Prof. Michael F. Hull
Since its very first “house-churches,”
built on the foundations of the homes where the earliest Eucharists were
celebrated, the Church has championed the use of sacred art as a means to lift
souls to God. Sacred art is the sine qua non of all
Christian churches. Surely, Michelangelo was correct in remarking that “the
true work of art is but a shadow of the divine perfection.” Works of sacred art
are not only shadows of the divine perfection, but also works that bring the
soul to the transcendent mystery of the God of revelation (cf. Catechism of
the Catholic Church, no. 2502). It is for this reason that the Church is
vigilant about art, sacred and profane, good and bad. The Church and the popes
have long felt comfortable in discussing the fine arts, right up to the recent Letter to Artists (
“In fact,” according to Sacrosanctum
concilium, “the Church has, with good
reason, always claimed the right to pass judgment on the arts, deciding which
of the works of artists are in accordance with faith, piety, and the laws
religiously handed down, and are to be considered suitable for sacred use” (no.
122). Sacrosanctum concilium goes on to say: “Bishops should be careful
to ensure that works of art which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian
piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or
through lack of artistic merit or because of mediocrity or pretense, be removed
from the house of God and from other sacred places” (no. 124; cf. CCC,
no. 2503).
So what type of art must be excluded from
our churches? Profane and bad art. Each is, however, barred for different
reasons. Profane art is capable of great beauty, of the aforementioned “shadow
of the divine perfection.” Profane art is not precluded from use in churches
because of a lack of artistic merit; it is excluded because its aim is other
than an attempt to reflect the most profound revelation of God, especially the
utmost manifestation of God in Jesus, who “reflects the glory of God and bears
the very stamp of his nature” (Heb 1:3), and in whom “the whole fullness of
deity dwells bodily” (Col 2:9). Though sacred art is surely the supreme
articulation of the fine arts, which themselves are among the noblest products
of man, true beauty is often expressed in profane art (cf. SC, no. 122).
Thus, the Church’s objection to using profane art in her churches is not a
matter of beauty but of the loftiness of beauty’s manifestation.
But bad art is not beautiful. In fact, it
is not art at all. The question of the sacred falls to the sidelines because
the criterion of beauty remains unfulfilled in bad art. While it is true that
“the Church has not adopted any particular style of art as her own” (SC,
no. 123), she loathes ugliness as at best a representation of mediocrity or
pretension, and at worst a perversion of creation and an offense against the
divine. That is not to say, of course, that bad art has not slinked its way
into our churches; nor is it to deny that bad art ever skulks at the Church’s
portals. The Church must continue her vigilance lest the bad taste in our
churches not be excised, and the barbarians once more crash the gates. As the
late pope remarked, “sacred art must be
outstanding for its ability to express adequately the mystery grasped in the
fullness of the Church’s faith” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, no. 50) -
nothing less than the most beautiful can do that. And nothing less than the
most beautiful and the most sacred is worthy of our churches, where we
celebrate the Eucharist, “the source and summit of the Christian life” (Lumen
gentium, no. 11; cf. SC, no. 10).