Statement
by "A couple of years ago, when a tv series seemed to me to be presenting an unfair caricature of the Catholic Church and the priesthood, I wrote an article criticizing the program. Normally, I am very content and pleased to see Catholic people speaking out clearly and forcefully themselves on such issues. Our Catholic laity, and the organizations that represent them, do good and important work in raising our consciousness to the unfortunate proliferation of Catholic bashing in American society today. However, in light of the continuing controversy surrounding the exhibit "Sensation" at The Brooklyn Museum, and the unbelievably bad judgment of its board of trustees, I feel I must speak to this exhibit on behalf of the 1.5 million Catholics of the Archdiocese of Newark. "To begin with, I agree with the civic leaders who have said clearly that, even if such banal expressions of art are protected by an extreme interpretation of the First Amendment, there is nothing in the Constitution that demands that the public must pay tax money to be offended, belittled, antagonized and outraged. I am truly happy to see that we Catholics are not alone in this reaction. Men and women of good will of other faiths are equally scandalized by the colossal insensitivity of the Brooklyn Museum and its trustees. In effect, they are saying to all people of faith: "You are all ignorant Philistines who do not appreciate art." To this, there can be only one reply, and the youngsters express it most eloquently: "Get real!" "Margaret Steinfels writing in The New York Times recently probably said it best when she wrote: "Indeed what if the religion in question was Buddhism or Judaism? What if it was a statue of the Buddha or a carving of the Star of David that was smeared with dung?" I firmly believe that an attack on the religious beliefs and holy objects of any religion is an attack on all religions. I would speak out just as forcefully against any individual who would denigrate or demean something or someone held in religious reverence by any of our neighbors. It may be called art by some, but it comes dangerously close to the mentality that produces "hate crimes" for us to let it pass unanswered. "One final note. One of the newspapers carried a photo of what I consider the most objectionable of the pieces in what seems to be a collection of sick, rather than sensational, objects. It is the portrayal of a woman smeared in elephant dung. As it stands, it is just a tasteless picture. It looks like no one in particular, certainly quite distinct from the masterpieces of both Western and Oriental painting as they have portrayed the Madonna over the centuries and into our own times. If the artist had entitled the piece "A woman smeared with elephant dung," it would not have caused this controversy. He himself chose to enter the realm of religious bigotry. Those who proclaim, therefore, that this is a case of artistic freedom should rethink their concept. It is a case of in-our-face religious contempt, and the question is well put. Should we be paying for that? I really don't think so."
|
