Scrambled Eggs Benedict

Yesterday afternoon looking at Facebook, I came across a post by Nate Pyper (this is a link to his tumbler account - but he is plugged in to many social and professional media sites).  On Trend List he is described as a "Midwest native with a big heart for thought-provoking, responsible design" and to my mind that fits.  I was fortunate enough to work with him when he was at MIAD, and still keep up with what he is doing - primarily because he does good things, ASKS QUESTIONS and keeps an open mind.

Which brings me back to the original topic.  Pyper was asking about the ordeal surrounding the Niki Johnson piece, "Eggs Benedict."  If you don't know who Nikki Johnson is, look here.  If you are unfamiliar with the "ordeal," look here.

Part of Pyper's post read:

And someone please help me understand – I guess I just don't understand Catholicism–why is this an attack on religion? Why isn't this just a critique of a very powerful, fallible man who said something incredibly stupid? Why is Catholicism so fragile that to call out the flaws of one individual is to declare war on an entire institution?

And so - to Pyper's question.

However people are taking the work Nate - I don’t see it as an attack on Catholicism, if by that you mean the basic teachings of Catholicism, the ever- evolving result of a narrative about a man who came into the world (as John Dominic Crossman writes) as a first century Mediterranean Jewish peasant....and radicalized everything that came after him through his basic teachings - love one another.

However, a critique of the mandates of the organized INSTITUTION that is the Church is always in order - and that is how I see choose to see the conflict surrounding this particular piece  Remember that the institution of the church has been struggling with the idea of all things sexual since before the Council of Trent (1545)

"Eggs Benedict"  is a great example of the idea that meaning in any human experience is simultaneously rooted in the past and present - and will be part of the future.  We evolve, we grow, we change, we make mistakes, we move forward.  Johnson's work has taken a poke at how polarizing issues of sexuality and sexual ethics continue to be for Catholics.  This becomes evident looking at the history of questions and convictions about human sexuality.

The Archbishop of Milwaukee, Jerome E. Listecki wrote a blog post taking up the critique.  Talking about "radical individualism" he connects the piece to three contributing factors:  1) the loss of objective truth; 2) the loss of natural law; and 3) the loss of the sense of the sacred.

He writes:

An artist who claims his or her work is some great social commentary and a museum that accepts it, insults a religious leader of a church, whose charitable outreach through its missionaries and ministers has eased the pain of those who suffer throughout the world, must understand the rejection of this local action by the believers who themselves have been insulted. 

And one of the comment on his post, illustrates the problem perfectly

Always follow your religion. Catholics know our faith does not change to fit our life style..Our life style should follow our faith. The picture is Offensive and unacceptable in today's society. Controversial is not the appropriate term.

I respectfully disagree with both of them.  There can be critique without insult.  The mere fact of the making and exhibiting of  "Eggs Benedict" does not demean the charitable outreach of anyone or of any believer - it merely speaks to the complications that everyone on the planet carries within them.  It opens the doors to discussion, it points out flawed thinking.

The idea that "Catholics know our faith does not change to fit our lifestyle" is also mistaken.  Even a cursory examination of the history of the church (which is all I can claim) shows us that it is always evolving.

Margaret Farley gives a succinct overview of some of this history:

Alphonsus Liguori in the eighteenth century gave impetus to a manualist tradition (the development and proliferation of moral manuals designed primarily, like the Penitentials, to assist confessors) that attempted to integrate the Pauline purpose of marriage (marriage as a remedy for lust) with the procreative purpose. Nineteenth-century moral manuals focused on “sins of impurity,” choices of any sexual pleasure, in mind or in action, apart from procreative marital intercourse. The twentieth century witnessed the rise of Catholic theological interest in personalism and the tendency on the part of the Protestant churches to accept birth control.

In 1968 Pope Paul VI insisted that contraception is immoral.  Rather than settling the issue for Roman Catholics, however, this occasioned intense conflict. A world-wide majority of moral theologians disagreed with the papal teaching, even though a distinction between nonprocreative and anti procreative behavior mediated the dispute for some. Since then many of the specific moral rules governing sexuality in the Catholic tradition have come under serious question. Official teachings have come under serious question. Official teachings have sustained past injunctions, though some modifications have been made in order to accommodate pastoral responses to divorce and remarriage, homosexual orientation (but not sexual activity), and individual conscience decisions regarding contraception. Among moral theologians there is serious debate (and by the 1990s, marked pluralism) regarding issues of premarital sex, homosexual acts, remarriage after divorce, infertility therapies, gender roles, and clerical celibacy.

Farley, Margaret (2008-02-15). Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics (Kindle Locations 813-816). Continuum US. Kindle Edition.

The Vatican has denounced Farley for attempting to present a theological rationale for same-sex relationships, but I would throw my lot in with Farley any day.  As Professor Emerita of Christian Ethics at Yale, Farley has written about marriage, divorce, AIDS and sex with a clarity and moral wisdom that is sadly lacking in the hierarchy of the church.

In this, Joe Pabst was right on the money when he said:

"Why did I buy it?" Pabst has said. "I did not buy it because I thought it was beautiful. I bought it because I thought it was provocative and I thought it was important. ... This piece has work to do. It has to make people think and have discussions." (citation)

It can also be a call to action - and to that end  - here is the information for the 2015 AIDS WALK, which will be Saturday, October 3.