Interpretations of Christ creative in art, not in fact
Letter to the Editor
"I've always been taught that Christ looks like whatever I want Her to look like." Oh really! Is this kind of feel good nonsense taught here at Notre Dame? Or if this is part of the writer's elementary and secondary religious education, has basic catechesis been reduced to a new low?
"For me, Christ is a woman because I can relate best to that image." God have mercy on this kind of nitwittery! If I could best relate to an image of Christ as a shillelagh swinging son of the old sod who wouldn't hesitate to administer a love tap to the empty skull of a fool, is that an acceptable image to hold because it somehow makes me feel better about myself?
De gustibus non disputandum may be applicable to individual tastes in art, but it has no place in judging either historical fact (Jesus of Nazareth was a first century Jewish man) or theological orthodoxy (He is the Son of God in a hypostatic union with a male human body, now in resurrected glory).
There is nothing misogynist about noting these realties. They just happen to be the truth, the understanding of which seems to be in short supply in the minds of some writing for The Observer from a misdirected heart, but apparently not a fully engaged brain. Have a blessed Lent as the Church reflects more deeply on the paschal mystery of Christ. God knows who He is. He really does.
Rev. John Patrick Riley, CSC
Sacred Heart Parish
March 7, 2001
All Viewpoint Stories for Monday, March 19, 2001