Vatican hit by gay sex scandal

[sox-and-the-city]

@ Don: Shucks, i'm actually Scottish. Living in Vienna to work on the old Deutsch Im also about to turn 21, i had my age changed back last year cos i refused to turn 20 hehehe, not that that makes a tremendous amount of difference to my age... Far as the German goes, it DOES sound a lot like a non-native wrote it. I'd be tempted to change the metaphor, to be honest, into something that communicates a similar sentiment but is easier to translate.

@Peter: I understand your point perfectly well, and wanting to avoid two arguments at once, will not contest you on it, but you choose wilfully to disregard mine. Great art is great art, irrespective of subject matter. Art is neither about honesty nor integrity. Art is the ultimate lie we tell ourselves, that every small thing can have profound meaning and that things are more beautiful than they are. Great art is such because it speaks to us though the power of imagery, to tell us about humanity and the soul. It is such BECAUSE it creates meaning out of nothing.

Furthermore how DARE you reduce my arguments to my religion?? I'm perfectly capable of forming educated opinions about art and music and literature and anything else you may care to mention. I may be young and religious but that doesn't mean i'm uncultured nor uneducated. I'm perfectly capable of reading and appreciating and understanding.

What i take issue with is not only your dismissal of my religion, which whether you like it or not is deeply offensive, but mostly your dismissal of centuries of art based on your own, modern ideals which you yourself must know are anachronistic in their entirety and thus not applicable. Irrespective of your religious views you cannot dismiss the works someone made in a time when patronage required following norms. Would you rather he refused and died penniless, with no masterpieces to leave behind??

One final thought. Is it really THAT impossible that perhaps religious works are and were created out of genuine religious feeling and experience?? Just because YOU do not share in it does not mean it doesn't exist. And even if your answer is no it cannot exist how can you take it away from those who get something from it??

[peterinmalaga]

Perhaps I have not explained my beliefs adequately, Sox. To be honest I admire the intellect and much of the work of da Vinci. In fact I walked from Vinci, the town, to da Vinci´s birthplace last summer. The great thinkers of his time were all nominally Catholic. I would have been too. Galileo had to be shown the instruments of torture before he was willing to recant and publicly announce that he believed that the world was flat, though he had proved the opposite. Da Vinci did not need to see the Inquisitions methods for himself. He went along with their myths and hypocrisy.
Kenneth Clark points out that Leonardo objected to the commercial exploitation of relics, religious art, and pious items, saying, “I see Christ once more being sold and crucified and his saints martyred.” In his notebooks and letters, he protested the sale of indulgences, liturgical and ceremonial pomp, obligatory confessions, and the cult of the saints. He assailed the clergy—at all levels—for their lack of morality, values, and education. As a scientist, he questioned the contemporary reality of miracles performed by priests and monks.
Does this not seem a little similar to what is going on in Rome at the moment?
To be fair I suppose I pity da Vinci for having to conform to the requirements of a religion which he clearly did not believe in. His religious views were more akin to those of Einstein who wrote:”The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
Einstein could write this with impunity. Da Vinci could not afford that luxury. The churches have systematically murdered, oppressed and tortured gays, women and intellectuals for thousands of years. I consider myself entitled to complain about this in the strongest possible terms.
I would like to make quite clear that I have no personal feelings of animosity to you at all, Sox. I can take your attacks on the chin and turn the other cheek.
In response to your assertion that great art is great regardless of the content I would like to tell you of another visit I made last year - to Sachsenhausen, the concentration camp near Berlin. When I went I intended to take a number of photographs of the place. As soon as I went through the gates I put my camera away. I was totally incapable of taking photographs. My photos are not great art but the content of my photos is of primary importance to me and in this respect my photos have something in common with art. A journalist can justify taking photos of a concentration camp but nobody could ever call those photos art: if you disagree take a look at some of the photos of the corpses in a KZ. Then tell me that these scenes could be represented artistically. I remember the words of a survivor of the holocaust - "Nothing can be learned from the concentration camps".

[fredv3b]

As you obviously know, there have been a great many superlative writers and artists who happened to be gay. “Happened to be” is the operative phrase here. Just as there is no such thing as straight or gay physics or brain surgery, neither is there art.

Don,

I am sorry but I fundamentally disagree with you here. If there are any writers or artists who just 'happened to be gay' then they are, in my opinion very bad ones. Creating a work or art of literature is a very personal act, it fundamentally involves the artist/writer's personality, perspective on the world, etc. which are influenced by many things including life experience. Being gay inevitably influences life experience, through being a minority, perception of being different, discrimination, etc. Obviously, different gay people have different life experiences, the same life experience affects different people differently and the same artist can interpret the same facets of the personality and perspectives differently in different works. (Also the artist is often not conscious of how different life experiences effect their work.) Therefore I would agree that you cannot classify a work of art to be gay or straight. However that does not mean that the artist just 'happened to be gay'. If I were able to create a work of art where I just 'happened to be gay', then it would be devoid of that which is personal and unique about me and anyone could create the same work.

However physics is fundamentally different from art. The laws of physics are the same for everyone (although they may be perceived and/or interpreted differently). They also exist even if they have not been discovered (a sculpture only exists in the sculptors mind before it has been sculpted). I don't claim that a gay physicist just 'happened to be gay', his life experiences may have allowed him to 'think outside the box' or influenced how he explained his discovery to the world. However the law of physics which he discovered exists independently of both him (and therefore his sexuality).

[sox-and-the-city]

To me it is a joke in the worst possible taste to suggest that the mother of JC was a virgin. As if being a real woman is not good enough.

Do you not think that detracts from the miracle of it somewhat?? Personally i think everyone knows the idea of it is somewhat dubious, especially when coupled with the fact that the Aramaic words for 'virgin' and 'young woman' were the same... But that's the miracle of it, that's kind of the point. You know, whole son of God thing. Though there are many who believe that Jesus's comment to that effect is also misinterpreted, and can accurately point out that to Jews AND to Christians we are ALL God's children... I'm not saying there aren't potholes, i just think saying it declares women to be insufficient as they are is a bit strong...

Does this not seem a little similar to what is going on in Rome at the moment? To be fair I suppose I pity da Vinci for having to conform to the requirements of a religion which he clearly did not believe in.
Einstein could write this with impunity. Da Vinci could not afford that luxury. The churches have systematically murdered, oppressed and tortured gays, women and intellectuals for thousands of years. I consider myself entitled to complain about this in the strongest possible terms.

Let's not be mistaken, your criticisms of the Vatican and Catholicism in general are not the issue here. To me Catholicism is essentially heretical and in some ways cheapens the essence of what it's all about. The ceremony, the opulence, that there is hypocrisy permeating the Catholic Church is undeniable. But then i walk into one of their churches, and i can feel totally overcome by the same desire to create massive and impressive celebrations of the glory and majesty of God. To some extent that intention is honourable, and without it much of the most beautiful art and architecture in European history would be lost. It's a lot more complex than either of us currently make it sound.

You must remember that corruption is not representative of the nature of religion itself but of the wilful misuse of it by those who are tempted. Wherever there is the possibility of power or control, or profit there will be those who misuse it. Religion is particularly susceptible to this.

Funnily enough i managed to turn one my literary essays into a debate on the intention of the Inquisition last year. I think it's a perfect example of my point. I can fish it out if you feel like reading it...

I would like to make quite clear that I have no personal feelings of animosity to you at all, Sox. I can take your attacks on the chin and turn the other cheek./I]

Okay now you're just being unfair. Attacks?? Really?? I'm horrified if i come over as such and would like to apologise for the fervent and aggressive tone my drunken logic chose to manifest itself in last night. I'm all up and down and all over the place with my moods at the minute, as i have a lot going on and if i'm taking it out on you here i'm truly sorry. I DO stand by what i meant, which i'll admit i didn't communicate well, that i was hurt by your assumption that my response was entirely a religious one. I'm not totally brainwashed, you know

[I]I remember the words of a survivor of the holocaust - "Nothing can be learned from the concentration camps".

On this i disagree. The full scale of the horror of the concentration camps teaches us a LOT about humanity. About the capacity we have for doing bad things, the lack of courage we all show in following orders we know to be wrong, the capacity for cruelty towards others, it's the ultimate testament to man's weaknesses and ills. As such, the photography of it, and any portrayal of it is artistic intrinsically, teaching us about the capacity of people, and of the soul. Well, to my mind at the very least.

[Donald Schneider]

Sox, thanks for the response. Okay, you’re not an innocent lad of nineteen, but an old fart of twenty-one! As my Jewish friends would be wont to observe (as only they can so succinctly put it): “Oy vey.” I try to be philosophical about age. Considering the alternative, aging seems less and less onerous the older one gets.
Actually, I believe that you and I are the same ages, just not contemporaneously. I wrote a philosophical proof of a creator (that only purports to prove the necessity of our reality having had a creator or some kind; not necessarily the Western traditional concept of God, and who or which might or might not be still existent) based upon the implications of Einstein’s STR. In a nutshell, the theory (which has been tested many times and has never as yet been found wanting in regard to empirical observation) implies that the past, present and future are static and exist contemporaneously. Thus, I too am still twenty-one, unfortunately at a point in the space-time continuum when you do not yet exist and therefore cannot appreciate the strikingly handsome and dashing young man I most assuredly am (er, at that point)!

Seriously, I do think you’re wise beyond your years. Salute!

In regard to my question regarding German parlance, yes, I suppose there must be some way to signify the romantically inclined inclinations of my prepubescent character which expresses his thought without coming off as verbally clumsy in German. He responds, “Yes, I shall only look to the morning.” If “den Morgen” is not appropriate by way of translation, then all I can think of is “die Zukunft” which, although clearly expresses the idea, rather defeats the nuance concerning the boy’s temperament that I was trying to exhibit to the reader.

And, oh yes, laddie. Being Scottish, I suppose you might qualify as a native English language speaker, of a sort, perhaps.

Thanks again.

Don

[Donald Schneider]

Fred,

Thank you for your well-considered response to my views, if, er, any disagreement with them could ever be termed “well-considered.” Seriously, it’s somewhat ironic that you should make these points to me.

I wrote an essay entitled “Method Writing” in which I address the question as to whether a great writer must conform to the oldest admonition to writers in the metaphorical book of: “Write what you know about”; or, conversely, if a writer might heed the advice of an English teacher in a movie I saw who countered rhetorically: “What did Shakespeare know about Venetian Moors?”

Here is a (very appropriate, considering this venue) excerpt from my essay:

“I saw a television movie about the early years of the AIDS epidemic. The plot revolves around a group of homosexual friends from NYC. One of them is a writer for a soap opera. While watching an episode while vacationing on Fire Island, the writer laments, 'They always give me the queer scenes to write.' When one of his friends notes, 'That's only natural,' the man retorts [something like], 'If I can't write a convincing old lady in a nursing home, then I'm not worth my salt as a writer.'

"At that, I thought to myself, 'Hear! Hear!' 'Now there's a man with some professional pride in his craft; a pride that transcends who or what he is.'”

I take an in-between stance regarding the issue. Yes, I agree with you that putting one’s life experiences into one's art is essential if one is to be judged truly great. On the other hand, I believe that the hallmark of all great writers and artists is that they are perceptive by nature and observational. A writer, for example, should be able to truly understand his or her character and be able to translate that into the written word for the benefit of the reader even if the character and the writer are light years apart in terms of personality, talents, values, thought processes, etc.. Just as a method actor can strive to “become” his or her character, so can a writer strive to “become” his or hers, even if that is sometimes not a pleasant task:

“In Herman Wouk's epics The Winds of War and its sequel War and Remembrance, interspersed within the plot are the memoirs of a fictional German field marshal during WW II. Mr. Wouk—who is of Jewish heritage—effectively writes this character, from his point of view, and how this Prussian aristocrat rationalizes away the unmitigated evil of the Third Reich and even the Holocaust in a convincing manner—in the character's mind. I often wondered if writing this was distasteful for Mr. Wouk. If or if not, he is a professional with the rare capacity to put his mind into that of another's and faithfully report the character's motivations, thought processes and extenuations for his actions.”

Now, you might counter that it is your firm belief that someone not in another’s situation could never hope to fully understand the other person, and I would respect your viewpoint and acknowledge that you might well be right. I suppose the way to test such a matter might be to ask five gay writers and five straight writers to attempt to write a very moving story about, for example, a young gay man being faced with discrimination and moral sanction and then read them without knowing the author of each piece. When you pick what you perceive to be the best five, you might—or might not—find yourself surprised.

Leonardo’s and Michelangelo’s masterpieces would remain such even had both artists been “straight as an arrow." However, I guess your question might be, “If that had been the case, could they have still created them?” I really don’t know.

[peterinmalaga]

My point about women, Sox, was that the church has systematically disempowered women. In Malaga we have a new railway station called Victoria Kent. VK was an English feminist who opposed the idea of votes for Spanish women in her time. A paradox? No. If the Spanish women had been given votes then, they would simply have voted as the priest told them, which would have been against their own interests.
Like you I visit churches and cathedrals and am impressed by their beauty and atmosphere in many cases. Have you been to the mosque in Cordoba? It is a wonderful building and what did the Spanish Christian kings do on reconquering Cordoba?They knocked down a large part of the mosque and built a baroque monstrosity right in the middle of this exquisite building. It looks like an enormous turd in the middle of a shrine. It is the most crass political statement that the power of the Caliphate was now over. There is no escaping from the fact that it is not only politics that is about power, religion too has always been about power.
I like Brecht's poem Fragen eines lesenden Arbeiters, in which he wrote:


Who built Thebes of the seven gates?
In the books you will find the names of kings.
Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock?


Caesar beat the Gauls.
Did he not have even a cook with him?


Frederick the Second won the Seven Year's War. Who
Else won it?


Unfortunately the churches and cathedrals are built to the greater glory of the rich and powerful and so that they can put the rest of us firmly in our place. I agree that they are often beautiful and when I am in them I like to think of the people who really built them. I have plenty of respect for the real builders of these monuments. I suppose I am a humanist rather than an atheist. I believe in humanity. For me the whole idea of god has been too much tarnished by all the things that have been done in the name of god – wars, inquisitions, pogroms and of course the burning of fagots.


Ich schicke Dir ein “besito” trotzdem!

[fredv3b]

Thanks for your reply. I am afraid the irony eludes me. However I think that you misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that a gay writer could only produce a 'gay themed' work or that it would be amongst their best work. I am suggesting that personal experience is an important part of who an artist 'is', and that creating works of art (not just great ones) in inevitably involves, in one way or another, who an artist 'is'.

I would agree that, in general, writers should stick to what they know, however readers generally forgive great writters when they err due to straying into areas they do not know. (In any case what did Shakespeare's audience know about Venice either?)

I do not believe that writers write about what they do not know by pure imagination, but by extrapolation from their own experiences. To take you example of the television script writer, living in a nursing home involves a loss of independance which is keenly felt by all those who still have their wits, living as a gay man in a straight world involves making great use of independence, such a man would have fears as to what life would be like should he loose that in dependence. Thus being a gay man would not be an inpediment (or even coincidental) to writing about an old lady in a nursing home, but an integral part of how he does it. (I fully admit that in writing the character he would, consciously or unconsciously, make use of a multitude of previous experiences, many of which may have very little to do with being a gay man.)

Now, you might counter that it is your firm belief that someone not in another’s situation could never hope to fully understand the other person,

Strictly speaking, I do indeed believe that to be the case. No one could write as accurately about being me as I could. Although ego and vanity may lead me to be not quite as accurate as I could, and a technically better writer may create a far more readable work. However unless a particular reader had a particular interest in what it is like to be me, that is slightly beside the point. The test you propose is very interesting, it tests how well a writer can write about the experience of being a young gay man faced with discrimination and moral sanction. A gay writer who has been in that position could of course write very accurately about their own person experience of that situation, however that doesn't necessarily mean they could write well of another gay man's experience of that situation. An important measure of the quality of a work of literature is how well the reader can really understand the experience of the characters. The effort of trying to understand for himself what it is like to be a gay man, may well give a straight writer an an advantage, over a gay writer who needs to think much less about it, when trying to explain the same to a straight reader.

In this situation I do not believe that this hypothetical writer would just 'happen to be straight'. For example, he may consider what experiences in life he has had because he is straight, and what it may be like to be denied those. His mother may have always been keen that he marry and have a family of his own, and in doing so may have found much happiness, fulfilment and social standing, from being a single young man who claims to be an aspiring writer be became a husband, father and member of a suburban community. His previous experiences, including those he could have only had as a straight man, would be an integral part of how he understands what it is like to be a young gay man faced with discrimination and moral sanction.

If Leonardo had been straight, he would not have been the same man who created those masterpieces, if he had been born in, say, Rome rather than than a village in the Florentine countryside he also would have been a different man. Its impossible to say if these alternative Leonardos would have produced masterpieces, but if they did I believe that they must have been in some way different to the ones produced by the real Leonardo. For all we know they may have been much better!

[Donald Schneider]

Fred,

I think we are basically on the same wavelength. I just want to emphasize that part of being each one of us is the many people we have met over the years and the learning experiences we have derived from them. I’m sure you have said or thought to yourself at one time or another, “I’ve met his (or her) type before.” Haven’t we all? Sometimes I think I’ve only known about a dozen people in my life, with the rest being just variations of the stock twelve. This is what a great writer will do. He or she observes (just like a method actor) other people he or she has had experience with and through the gift of perception comes to understand other people even if their character traits and thought processes differ from the writer’s own by a wide margin.

As with anything else, some people do this better than others. The second example I offered in my previous response, Herman Wouk (a Jewish man from NYC) writing a snobbish, aristocratic Prussian field marshal from WW II, is a great example. Mr. Wouk wrote the character so exquisitely realistically notwithstanding the fact that I’m sure Mr. Wouk despised him. Instead of presenting the reader with an editorial about the mendacity of his character, he writes him from the character’s point of view using Mr. Wouk’s life experiences knowing other people who cannot bring themselves to admit (even and especially to themselves) that they had been wrong about anything. He then leaves it to the reader to draw their own interpretations.

(However, admittedly the author cannot resist certain jabs made at the character in the form of comments inserted by the novel’s lead protagonist, a (then) retired career American Naval officer fluent in German, who is translating the character’s memoirs.)

Thus, we read of the character’s self-extenuations and rationalizations for even the foulest of Hitler’s deeds that he had a hand in propagating. It seems that despite whatever Hitler had been the character and his fellow officers of the professional army caste “kept their honor” throughout it all. The German soldier bore no individual responsibility. It was all Hitler’s fault.

So I guess the only thing I have to append to your most thoughtful response is that I would include the experiences we gain from the myriad people we meet during the course of our lives as part of who we are. As with anything else, some people are naturally better than others at learning from such opportunities and using such as part of the creation of art. Such a talent knows no divides of race, gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. That’s basically all I meant.