Yes, offensive but acceptable
It is unfair and offensive to put a phallus or erect male organ on an image of Christ, for he never acquired a phallic mentality, which pushes males to be “big, hard and up” in their physique and thinking, and spits at what is “small, soft and down.” Jesus taught: “Unless you change and become like little children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3)
Jesus also let a desperate non-Jewish woman to broaden radically his view about his mission of being “sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” and to set aside his “hard” reason that “it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” He learned from her “soft” reasoning that “even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall down from their masters’ table.” (Mt 15:21-28) This is another important stage in the development of Jesus’ great faith in the heavenly Father who loves especially the downtrodden and little ones among the scattered sons and daughters of God.
Jesus became the clear opposite of the phallus when he died naked on the cross, bare of clothes and bare of friends, as all the disciples deserted him and fled, and only women followers witnessed his death “from a distance.” (27:55) The naked Christ on the cross is a historically true picture of the impotence of somebody who did not save himself, in order to save others. No wonder Paul wrote, “Christ crucified: a scandal to Jews and folly to Gentiles.”
(1 Corinthians 1:23)
While any image of Christ with a phallus is offensive, an artistic depiction of a totally naked Christ dying or dead on the cross can be acceptable from the perspectives of history and theology.
—DENNIS T. GONZALEZ, PhD,
founding member,
Damdaming Katoliko sa Teolohiya
(Catholic Theological Society
of the Philippines), 5 Finland St.,
Loyola Grand Villas, Quezon City
