Objecting with care

by Editor · April 18, 2007

As we prepared for Easter, a sculpture of Christ’s crucifixion In New York City by Canadian artist Cosimo Cavallaro, reportedly a devout Catholic, caused a spat in the United States.

William Donohue, head of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, and Cardinal Egan of New York took exception to the sculpture, which was made of chocolate and depicted the crucified Christ without a loincloth.

Responding to pressure by Mr Donohue, the gallery owners withdrew the sculpture, titled My Sweet Lord, from its exhibition.

Photographs of the sculpture suggest that there was nothing pornographic or inherently sacrilegious about the artwork. Indeed, it is not a far-fetched idea that Christ might have been naked on the cross. It was common for Romans to crucify their victims unclothed. It is a historical detail that the Roman executioners of Jesus of Nazareth will have deferred to Jewish sensibilities and allowed the condemned to be partially clothed during crucifixions in Judaea.

One may argue what media may be appropriate in producing art depicting the sacred. There is nothing intrinsically offensive, however, about chocolate. Indeed, if the artist’s intention was to tie Jesus’ crucifixion to the custom of celebrating Christ’s resurrection with the traditional consumption of chocolate, then one may be tempted even to commend his choice of medium.

What should be of concern is Mr Donohue’s claim that the sculpture was eventually to be eaten genitals and all during Holy Week. The gallery owners have emphatically denied this, and even explained why this concept was in the circumstances unfeasible.

It is not possible that both Mr Donohue and the gallery owners are telling the truth. If it turns out that Mr Donohue resorted to distorting the truth, then this would constitute a much more serious assault on the Church than any piece of art could mount.

It is right that Catholics, like adherents of any religion and none, should make known their objections to that what they feel is offensive. But that licence is accompanied by two caveats.

Firstly, the offence taken must be reasonable; secondly, a campaign of protest must be fair and take into account the rights of others. These lines between fair and unreasonable objection can be thin. When this is so, it is better to err on the side of caution.

Mr Donohue is perfectly entitled not to like Mr Cavallaro’s art, just as one may not admire the art of Pablo Picasso, or the many biblical paintings and sculptures of the Renaissance depicting gratuitous nudity. Mr Donohue was wrong, however, to allege sacrilege and blasphemy where no such offence could be shown to be intended, or even to exist.

When Catholics jerk their knees (or worse, flex their muscle) without due provocation they undermine the prospects of authentic objections being taken seriously.

This is not the first time the Catholic League has in its quest to protect the Church done it harm.

In the 1990s, it campaigned against the television drama series Nothing Sacred, which followed the lives of young priests in a parish. The fictional clergy in the show did not always follow the teachings of the Church to the letter (much, one may argue, as some real-life priests).

Notwithstanding that the show’s advisers included Jesuits, the Catholic League bullied the TV network and advertisers until the series was cancelled. Thus the Church lost one of the few TV shows that portrayed the priesthood positively and as a vocation worth aspiring to.

There are times when there are authentic attacks on the Church and all it holds sacred. These require an adamant response of objection. The targets of such objections, however, must be carefully identified and the complaints be expressed with clarity and, when appropriate, charity.