After racking my brains for the past few weeks over some spiritual issues, as well as other things, I think I have finally come to some equilibrium on the spiritual matters. I don’t really want to get into the particulars of religion here, except to say that I do not enjoy the polemics that come about from different groups arguing over what is right, what is wrong, who is right, who is wrong. Too much of that is poison for me. The group I belong to, Catholic, has much of this within the Church. When I was younger I found the more liberal elements of the Church annoying; as I grow older I find the more traditionalist elements annoying. The holier than thou, my way or the high way group may be often right theologically, but they so often present themselves with such a lack of charity and with such spiritual hubris that they often serve as more a hindrance for non-Christians than the more theologically whishy washy liberal crowd. And this is even not to mention all the divisions between all the other Christian denominations, or between all the religions of the world. As for someone who merely believes and needs to believe in God and some system to go along with those beliefs, the cacophony of theological vituperation can be deafening. I try to avoid it as much as I can, and focus rather on simple faith. I like to focus on the things I love: faith, and spirituality and beauty; beauty and art and culture; beauty and love. I am not here to evangelize for any one faith; I consider myself a Christian and that should be enough information for anyone to surmise anything else. Rather, I am here to write about God, spirituality, and the poetical mysticism of beauty and eros, art and love.
So one of my favorite topics is beauty, especially erotic beauty. Recently on my Sex as Something Sacred post I uploaded an image of Botticelli’s Birth of Venus. Sandro Botticelli (1445-1510) is one of my favorite painters of all time. I find him particularly fascinating because, as a great force in the Italian Renaissance, he lived in a world drenched in religious and secular tensions. The Middle Ages were quickly coming to an end, and a new world was being born, influenced by the rediscovery of Greek and Roman art, literature and philosophy, as well as new continents overseas, among other things. All these things were cultural earthquakes that forever changed the face of Western society. Botticelli’s paintings reveal a man who loved beauty, but who was also deeply spiritual as well, and I can relate to that. It is clear from his life he never quite resolved these things, and that they were major themes for his paintings. He never married. Like many artists of his time and other times, his art was his life and love. He said the prospect of marriage gave him nightmares. Most of the great artists throughout history gave their lives to their art, usually at the expense of their wives and children, if they had any. This is often the price of greatness.
One of his most famous paintings is the Primavera, ca., 1482. There are different views and interpretations of this painting and who exactly the figures depicted are, but it is most often cited as an allegory about spring and the renewal of life. I won’t get into the details here, except to say the figure in the middle is Venus, the Roman goddess of love. As a ancient fertility goddess, her role in the rebirth that Spring harbingers is obvious. Given her overall cosmic powers of regeneration, she is the central and presiding figure in the painting. The female figure to the right in the floral robe may be either Flora or Primavera, two Roman personifications of Spring, but there are questions on exactly who each of these figures are. On the left side of the painting the three figures dancing are the three Graces, goddesses of charm, beauty, nature, creativity and fertility.
What strikes me most is how lush and sensuous the painting is. It is dark and inviting, yet warm and mysterious. There are as many as 500 different plant species represented. The graces, often depicted as nude in ancient and later art, are dressed in diaphanous robes, their feminine forms quite visible. The face of Primavera herself is most likely drawn from a woman that seems to appear in many of his other paintings, the noble woman Simonetta Vespucci, for whom Botticelli suffered an unrequited love. If you view his paintings, she definitely seems to have been his type. Without a doubt, if these paintings are true to her form, she was quite hot for her day. Clearly, from this and other paintings, he loved beautiful women. The painting is also often cited as an example of the Neoplatonic ideas of love popular in Botticelli’s day. He was probably a bit of a romantic himself. Overall the painting seems to celebrate the powers of sensual, sexual and spiritual love and rebirth. Beauty is a force that permeates nature.
Botticelli clearly loved beauty and sensuality and was deeply spiritual, since these qualities run through his paintings. This was not without controversy though in his time, and it is later said that Botticelli burned some of his paintings in the religious backlash against the Neo-Pagansim of Renaissance. The Domincan friar and anti-Renaissance crusader Savonarola had a great influence on him in his later life, a man who later himself was burned at the stake by the people of Florence in the backlash against the backlash. So I suppose Botticelli, like myself and others, struggled between sensuality and spirituality, the erotic and the religious, and was caught up in the controversies of this time. Perhaps like me he was obsessed with sex and religion.
What is fascinating for me here, other than the obvious beauty of the painting, is how much a man like Botticelli could be in love with beauty, or even love itself. Yet he was still a believing Catholic, as many of his later religious paintings show. It is this mixture of corporal and spiritual beauty that makes Botticelli’s works, like so many of the Renaissance, intriguing for me. I can relate to this, even though I live in a world where this mixture of spirituality and sensuality, faith and beauty, is often lacking. Usually faith is presented as something more abstract and seemingly hostile to physical or sensual beauty, or sensual beauty is devoid of and hostile to all faith. I am sure many in Botticelli’s day found his depictions of half naked women pornographic; they would never have dreamed that over 500 years later these depictions would literally be considered priceless gems of great art.
I will be writing more on Botticelli, since I have recently become interested in his works. I think he is a good example of many of my own struggles, questions, and desires when it comes to this balance of spirituality and sexuality. His paintings reveal a sensitivity to feminine beauty that is both spiritual and sensual, erotic and religious. I can understand that.
But just to end things on a more modern note, I would like to add a more contemporary image of something beautiful, one of my favorite images: a woman in nothing but her bra and panties. I can’t help it.
Drona said:
Few of Botticelli’s contemporaries found his paintings as pornographic as he did, though though the women were no less beautiful in his later religious paintings. Savanorola’s objections were really an ephemeral blip on an otherwise intensely liberal and intensely sensual society.
I know not whence the Catholic Church decided to abandon the ideal of sensual beauty and love that is its characteristic trait throughout the ages. Certainly that voluptuary quality, as I perceived it in the generations of those European aristocrats who worked hard, lived well and loved much, very much defines those cultures most deeply Catholic, such as the Spanish or the Italian.
I find myself in a similar position to you, Racer. Though I am very theologically conservative on nearly all matters, I love many women carnally without the blessing of marital sanctity. I think it unfortunate those with serious theological and spiritual conviction (regarding, for example, celibacy) are often the most inclined to alienate men and women, but then how else does one defend the highest ideals?
While I think celibacy is a beautiful thing in its purest form, we live in a society of nonpareil spiritual abrasiveness, and it surprises me not that the Church has degraded, as seen in its bevy of scandals and its teeming underbelly of sexual sordor. I am convinced the Church was not always like this; I have a penchant for reading the writings of the Jesuits of the sixteenth century, and they seem to me infinitely finer human beings than almost any Catholic priest I have met. They exemplify the vigorous love of life, learning, and beauty I found central to the Catholic faith, and it is disconcerting to perceive its complete contemporary dearth.
Kathy said:
“we live in a society of nonpareil spiritual abrasiveness, and it surprises me not that the Church has degraded, as seen in its bevy of scandals and its teeming underbelly of sexual sordor”
Get a grip Drona.. You are way over the top here.. Sucked in by the msm just like the rest of the crowd… * shakes head*
“Horn summarized the researchers’ findings on poor women as follows: “Family friends and acquaintances compose the largest group of perpetrators (28 percent), followed by such relatives as uncles and cousins (18 percent), stepfathers (12 percent), male siblings (10 percent), biological fathers (10 percent), boyfriends of the child’s mother (9 percent), grandfathers and stepgrandfathers (7 percent), and strangers (4 percent).” Horn was struck by the fact that 10 percent were biological fathers and only 4 percent were strangers. “Which means,” he said, “86 percent of the perpetrators were known to the family, but were someone other than the child’s father.”[ii] ”
As for priests..
“According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades, less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse.[iv] According to a survey by the New York Times, 1.8 percent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 have been accused of child sexual abuse.[v] Thomas Kane, author of Priests are People Too, estimates that between 1 and 1.5 percent of priests have had charges made against them.[vi] Of contemporary priests, the Associated Press found that approximately two-thirds of 1 percent of priests have charges pending against them.[vii]
The issue of child sexual molestation is deserving of serious scholarship. Too often, assumptions have been made that this problem is worse in the Catholic clergy than in other sectors of society. This report does not support this conclusion. Indeed, it shows that family members are the most likely to sexually molest a child. It also shows that the incidence of the sexual abuse of a minor is slightly higher among the Protestant clergy than among the Catholic clergy, and that it is significantly higher among public school teachers than among ministers and priests.
In a survey for the Wall Street Journal-NBC News, it was found that 64 percent of the public thought that Catholic priests frequently abused children.[xxxix] This is outrageously unfair, but it is not surprising given the media fixation on this issue. While it would be unfair to blame the media for the scandal in the Catholic Church, the constant drumbeat of negative reporting surely accounts for these remarkably skewed results.[xl]
Without comparative data, little can be learned. Numbers are not without meaning, but they don’t count for much unless a baseline has been established. Moreover, sexual misconduct is difficult to measure given its mostly private nature. While crime statistics are helpful, we know from social science research that most crimes go unreported. This is especially true of sexual abuse crimes. At the end of the day, estimates culled from survey research are the best we can do.
By putting the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church in perspective, it is hoped that this report will make for a more fair and educated public respons
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm#_edn7
I am bloody sick and tired of people (mostly Americans- go figure) trying to tar the many good and caring priests with the same brush..
Thag Jones said:
Hear hear Kathy. It’s not as if no one in the church talks about it either.
How about looking at where there really is rampant sexual abuse, the public school system?
Racer X said:
Drona,
Thanks for the comments. Your observations are interesting indeed. I think you are correct in stating that modern Catholicism is lacking, at least in the Ango-American world, in its more traditional, physical expressions. I think part of it is the influence of Protestant ideas of worship in Catholicism. After Vatican II, many American parishes and dioceses shed a lot of their old fashioned Catholic look, removing statues and streamlining churches, in an attempt, I believe, to see more conciliatory to the larger Protestant culture around them. I think also there is often a streak of Jansenism lurking behind a lot of Catholic thought and worship today. After all, the Church is officially rather strict when it comes to sexuality, so an inclination in this direction can be expected among certain groups.
Then again, attempting to cleanse the Church of what are considered images that are too corporeal is not new. The iconoclasm heresy in the early history of the Church is a good example.
It is hard to say and I guess a lot of it depends on what culture you are talking about. For instance, it seems to me that Spanish-Mexican-Latin American Catholicism is still rich in a kind of sensuality of form, although I am not sure how much that translates into what the Spanish Catholics actually believe or practice, in and out of Church.
Your statements about the Jesuits is intriguing. I would not have thought of the Jesuits from that period as being like that, but I have never really read any of their writings.
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Classic Edition
Alte said:
I think the old-time Catholics (the Irish, Bavarians, Italians, Mexicans, etc.) are arguably more charitable concerning eroticism and sexuality than the newer Protestant-Catholics one meets in the States.
But even the Protestants weren’t all prudes. You might like this from FB:
http://www.inmalafide.com/2010/03/10/the-sexiest-poem-ever-written-by-a-preacher-no-less/
Racer X said:
Alte,
Thanks for the link. Yeah, I think older cultures a bit less prudish about eroticism than we are, although I have heard the Irish are fairly prudish in these matters. I am not sure though. I imagine Italian sensibilities are eroticism, at least in art, might be the most flexible. It is a fine line to tow though: where do you draw the line between legitimate and healthy erotic expression and something which then becomes merely sexually enticing? I don’t have the answer to that.
I guess in the end it is best to err on the side of restraint.
Pingback: Botticelli | occultrick