N
NekoNecro
Guest
…Ok, I admit, I’d never thought of it this way. I mean yeah, it doesn’t really explain things like Bernini’s commission from the Vatican for "Apollo and Daphne"but I’d never thought of it this way on the modern local level before.I don’t see how paying for “big slabs of marble” and feeding the poor are mutually exclusive. Every time the Church pays for a furnishing, a building, or any kind of improvement, the money goes into the economy. Don’t marble cutters deserve their wages? Don’t artisans deserve a market for their goods?
My parish has commissioned some rather large sculptures as altar pieces in recent years. The commission was given to a very poor artist who lives in Mexico. Because of our patronage, he is able to feed his family in the long term and provide for their needs. Also, he has honest and legitimate work doing what he loves. What could be a better exchange than this?
Furthermore, is the public not better served by having this art in an accessible place where it can be viewed and appreciated, where it can lift the mind and soul to worship of the Holy Trinity? What better place than a public parish church where all may benefit from its presence? If we decided to be a poorer church and sold all our furnishings to feed the poor, then those furnishings would be locked away in private residences and for the edification of nobody but the owner. What good would that be?
The Church is the steward of goods entrusted to her by the community. Therefore it is incumbent upon the Church to make those goods perpetually accessible by the faithful for their use in worship and liturgy. It is also incumbent to use the finest furnishings possible given the means of the parish or community. Nothing less would be fitting for the glory of God.
Thank you, this post was quite thought provoking