For and against sacred art

The artistic heritage belonging to ecclesiastical entities has not always and everywhere been guarded as a priceless treasure, as it should have been, by churchmen.

This does not mean, however, that ecclesiastical law has ignored objects of art, old and new, big and small. As a general rule in Canon law, those in charge of sacred objects should take care of their preservation and decorum. For instance, works of artistic or historical value should be adequately protected from theft, arson or any other foreseeable damage.

The Cultural Heritage Act passed in our parliament last year contains stricter provisions for the protection of places and things of historical and artistic value within our national territory.

Items owned by the Church or under its jurisdiction have not been exempted or bypassed. One would, perhaps, have expected some reaction or criticism against the Act. But, on the contrary, it was met by general complacency; and very few, if any, objections have been raised.

Nobody can deny that the Act comprises several sensible measures, taken with the aim of preserving things of value and making them accessible to the public who justifiably want to enjoy their beauty. However, in sacred places the Church authorities should be left free to exercise their jurisdiction without undue interference of the civil authority.

Our churches are not mere art galleries or collections of art objects; the items of artistic beauty within them are not exhibited just for art's sake. They also have a liturgical function.

In the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, which introduced several liturgical reforms, one of the main problems was how to adapt the old places of worship to the new liturgy.

It seemed almost as difficult a task, to use a Biblical term, as putting "new wine in old bottles". Even the experts did not always see eye to eye on how these adaptations should be made and what should be kept or removed.

After the reforms, some things became obsolete, like rudimentary organs, and their place was no longer the church but a museum. It became important to make a clear distinction between art objects which were still required by the liturgical service, and those that had been put aside - though none of these should ever be destroyed or alienated.

However, the directives of the Church do not just concern existing objects but also new ones. Sacred art should continue to be a useful aid to churchgoers who want to concentrate their thoughts on God.

There are some people in our country, however, who have several misconceptions about objects of sacred art. In their view, Church art is a closed chapter; it may have enjoyed a glorious past in bygone days, but they believe these things in the third millennium are an anachronism. These people would prefer new churches to be empty and cool, devoid of any decoration, paintings and furnishings which adorned the traditional places of worship.

They do not hesitate to wage an unholy war against art objects, with the same zeal that prompted the iconoclasts to destroy the statues of saints or holy images, and the puritans to make a clean sweep of every decoration from their temples.

Nevertheless, the reasons they offer in support of their stand do not seem to be very convincing. In fact, it is worth considering further some of the arguments they put forward:

¤ The new works of art - they say - are very costly and the money paid for them could be put to better use. There are so many poor people around us that it is scandalous to spend so much money on these objects. It is true that an equilibrium should be found between works of art and charity, but in reality both have a role to play and the average Catholic should show an interest in each of them.

¤ Before building and furnishing churches at such expense, they say the Church should provide people with a roof over their head. But this and similar obligations do not rest squarely on the shoulders of the Catholic community. There are others, such as the government and local councils, that have a role to play. Just imagine if our much poorer ancestors had the same mentality as some of these present day busybodies. Instead of having elegant temples on our islands - which are a rich source of devotion and attention - we would just have hangars, unworthy of being called churches.

¤ They even argue, without taking the trouble to read the documents, that "the Second Vatican Council and the legislation which followed it are against church decorations or embellishments". Yet, the reality is that the Church does not in any way proscribe or prohibit such productions; quite the contrary, it encourages them by every means but insists that they should be truly worthy of being placed in a sacred location.

¤ If anyone has any doubts over the official position of the Church on sacred art, the message of the Council Fathers should put them to rest: "This world in which we live needs beauty in order not to sink into despair. It is beauty, like truth, which brings joy to the heart of men, and is that precious fruit which resists the wear and tear of time, which unites generations and makes them share things in admiration".

We should really decide whether we want to preserve and nurture our enviable heritage or sink mindlessly into the murky depths of soulless mediocrity, caring only for our bread and butter.