B
blessedstar
Guest
- Status
H
Hope75
Guest
My husband and I appreciate the beauty of the human body. In fact, we were looking for artwork of nude couples embracing to put in our bedroom. We didn’t find exactly what we were looking for, but we have a painting of a nude couple embracing on our desktop. 
The human body is so amazing. One of my favorite nudes is of a woman who is very pregnant and you can see the beautiful curves of her body and the precious child she is bonding with. :yup:
The human body is so amazing. One of my favorite nudes is of a woman who is very pregnant and you can see the beautiful curves of her body and the precious child she is bonding with. :yup:
S
Sean.McKenzie
Guest
Benedictus said:
Absolutelty your quite welcome, i would also recommend that you let your yes be yes and your no be no. Even though i know you are being insencere, i know the best way to respond to this type of attitude is with charity and humility. May God Bless you benedictus
S
Sean.McKenzie
Guest
blessedstar said:
Tell me then, what is the Church’s position on individuals who think it is okay posing nude for artwork, i would be most grateful, for i desire not to be in conflict with Holy Mother Chruch!
B
blessedstar
Guest
The Church postion cannot be against it as all those works in the Vatican were done from such models and the artworks are there within the Vatican for all to see who can make a pilgrimage to Rome. Our Late Pontiff Pope John Paul II requested that all those paintings and frescoes that had been clothed after they were painted should be ‘un-dressed’ and returned to their original state, the naked human form. Michaelangelo was so infuriated at the naked bodies being clothed that he painted the Cardinal, who fought for the images to be clothed, burning in hell within the Vatican and it remains in the Vatican to this day.
I did a search on the internet and the only writing against artworks of naked human bodies was from a certain unmentionable sect that claims to be the ‘true catholic church’ (SSPX) and they heavily criticised the Catholic Church for allowing such artwork within the Vatican.
We are not allowed to discuss the SSPX and therefore in my mentioning it I don’t wish to open up a debate upon that sect. I am simply mentioning it because it is the only religious organisation that has spoken out against naked artwork drawn from life models.
You can take it that if the Catholic Church has not condemned it is permissable for those that do not find it an occassion of sin.
You may like to view this site to understand how artists use life models. Obviously this site contains paintings and drawings by the great Masters of Art that have nude men and women and skeleton structures within them, if this is an occassion of sin for you please don’t click on the links.
figuredrawings.com/learnproportions.html
figuredrawings.com/figuredrawings.html
W
wcknight
Guest
A thought to consider, what would Jesus or better yet what would Mary do or say about this.
Mary has already said that the Lord is angry with the provocative dress of some girls and women in this age.
Even allowing for the differences in customs, styles and fashion between now and 2000 years ago, I think Jesus and Mary would both advise Christians NOT to pose nude for pictures or even art.
We Catholics are called to holiness, and holiness tells us to be prudent and chaste in the way we act and the way we dress. Regardless of all the great artwork in some churches, I still believe that either Jesus or Mary would undoubtedly tell us NOT to pose nude.
Mary has already said that the Lord is angry with the provocative dress of some girls and women in this age.
Even allowing for the differences in customs, styles and fashion between now and 2000 years ago, I think Jesus and Mary would both advise Christians NOT to pose nude for pictures or even art.
We Catholics are called to holiness, and holiness tells us to be prudent and chaste in the way we act and the way we dress. Regardless of all the great artwork in some churches, I still believe that either Jesus or Mary would undoubtedly tell us NOT to pose nude.
H
Ham1
Guest
Why? There are paintings of Jesus nude as a child. There are also paintings of Mary nursing the Holy Infant with an exposed breast. Are these painting immoral? Would Jesus and Mary object to someone posing as them in order make such art?
A
Alterum
Guest
I think wcknight brought up a good point and I’d like to relate it to my earlier points. I highly doubt that either Jesus or Mary would model naked for an artist. I do not (necessarily) think that a painting of Mary nursing Christ (with her breast exposed) is immoral, although you’d never catch me hanging it up in my home because I do think it’s entirely inappropriate. The painting is not necessarily immoral because the subject of the work is Our Lady nursing Our Lord and whatever properly-ordered implications can be drawn from that.
But to take this a step further and relate it to my point, I am certain that neither Jesus nor Mary would model naked for a piece of art that was merely meant to portray the naked human body. That is something very different, but that is precisely what the modern nude portrait is: a naked human body on display, detached from spirit, personality, and context. If the Blessed Virgin Mary were modeling naked for a piece of art like this, one should scarcely be able to tell that it was her; the focus of the painting would be her unclothed body, not the fact that she is the Mother of God. And so it is with any nude portrait: the aim is to turn the naked human body into the object of the artwork.
Am I really the only one who finds this sickening and disgraceful? The thought that this sort of thing is respected as “art” is truly unsettling; it appears more and more an insidious work which is – at least on these forums – approached with such a dangerously blithe attitude.
G
gelsbern
Guest
Very interesting thread, and it seems that there are a lot of good answers and a lot of so so answers, but one thing they all have in common is that they are inward looking for the sin. Sometimes one needs to take a step back and look in an outward direction and ask, is my action going to lead someone else to sin?
Posing nude for art seems innocent enough, but would it cause one of the artists to sin?
When determining the sinfulness of an action, one must look both internally and externally, and weigh them against the teachings of the Church to decide the sinfulness.
I noticed a lot of people claiming that the models were nude who posed, but I don’t really know if that was the case, surely one could use their imagination to sculpt or paint the human form without actually having to see it in it’s entirety. I could be wrong, but it seems to assume an awful lot, but I digress.
The sinfulness is not always inside oneself, and if I were to be the cause of an incidence of sin for someone else, I think that would be just as sinful.
Posing nude for art seems innocent enough, but would it cause one of the artists to sin?
When determining the sinfulness of an action, one must look both internally and externally, and weigh them against the teachings of the Church to decide the sinfulness.
I noticed a lot of people claiming that the models were nude who posed, but I don’t really know if that was the case, surely one could use their imagination to sculpt or paint the human form without actually having to see it in it’s entirety. I could be wrong, but it seems to assume an awful lot, but I digress.
The sinfulness is not always inside oneself, and if I were to be the cause of an incidence of sin for someone else, I think that would be just as sinful.
B
Balance
Guest
B
Balance
Guest
What if? What if me just walking down the street causes someone else to sin? Should I, with a face I’m told by female friends is easy on the eye, grow a beard, shave my head, wear drab clothes, in case a woman, looking at me, might have lustful thoughts? If you say, “Of course not, that’s ridiculous.” I’d ask why? Where do we draw the line then? A woman can wear a top that is cut that low, no, you can safely go a bit lower, a bit more, no - that’s too low. Your skirt can be that high, you’ll get away with it a bit higher - yep, that’s it, any more you’ll lead some poor guy into sin.
For the guys, you can go topless 25m from the edge of the sand at the beach, but go 26m and you’re off the beach and your naked torso is going to lead some poor girl into sin?
Now that’s ridiculous.
Fact is, a person is responsible for their own sin. they make the choice.
In this instance, an artist in an art class knows what’s going to be happening - there’s going to be a naked person. It’s their choice to come along. If their sexuality is so hurt and broken that they are going to view the model simply as a sex object, it’s likely that they’ve been “lead into sin” before this - seeing nude people is not going to be new for them, and actually will be probably quite unsatisfying as the models won’t be taking up erotic poses similar to what the prospective artist would have seen in pornograph or at a strip club.
Am I making sense? If a person thinks of sex when they see a naked body, there’s something wrong. Our first thought when we see a naked body should be of God - read, as other people on this thread have urged us all to do, John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.
If our first thought is of sex, don’t despair - this can change!
B
Balance
Guest
No personal offence intended, but I find this simplistic.
Firstly, we have to define “prudent” and “chaste” - what exactly do those words mean, and how exactly do we apply them to our lives? We know what they mean for us personally, but how on earth do we go about deciding how to apply them to others?
How can we just “disregard” all the artwork, which you correctly describe as “great”, that contains depictions of nude bodies? What do we make of John Paul II’s order to “take off their clothes” in reference to removing the later, prudish additions of paitned figleaves on the nudes in the sistine chapel?
What do we make of the Vatican recommending, in its list of “45 Films of note” from 1995, films that contain nudity and sex scenes?
It’s far more complex than just stating “Jesus and Mary would undoubdetdly tell us not to pose nude.”
In fact, both Jesus and Mary want us to use our brains, to not retreat into simplistic argument, to think things through… they would, if you like, undoubtedly tell us to read Theology of the Body closely and put it into practice.
B
Balance
Guest
“or better yet, what would Mary say”? I can just see the bracelets: WWMD
“better yet”?
I really don’t mean offence - I don’t know anything about you so I’m not making a comment on you, but only on what you say.
B
Balance
Guest
Here’s another link that people on this thread might like to read - it’s not about nude art per se but might give some context to this thread perhaps. John Paul II’s '99 letter to artists
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_23041999_artists_en.html
B
Balance
Guest
I’ve been reading this thread over the last little while (I’m the OP) but haven’t had time to contribute any more. I’ve done a little tonight but think I’ll stop now as I’m tired and a bit cranky and think I might subsequently be a bit thoughtless!
I just find some of the things being said in this thread frankly unbelieveable - and yet, at the same time, quite believeable considering how society views sex and sexuality, and more importantly, how the Church has taught about sex and sexuality.
An interesting point: it’s said that two thirds of what the Church has publicly taught about sexuality, outside of scripture and doctrine and so on, has been taught by one man - John Paul II. And the thing is, he didn’t actually say anything new, of course, he just explicated the constant teaching of the Church, but did it in a far more lifegiving and positive way than it had ever been taught before, did it in a way that broke free of the shackles that fallen human nature put on the way these teachings had been presented by Church leaders in the past.
His teachings, known as Theology of the Body have already been described as something that will be hugely significant in not just the life of the Church but of the whole human race.
Much of the discussion on this thread doesn’t square with TotB, thus doesn’t square with the timeless teaching of the Church through the ages.
Comments on a topic like this - the morality of nude modelling - have a way of showing where a person’s heart is; comments are made which display, revealingly, the health or right ordering of a particular person’s sexuality and which display the way they think about sexuality.
And that’s the key - we (the Church - that’s you and I and our leadership) are in a great and wonderful process of thinking anew about sex and sexuality - that is the invitation John Paul makes in his teachings. An invitation, which, when taken up wholeheartedly, leads to an incredible liberation, an unbinding, a refreshing and a washing clean. It leads to a true chastity.
Hmmm.
would like to say more but have to head off.
Peace.
I just find some of the things being said in this thread frankly unbelieveable - and yet, at the same time, quite believeable considering how society views sex and sexuality, and more importantly, how the Church has taught about sex and sexuality.
An interesting point: it’s said that two thirds of what the Church has publicly taught about sexuality, outside of scripture and doctrine and so on, has been taught by one man - John Paul II. And the thing is, he didn’t actually say anything new, of course, he just explicated the constant teaching of the Church, but did it in a far more lifegiving and positive way than it had ever been taught before, did it in a way that broke free of the shackles that fallen human nature put on the way these teachings had been presented by Church leaders in the past.
His teachings, known as Theology of the Body have already been described as something that will be hugely significant in not just the life of the Church but of the whole human race.
Much of the discussion on this thread doesn’t square with TotB, thus doesn’t square with the timeless teaching of the Church through the ages.
Comments on a topic like this - the morality of nude modelling - have a way of showing where a person’s heart is; comments are made which display, revealingly, the health or right ordering of a particular person’s sexuality and which display the way they think about sexuality.
And that’s the key - we (the Church - that’s you and I and our leadership) are in a great and wonderful process of thinking anew about sex and sexuality - that is the invitation John Paul makes in his teachings. An invitation, which, when taken up wholeheartedly, leads to an incredible liberation, an unbinding, a refreshing and a washing clean. It leads to a true chastity.
Hmmm.
would like to say more but have to head off.
Peace.
B
blessedstar
Guest
Taken from two posts by the member Balance and put together
Balance:
Everyone, Catholic or not should read Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II, soon to be canonised and my guess is he’ll be Doctor of the Church and Martyr.
:clapping: Beautifully said, I wish I had said it this way myself and couldn’t have put it better myself. Thank you. The way in which the human form naked or not is thought of, interpretted and construed is seriously corrupted and in need of Jesus’ healing.
Everyone, Catholic or not should read Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II, soon to be canonised and my guess is he’ll be Doctor of the Church and Martyr.
B
blessedstar
Guest
Thank you for the link, I read this some time ago but it slipped my mind to post it up. Thank God for your memory!!
This excerpt I particularly like:
Human beings, in a certain sense, are unknown to themselves. Jesus Christ not only reveals God, but “fully reveals man to man”.(23) In Christ, God has reconciled the world to himself. All believers are called to bear witness to this; but it is up to you, men and women who have given your lives to art, to declare with all the wealth of your ingenuity that in Christ the world is redeemed: the human person is redeemed, the human body is redeemed, and the whole creation which, according to Saint Paul, “awaits impatiently the revelation of the children of God” (Rom 8:19), is redeemed. The creation awaits the revelation of the children of God also through art and in art. This is your task. Humanity in every age, and even today, looks to works of art to shed light upon its path and its destiny.
H
Ham1
Guest
This is exactly what I mean by puritan influence. Our Lady nursing the Child Jesus is inappropriate. Our Lady feeding and nurturing Our Lord as God the Father designed??? It seems you have been tainted by a warped American culture that decided back in the 1930’s that nursing was gross and inappropriate and that the female breast is only a sexual object and therefore dirty.
Why would you think that such art would be inappropriate?
A
Anima_Christi
Guest
Balance, how about instead of thinking of your future wife posing nude, imagine how you would feel about your 15 year old son or daughter posing nude for artists? I mean . . . if it’s not a sexual thing like you claim, there shouldn’t be a problem with it should there?
Like the other posters have said, I dont think you are being honest with yourself.
Like the other posters have said, I dont think you are being honest with yourself.
W
wcknight
Guest
I think any painting of Our Lady that is remotely suggestive would be an insult and outrage, even one in which she is “only” nursing Our Lord. It may be a completely innocent and natural thing for mothers to do, BUT such moments are and should be private.
Our Lady has always been the model for chastity and purity. To produce or display an image that is contrary to that would not only be highly provocative, but would in my opinion be sacriligious.
I would categorize such a thing as smut and trash, and place it on the same level as the image of the crucifix in a bed pan.
Our Lady has always been the model for chastity and purity. To produce or display an image that is contrary to that would not only be highly provocative, but would in my opinion be sacriligious.
I would categorize such a thing as smut and trash, and place it on the same level as the image of the crucifix in a bed pan.
- Status