Criticism of beauty in the Church

[Rich_C]

I think I know what you mean, and I assume you would agree that even simple churches can have a beauty about them. At the moment, I’m trying to figure out why exactly I would call a simple Gothic monastic church beautiful, but not some of the modern buildings. Both would be “plain” in a sense, but there has to be some deciding factor.

I meant plain in the modern way: “white washed” and not cruciform, almost like a Protestant church.

I have been moved by the simple beauty of some old chapels in Europe, or even here in Maryland, too. In fact, I’ve visited a lot of old Spanish missions in California and they have that “good simple” feeling, too.

I think the distinction is that the old plain chapels/churches still make a very sharp distinction between the sanctuary and the nave, and more importantly in my mind, they are built with stone or the next most permanent material available, giving them a very solid, almost primordial presence, like all the years of the Sacrifice offered in them still echo in the solid rock/adobe/hardwood/brick.

This effect is hard to achieve with sheetrock and foam ceiling tiles. Simplicity badly done, IMO blurs the sanctuary and the nave and has a very emphemeral presence. Catholic theology doesn’t ooze out of the building like it does with a great church, even a small old chapel.

That’s just my two cents.

 

[CutlerB]

I meant plain in the modern way: “white washed” and not cruciform, almost like a Protestant church.

Yep, that’s what I thought you meant.

I have been moved by the simple beauty of some old chapels in Europe, or even here in Maryland, too. In fact, I’ve visited a lot of old Spanish missions in California and they have that “good simple” feeling, too.

Indeed. If you ask me, I think some of the old tiny tucked-away parish churches in rural Europe are among the most beautiful churches in the world. And they don’t need to be covered in gold! There’s just that atmosphere of prayer and dignity about them. Oooh, I’m being sentimental again.

I think the distinction is that the old plain chapels/churches still make a very sharp distinction between the sanctuary and the nave, and more importantly in my mind, they are built with stone or the next most permanent material available, giving them a very solid, almost primordial presence, like all the years of the Sacrifice offered in them still echo in the solid rock/adobe/hardwood/brick.

There is certainly a lot of truth to that. Stones recall that we are all “stones” but Christ is the “cornerstone”, in the words of Saint Peter.

 

[Rich_C]

Indeed. If you ask me, I think some of the old tiny tucked-away parish churches in rural Europe are among the most beautiful churches in the world. And they don’t need to be covered in gold! There’s just that atmosphere of prayer and dignity about them. Oooh, I’m being sentimental again.

Yes, I agree, although I also love the old German parish we sometimes visit that’s just covered in statues and scrollwork, as well as the big basilica in DC that is covered in gold mosaics.

I think different kind of churches present different sides of Christ’s nature, or emphasize different doctrines of revelation, or different spiritualities.

But despite their differences, the good ones are all beautiful.

 

[CutlerB]

Yes, I agree, although I also love the old German parish we sometimes visit that’s just covered in statues and scrollwork, as well as the big basilica in DC that is covered in gold mosaics.

I think different kind of churches present different sides of Christ’s nature, or emphasize different doctrines of revelation, or different spiritualities.

But despite their differences, the good ones are all beautiful.

I have nothing to add to that.

 

[ProVobis]

And I’m not sure that the “poor” of those times contributed anything, because most of them had nothing, literally NOTHING, to give to the church building fund.

Some of those “poor” had skills they could contribute, such as electrical, plumbing, accounting, administrating, etc. And what about nuns and monks, who chose to live in poverty, yet undertook the entire educational processing of the Catholic schools? I think we can agree we’d be hard-pressed to find such work these days. Not for free anyway.

 

[godisgood77]

The definition of beauty as it relates to the Church architecture, art and decor is subjective. I think someone already said that balance and discretion should be used when designing our Church’s… Capital outlay and expenses for construction and maintenance should, in my opinion, be considered. Look at the St Patrick’s in NY or the Cathedral in Cologne Germany for examples of tremendous expense (there are countless other examples). I am not saying to knock these down and put up a white box in its place, but we should have balance in how we approach our houses of worship according to how Christ would have thought of them. In my opinion, we should err on the side of what is practical in worldly terms and good for the faithful in spiritual terms. In other words… the objective things in the faith

My personal preference is for simple elegance. I get the creeps when I go in to a Church adorned with all sorts of gold and ornate statues and such.

 

[Rich_C]

My personal preference is for simple elegance. I get the creeps when I go in to a Church adorned with all sorts of gold and ornate statues and such.

Simple people used to like things ornate. It appeals to the inner child in us. The loss of innocence in the post-modern age has really changed our view of these things, IMO.

 

[godisgood77]

I am a very simple man Rich… just ask my wife and children

 

[Cat]

Some of those “poor” had skills they could contribute, such as electrical, plumbing, accounting, administrating, etc. And what about nuns and monks, who chose to live in poverty, yet undertook the entire educational processing of the Catholic schools? I think we can agree we’d be hard-pressed to find such work these days. Not for free anyway.

I was actually thinking about those churches that were built centuries ago, long before the poor were skilled or educated in anything other than survival, and long before electricity was harnessed.

E.g., the Salisbury Cathedral in England, built in 1220. The money was donated by wealthy people. I’m guessing that the poor played a role by dragging the rocks out of the quarry, but I don’t know if poor people back then possessed building skills other than the backbreaking manual labor skills. And I hope that they didn’t donate these skills–how would they make a living for their family if, instead of farming or hunting, they were hauling rocks for no wages?

 

[Cat]

Simple people used to like things ornate. It appeals to the inner child in us. The loss of innocence in the post-modern age has really changed our view of these things, IMO.

I definitely agree with this. We’ve all seen magnificent buildings and settings in movies and on television that are just CGI–not even real! But they look real, and are more ornate and amazing than anything that we could ever build. So I think nowadays, a lot of the “church art” would not be as impressive as it would have been two hundred years ago.

My life is cluttered full of “stuff,” from work to play. I am over-involved in my community in various projects. I meet up and interact with hundreds of people each day, and many more online. The news is complex and often frightening. I am constantly bombarded with image after image from various media.

So to me, a blank, monochromatic wall is incredibly beautiful and peaceful. I think a lot of the starkly-designed modern church buildings are beautiful precisely because they aren’t 'cluttered," but rather, are unencumbered and soothing.

As for teaching theology–I think we need to be very careful. I’m not sure I buy the idea that church buildings still “teach theology.”

Many of the ornate churches were built way back before the Protestant Reformation, and so there was only ONE Christian theology out there, instead of Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostal, non-denomination, New Age, etc.

Nowadays, ten people, including Catholics, will look at a mural of the Life of Jesus, and there will be ten “interpretations” of that mural depending on the background of each person. One person will come away believing that it’s OK to be homosexual and proud of it, because “see how all those men are hanging around Jesus!” (They don’t have a knowledge of the culture and practices of the Bible times.) Another person will come away believing that women can be apostles, too, because, “See, there’s a woman serving a meal to Christ, so it must be OK for women to be priests.”



I hope I’m making myself clear. In the “olden days,” people didn’t have the plethora of information that we have nowadays. We are inundated with information, and all of this will influence our ability to correctly interpret a piece of art.

IMO, the only way that church art can teach theology nowadays is if there is a pamphlet or website that explains the theology that each piece of art, window, etc. in the church building is trying to teach. Otherwise, it becomes a free-for-all with each person interpreting the artwork according to their own background and prejudices.

Hooray for tract racks! That’s how church buildings teach theology nowadays!

 

[Rich_C]

I definitely agree with this… My life is cluttered full of “stuff,” from work to play… So to me, a blank, monochromatic wall is incredibly beautiful and peaceful. I think a lot of the starkly-designed modern church buildings are beautiful precisely because they aren’t 'cluttered," but rather, are unencumbered and soothing.

I can totally understand what you mean and it makes sense to me. I used to feel the same way. Now I find that praying in an old style church (usually ornate, or the old style of simplicity which is not quite what you described) insulates me from the craziness outside better, because it is so otherworldly. Being in a plain modern church isn’t so refreshing–it reminds me I live in a plain modern world. But of course, this is just my personal experience and no more valid than anyone else’s.

As for teaching theology–I think we need to be very careful. I’m not sure I buy the idea that church buildings still “teach theology.”… I hope I’m making myself clear. In the “olden days,” people didn’t have the plethora of information that we have nowadays. We are inundated with information, and all of this will influence our ability to correctly interpret a piece of art.

IMO, the only way that church art can teach theology nowadays is if there is a pamphlet or website that explains the theology that each piece of art, window, etc. in the church building is trying to teach. Otherwise, it becomes a free-for-all with each person interpreting the artwork according to their own background and prejudices.

Hooray for tract racks! That’s how church buildings teach theology nowadays!

The church architecture is a lesson book, not a teacher. It was never a teacher, IMO.

Our old church has wonderful stained glass windows with classic scenes of scripture and saints and such. Our friends’ children know all of these Bible stories and saints lives because their parents quietly taught them before Mass by pointing them out.

We gain nothing by getting rid of these teaching aids, and we lose nothing by having them. If people don’t use them, that’s a shame, that’s all.

 

[ProVobis]

I am a very simple man Rich… just ask my wife and children

God doesn’t create simple people. Or animals for that matter.