Actually, I'm more in agreement with you, kosta. Renaissance art is the visual manifestation of the philosophical decadence of that time. St. Mary Magdalene would be quite scandalized of that depiction of her in #354.
I wouldn't blanket condemn all of Catholic culture however.
Renaissance is decidedly pagan in its character, art, lifestyle and culture. It's not so much nudity, but the need to be excessively (and unnecessarily) explicit about it that is contrary to what Catholic Catechism says about modesty and, ultimately, human dignity.
The art was magnificent as much as it was vulgar in its in-your-face unnecessary sensuality.
I compare Renaissance to a stunningly beautiful woman who utters profanities.
I wouldn't blanket condemn all of Catholic culture however
I don't. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church, unlike the Orthodox Church, bought into the "Renaissance" of the liturgical reform movement of the early 1900's and magnified it many-fold at the Vatican II, only to vulgarize it in late 60's onward.
The Vatican II was a "French Revolution" of the Church, apparently driven more by human preference, taste, convenience and a lot of "mea culpa," than by any real theological urgency.
It was a populist and idealist movement, with plebeian, if not outright proletarian-like mindset, destined to imitate the world and appear greater than life. It was a "pastoral" council on paper but dogmatic in application, sort of like communist constitutions used to be: on paper proclaiming freedoms, but in application oppressive.
I did not condemn the entire Catholic culture. I assure you that if the Orthodox Church did anything similar, I would be just as adamant about that mistake. That's why I asked jo to list all the heretical Patriarchs of Constantinople, lest some of us forget that heresy and abomination in the Church is not an exclusive character of either one of the Particular Churches.
Overall, yes. However, Mary Magdalene traditionally has inspired reflection on sensual beauty's interplay with discipleship. Guercino's painting is such meditation. It is not lurid or obscene. It is not an icon, it does not belong in Church, but it is a part of Catholic culture.
Likewise, the breastfeeding madonna I posted earlier is a part of the Catholic culture, of which, as Catholic, I am proud. It is not frivolous: it celebrates the Mystery of the Incarnation with admirable directness. Fear of this celebratory mood is Jansenism; it is un-Catholic.
The context for this was photographs of Popes apparently attending some african-flavor performances, and some nudity on the part of the presenters is involved. So I pointed out that Catholic ulture generally is not as prudish as apparently, the Orthodox wish it to be.
Is it an argument for the Orthodox not to wish reunification? Of sorts, it is, but it does show shallowness of mind.
I am very receptive to the notion that the East is terrified of Catholic liturgical abuse, and I fully agree that we Catholics should heal our own Church before we can expect a more fraternal attitude from the Orthodox. I made several posts on this thread expressing this view. However, the Catholic non-liturgical culture is what it is. It is a part of Catholic phronema just as much as painted eggs and big beards are part of Orthodox phronema. It should not be an obstacle.