The Lab Gallery in New York has incurred the displeasure of the US-based Catholic League. It is displaying a milk chocolate sculpture of a naked Jesus on the cross, entitled ‘My Sweet Lord’.
My view? As a practising Christian, I am not at all bothered by the image. I can see why the Catholic League is upset, though. Catholicism seems to have a greater affinity for symbols than do other branches of Christianity. For me, the image is nothing more than what someone somewhere believes to be the likeness of Jesus. I do not expect non-Christians to have reverence for my religion. It would be nice if they did, but if they don’t, that’s also fine. If it upset me, I’d just stay away from the Lab Gallery until the sculpture was removed.
I wonder what caused the greater offence, the depiction of the sculpture at all, or the fact that it was made with chocolate. Making the sculpture in milk chocolate shouldn’t really matter. I know Jesus didn’t mean it in this context, but he did actually say in the Bible: ‘whoever eats my flesh … has eternal life’.
Seriously though, my message to the Catholic League is to lighten up a bit. Let people mock your religion if they want. Surely your God is strong enough to withstand that.
On a happy note, no death threats or threats to bomb the gallery. Perhaps some other religions could learn from that.
UPDATE. The exhibition has now been cancelled.
UPDATE 2. Just seen Sky News coverage of this story, complete with pictures of the chocolate sculpture. I just wonder, would they have dared show any pictures if it were, say, a chocolate sculpture of Mohammed?
March 30th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Mmmmm! I have always associated chocolate Easter eggs with something to do with Jesus and Christianity, so I don’t see what the problem is here.
March 30th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Me neither, jailhouselawyer. Perhaps it was to do with the statue being naked, who knows.
March 30th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Well done Bel. Knew you’dhit the spot one day and find the one nerve to getme to discard my liberal position for a day….
To imly that he corporeal flesh of Christ can be reprsented by a non-transubstantiatedconsumable i an insult to the sacrifrice of Christ, which, to us, has relevance precisely BECAUSE it enables usto paetake of his second coming every Sunday. To Catholics,Judgement day is the THIRD coming.
To triviliase the eating of Chtis’t body in this way demeans the hope we place in acheiving grace through partaking of Christ’s flesh.
Yours,
Milk and water liberal, but devout Ultramontane SPX society leaning Roman Catholic, Joe.
March 30th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I must say, Joe, I was thinking of you as I wrote that post.
You see, that I think is the whole point. Catholics attach more significance to the body of Christ through the teachings regarding holy communion, etc. at any rate, more than protestants, evangelicals etc, who regard the act of communion as a way of remembering the sacrifice of Jesus, and fellowshipping with fellow brethren. Not for the latter the added significance which catholics give to the Eucharist.
Hence the anger of the Catholic League.
March 30th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
I apologise for he poor spelling in the previous post.
To us, Christ’s mission had severl purposes;
1. To liberate Man from the shackles of Death,imposed by Adam’s failure in Eden (An Allegory of Man’s animal nature to us Darwinist Catholics)
2.To show us that the ultimate sacrifice might b wht it took to bring Love to the world.
3.To teach us a set of values so unique, that no one before said them and everyone since has echoed them.
4.To leave behind a permanent set of his disciples, carrying on his teachings by word of mouth, to ensure we never lost his guidance. ‘On this rock I build my Church.’ He knew this would consist of humans, who would sometimes fail, as one of the original twelve did, but would always basiclly be a church of his Love.
5. To give us means of receiving his spiritual substance as a new Covenant, a new Law, replacing the old law, represented in the Ark of the coveneant.
Bel, that’s the basis of my faith, I’m not a dogmatist, but I do go to mass because I believe it.
March 30th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
I believe the same thing, Joe. To that I might add:
1. The present day ministry of Jesus Christ as intercessor for us.
2. The indwelling person of the Holy Spirit.
3. The prospect of eternal life.
That (in addition to your points above) forms the basis of my faith.
March 30th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Yes, but to us point 5 is Transubstantiation, whilst point 4 is the living Church of Christ, reprsented by the spititual successor of St Peter.
On your point 3, I would add, we are promised REDEMPTION from Hell if we reconcile ourselves with our maker. To us, Hell is Judged. We earn Heaven by paying off the debt of sin.
To me, that’s not guilt. That’s responsibility.
March 30th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
We earn Heaven by paying off the debt of sin.
But Joe, Jesus already paid the debt for us by his death on the cross. All we need do is accept his sacrifice on our behalf.
March 30th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Joe, off topic, but I always meant to ask: do you blog on the ‘chameleons’ blog?
March 30th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Have done, yes.
Not done so for a week or too.
Why, you recognise a comment?
Jesus redeemed us from Hell.
We are told OT, ‘Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord.’
All sins are punished.
By repenting we escape damnation.
But not punishment.
Hitler may habve genuinely repented, wholheartedly as the bullet split his throat.
So he won’t join the damned. He learned, finally, to love God, he learned to love God, late but not never.
But it will be a while before he joins the blessed…
March 30th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
As the Bible says:
“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.”
When you accept the salvation of Jesus, you are in his eyes a new person, as though you had never sinned. So yes, if Hitler repented, he won’t join the damned. But in addition, since he is a ‘new creature’ in the eyes of God, he goes straight to join the blessed.
Remember the thief who was crucified alongside Jesus. He said, ‘Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom’, and Jesus said to him ‘today, you will be with me in Paradise’.
‘Today’, not ‘tomorrow’. Not ‘after you have spent some time being punished’, but ‘today’.
March 30th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
About the chameleons, I remember you saying a while ago, and I made a mental note to go there and read some of your stuff.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Ah, I refer you to the Epistle Of James, which Luther wanted pushed to the Apocrypha as an ‘epistle of straw,, for the third chapter, the ‘I show you my faith BY my works’ bit.
Interestring point about the thief, Bel. One which Catholics say proves our point. Tonight implies the evening of Good Friday. Before Christ had liberated the Patriarchs from Hell. No one was in Heaven at this point. This implis that Christ meant another paradise. The Earthy one. Reachable, we say, through Purgatory. The Ante Chamber to beyond.
I recommend Dante Alighieri.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
The ‘works’ referred to in the epistle of James, is christian works to demonstrate your faith, and not works to lead to salvation. The Bible is emphatic that works do not save. ‘For by grace are ye saved through faith’. The works you do will count towards your rewards in heven. However, what gets you in the door to heaven in the first place, is faith in Jesus Christ.
Jesus and the thief on the cross: you are right, the patriarchs were liberated around the time Jesus rose from the dead. ‘When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive.’ He ascended from Paradise, along with the patriarchs.
So where were the patriarchs prior to that? In paradise, in a separate compartment from hell. Remember the story told by Jesus about the rich man and Lazarus? The rich man died and went to hades, Lazarus died and went to paradise. The rich man could see Lazarus and called out for water etc. So yes, I agree there is a paradise, and when the thief died, he went there, until Jesus turned up to free them all.
As to purgatory, no evidence whatsoever in the Bible for its existence.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Logical point Bel.
The Patriarchs were banished from the Earthly Paradise along with all mankind anf kept out by Michael and his fiery sword. They therefore, cannot have been liberated from there. adam’s Sin had to be redeeeme first.
The traditional idea they were liberated from Limbo fits scripture better….
Purgatory is implied by 2 Maccabeees, which is partly why protestants remove it from the Canon….
It is a doctrine shared by the Orthodox churches and implicitly accepted by all Church fathers.
Purgatory is a logical necessity if we accept the possibilty of Universal salvation coupled with God’s promise ‘vengeance is mine’.
all sins will be punished AND redeemed.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
You a little sunbeam Bel well who`d have thought it.I would have thought as a philosopher you would find that an awfuly difficult position to maintain . On the choccy jesus I have always said “I don`t care if it rains or freezes long as I`ve got my plastic Jesus”. There were endless hysterically gauche Jesus bits in Assisi and around Italy . There was a hologram where the eyes folowed you around that was really nice for our Dining room …but I resisted.
Joe and bel your Metaphysical contructions are not surely taken seriously in Philosophical circles are they. Part of the history of ideas perhaps ?
Here is an intersting problem. If god is in any way required for moral values to exist then you must accept that murder is as good as love or might have been.Either God chose arbitarily or there were some good acts and some bad ones.
If it was arbitary then it is worthless . If it is not then god cannot have intervened.
It is not an allowable property of values and moral to have an inventor or source without which they do not exist
God as the first mover …well that idea predates our understanding of an infinite sequence
God cannot be an explanation of anything because if the possibility of evryhting is in god then where did he come from. You only have the same problem at one remove.
That , as Douglas Adams said , about wraps it up for god .
( Having said all that I have been to church a few times recently )
March 30th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
oo thi is a good one ” What is the meaning of life ” Bum Bum baaaaa ! A false question .Meaning is a quality only of words . “Explained purpose” is of things and the only kind of object that can have an explained purpose is one that had a designer that imparted purpose to it .Hammer yes..Mountain …no,.TO ask the question ” What is the meaning of life” therfor asserts that there is a designer that imparted purpose. That is why it has been used to confuse those who find they are directed to an answer they find uncomfortable .
It is a false question containing an assertion.
March 31st, 2007 at 11:00 am
Theres always some religious zelot who has to complain about something, still at least no buildings were burned down.
March 31st, 2007 at 11:06 am
Yes, Newmania. Your point about absolute values is valid. But to sy that they are ARBITRARY values is a misconception. As the prime omver God (good) is perefection. The sins of the Devil (Pride, Wrath) and all the evils arising therefrom dervive from the first rebellion.The Sins of thw world, (Envy, Avarice) dervive from the fact th eorld now contains a blend of good and evil. Tha taint leads us to be misled by material goods. These evils are a result of us being denied the guidance of God. The sins of the Flesh (Lust, Sloth, Glutton) derive from the taint of original sin on our bodies.
To say that God could have arbitrarily co-opted murder as Good is to misunderstand evil. Evil is a kind of anti-Goood. Go is Good, but good is not arbitrary, anymore than it is arbitarary that the photon is a light partcle, not a ‘dark’ particle.
Evil is simply the rebellion against perfection. What is not wholly perfect is not wholly the will of God.
March 31st, 2007 at 4:43 pm
For me, the image is nothing more than what someone somewhere believes to be the likeness of Jesus.
Worthy sentiments, Bel but I can’t agree. It’s yet another in the amazing onslaught on this figure. What is it about Jesus Christ that so upsets certain sections of society? We don’t really care aout Mohammed or the Buddha but JC really gets up their nose.
March 31st, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Because neither Mohammed or the Buddha actually claimed to be a part of the Goghead.
Therefore the can claim to b either teachers or prophets interpreting the world to the best ability any human can (and as the best examples, the ones us lesser examples would do wise to follow.
Whereas Christ actually claimed to have been in on the whole of creation from the begining.
No other man has ever seriously made this claim.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:12 am
I do not believe that Values are arbirtary. I said that if they are not ,which is pretty obvious without the dogma, then they cannot have the property of having been created.If they were created then they must be arbitary
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:54 pm
As someone who spent a bit of time in Yankland I would hazard a guess that a large part of the problem might have been Jesus being portrayed as a brown person - and no I am not kidding……………
April 4th, 2007 at 12:37 am
Morag, could be, could be.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
I thought that it was apicture but there was no picture involved.:-(
- very dissapointed