Is it illicit to keep art of Adam and Eve where they are depicted nude without any censorship? There is a beautiful Triptych I found but the only issue is Eve's breasts are exposed in it. It is my understanding that the Church started to crack down on images like this post Trent. A trad priests told me it is not licit to depict Eve nude due to the following verse. I'd lean toward his advice but I have thought about covering up that part myself or having it painted over.

"Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother: she is thy mother, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness."

Leviticus 18:7

It's not simply about lust but about propriety.  Even if there's no lust involved, there's a natural sense of modesty that people have.  Of course, that seems to be tied to Original Sin, but we are, alas, in Original Sin.  So, for instance, even people of the same gender would have their modesty offended by prancing around in front of one another nude.

So, for instance, if I saw a painting of Our Lord in which He was depicted fully nude with very detailed, anatomically correct, and graphic depiction of His private areas, I would find that to be blasphemous due to the indignity and impropriety to which He would thereby be subjected ... despite the fact that there would obviously be no temptation to lust on my part as a result of it.

Where is the line?  I would say probably at what are called, for a reason, the "private" parts.  Breasts have always been a little borderline whether they're strictly private parts (since they're not genitalia), but while perhaps a dignified picture of Our Lady breastfeeding would be acceptable, a picture of her with, say, both breasts exposed, or, worse, entirely nude, would be blasphemous ... even if put on display among women, for whom it would not incite lust, or even if it were in some abstract style, such as Picasso's.

This is probably worth pondering, but modesty goes beyond lust per se.  There's a shame and an indignity attached to nakedness (even among people of the same gender) that goes beyond lust.  Perhaps it's related to it somehow, but I speculate that it has more to do with the fact that in our fallen state, the body is no longer completely subject to the soul, and it takes on the aspect of a crass materiality that brings shame to our higher spiritual faculties.  That's why I also believe that people are ashamed of sins against purity (even in weakness) more than they might be of sins with greater malice.  We in our spiritual aspect are ashamed of our animal aspect, but that's due to the fact that these two aspects, the spiritual and the animal, have ceased to be perfectly integrated after the fall.

On a side note...  In some books I have recently read, it was stated that the immodestly dressed paintings in the Vatican and elsewhere were introduced more after the Western Schism and the Avignon Papacy because they hired many non-Catholics humanists to do their paintings.  These people even introduced pagan paintings and sculptures all over the Vatican.

Yes, a separate consideration, but if I became pope, I'd have Michaelangelo's clearly-homoerotic garbage summarily sandblasted off the ceilings and walls.  I wouldn't want to be a priest offering Mass, raise my eyes to heaven during the elevation, and view the Blessed Sacrament in front of a backdrop with dangling genitalia and rear ends.

Indeed, there were eras of corruption in the Vatican ... with various popes who were serial fornicators, had illegitimate children, occupied themselves with earthly pleasures while shirking the responsibilities of the papacy.

I think that the hesitancy comes from the "historical" value of that art, but I wouldn't give it a second thought.

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

The work had been commissioned by the Pope, but many Catholics felt that The Last Judgement was inappropriate for a place as sacred as the Pope’s private chapel. The Papal Master of Ceremonies, Biagio da Cesena, deemed the fresco outrageous, and more suitable for public baths or taverns than a chapel. “….it was mostly disgraceful that in so sacred a place there should have been depicted all those nude figures, exposing themselves so shamefully”. Michelangelo responded by making Minos, judge of the underworld, resemble Cesena. It’s an extremely unflattering portrait; Minos/Cesena has the ears of a donkey and a snake biting his genitals. When Cesena complained to the Pope, the Pope reportedly pointed out that his authority did not extend to hell. The painting remained unchanged.

But Cesena was far from the only detractor. The satirist Pietro Aretino, angered when Michelangelo ignored his advice, accused the artist of being “godless” and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ – a little hypocritical, given Aretino’s boasts about his own same-sex conquests. The obvious response was to include Aretino in the painting, which Michelangelo promptly did. St Bartholomew, portrayed as a stern old man holding his own flayed skin, bears a striking resemblance to Aretino. Interestingly, the face on the flayed skin of the saint has been interpreted as Michelangelo’s anguished, distorted self-portrait.

The controversy over nudity in the Sistine Chapel continued after Michelangelo’s death. The artist Daniele da Volterra was hired to cover up some of the genitals in The Last Judgement by adding fig leaves and loincloths, which earned him the nickname “Il Braghettone” (“The breeches maker”).

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.”

Needless to say, I wholeheartedly agree with the first bolded quote regarding Biagio de Cesena, the Papal Master of Ceremonies.

On a side note...  In some books I have recently read, it was stated that the immodestly dressed paintings in the Vatican and elsewhere were introduced more after the Western Schism and the Avignon Papacy because they hired many non-Catholics humanists to do their paintings.  These people even introduced pagan paintings and sculptures all over the Vatican.

This can even apply to the stripping of churches nowadays…at least in the novus ordo churches. Nothing even depicts the saints, Our Lady and Our Lord in the glass windows anymore. Sometimes the crucifixs look extremely weird! Everything is just empty, dark, and it gives such a bad feeling I’m sure for many. 

Has anyone even seen inside the Vatican? It’s ugly. They have a strange tall-wooded sculpture behind where the Pope sits. I want to take a blowtorch to it. 

To take away the reverence, faith soon fades away.