Debate: Is it a sin to destroy a blasphemous artwork?

It is positively virtueous to destroy such blasphemous anti-art. These French Catholics are heroes, God bless them.

The problem is that Christian objects may be destroyed by atheists because they find them “highly offensive.”. We have already seen Christian objects removed from public view because some politically correct idiot might be offended.

It is normatively intrinsically morally disordered to destroy private property of value to the owner – therefore if you commit an act of destruction towards its own end – you sin.
Only in the prevention of an objective moral evil is it permissible to commit an intrinsically morally disordered act under the remit of moral dilemma [the flipside of double effect - which people generally confuse with double effect which is the commission of a morally disordered act [not intrinsically] towards a greater moral ordering].

Is it art? a symbolisation of the perceived order? or is it merely malevolence and mendacity?

Is it blasphemous? Some artworks by their very nature are indeed blasphemous – the objective defiance is manifestly obvious without needing to consider any intention behind it – e.g. the earrings made from two desiccated aborted foetuses; or the ‘ball Christ’ where a simple wooden cross has two wooden balls attached to it to represent testes and invites the viewer to touch the artwork and engage in a mock-sexual act – this can only be deemed satanic!

Aquinas makes it quite clear that the objective blasphemy is nowhere near so important in the sin’s gravity as the product of wilful blasphemy – in other words it’s not what the artwork is saying – it’s what the artist is saying through the artwork. This may sound dangerously close to intentionalism but when it comes to art the artist’s intention can be crucial ; for the most inoffensive-looking of artworks might be the product of a deplorable blasphemous hatred. Think of the seemingly innocuous lyrics to certain songs until you realise the double-entendres and innuendos/slang involved and discover their depravity.

Intention matters: One need only consider the tale of an Irish prist on the run from Cromwell’s troops hiding sacred vessels in the only safe place he knew the troops wouldn’t look – a dungheap!

Supposing an artist presented a crucifix in a tank of urine or smeared in blood to a Bishops Conference to deliver a message reflecting the reality of what they were doing to Christ?

If an artist goes too far against modern sentiments or the sacred symbols of religious beliefs?
Would it be Tasteless? or Scandalous? or Blasphemous?
Inexcusable?

If it were merely tasteless? Well Catholicism doesn’t have much time for the heresy of ‘taste’ and ‘good manners’ which invariably place limitations on Truth – the Person of Christ.

If it were scandalous? Well the question would revert to the intention.

But if it were blasphemous – which to all intents and purposes it objectively is – irrespective of the intention/unintention of the perpetrator – well yes – we would be compelled to act against an objective evil by any action which was not objectively evil in itself – and in this case destruction would be permissible – NOTE: NOT GOOD – merely right recourse of action – it is merely restitution and the diminution of the grave moral disorder inherent in the situation which has been wrought by a world scarred with original sin in which by our own sins we have all collaborated.

Were these French protesters doing the right thing by their attack?
Awkward, distasteful but truthful answer is Yes!!!

Is it bad to vandalise a work of vandalism? The answer is of course not. Vandalism per se is bad, but adding something bad on it does not make it worse. And since when is something blasphemous art?

The very act of vandalizing or destroying such a piece immediately give it more notoriety or credence than deserved, and thus achieves exactly what the “Artist” intended. If you really want to tick off that sort of “artist”, ignore them. Turning the other cheek isn’t easy, but it’s the mature thing.

I would destroy it also!! I would never destroy the person who created it!

I hate it when people abuse free speech and free expression – it’s supposed to be used to express differing and sometimes difficult opinions so that people can have good discussions and think rationally about something. When you say or depict something that is intended to provoke an angry response, you’ll get a reaction, all right, but not necessarily real thought or discussion. In addition to being immature enough to think “just because I can do something, I will,” the artist is being manipulative – if we do nothing, he gets to assert his ability to do what he wants and we look weak, but if you oppose him violently, he gets publicity and we look intolerant. We shouldn’t be manipulated. The protestors have a right to protest and to fight bad speech or opinions with better speech or opinions (a nice middle ground between bad alternatives is usually the best place to stand), but destruction will only make the protestors look like they can’t handle criticism of any kind and embolden the artist to try to top his previous “best.” And besides, the artworks are someone else’s property. So, for rhetorical and moral reasons, I say we take the high road. We can always pray for his soul and his eventual conversion, and in the meantime, let’s not give him more publicity.

At least, so says the angel on my shoulder. The devil on my other shoulder says we should leave the artwork alone, submerge the artist in a clear tank of whatever interesting fluid we choose, take a few pictures, and see how he likes it. I think I’ll stick with the angel, though – if violence against an object is bad, violence against a person is worse.

I’m surprised this happened. It reminds me, in a small way, of the burning of Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses.”

This photograph is offensive only because of its title and how it was achieved. Ironically, the very contempt of placing a crucifix in a jar of urine mirrors the contempt of those who crucified our Lord in the first place. It is not beyond the reach of imagination to suggest that the Roman soldiers might have done more to express their contempt and brutality than merely hit and spit.

When I look at the photograph, I am struck by the nobility of Christ Crucified despite the title. Urine cannot diminish Him. The title cannot diminish Him. Nearly two thousand years ago, no matter what was done to Christ’s own precious body, His own nobility could not be diminished.

Despite the artist’s intentions (whatever they were) the colours and light are beautiful and misty. I dislike this photograph only because it represents contempt. However, that in itself gives us a meditation on the events of Good Friday. Usually artists portray the Crucifixion with reverence. This artist portrays the Crucifixion with the same spirit as the crucifiers. Instead of ripping up his work (which is futile as presumably it will last for centuries on negatives and in prints), we should merely note it as an example of how the World still knows Him not.

I’m surprised this happened. It reminds me, in a small way, of the burning of Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses.”

This photograph is offensive only because of its title and how it was achieved. Ironically, the very contempt of placing a crucifix in a jar of urine mirrors the contempt of those who crucified our Lord in the first place. It is not beyond the reach of imagination to suggest that the Roman soldiers might have done more to express their contempt and brutality than merely hit and spit.

When I look at the photograph, I am struck by the nobility of Christ Crucified despite the title. Urine cannot diminish Him. The title cannot diminish Him. Nearly two thousand years ago, no matter what was done to Christ’s own precious body, His own nobility could not be diminished.

Despite the artist’s intentions (whatever they were) the colours and light are beautiful and misty. I dislike this photograph only because it represents contempt. However, that in itself gives us a meditation on the events of Good Friday. Usually artists portray the Crucifixion with reverence. This artist portrays the Crucifixion with the same spirit as the crucifiers. Instead of ripping up his work (which is futile as presumably it will last for centuries on negatives and in prints), we should merely note it as an example of how the World still knows Him not.

Jesus whipped the money-changers in the temple for their descecration of what deserves to be reverenced. I say “sock it to them.” Let them know the faithful aren’t door mats to be mocked and pushed around. Let them know they’ve gone to far. These so-called artists are nothing more than brat kids who will push and push and intimidate and dominate. You have to spank their butts and teach them a lesson. Christians are so brainwashed into being “nice” we have forgotten “holy anger.” It’s okay to be zealous for the things of God. Note: These artists aren’t descrating Mohammed are they? Why not?

It’s not our Cheek to turn Michael….

asking this question is like asking “is it a sin to assassinate Hitler”… uh, NO!

I love your line “Urine cannot diminish Him”. That surely deserves a place in some liturgy or other.

The argument here doesn’t seem to be about whether this is a work of art (and therefore of greater value than any old snapshot) or not but that it is a piece of private property. Obviously we have to maintain a fairlyhigh level of respect for private property in order to maintain social order.

But if we are going to say that it is morally legitimate to destroy those objects one holds to be blasphemous one could go so far as to ask whether it is morally legitimate for Christians to burn copies of the Koran or Muslims copies of The Bible. In both cases, each religion sees something blasphemous in the other’s book. The Koran denies the divinity of Christ while The Bible affirms it. But no one’s seriously going to suggest this is a legitimate for Christians and Muslims to proceed.

However, there is clearly another issue here that is not strictly related to the content or subject matter or the offending piece of private property. In both the case of The Bible and The Koran neither was written with the expressed intention of blaspheming, nor with the expectation that the text would be blasphemous and cause a public sensation for that reason. In the case of this photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine it is difficult to see how the person who made this could not have known that such a photograph would cause offence to Christians. Rather than being an assertion of what the maker of this photograph believes to be the truth about the world (as is the case with The Bible and The Koran) this does seem to be primarily an artistic attempt to publicly undermine Christianity. By doing so the artist in question must have knowingly taken the risk that his work would cause a serious offence to Christians. Even if causing offence was not his principle reason for making this photograph he should still have known what effect it was likely to have. This alone might be good reasons for not putting the photograph on public display. However, if his intention was to cause serious offence for no other reason than sensation then the work should definitely be censored.

As you can see I would err on the side of censorship rather than any kind of vigilantism. Just as the photograph in question causes offence to Christians so too public acts of vandalism are an assault on the concept of private property. For this reason I would say it is definitely not acceptable to commit such acts of vandalism for the sake of the serious offence this will cause to the necessary idea of private property. However, I also believe the work should be taken out of a public gallery and should not be shown.

Destroying a blasphemous work of art is good; the only issue is the matter of by what authority. Poor, stupid Serrano’s look-at-me-ness is obvious, but let us remember that some folks think dance a blasphemy.

There are several differences between assassinating Hitler and destroying a work of art that makes you cross, but for me the key one is that Serrano’s picture has not caused collossal genocide and global war. Had it done so, I’d be all for trashing it.

Turn the other cheek? No? – you want to give into the intended provocation that the artist seeks.
Then they get the response they want, and we just add fuel to the fire.
Nothing improves – and it makes us look as if we cannot win the intellectual argument – which we can.

 Coudln’t have typed that better myself.