it is realy confusing to me.I thought that we should hate "false gods of gentiles"!
I think in addition to not worshipping them we should abhor their myths(they are so full of immorality.)
Is a catholic painter allowed to paint so much nudity?(e.g Venus Bacchus etc?
by the way look at this website it is in favor of "Real Art"
www.artrenewal.com

Well, certainly we should not be "advertising" false idols by using them in our art or writing. I have personally encountered people who seriously believe in polytheism, so... these young (un)educated liberal brains full of mush actually will give credence to these things... in fact, to ANYTHING that is not the One, Real God.

But it should be common sense that just as a young woman whose profession is dancing cannot take to the bars just because lots of other women are doing it, because of the ten commandments, so, too, artists can't abandon decency or the ten commandments.

Whether or not there was a day and age when people could look at the body and not immediately be tempted (was there EVER such a day?), in this day and age, virtually ANYTHING can be thought of in a filthy, perverted way, by easily most of us who have been bombarded by filth every day of our lives by the people and media around us. Because modern society has made a filthy joke of just about everything, however bad it was or wasn't before, it certainly would be bad now, when our minds are steeped in this filth from the moment we are old enough to go out of the door, and sometimes before that. You have almost absolute certainty of scandalizing anyone who has anything innocent left in them, because those who are not steeped in the poison, are so (rightfully perhaps) afraid of getting that way, that it is jarring and scandalous to see something like that.

So either way, it's just bad for us, here and now, in this rotten society. Those who want to argue about whether or not it scandalized the greeks, may as well argue about whether or not the nudity of Adam and Eve before the fall is still appropriate for us today, because they were not scandalized then.

You're talking different times, far different common viewpoints, and all sorts of things. But I think one's first Catholic impulse is the right one: no, this cannot be good. At the VERY least it cannot be good for us here and in a society obsessed with impurity, and spewing it out of every technological orifice . But we may seriously suspect that, human nature being constant and objective, and the same throughout all ages, that to some extent, it has ALWAYS been bad, in that it puts the weak into strong temptation... something that we ought never do if we can avoid it. Now I think most artists could have afforded to stick some fig leaves or tastefully placed banners or SOMETHING, without destroying the piece.

I'd like to point out, too, that human nature being always and forever simply what it is... there is ALWAYS that trend to excuse things like this. To make excuses for fudging the boundaries that... if we were put on truth serum and asked whether they were right or wrong, we KNOW they are wrong. But we don't want them to be. Whether out of sheer perversion or the strength of temptation to the sins of impurity in particular... or whether out of the sinful pride of the devil's own revolution ("I will not serve" eg, "I will write my OWN commandments"), or some combination of both... there is something unique and peculiar to the issue of fudging these particular boundaries... in the realm of decency related to purity... that people are ALWAYS trying to do so.

This is not just true of painting, it's true of writing, dance, music, movies, you name it. If you are any kind of artist, who has been out there trying to pinpoint what the right and proper ethics are for the arts, and how to conduct yourself, then chances are you have already met this peculiar breed of "christians" and Catholics, who are out there boldly defending all kinds of transgressions in the field of purity, on all kinds of supposed justifications. You have your "christian" singers appearing with skimpy clothes on cd covers, and singing who only knows what kinds of lyrics under the guise of "christian" music, you've got anyone who is in the field of dance, facing the pressure to go out on stage in costumes that might as well be painted on... you've got the movies, where if you refuse to do smut scenes you may as well go home for as far as your career will get... you've got writing, where these so-called christians are very defiantly and vocally defending the writing of so-called 'romance scenes' and what have you. But this is nothing new, and people need to recognize what is going on here. That this is just another manifestation of our fallen human nature, giving in to making excuses to sugar coat the sins we are tempted to. In this case, profane, scandalous, sinful, impure art, which is going to tempt people, which is going to effect people in a very real and very bad way (whether they think they're "above it" or not), and for which the artist will have to answer before God, for every soul they led into that temptation, or whose mind they helped to dispose more readily toward sensuality and sins of the flesh.

Ultimately, the best thing for all artists is, to distrust themselves. Find out the truth, don't be afraid to hear you're walking down a bad road, accept it when you find out you are, and have the humility for the love of God to do the right thing, not what you want or feel like doing. Ultimately, the catechism is a pretty good compass, and I believe there's something in there about leading others into temptation is in itself a sin. And the artist will bear, at least in part, the responsibility of sins committed because their work was immoral. And when you think about how many people could potentially see any one work of art once it goes public... that's pretty scary.

I'm just going to insert my two cents on the issue.

Back in those days, people could not read. Back in those days as well, when trying to convert people, they would use things familiar to the ones that were the objects of the conversions, so they would incorporate images that they were familiar with into Catholic art, if that makes any sense.

Quote from: Alex

Nudity still did scandaliz the greeks back then.

Well, common sense would certainly seem go along with that, considered human kind were created to have a certain reaction to certain things... It's just sad that people today try to pretend they are somehow "above" that now (as though we can ever be more than human, or more than subject to our natural tendencies as God created us), and that now, in this "enlightened" age it's okay to do things like that in art. But human nature, like other parts of natural law, is unchanging. We can lie to ourselves, but we can't change the reality.

I've always wondered though....If humans are inclined to arousal over the naked body because of original sin, then how is it that african tribes people, abortiginal tribes people, and tribes people of the rainforests (all of whom live in nakedness) are able to overcome their concupisence (sp?) and not be aroused by nudity?

And I might add, the tribes you mention, particularly in Africa, are FAR from chaste! War breaks out and all kinds rape is rampant! And even before war breaks out, AIDS is an epidemic there more than many other places, because of ignorance about the disease, and the rank promiscuity going on over there. I heard once that there was some myth going around over there that if a guy with aids "had" a virgin, he would get better. Just think where THAT led...

So these people are not exactly pure as the driven snow. Many believe in polygamy (another sign they can't control themselves)... there's no evidence that they're really "desensitized" to it in the least.

once I was invited to the marriage feast of a radical shiia couple. the groom hadn't seen a woman's arm before. in that feast women and men were in seperated rooms, then all women (except afew) veiled themselves because the groom wanted to see his bride for some moment. when he saw his wife with bare arms, he was so shocked and look at her with such a wonder and pleasure that we laughted at him. he looked as if he was charmed.....
when you kill one man you will feel sorry forever. but those people who kill millions will perhaps never feel sorry, they may even justify their actions by some arguments. so is it with immodesty, if you are always exposed to it, you will some day cease to be aroused. it is a case with men who are gyconologists......
the fact that too much immodesty causes a man not to be tempted doesn't justify this sin. it is like murder when one kill thousands of people it becomes natural to him, but it is still sinful. and the more natural a sin is in your mind, the harder and the less possible is your repentance.

the fact that too much immodesty causes a man not to be tempted doesn't justify this sin. it is like murder when one kill thousands of people it becomes natural to him, but it is still sinful. and the more natural a sin is in your mind, the harder and the less possible is your repentance.

An interesting way to put it, and quite true.

Considering there have been Saints in Italy who have seen the Sistine Chapel, or David in Florence, etc., and NOT gone one a rampage - and one of those Saints had ultimate authority for 11 years - I tend to think our perspective vacillates between being too puritanical and too loose.  We who have been raised in the post-V2 age, full of sensory overload and complete cultural instability, are likely not the best judges of these things.  God speed in JMJ

Firstly, the saints didn't always get things right in every way- they weren't perfect.

Secondly, I doubt very much that the saints who saw these paintings and said nothing would themselves have ever put such art in their homes. The reason why they didn't say anything was most likely they had bigger things to worry about at the time.