Following the varied discussions that took place surrounding the Met Gala, the FemCatholic Contributors sought to make sense of this event. Here, they share how they received and perceived what occurred. We hope you enjoy reading and we would love to hear your own reflections in the comments!

♦♦♦

What are your thoughts on the Met Gala?

Which ensembles drew your attention and for what reasons?

Did you find the Met Gala and specific ensembles to honor Catholicism?

To be disrespectful of Catholicism?

Somewhere in between?

How successful was the Met Gala in honoring art and drawing attention to beauty in a way that points us to God?

Amanda: Upon first hearing about the Met Gala, I was admittedly skeptical and concerned about how Catholicism and the Church would be treated and addressed. After reading about the event and looking at different ensembles, my reaction was mixed.

I found certain ensembles to be disrespectful. Specifically, those based on items within the Catholic Church that are sacred and consecrated for a particular purpose. I did not appreciate how these items were appropriated and turned into gowns, outfits, and costumes. For example, Rihanna's pope-inspired dress and Taylor Hill's cardinal-inspired dress fell into this category. Clerical vestments and religious habits are set aside for people called to a specific vocation, and they should be reserved only for those living those vocations. I believe that appropriating these vestments and habits in this way is disrespectful.

Other outfits I found to be beautiful and respectful. For example, Zendaya's St. Joan of Arc-inspired gown. I appreciated her gown because she dressed as a certain historical figure and saint; I found her dress to be a tribute to a particular person. I viewed Ariana Grande's dress similarly because it was inspired by a work of art. Neither dress entailed the disrespectful appropriation of a consecrated or sacred item.

‍

Clerical vestments and religious habits are set aside for people called to a specific vocation, and they should be reserved only for those living those vocations. . . .[A]ppropriating these vestments and habits in this way is disrespectful. -Amanda

Charlene: Cool.

Charlene: I like the St. Therese/Our Lady of Guadalupe/rose theme.

Amanda: I love that one, too! She's beautiful and classy while honoring a Catholic theme in a respectful manner.

‍Mary Ashley: Yeah, I REALLY hope this doesn’t bring back the rosaries-as-accessories trend. Also, Solange brought a miniature bottle of “communion wine”?! What?! That’s one of those things that’s just like...why? But those two dresses shown above are so stunning.

‍Amanda: Ooh. The mini bottle of "communion wine" is way too far. And, like you said, what?

‍Kate: I think there is a distinction between "inspired by" and "looking like." I was also bothered by Rihanna and Taylor Hill's outfits, but I thought Greta Gerwig's dress was lovely. For me, it wasn't trying to be a sexy or glammed-up version of what those in religious life wear.

I think there is a distinction between "inspired by" and "looking like." -Kate

Emily A.: I admit right off the bat that I don't know much about fashion. I found a few of the outfits to be offensive or disrespectful, although I am conscious of the fact that I may be inferring a message that was not intended. To be frank, I found that, for most of the outfits, I simply didn't see how they were inspired by the Catholic imagination, so I could only evaluate them on whether they were beautiful or not to my taste. There were a few dresses that I found beautiful (Ariana Grande, Priyanka Chopra, and Scarlett Johansson come to mind). I thought Zendaya was beautiful (as usual) and I love her tribute to Joan of Arc, even though in terms of style it wasn't my favorite dress.

‍Amanda: May I ask you for some examples of outfits that were offensive to you? And what did you love about the dresses that you found beautiful? What made them not offensive?

‍Emily A.: There were a few that were offensive because they seemed to make a dig at Church teachings (for example, the pope dress and the rainbow flag outfit). I know there are many people who disagree with Church teachings, and I respect that some of the teachings are really difficult; however, I don’t think this was an appropriate way of expressing dissent. (If there’s another way of interpreting those outfits, let me know, because I do want to give the benefit of the doubt. But those two in particular seemed like pointed statements about the ordination of women and gay marriage, respectively.) As a separate matter, I agree with others who have taken issue with the concept of using sacred - especially liturgical - items/vestments/etc. and incorporating them as fashion accessories. For example, Chadwick Boseman wore a suit that looked a bit like liturgical vestments. That bothered me a little too, because vestments aren’t fashion, and to treat them as such seems disrespectful because they are so clearly tied to the Mass. Perhaps because fashion is just that - a series of trends that depends on the whims of a particular culture in a particular age - it seems wrong to take things of eternal, transcendent, and symbolic significance and evaluate them with the same lens we use to evaluate fashion. Fashion is, I think for the most part, a matter of taste and opinion. There’s certainly room for different tastes and opinions within the Church (on many subjects), but not to the same degree, and certainly not in the same way. I may be getting off topic though.

I know there are many people who disagree with Church teachings, and I respect that some of the teachings are really difficult; however, I don’t think this was an appropriate way of expressing dissent. -Emily A.

As far as dresses that I loved... I personally found some of them very beautiful and elegant. Usually I liked the more simple styles. For example, I really appreciated Scarlett Johansson’s dress. It was quiet, beautiful, and the red and white reminded me of the rays of mercy in the Divine Mercy Image (probably not intended, but who knows?). There were plenty of dresses that had me wondering how they fit the theme, which was disappointing, but I’m sure I overlooked some things. There were also many outfits that I didn’t find offensive, but that I just didn’t like because I don’t like certain styles of dresses. I’m not a fan of over-the-top, impractical dresses, although I realize they’re fairly popular at events like this, and I don’t find them offensive.

‍Amanda: That distinction is helpful, thank you!Charlene: It doesn't offend me that popular culture is fascinated by our religious art. I hope it gave guests some reflection on the "why" behind the "what" of our culture. When we use beautiful things, whether art or vestments, in the Church, it's to draw our minds to something outside of ourselves, to lift our minds and hearts to heaven. It felt like the imitation fashion art at the Met Gala missed the mark on this, in that its purpose was to draw attention to the celebrity wearing the costume. Some exceptions might be those whose outfits told a story or focused on themes beyond "garish, sexy, or outlandish."

When we use beautiful things, whether art or vestments, in the Church, it's to draw our minds to something outside of ourselves, to lift our minds and hearts to heaven. -Charlene

Amanda: This is a great point, Charlene: "It felt like the imitation fashion art at the Met Gala missed the mark on this, in that its purpose was to draw attention to the celebrity wearing the costume."You're right - in designing fashion to draw attention to the celebrity wearing the outfit, or even just the outfit itself, they demonstrate a lack of (full) understanding of art in the Catholic tradition, namely that art is never an end in and of itself.

‍Mary Ashley: I wonder if it’s fair to expect that of people, though, if that’s the primary way they view the purpose of fashion all the time.

‍Charlene: You're right, Mary Ashley, that the whole point of celebrity fashion is to draw attention to the celebrity. It's probably not fair to expect a complete perspective shift just because it's a religious theme.

‍Mary Ashley: ...which, now that I think about it, is probably why some people would argue that it shouldn’t have happened in the first place, and I’m not saying that, since I agree on some of the potential positives, like opportunities for reflection.

‍Maria: I'm uncomfortable with the idea of reducing my religion to a "theme." While I understand that people are attracted to the Church because of her beauty, this seemed to me to be much more about appropriation than about honoring the Church and the Catholic imagination. Looking at the outfits made me feel hollow.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of reducing my religion to a "theme." -Maria

Emily A.: That's a good point. I did get the impression that several of the outfits drew from what people generally imagine when they think of the medieval Church. This made for some elegant, regal, and awe-inspiring pieces, but it was also off-base to me. It sometimes seemed more about taking certain, concrete aspects of European Catholic history or Christendom and running with those ideas, rather than really reflecting on the influence of Catholicism and Catholic thought overall. I can definitely see a negative interpretation of this; namely, that the Church a) still lives in the Middle Ages, or b) can be reduced to externals. On the other hand, I wonder if some designers just saw a chance to have fun with historical fashion, which I can totally understand, even though I think that should of course be accompanied by respect.

‍Mary Ashley: Yeah, for some people it looked a little more like fancy Game of Thrones cosplay.

‍Emily A.: I will say that I wasn't a fan of the hyper-sexualized outfits (I'm thinking of the split-down-the-middle cleavage and long slits up the skirts). Not because I think it's necessarily, inherently immoral to show a certain amount of skin, but because it seemed to be a mockery (although I do think unintended) of the beauty and majesty of the Church. It seemed like... cheapening the beauty of the Church and the beauty of the human person by trying to go for a sexy look. Which, again, is not to say that there's a modesty rulebook or anything, but I just think it missed the mark. The human body is beautiful, but it was very odd to see outfits that seemed to try to simultaneously move me to wonder and awe and emphasize certain body parts to the point of equating sexiness (or ability to inspire lust?) with beauty. Then again, one could probably make this argument in response to any fashion show. Maybe it just seemed so out of place to me in this context specifically. That said, it is making me think about how we tend to equate sexiness/hotness with beauty, which contributes to the idea that sex = happiness. And overall I think the Met Gala did provide a lot of opportunity for fruitful discussion, which is good.

The human body is beautiful, but it was very odd to see outfits that seemed to try to simultaneously move me to wonder and awe and emphasize certain body parts to the point of equating sexiness . . . with beauty. -Emily A.

Charlene: I'm trying to wrap my head around the same thoughts. The human body is beautiful. The female body is beautiful. A lot of Catholic art is beautiful. But for some reason, the "sexy" Catholic vibe feels dissonant. I have similar reactions to "sexy nun" costumes at Halloween.

‍Emily A.: Yeah... Maybe it's because it seems to trivialize sexuality and sexual desire, while at the same time idolizing sex? It really bugs me when we sexualize beauty, even in conversation. For example, the old "modest is hottest" argument. It's a tragic inability to recognize that lust is not the epitome of desire, that sex is not the epitome of happiness, that we can have a relationship with Beauty that has nothing to do with sex.

Mary Ashley: It’s sexualizing beauty and idolizing sex, but it’s also equating sexual desirability with value. In some of the pieces, sexiness seemed to be the ultimate end of the piece and the religious theme was just kind of a vehicle for it, which says a lot about how you value the body and human person.

Amanda:

Kate: You ladies articulated my thoughts on the modesty issue well. I get that modesty isn't the pinnacle of holiness, but it did feel like some outfits were revealing in order to induce lust or as a statement against modesty, rather than to celebrate the beauty of the human body.

‍Theresa: I’m very torn about this. On the one hand, I agree with the objections over appropriating sacred images and symbols like vestments into pop culture. (Is this much different from the imagery Madonna used in the “Like a Prayer” video?) On the other hand, people are tapping into the transcendentals of beauty, truth, and goodness that are present in Catholic art (or, really, all good art), and where there is truth, there is God. I don’t know how to reconcile these reactions. I can’t tell if I’m bothered because this is disrespecting God or me as a Catholic (which would still be wrong, but more about me and less about God).

‍Theresa: Ok, so maybe I’m just repeating Cardinal Dolan’s point…

Kate: I loved Cardinal Dolan's quote!Theresa: What do you all think about this point? Are these dresses an opening for evangelization?

Amanda: I agree with her point, that this is an opportunity to evangelize and inspire others to learn more about the Catholic Church. For this reason, I believe that for the theme of the Met Gala to have true value, it needs to go beyond just fashion; it needs to point to something transcendental, as you said, Theresa.

‍Theresa: But does it point to something transcendental, or is that just missed potential? That’s where I’m stuck.

‍Amanda: I think it would depend on how people respond to the Met Gala. Do the ensembles make them wonder about the origins and does that inspire them to dig deeper? Or do they stop at admiring the beautifully crafted gowns?Part of me says that this is a hard question to answer because we don't know what may have been stirred in others' hearts. Another part of me would, if push came to shove, say that the Met Gala was mostly missed potential and didn't truly point to something transcendental.

‍Kate: I think this is one if the things I struggled with. On one hand, I think it could be an opportunity to share the beauty of Catholicism. I am a huge fan of evangelizing through beauty. But I also don't think the potential good necessarily justifies all the bad from the event. Having said that, the exhibit was supported in some way by the Vatican, which leads me to believe they see some value in it.Ultimately, I feel like since it happened, we should try to pull the good from it and use the buzz. That isn't to say we shouldn't call out the problematic aspects, but for me, I don't want to disregard some of the beauty I did see.Anne: I didn't like it. I found it distasteful and garish on a grand scale. It was a costume party that seemed like a mockery of what we hold sacred.

It was a costume party that seemed like a mockery of what we hold sacred. -Anne

Emily A.: Overall, I’m not sure where I stand. I think the possibility for evangelization is a really strong argument in the theme's favor. At the same time, the fact that something is an opportunity for evangelization doesn’t necessarily mean that it is good, moral, or even in good taste. On a related note, I’m intrigued by the idea of paying tribute to the influence that Catholicism has had historically on so much of Western culture. I think acknowledging that could be a sign of respect. I’m not sure that’s what happened here, but in principle I’m not against it.

‍Amanda: An underlying current I'm picking up on is that the Met Gala's theme simply stops short of where it could be. If all folks pay attention to is fashion, that isn't enough. If folks only look at how Catholicism - at a surface level - influenced fashion, that isn't enough.What frustrates me is that I don't see an engagement with the beliefs of Catholicism, with what Catholicism is and who the Church is.You cannot separate the Catholic Church from her beliefs. This exhibit, according to the Met, is a "collection to examine fashion's ongoing engagement with the devotional practices and traditions of Catholicism." If they don't also genuinely engage with the beliefs of Catholicism, I find this to be an appropriation of our Faith. And that's not okay. It's disrespectful to appropriate any religion.

If they don't also genuinely engage with the beliefs of Catholicism, I find this to be an appropriation of our Faith. -Amanda

Kate: This!!!I really wish there was more about the meaning behind the pieces. For example, why is St. Joan such a cool saint? Why are we devoted to Mary? Why is beauty an important feature of the Catholic faith?

‍Amanda: A few of us mentioned the intent of this theme and exhibit. Here is the Met's description of the exhibit's catalogue:

"Since antiquity, religious beliefs and practices have inspired many of the world's greatest works of art. These masterworks have, in turn, fueled the imaginations of fashion designers in the 20th and 21st centuries, yielding some of the most innovative creations in the history of fashion. Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination explores fashion's complex and often controversial relationship with Catholicism by examining the role of spirituality and religion in contemporary culture. This two-volume publication connects significant religious art and artifacts to their sartorial expressions. One volume features images of rarely seen objects from the Vatican—ecclesiastical garments and accessories—while the other focuses on fashions by designers such as Cristobal Balenciaga, Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, John Galliano, Jean Paul Gaultier, Madame Grés, Christian Lacroix, Karl Lagerfeld, Jeanne Lanvin, Claire McCardell, Thierry Mugler, Elsa Schiaparelli, and Gianni Versace. Essays by art historians and leading religious authorities provide perspective on how dress manifests—or subverts—Catholic values and ideology." (emphasis added)

Thoughts?

Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination explores fashion's complex and often controversial relationship with Catholicism by examining the role of spirituality and religion in contemporary culture. -Catalogue for the Heavenly Bodies exhibit

Charlene: Oh, I want to read those "[e]ssays by art historians and leading religious authorities . . . on how dress manifests—or subverts—Catholic values and ideology."Amanda: Same here. I also had a visceral reaction to the word "ideology." There was a much better way to phrase that: Catholic values and beliefs. Catholicism is not an ideology.Theresa: I’m less concerned with “ideology,” which I don’t think, to quote the great Inigo Montoya, means what they think it means, than I am with the word “subverts.” That suggests an outright goal to dismiss the significance of the images we hold sacred.

Emily A.: Interesting. One could argue that the whole thing was pretty successful, then. There were some styles that manifested Catholic “values” (super vague, for what it’s worth) and some that subverted them.

‍Mary Ashley: I have so many conflicting thoughts. In reading most of the comments from the “anti-“ camp, the running theme seems to be that no one cares if Catholics are offended, and that is deeply hurtful. But seeing it as just a bunch of people who don’t care about whether or not they offend Catholics is too reductionist. Sure, there were people that were obviously trying to either be offensive or at least make us uncomfortable, and there were other people who seemed to fumble with the theme in a borderline disrespectful way that I’d chalk up to ignorance. But I found this article about the dilemma of Chinese models pretty fascinating. They got flak in their country for not even engaging in the theme at all because of ignorance and also politics.

‍So I guess I am glad that we have a space where people are allowed to have conversations about elements of Catholicism through fashion.

[S]eeing [the Met Gala] as just a bunch of people who don’t care about whether or not they offend Catholics is too reductionist. -Mary Ashley

Amanda: Thank you for sharing this; that is a fascinating perspective. I can understand why Chinese models would not have engaged in the theme.I agree that it seems a variety of intentions were present: some may just not care if they offend Catholics, some may have been unintentionally disrespectful, some may have been intentionally disrespectful, and some honored the theme and Catholicism in a beautiful, respectful way.

‍Charlene: This is a cool article that posts celebrities side-by-side with the art that inspired them.

‍Amanda: Great find! Priyanka Chopra's gown was one of my absolute favorites and is even more so now that I see the inspiration.

I found some of the comparisons convincing, others not at all (e.g. Rihanna's gown...I'm still not buying it).

If Blake Lively's dress truly was inspired by the Infant Jesus of Prague, I am not at all a fan. I am very much bothered by that, especially because I feel her dress was unnecessarily sexualized (namely with the use of sheer sections on the lower half of the dress).

I'm grateful for the distinction between gowns that imitate works of art and gowns that appropriate sacred objects or inappropriately model themselves after holy people.

‍Kate: I can't find the article now, but something that struck me was a curator, organizer, or someone connected to it mentioned that he would've liked to incorporate Judaism and Islam, but Catholicism stands out with its unique contributions to art.

‍Something else that came up in another thread was the idea of reverence. Obviously non-Catholics aren't going to display the reverence our faith deserves, but I do think there has to be some level of respect to create some of these pieces. I know very little about fashion, but it is an art form. I imagine there was research, brainstorming, creating, and refining...hours upon hours creating these pieces. That is an insane amount of work just to mock something. I feel like there still has to be a certain level of respect, even if it is superficial.

Emily H.: I found this article to be spot on. Curious what others think: “The Gala at the Met was a sad attempt to pretend, to think (or feel, more likely) that colorful celebration and rampant symbolism can capture or reveal the essence of Catholicism.... They want to be enveloped in spirituality, but without acknowledging the Triune God; they wish to touch what is holy, but without being set apart; they desire the spotlight, but have no room for Christ, Our Light; they want glory, but will not give Him glory; they love to preen and strut, but will not bow or kneel.”

‍Emily A.: I think this author makes a lot of good points, and I’d heard several of these claims before - although not in relation to the Met Gala, so that was interesting to consider. Part of me wonders if the “religious imagination” theme would have actually been more successful if they had chosen to feature Islam, Judaism, or another faith tradition with less obvious/well-known artistic output. Catholicism has a rich history of influencing the culture and art around it, and of cultivating its own art and culture. I think that was at least part of the problem. It was too easy for people outside the Church (or even those familiar with the Church) to peer in and find something that looked artistic, beautiful, and pretty easily turned into an outfit. What if we didn’t have so many visible/tangible Catholic symbols and art, though? People would have been forced to go deeper, to think about what it might mean to think, to imagine, to view the world as a Catholic. What does it mean to be a part of this ancient Faith and Tradition, and how does that influence how we live, work, eat, play, celebrate, love - and how does that inspire our art? As opposed to a reductive view: how do we take extant Catholic artifacts and make them wearable? I think ultimately the Met Gala wasn’t Catholic enough, because - as the author says - people took Catholic symbols/sacrament(al)s and treated them as ends in themselves (which admittedly turns out looking kind of silly) instead of as beautiful and efficacious means for meeting Truth.

What if we didn’t have so many visible/tangible Catholic symbols and art, though? People would have been forced to go deeper, to think about what it might mean to think, to imagine, to view the world as a Catholic. -Emily A.

Mary Ashley: It's a shame because, when you put it that way, they could have gotten so far by simply asking why things have the shape and form that they do, why are these specific materials used, what are these things symbolizing and why that matters, etc.

‍Emily A.: Ooh ok, I keep coming across new articles in my newsfeed. I really liked this one. It’s a poetic reflection on the Met Gala. I won’t pretend to understand all of it, but I do appreciate the reminder that the Church is not an untouchable, elitist club. Throughout history, and even throughout our own lives, there have been countless moments of dissonance - where we see the beauty of the Church and what we’re called to live juxtaposed with all of our human pride, weakness, and brokenness. And there’s a further dissonance... that our weakness - even when sinful - is caught up, incorporated into the beauty of our redemptive story.

‍You can learn more about the FemCatholic Contributors here.

‍All gifs via giphy.com.