Catholic Church Shifts Stance on Cultural Icons

At the 1958 Universal Exposition, the Vatican pavilion made a deliberate statement by displaying Brigitte Bardot as a symbol of evil. This action represented the Catholic Church's absolute confidence in its moral authority during that era. The Church operated with the conviction that it spoke for a 'majority of right-thinking people,' actively censoring books and films it deemed inappropriate.

The institution viewed cultural figures like Bardot as dangerous influences that could lead people astray from moral paths. This perspective was not merely theoretical but had real-world consequences for artists and their work. The Church's censorship apparatus extended beyond simple disapproval to active suppression of content it considered harmful to its followers.

The Vatican's decision to feature Bardot in its pavilion reflected a broader institutional strategy of public condemnation. By labeling her as a symbol of evil, the Church sought to warn its followers about the dangers of modern secular culture. This approach assumed that moral absolutes were clear and that the Church's interpretation represented universal truth.

The consequences of the Church's condemnation extended far beyond symbolic gestures. In the same period as the Vatican exhibition, three young men from good families in Angers committed murder on a train. The crime shocked the community and prompted desperate searches for explanations.

Some families directly blamed Brigitte Bardot and her film And God Created Woman for corrupting the young men. This accusation revealed how deeply the Church's moral framework influenced public thinking about crime and responsibility. The logic followed that exposure to Bardot's sexuality could only lead to moral degradation and violent behavior.

The case demonstrated the real-world impact of cultural condemnation. When institutions with authority label certain art or artists as dangerous, their followers may internalize these warnings and seek to connect social ills to these 'corrupting' influences. The Angers case became a symbol of how moral panic can shape public discourse about crime.

Philosopher Simone de Beauvoir offered a different perspective on Brigitte Bardot in her essay about the actress. De Beauvoir challenged the moralistic condemnation by arguing that Bardot was neither perverse, rebellious, nor immoral. According to de Beauvoir, traditional sermons and moral lectures simply did not apply to Bardot's case.

De Beauvoir's analysis described Bardot as a sexual bomb whose subversive power came from her refusal to conform to conventional morality. She argued that concepts of good and evil themselves were social conventions, and Bardot's significance lay in her inability to even conceive of submitting to these arbitrary rules. This interpretation positioned Bardot not as an evil figure, but as someone operating outside the moral frameworks that the Church and society tried to impose.

The philosopher's assessment provided an intellectual counterpoint to institutional condemnation. Rather than viewing Bardot as a corrupting influence, de Beauvoir saw her as challenging the very foundations of moral judgment. This perspective would later influence how society understood the relationship between art, sexuality, and morality.

The Spanish Episcopal Conference's decision to award Rosalía a prize represents a complete reversal of the Church's previous stance on controversial artists. This action stands in stark contrast to the 1958 Vatican pavilion that featured Bardot as a symbol of evil. The transformation reveals how the Church's approach to cultural figures has fundamentally changed.

Where the Church once condemned artists for ordinariness and moral corruption, it now celebrates them as achievements in spiritual expression. The institution appears to have concluded that any form of spiritual engagement, even if unconventional, represents progress. This shift suggests that the Church has moved from a position of moral certainty to one of cultural accommodation.

The reversal raises important questions about institutional consistency and principles. If the Church once condemned Bardot for sexual expression but now rewards Rosalía for what it perceives as spiritual content, what does this reveal about the stability of moral judgments? The change may reflect broader societal evolution, but it also suggests that the Church's moral framework has become more flexible and perhaps more concerned with relevance than with consistent principles.