Preface: This was originally written as a part of my ongoing discussion with my dear friend Mr Nathanael Blake. However, it didn't really fit in with the rest of the piece, and it is a sort of aside to the actual discussion, which at this point hinges on why there isn't more correction from orthodox Catholic intellectuals (and other leaders) to the problem--perceived of otherwise--of the abuse of the cult of saints. This didn't really it with the rest of that piece, which was too long anyway, and which is undergoing a bit of editing prior to publication. This section was culled from that piece, but was nonetheless worth posting as a reply in part to something which he wrote concerning iconoclasm (and to a lesser extent, the May Crowning rituals), and also because I have heard the objection elsewhere stated and in stronger terms. This is thus yet another intermission piece, similar to my previous "interlude," which examines briefly another topic which is related to, but not a crucial part of, our ongoing dialogue. Without further ado, the post.
________
Before I continue my ongoing dialogue with the indispensable Mr Nathanael Blake concerning the response to abuses of certain practices in the Church, I want to address an objection which he made in his first post on the subject. I suppose this is another sort of interlude article, as it touches upon points which are related to our discussion, but which are not necessarily a part of it. Although it seems to me that this is a rather minor objection on his part--and on the part of our mutual friend Mr Shawn Nelson who stated that it was "not necessarily a deal breaker"--it is worth taking a moment to look at the annual tradition (yes, that's with a little t) of crowning Mary in May. The objection raised, as stated, is that
One needn't venture far into Catholic circles to find....practices like the ritual crowning of statues of Mary. Consequently, there is something to iconoclasm. To be sure, it destroyed many great works of religious art, but it is not an irrational response to the problem of paganism within Christianity.
I suppose I should address this objection before continuing with our discussion because it is otherwise a distraction from our current vein of conversation. While the May crownings are perhaps not be the biggest objection in his pieces, they are an objection which I have heard elsewhere leveled, and in much stronger terms.
In heaven, we each receive a crown--metaphorically if not literally--and I think that even a Protestant would be hard-pressed to argue that Our Lady is not in heaven. Within the Catholic Church at least, we believe that she is in heaven, and that moreover by special nature of being the Mother of God, that is of Christ, she is also the Queen of Heaven. Queens generally get crowns, and so it makes imminent sense to offer such a thing to her. Since we cannot literally place a crown on her--not even her remains are left to us, and no one has ever seriously claimed to have her bodily relics--we are left to offer a symbolic crown (generally of flowers) to her. But since we live in the physical world, our symbolic (or spiritual) actions are generally accompanied with physical actions. Hence, for example, do we see that every one of our seven sacraments has matter as well as form.
Thus, if we recognize that Mary is the Theotokos, the God-bearer, the very Mother of Christ--King of Heaven--then it makes imminent sense for the Church to recognize her as the queen mother. This is in continuity with the tradition of the people of Israel (the Old Testament pre-figuring of the Church), who recognized the mother of their king as the queen mother of Israel. One way in which we can do this is to offer to her a crown, which is done symbolically by crowning a statue of her.
The objection here cannot reasonably be to the mere act of crowning. Suppose the sculptor who made the statue included as a part of the artwork a crown placed upon her head, symbolizing the crown given to any saint in heaven: this is little different from the act of a ceremony in which a crown is placed on the head of a statue. Any objection to this could be only one of two things: the actual making of a statue to begin with, or that the person depicted is not actually in heaven. In the case of Our Lady, I have heard of little in the way of serious objection from Protestant circles to the idea that she is in heaven with the other saints.
If the complaint is leveled against the actual crowning of the statue in question, then it must apply equally to any depiction of the statue which is "pre-crowned." But such a complaint has a problem in itself: if we are to be given crowns in heaven (as per St Paul), then there ought to be nothing wrong with depicting this in the creation of a statue. In fact, the case can nearly be made that it is the uncrowned statues which present a problem, since we believe them to be of people who are in heaven and thus who are crowned. The crowned statue would be a more precise depiction. As an aside, this is a part of why so much of Catholic art depicts halos about the heads of saints.
As Catholics, we can say with nearly the certainty of faith that our saints are in heaven. Thus, there is nothing at all wrong with depicting them with crowns if we may depict them at all. And if we may depict them with crowns, then there is equally nothing wrong with crowning one per se. Thus, the options which remain are that either a) there is nothing wrong with the actual act of a crowning, or b) there is something wrong with depicting a saint in a statue. If a statue is wrong, then I see no reason to say that a picture of a saint is right, either.
However, if it smacks of paganism to depict a saint, then how is depicting anyone or anything any better? Who or what could it possibly be morally licit to draw, carve, or photograph if not a saint? If depicting a real person who was a devout follower of God is wrong, why is depicting a real person who is not a devout follower of God right? The answer is that it is not. It does not help to change the argument by saying that it's ok to depict a person while living but not while dead (aside from the fact that the saints, too, are living, just not in this world). If depictions of the saints must go, then so too must pictures of loved ones, the family photo album, the covers of most fictional books, most children's books in general, the windows of most churches--Catholic or otherwise--the list goes on and on.
It is plainly ludicrous to condemn the depiction of something or someone real--and really holy--only to admit the depiction of something imaginary or even abstract. Consistency would require the rejection of any form of picture: unless it is only because the saints are too holy to be depicted. This too does not make sense, because it leaves us in a world in which only the profane may be drawn or sculpted, which is clearly at odds with (for example) God's commands to the Israelites in creating the Ark of the Covenant. Furthermore, it implies that the work of an artist of any sort can never cross over into the sacred, and moreover that any portrait or bust of a person must be destroyed upon his death, lest he be now in heaven.
This position is plainly ridiculous, yet it is the logical conclusion to iconoclasm against the saints. Of course, we hear no condemnation of picture books, or of stained glass windows (there are plenty of Protestant churches with those), or of crosses (be they on a necklace, a tombstone, or the centerpiece of a church): all of which are sorts of images, and many of which do depict the saints, or Christ, or the instrument of His death and of our salvation. This leaves only an objection to the perceived problem of worshiping the statue or the person who it represents: Mr Blake's own stated position. But that something may be abused in this manner does not make that thing wrong in-and-of itself: we don't abuse evil things, we abuse good (or neutral) things. Thus we are left only with the objection against the abuse of a sacramental: but such an objection is held equally by good and faithful Catholics.
-----
If you enjoyed this post, here are some related ones:
Some Thoughts About Violence in Christian Fiction (Catholic America Today)
The Devil's in the Details
C.S. Lewis on Apologetics (Quote of the Day)
C.S. Lewis on Art, Artists, and Good Work
Rediscovering the Saints
Perpetual Apologetics
_____
Thus, if we recognize that Mary is the Theotokos, the God-bearer, the very Mother of Christ--King of Heaven--then it makes imminent sense for the Church to recognize her as the queen mother. This is in continuity with the tradition of the people of Israel (the Old Testament pre-figuring of the Church), who recognized the mother of their king as the queen mother of Israel. One way in which we can do this is to offer to her a crown, which is done symbolically by crowning a statue of her.
The objection here cannot reasonably be to the mere act of crowning. Suppose the sculptor who made the statue included as a part of the artwork a crown placed upon her head, symbolizing the crown given to any saint in heaven: this is little different from the act of a ceremony in which a crown is placed on the head of a statue. Any objection to this could be only one of two things: the actual making of a statue to begin with, or that the person depicted is not actually in heaven. In the case of Our Lady, I have heard of little in the way of serious objection from Protestant circles to the idea that she is in heaven with the other saints.
If the complaint is leveled against the actual crowning of the statue in question, then it must apply equally to any depiction of the statue which is "pre-crowned." But such a complaint has a problem in itself: if we are to be given crowns in heaven (as per St Paul), then there ought to be nothing wrong with depicting this in the creation of a statue. In fact, the case can nearly be made that it is the uncrowned statues which present a problem, since we believe them to be of people who are in heaven and thus who are crowned. The crowned statue would be a more precise depiction. As an aside, this is a part of why so much of Catholic art depicts halos about the heads of saints.
As Catholics, we can say with nearly the certainty of faith that our saints are in heaven. Thus, there is nothing at all wrong with depicting them with crowns if we may depict them at all. And if we may depict them with crowns, then there is equally nothing wrong with crowning one per se. Thus, the options which remain are that either a) there is nothing wrong with the actual act of a crowning, or b) there is something wrong with depicting a saint in a statue. If a statue is wrong, then I see no reason to say that a picture of a saint is right, either.
However, if it smacks of paganism to depict a saint, then how is depicting anyone or anything any better? Who or what could it possibly be morally licit to draw, carve, or photograph if not a saint? If depicting a real person who was a devout follower of God is wrong, why is depicting a real person who is not a devout follower of God right? The answer is that it is not. It does not help to change the argument by saying that it's ok to depict a person while living but not while dead (aside from the fact that the saints, too, are living, just not in this world). If depictions of the saints must go, then so too must pictures of loved ones, the family photo album, the covers of most fictional books, most children's books in general, the windows of most churches--Catholic or otherwise--the list goes on and on.
It is plainly ludicrous to condemn the depiction of something or someone real--and really holy--only to admit the depiction of something imaginary or even abstract. Consistency would require the rejection of any form of picture: unless it is only because the saints are too holy to be depicted. This too does not make sense, because it leaves us in a world in which only the profane may be drawn or sculpted, which is clearly at odds with (for example) God's commands to the Israelites in creating the Ark of the Covenant. Furthermore, it implies that the work of an artist of any sort can never cross over into the sacred, and moreover that any portrait or bust of a person must be destroyed upon his death, lest he be now in heaven.
This position is plainly ridiculous, yet it is the logical conclusion to iconoclasm against the saints. Of course, we hear no condemnation of picture books, or of stained glass windows (there are plenty of Protestant churches with those), or of crosses (be they on a necklace, a tombstone, or the centerpiece of a church): all of which are sorts of images, and many of which do depict the saints, or Christ, or the instrument of His death and of our salvation. This leaves only an objection to the perceived problem of worshiping the statue or the person who it represents: Mr Blake's own stated position. But that something may be abused in this manner does not make that thing wrong in-and-of itself: we don't abuse evil things, we abuse good (or neutral) things. Thus we are left only with the objection against the abuse of a sacramental: but such an objection is held equally by good and faithful Catholics.
-----
If you enjoyed this post, here are some related ones:
Some Thoughts About Violence in Christian Fiction (Catholic America Today)
The Devil's in the Details
C.S. Lewis on Apologetics (Quote of the Day)
C.S. Lewis on Art, Artists, and Good Work
Rediscovering the Saints
Perpetual Apologetics
_____
No comments:
Post a Comment