www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Abortion Icon

Daniel,

First the we who speak from tradition are being vilified is a crock. Your selections of suitable replacements should have been noted, and implying that church groups that have done the theological research before commission an icon implies theological ignorance. I can be extremely traditional in church art, but the tone and implication caused alarm bells to go off. Especially by another poster referring to a human life depicted as a "thing".

There are many and several traditions in iconography. The depicition may not be of your school or taste. That is a matter of preference.

My problem with the way that it has been handled is that it could have been used as an educational piece to point up what should have been done differently. Instead you make implications that it is of a new age school, Bridge Building Icons or Monastery Icons.

I do not excuse my tone in any way and it stands for the reasons I stated above. All I can say is by the your previous display you certainly have villified yourself with other posters on this board, by the manner in which you have presented earlier.

Father Anthony+

Father, bless! Just yesterday you granted that the icon of Christ and the fetus was "controversial". In 24 hours you seem to have come to the conclusion that to object to this [unprecedented] innovation is merely a matter of subjective taste.
Allegory and naturalistic depictions of fetal life are not iconographic concepts. I appeal to Tradition and don't see you doing the same.
Calm down and show us how this is consistent with what has gone before.
Again, I am not an Iconographic Fundamentalist. I work with acrylics, I write icons of St Joseph with the Christ child [which some Orthodox object to] and I paint Western saints.
I do not, however, see how these strange paintings can be considered icons.
-Daniel

Daniel,

I agree that it may be controversial, but the burden of proof rests with you by proving theologically and by canon that they are not icons.

What set me off for your information, is what I have eluded two in previous posts, the reference by Rose2 that what was depicted is not a human life but a "thing". That is the reference of the Pro-Choice groups. For any Catholic or Orthodox to make that kind of statement I find to be abhorrant, and contrary not only to church teaching, but biblical teaching as well. I suggest next time she encounters a pregnant woman, to ask her how that "thing" in her womb is. I will certainly contribute to the hospital bills that she will incur.

Use my suggestion (I could care less about the first image, for I find that to be a story board instead of an icon) proofs of theology and canon to show that it is an innovation. Then the parties involved should be notified of this so that it may be withdrawn.

That's the challenge there. I am no fundamentalist myself when it comes to Church Art, but right now I still stay with my original premise, it is controversial as an icon.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

I have nothing intellectual to add, but I will let you know my gut feelings.

These images DO make me think. (And thinking of those who are dealing with these issues makes me pray for them.) But the images themselves don't seem to help me connect with God directly.

I am not casting a vote to "YES, they are an icon" NOR to "NO, they are not an icon". But I seem to be leaning (at least for the second one depicting Christ and the fetus) to the "NOT YET" side. (How is that for non commital.)

Could this kind of image be refined (perhaps a lot, perhaps a total overhaul) and then 'become' icons? Currently both images seem to me to be missing that sence of holyness and peace that Icons need to have. (Personally the first image does not do anything for me.) They both seem to say "judgement" and "in your face"; and not "mercy" and "love" which is essential.

I have a suspition that God's love of an unborn child is not totally out of place in iconography though, if done well.

Obviously they are not traditional (I like traditional), but the Church is not static. She is alive and growing. I do understand and appreciate what the persons who painted these images are trying to say, but these two examples are "not yet there" in my oppinion (I think). I do think that there is room for further exploration and perhaps work to be done.

Wow what a topic!

Kadylo

Since Father Anthony has continued to refer to my posts and criticize me publicly, I've come out of "self-banishment" (my temperment is not liking to confrontational meetings) to say:

Father Anthony, in attempting to chastise myself and Daniel for our iconic views, you yourself have presented yourself to "not only the members here but many who are guests" in an extremely dictatorial manner.

I am not prochoice and your assuming that this is my stance is completely narrow minded and simply a foolish conclusion on your part. My reference to the fetus inserted in the Christ icon as being a "thing" was only used to emphasize the unacceptable graphic artistic naturalistic choice painted over a traditional icon. I'm sorry you were not able to understand my remarks.

Personal attacks of this nature could surely have been made to me by PM and not broadcasted in a prideful manner for everyone's entertainment.

Daniel's statement: is exactly the point being made.

From Kadylo post: I've noticed in your "profile" that you have chosen to identify yourself with this, as Kadylo describes "judgement and in your face" picture. I respect your choice of imagery - however, at the same time I have noticed that this says a lot about yourself.


Incognitus said:
This is my understanding also. Perhaps Father, you can go back and read his entire post.

Gordo brought the reference to mediums into this conversation. I was only responding to his remark.

Finally Father Anthony, if your Orthodox Church has approved of this picture, as you have said, then so be it - for your church. I presume the artist's intentions were sincere though I continue to assert they are not in line with tradtional icon norms. Being an iconographer is not a simple paint and brush endeavor.

I would earnestly request that you desist out of Christian charity from attacking me in your future posts.

Amen - again!

Dear Rose,

It is not so much as an attack as you may think it is, but I am calling into account your poor choice of words. Take it as you want there will be no apology from me on this. Your replies previously have been anything to refrain from a like response, most of which I have chosen to ignore. If you want a refrain from like responses, I would be careful to wording and how you direct it.

For the record I hold no anomosity towards you, just as I have stated to Daniel in my last post that it be proven as such to be non-theological or against canons. If not I take your views to be subjective.

Father Anthony+

Two points:

1. Since the icon is on the website of �Orthodox Christians for Life� and has been accepted by Orthodox Christians and blessed by their hierarchs as a legitimate icon, it seems that those who might reject it as being outside Holy Tradition should provide a detailed support of such a claim.

2. I will agree with Father Anthony on Rose�s unintentional poor choice of words. I hope that all of us can accept that, even if one is not drawn to the icon, one can agree that it is inappropriate to refer to a fetus as a �thing�.

I agree that Rose chose her words unwisely. However, I think what she was reacting against is the grotesque nature of the image. An unborn baby does not hover in its little womb-capsule; he resides within the mother. Portraying him as an independent entity is bizarre. Indeed though I am skeptical of allegorical icons, if instead of a disembodied fetus, "aborted" by the iconographer, Christ held a mandola with a mother and unborn child I don't think I would have been so appalled by the image.
I don't believe that the Church or iconography are static; I am open to new iconographic depictions. However, as such an image has never been seen in the history of the Church- Christ holding a disembodied, detached human fetus in his little space bubble- the burden of proof is on the innovator. I would be interested in reading the iconographer's justification for this image.
-Daniel

Hello,

The Cross too, for that matter.

Why not? Doesn't the Psalmist sing to the Lord who knitted him in his mother's womb? What's wrong with having an icon expressing precisely the same idea?

Shalom,
Memo

Iconography is, indeed, a language, and a discussion of standards of language is often bound to be subjective. However, it is not meaningless to speak of linguistic standards. Nor is it meaningless to speak of iconographic standards.

Pseudo-icons are, unfortunately, a reality of our time: people take some aspects of iconography which appeal to them and knowingly or otherwise (one hopes it is otherwise) paint something which at first glance looks like an icon and at second glance looks like a blasphemy (that atrocious portrayal of "the Holy Family" is a particularly horrid case in point, but one does assume that the perpetrator is not deliberately denying the Virgin Birth).

This is among the reasons which require good iconographers to study for many years, to be able to know instinctively what will do and what will not do.

Someone mentioned Robert Lentz, of all people. He is capable of painting magnificent icons, and he is capable of painting something rather different. But since neither of those would make a particularly edifying discussion, I shall mention instead his (otherwise rather lovely) attempt to paint an icon of the Hieromartyr Oscar Romero - with the inscription in Greek, English and Slavonic, but without a word of Spanish! Talk about linguistic confusion!

Incogntius

Hi,

Because an embryo is not part of the interior of the human body.

An embryo *is* a human. Therefore, an image of an embryo is an image of the exterior of the human body.

Not me.

Granted, probably has no precedent, but that is not enough for me to write it off as offensive or otherwise incorrect.

I value traditions, but I do not worship them.

Because that would not be true.

I was never an egg. The very same moment an egg was fertilized by a sperm the egg became an embryo, God created my immortal soul (or spirit or whatever you guys want to call the non-physical component of the human nature) and united it to that embryo, and I began to exist.

Once I was an embryo, even a single-cell one. I was never an egg. That egg was not me.

When I receive Holy Communion I do not think "Christ once was bread". Those are two completely different natures and they are never united in any way. Consecration replaces one with the other.

Likewise, the egg and me never coexisted.


Ah, but in such a case whose opinion shall prevail?

But an unborn fetus even in earlier stages of development than the one depicted on this icon *IS* a human child, that is the whole point.

We do have icons who portray the Lord both as an adult and as a child, and they do look different. On the icons depicting Christ as a child, He looks like a child, not like a mini-adult.

It does follow that depicting aging and maturity on an icon is entirely acceptable.

This icon is only extending the same notion to a stage of development previous to the "birth event".

My only suggestion has already been discussed: I'd like to see "mom" somewhere in there, but I understand that might "ruin" the icon.

Shalom,
Memo

Hello all,

Just for the record, let me state that I do not think the original picture discussed in this thread qualifies as an icon.

Perhaps the "left" portion of it does, as it indeed expresses a truth of the Christian faith, that is, that rasing a happy, healthy and holy family is a task of great value, one abundantly blessed by the Lord.

The "right" part of it could perhaps be part of an icon, as the enemies of Christ and Christianity do find their way into icons from time to time. However, when they do, they serve the purpose of highlighting the victory of Christ over them.

This picture, in my opinion, doesn't offer this insight. It just presents a contrast between two groups of people not quite obviously connected with each other.

Both sides of the picture are more or less of the same proportions, the triumph and lordship of Christ is not proclaimed by the icon in any obvious way. The picture would even seem to be a little "dualistic" in nature (on one side, good guys doing good things with their good God; on the other side, bad guys doing bad things with their bad "god"). See what I mean?

Is the picture a good catechetical material? Certainly.

Is it an icon? Humbly, I'd suggest it isn't.

Shalom,
Memo

Incognitus- Is there a particular portrayal of the Holy Family you find atrocious, or is it any portrayal of the Holy Family?
-Daniel, just wondering

May I step in as a friend and a moderator to say that I am not reading into many posts what others are....

Could it be perhaps that this abortion is such an emotionally charged issue that it can become easy to be clouded with subjectivity and argument in such a discussion?

Rose, I truly hope that you will continue contributing and posting here, and please understand that we all get into heated discussions at one time or another, where we feel misunderstood or where our logic and thought gets misconstrued.

For the record, I am Orthodox, and am not fond of the particulars of the icon being discussed. As persons with the freedom of opinion, we are allowed to like and/or dislike. As one with a degree in art history, I will go on to say that art, and iconography IS art, albeit, sacred art, is the most subjective subject matter around. So some times all it takes in such a discussion is people accepting to 'agree to disagree'!

On the other hand, as Christians, we need to really hear each other, and TRY to understand each other in utmost charity. If we, as a group of people who are in basic agreement over moral issues, cannot do this with each other, how can we ever expect to step into another's shoes and put ourselves into another's skin that is different from us, in order to understand them? For it is only through understanding, (though not necessarily agreeing), that there can be peace ANYWHERE, whether here, or in the beautiful family of man, which is our world that God made for us.

Having said my peace, I send you all my love, and pray that the love and forgiveness of our Lord will reign supreme on this thread today and always. The path we have all chosen to follow is a difficult one, and we need to uplift and carry each other, understanding that shades of gray will always exist between black and white.

Forgive me if I have offended anyone, for it was not my intention, as I have utmost respect for each and every poster here.

In Christ our Lord,
Alice, Moderator

Dear Rose, While I appreciate you playing peacemaker, I for one am not overly sensitive in debate; indeed I hate it when someone spoils a perfectly good argument by taking things personally.
That said, if abortion is so emotionally charged and subjective that it is hard to discuss it objectively, I if anything would be on the uncompromisingly prolife end of that argument. I have given money throught the years to prolife groups, have attended the annual March for Life more times than I can count, and have been arrested several times for direct actions trying to close abortion clinics.
No, my objections to this image- the one of Christ holding the free-floating fetus, and the other allegorical one- are entirely based on my views on iconography. Indeed, I am grateful for the argument, as it forced me to examine my reasons for the visceral reaction I had to these images.
Upon further thought, it occurs to me that the depiction of the fetus as a fetus does not fit in well with the tradition, entirely apart from the oddness of portraying him without his mother.
In Eastern iconography, for example, Christ is not portrayed as an infant, even in icons of the Nativity. Rather, the fullness of His Person is communicated by showing Him as a "little man". If someone would do an icon of Christ holding a mandola within which was a woman with another mandola within which was a child, portrayed as a fully developed human, that would be more in keeping with the tradition. If the iconographer wants to communicate the personhood of the unborn child it would be better done by portraying him as a fully developed human being, not as a fetus, let alone one in his solo womb-capsule.
-Daniel