File under “Curse not the darkness, but rather light one candle…”
Kasia April 23rd, 2007
I don’t really expect much, but I had to try something.
You may have seen posts from Digital Hairshirt, the Catholic Cavemen, Carolina Cannonball, and by now probably others about some artwork by Br. Robert Lentz, OFM. (Warning: there’s some strong language at the latter two.)
Anyway, let’s just say the works are…controversial. They are painted in an iconographic style (complete with halos), and feature pagan and secular subjects, from “Merlin of Britain” and a female Jesus (”Christ Sophia”) to Harvey Milk and Martin Luther King, Jr. There’s also an icon that’s supposedly of Jesus called “Lord of the Dance”…you don’t want to know.
Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe, where Br. Lentz’s order is located, apparently expressed some criticism of these images (gracious me, I can’t imagine why) from a professed religious, and Br. Lentz’s order has agreed to stop distributing them. However, Trinity Stores (which is in Colorado, and therefore is not under Archbishop Sheehan’s authority) still has some inventory of them (how much, I don’t know) and intends to continue distributing them until the supply is depleted.
I’m notorious for being able to see both sides of a conflict. So I can see that it’s possible that Trinity Stores cannot afford to simply sit on or dump their existing inventory – I don’t know how much they have on hand, what they paid for it, what their cash flow is like…
On the other hand, part of me is just saying “Look, guys, this is just offensive and wrong. Do the right thing and stop selling the stuff.” Especially considering this excerpt from their mission statement (incorrect capitalization is theirs, not mine):
”Our plan and aspiration is to continually evolve into the Premier Provider of
Catholic, Christian and Spiritual goods and services.”
I note they use extremely inclusive language (”spiritual” may give them some cover for the image of “St. ” Mohandas Gandhi, after all, to say nothing of some of the more overtly pagan images). But if they want to be a “premier provider” of Catholic goods and services, it might behoove them to be a little more sensitive to Archbishop Sheehan’s criticisms. Anyway, I decided to try the “light one candle” approach. Below is the e-mail I sent to Trinity Stores. I’ll let you know if I get a response.
Dear Sir or Madam:
I understand that Trinity Stores intends to continue selling its remaining inventory of Robert Lentz’s more controversial works. I must confess myself disappointed – I would like to think that a business dedicated to serving Catholic Christians would bend further to accommodate the concerns of Archbishop Sheehan. With that said, I do appreciate that Brother Lentz’s order is not continuing to distribute the images, and I realize that, more than likely, you cannot afford to lose the money you’ve already invested in your existing inventory.
I would consider it be a great act of good faith on your part if you would give me an idea of how much remaining inventory you have of the 10 images that concerned Archbishop Sheehan. Although I do not personally have the means to deplete your inventory, I would like to know so I can encourage fundraising to do so. Perhaps we could make an arrangement whereby you would receive something above your original purchase cost but less than the usual retail price of the inventory, to better facilitate reduction of inventory without loss on your part?
Please let me know if you’d be willing to consider something along those lines. I look forward to your response.
Your sister in Christ,
[my name]
There’s another one too – I think he’s a Jesuit – who wrote an icon of Matthew Shepard. I mean, I’m sorry about what happened to him, but come on!
I could see if I could find that website, if you’re interested.
When I hear about stuff like this, I always think of that Bible quote about how everything the devil creates is like a warped twisted Christian thing. Ugh. I cannot remember ANYTHING today. You get what I’m saying – the devil can’t be creative, all he can do is bastardize legitimate stuff.
TBS
I luuuvvveeee your letter. You are just a match made in heaven for me…tell the canuck to propose before i do…just kiiiddiiing
As an Orthodox Christian, it’s heartening to see that RC folks like yourselves can see the travesty and blasphemy behind many of the images (I cannot bring myself to call such schlock “icons”) produced by Robert Lentz and William Hart McNichols.
A couple of years ago, around the time Abp Michael Sheehan’s directive came out, I emailed Trinity Stores. I lied through my teeth in praising Lentz’s work (not too strongly, I had to keep my lunch down), and commenting on the “withdrawal” of certain lines, and how long would they still be available?. Their reply? (I’m paraphrasing here)
“Rest assured, these items will be available for many years to come.”
Hmmmm.
I recently stumbled across Lentz’s icons on another website and loved them–where else can you get an icon of Martin Luther King jr.? I understand how some of his work could be offensive, especially “Merlin of Britain” as you mention. We may have to agree to disagree on “St.” Ghandi as I believe he probably would’ve been Christian if the occupying English imperialists weren’t.
That said, what would you plan to do with the controversial icons if you were able to purchase them through fundraising or otherwise? They may not belong in church, but if I may quote Dr. Jones, “[They] belong in a museum!” Or at least an art gallery.
They may be religiously offensive, but they are culturally significant.
Hi Johnny,
Thanks for the comment. Let’s take these in order…
You may be right about Gandhi – I know he was reputed to have said that he appreciated Christianity but not Christians.
That said, while I have profound appreciation for the contributions that both Gandhi and MLK Jr. made to their respective societies and the world, I cannot share your appreciation (even on a cultural level) of Br. Lentz’s icons of them; and had I been able to raise the funds to purchase the remaining stock, they probably would have found their way either into a landfill or (if appropriate) into some kind of recycling facility.
Why? Because the iconographic style is used for religious works and gives an indisputably and irrevocably religious cast to the work. There is a reason that you can’t find other icons of Dr. King; it is because he is a secular giant but has not been canonized (except perhaps in the Episcopal Church, which has entirely different criteria for sainthood, and a radically different idea of what sainthood means, than the Catholic or Orthodox churches do). There is a world of difference between being a good person/doing a lot of good in the world and being a saint.
In other words, I do not think you can disentangle the cultural significance from the religious offensiveness.
Now, informally speaking, any of those subjects may theoretically be saints, in that they might be in heaven enjoying the beatific vision. (Merlin is a pretty big stretch, though, not least because his historicity is less than certain.) As a Catholic, I am certainly duty-bound to hope and pray that everyone goes to heaven, and that hell is empty (though based on Church-approved visions, that is unlikely).
However, the criteria for formal sainthood in the Catholic (or Orthodox, to my knowledge) Church are such that, to my knowledge, none of the subjects in question are eligible. For one thing, none of them are Catholic (or Orthodox), and the Church doesn’t go around canonizing non-Catholics. There was enough of an uproar when Edith Stein was canonized, because she had converted from Judaism and many Jews felt that it was inappropriate for the Church to canonize her. Especially in light of the fact that she died in a concentration camp – though that was a direct result of the Dutch Catholic bishops speaking out against the Nazis. Ahem – end tangent…
As to their belonging in a museum…I think you would be hard pressed to find a serious art museum that would take them – they are technically reasonably proficient but not (in my very inexpert opinion) especially noteworthy from an artistic standpoint. You could probably very easily persuade a museum of social history, or a museum devoted to the subjects; but as my objection to them is (as stated above) that I do not think you can separate the good from the bad, I would have been disinclined to do so.
So on balance, I suppose it’s a good thing for you and others who like them and think they belong in a museum that I was unable to follow through and buy them up.
Again, thanks for commenting (and for a very thought-provoking comment at that)!