Do traditional icons and images of Jesus and Mary as WHITE-SKINNED people harm efforts to evangelize our dark-skinned brethren?

  • Thread starter Thread starter victor_rose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

victor_rose

Guest
How can we reach people of color, or Muslims, or non-believers who understand Malcom X’s teachings?

And, if Mary wasn’t white, why would she appear to us as white? Or, why would the ‘true’ Church present this. Is it a lie?

To make matters worse, this actually makes me question my faith in Marian apparitions, and my faith as a Catholic.

Please help!
 
Mary was semitic. In life, she wouldn’t appear like a blonde Scandinavian, but she would be generally “white” or Caucasion looking with dark hair. Likewise, apparitions often appear in a way similar to the people seeing them–it gives them comfort and a more personal connection. Thus, Our Lady of Guadalupe (Mexico) has native Indian features or Our Lady of La Vang (Vietnam) has Asian features. Likewise, there are ancient black Madonnas–statues and icons of Mary with very dark skin. Art also contains inculturation–meaning the subjects are often portrayed as members of the culture of the artist, with similar features and clothing–it’s artistic license. Renessaince European art would reflect European culture at that time just as African, Asian, or Latin American art or various eras reflects that culture. Don’t limit yourself to just northern European art and you won’t have this idea that the entire Catholic Church has some sort of dogmatic view that Jesus and Mary were Nordic or Anglo-Saxon.

Anyway, I’m not sure why the race or appearance of a person would be an issue in anyone’s faith :confused: . If Jesus was who He claimed to be, why would it matter what race He was or what race artists portray Him as? His race makes absolutely no difference. To me, both His and our races are totally irrelevant. It’s not about races, it’s about being one Body in Him.
 
Thank you. This is informative. But have you read Malcolm X? It bothered him deeply that Jesus was always depicted with too light of skin. Now, we have millions of ‘Black Muslims’ who are being lost from the true church.

In the African American world, race makes a huge difference when it comes to evangelization.
 
victor_rose said:
Thank you. This is informative. But have you read Malcolm X? It bothered him deeply that Jesus was always depicted with too light of skin. Now, we have millions of ‘Black Muslims’ who are being lost from the true church.

In the African American world, race makes a huge difference when it comes to evangelization.
Click to expand...
In which case, they’re focusing on the wrong thing.

I’m brown. Jesus was most likely white-colored, probably much like an Arab of today. That’s not a problem for me, because the Bible clearly teaches us that there is no Jew or Greek before God (gak! both white!).
 
People who join religions for racial reasons instead of for truth are lost for deeper reasons in their own hearts than because of certain works of art. Anyway, why do they become Muslim?–Muhammed wasn’t black–he was Arabic.

Likewise, we have black saints such as St. Moses (not the OT Patriarch, a Christian monk in Africa), St. Martin de Porres, St. Charles Lwanga and all his companions, St. Benedict (not to be confused with the one who founded the Benedictines), St. Josephine Bakhita, various saints in the Ethopian Catholic rite and many, many more.

Likewise, there are black bishops, priests, deacons and Cardinals in the Catholic Church–not to mention many consecrated religious and of course lay people.

The race of Jesus did not matter to them. Malcom X was ignorant when it came to this subject–he may have been familiar with mainstream American Christianity, but not with Catholic Christianity around the world and through the centuries.

The key to evangelization then is education and presenting the truth in love, not playing the race card as Malcom X did.
 
I for one, would prefer to see all images (not graven, not “worshipped”-relax!) represent what was likely true. I think we have all seen the blue-eyed, fair-complexioned Mary, the “caucasian” Christ. Our forefathers in the faith are all Jewish, so how about some Jewish faces? Shouldn’t our preferences reflect God’s own? They are, after all, His chosen.

The peace of Christ be with you.
 
victor_rose said:
How can we reach people of color, or Muslims, or non-believers who understand Malcom X’s teachings?

And, if Mary wasn’t white, why would she appear to us as white? Or, why would the ‘true’ Church present this. Is it a lie?

To make matters worse, this actually makes me question my faith in Marian apparitions, and my faith as a Catholic.

Please help!
Click to expand...
number one the Church does not present icons and images of Mary and the saints, artists do this. Sometimes artists have been guided by the descriptions of various persons who claimed to have visions of Jesus or Mary. Even where such visions have been approved by the Church, that approval does not mean Catholics MUST believe in those revelations, it means that the messages received contain nothing contrary to the faith, and the faithful are free to believe or not believe in their content.

The Church has never made an definitive image or proclamation about the physical appearance of Jesus or Mary, so there is nothing to react against. Historically, images of Jesus and Mary have often reflected the culture and ethnicity of the artist and the community in which he lived and worked. There are artistice renderings of Mary and Jesus in every ethnicity, color, and garb around the world.

In those various apparitions of Mary throughout the world, the visionaries have in fact seen her as someone similar to their own people. She appeared as an Indian maiden to Juan Diego in Mexico, for instance.

You are free to picture Mary and Jesus any way you wish that is not contrary with with their life and mission.

If one’s faith depends on various apparitions and visions, rather than on the revealed Word of God, protected and handed on by the Church through Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, it is a weak faith indeed. Our faith is in Jesus Christ, not on his image.

The theology of Malcom X, for whatever it is, misprepresents completely actual Christian teaching and practice, and adopted a version of Islam based on a mistaken understanding of the history and origin of historic African Islamic kingdoms of the past. That is a debate about history and politics as much as about religion. If he as an individual was ignorant of the wider world of sacred art beyond what he might have been exposed to as a youth, that is indeed unfortunate, and if he and his followers were not properly evangelized by Christians with a true message based on more than images, that is a tragedy, but don’t blame it on the Church, blame it on the individual Christians who had the opportunity to evangelize him but failed.
 
As other posters have said, there are other depictions of Mary that do make her appear dark-skinned. One example is the icon of the Black Madonna. It was believed to be painted by St. John. Also, artwork from African countries protrays her as being dark-skinned, as well as the various apparitions when she appeared to the people in their ethnicity.
 
I’m black and I’ve never been bothered by a beautiful European looking painting of Mary and Jesus. When I go to the Spanish Mass they have an Indian looking Jesus and Our Lady of Guadalupe looks Mexican. Our Lady of Africa looks Ghanian. Our Lady of China looks like a Mandarin lady. The darker skinned brethern are not as emotionally delicate as some would think. As for Malcom X, back when he was Malcom Little he was a thug who would’ve used any excuse for his behavior. At the end of his life he realized that the black man as god theory of the Nation of Islam was garbage.
 
dympnha said:
I’m black and I’ve never been bothered by a beautiful European looking painting of Mary and Jesus. When I go to the Spanish Mass they have an Indian looking Jesus and Our Lady of Guadalupe looks Mexican. Our Lady of Africa looks Ghanian. Our Lady of China looks like a Mandarin lady. The darker skinned brethern are not as emotionally delicate as some would think. As for Malcom X, back when he was Malcom Little he was a thug who would’ve used any excuse for his behavior. At the end of his life he realized that the black man as god theory of the Nation of Islam was garbage.
Click to expand...
Notice how God allows each of us to perceive our “own” Holy countenances? At mass, I consider that our Parish Priest is Filipino. Our Parochial Vicar is from Congo Kinshasa. We have Europeans, Asians, Africans, Native Americans, Hispanics and every other race and natinality. It looks like the world, hence the name Catholic (“universal”).

What a blessing! I imagine heaven as looking like this. All of God’s creation a perfect reflection of Him.

Christ’s peace to all.
 
victor_rose said:
How can we reach people of color, or Muslims, or non-believers who understand Malcom X’s teachings?

And, if Mary wasn’t white, why would she appear to us as white? Or, why would the ‘true’ Church present this. Is it a lie?

To make matters worse, this actually makes me question my faith in Marian apparitions, and my faith as a Catholic.

Please help!
Click to expand...
I think we reach all people with the Gospel, regardless of thier skin color.

As another pp mentioned, the popular paintings that depict Mary as caucasian where not done by the church, they were done mainly by long gone European white men, thus we often see Mary and the Divine Son as causcasian w/ fair hair, skin, and eyes. Any inaccuracy in how Mary and Jesus are physically portrayed has nothing to do with the Catholic Church, so I am confused as to why you would blame the church for this. If this makes you question your faith, my friend, please remember this: When Jesus died upon that cross, the only color that was mattered was the red of His blood. Maybe you can talk to your priest for further help in this area.

By the way- I am multi-cultural myself. My mother is caucasian with meditteranian roots, and my father is african american and native american. My skin color is tan. 👍
 
I think it’s great that we all know that God created Man in His own image, but the problem comes when trying to bring the message of God (As Father, Son and Holy Spirit) to someone that doesn’t get it yet, and there are images that conflict with reason.

Christ, lived in the Middle East, and He looked like the people of that region, and then, there is some blockbuster move made in Hollywood (America) and Christ is shown as being not only fair skinned, but blonde, with pale blue eyes.

Go to a Catholic store, and the images of Christ, Mary, and the Saints all show the Holy ones as not only having halos, but the same blonde hair and blue eyes - even saints that were known as being, what we in America now call ‘Black’.

Ask the average American Catholic, Cradle Catholic even, if there are any Asian saints. I’d wager that most would say, 'well, no. Asia is a Communist continent. But there are Asian Saints.

Ask theaverage American Catholic if there are any Indian (Native American) saints, and again, ‘no’ would likely be the answer.

I’m not talking about those that have studied. I’m not just talking Middle Class White, either. I’m talking AVERAGE CATHOLIC.

Go into 30 Catholic churches in a month. There are paintings and statues which help to remind us of the people they represent. These people lived on the earth, and they had stories to tell. However, most of the artist show them with Caucasion features. Even the alabaster statues and wooden statues.

It may not seem like a big deal because we already believe and accept that these images are not supposed to tell the whole story, but for those that don’t already believe (as the original poster pointed to), it tells a story that is incomplete, and it’s incompleteness is distracting.

Then, you have 10 children in your Catechism group. All the images of the ‘good’ people are blonde, blue eyed, and fair skinned. All the bad people, or not believers, are dark haired and swarthy. You tell me what image that is portraying.

We know the artists did the story telling, especially in days of old. But the people looking at these images… are we really supposed to believe that there were no artists that wanted to show image that weren’t like the masses?

OL of Czest… (You know what I mean) is a beautiful iconic image, but it is a novelty. And the coloring of Mary and Christ are so odd compared to most, that it makes it a novelty.

Personally, I think that Mary looked more like Monica Bettalucci (the actress that portrayed her in The Passion of the Christ) than she looked like most of the images that I see in Bibles and churches.

We know it shouldn’t matter, but for some people, it does matter.

What can we do, in this, the third Millineum, to get more publishers and more peopel choosing church artwork, to see and accept a Christ that doesn’t look like He was from Scandanavia, rather than the Middle East? :confused:
 
Bennie_P said:
I don’t think all or even most traditional ICONS, are of light skin people? Here is one from the 16th Century. I think what Malcom X saw were American images not traditional ones. He also thought that Christianity wasn’t a religion practiced in Africa until the white man colonized it, but Christianity was practiced in Africa from the very beginning of the Church.
Click to expand...
Ok, but I’m an American, in America, exposed to mostly Americans.

I’m not talking about other people in other places.

What are we ‘teaching’ American kids?
 
I think this stems mostly from an ignorance of art, rather than ignorance of theology or anthropology. Artists paint the way they are trained to paint. Rennaissance artists by and large paint white, rosy-cheeked people because that is how the learned to paint. I can only draw stick people. Should someone bust my chops because my stick Jesus with a squiggle for a beard doesn’t account for the possibility that Jesus was more portly?
 
Scottgun said:
Should someone bust my chops because my stick Jesus with a squiggle for a beard doesn’t account for the possibility that Jesus was more portly?
Click to expand...
I don’t think so!

But, what about the person that chooses the art to show how people looked in the setting that is being described.

I’m talking about the book publishers, the people that choose images for prayer cards, you get the idea, right?

Ok, those people choose which of the artists’ representations they will use.

Do you REALLY think that some one will choose all stick people to show what a football team looked like? Sure, there may be SOME images using stick figures, but most of them?

And yes, there is ignorance of Art and Art History, but who are we trying to teach? Those that know all about these things? Or people that have little knowledge in a lot of areas?
 
<< Or, why would the ‘true’ Church present this.>>

Surely, Victor Rose, you’re not so naive as to think that artistic conventions (in any culture) are the same as dogmatic teachings, are you?
 
Scottgun said:
Of course not, my only point was establishing that artists paint the way they were trained rather than out of some conspiracy where they said, “We know Jesus was semitic, but we are going to make him white! Muahahaha!”
Click to expand...
You have a great imagination! I don’t think any one is looking at ‘conspiracy’. Just a sad tradition, and habits that have been perpetuated.

Would you call that a conspiracy?
 
<< Just a sad tradition, and habits that have been perpetuated.

Would you call that a conspiracy?>>

No, I wouldn’t call it a conspiracy, or even a “sad tradition”; it’s not up to that level.

It’s mere artistic convention, howsoever inaccurate, and nothing more. (After all, you don’t think that Egyptians walked flat and sideways, do you?)

I just happened to think of the Alfred Burt carol, “Some Children See Him”–it ends with the line, “And, oh! They love Him, too!”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top