Sacred Art

[Cam42]

This question was posed on the Q&A Board:

[quote name='92 Phillies']Hello, this is my first post on this forum, and as I am someone who is frequently battling with issues of faith, I am sure it won't be my last. I was born and raised Catholic, and I've had some bumps along the way, but I am still a practicing Catholic at the age of 21. There is something that has bothered me for about a year.

I studied in Dublin, Ireland in the Spring of this year, and it was one of the better times of my life. During the semester, I took a ten day course in art history and architecture in Rome, Florence, Venice, and Milan. The art I saw was just stunningly beautiful, but it also got me thinking about the Church and it's wealth of assets. I believe in the message of Catholicism, that Jesus is the Son of God, and died to save our sins. I believe in the teachings of Jesus. And I don't think Jesus would be very happy to see an enormous solid gold crucifix in a church. Isn't that very hypcritical? The Church does so much work to help the poor, the sick and the needy, why would it keep these extravagant material possessions? Don't you think it could sell these things to help finance their real cause?

I don't agree with the fact that during the counter-reformation, the Church paid artists a lot of money to create works that would help attract believers. This should not be the reason a person should be attracted to a religion and a way of life. But while I don't agree with this, I understand that the Church is made up of people, and people make mistakes. Does it bother anyone else that the Church is so rich while there are people starving on the street? I don't know, but it really urks me.[/quote]

My initial response was this.....

[quote name='Cam42']You are looking at this from the wrong perspective and one that the Church doesn't hold. What I mean is this; the treasures of the Church are not there becase they are worth lots of money, but rather because the artistic value is to give greater glory to God. If you look back into antiquity you will find that many of the artists that created the beautiful works were not rich nor were they out to be handsomely paid for their contribution.

The Church said at Vatican Council II:

[quote name='Sacrosanctum Concilium #122']Very rightly the fine arts are considered to rank among the noblest activities of man's genius, and this applies especially to religious art and to its highest achievement, which is sacred art. These arts, by their very nature, are oriented toward the infinite beauty of God which they attempt in some way to portray by the work of human hands; they achieve their purpose of redounding to God's praise and glory in proportion as they are directed the more exclusively to the single aim of turning men's minds devoutly toward God.[/quote][/quote]

Have at it......

[Socrates]

Great art can raise the mind to God, and has a value which cannot strictly be put into money. The art belonging to the Church belongs to the whole Church -to everybody, and is open for anybody to go see. It is not like it is being horded away in private collections.

Also, that mentality seems to buy into the whole faulty liberal mentality that the way to solve all the problems of poverty in the world is to simply throw a lot of money at it.
If the vatican just sold all its art, and gave it all to charity, that would only do so much, and then the money would be gone (and the Church would no longer have its great art). The problems of corruption and incompetant government that perpetuate poverty would remain. Much greater good can be done by people actually working to bring food and medicine to the poor, and working to find ways to help people out of their poverty, and work to fix those systems that perpetuate poverty.

I think a lot more would be accomplished if all those who gripe about the Vatican's wealth would instead spend time erach week volunteering, or even donating their owen money to charitable causes.

[philothea]

[quote]The Church does so much work to help the poor, the sick and the needy, why would it keep these extravagant material possessions? Don't you think it could sell these things to help finance their real cause?[/quote]


The "real cause" of the Church is to spread the gospel. Helping the poor, the sick, and the needy is a part of that, because that's what Jesus did. But the point of Christianity is not to make everyone middle class or better, it's to get them into heaven.

Further... I really, really wouldn't want to make the same argument Judas made, "Why wasn't this sold and the money given to the poor?" if on nothing else, the "heebie jeebie" principal.

[Katholikos]

This is an argument frequently used by Protestants against the Church.

For what price should the Church sell Michaelangelo's Pietá and give the money to the poor? The Church acquired these works of art centuries ago when they were either free or cheap. They belong to all of us. Do I want a rich private owner to have the Pietá or the paintings of Raphael for his private collection and pleasure? Noooooooo!

As the Lord said, the poor we shall always have with us. All the money raised by the sale of every piece of art, and the dismanteling and sale of all the Catholic Churches and their contents, would not solve the problems of poverty.

Poverty is caused by the failure of those who have to share with those who have not. It's a distribution problem, and often a political problem.

We should ask ourselves: what are YOU doing about poverty? Have YOU sold YOUR possessions and given the money to the poor? Don't forget the parable of the Rich Young Man.

==================================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[Joolye]

Interesting, at my small group this week we were doing a study on 'Simplicity' and we talked about the wealth of the church. One of the people there mentioned the ornate churches in Europe and said that they were also often build by peasants who were forced labor.

But we must deal also with our own wealth. Those of us who live in the Western world are in the world's richest 5%. We could all do a lot to change.

It is a good idea to buy products that are 'Fair Trade'. Have you guys heard of that?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Joolye' post='1121527' date='Nov 16 2006, 09:37 AM']
Interesting, at my small group this week we were doing a study on 'Simplicity' and we talked about the wealth of the church. One of the people there mentioned the ornate churches in Europe and said that they were also often build by peasants who were forced labor.

But we must deal also with our own wealth. Those of us who live in the Western world are in the world's richest 5%. We could all do a lot to change.

It is a good idea to buy products that are 'Fair Trade'. Have you guys heard of that?
[/quote]
I've heard of fair trade. I have a feeling it'll become about as popular as organic food, and that's fine, but free trade is also necessary.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Joolye' post='1121527' date='Nov 16 2006, 08:37 AM']
Interesting, at my small group this week we were doing a study on 'Simplicity' and we talked about the wealth of the church. One of the people there mentioned the ornate churches in Europe and said that they were also often build by peasants who were forced labor.

But we must deal also with our own wealth. Those of us who live in the Western world are in the world's richest 5%. We could all do a lot to change.

It is a good idea to buy products that are 'Fair Trade'. Have you guys heard of that?
[/quote]

Interesting thoughts, however, how can you apply a modern principle to an action that happened hundreds of years ago?

You speak of the "forced labor" of the peasants, but WHEN were the churches built? 2002, 1995, 1975....no.

Some interesting dates:

Notre Dame de Chartres; begun 1145 AD
Notre Dame de Paris; begun c. 1200 AD
Wawel Cathedral; c. 1550 AD
St. Peter's; April 18, 1506 AD

These churches often times were built using "indentured servants" not slaves. Often times, those responsible for the labor were paying off a debt owed, or working for a wage. It was a different system of government then and to apply modern prinicples to it is absurd.

It is like saying that women were oppressed during pre-history, because males dominated the hunting and foraging action of the group and could not vote on the issue. The argument can hold no water.

While the Western world may in fact be the world's richest 5%, we cannot ascribe the pains of people who lived hundreds of years ago to this prinicple of "fair trade."

What would you have us do? Sell all of the goods that have been accumulated? That puts a finite answer on a preservation that can serve mankind in perpetuity. The money gained from selling off the "riches of the Church" would only go so far. However, by preserving, allowing, and protecting the "riches" that are part of the Vatican Museum, et. al. then the assets can and do go to support the good of mankind in a far greater capacity.

Incidentally, do you know the average salary of a bishop? I do. If I were to tell you, you would be more than suprised.

[Era Might]

[quote]Thus, part of the teaching and most ancient practice of the Church is her conviction that she is obliged by her vocation - she herself, her ministers and each of her members - to relieve the misery of the suffering, both far and near, not only out of her "abundance" but also out of her "necessities." Faced by cases of need, one cannot ignore them in favor of superfluous church ornaments and costly furnishings for divine worship; on the contrary it could be obligatory to sell these goods in order to provide food, drink, clothing and shelter for those who lack these things. As has been already noted, here we are shown a "hierarchy of values" - in the framework of the right to property - between"having" and "being," especially when the "having" of a few can be to the detriment of the "being" of many others.

--Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Sollicitudo rei socialis"[/quote]
[quote]Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead.

There they made him a supper; Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at table with him.

Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment.

But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was to betray him), said, "Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it.

Jesus said, "Let her alone, let her keep it for the day of my burial. The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me."

--John 12:1-8[/quote]
There is obviously a tension here. There is nothing wrong with spending money to give glory to God; in fact, it is something we owe him. He is not stingy with his grace, and we shouldn't be stingy with giving him honor and glory. We are corporal beings, and we give God praise through corporal beauty.

However, as Pope John Paul II points out, corporal beauty is not our God, but a gift to our God, and sometimes it may be necessary to help the poor with the Church's resources. This goes back to St. Lawrence, who was the treasurer for the Church in Rome; when the Romans demanded to know where the Church's treasure was, he pointed to the poor, and said those are the Church's treasures.

As with most things, the Church recognizes the middle way and walks the line between poverty of beauty and greed of spirit.