When I first contemplated becoming Catholic, I was super pumped to finally experience the fullness of the True Presence with a good, old-school reverent Mass, with plainchant and incense and 200 year old neo-gothic churches. After all, the Catholics have literally all the artistic and liturgical greatness banked away in their spiritual treasure-house, and their priests consecrate and immolate Our Lord in the fullness of his essence upon the altar at each and every Mass. I had seen papal Masses on television. I had seen the Catholics Come Home commercials. I’d read Aquinas and Vatican 2 complete with encouragements to use latin and chant and the organ. Then I converted…and everything was different.
The Church advertises a certain aesthetic, but consistently fails to deliver. Your average parish Church isn’t a wonderland of Gregorian chant and organ music. Some are, for sure, but most are far more likely to include warehouse-style architecture or whitewashed walls, rock bands leading worship, and priests wearing a far different garb than one might expect (read: polyester). Notable for their absence are altar candles, incense, organ music, altar rails, cassock and surplice, and a high altar. I know what I prefer and what helps me reverence God and actively participate, but for the purposes of this article I’ll ponder my aesthetic preferences in the silence of my heart. What I do find curious, though, is the bait-and-switch we so often encounter. It’s a question of truth in advertising. Why does the Church seems to portray one reality, when in fact an entirely different one is true?
I started thinking about this because Bishop Robert Barron is currently working on the second installment of his popular Catholicism video series. Here’s the teaser for the first one.
Sunlight softly filtering through stained glass, chant wafting past chiseled marble statuary, beauty until you can hardly stand it. And it’s not just Catholicism that advertises the Church this way. Check out Augustine Institute’s Symbolon, a video series specifically made to show to explain the Church to potential converts:
Same story. This is appealing. It is strongly, unashamedly Catholic. And here is the Catholics Come Home commercial for good measure:
Incense! Nuns in habits! Altars with lots of steps leading up to them!
Now, I don’t know all that much about the creators of any of these video productions. Perhaps they all worship in parishes that reflect what their work portrays, so I’m not questioning their integrity or accusing them of being less-than-honest in their presentations. I also understand that not every parish can afford to hire Palestrina to run the choir and Bach to jam on the organ. Many parishes are doing the best they can and there is nothing wrong with portraying the ideal in advertising/catechetical materials. If this is what Catholicism is at its best and we all strive to transform our parish into Chartres Cathedral someday but aren’t there yet, then fair enough if the advertising puts its best foot forward as showing the best of what we have to offer. But what stops me short is that I don’t think this is what’s happening at all.
In my experience (admittedly anecdotal), local parishes are intentionally organized around entirely different principles for how a Mass ought to proceed and in what sort of space it ought to take place in, and this isn’t because the ideal is out of reach but because a totally different ideal is sought – my best guess? Transcendence v. Immanence? But that’s a digression – For instance, this is a new, allegedly $12million parish currently being built in Las Vegas:
Be still my beating heart, for I am ravished by beauty. It seems to me that cash of that sort can purchase whatever building is desired. This, apparently, is what is desired. Beyond architecture, Catholic advertising often portrays priests in cassocks and nuns in habit but, at least in the US, that isn’t what we get. For instance, this is the LCWR, a conference of women religious, the largest gathering in the US.
I don’t think they’re even trying. Or, more accurately, they’re trying for something different. They aren’t not wearing habits because it’s laundry day or because they can’t afford them, they’re not wearing them because they don’t want to wear them.
Why is it that converts and the many, many people who love these videos are seemingly attracted to one portrayal of the Church, and yet the Church typically insists on another? Why not advertise what we really are and watch as billions are converted and saved? Why is it that when we put our best foot forward it is the very definition of the Traddie aesthetic and yet we steadfastly refuse to follow through on the image we present to the world?
Again, for the purposes of this article I’m not making any argument about which is better, but the bait and switch isn’t fair. I don’t know that I have anything truly profound to say about it, but it bothers me. Maybe I’m missing something, but if what is portrayed in Catholicism, etc is truly the aesthetic we believe in, we should do whatever it takes to make our parish liturgical life reflect that. And if it isn’t what we believe in, we should present a more honest picture.
Thanks for the article, Father!
(Full disclosure: I work for Word on Fire ministries, which produced the “CATHOLICISM” series.)
As a convert myself, I totally get where you’re coming from. I know I was (and still am, for the most part) disappointed that the Catholic Church I discovered through art, literature, theology, and history was not at all evident in the mostly bland substitute I’ve found in most parishes.
But I don’t agree with your “bait-and-switch” accusation. A “bait-and-switch” is where you advertise something and then actually provide people something else. But that’s not what’s happening in CATHOLICISM, Symbolon, or Catholics Come Home commercials. What they’re putting on display is *really part* of the Catholic Faith; it’s really what’s on offer! When you become Catholic, you really are grafting yourself onto the patrimony of Chartres Cathedral, and captivating saints, and Gregorian Chant, and vivacious nuns and priests. That really is what you receive.
Sure, your average parish might look far different than scenes from CATHOLICISM, but that only means your local parish has failed at its duty to offer beautiful worship spaces. It’s still the case that every church, nun, chant, and stained glass window seen in the CATHOLICISM series is, in fact, a representation of what’s part of the Catholic Church. Those things aren’t just bait–they’re the meat!
Also, I’ll say this as a convert: if Catholic ministries, books, and websites sought to only share with me a picture of “typical parish life,” leaving out all the color and verve of its beautiful tradition, spanning across space and time, I never would have converted. That would not have been at all compelling. I probably wouldn’t have even explored the Church’s teachings, or given the Church a fair chance, if that’s the depiction I first encountered.
So when trying to reach prospective converts, why should we not display the best parts of our faith? Why would we intentionally restrict ourselves to only the most most bland, banal, average parish examples when, instead, these stunningly beautiful cathedrals and compelling stories lie waiting? It doesn’t make sense to me. But that seems to be what you want to see: “Why not advertise what we really are and watch as billions are converted and saved?”
Color me skeptical, but I have my doubts that if anyone produced a documentary highlighting the aesthetic of the average American parish, or what “billions [will be] converted and saved.”
The solution to what you’re calling a “bait-and-switch” is not to tone down the beauty of these media series–it’s to raise up the quality of our parishes!
Hi Brandon,
I see a little tongue-in-cheek behind Fr. Michael’s line that “billions [will be] converted.” I think his broader point is that in “advertising” the Church in such a way, we are implicitly admitting that this is the “best face” of the Church to put forward, and if it is, then why on earth don’t we actually pursue that when the rubber meets the road? Notice his point about the $12 million ghastly-looking church in Las Vegas. They’re not just failing in the sense of falling short, they’re actively striving (with significant funds) for something else, and often these efforts come from the highest levels. So either we admit that the face of the Church portrayed in the “Catholicism” series is what we should all strive for, or if we think that the Las Vegas option is actually more effective, then let’s use that in our “advertising” and see how it goes (hint: it would fail miserably).
Brandon, this is a thoughtful, constructive comment and I appreciate that. Just in case it isn’t clear, I’m trying hard not to assign “blame” to anyone so much as to point out a disconnect that is baffling to me. I love the depiction of Catholicism I see in Bp Barron’s productions and don’t blame him at all for presenting the best of what we have (if that isn’t clear in the article, chalk it up to poor writing). The problem, as you rightly point out, is that there are so many parishes that not only aren’t capable of such a depiction of the faith but, to my eye at least, steadfastly reject this view of the faith. The “billions saved” comment can be read in this light… IF the general sentiment is to truly believe that rock bands, warehouse-style churches, etc are winsome, then why don’t we advertise ourselves as such? My theory would be that such a depiction isn’t all that attractive to potential converts, but then, why the disconnect? I’m trying to be content with simply pointing out a strange phenomenon…
Just take a look at Bishop Barron’s home cathedral. Odd it’s not featured in his series.
Curiouser and curiouser!
To play devil’s advocate: My home parish, where I grew up and now work full time, has a church building with – shall we say – atypical architecture adorned with abstract art. We do have a traditional choir and an organ, and I’d say we sing more chant than the average parish, but we also have a rock band. We never use incense because the music director (me) has asthma and can’t very well sing with that stuff constricting her lungs. And yet, we are known in our diocese for having some of the very best liturgies. When the bishop couldn’t get to the cathedral to say mass because of a marathon blocking the streets, he drove across town, past any number of closer parishes, to come say Mass with us because he likes our liturgies. This is due in large part to our pastor, who is one of the top liturgists in the country, but also due to our music, including the rock band, and, yes, our building, which provides some unique opportunities for engaging the congregation, if you have a pastor with enough imagination to exploit them. The room is an octagon around the altar, with an ambulatory and three chapels around the outside of the pews. At various points in the liturgical year, we use the entire space. The congregation gets out of their pews to gather around the baptismal font at funerals, the Easter Vigil, and during several RCIA rites. The choir sometimes gets up (discreetly) during Mass and sings from one of the chapels, mostly because the acoustics are amazing, but also to draw attention to the subject of the chapel (Mary, crucifix, or tabernacle.) We process around the ambulatory for the Stations of the Cross and for the procession with palms on Palm Sunday. None of these things would work very well in a traditional cathedral-type church, and all are examples of engaging full, conscious, active participation.
So, yes, we’ll gladly be part of the advertising campaign, and at the diocesan level, we often are. And we do draw converts into the Church, some of whom are rather turned off by the whole High Mass/ Latin thing, and who wouldn’t have given Catholicism a second look if that were all it had to offer. The question is not, why the bait and switch, but why advertising for a universal Church rich with a multitude of rites, cultures, liturgical styles, art, music, etc. from around the globe insists on presenting such a singular view of a much broader institution. I have seen so many hearts opened by my simply saying, “Yes, we will sing your favorite ‘Protestant’ hymns at your mother’s funeral. We love them, too.”
Karen, there are of course numerous other beautiful rites — Byzantine, Maronite, Russian Orthodox, etc. But, but, but, I meet so many ex-Catholics nowadays I wonder whether they would’ve left the Church in the first place if we hadn’t had this massive change in liturgy. I think if we get the first thing — worship — right, everything else will follow. I know that the Novus Ordo is valid and during the week, that is what I hear, but we’ve lost soooo many souls with all the changes.
Vijaya, I completely agree with you that we must get worship right. I will never be one to argue in favor of settling for mediocrity or just following fads. But in reference to the article’s point, that Chartres is the ideal we present and therefore the ideal all parishes ought to be striving for, even if practicality often intervenes, I simply think that is too narrow a definition of getting worship “right.” There are innumerable parishes that get worship wrong, where it is tepid and devoid of life. I’ve been to those places, and it’s excruciating. But it does not therefore follow that we must throw out everything that isn’t trying to be Chartres. Try going to a predominantly black parish with a Gospel choir, possibly held in a building little better than a barn. I used to conduct in such a church. It was one of the most profoundly “right” places I’ve ever been. It’s my experience that virtually any style of worship can be done either well or poorly, and that different people will be moved by different styles. The idea is to serve the people who are actually coming to your door, whoever they may be, and to give them the ability to worship well, in a way that will help those particular people move closer to encountering the Divine. In liturgical music, it’s called the Pastoral Judgment, choosing music according to the needs and abilities of the specific congregation. The problem is that many liturgists think being “pastoral” absolves them of the need to challenge people, when exactly the opposite is true. Part of being pastoral is to gently shepherd people out of their comfort zones into a space where they can encounter something new, because after all, none of us, however beautiful our worship, are so “right” that we can afford to become complacent. And that goes for the worshippers at Chartres as much as for the ones in the tepid American churches.
Good thoughts Karen. I agree with you about serving the people’s needs but not necessarily innovations. What has served the Church for hundreds and hundreds of years should be the mainstay. As I understand it, we began with plainchant, then started added polyphony, later still came other instruments, but everything was added slowly and deliberately. God bless you for the work you do.
Slow and deliberate is the Catholic way – but so is just doing stuff, and then codifying what works and what doesn’t later. That’s how most of our Marian theology came about. It had been in practice for hundreds of years before the Church got around to codifying doctrines. There was a time when chant and polyphony were new and innovative and viewed with skepticism, too. There was a time when the idea of instruments in church was downright scandalous. I certainly agree that all things must be put to the test, and we should not simply discard what has proven to be effective over time. My choir sings a lot of chant and polyphony. But without innovation, we will wither on the vine. People are created to be creative, which is a God-given gift and an imprint of the Divine image. It is only right that our creativity should inform our worship. The inevitable consequence of which is, of course, that sometimes we’ll get it wrong.
Great article. We are converts and my husband wondered where the heck did the smells and bells go that he saw in The Godfather. He had no religious background. I was raised in India in the Anglican Church which I left at the age of 12 (problem of suffering and evil but that’s a long story … I’ve written about it here: http://vijayabodach.blogspot.com/2017/07/a-love-story.html ). But Truth is compelling so we stuck with RCIA, the choirs (one of them was a rock band with drums and all that gave me terrible migraines), and modern art. However, my husband kept searching and after we were rec’d into Holy Mother Church, he discovered an FSSP parish about an hour away and Oh. My. Stars. I thought I was in heaven at that first High Mass. Now I know it was Missa de Angelis for the Feast of Christ our King. I confess I stole one of the booklets to study in depth because I simply wanted to soak it all in.
The priest gave such a beautiful homily about the sanctity of life, something I’d not heard in the parish we were rec’d in. We were (and still are) so hungry to learn the faith that we kept returning every month. Our kids were serving in our regular parish so that was about the frequency with which we could attend the Latin Mass.
We prayed for more faith and the doors opened wide. My husband was able to transfer to SC. The first thing we checked was whether there was a Latin Mass available. It’d be a deal breaker, if not. We are grateful that our pastor at Stella Maris offers TLM every Sunday and Feast Days. It is so beautiful, so rich, I wish everybody had access to this. He rightly says, “Beauty will save the world.”
What is it when an irony flips over spins around and becomes ironic again? I dunno.
So a bunch’a us are converts here? Cool. I was a fundy anti-Catholic who stumbled into a typical SoCal parish in my late teens circa 1979. They had it goin’ on, and I loved it. If they’d had Tallis, Byrd, and all the boys in the band, I’d’a gone running in the opposite direction and never come back. The folk mass was a significant—read, substantial—stepping stone for me to becoming Catholic. I didn’t complain about ’em then, don’t complain about ’em now. Aesthetically challenged–for proof, ask my wife, the artist–most of the beauty in the Catholic Church is nearly lost on me, including architecture. Do I like beautiful liturgy and churches? Sure. Can I live without ’em? Definitely.
I don’t seem to be wired with this need, but heck, nearly everybody I hang with (now) seems to be. Ironic.
Story continues…
In 2012 I helped co-found an Anglican Ordinariate community under the provisions of Anglicanorum Coetibus. And we got it goin’ on in terms of liturgy (choose your Mass, one is mostly in Latin; the other is affectionately called the BCP) and sacred music. The 1940 Hymnal. Beautiful. Traditional. Reverent. A chapel offered to us that is exquisite. Love. It.
It rocks…oh wait…
My motivation to help found this community had nothing to do with Anglican patrimony (per se) or beautiful liturgy; I was motivated by the fact that B16 established a bridge to our separated Protestant brothers and sisters, and to offer visible, tangible unity with them should they be so inclined to consider the Catholic Church (500 years of separation—long enough); and if tambourines and banjos and a warehouse with exposed HVAC and a stage for Mass would have done it, so would I.
The Ordinariate is what the Lord offered, so the Ordinariate is what I accept.
Ah, the ironies in life. Gotta love ’em. 🙂
[ps, Oh, wait, I forgot. Advertising. Let’s do that. Here you go: http://www.newmanonline.org/ ….and why is there smoke coming out’a that thing? 🙂 }
The question still is, though, I suppose, if those types of typical-Catholic experiences are fruitful (and I’m sure that for many they are and can be) why don’t we portray ourselves that way in public? Why the default to chant, gothic, etc?
It’s a good and fair question. I wonder if we broaden the term ‘advertise’ (or portray) to include the wide array of stories on—as my daughter would say, the interwebs—then we are portrayed accurately, in some cases.
Examples that leap to mind might include less commercial portrayals, ie, the bulletin or website for a parish may certainly say ‘Life Teen Mass’; church’s FB pages (and specific ministry pages of the parish) often include tons of photos and info (it’s difficult to fake that stuff); this fairly recent piece* in America ‘advertised’ what the largest parish in the U.S. is like (not much like the Catholicism ads). These are all relatively public portrayals, just not (generally) commercially motivated
* https://www.americamagazine.org/charlotte-megaparish .
But your point is well taken.
Michael, the more I think about it, the more I wonder: would it be fair to say that you’ve selected a slice of the public portrayal of the Church? I am now wondering if an ‘analysis’ (once ‘public portrayal’ was given a definition) would render interesting results. (I read far, far too much about the Church, and quite widely—I really should ‘get a life’—but that wide reading suggests to me that if we take in ‘all’–whatever all means–that exists in front of the public, ie publicly available to the reader/viewer, if we’d come up with a more nuanced if not balanced perspective about this? Dunno. Just askin’.
I think? Probably? For instance, Karen points out above that her parish does get promotion within the diocese where it’s located. And obviously the picture I used of the LCWR conference is meant for public consumption.
It is certainly true, though, that the large Catholic media companies are presenting one, specific picture of the Church, especially their offerings that are meant for RCIA, reverts, or “beginners”.
Anyways, I’m just a guy with some anecdotal musings, and I’m totally enjoying the discussion that is developing.
I don’t think it’s really a case of “bait and switch”. Apart from the author’s own point about the challenges of providing great art at the parish level, I suspect it has more to do with the dynamics surrounding the “cult of banality” that emerged within much of the Church in recent decades. For various reasons, those who subscribe to this impoverished ideology do not place a high emphasis on evangelization (e.g. a belief that all people will be saved regardless; the belief that evangelization is essentially disrespectful to other denominations / religions). As such, those who are most passionate about evangelization also tend to be those who strive after beauty. To the degree that this latter group has influence at the parish level, they strive for it there as well. I do think that in a number of places the tide is turning in favor of a return to the pursuit of beautiful churches, liturgy, etc., but it will probably take another generation for this become widespread. In the meantime, we can plant the seeds we can, and trust that the Holy Spirit is still at work in the Church.
‘As such, those who are most passionate about evangelization also tend to be those who strive after beauty.’
We should grab a beer sometime, Father, and talk about this ^ . 🙂
I’m afraid you’ll need to come to Australia for that 🙂