The Nekkid Truth

BotticellivenusAnother from Old World Swine;

I remember the first time I sat in a figure drawing class and worked
from a real, live, nekkid model. I was a little nervous before, as were
probably a lot of us wet-eared art undergrads. I don’t know how
everyone else responded when the young lady dropped her bathrobe, but I
expect their experience wasn’t too different from my own; there were a
few moments of awkward ogling, a few moments of stern and studied
pretense at ignoring the obvious, and then – something else. I began to
think about how I could wring a good drawing out of the pose. As I
started to draw, my brain began to break the model down into her
component elements… line and form, light and shadow, muscle and bone.
Within a minute, and for the remainder of the class, she registered no
more on my libido-meter than a clay pot or a fern. And I was not nearly
such a paragon of virtue and restraint as I am now.

Not everyone has had the benefit of such a class, of course, but it
did demonstrate to me in unmistakable terms the very real difference
between appreciating the beauty of the human form and what might be
called the Look of Lust. I had the great privilege of having my view of
the female form somewhat redeemed and baptized long before I knew
anything of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. In this work, he makes
brilliantly clear that the mere repression of lustful thoughts is not
enough, and may even be unhealthy in the long run. We must learn –
through the help of the Holy Spirit, the teaching of the Church, the
sacraments and prayer – to change the way we perceive the human body.
We must have our thoughts redeemed. We should work toward being able to
thank God for the breathtaking beauty of the human body, and through
giving thanks and praise to the Creator, disarm and disable Lust.

The idea is not to cage our lust, but to drag it out into the light where it can be transformed by the Holy Spirit.

Not that nudity is something to be treated lightly. We are fallen,
after all. There is nudity – even under the pretext of art – that is
wholly inappropriate. If it is intended to excite lust, or if it in
fact does so, then it is unhealthy.

How do we tell the difference? Obviously, this is a matter of
judgment. For one aware of his own weakness, one sincerely committed to
trying to please God in everything, one familiar with Original Sin, one
who has been trained to respect the dictates of conscience… a
certain  amount of confidence in personal judgment is possible, and can
be developed. In the words of St. Augustine, "Love God and do as you
please".

For one lacking these things, it may be impossible, though I believe
that even based only on natural law one can tell the difference between
a painting that is basically an act of praise and homage, and one in
which the body is displayed like a piece of meat in a butcher shop
window. In the first case, the viewer’s response is "Yes, that is
beautiful – God does great work". In the latter case, the viewer’s
response is "I want that".

In short, if you are truly concerned about lust in regard to viewing
nude figures in art, then the battle is half won already. Trust your
judgment, and be watchful of your own thoughts. Where truly great,
classical, historically significant art is involved, I don’t think even
children need be  cocooned and shielded as much as one might think.
Most children likely have a much saner and simpler response to these
things than we give them credit for. If you have concerns for kids,
look things over for yourself first, but don’t get too wound up over
them seeing this or that body part, in the right context.

The Economy Is Fine. . . . Really?

Like everybody else, I’ve been following reports that the economy is bad, that we may already be in a recession–or worse–and it has me concerned.

I *really* don’t want that to be the case, but I have to face the possibility that it is.

On the other hand, I’ve been hearing reports for the last five years about how bad the economy has been, when in fact we’ve been in a period of economic growth for the last five years.

So . . . what’s the deal?

Was it just the media wanting a scare story all this time leading them to sensationalize any possible negative number when in fact the economy was fine? Was it hatred of the Bush administration? And what does this say about current reports of a recession–or worse?

I dunno.

I *especially* hope that all the negative talk doesn’t lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So I at least like to hear both sides of a story before forming an opinion, and thus I was intrigued to read THIS STORY IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

Pardon the pun, but here are the "money" quotes (excerpts):

It is hard to imagine any time in history when such rampant pessimism about the economy has existed with so little evidence of serious trouble.

It is most likely that this recent weakness is a payback for previous strength.

A year ago, most economic data looked much worse than they do today. . . . But the economy came back and roared in the middle of the year.

Because all debt rests on a foundation of real economic activity, and the real economy is still resilient, the current red alert about a crashing house of cards looks like another false alarm.

So is the current talk just talk . . . or something more?

I dunno.

I report. You decide.

GET THE STORY.

Chesterton on Babies

Preborn
In honor of those who march today…

"I doubt if anyone of any tenderness or
imagination can see the hand of a child and not be a little frightened of it.
It is awful to think of the essential human energy moving so tiny a thing; it
is like imagining that human nature could live in the wing of a butterfly or the
leaf of a tree. When we look upon lives so human and yet so small. . . we feel
the same kind of obligation to these creatures that [God] might feel. . ."

from Chesterton’s essay In Defense of Baby Worship
from The Defendant 1903.

For more, visit the Catholic Education Resource Center

(http://www.catholiceducation.org/)

Alaska in June

Deer_mountain
Catholic Answers has been doing cruises for a number of years now, and they’ve proved very popular. They provide a valuable experience for the participants, and the proceeds benefit the apostolic work of Catholic Answers.

This June we’re going to be doing a cruise to Alaska, which is going to be a lot of fun. The theme of the cruise is apologetics, and we’ll be having apologetic talks by me, Tim Staples, Mark Shea, and Jim Blackburn.

We’ll also be getting to see the natural beauty of Alaska in the summer, which is truly stunning. I was on our previous Alaska cruise, and I remember when we arrived at our first port of call and I got off the boat. The port village was tiny, but the mountain behind it was enormous–thousands of feet tall, covered with evergreens, with water falls high up its slopes. The water falls looked tiny in the distance, which just added to the sense of enormity.

We also cruised past fjords, which I’ve always felt give a lovely baroque feel to a continent, and got to climb on a glacier, as well as a bunch of other activities.

And now we’re going to do it again.

It’ll be great!

So I thought I’d write a post about it and invite readers who might want to come along to do so. I know that some readers have been with us on previous cruises, and this one will be a lot of fun.

Fun is important.

It’s a key part of the human experience. God meant us to have it. But he also meant us to have it in a wholesome, constructive way. That’s one of the things that makes Catholic cruises such excellent vacations. They combine the human need for rest and recreation with the spiritual dimension that must always be fundamental to our lives.

Shortly after he was elected pontiff, Pope Benedict spoke of these two dimensions combining in the ideal of the Christian vacation, while he was taking his own vacation in the Alps (and writing his book on Jesus):

In the world in which we live, the need to be physically and mentally
replenished has become as it were essential, especially to those who
dwell in cities where the often frenzied pace of life leaves little
room for silence, reflection and relaxing contact with nature.
Moreover, holidays are days on which we can give even more time to
prayer, reading and meditation on the profound meaning of life in the
peaceful context of our own family and loved ones.

The vacation period
affords unique opportunities for reflection as we face the stirring
views of nature, a marvelous "book" within the reach of everyone,
adults or children. In contact with nature, individuals rediscover
their proper dimension, they recognize that they are creatures but at
the same time unique, "capable of God" since they are inwardly open to
the Infinite. Driven by the heartfelt need for meaning that urges them
onwards, they perceive the mark of goodness and divine Providence in
the world that surrounds them and open themselves almost spontaneously
to praise and prayer [SOURCE].

A Catholic cruise to Alaska offers precisely the kind of encounter with nature and spiritual experience that Pope Benedict is talking about, as not only will there be the grandeur of Alaska’s God-given beauty but also faith-building talks, daily Mass, confession, and travel with like-minded Catholics in an enriching, family-friendly environment.

Whether you’ve never been on a cruise before or whether you’re an experienced cruiser, I hope you’ll consider joining me on the 2008 Catholic Answers apologetics cruise to Alaska.

For more information, click the icon in the right hand margin or VISIT THIS SITE.

“Harry Potter, wrong model of a hero, Vatican newspaper says”

Harrypotter
That’s the headline of THIS STORY BY CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY.

I’m no Harry Potter fan, but it appears that Catholic News Agency has severely misled its readers on this story.

By saying that L’Osservatore Romano published a piece criticizing Harry Potter, they convey the impression that this is the official Vatican position.

In actuality, what L’Osservatore Romano published was a debate between pro-Potter and anti-Potter writers, which conveys an entirely different impression about the newspaper’s (and the Vatican’s) position.

Catholic News Agency mentioned only one half of the debate.

Catholic News Service, by contrast, mentions both.

GET THE (OTHER SIDE OF THE) STORY.

I’ve Been Saying This For Years

It’s shocking!

You know how only a third of Catholics believe in the Real Presence?

Well, they don’t.

By which I mean: It isn’t true that only a third of Catholics believe in the Real Presence.

That’s a myth that got created due to thee things: (1) a pollster using a poorly worded questions that didn’t correspond to Catholic teaching, meaning that Catholics responding to the question weren’t sure how to answer it in a way that reflected their faith, and so the pro-Real Presence vote got split among several different categories. (2) Those reading the results of the poll didn’t pay careful attention to how the question was worded and what the implications were for how the different categories had to be pieced back together to get an accurate indication of belief in the Real Presence. (3) The general desire to lament how bad things are these days led people to read the results in terms of a staggering crisis of faith.

And so for years the idea has been floating around out there that only a small number of Catholics actually believe in the Real Presence, despite the fact that it isn’t true.

Now, I’m happy to concede that not enough Catholics believe in the Real Presence. 100% of them should. I’m also happy to concede that not enough Catholics understand the Real Presence in the manner articulated by the Church (transubstantiaion). Some have views that are fuzzy on that point, and bad catechesis is a key factor in that.

But the numbers are nowhere near as bleak as people make out.

And now there’s a new study (by the National Catholic Reporter folks, of all people), that backs this up. Fr. Richard John Neuhaus writes:

81 percent say that “belief that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist” is essential in their understanding of the Catholic faith. Keep in mind that the survey is of a cross section of the 65 million Catholics in the U.S. (although Latinos are greatly underrepresented). Among the more highly committed Catholics, it is reasonable to assume that belief in the Real Presence is considerably higher than 81 percent. This is worth keeping in mind because some years ago a clumsily worded question in a survey came up with the conclusion that only one third of Catholics believed in the Real Presence, and that “finding” still crops up in discussions on the state of Catholicism. Among active Catholics, belief in the Real Presence, as also in the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, and the Resurrection of Jesus, edges up toward unanimity.

GET THE STORY.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)

Winding Up to a Conclusion

Rockwell_connoisseur
(Note; I use the word "abstract" in this post as a synonym for
"non-representational" art, that is, art that doesn’t depict or
represent any object. In truth, all visual art involves abstraction,
but I use the word here as a less cumbersome way of saying
"non-representational" – T.J.)

The topic of this post (at my blog Old World Swine) brought me back to a series I authored
here at JA.O , on how I understand modern abstraction in
terms of where it fits in the broad movement of art history.

In retrospect, I see that project was too great a stretch for a
layman and average schlub like myself. I have absolutely zero credentials as either a philosopher or art
historian. I am a working artist (Masters Degree, thanks) not that widely read
or traveled. What I can do is talk very honestly about art from my own
non-expert perspective and hope that this becomes a useful bit of grist
for the mill. I’ll begin with a little background that might help explain
why it has taken me so long to finish this series of posts.

A commercial art client with whom I worked for years had a very large abstract painting hanging in his office. It was dreadful
– the kind of thing one would buy at a discount furniture store – a mass
produced vomitous mess of cream and "earth tones". It was bad in every
way that a painting can
be bad. The abstract equivalent of a black velvet Elvis.. I saw this
painting off and on for years, and one day the undeniable bad-ness of
it got me thinking; I
had seen a lot of other abstract paintings that were much better than
this one. If they really were better, I thought, what made
them better? If we can talk at all about "bad" and "good" abstract art,
that almost proves there must be something worthwhile in the good abstract art, doesn’t it?

Where I had been all set to consign abstract art to the dustbin, I
decided to hold off and rethink my position. I mulled things over for
quite a while, and ended up reaffirming my first intuitive response to
abstraction (that it is a subset of decorative art), while at the same
time developing a genuine appreciation of abstract art in its proper place.
I can now say that there
are a number of pieces of abstract art that I think are successful,
interesting, even engaging… just not what I consider to be great art,
for reasons I’ll get to in the next post. One of the things great art does is move
the viewer, and I have never once been moved by a piece of abstract art. I don’t see how that works.

There is, of course, the real possibility that I may just be missing
something, that I am a thick-skulled, irrecoverable rube – what C.S.
Lewis called a "trousered ape" – who simply lacks the imagination, the
emotional depth and psychological complexity to plumb the mysteries of
abstract art. That’s fine. I’ll admit the possibility… but it’s not
for lack of honest effort.

I have looked at and thought hard about abstract art for years. In
some circles – circles I occasionally run in – verbalizing a lack of
sufficient enthusiasm or appreciation for abstract art is a social
blunder on the level of making fun of the handicapped – much worse, in
fact (in the latter case, one could always pull a Mel Gibson and claim
it was the booze talking). This is just not something a sophisticated
and civilized person is ever supposed to sayparticularly an artist. It will
change what people think of you. It will cost you work and connections
and references. I once knew an art history professor who was denied
tenure partly because (he seemed certain) he had spoken well of Norman
Rockwell.

I’m convinced that many people, especially in the art world, never
say what they really think about abstract art because they are keenly
aware of the social stigma attached to such opinions. They are
frightened to death of being shut out and denied opportunities, of
being thought of as ignorant hicks. But it is only by moving beyond
this stigma and speaking plainly that we can begin to have a real
conversation and honestly evaluate the benefits and detriments of the
modernist movement in art, which began over one hundred years ago. We
are in a unique position in history (the information age) that allows
us to calmly and rationally toss out the bad and retain the good when
it comes to the visual arts. We need desperately to get about this
work.  We need especially to develop an aesthetic of beauty that
resonates with the modern world. That is our job as artists.

Next – my thoughts on the good and bad of modern abstract art.

He’s Everywhere!

Chesterton4Old World Swine, at it again;

As other Catholic bloggers have ably pointed out, presidential hopeful
Mike Huckabee, in his victory speech
after the Iowa primary, quoted – and cited – G.K. Chesterton. Okay, technically he misquoted Chesterton, but not badly. It was still heartening to hear.

Any time I see GKC gaining influence in the world, I count that as a
good thing. So I was delighted to see him popping up in a book I was
given recently, written by Evangelical author Ravi Zacharias.

The book – Can Man Live Without God (Thomas Nelson)- was a Christmas
gift from my sister and her husband. They would describe themselves – I
think – as Bible Only, non-denominational Christians, or (in their
view) just basic Christians. My brother, a pastor who’s church they
attended for some time, maintained that this faith was not even
Protestant… that it was just plain meat-and-potatoes Christianity and
had nothing at all to do with any historical Christian "movement" of one
stripe or another. He truly believed this.

I was a little leary of the book, therefore. But, one of the things I
have hoped to accomplish this year is to read more, and seeing as they
were thoughtful enough to give me the book, I was only too happy to read it.

Mr. Zacharias got my attention right away by mulling over the lyrics of
King Crimson, one of my favorite bands (although I prefer their later
work – Discipline more than Court of the Crimson King).
He waits until chapter 8 to begin quoting G.K. Chesterton, but he
returns to him more than to any other Christian source – several
times throughout the book – as well as drawing heavily on Malcolm
Muggeridge and C.S. Lewis.

Few, I think, would have their mind changed one way or another by
reading this book. Zacharias says nothing new, which is fine by me (I
saw on television a Christian ministry that advertised their
charismatic leader had "a message unlike any other in the Christian
World!" – exactly what we don’t need). What Zacharias
manages is to pull together a quick survey of the most dominant
philosophical voices of the twentieth century (that is to say, atheists
of differing flavors), outlines the major defects of their thought and
its disastrous consequences for society, and gives voice to the most
able defenders of Truth. He straightforwardly presents Christ as the
answer to all of man’s deepest longings.

I think Francis Schaeffer did a more thorough job of dissecting atheist
philosophy and the ills of modern society (from this perspective) than
does Mr. Zacharias. The book is too brief for him to be very
philosophically rigorous, but he does provide a workable introduction
to these broad ideas and their historical background for those who are
not already familiar with them. He quotes Nietzche, Kant, Descartes,
Huxley, Bertrand Russel and the like from the Life is Meaningless side,
and refutes them using Chesterton, Lewis, Pascal, Muggeridge and others
(including contemporaries like Norman Geisler and Peter Kreeft). He has
good language for Mother Teresa (Mr. Zacharias is of East Indian
heritage) and St. Augustine, and takes no overt jabs at the Catholic
Church. The book is forwarded by Charles Colson, a friend of Catholics
(or as some would have it, a dirty rotten Papist sympathizer).

On the whole, I was very cheered that the book drew from such sources
(especially Chesterton, of course). It ought to make any observant
reader want to read both Chesterton and Muggeridge. It also gives me a
terrific opportunity to pass on some of Chesterton’s writing, from
which the world can only benefit.

Have others noticed Chesterton’s thought beginning to loom large on
the Christian horizon? Is sanity breaking out here and there? Are
post-modern, post-Protestant Christians ready now to hear what he has
to
say?

Guard Against Euphoria

Huckabeeobama(
From my blog, Old World Swine);

Guard, too, against seeing THIS very much as a defeat of the status quo
– we are still looking for differences between the several "men in
frock coats" (as Chesterton called them) with whom we have been
presented. There is still plenty of time, too, for these fresh faces to
be corrupted by the Will-to-Power brokers inside the beltway. That is a
gauntlet I wouldn’t want to run. Pray for these people… they will be
tested and tempted in every way imaginable.

Interesting, to me, how the press are in a tizzy to put this all
behind as fast as possible and focus on New Hampshire. Interesting,
also, how the GOP is reported to be in confusion and disarray as a
result of the Iowa primary, but everything in Democrat land is – one
would think – just hunky-dorey.

I’m looking for stories of Hillary’s amazing comeback starting as early as next week.