An Image a Little Too Close to Touching the Untouchable: the Fetishization of Tainting the Catholic Faith’s Untouchable Symbol of Purity

            It is a universal fact that Gregory Peck has been a heartthrob for the last century, and I am no exception. However, unlike many of his devotees, I believe there is a limit to how much we should obsess over him. For example, in the movie “The Keys of the Kingdom,” Gregory Peck is a missionary priest in China and takes care of an ill child as well as works with a trio of nuns as he realizes what the faith is truly about. The film concept is terrific, but the number of fans losing their minds over Peck wearing a cassock rather than the meaning of the film is a little too high for my liking. It makes one wonder, are people into that? And if so, how did we as a people (with great taste or not) end up here?

In the third century, Christianity became legalized by Constantine I. In the fifth century, the fall of the Western Roman Empire allowed the church an opportunity to bring society together again during a time of political unrest, building fame and soon enough political power. After assigning tithes, taxes, and payment for religious services and more, the church decided the best way to show off its newfound wealth was by garishly adorning the church in gold, stained glass, and portraits. They particularly avoided icons for fear worshippers would turn to idolize stones instead of God, but portraits became an exception. Churches were extremely large as well, holding people for services both religious and political. There is no doubting the institutional power it had in society. 

As more Christian dominations arose, they decided on more simplistic churches to avoid the focus of their churches to be on the visual aesthetics rather than the prayers within it. If the Catholic Church had even considered doing this, it was far too late; the sect of Christianity literally began in political affairs and all its grandeur came from its corruption and thievery. Being one of the first sects of the religion as well as politically relevant, Catholicism reveled in its power, prominence, and pompous opulence. 

So why should white alternative kids, European fashion designers, and singers not try to wreck the perfect image? The way art stands out in modern day is when it offensively critics or mocks a powerful symbol in society. Hippies, the original offensive dressers in America in the 1900s, turned away from Native American- and Indian-inspired clothing to go back to their true white, middle-class roots of Urban Outfitters and Victoria’s Secret. The reason these brands specifically and hippies stopped is because of the uproar from minorities’ cultures being treated as costumes and trends. For these people to try and wear another culture or religions’ symbols and clothes— a concept known as cultural appropriation— would be seen as an unforgivable offense in society, let alone mock it in the name of art. Since Catholicism has no direct racial ties to anything other than white and is close enough to (but still distinct from) the Christian religion itself, mocking both the extravagance of the church and the teachings they preach gives the artsy, unique, radical look all these performers crave. It is conveniently the (objectively) least offensive group they could mock.  

Trends like “Mexican Catholic Girl Aesthetic,” “Christian Aesthetic,” “Cool-Girl-Gone-Quasi-Catholic,” “Catholic Schoolgirl,” and more have been popular in fashion amongst teens and on social media. Wearing rosaries as waist beads (which is appropriation in two different ways but that’s another conversation), crucifix-shaped clothes that barely cover anything (let alone be considered modest), and arguably the most controversial was a revealing bikini with the words “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” printed onto the only 3 pieces of fabric it contained that wasn’t string, and more are overtaking social media. Whether it be sexy nun Halloween costumes, sexy priests in confessionals, or metaphors of women as Jesus regretting falling in love with a backstabbing boy representing Judas, the disrespect of religious art can be reasonably interpreted by many as the disrespect of the God Himself. Wearing a crucifix after stopping the active practice of being a Christian is different than complete blasphemy. This is why a line must be drawn between appreciation and respect versus complete mockery in and of the name of God.

Gregory Peck’s movies had been revolutionary in the 1940s for its radical ideas about priests not being perfect saints but people doing their best to be devout to God. This I can respect. But when people fawn over him and many other male actors in a gown specifically, and a whole film/book trope being a-priest-leaves-the-church-for-young-pretty-woman-who-has-already-given-up-on-God, one wonders how an image of innocence became so alluring in the first place.

Sources:

History of the church

Alt Fashion and Catholicism

Offensive bikini

Offensive stuff on social media & how Catholicism became a meme

Why Gregory Peck is a great movie priest (image)