'Sweet Jesus' and Slavery by Daniel ORourke A few weeks ago there was a religious dust-up in New York City. From 200 pounds of milk chocolate artist Cosimo Cavallaro sculpted a life-sized statue of Jesus with arms stretched out on an invisible cross. He called it my My Sweet Lord. The Lab Gallery in Manhattans Roger Smith Hotel had scheduled the sculpture to be displayed just before Easter. But all hell broke loose and it never happened. Cardinal Edward Egan described the six-foot statue as a sickening display. The Archdiocese of New York said that the timing of the exhibition during Holy Week was manifestly intended to offend the Christians of our community. The director of the watchdog Catholic League said it was one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever. Under mounting pressure the hotel cancelled. One irate follower of the non-violent Jesus, who in his life preached only forgiveness and gentleness, called Cavallaro with a death threat. The Lexington Avenue hotel cancelled the exhibit citing safety reasons; the Creative Director of the gallery resigned in protest. Not a pretty picture. The problem? The sculpture was anatomically correct. It had no loincloth and, God help us, it showed a penis! Theologically, as Christians know, the Church since the Council of Ephesus has professed Jesus to be true God and true man. And every man like our fathers, sons, brothers and husbands -- and like Michaelangelos David and Cavallaros Jesus have penises. Most cultures modestly cover genitalia, but this is art for Christs sake. From the beginning artists have always depicted the naked human form. It can depict openness, vulnerability, mystery and beauty. Nudity is not always erotic. Today, novice art students still learn by sketching nude models. Despite the historical fact that Jesus is human and fully male, I suspect it still makes many Christians nervous to even think of Jesus having a penis. Seeing one artistically represented, distorts their view of holiness. Somehow, they subconsciously feel that godliness is incompatible with sexuality, sex, passion or nudity. This of course is rank heresy, but a too common puritanical, Victorian reaction. Why Christianity and indeed other western religions get so exercised in general about human sexuality bewilders me. Jesus had little to say about these sins of the flesh. Once when he did speak it was to forgive the women taken in adultery. But the hang-ups of some religious and right wing politicians with their overwhelming emphases on homosexuality, stem cells, abortion, gay adoptions and unions distort Jesus message. These pelvic issues, however, as Father Richard McBrien of the University of Notre Dame calls them, are not the point of this column. I wish to write about the real chocolate sins from a greatly different perspective. I want to focus on chocolate and the slave trade. At the same time this chocolate Jesus brouhaha was bubbling in New York City. Public television was broadcasting a program on the chocolate industrys child labor in West Africa. The US State Department estimates that 109,000 children in Cote dIvoire or the Ivory Coast work in the cocoa harvests under the worst forms of child labor. And the Ivory Coast accounts for 40% of the worlds cocoa production. Many of these children are actual slaves purchased (the going price is $30 per child) to work long hours in the sweltering sun. They are forced to use unsafe machetes and are exposed to dangerous pesticides and frequent beatings. The International Labor Rights Fund and other groups have tried, so far in vain, to enforce the 2001 Cocoa Industry Protocol in which major chocolate companies such as Nestles made a voluntary commitment to have a child-labor-free industry by 2005. That has not happened. Instead, major chocolate manufactures in this billion dollar industry have, according to the TransAfrica Forum, turned a blind eye to the kidnapping and enslaving of children. Some children are as young as eleven. Their grueling and dangerous work produces half the worlds chocolate. Where was the indignation from the Cardinal Archbishop, the Catholic League and other church leaders on this chocolate scandal? Who thundered from the pulpits labeling this child enslavement sickening and degenerate? Perhaps some have lifted a prophetic voice, but Ive not heard them. Why havent the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Council of Churches, the American Jewish World Services used their considerable buying power and prestige to pressure the American chocolate industry into enforcing the child-labor-free protocol it voluntarily agreed to in 2001? We have fair trade coffee. Cant we, for the sake of the children, have fair trade chocolate? These children in Africa, whose cruel enslavement give us M&Ms and chocolate bunnies are black children. Is racism a factor? Would the churches be silent if they were white children in Connecticut or California? Probably not, but the overriding factor here is not racism but priorities. The churches would rather rail against premarital sex or homosexuality than speak out prophetically for justice in the chocolate industry or elsewhere. Its more acceptable to do the former. To preach social justice may offend influential or affluent church members. Sometimes I fear many of our main line churches have lost their way. I wish the churches and others would help remove the loincloth covering child slavery in the chocolate industry and not be so concerned about the loincloths absence on My Sweet Jesus. I suspect the real Jesus who scripture shows as much more concerned about not scandalizing children than avoiding things sexual, would agree. Daniel ORourke is a married Catholic priest, retired from the administration at State University of New York at Fredonia. He lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears the second and fourth Thursday of each month. Spirit at Your Back, a book of his previous columns has just been published. Comments may be sent to orourke@netsync.net