As we continue to explore challenges at St. Thomas Fifth Avenue, one issue that continues to trouble us is the presence of porn producer Erich Erving among the children of the St. Thomas Choir School. Specifically, we do not think he should live in the same building, since the building in question is owned by the parish.
Later in this post, we post redacted screen caps of Schultz’s materials, so parishioners and choir school parents can decide for themselves.
Context
The question comes amidst the decision, apparently made by St. Thomas COO and Vicar Matthew Moretz, to ban people from the property who complained about sexual harassment.
In the two instances of which we are aware, Moretz apparently did so on the basis that the parishioner made “false reports” and thus is a “safety issue.”
In one instance, we believe Moretz may have done so after being told to keep a low profile by the bishop.
In asking whether Erving should live among kids from the Choir School, we realize we’ll take some heat. Specifically:
- We fully support the inclusion of LGBTQ+ persons in the life of the church.
- Anglican Watch’s key volunteers are all gay.
- Yes, we are proponents of the First Amendment and free speech.
- What consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is none of our damned business.
- Yes, we get that, for example, Michelangelo’s “David” contains full-frontal nudity. Yet, at the same time, just because something invokes religion or faith doesn’t automatically make it non-pornographic in nature.
There, we said it.
But with free speech comes the obligation to act responsibly. And when certain issues arise — like children and pornography — free speech has limits.
Additionally, kids are naturally curious. That tendency to want to learn about the world around them is generally good, but the internet provides accesss to content and material that may not be age-appropriate.
Further, while some have praised Erving’s work, it is layered into religion. For example, Erving often portrays saints in homoerotic poses. As a result, others, including some progressives, criticize his work as disrespectful or blasphemous.
We’ll leave those conclusions to others.
Living at St. Thomas’
But whatever the merits of Erving’s work, we think that, just as having someone living on campus who runs a porn website may not be a great idea, it’s not a great idea to have Erving living at St. Thomas.’
We’re also concerned about what we see as Erving’s tendency to objectify others. Yes, the human body often is beautiful, but people are more than their physical appearance.
Relatedly, when we objectify others, we start treating them as things—things that can be groped and sexually assaulted. That runs counter to every notion of Christianity as we understand it.
And, to be clear, some folks at St. Thomas’ have real issues in that department. That extends to both clergy and laity.
Finally, parishioners and clergy who cannot respect boundaries with adults can reasonably be expected to have boundary issues with children. Specifically, someone either respects others, or they don’t. And if they don’t respect others and the boundaries that come with respect, no amount of training, preaching, or anything else is going to change things.
As in, St. Thomas’ probably should ban several people from campus immediately, including Erving, Schultz, and Bill Davis.
Check out screen caps of a few of Erving’s’ prints below and decide for yourself. Would you want your child living near this guy?
For the record, we’ve strategically redacted full frontal nudity in the screen caps. Original pieces are solely the property of Erich Erving.
Man, what a mess. Thank you for sinking your teeth into St. Thomas and not letting go. No wonder TEC cannot solve many of its difficult issues when they falter on the no-brainers.