The Gospel According to John Bull
#12
(01-06-2010, 11:52 PM)WilfredLeblanc Wrote:
(01-06-2010, 07:09 PM)stvincentferrer Wrote: There's no mystery. The article explains precisely why Waugh and Greene are deserving of criticism. Their fame was hugely bolstered by a non-Catholic literary establishment, and they were double-minded in advancing themselves. I don't know if these claims are true since I'm not that familiar with the writers, but I do notice that Catholic artists tend to water down their religious impulses to be accepted.

Feeney certainly supplies the reason you underscore for disliking Waugh and Greene, and given (what I take to be) the editorial genre of the piece, perhaps expecting him to back up his reasoning in greater detail is inappropriate, but his judgment nonetheless strikes me as peremptory. 

What Catholic artists do you perceive as watering down their religious impulses in order to be accepted by a wider audience?

Just about any Catholic artist that receives wide recognition and who is embraced by the establishment will undoubtedly be a fraud. Even Mel Gibson took out the "his blood be upon us" scene in The Passion for fear of the usual suspects.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The Gospel According to John Bull - by tflinn - 01-06-2010, 11:37 AM
Re: The Gospel According to John Bull - by stvincentferrer - 01-07-2010, 09:08 AM
Re: The Gospel According to John Bull - by Satori - 01-07-2010, 10:57 AM
Re: The Gospel According to John Bull - by Satori - 01-08-2010, 10:26 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)