Proper Church Art Follows Established Conventions

[43] Having seen, then, how largely convention enters into ordinary life, what more natural than that the Church in her wisdom should present her art in conventional forms. In her architecture, her paintings, her sculpture, her stained glass, her vestments, we see it. We also know what dismal failure has attended attempts on the part of outsiders to introduce more realistic forms of art. Take, for instance, the sprawling cherubs and voluptuous figures of the Renaissance painters and sculptors. They were realistic enough, but when did they ever stir devotion? I am reminded of a ludicrous intrusion of realism into ecclesiastical art. In a certain village the squire's family has built a church in the best ecclesiastical style. They have further adorned its windows with stained glass presentments of the Hebrew prophets. The faces of the prophets are all likenesses of different members of the [44] squire's family. Happening on my first visit to remark on the odd appearance of a Hebrew prophet in "mutton-chop" whiskers, my guide replied, "Yes, that is 'uncle Henry.' He was a good lawyer, but he is not a success as Ezekiel."

Not to labour [sic] this point, I think we may assume it to be generally conceded that in architecture, painting, sculpture, and the like, there is such a thing as Church Art; that it has a distinctive style of its own, inherently self-sufficing, and requiring no adventitious aid from secular sources. We do not, for instance, make vestments of "Liberty" fabrics, however beautiful; we do not clothe our stained glass saints in secular costumes, however handsome; we do not model our sculpture on Apollo Belvederes, however stately; we do not adorn church walls with paintings of secular subjects, however ravishing. Good sense, good taste, and reverence cry out against the bare idea.

And this brings me to my real point:

If we concede to the Church the right to develop all these arts in her own way, in other words, in "the Church style"; if we believe it bad taste to make our churches a dumping ground for secular artistic efforts merely because they are beautiful; why, in the name of reverence, why in the name of good taste, why in the name of common sense, are they to be made a dumping ground for every imaginable kind of music merely because it is pretty, or beautiful, or even grand; without a thought as to whether or not it is in harmony with the mind of the Church? I would ask our good critics who deprecate the action of the Holy Father, why in music alone of all the arts is the Church not to be allowed to develop on her own lines, rather than on those of the secular world?

---

Source: Richard R. Terry, Catholic Church Music (London: Greening & Co., 1907), 43–44.