Erotic art associated with Wikipedia articles

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Maxirad

Guest
There have been images of erotic art that have been used to illustrate things in Wikipedia articles. Should these images be used at all? Would a person commit an objective mortal sin by looking at one of these images even if that person does not feel lust? Read this to understand why I’m concerned.
 
There have been images of erotic art that have been used to illustrate things in Wikipedia articles. Should these images be used at all? Would a person commit an objective mortal sin by looking at one of these images even if that person does not feel lust? Read this to understand why I’m concerned.
In catholic theology, thus in the catholic moral there are two types of erotism: the good one – holy erotism – and the bad one – wrong erotism --.

Before all thing, it is very necessary and so compulsary of defining really what is the erotism: erotism is not pornography.
 
Holy erotism?

What is that? there is such a thing?

About the topic, avoid looking at those images. And it would be better if the images you speak of weren’t used.

Blessings!
 
Holy erotism?

What is that? there is such a thing?

About the topic, avoid looking at those images. And it would be better if the images you speak of weren’t used.

Blessings!
By Holy erotism I mean:
  1. In the marriage:
Song of Songs as a poem about holy erotism between wife and husband: an illustration of true sexual love within the marriage.

Thus, in the context of marital act, between wife and husband:

a. There are the different steps before, during, and after the union of bodies. From the soul (intellect, reason, intelligence and the creativity) and from the body (the five senses, the orgarns), there is the sexual marital art:the union of bodies is a prayer, a liturgy, a symbol, a language, a mutual pleasure, an act of love, a mutual gift, a mutual donation, a mutual present…etc.

b.The wife can see, watch, look at the body of her husband, husband can see, watch, look at the body of his wife. Wife has the right, even the moral obligation to be a female (in the physical sense) for her husband; Husband has the right, even the moral obligation to be a male (in the physical sense) for his wife.

c. Sexual love and physical passion in the marriage is not per se, a sin. In the marriage, the true passion is very good.
  1. In general:
By itself, the incarnation means the holy erotism because we are sexed. The difficulty is to find the moderation and the nice orientation.

The female body is perfect, the male body is perfect because we are the creature of God. Even better, the human beings are at the image of God (Holy Trinity), and with the baptism, we are adpotive child, and the marriage,we are in the same situation than Adam et Eve. Our sexed nature is from the divine erotism wanted by God.
 
There have been images of erotic art that have been used to illustrate things in Wikipedia articles. Should these images be used at all? Would a person commit an objective mortal sin by looking at one of these images even if that person does not feel lust? Read this to understand why I’m concerned.
Well, if all erotic art is prohibited much of the Renaissance art would be destroyed (with some early Greek and Roman art) and the Vatican would be painting over the Sistine Chapel. As well, some impressionists would have their works destroyed – Auguste Rodin would be one who has some of the most beautiful sculptures – but some is very erotic. I can think of one little known piece that was exhibited in the Met in NYC a number of years ago that would be the first to be destroyed.

Yes, they have their place and if you feel no lust there is no sin. Looking at the Sistine Chapel or the statue of David is a thing of beauty or a Rodin sculpture is not lustful eroticism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top