What People are Commenting
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Centuries-Old Revolution, Wish & Nudism
Incomprehensible
Re: Disney’s Wish (2023): Gnostic & Occult Symbols
I can't understand that you still are on tha anti-Catholic you tube. Why don't you at least seen also on Rumble?
Dr. M.T.M., The Netherlands
______________________
Rottenness Onstage
Re: Disney’s Wish (2023): Gnostic & Occult Symbols
Disney is truly rottenness onstage!
P.C., France
______________________
Diabolically Twisted
Re: Disney's "Wish" Mimics God through Catholic Symbols
I see defenders of Inquisition and Crusaders started to pop up more. Good!
Society is so diabolical, twisted, I wish God would raise up these types again.
J.J.R.
______________________
Showing the Chest, Shoulders & Nudity
I showed somebody a picture of the New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism where it has an illustration of a girl telling another girl that the dress in the store is not modest because it doesn't cover enough. Attached is the image.
The person replied: What about in olden times when women showed half their chest and shoulders?
I realized that what the catechism is condemning is very similar to the dresses they used to wear before and that it is true that women used to dress like that. I looked at portraits of Catherine of Aragon for example, who I have heard was considered pious, and yet she appears with that sort of dress showing her entire chest and shoulders.
Marie Antoinette also had portraits where her entire chest and shoulders were exposed. Now I don't think she was a pious person, but I just give her as an example.
Was that acceptable in those times? If it was, then modesty changes with the times and something like showing the chest and shoulders cannot be considered intrinsically sinful.
I am not affirming this, but trying to find an answer.
Another question is the nudity in the Vatican. If impurity and nudity are mortal sins, how can full nudes be enshrined in the Vatican? How can the Church talk about modesty when they have full on nudes on display in the Vatican?
I apologize if you have already addressed these things before, I did a search of your site and was not able to locate something.
Have a great day.
A.B.
______________________
TIA responds:
Hello A.B,
Thank you for your question.
Rita Stewart briefly addressed this issue in her article on modesty. She wrote,
“Some, noting the low-cut dresses of the Renaissance or the hourglass silhouettes of the Victorian era, might object to the claim that standards have always been consistent. What these critics miss, however, is the working of the principle of gradualism, by which bad customs and beliefs are slowly introduced to a society over time. Because initial changes are small and generally appear innocent, they are often adopted even by upright members of society. Still, these changes serve to advance the revolutionary cause because they lead to greater changes later on. The problems with certain historical fashions, therefore, can be understood as marks of a decadent, already-decaying world. Revolutionary development in clothing that took place over the span of several centuries paved the way for an explosion of immodesty that was to come.”
Without a doubt, the low cut and off the shoulder gowns of the late Middle Ages and Renaissance were wrong, and Catholic queens such as Catherine of Aragon and Marie Antoinette should not have adopted these fashions. Had they been Saints, they likely would have rejected these extravagant developments. That said, we are not in condition to issue a final judgment whether or not those queens were committing mortal sin by dressing in that way.
However, since today we can easily witness the sad consequences of those fashions and of centuries' of compromise, we as Counter-Revolutionaries have an obligation to reject all immodesty, even that which is less blatant.
With regard to your question about immodesty in art, we agree that nudity in art is normally illicit, unless it is done for the purpose of catechesis and does not provide a detailed illustration of the human form. For example, Fra Angelico's depictions of hell include unclothed figures, but the body is not shown in great detail. This is far different from Renaissance art such as Michelangelo's Last Judgment, which includes idealized and even sensuous depictions of the human form. Michelangelo's art clearly violates the Catholic sense and should not have been commissioned by a Pope.
As Prof. Plinio expressed in his article, "How a Catholic Should Act in the Face of Bad Popes,"
"When a Pope sins, when he does something bad or wrong, his position as Pope does not change the nature of the action. It is bad. No papal infallibility is involved. How can one know when something is wrong? He needs only to check with the prior teaching of the Church. If the constant teaching of the previous Popes, Moral treatises and sentire cum Ecclesia [thinking with the Church] taught differently, the new Pope acted against Catholic doctrine and did something bad. And the Catholic faithful in the times of the Renaissance had sufficient means to reject those bad actions of the Popes."
Therefore, although the immodest art in the Vatican certainly gives scandal, it cannot be understood to undermine Catholic Morals, which is clear and unchanging.
We hope this answers are helpful to you.
Fra Angelico painting of Hell:
Cordially,
TIA correspondence desk
Posted May 2, 2024
______________________
The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting - do not necessarily express those of TIA
______________________
______________________
 |
 |
 |
+PAX
In your recent correspondence with D.V. you write that there was, “a planned Revolution against Catholic Civilization that began with Humanism & the Renaissance.” I agree completely that the Revolution began several centuries ago, but how easy it is to grasp the point?
How many people would understand the music of Mozart, for example, to be one small part of the process that can be described as the Revolution?
This process can be seen by looking at the sweep of Western painting from Giotto to the Impressionists and observing the change of subjects from one century to the next.
Writing in the nineteenth century about Venetian architecture, John Ruskin recognised that medieval churches were built for the glory of God, Renaissance churches for the glory of man. Alexander Pope (1688-1744) put it very succinctly:
“Know then thyself, presume not God to scan,
The proper study of mankind is man.”
In Christo,
Br. M.J., OSB, England