Well, the Passion of Christ and the Stations of the Cross are profoundly kinky. I know of at least one masochist, and s/he's not the only one, brought up Catholic, whose introduction to S&M was by contemplation of the flagellation of Christ and so forth. A standard interpretation of Story of O is that is an allegory for the Catholic Church. So I think that the last summer is fair game for leather pride.
I am also far from clear that this is an "attack" on Cat holism. It's like like a picture of the Prophet (already forbidden) with a dog's head (a deliberate insult). Flagellation is a tradition in the Church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellant
granted not officially for sexual gratification as opposed to expiation of sin. I don't know of any official prohibition on kink in Catholicism, as opposed to homosexual conduct or adultery, etc., and couldn't find any in a quick search.
Many practicing Catholics are perverts, see, e.g.,:
http://www.sensuoussadie.com/resources/spiritualitygroups.htm
A representation like this might be blasphemous because of its gay context or implication, but not because of its kinky content. It's not even insulting unless you consider kink in particular to be icky or revolt against any association of Christ with sexuality.
That said, I don't see why we shouldn't pillory religion; the context matters, but it's mainly not a force for good.
This seems as good an opportunity as any to quote the relevant lyrics from Stephen Sondheim's The Madam's Song (I Never Do Anything Twice) from the movie The Seven Percent Solution (a mystery involving Freud and Sherlock Holmes). Sondheim is Jewish, of course, and rumor has it, kinky.
And then there was the abbot Who worshipped at my feet Who dressed me in a wimple and in veils He made a proposition which I found rather sweet And handed me a hammer and some nails
In time we lay contented And he began again By fingering the beads around our waists I whispered to him then We'll have to say amen For I had developed more catholic tastes
Once, yes, once for a lark Twice, though, loses the spark
As I said to the abbot I'll get in the habit, but not in the habit You've my highest regard And I know that it's hard Still, no matter the price I'd never do anything twice
Once, yes, once can be nice Love requires some spice If you've something in view Or something to do, totally new I'll be there in a trice But I never do anything twice
Except . . . No I never do anything twice
--- "Mr. WD" <mister.wd at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/26/07, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> > [pic at
>
<http://www.cnsnews.com/cns/photo/2007/092507FolosomFull.jpg>]
>
>
> Not long ago, I would have thought this was
> hilarious. These days,
> though, blasphemy against any religion just strikes
> me as desperate
> and deeply insecure.
>
> Don't get me wrong: The people in the picture are my
> kind of folks,
> and I do more than my fair share of criticizing and
> making fun of
> religion. It's beyond clear that religions have
> brought these kinds
> of attacks upon themselves.
>
> For me, the problem is definitely not that people
> find blasphemy
> deeply offensive. I think it's the gratuitousness
> of it... I guess
> I'm just conflicted about this. Should I be?
>
> -WD
>
> [although I find him obnoxious on many levels, I
> still have a lot of
> admiration for Stanley Fish. The following isn't
> totally on point,
> but I think it partially captures what I think I'm
> getting at:]
>
>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/opinion/12fish.html
> February 12, 2006
> A Cartoon in 3 Dimensions; Our Faith in Letting It
> All Hang Out
> By STANLEY FISH
>
> IF you want to understand what is and isn't at stake
> in the Danish
> cartoon furor, just listen to the man who started it
> all, Flemming
> Rose, the culture editor of the newspaper
> Jyllands-Posten. Mr. Rose
> told Time magazine that he asked 40 Danish
> cartoonists to ''depict
> Muhammad as they see him,'' after he noticed that
> journalists,
> historians and even museum directors were wary of
> presenting the
> Muslim religion in an unfavorable light, or in any
> light at all.
>
> ''To me,'' he said, this ''spoke to the problem of
> self-censorship and
> freedom of speech.'' The publication of the
> cartoons, he insisted,
> ''was not directed at Muslims'' at all. Rather, the
> intention was ''to
> put the issue of self-censorship on the agenda and
> have a debate about
> it.''
>
> I believe him. And not only do I believe that he has
> nothing against
> Muhammad or the doctrines of Islam, I believe that
> he has no interest
> (positive or negative) in them at all, except as the
> possible
> occasions of controversy.
>
> This is what it means today to put self-censorship
> ''on the agenda'':
> the particular object of that censorship -- be it
> opinions about a
> religion, a movie, the furniture in a friend's
> house, your wife's new
> dress, whatever -- is a matter of indifference. What
> is important is
> not the content of what is expressed but that it be
> expressed. What is
> important is that you let it all hang out.
>
> Mr. Rose may think of himself, as most journalists
> do, as being
> neutral with respect to religion -- he is not
> speaking as a Jew or a
> Christian or an atheist -- but in fact he is an
> adherent of the
> religion of letting it all hang out, the religion we
> call liberalism.
>
> The first tenet of the liberal religion is that
> everything (at least
> in the realm of expression and ideas) is to be
> permitted, but nothing
> is to be taken seriously. This is managed by the
> familiar distinction
> -- implied in the First Amendment's religion clause
> -- between the
> public and private spheres. It is in the private
> sphere -- the
> personal spaces of the heart, the home and the house
> of worship --
> that one's religious views are allowed full sway and
> dictate behavior.
>
> But in the public sphere, the argument goes, one's
> religious views
> must be put forward with diffidence and
> circumspection. You can still
> have them and express them -- that's what separates
> us from
> theocracies and tyrannies -- but they should be worn
> lightly. Not only
> must there be no effort to make them into the laws
> of the land, but
> they should not be urged on others in ways that make
> them
> uncomfortable. What religious beliefs are owed --
> and this is a word
> that appears again and again in the recent debate --
> is ''respect'';
> nothing less, nothing more.
>
> The thing about respect is that it doesn't cost you
> anything; its
> generosity is barely skin-deep and is in fact a form
> of condescension:
> I respect you; now don't bother me. This was
> certainly the message
> conveyed by Rich Oppel, editor of The Austin (Tex.)
> American-Statesman, who explained his decision to
> reprint one of the
> cartoons thusly: ''It is one thing to respect other
> people's faith and
> religion, but it goes beyond where I would go to
> accept their
> taboos.''
>
> Clearly, Mr. Oppel would think himself pressured to
> ''accept'' the
> taboos of the Muslim religion were he asked to alter
> his behavior in
> any way, say by refraining from publishing cartoons
> depicting the
> Prophet. Were he to do that, he would be in danger
> of crossing the
> line between ''respecting'' a taboo and taking it
> seriously, and he is
> not about to do that.
>
> This is, increasingly, what happens to strongly held
> faiths in the
> liberal state. Such beliefs are equally and
> indifferently authorized
> as ideas people are perfectly free to believe, but
> they are equally
> and indifferently disallowed as ideas that might
> serve as a basis for
> action or public policy.
>
> Strongly held faiths are exhibits in liberalism's
> museum; we
> appreciate them, and we congratulate ourselves for
> affording them a
> space, but should one of them ask of us more than we
> are prepared to
> give -- ask for deference rather than mere respect
> -- it will be met
> with the barrage of platitudinous arguments that for
> the last week
> have filled the pages of every newspaper in the
> country.
>
> One of those arguments goes this way: It is
> hypocritical for Muslims
> to protest cartoons caricaturing Muhammad when
> cartoons vilifying the
> symbols of Christianity and Judaism are found
> everywhere in the media
> of many Arab countries. After all, what's the
> difference? The
> difference is that those who draw and publish such
> cartoons in Arab
> countries believe in their content; they believe
> that Jews and
> Christians follow false religions and are proper
> objects of hatred and
> obloquy.
>
> But I would bet that the editors who have run the
> cartoons do not
> believe that Muslims are evil infidels who must
> either be converted or
> vanquished. They do not publish the offending
> cartoons in an effort to
>
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/index.html
