Criticism of beauty in the Church

[HelenRose]

It becomes a matter of how much is to much and not that there should or shouldn’t be beauty and cost in the building of Churches.

A church building is for the poor as well as for the rich. If a poor person can walk into a beautiful church building and know that the beauty surrounding him is his home as well as the home of those who have more money, then I say that the money is well spent.

If that beautiful church also has a well run outreach for the poor, help for the weary and love for all who enter, then I say that the money is even better spent.

 

[robwar]

Op mentioned Pius XII and showed a friend the corination. I think one of the problems here is the standards and times of when he was elected to now. It’s too easy to look at something in the past and then make some kind of judgement call on the past when tastes and standards and ideas of decorating and what is or isn’t excessive has changed. More recent Popes have escewed excessive decorating and ornateness.

 

[CutlerB]

The OP does not indicate the religion or faith the person critising the Catholic Church, which can make it hard to find a starting point, but I will do my best

I deliberately omitted that, since I feared it would distract from the question. He’s a Jehovah’s Witness.

Op mentioned Pius XII and showed a friend the corination. I think one of the problems here is the standards and times of when he was elected to now. It’s too easy to look at something in the past and then make some kind of judgement call on the past when tastes and standards and ideas of decorating and what is or isn’t excessive has changed. More recent Popes have escewed excessive decorating and ornateness.

Whether those things were “excessive” is a matter of debate. Pope Benedict went quite far…

 

[robwar]

I deliberately omitted that, since I feared it would distract from the question. He’s a Jehovah’s Witness.

Whether those things were “excessive” is a matter of debate. Pope Benedict went quite far…

cultural tastes and ideas change through the years. What may have been the norm in the past may seem excessive in the future and we shouldn’t try to judge the past by using today’s standards and ideas.

Likewise you have to consider that JW do not believe in celebrating anything which include any holidays, birthdays etc and so on. With that as there standard and mode of looking at things, any celebration is going to be viewed as excessive. My neice is a teacher and one year she had a very nice little girl from a devote JW family. That poor girl was not allowed to celebrate anything. If there was a birthday, she wasn’t allowed to have the cupcake. If there was a project for a holiday like thanksgiving, she couldn’t color the turkey because that was considered celebrating the holiday. My neice spent the whole year jumping through hoops to accomodate extremity. The problem here isn’t whether a Catholic Church has gold in it or if some Pope had an elaborate ceremony. The problem is the extremity in JW. You shouldn’t have to defend anything about the Catholic church, you should point out that their views in the area of celebration and decoration is the extreme.

 

[ealfred]

This topic is always discussed and different people disagree about it even within the Catholic Church.

I see it very important to build beautiful churches full of art. Believe it or not it does help the person to feel that they are in the house of God. Jesus is present in the Church and we need to ensure that his Church is beautiful as she is a reflection of his image.

I dont want to sound materialistic but in here we have a very simply and modern Church and I never feel the same way as when I’m in France or Italy eventhough here the Church is as holy as it is there.

The Catholic Church is the largest charity provider in the world and I did not hear anyone talking about that! Building these great Basilicas and Cathedrals did not stop the Church from helping the poor. Sorry I do not want to offend anyone but the money should be spent somewhere else argument is not valid.

 

[Granum_Frumenti]

A church building is for the poor as well as for the rich. If a poor person can walk into a beautiful church building and know that the beauty surrounding him is his home as well as the home of those who have more money, then I say that the money is well spent.

If that beautiful church also has a well run outreach for the poor, help for the weary and love for all who enter, then I say that the money is even better spent.

Yes–as I’d read somewhere recently in a defense of beauty in churches, this beauty will be available for the poor.

Although I don’t place total confidence in anonymous online reviews , I do read them at least to see what’s in them. As things so happened (the timing was coincidental, providential, or something), I also recently found myself looking at a page of reviews of a certain Catholic church–it’s not all that far away, reaching it is not extremely inconvenient for me, and I used to visit this church weekly when doing so fit better in my schedule.

One of the reviewers compared the architecture and decoration of this church to something in certain large European cities–and I’d entered it for free.

 

[Cat]

I think that rather than building new church buildings and going to all that expense, Catholic dioceses should buy up all the Protestant churches that “go out of business,” and turn them into Catholic parishes.

The diocese would work with whatever was in that building. It may be an older church building with a lot of pretty windows and various architectural features like high ceilings, arches, woodwork, etc. Or it may be a more modern building with very simple lines (ala Frank Lloyd Wright). Either way, make it Catholic! Add and eliminate all that is necessary to turn the building into a home for a thriving Catholic parish.

BTW, when it comes to beauty, I personally find the designs of Frank Lloyd Wright stunning, and what characterizes his work is “lines.” Usually the buildings are quite simple, and always very practical. I know that Wright has fans around the world, so it’s no wonder that some of us aren’t particularly enamored of the “splendor” of some of the more ornate Catholic church buildings. There is a great deal of elegance and beauty in simplicity and in plainness. I think a blank wall with no art has a lot of value, especially for Christians.

 

[OraLabora]

I take the ascetic view myself, but that’s due to my monastic leanings. That said it is possible to make even plain things very beautiful.

I do think the Church has had a tendency to be somewhat over-the-top, and toning it down a notch or two wouldn’t hurt. I think an elaborate coronation ceremony for a pope does little to reinforce the notion of “servant of the servants”. On the other hand the Ark of the Covenant was gilded in gold and a tabernacle should be made of noble materials.

 

[CutlerB]

I take the ascetic view myself, but that’s due to my monastic leanings. That said it is possible to make even plain things very beautiful.

Indeed, there is not just one kind of beauty after all.

 

[TimothyH]

Well… I’m not quite sure what you mean by this post.

Just because something is found in the Bible - scriptural - doesn’t mean it is good.

ProVobis said “Gold is scriptural” but that is an extremely poor argument for ornate or expensive Churches. Solomon had much gold and it was part of what led to his downfall.

-Tim-

 

[CutlerB]

Just because something is found in the Bible - scriptural - doesn’t mean it is good.

ProVobis said “Gold is scriptural” but that is an extremely poor argument for ornate or expensive Churches. Solomon had much gold and it was part of what led to his downfall.

-Tim-

I assume what ProVobis meant by “scriptural” was more than “It says ‘gold’ in the Bible”.

 

[ProVobis]

I assume what ProVobis meant by “scriptural” was more than “It says ‘gold’ in the Bible”.

Thank you. Just so there is no misinterpretations, aurum in Latin is “gold.” In fact, it’s abbreviation is AU on the Periodic Chart of the Elements, identifying it correctly.

obtulerunt ei munera, aurum, thus, et myrrham. (offered him gifts, gold, incence, and myrrh. (Matthew 2:11)

 

[CutlerB]

Thank you. Just so there is no misinterpretations, aurum in Latin is “gold.” In fact, it’s abbreviation is AU on the Periodic Chart of the Elements, identifying it correctly.

OK, this is a little confusing.

 

[ProVobis]

Just because something is found in the Bible - scriptural - doesn’t mean it is good.

ProVobis said “Gold is scriptural” but that is an extremely poor argument for ornate or expensive Churches. Solomon had much gold and it was part of what led to his downfall.

I assume what ProVobis meant by “scriptural” was more than “It says ‘gold’ in the Bible”.

Thank you. Just so there is no misinterpretations, aurum in Latin is “gold.” (In fact, it’s abbreviation is AU on the Periodic Chart of the Elements, identifying it correctly.)

obtulerunt ei munera, aurum, thus, et myrrham. (offered him gifts, gold, incence, and myrrh. (Matthew 2:11)

I think we can presume munera (“gifts”) are good, as it’s the same word used in the Roman Canon.

 

[Rich_C]

I think this blogger has written well about it in the past:

Selling the Vatican

In Defense of Nice Churches

In Defense of Covering Churchs with all sorts of Gold

And while in the big pictures it is not an either/or situation like some people would paint it, I always think of this passage from the Holy Gospel according to St. Mark:

[3] And when he was in Bethania, in the house of Simon the leper, and was at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of precious spikenard: and breaking the alabaster box, she poured it out upon his head. [4] Now there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said: Why was this waste of the ointment made? [5] For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and given to the poor. And they murmured against her.

[6] But Jesus said: Let her alone, why do you molest her? She hath wrought a good work upon me. [7] For the poor you have always with you: and whensoever you will, you may do them good: but me you have not always. [8] She hath done what she could: she is come beforehand to anoint my body for burial. [9] Amen, I say to you, wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which she hath done, shall be told for a memorial of her.

 

[Avila123]

I deliberately omitted that, since I feared it would distract from the question. He’s a Jehovah’s Witness.

Maybe the New Testament references to giving to the poor etc may be helpful as it is not all about preaching.

The Catholic Church accounts are made public and the outgoings are not far behind the income in many parishes. I had links to the Vatican Bank Accounts (but they don’t work any more and my computer has gone slow) and it showed that after years of being in the red, the Vatican managed to go into the black (just). Whereas the Jehovah Witnesses are quiet about their main accounts i.e. their overall wealth and not their individual parishes. There is a lot of speculation about their great wealth, but to be fair the accusations made were not Christian or supported by hard evidence.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses core activities seem to be printing Bibles and books and magazines and funding the construction of places of worship. No mention of giving to the poor and needy (outside their own), nor could I find any outreach programs. Perhaps you could ask you friend how they fulfill Jesus’ instructions on helping others and offer some examples of Catholic programs, especially those that include preaching e.g. free schools (plus food because children don’t learn so well on an empty stomach) and orphanages.

In my short search, I discovered the reason for your wisdom in sticking to the topic.

May God bless you and send the Holy Spirit to guide you in your conversation.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Just because something is found in the Bible - scriptural - doesn’t mean it is good.

ProVobis said “Gold is scriptural” but that is an extremely poor argument for ornate or expensive Churches. Solomon had much gold and it was part of what led to his downfall.

-Tim-

Well. I think ProVobis was just being facetious there, not really serious or asserting that the “Gold is scriptural” is a real argument. That is often his (?) style, I gather. Although I’m not saying you couldn’t argue the scriptural element =p.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I think that rather than building new church buildings and going to all that expense, Catholic dioceses should buy up all the Protestant churches that “go out of business,” and turn them into Catholic parishes.

The diocese would work with whatever was in that building. It may be an older church building with a lot of pretty windows and various architectural features like high ceilings, arches, woodwork, etc. Or it may be a more modern building with very simple lines (ala Frank Lloyd Wright). Either way, make it Catholic! Add and eliminate all that is necessary to turn the building into a home for a thriving Catholic parish.

BTW, when it comes to beauty, I personally find the designs of Frank Lloyd Wright stunning, and what characterizes his work is “lines.” Usually the buildings are quite simple, and always very practical. I know that Wright has fans around the world, so it’s no wonder that some of us aren’t particularly enamored of the “splendor” of some of the more ornate Catholic church buildings. There is a great deal of elegance and beauty in simplicity and in plainness. I think a blank wall with no art has a lot of value, especially for Christians.

I daresay this is a good idea in principle, and an excellent symbol, however there are vast practical problems here:

1. a parish must find a non-Catholic church in the local area that is (a) being sold and (b) big enough for now and the future
2. it must be reasonably able to be converted for Catholic usage
3. the structure must not be rotten or something
4. the interior may have to be gutted anyway
5. even if the interior is largely retainable, you still have to buy an altar and stuff, or transfer fixtures from the current church to the new
6. many Catholic parishes are following a new good trend (I like it a lot) of bringing their old stained glass with them; my parish has like 12 or 14 windows, very beautiful, that we will be taking with us

As regards nos. 5 and 6, you’d have to do these anyway for a new church, but I’m just pointing out that these expenses will be present even if a parish decides to buy a Protestant church. Unless you just so happen to be able to find a Protestant church in which there is an altar which is also made of suitable materials, not likely.

If all those conditions can be met and it’s still cheaper than building a new church and the remodel is clearly better/advantageous than building a new church, then do it, I think that’s a great idea. But still, that is a disparate set of practicalities that have to be satisfied.

I live in the deep South in a medium sized city with about 100,000 residents in which there are only about 4% Catholics and the only churches that I know are for sale are the two Catholic ones! One is the main church and another is an historically mission church, it’s the same parish. We are trying to build a new combined church, not for lack of priests, but just because we have outgrown both churches. It would probably be close to impossible to find a Protestant church here for us to convert for Catholic use. Either they are way too tiny (think little Fundamentalist churches) or they are huge and not for sale (think popular First Baptist type). There are no “modern monstrosities” here, and even if there were our parishioners hate that passionately, so style is not an issue. It’s just there aren’t any suitable buildings for sale.

So I think it’s good for a parish to explore all options but this is just that, an option.

 

[johnmann]

It can be justified even on purely secular grounds. Wouldn’t the money you spend on makeup or flowers or artwork be better spent on the poor? What about the money you spend on movies, music, sports? Shouldn’t the president sell the White House, move into a small apartment, and eat instant ramen every day in order to save the taxpayers money?

Having said that, not all extravagance is justifiable. Churches can be enjoyed by all but we rightly chastise bishops installing hot tubs in their private residence. The papal tiara and royal-style coronation were wisely abandoned IMO.

Also, most of the Vatican’s treasures are old pieces which someone has to maintain. It’s paid for with ticket sales. Would it make a difference if it were spun off into an entity called, “The Old Roman Museum?”

 

[manualman]

In opposition

• The money used to build ostentatious churches is best used to help the poor. The time and effort invested is best used for preaching (Acts 20:20)
• How does it help the poor for the Pope to wear an expensive tiara, for Bishops to wear precious mitres and vestments? A Bishop is different from God.

I may just be a curmudgeon, but I have a simple rule for evaluating critiques like this.

1. Listen to what they say.
2. Ask what they think should be done instead.
3. Ask if they’ve objected and made similar suggestions when hundred of millions of dollars are spent making, say, a movie, or a pro sports stadium or a political campaign.
4. If the person objects to the Church spending money on beautiful things instead of care for the poor, but actually participates in larger society’s major expenditures (buying movie tickets, watching pro sports events, attending concerts or contributing to a politician’s campaign), then they are just a hypocrite looking for a handy stick with which to beat the Church.
5. If they are consistent and oppose BOTH sorts of expenditures (in speech and in action) for as long as anyone is hungry or poor, then my hat’s off to them for their character, but I still don’t agree with their reasoning.