Comments on: There Is A Line, Nor Is He This Side Of It

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 02:09:24 +0000

As an ordained Minister, I must say I would not object, generally speaking, if 2 People were sexual with each Other in Our church. Granted, We would prefer They have permission first (absent extenuating circumstances which would preclude such permission being obtained).

By: publius

publius — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 02:19:40 +0000

“Would you consider two (or more) consenting adults having sex in a church offensive?”

I know this is an old post, but I felt it useful to point out that Canon Law specifically allows a married couple to engage in sexual intercourse in a Catholic church, although not during worship services. The permission is qualified, of course, requiring that there be nowhere else they can reasonably do it — one imagines that this would occur, say, if the townsfolk have taken refuge in the church due to flooding, or if newlyweds are being hunted by angry relatives. (Romeo & Juliet, anyone?)

By: Seraph

Seraph — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:39:30 +0000

“So, despite the local parishioners feeling violated about “their” church being desecrated, I see the building and it’s contents more like a public domain. They may have created it, paid for it and worshipped it, but ultimately they have set it free for others to enjoy regardless of their religion, background or intent.”

That’s kind of like saying, “because you invited me into your home, I can take a shit on your carpet.”

As someone involved in church, and involved with a preacher’s child, I know how much effort goes into making the building of a good church place where parishioners and visitors feel safe and loved. So despite anyone’s feelings about the religion practiced inside, that doesn’t make it okay for a photographer to trespass* and shoot images that would make the owners of the space feel uncomfortable.

This is similar to, say, a blog’s comment policy: Bacchus has graciously opened this space for discussion, but that doesn’t mean we can say nasty things about him or each other here. He’s within his rights to delete any comments that violate the spirit of his forum.

Granted, some of these images are beautiful and thought provoking. But a lot of them are a cheap way to get a rise out of the viewers.

*though one should hope that such trespasses will be forgiven. /lame joke

By: jaguar

jaguar — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:42:55 +0000

Would you consider two (or more) consenting adults having sex in a church offensive? Would it be acceptable if they loved the specific site and each other and meant to do something they ultimately considered meaningful and beautiful? Would it change if they did it to be profane, as a deliberate act of sacrilege for whatever reason? Is this tawdry because someone is doing it just to make a buck? How does this relate to the artist who has women strip naked in Art museums twenty feet away from nude statues and paintings? Museums are not churches but they are considered by some to be temples of Art.
I’m not personally for this, I’m someone who is bothered by tattoos because it’s hard for me to see them and not think of the holocaust–a purely personal leap of imagination that very few tattoo artists or consumers make, I’m sure, but I’m a little curious about the slope it implies.

By: Jodie

Jodie — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:49:01 +0000

To me, it’s like well-done graffiti on the side of a building – the art is beautiful, yes, but the artist didn’t ask permission before painting.

By: ubernoir

ubernoir — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:00:31 +0000

I was reminded of Tony Harrison’s poem V http://plagiarist.com/poetry/5618/

By: ubernoir

ubernoir — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:33:05 +0000

it is an attack on a symbolic space like a war memorial, or a grave might be considered a symbolic space
you’re right it’s not exactly about free speech and I don’t think it’s about property rights either. It is incivility and a lack of respect for other people. It seems so pointless. No statement is being made that I can see — “if the artist had laboriously simulated the background for these photos in his studio” it would have cost money and this was the cheap option. I just imagine a group of elderly parishioners who have never really hurt anybody having what they would regard as a sacred space violated. It’s tawdry.