Seven Beautiful Paintings by Bouguereau
For 7 Quick Takes Friday here are seven Bouguereau paintings. Thanks to Jen for hosting. The first one has become one of my favorite paintings, L’Innocence by William Adolph Bouguereau (1825-1905). He was a French Academic painter, a style of painting and sculpture produced under the influence of European academies of art. He was from a family of oil and wine merchants, but his uncle, a Roman Catholic priest, taught him at an early age about classical and Biblical subjects and later helped him obtain a commission to paint portraits for parisioners. With the money he earned he went to Paris and became a student at the École des Beaux-Arts. His paintings are realistic, but also surreal – like how reason and faith naturally go together.
 |
| L’innocence (Innocence) |
 |
| La Vierge au Lys (The Virgin of the Lilies) |
 |
| Self-portrait |
4
 |
| The Difficult Lesson |
5
 |
| Admiration Maternelle (Maternal Admiration) |
6
 |
| La Charite (The Charity) |
 |
| Song of the Angels |
His complete works can be found here.
Category: Art
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Love them all. But especially the first and last. Though there's something about #4… that girl's eyes are mesmerizing. Love that one, too. Beautiful!
I love Bougereau's work! You may want to check out a book on his art by Fronia E. Wissman. I've gotten it from my public library a few times, but should probably just buy it. It's filled with gorgeous pictures.
All favorites of mine, but two of the most moving of all are dis Deposition from the cross and the scourging…amazing, beautiful and oh, so sad. Thanks for sharing the Maternal Admiration one…I feel like that often
I noticed you had quite a few Madonna and Child's.
My personal favorite is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_(1825-1905)_-_Nymphs_and_Satyr_(1873).jpg
It's one I studied in a cultural studies class (I'm not liberal arts major!). But I think it's a wonderful depiction of the way Bouguereau saw an archetypal role of women as the seducer to sin (like Eve…). There's a few of his work at the Minneapolis Institute of Art, and he's wonderful. I completely agree.
Oh. This one too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_(1825-1905)_-_The_Birth_of_Venus_(1879).jpg
-Zach
Zach,
I linked his complete works in my post. He was heavily influenced by the female body, in a dignified and real way.
These paintings are amazing, thank-you for posting
Beautiful.
I feel bad for your children. If they are gay, I hope they don't hurt themselves knowing that there mother will hate them.
These pictures demonstrate such pure and wonderful LOVE! Would you still love your children like that if they were gay? Your previous post makes me think not, which is sad indeed. God would probably be ashamed of your misguided worship.
Anonymous, it's “their”, and none of us Catholic moms would hate our children if they are homosexual. We would love them if they are homosexual, if they are having sex before marriage, if they leave the Church, if they are thieves, if they are adulterers, if they are cutters, etc.
Why on earth would you think a mother would hate her gay child because she is Catholic? Have you ever read the Catechism? Please get yourself educated. Fast.
Stacy, I have used two of those for my Christmas cards! I hadn't seen a few of the ones you have shown here. I adore his work.
Anonymous and Michelle, to help your education on these matters, the Church teaches the following about how we are to treat our homosexual brothers and sisters:
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Can you show me where it teaches us to “hate” our homosexual sons and daughters, neighbors and friends? Please, point it out to me from the teachings you see.
@ Leila: I am sure the posters above appreciate you “education.”
However, the issue here is not what Christianity actually teaches but what the woman writing these blog posts seems to THINK it teachers. I believe the writers above clearly directed their comments toward the author of this blog and not to ALL Christians. Sorry you chose to take it personally though – we can all be a bit egocentric.
Also, considering that this woman is afraid to go to the park for fear of being around homosexuals…it is pretty clear that she hates them and does not love them in any sense of the word. So while I agree with you that the Bible and Christianity teach us to love everyone and NEVER teachers us to hate them, the writer of this blog seems to be a bit of a failure in that regard. If she can't even be around them or let her children see that they exist, she hardly has any love in her heart. Based on her previous posts you would be hard pressed to find evidence that this woman would love her children EXACTLY the same if they were gay. It is women like this that give Christianity a bad name.
Can you imagine if her children are gay? The world is a hard enough place for those individuals, why are people making it harder (like the author here) and why are they doing it in the name of “Christianity?” It is time for the good Christians to call out those misrepresenting the faith.
None of us are perfect, and we should all be willing to forgive and not hold grudges against anyone. To keep harrassing Stacy over a past post is infantile. Why don't you try showing her love instead of hate? Do you have it in you?
Anonymous, I am pretty sure you don't know that much about her life or her children's life. She would love her children no matter what, as we all would. But we would never condone their sins. That is what love requires. We love them, we pray for them, we hope for the best for them. Not the best in the worldly sense of “gosh, I hope they get to do whatever they want so that they can feel happy!” but the best for their eternal souls. Sorry if that offends, you. I hope it doesn't.
And as far as the issues in the park: I hope you can understand, at least on some level, why mothers of small children do not need to be put in the position to explain to little ones why two men or two women are acting like married couples. Why do children have to be sexualized and learn about homosexuality at an age where they should just be allowed to be children? My goodness, even a “married” gay man who came to my blog from this one admitted that he understood that children don't have to be exposed and sexualized like that. He actually “got” that part of it. Do you? Can't we keep our kids innocent at all anymore, at least until they are old enough to process things?
I don't expect you to understand, but I hope you will think about it. And believe me, what you read in the Catechism, above, is exactly what Stacy thinks, because she is a faithful Catholic.
Blessings!
I'm usually loathe to reply to comments that have nothing to do with the topic of the post they appear under, but I guess there's been enough bleed-over from the infamous 'park' thread that it's hard to escape from it at the moment. So:
Leila, the real problem here is that, by your standards, merely explaining to children that homosexuals exist is 'sexualising' them at a young age. This is the same attitude that would label a romantic subplot between two gay characters in a film 'explicit' even if it includes nothing more risqué than a kiss (if even that). It's the kind of double standard that gay people have to deal with every day, and it's a supremely frustrating one because there is seemingly no way to avoid falling into it.
I ask you, who has the greater obsession with sex here – the couple who acts just like any other couple would in public, or the people who look at that couple and decide that exposure to them constitutes the sexualisation of innocent children?
(And to get slightly more on-topic: while I've always found the 'Virgin and babe in arms' theme to be slightly bland, I do love the style of painting on display here. Number 4 in particular is wonderfully understated.)
I feel sorry for your children having such a hateful deranged mother
ah, a convert. Typical. The Catholic Church is being overrun by evangelical nutjobs like you.
See those kids with nooses around their necks? YOU did that.
http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/675
Blood on YOUR hands
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sugexp=gsis,i18n%3Dtrue&cp=8&gs_id=l&xhr=t&q=gay+hate+crimes&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1440&bih=678&wrapid=tljp1315751418872010&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi
We will never forget nor forgive that your HATE leads to our deaths. You are evil incarnate
http://www.matthewshepard.org/
the TRUTH about gay families
http://community.pflag.org/Page.aspx?pid=194&srcid=-2
the TRUTH about the Catholic Church. Funny your afraid to take your kids out in public, but you'll take them to a peophile church?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/tony-walsh-ireland-pedoph_n_798268.html
b
i
g
o
t
So, Stacy, You like to point out the threatening comments from supposed gay activists, so why not highlight ones like this?
“Stand firm against these monsters. It is only a matter of time before Christians reclaim the courts and the government. Soon after we do, abominations like these perverted homosexuals will be put to death as God intends, not by mobs hanging them from trees, but by the courts and the nation.
Christ will once again Rule the United States of America. The homosexuals and perverts will flee or die.”
Oh, that's right, because you're a lying, amoral hypocrite.
Man, you peaceful people are sure not peaceful.
The above comment was from the same IP address that also said very nasty things about my family. It's false. I am keeping track of IP addresses people. Comments are on for now because when I shut them down you flood my email or flood over into other comments.
If disagreement = hate, I wonder what you do to each other when you disagree on something. Seriously.
Anonymous, please, go away. You're disgracing yourself and making the rest of us look terrible by association.
keep the lies coming. These are my first comments on your hate site. Either you're a liar or don't know an IP address from a hole in the ground.
clogging up your media streams is exactly the point.
What about the comment about Christian judges executing gay people, Stacy? Care to comment? or are threats to gay people acceptable in your universe?
The truth is, Stacy, you could ban and block me any time you want (and could certainly block any IP that had previously threatened you–I would think that prudent as well as alerting the authorities). But again, the truth is, which your previous post demonstrates, that you LOVE playing the victim. Agorophobia because of the scary gay people? Please. You are beyond pathetic.
Sean Wills, greetings! Thanks for your civility. It is a refreshing change, sincerely.
Funny you mention obsession with sex, as I wrote a whole post on it, which garnered a lot of comments:
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/06/who-is-obsessed-with-sex.html
Anonymous, you seem like a terribly unhappy person, to your core. I will pray for you to find peace in your life and in your soul. Blessings!
Leila, I'm not sure that post addresses the kind of 'obsession with sex' I was getting at. Look at the most important part of my comment again:
Leila, the real problem here is that, by your standards, merely explaining to children that homosexuals exist is 'sexualising' them at a young age. This is the same attitude that would label a romantic subplot between two gay characters in a film 'explicit' even if it includes nothing more risqué than a kiss (if even that). It's the kind of double standard that gay people have to deal with every day, and it's a supremely frustrating one because there is seemingly no way to avoid falling into it.
What I mean is that there is nothing inherently 'sexual' in, say, two men or two women walking down the road holding hands, just as (I assume you would agree) there is nothing inherently sexual in a straight couple doing the same thing. Obviously, children learn at a young age that people live together in romantic relationships – that knowledge generally comes long before they understand that sexual intercourse is involved, or even before they understand what sexual intercourse is.
So how is it 'sexualising' children to explain to them that same-sex couples exist? Assuming the child involved is not aware of sex already, any explanation need only take the form of explaining that, just as men and women often live together romantically, so too do some pairs of men or some pairs of women. The only way I can think that this constitutes sexualising children is if one believes that the sight of a homosexual couple holding hands (for example) is inherently as 'explicit', for lack of a better term, as the sight of a straight couple engaging in intercourse.
And that, of course, is where the problem lies.
Sean, exactly. I don't want or encourage my children to know about sexual disorders of any kind. If my child saw a pedophile being romantic with a child, I would not say, “Oh, honey, that is just a man being romantic with a child, in the same way that daddy and I are romantic.” Would you?
Obviously, there are differences between a pedophile and a homosexual, but both homosexuality and pedophilia are disordered expressions of sexual affection/attraction. My children don't need to be exposed to it; in fact, no children need to be exposed to it if it can at all be helped.
I hope you can understand.
Ah! I love Bouguereau too!
http://calladus.blogspot.com/2006/11/friday-in-atelier-la-vague-by.html
Excellent taste. Although perhaps our favorite paintings differ? “Broken Pitcher” is one of my favorites.
I hope you can understand.
Well, no, I don't. For starters, you're still referring to 'sexual disorders'. Just to be clear, are you willing to acknowledge that homosexuality comprises of both sexual attraction and romantic feelings towards members of the same sex, or are we still talking exclusively about sex?
Shawn, sorry, I'll try to be more clear: An eros attraction to a member of the opposite sex is a disordered attraction. It is not sinful at that point. To act on the disordered attraction is sinful.
More on that here:
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/07/from-awesome-gay-lifestyle-to-catholic.html
And here:
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2010/10/we-dont-make-determinations-about-who.html
Hope that helps!
The first post helps, although I do have to roll my eyes slightly at the conversion story template. (Were all former atheists/gay people party-going hedonists? Is there not a tight-laced teetotaller among them?)
Let's start with the presumption (or the fact, really) that gay people experience romantic attraction in the same way as straight people:
Gay people do not choose to whom they are attracted, nor with whom they fall in love. As a heterosexual person, if you looked at your spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend, or fiancé and said that you were just going to stop loving him or her at this exact moment, how successful do you think you would be? Not gonna happen.
Rather than quibbling over definitions, let's bring this back to the 'park' scenario. Let's say that you see two men whom you know to be in love with one another walking hand-in-hand in the park – in other words, displaying only the fact that they are romantically involved. They are not having sex in front of you, nor could you surmise from their behaviour that they have ever had sex. You know nothing about them except what you would know from seeing a heterosexual couple in the same situation.
Would you consider it 'sexualising' your children to explain to them that nobody chooses who they love, and that some men choose to love other men? Remember, you do not have to explain sex to them. Call it disordered love if you wish, but remember that explaining it does not involve exposing your children to concepts with which they are not already familiar – if they understand 'love', they can presumably understand disordered love.
With your answer to that question in mind, read this excerpt from the 'parks' post:
The same people who say I shouldn't impose my morality on them, are imposing immorality on me and my children to the point that I literally have a hard time even leaving my home anymore to do something as simple as visit the park. And this is freedom?
If you decided that yes, explaining same-sex romantic feelings to your children is 'sexualising' them, then you're saying that even the least offensive and least sexual display of love between two people of the same sex is 'imposing immorality' on innocent bystanders. That's why I'm being so pedantic here: not because I care about what exactly constitutes a sin under Catholic doctrine, because I don't, but because I'm wondering just how restricted a life I would have to live in order to avoid damaging yours.
Sean, maybe it's best answered this way: There is a gay man on my blog who has said that he and his “husband” do not walk hand in hand in public. I'm going to say that is because he has a modicum of consideration for others, similar to when I was shacking up with my boyfriend but didn't let my parents (in another city) know that was happening. I had a shred of decency to care about their feelings, and I certainly knew on some level that what I was doing was indecent. No need to advertise it.
That same gay man told me that he understood that my children did not need to know about homosexuality. He seemed to instinctively know that it's not good to intrude on a child's latency period.
I will illustrate it this way: Think of the movie The Little Mermaid. There is a cute, sweet, romantic (and innocent) scene where the little froggies are singing “Kiss the Girl” to the couple on the boat. I have no problem with my kids seeing that. If the scene had been two men on the boat, with froggies singing to “Kiss the man”, I would never bring my child to see it. I think most people can understand that. That is not something I want to or should have to explain to my children. They should be left in their innocence, and explaining that two men can want to kiss and make goo-goo eyes at each other is not leaving them innocent. It is normalizing a disorder. Or at the very least, it is causing them to be disturbed at an age where they don't need to be.
I realize that many gay people want to be “visible” as a political tactic. It may well work for you. But even should the whole world think two men kissing is just fantastic, it never actually will be okay.
Just curious: What do you think about the latest movement to normalize pedophilia? I'm guessing you are against it, but why?
Blessings!
I realize that many gay people want to be “visible” as a political tactic. It may well work for you. But even should the whole world think two men kissing is just fantastic, it never actually will be okay.
No. Many gay people want to be visible because the alternative is to lead half a life – a life of needing to constantly hide and lie to neighbours and family members and be afraid of the consequences of being found out. Please, at the very least show enough respect to take people at their word when they say that they're sincere in their motivations. Implying that living openly is nothing more than a 'political tactic' is far more insulting than anything else you've said here.
Just curious: What do you think about the latest movement to normalize pedophilia? I'm guessing you are against it, but why?
Sexual relationships between adults and children are psychologically harmful to the child. Children also aren't capable of consenting to acts that they don't understand, which is why I also don't support sexual relationships between a mentally healthy person and someone who is either severely mentally ill or has an intellectual disability – you cannot consent to something that you can't comprehend. It's the same reason why young girls are, in most countries, no longer married to older men.
(Of course, I'm talking about children here. I'm willing to concede that there are probably older teenagers who are under the age of consent but could carry out a sexual relationship, but I would say that the potential for abuse and manipulation if an older person is involved should be reason enough to make it illegal.)
Sean, honestly considering the rage from the LGBT community — and I realize that isn't how everyone behaves, but it is an abnormal amount of rage from a group of people — there appears to be something psychologically harmful to the homosexual lifestyle.
It isn't normal for that many people to spend their time looking for someone to “bash” one right after another. I've visited the websites and looked around. That's what they do; I've had a couple of people even explain that in emails.
Leila,
I certainly hope I am not that gay “married” man you are referring to here, or it will just show that you really didn't read anything I said.
First I don't think children need to learn about homosexuality. But I also don't think they should be sheltered from it. I do think children should be allowed to be innocent as long as possible. I don't see two people of the same gender showing affection to be sexualizing them, especially after you stated that you would have no problem letting your children watch a male female kiss in an animated film. I don't see how one is sexualizing them where the other isn't. I don't think I ever said anything that would give you that implication.
And as for walking down the streets not holding hands, I don't do it because I am not comfortable with holding hands. What you seem to have glossed completly over is that I have no problem touching my husband in public. I could care less if people on the street are uncomfortable with it, it is all about what I find comfortable.
And for the “shred of decency”, well you seem to have none towards me with the “husband” and the “married”. As I stated before, Massachusetts law allows me to call him my husband, agree or don't agree, it is a legal term, that is what he is.
Please don't misintrept my words and use them for your arguements against what I believe in.
Sean,
“…I'm wondering just how restricted a life I would have to live in order to avoid damaging yours.”
This is what got so misunderstood in my one post. My frustration is in KNOWING that oppose homosexual behavior is to get attacked. Look what happened?
You don't have to live a restricted life, but given the enormous different in the “Kiss the Girl” scenario Leila described it shouldn't be too much to ask for people to use a little consideration in public places where it is entirely likely that there are parents who aren't ready to explain that to children. You make it our business when you know something offends people and you do it anyway just to dare them to say something.
*umm, sorry for all the typos – distractions!
Stacy, political and religious debate on the internet will always be charged – moreso than than the topic deserves, in many cases. If you were to look at the comments thread on any given site covering video game news (for example), you'd likely come to the conclusion that playing games turns people into frothing lunatics. It's the nature of anonymity, I'm afraid.
And as I said above, I do not express my love for someone as a shock tactic. I can guarantee you that the great majority of gay people do not do it either. I do it because, in my naivety, I've started to assume that society is no longer at the stage where I'm treated like a second-class citizen. For someone used to living in terror of their sexuality being discovered, making any sort of public display of affection is never easy. To this day, I still hear the insults and slurs I've had directed at me ringing in my ears when I do anything the least bit 'revealing' in public. I'm still aware of the fact that, in the city closest to where I live, it would inviting bodily harm to hold another man's hand in public. And now you're trying to tell me that I'd risk doing it just to make a point?
I'm honestly dismayed that you think this way. I started this conversation with the assumption that we were treating each other with a sense of equal dignity and good faith. Apparently, I was giving you both too much credit.
That's the divide Sean. See, we don't give in to freaky and base natures under anonymity. That doesn't register with me. There's something wrong with anyone who would hide anonymously and then be intentionally hateful to someone. It's cowardly.
Likewise I would never hurl insults at someone. Maybe that's why all the anonymous commenters assume that I would — they think we are like them. We're not. This is me that you are talking to. A real person.
The Church, too, welcomes people who struggle with same-sex attraction. We do not condone anyone treating you like a second class citizen. Mutual respect for each other is necessary to get along in society.
I hope you can understand our concern is for our children, and there are all kinds of things we teach them not to do in public to get along.
alan, my apologies if I misrepresented you. I thought it was honorable of you to say that children do not need to know that homosexuality occurs. Can I get you on record to say that the California mandate that homosexuality be brought to the attention of all public school children from Kindergarten is wrong? I hope you will agree!
I still don't fully get your position, for example, should there be no sweet romantic tales for children at all (innocent ones)? I don't mind that at all and I can't imagine who would (who would get rid of fairy tales and Snow White and such?). I hope you are not saying all that has to go because it is “sexualizing”. Of course it isn't. But to make gay fairy tales for children? That would be introducing them to something that they don't need, and it would definitely intrude on their innocence. It is not ordered, despite your wishes, that two “princes” find romance together. I'm sorry, but that is just the truth.
Sean, I have a regular gay commenter, Zach, who is the head of his GLBT club at college, who tells his group all the time that they should “be visible” — that is the way to “acceptance”. Sorry if you had not heard of that as a tactic.
I am very interested in this idea that pedophilia is harmful and yet gay sex is normal and healthy. I am planning to do a post on it, soon. I see so many parallels in the normalization of each. This idea that “consent” is the sole criterion of the good is problematic.
How does mere “consent” make an act moral? You can see inherent problems with that, no?
Also, if sex is simply about pleasure and expressing love… then on what basis do you deny that to children? Planned Parenthood, after all, constantly hammers home the point that children are “sexual beings” from birth and have a right to sexual pleasure.
So, help me flesh it out.
Thanks!
Excuse my comma splices and typos, too!
Leila,
I don't think I said children don't need to know homosexuality exists, I merely don't think they need to be taught it. I don't agree with the California mandate that homosexuality be brought to the attention of kindergartners. I don't think that “gay” history needs to be taught in schools at all. But I fear that we differ on what teaching means. For you teaching appears to be they should not hear about it at all. They should not know it exists. Am I incorrect in that? But now to completely avoid that homosexuals exist is just kind of ignorant. Some kids know in elementary school that they are attracted to their own gender. So for them avoiding it is confusing. Especially when all the fairy tales show that what they find as “normal” is anything but.
I don't know when is the best time to make them aware of it. That is hard to say. See my nephews have seen me and my husband since they were young. The know we are married and it really doesn't seem to be an issue. Best as I know they have not asked Mom and Dad anything about it. Kids sometimes just take things at face value. It is what it is.
So for the fairy tales, why is it unthinkable that I would do away with fairy tales that show Snow White searching for her Prince Charming? If you find two men kissing sexualizing I don't see how a man and a women kissing is not sexualizing? Why should kids not read about Prince Charming meeting Prince Charming? I just don't see the difference, but see I don't see homosexuality as disordered, but you know that. And just because you say it is so does not make it so. Just because I say it is so does not make it so.
And please bear in mind that truth is also subjective. Yeah there are some truths. If we don't breathe we die. That is a truth. But so much of what both you and I see as truth may not be.
Stacy, you would never condone treating me like a second-class citizen…yet you want me to live my life as though my relationships are harmful to children and not fit to be seen in public? Am I understanding you correctly?
Leila, the fact that the head of an LGBT club somewhere advocated visibility as a political tactic does not justify massive generalisations about all or even most gay people. We're not all 'activists', and those of who are don't go around advancing an agenda 24/7. I'll ask you outright: do you accept that gay people can and do show affection for each other in public for legitimate reasons, or do you always interpret it as a political tactic?
I am very interested in this idea that pedophilia is harmful and yet gay sex is normal and healthy. I am planning to do a post on it, soon. I see so many parallels in the normalization of each. This idea that “consent” is the sole criterion of the good is problematic.
I never said that it was. I said that consenting to sex along with competence to consent and understanding of the act is the criterion for whether it should be legal or illegal.
alan, I understand that you believe in objective scientific truth (so do I). But do you believe in an objective moral truth? Is there a moral law, just as there are physical laws of nature?
Sean, same question to you, since you are couching the pedophilia discussion in terms of law, not morality.
And no, I don't think every act of affection between homosexuals in public is a political act. But I do believe that the homosexual movement has been brilliant at politics and tactics. And those strategies have changed over the decades to fit what would work.
Do you disagree?
Alan, you are definitely correct in that I do not believe that young children should know that homosexuality exists. There is plenty of time for them to learn things like that when they are older. Not when they are little. It is a violation of their innocence and latency period.
Leila,
No I do not believe in moral truth as I don't believe it exists in absolutes. See you see homosexuality as immoral, but so many don't. So is your belief the moral truth or is mine? We can argue points until the cows come home, but fact is we will never know who is right.
Pedophelia causes harm (and you can continue to say the homosexual lifestyle does, but again in my opinion you are wrong) to the child. Children are not ready to accept sexual acts. They do not understand them nor should they. And I think we can all agree that consent and ability to consent goes a long way in this area. See even if they did consent they would not know what they are consenting to. That is why there are laws in regards to age of consent.
As for morals, tricky area. My definition would be more along the lines if one were forced, something of yours was taken by someone who had no rightst to it, or if someone is harmed by the act of another those would be morally wrong.
But now I will ask you, you said you had the decency to not let your parents know you were “shacking up”. How do you justify that as decency? It is lying. Is that moral? I understand now you understand the error of your ways, but even now to dismiss it as having the decency to hide it is just ridiculous.
And Leila I will ask are you speaking of the laws of nature or natural law? They are different.
Alan, when I speak of natural law I mean natural law. Not “laws of nature”. It is a common misunderstanding.
As far as “lying” to my parents. Actually, a lie is when you don't tell the truth to someone who asks and has a right to know. Are you saying it's a moral imperative for me to walk around telling every one of my family members and friends what I do on a daily basis? That is not a moral imperative that I have ever heard of, in any moral philosophy that I have studied. Can you point me to something that would require that, or that defines “lying” as such? That is a new one to me.
Check my post today, as I talk about the slippery slope to pedophilia that everyone seems to dismiss. Including the lower of the age of consent.
Blessings!
Leila,
LOL, I understand what a lie is. Do you not think one can lie by deception? Your parents never asked the question so thusly they never deserved to know? You knew they would disagree with it so you did not tell them. In my opinion (and we all know the quote about opinions) you didn't tell your parents because you didn't want their reaction. You did it to save you not them.
Are you still married to this person with whom you shacked up?
And I don't think I can check your post about pedophilia. I think the major points you are missing are these. 1. Most do not accept, nor will never accept pedophilia. 2. Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality.
Alan, yep I married the agnostic Jew that I shacked up with! Twenty-one years and eight kids later.
He is now a devout Catholic.
Actually, that is not a lie at all. If I am required to tell my sins to all, otherwise I “lie”, then can you imagine what we all must tell each other? Go ahead, Alan, tell me the worst, darkest thing you have ever done. What? You won't? But then you are guilty of the sin of lying!
Now, you claim with some authority that they “deserved” to know my sin, in other words, are entitled to hear my sins. Can you elaborate? Why and in what way did they deserve to know? Why was my obligation to tell them rather than to say nothing one way or another? In actuality, the only one who was entitled to hear that sin was my God and my priest confessor. Confession of sins is a private matter, unless there is a public restitution required (i.e., murderers should go to prison, etc.).
(By the way, for an indepth discussion of the moral law and precepts, including the issue of lying, there is a great book called “Moral Theology” that you can get on Amazon. It's from TAN publishers, fyi.)
It's too bad you won't go to address my post.
1. Most at one time did not accept homosexuality or abortion, either.
2. I did not say they were the same, other than both are sexual sins.
Please, at least try to refute my thesis… Did you read the International Planned Parenthood document? How can you refute what they are saying if you won't go and look?
Blessings!
One more thing, alan, which I can't believe I forgot! There is something called “causing scandal” which is also a grave sin. That is when one sins publicly, without shame. Flaunting sin. To cause scandal would include to live together in sin openly. The fornication is one sin, but the openness about it would have been a second sin. Had I openly told of my sin, instead of exercising discretion, I would have been guilty of the second sin of scandal.
So, not only was I not committing the sin of lying, I was in fact doing one good thing in all my sinfulness: My discretion was guarding the others around me, lest I cause “little ones to stumble” and fall into sin by my example, or lest I give scandal to those in the community around me.
I had enough sense to know that sin was still sin, and I knew I was sinning as I lived that life. I would never be so presumptuous as to say that my actions were some kind of good thing. I knew I was a sinner, and I kept on sinning. To my shame of course, but at least I didn't try to sugarcoat it, or make it seem virtuous. And at least I didn't cause scandal.
Hope that makes sense!
God has been very merciful to me. He is merciful towards all who will turn back to Him.
I love #4 too…it's my daughter then & now!
Beautiful paitnings.
I particularly liked No. 5 – 'The Lesson' – the child reminds me of my friends' daugher (Jewish mother, Irish Catholic father).
BVM and child pictures altho' often beautiful, are very idealised and Western. Both Jesus and Mary would have had quite dark, Arab skin (in addition to teeth the British could be proud of and lice!).
I am staying in Walsingham for the next week – I will see if I can take any good photographs at the various shrines to the BVM while there.
Thanks for this:
P.
P.S. – just looking at No. 5 again – and I am entranced by the child's feet! I love small children's and babies' feet, they are so neat and perfect. I think in many ways they are a worthy illustration of what happens to us as we age – as adults' feet are usually pretty revolting; I hate even showing my feet in public!
P.
I LOVE HIS WORK! I want to order the first one to hang in my home.