Things at the Catholic League must be really dire

Just in time for the start of Holy Week, the self-appointed, self-important blowhard at the head of the so-called "Catholic League" has--yet again--gotten his Opus Dei-approved camel's hair panties in a twist. This time, the object of his outrage is a roughly life-sized sculpture of Jesus done in milk chocolate that was set to be exhibited in a hotel in New York City.

Now I have to admit, as a friend of mine in Left Blogistan has already said, I'm always just a tiny bit suspicious whenever I hear about an artist producing something controversial. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that the artist failed to consider fully the implications of creating a life-sized, anatomically correct nude rendering of Jesus and planning to exhibit it during the holiest week of the Christian church year. It is equally within the realm of possibility (and considerably more likely, in my estimation) that the artist was counting on exactly the reaction he got.

Be that as it may. No less predictable was the outrage of William DonoWho, professional apoplectic where all things Catholic are concerned. (Or at least all things Catholic of which Mr. DonoWho approves, anyway. Funny how he never seems to be all that concerned about people exploiting the poor, stealing from widows and orphans--you know, all that liberal, sentimental, bleeding-heart shit that Jesus Christ actually cared about.) Like a bad penny, DonoWho is the gift that just keeps on giving--even when you wish more than anything else that he'd just shut his hateful piehole and slink away into the obscurity he so richly deserves.

Just as with the artist, though, I am always cynical about the ulterior motives behind any move DonoWho makes. Whenever he pops up on Faux News to spew his venom masquerading as the Gospel truth, I'm sure he gets a surge of donations and subscriptions. The cynic in me cannot help but see a necessary connection between the financial situation at the Catholic League and DonoWho's need to stir the pot a little at the start of a new fiscal quarter.

As to the substance of the dispute, I'd argue there isn't much of anything to get bent out of shape over. It is no skin off my nose, nor any threat to my Catholic faith, to see my Lord portrayed in chocolate. (I might argue that using milk chocolate instead of dark chocolate was tantamount to heresy, but that argument for another day.) The Council of Chalcedon dogmatically proclaimed that Jesus Christ was fully human as well as fully divine. (And that took place in 451, so it's not like this is any kind of new teaching.) It therefore follows necessarily that Jesus had a penis. It is known that Roman practice was to crucify people in the nude, to add to the shame and humiliation of their manner of death. Yes, tradition has been to depict Christ on the cross with a loincloth out of modesty, but that's just a convention. I fail to see why I should be frothing at the mouth over this the way DonoWho and his rabid band of followers are.

Perhaps DonoWho and his followers are more prudish than I am. That's their right. But they have absolutely no right to go from protesting the exhibition and calling for it to be cancelled (which it was) to making death threats against the artist and personnel at the venue where the exhibition was to have taken place. That's hardly what any reasonable person could rightly characterize as a Catholic response. It is particularly offensive, given that the focus of this week in the liturgical year is on the Passion of Christ. The account of Jesus's death in Luke's Gospel was read out in every Catholic Church around the world this Sunday. It will be repeated this Friday. I'm having quite a difficult time wrapping my head around the idea that the followers of a man that we believe to have been wrongfully put to death could possibly think it was a good idea to call for someone else's life to be snuffed out before their time.

Shame on you Mr. DonoWho. You do not speak for me, and you can keep your brand of what you're pleased to call Catholicism. As for me and mine, we'll stick to what Jesus taught in the Gospels.

Comments

[Andrea]

NO! He really said that the artist should.... have the "grace of a happy death"???? He didn't!!!! I'm not even surprised, really. Disgusted, yes. Surprised, no.

[Michael]

Technically, at least according to the transcript at Crooks and Liars, he only said that the artist should be glad he wasn't with the Taliban "...because you would lose more than your head..." which is bad enough. But do read the transcript. It gets really surreal (and quite funny) toward the end.

[Bryan]

The problem is the melting point for both the mold and for exhibition that makes milk chocolate a better choice for the project.

Last year it was chocolate roods that had everyone in a snit.

I hope DonoWho never arrives in Mexico to observe the local Catholics on Dia De Los Muertos. There are things I guarantee most people would be shocked to see rendered in various forms of candy.

Chocolate is recyclable and I haven't heard of any plans to allow patrons to nibble. It's better than those tacky plastic jobs attached to the dashboard with a suction cup. Would it have passed muster with a marzipan loin cloth?

[Michael]

Oh, I dunno. Dark chocolate holds up just as well as milk chocolate in my experience. And they could always use binders or something.

At least according to the C&L transcript, there was, apparently, some expectation that the figure would be eaten. Though there also I can't really see getting my knickers knotted. If it's OK to go to Mass and take Communion, why should it be sacrilegious to eat the body of the Lord under another form? Absolutely no question of it's being the actual Body of Christ, given that (a) it wasn't composed of wheat products, which is a canonical requirement, and (b) no one sacramentally ordained and with valid faculties consecrated it.

I wouldn't mind if it melted away, either. Tibetan Buddhists make sculptures in butter for great festivals, precisely so that they will melt away in the sun, the better to remind those seeing it happen of the transience of this world. Seems to me I remember hearing Jesus talk about that once or twice somewhere, too...

[Incertus]

It's almost certain that the artist intended to provoke a response--what artist wants to labor in obscurity? Part of the purpose of art is to be part of a conversation--art is, at its heart I believe, an act of communication between the artist and the viewer, and the artwork is the place where that conversation takes place.

But Donahue doesn't want conversation. (Maybe the artist doesn't either--I can't speak for him.) Donahue wants outrage, because outrage gets money in his coffers, and keeps him from flipping burgers, which is about the only other job he'd be suited for.