Back in September of 2022, Michael Lofton of Reason and Theology (R&T) released a short live stream showing off Sacred Heart Cathedral in Limon, Costa Rica. I will begin this post by saying that I think R&T's work on defending the Catholic faith, especially against the errors of Eastern Orthodoxy, is very good, and while I think Michael Lofton has been very uncharitable towards traditionalists recently, I think his intentions are pure (if misguided).
With that said, I find myself on the opposite side of Mr. Lofton on the issue of aesthetics in the Church. I do not think, based on a short back-and-forth with him in the comment section of the aforementioned video, that we disagree in substance: I think we agree that churches should be beautiful, and we also agree on what beauty is. However, we do seem to disagree on the extent to which beauty is necessary for churches. Based on his comments under the aforementioned video, Mr. Lofton seems to take the position that concerns of beauty are preferential and do not matter so long as there exists a confection of valid and licit sacraments.
All of this is to set up the main point of this article: the Cathedral in Limon is ugly as sin. From the video I saw and the few pictures I've found online, the interior walls are done in gray stone or concrete, the floors are tiled in a dark colour, and the ceiling is angular and made with dark brown wood. The entire interior is very badly lit in all of the pictures I've found, and it's very dark and dingy looking. On top of that, the table altar is simple, with the cathedra sitting directly behind it in place of the tabernacle, and everything is made in a rough, hewn-stone aesthetic. There is no Crucifix (in violation of GIRM 117), but instead there is a triple "Risen Christ" piece over the wall behind the cathedra.
I have made this point in my personal interactions. I will make it again here in writing, and heaven forfend that I ever repent of this position: aesthetic beauty is indispensable in the life of the Church and for the worship of Almighty God, and architecture like what you will see below is utterly indefensible. It may not be considered a sin to make ugly churches and cathedrals, but it probably should be.
This is, to say the least, a very strong and controversial position. "But Jack!" I hear you say, "isn't it true that the only thing that matters is that people are being spiritually fed? Doesn't God accept all prayer, so long as we are giving Him our best? Aren't people still receiving the Sacraments at these less-than-appealing churches?"
To that, I say: yes. Obviously. However, embedded within these objections are three assumptions with which I vociferously disagree: first, that these ugly churches are just as capable of spiritually feeding the faithful; second, that this constitutes the best we have to offer God, and; three, the only end that a church building has is being a housing unit where the Sacraments are celebrated.
Let me offer a modest proposal in response: those places in which the awareness of the sacred is elevated by beauty are better at feeding the faithful than these modern art monstrosities in which many priests and bishops currently celebrate Mass. On top of that, when we do not truly offer our best to God, including in aesthetic beauty, God is not as pleased as when we do offer Him our best. Finally, local parishes and cathedrals are not merely Sacrament factories: they are the portals where Heaven and Earth touch in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Aesthetic Beauty is Indispensable for Worship of God
Let us first touch upon the significance of aesthetic beauty in worship. The topic of beauty is not one which can be easily disregarded in the life of the Church. Contrary to modern errors, beauty is not subjective and invented, but objective and discovered. St. Thomas Aquinas says that beauty is based upon form, which is the metaphysical principle that gives structure to the matter of a particular thing. In other words, form is what makes a thing what it is. St. Thomas says that "beautiful things are those which please when seen" (ST I, Q. 5, art. 5, ad. 1). As Michael Spicher points out, St. Thomas is not saying that beauty is a matter of taste, but rather is saying that beauty can be recognized through contemplation of form. In fact, in the very next sentence of the Summa, St. Thomas gives us a criterion for objective beauty: proportion. St. Thomas here is not saying "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder," but rather that "the eyes can behold beauty."
Recognizing that beauty is objective and knowable is important because it directly leads to two other conclusions: beauty exists in degrees and we can judge those degrees. Some things are plainly more beautiful than others, and we can easily tell what is beautiful and what is not. We can also tell what is more beautiful than something else. This means that, when we approach artistic beauty, we can and should aim to create art that is as beautiful as possible, especially when we are talking about religious art.
When we create art, we should recognize that the entire aim is to create something beautiful, and to purposefully stop short of maximal beauty subverts the end of making art in the first place. This is especially true of sacred art. Sacrifice has always meant offering the best of what one has to God, whether that be an unblemished lamb in the Old Testament or the perfect Sacrifice of Christ in the New. Taking that principle, we should only offer art that is truly beautiful, and of the highest beauty possible, to God. The Church very clearly and in plain language agrees with this in Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC):
"Ordinaries... should strive after noble beauty rather than mere sumptuous display... Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists... which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense." (SC 124)
Not only is art an offering unto God, but it is also a useful tool to lay people. Sacred art which is truly beautiful is capable of "turning men's minds devoutly toward God" (SC 122). It has long been held in Eastern Christian tradition that Icons serve as "windows to heaven" and help draw us into the transcendent. Let me ask the reader: which one of these do you genuinely think will help one's focus be drawn into the sacred mysteries of Christ in His Church?
This?  | Or this?  |
|---|
Bad liturgical art is not only a failure to offer proper sacrifice to God, but it is also damaging to the laity. In okaying bad art, we neither give God our best nor do we give anything to the ordinary member of the Church that can lift his soul to God through beauty. Instead, we purposefully settle for something that is ugly, and thereby refuse God the sacrifice of praise due to Him while also refusing the laity easier access to contemplation of the divine mysteries of God.
Not All Offerings Are Equal in God's Eyes
This is a tough pill to swallow, but not only is it true, it is in the Bible:
"In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard." (Gen. 4:3-5, ESV)
God's reasoning for rejecting Cain's sacrifice and accepting Abel's is not a mystery. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews makes it clear that "[b]y faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous..." (Heb. 11:4). Abel's animal offerings were simply better in the eyes of God than Cain's vegetable and fruit offerings. Needless to say, not all our spiritual sacrifices are equal in the eyes of God: a Rosary said with more devotion and meditation is more acceptable than one which is sped through by rote; Gregorian chant is to "be given pride of place in liturgical services" (SC 116); a valid Mass which follows the rubrics is better than a valid Mass littered with abuses. Why should we think that ugly churches are just as pleasing to God as beautiful churches? We have absolutely no reason to think this way.
The issue of uplifting the laity is also relevant here. Of the two churches shown below, which is honestly striving after noble beauty and which is mediocre pretense?
 |
 |
 |  |
Churches Are Not Sacrament Factories
The USCCB, quoting Communities of Salt and Light, says of the parish church:
"The parish is where the Church lives. Parishes are communities of faith, of action, and of hope. They are where the Gospel is proclaimed and celebrated, where believers are formed and sent to renew the earth. Parishes are the home of the Christian community; they are the heart of our Church."
This is where the question "aren't people still receiving the sacraments" comes into play. Yes, people still receive the Sacraments in parishes that look like this:
But does this really look like a place of action, faith, and hope? Or does this look like it was designed at IKEA? Is a place as lifeless as this, as bland and blank and boring, truly the life of the Church? "But Jack!" I hear the detractors say, "It's not about the building! It's about the community inside the building." As we have stated before, beauty affects the laity. It can either, in the words of Holy Mother Church, turn our attention to the divine or offend our religious sensibilities. There is no excuse for lackluster churches.
"BUT JACK!" the detractors cry again, "so long as people are receiving the sacraments, isn't that all that matters?"
No. No, it's not. Location matters. This is not my idea, but the Church's. Canon 932 §1 of the Code of Canon Law states:
"The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in a sacred place unless in a particular case necessity requires otherwise..."
True, this canon is not saying that churches must be beautiful; by "sacred place" it means a consecrated church building. However, this establishes a larger point that must be made: the place the sacraments are celebrated must be sacred precisely because the sacraments are of a sacred nature. In theory, Mass can be offered anywhere. I have seen Mass offered practically everywhere: in historic cathedrals, in a rural Benedictine monastery, in a college classroom, and even in an open field. I was confirmed and brought into the Church in a public university's non-sectarian chapel. Quite frankly, some of the most beautiful Masses I've ever attended were held in the most unorthodox locations. However, it is better that Mass be held in dedicated parishes and holy sites because those holy sites help people anticipate the holy mysteries about to take place before them and, far more importantly, it is more fitting for the sacraments themselves.
This brings us to the biggest problem with the "churches as sacrament factories" viewpoint: churches are not primarily for us. They, along with all created things, are created for the greater glory of God. The Eucharist is for us, but it is also for God because, through it, Christ is worshipped and glorified. Churches are not simply spaces where we store liturgical supplies, go and confess our sins, and meet to celebrate Mass. Churches are houses of worship where the People of God meet to offer everything that they have to the Almighty.
Churches are part of our sacrifice of praise. Bishops dedicate them to God, and their beauty is offered to God. As was established earlier, not all sacrifices are the same, and beauty exists in degrees. If beautiful things are those which please us to see, be honest about which of these Churches are easier upon the eye.
 |  |
The average person will recognize the far-exceeding beauty of St. Peter's Church without any problem. Is the average person a better judge of beauty than God? Does God not care about objective beauty? Or, will God look at both of these structures and judge one more beautiful than the other? Now, this does not make the sacraments more or less efficacious. However, it does give more or less glory to God, and that is what is at bar here.
Simplicity Is Not an Excuse for Ugliness
One argument that people will give in response to ugly churches of the minimalist variety is that these buildings were built that way because of poverty: the parish or diocese could not afford a better building. However, this mistakenly assumes that minimalism is cheap, and it mistakes beauty for lavish expensiveness.
Take the Sacred Heart Cathedral in Limon. I was unable to find out how much it cost to build, however, it does not look inexpensive. The angular nature of the building is far from simple and requires a lot of architectural know-how in order to give the structure support. It also requires money to pay for the architectural know-how. Also, if the sculptures and statues were originals, that also could cost a lot of money.
Now take this parish, St. John Paul II Catholic Church in Denton, TX, for example:
 |  |
Notice this parish's simplicity: minimal exterior or interior embellishments. Very plain walls. Since these pictures were taken, stained glass has been added to the side windows and to the two rose windows. The most expensive piece in this parish is probably the high altar. This parish, and all its amenities (including pews, statuary, etc.), were constructed for less than $4 million. While that figure may sound like a lot to a layperson, that is a very inexpensive figure as far as public building costs go.
We need not stop there. In the video below, several French priests and parishioners of the Fraternity of Saint Peter transform a plain table altar into a stunning high altar in less than thirty minutes, using resources already available to them. Compare that to the concrete box used at Counsel Commemoration Church in Austria.
Or what about this makeshift altar used in the side chapel at a Fraternity parish in North Texas:
As said above, one Rosary said in deep meditation is better than one Rosary said hastily. Likewise, one Rosary said in deep meditation is better than three Rosaries said hastily. In St. Luke 21, Christ observes many rich men contributing excessive amounts of wealth to the Temple treasury, along with one destitute widow who puts in two mites (the equivalent of about twelve minutes of one day's labour), and remarks that "this poor widow has put in more than all of them. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on" (Lk. 21:3b-4). The key to a worthy sacrifice is a total gift, not a lavish gift (though the two are not mutually exclusive).
Beauty does not necessarily mean expensive. It simply means "that which is pleasant to behold." It is not a crime to say that some churches are not pleasant to behold. In fact, it is often an objective fact that is lost on no one, including God, despite the preening of the modernists and the protestations of so-called conservatives.
I Don't Like Ugly Churches, and God (probably) Doesn't Either
I expect that the response to this argument will ultimately be an appeal to the laity's spiritual good, God's merciful condescension, and the primacy of the sacramental celebrations over the importance of location. However, as said at the beginning of this article, none of these points are being disputed in and of themselves.
However, consider the following: does God listen to prayers said in the bathroom? Can God give grace to a sinner even while he is in the bathroom? In theory, could not Mass be celebrated in a bathroom? Is there anything logistically or theologically that prevents any of these from occurring?
The answer, of course, is no. However, notice how your skin crawls as any of these suggestions are made, especially the last one. We understand the sacramental nature of not only the sacraments, but also of those things which surround them, are closely related to them, and assist the faithful in the devout life. In fact, we recognize them so much that we actually call them "sacramentals." Why then, if we recognize the sacred nature of sacred spaces, should anyone settle for ugly spaces?
One thing Mr. Lofton continually said in rebuttal to my critiques in the above-mentioned YouTube video was that the beauty he assumed that I stressed is accidental, and not "necessary" so long as there are sacraments. It is important to note that Lofton refused to clarify what he meant by "necessary" when I directly asked, nor did he ask for clarification as to the type of beauty I think is necessary.
This is aesthetic utilitarianism, plain and simple. It does not inspire the religious sensibilities of the lay faithful, it does not give what is best and brightest to God, and it reduces the place of worship to a Eucharist factory. It is a horrendously erroneous opinion that must be refuted.
The beautiful thing about beauty is that, as an objective fact, it can be clearly and easily perceived by anyone. It doesn't matter how smart or stupid, how lettered or illiterate, how rich or poor, or how Western or Eastern one is. Anybody can look at something and immediately say "this is beautiful" or "that is not beautiful." This ability to discern objective truths is given us because we are made in the Imago Dei. We can discern beauty because God can discern beauty. No one should fear being honest and saying "I don't like ugly churches," because this is a proper ordering of taste with fact.
Do not be ashamed to dislike objectively ugly churches. God probably doesn't much care for them either.
Comments