Question about beautiful Churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter fish90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fish90

Guest
For centuries, Christians have built beautiful churches, chapels, cathedrals and shrines. A lot of the cathedrals built during the middle ages were built with people who would never see the end result. Beauty of these buildings were said to invite people to God according to some saint (I do not know who).

My question is how does a Catholic respond to statements that the Church should sell all of these beautiful buildings and give it to the poor or why spend money on beauty when it could help the poor?

Does anybody have any good references to point out the legitimacy of beauty in Church buildings?
 
For centuries, Christians have built beautiful churches, chapels, cathedrals and shrines. A lot of the cathedrals built during the middle ages were built with people who would never see the end result. Beauty of these buildings were said to invite people to God according to some saint (I do not know who).

My question is how does a Catholic respond to statements that the Church should sell all of these beautiful buildings and give it to the poor or why spend money on beauty when it could help the poor?

Does anybody have any good references to point out the legitimacy of beauty in Church buildings?
One of the twelve disciples once criticized a woman for pouring expensive perfume on Jesus’ feet and drying them with her hair. He said that the perfume could have been sold, and the money could have been given to the poor. That same disciple outdid himself there just a short time later- Judas sold Our Lord Himself for 30 pieces of silver.

The poor as well as the rich have the right to workship in those beautiful buildings. Architecture like that inspires the soul, and can help it meditate on holy things. There is nothing wrong with that.
 
Spot on M134e5, that’s it exactly.

The beautiful churches were built for the worship and the glory of our Lord.

We know we don’t have to sell them off to raise money for the poor because there was no call by Christ during His time on earth to sell off the Temple at Jerusalem and all the synagogues in Israel and all over the civilized world then (some of which were also beautiful according to the archaeological remains).

There is no huge market for churches anyway. The ones that are sold get turned into tatty concert halls and are gradually run down… the rest get torn down for supermarket developments and the like.

Rove
 
In the OT God himself instructed the Jews to build his Tabernacle- The Ark out of a special wood overlaid with gold to house his commandments and symbols of his presence.He instructed them to cast golden seraphs. See the book of Exodus. We do no less.
 
For centuries, Christians have built beautiful churches, chapels, cathedrals and shrines. A lot of the cathedrals built during the middle ages were built with people who would never see the end result. Beauty of these buildings were said to invite people to God according to some saint (I do not know who).

My question is how does a Catholic respond to statements that the Church should sell all of these beautiful buildings and give it to the poor or why spend money on beauty when it could help the poor?

Does anybody have any good references to point out the legitimacy of beauty in Church buildings?
In addition to the responses that have been given thus far, I would like to add a few thoughts of my own.
  1. Churches, particularly the great Cathedrals of Europe have little utility outside of being used for worship.
  2. Had the church simply given the money spent on the cathedrals to the poor centuries ago, our cultural heritage would be much poorer and for the most part, we would still be swamped with the impoverished in the world. I am not saying that giving money to the poor is bad, but the simple act of giving in itself does not solve the problem in the long run. In contrast, towns that built cathedrals provided jobs for the people who built them, as well as all the industries and businesses that were attracted to the decades long construction projects. Many times this prosperity extended long after the work on the cathedral was finished. In fact it could be argued that the creation in wealth, and its spread to the workers was far greater than the wealth put into the cathedrals in the first place.
  3. The Cathedrals and Basilicas of the Church as well as all the art works owned by the Church are now essentially a public trust. People can visit the churches and see many if not all of the art works. The same would not necessarily true if the works were sold, they might end up in private hands, locked away from public view.
–
Bill
 
I thought those pretty buildings were part of the source for producing the means to help the poor. Which is better, giving a fish or teaching to fish? Getting rid of those buildings only serves to further uproot the means to help the poor. Sure, you can make a quick buck off of one, but the food and $ it produces to care for the poor over time is now gone forever. Then what? On top of that, being places of worship, to sell one means finding a new place of worship to go and build, while selling one of these ancient buildings will only get it torn down or made in to a museum, limited in value either way, which means that selling them isn’t very profitable to helping the poor at all, even at the outset.

On top of that, archeology is extremely important, and loosing these buildings means loosing historic records.

I can go on all day about why it is important to keep these structures around.
 
I would suggest they consider that the poor helped build these churches.

Those that would like to see them sold off are disregarding that maybe the churches and the art and other beautiful furnishings contained in them feed the poor in other ways.
 
For centuries, Christians have built beautiful churches, chapels, cathedrals and shrines. A lot of the cathedrals built during the middle ages were built with people who would never see the end result. Beauty of these buildings were said to invite people to God according to some saint (I do not know who).

My question is how does a Catholic respond to statements that the Church should sell all of these beautiful buildings and give it to the poor or why spend money on beauty when it could help the poor?

Does anybody have any good references to point out the legitimacy of beauty in Church buildings?
I would ask the person making the challenge if they have sold all their possesions and followed Christ. Especially all their non religious ones.
 
I responded to this very topic a few months back on a lengthy thread. I will repost some of my statements from there:

Matthew 26:6-13
Now when Jesus was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper,
a woman came up to him with an alabaster jar of costly perfumed oil, and poured it on his head while he was reclining at table.
When the disciples saw this, they were indignant and said, “Why this waste?
It could have been sold for much, and the money given to the poor.”
Since Jesus knew this, he said to them, “Why do you make trouble for the woman? She has done a good thing for me.
The poor you will always have with you; but you will not always have me.
In pouring this perfumed oil upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial.
Amen, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be spoken of, in memory of her.”
  1. The Catholic Church always has been, and remains, the largest charitable organization on the planet, by a wide amount. Much of the Vatican’s wealth has been donated to it by the great artists of the world for the glorification of God. Even that art which has been commissioned by the Vatican was still done for the glorification of God, because as Christians, we realize that the things of this Earth are fleeting. We give our best to God, but in the end, money doesn’t really mean anything. It’s our relationship with God. Jesus is saying in the passage from Matthew above that one can honor God with fine things AND help the poor at the same time.
  2. The people actually living at the Vatican are not living a magnificent lifestyle. In fact, the pope’s apartment is quite modest. It consists of just ten rooms. The layout includes a vestibule, the library, a small studio for the papal secretary, and the pope’s private studio, from which he blesses the crowd every Sunday. The other rooms include the pope’s bedroom, the medical studio (which has surgical equipment, in case he’s attacked, just like Air Force One has), his private chapel, a small living room, a dining room and kitchen. Further, the pope does not actually own any of this. It’s no different than asking the question of whether the President of the United States lives in too much opulence because he gets to use the White House, Air Force One, Marine One, Camp David, and so on. All of these things serve a purpose, and NONE belong to him. They belong to the people, which let him use it.
  3. The Vatican also serves as a museum for many of the world’s great treasures. As such, it protects them in museums. In reality, these objects have no objective value, because they cannot be sold. For example, let’s say the Vatican was to give up all of it’s wealth. How, precisely, would you sell off the Sistine Chapel? Is there really anything else you can do with it? You can’t give it to a private collector, or build a Starbucks, or something. That said, let’s do an experiment. Let’s say that the art that it WOULD be possible to sell at the Vatican is worth, say, a trillion dollars. That would indeed be a large sum of money. Now, let’s sell it all and donate the money to the poorest one-third of the world. The Catholic Church would then be able to give those two billion people exactly… $500. That’s it! Now, while the average income of those 2 billion impoverished people is around $300 per year, and while this would help them for a very short time, in about a half a decade, they would all likely go right back to being poor, and the world would have lost access to many of the world’s greatest treasures, as they’d be in private hands. Is the United States of America fabulously wealthy because it has the treasures of the Smithsonian Institution? I mean, wouldn’t it be better if they sold off all of those artifacts and donated the money to the poor? Of course not.
continued…
 
In discussing the price of admission to the Vatican museums:

Actually, the Vatican museum prices are in line with most other major museums of the world. Also keep in mind that the museums are so huge, that the upkeep, maintainance, and constant restoration that’s needed to protect the treasures are astronomical. Further, the Vatican (as a nation) actually has very few sources of revenue, since it has no natural resources. The Vatican makes money from its museums, the sale of gasoline, collectible stamps and coins, gift shop items, and St. Peter’s Pence, which is a small donation given by people from parishes around the world. Also note that neither the Sistine Chapel or St. Peter’s itself have an admission cost.

Regarding the Vatican’s wealth:

Monaco, Luxembourg, and Lichtenstein are actually far wealthier do to their tremendous banking industries, and they are comparable in size… Granted, the Vatican is probably slightly more wealthy than Andorra, and I’ll grant that it is definitely more wealthy than San Marino. Even many tiny Caribbean nations are wealthier than the Vatican. In fact, it operates on a budget smaller than Harvard University. It simply happens to have an abnormally large amount of museums.

You also must remember that the Vatican has only been a tiny principality since around 1860. Before then, the Vatican was part of the “Papal States”, which was a fairly substantial nation, consisting of much of the middle of Italy. It was probably larger and wealthier than Belgium, The Netherlands, and Luxembourg put together. Much of what remains was inherited from this much larger, more substantial state. It could never afford to build such buildings today.

This is typical of all European nations. For example, the French government did an investigation into insuring the palace of Versailles a few years back, as it is such an important national heritage site. After various insurance agents looked at it, they determined that Versailles is uninsurable, and it’s value is $0. Why? Simply put, if anything were to happen to the palace, it would be irreplaceable. The building is so expensive, that if even a fraction of it were to be destroyed, it would be impossible to replicate without bankrupting the whole of France. Now, does this mean that France is irresponsibly wealthy? Not at all. It’s simply a part of it’s cultural heritage. ALL relatively old countries have this problem. It has nothing to do with the Vatican per se.

The splendor of the Mass helps us to engage the mystical, and elevates our thoughts to the idea that we are participating in something that is otherworldly. The Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Church subscribes to this philosophy even more so.

You’re also forgetting that the pope doesn’t really live in all that much splendor. His apartment is simple. His street dress is generally a simple white outfit. His garments for MASS are splendid, but they don’t belong to him, nor would he wear them apart from Mass. Yes, he wears a $300 pair of donated Prada shoes, but for someone that’s on his feet all day and travels all over the world, is that really an extravagence? He doesn’t even earn a salary.

And finally… regarding the splendor of church buildings:

A cathedral was actually one of the best investments a medieval town could make. Despite their great expense, a large cathedral could take hundreds of years to complete. It could become an industry unto itself. Large cathedrals employed thousands, and generated huge amounts of highly skilled jobs… jobs that were sorely lacking in the period. When the cathedral was complete, they would still need to be maintained, so many workmen would still remain. The pilgrims that would come to visit the cathedral needed to be fed, clothed, and housed, and this provided a virtual tourism industry, bringing in much needed revenue to both the church and the community. Churches were also the only medieval centers of learning, and every major university in Europe split off from a cathedral. If you had a cathedral school in your town, opportunities for trade would skyrocket, since learning about math, geography, cartography, astronomy, business, and law was all required by merchants. Further, most towns only even needed to have one large church, since there were no denominations. Everyone was Catholic, so all the effort could go into one splendid building rather than many smaller ones. Almost all medieval cities with a cathedral were FAR better off than their counterparts without them. This is why the cathedral is often called the greatest innovation of the Middle Ages.
 
I happen to like the beautiful churches, and art and things preserved by the catholic church. Rather it be done that way, than in some rich man’s castle that no one can see.
 
One other point about the splendor of church buildings… specifically, medieval churches and their art. After the fall of Rome, the literacy rate in Europe plummeted to literally barely 1%. If you weren’t a priest or a king, you probably were illiterate. So, the question became how to teach the Catholic faith. Obviously Bible study wasn’t an option. So, the priests would read from the Bible at Mass and use the paintings, statues, and stained glass art to illustrate the various stories. Even if a priest happened to be gone (which was quite frequent in the Middle Ages, when a priest might have to make rounds to 10-20 different towns for Mass), a person could still remember the stories and learn about them by visually interpreting the art. Even the icons of the Orthodox Church contain massive amounts of hidden meaning meant for teaching purposes (such as the postures, colors of garments, etc…). There was a debate about ceasing to use images in church (the Iconoclastic Controversy of around the seventh century), but the necessity of teaching the faithful won out, and imagery remained.
 
One other point about the splendor of church buildings… specifically, medieval churches and their art. After the fall of Rome, the literacy rate in Europe plummeted to literally barely 1%. If you weren’t a priest or a king, you probably were illiterate. So, the question became how to teach the Catholic faith. Obviously Bible study wasn’t an option. So, the priests would read from the Bible at Mass and use the paintings, statues, and stained glass art to illustrate the various stories. Even if a priest happened to be gone (which was quite frequent in the Middle Ages, when a priest might have to make rounds to 10-20 different towns for Mass), a person could still remember the stories and learn about them by visually interpreting the art. Even the icons of the Orthodox Church contain massive amounts of hidden meaning meant for teaching purposes (such as the postures, colors of garments, etc…). There was a debate about ceasing to use images in church (the Iconoclastic Controversy of around the seventh century), but the necessity of teaching the faithful won out, and imagery remained.
Weren’t some or most of the priests illiterate in Europe in many communities? I know they had to read the scriptures and such at Mass, but did they really know how to read them?
 
Weren’t some or most of the priests illiterate in Europe in many communities? I know they had to read the scriptures and such at Mass, but did they really know how to read them?
Up until the Cluny Reform Movement of the late 900s, it was somewhat common for parish priests to be illiterate. Members of the orders, however, were usually were taught to read. Parish priests would have been taught orally or by wrote memory. It is true that often their religious formation was not very good. This was one reason for the Cluny Reform Movement. One of the reforms was that seminary training and schools became mandatory for all priests.
 
Up until the Cluny Reform Movement of the late 900s, it was somewhat common for parish priests to be illiterate. Members of the orders, however, were usually were taught to read. Parish priests would have been taught orally or by wrote memory. It is true that often their religious formation was not very good. This was one reason for the Cluny Reform Movement. One of the reforms was that seminary training and schools became mandatory for all priests.
I gotta say, you really rock.👍

Nearly gave up on anyone ever admitting this. But, you just tell the truth.👍

You inspire me to want to believe by the truth you share.

Liz
 
Up until the Cluny Reform Movement of the late 900s, it was somewhat common for parish priests to be illiterate. Members of the orders, however, were usually were taught to read. Parish priests would have been taught orally or by wrote memory. It is true that often their religious formation was not very good. This was one reason for the Cluny Reform Movement. One of the reforms was that seminary training and schools became mandatory for all priests.
Was not the 900s the time when priestly celibacy became mandatory for the Latin Rite as well?
 
Was not the 900s the time when priestly celibacy became mandatory for the Latin Rite as well?
Yes, this was indeed another one of the Cluny Reforms. It spread at the local level rapidly, although the pope did not mandate it for the whole church until the eleventh century.
 
My question is how does a Catholic respond to statements that the Church should sell all of these beautiful buildings and give it to the poor or why spend money on beauty when it could help the poor?

Does anybody have any good references to point out the legitimacy of beauty in Church buildings?
Once again, Fr. Robert Barron seems to be the* go to *guy for these types of questions.

youtube.com/watch?v=EOaJTObCsLs&feature=channel_page
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top