source of edification to souls.

"In consideration of these and other reasons, the Sovereign Judge declared that, on account of my repentance and my good works, I should be exempt from damnation; but at the same time, He condemned me to these flames until that picture should be burned, so that it could no longer scandalise any one."

Then the poor sufferer implored the Religious to take measures to have the painting destroyed "I beg of you," he added, "go in my name to such a person, proprietor of the picture; tell him in what a condition I am for having yielded to his entreaties to paint it, and conjure him to make a sacrifice of it. If he refuses, woe to him! To prove that this is not an illusion, and to punish him for his own fault, tell him that before long he will lose his two children. Should he refuse to obey Him who has created us both, he will pay for it by a premature death."

The Religious delayed not to do what the poor soul asked of him, and went to the owner of the picture. The latter, on hearing these things, seized the painting and cast it into the fire. Nevertheless, according to the words of the deceased, he lost his two children in less than a month. The remainder of his days he passed in penance, for having ordered and kept that immodest picture in his house.

If such are the consequences of an immodest picture, what, then, will be the punishment of the still more disastrous scandals resulting from bad books, bad papers, bad schools, and bad conversations?

Vae mundo a scandalis! Vae homini illi per quem scandalum venit! -- "Woe to the world because of scandals! Woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh!

Scandal makes great ravages in souls by the seduction of innocence. Ah! those accursed seducers! They shall render to God a terrible account of the blood of their victims.
 

 

READ THE BOOK HERE

 

[jim111]

 

Matter of Expiation of Scandal from Immodest Paintings

Extracts from 'Purgatory' by Rev. F.X. Schouppe, S.J.

 

THOSE who have had the misfortune....

 

READ THE BOOK HERE

 

 

Summary: It is scandalous to paint something if it causes others to lust after it.

[Nihil Obstat]

I am not really interested in prooftexting. Would you be so kind as to make an argument in your own words?

[TheLordsSouljah]

The human body is not inherently sinful to look upon. That is why your argument is unsound.

Depending on the strength of the individual, though, one should not walk a high wire over sin.

Nihil I thought you would be the first to defend this standpoint.... Beautiful as the human body is, what about the theology behind Eden?

Edited May 1, 2013 by TheLordsSouljah

[Nihil Obstat]

Summary: It is scandalous to paint something if it causes others to lust after it.

Alcohol contributes to millions of people every day committing terrible sins. Is it a sin to produce alcohol? To consume it? To advocate its moderate consumption?

[AnneLine]

Jim,  I really think you might want to talk to a priest or director about this.  There are a lot of solid Catholic people who are giving you their feedback that we think you might be a little off on this.   With all due respect, there is more than one way of looking at this.  Please at least consider that for some of us, these artistic classics are NOT things that lead us to sin, but instead lead us to God. 

 

If they do NOT lead YOU to God, you shouldn't subject yourself to them... but as a generalization, I don't think so....  it really depends on the person and their particular 'occasions of sin'.  For me, I know a particular intersection of a street (surrounded by beautiful natural beauty and a lot of cold and wind) is a much greater 'occasion of sin' and I approach it with great fear and trepidation... because it makes me MAD to have to be there a lot of times.   And THAT distracts me from God.   So that is what "I" need to work on.

 

A torso, male or female, not so much....

[Nihil Obstat]

Depending on the strength of the individual, though, one should not walk a high wire over sin.

Nihil I thought you would be the first to defend this standpoint.... Beautiful as the human body is, what about the theology behind Eden?

Certainly. Prudence is of the utmost important. But I am talking about inherent sinfulness, or lack thereof, and I think that is amply demonstrated.