Opinions, Authority and the Truth - II

I’ve found myself in an ongoing dialogue with Dr. Jeff Mirus (see Opinions, Authority and the Truth - I). I’m more than impressed with his patience! In fairness, I feel it fair to make you privy to our continued correspondence. If he responds again I will post that as well, giving him the last word. I will not post any subsequent correspondence after that, as I which not to dedicate my blog solely to this issue! It’s interesting, though.

Theodoric –

Note that I did not say that the Church has “taught” this. I said the Church “knows” – in the sense that the Church “understands” the full truth about man and is capable of articulating those truths against all ideologies or distortions. I refer you again to the writings of the Pontifical Council for Culture. The primary purpose of art is a philosophical issue relating to the nature of things; it is not part of Revelation. See also, for example, the works of Gilson or Maritain on art and beauty.

If someone were to incorrectly cite a Magisterial text, asserting that it means (for example) that the right of private property is absolute, one might well write in response: “This is not what the text says; the author has misused it, as you can see by reading the full text itself. The Church understands that the goods of creation are to be enjoyed by all, and so private property rights are clearly conditional” – then, speaking generally in this way, it should not be necessary to array citations in support of what the Church knows. The main point of the statement is that the text in question has been misinterpreted, as is clear from a careful reading of the text itself. So too in this case.

Of course you are free to argue about the purposes of art. But that the author’s assertion of what the text said did not match the meaning of the actual text was the primary point, and that was enough for my purposes in a brief blog entry. That interpretation would reduce the nature of art to social utility or functionality, which is a grave distortion. It was enough, for my purposes, to point to the problem, as I felt most readers would see the point at once.

However, I confess that I am surprised you do not see the point, so perhaps I was wrong after all in handling the matter so quickly.

– Jeff

My reply:

I didn’t miss your point. I believe you’ve missed mine. I don’t personally care much about what the purpose of ecclesiastical art may or may not be. I do have my opinions on what would constitute “good” ecclesiastical art and what reduces the mystery of the liturgy. I’m certainly not arguing that the other author got it right; I haven’t even read his article. You are probably fully justified in correcting his statements. If that was your point, you should have left it there. You could have said: “This is not what the text says; the author has misused it, as you can see by reading the full text itself.” You chose to continue, asserting that the Church knows full well that art has a specific “primary” purpose and then stated what that purpose is without any supporting references.

You may know which issues fall into categories capable of magisterial authority and those that do not. Many of your readers do not. Further, in matter removed from magisterial authority the Church still has many expressed opinions. They may be subject to revision, removed from the deposit of faith, but they carry extraordinary authority. To purport that the Church knows something, anything when it is merely your view being ascribed to the Church, is irresponsible. This is doubly so when your assertions are placed juxtapose other views which rely on weighty documents.

So perhaps you were wrong after all in handling the matter so quickly, but not for the reasons that you derived from our previous correspondence.

In either case, although my tone is pointed, it’s more a reflection of my style than my disposition. I appreciated your article and your response. I’m sure you’re a busy gentleman with more important things to do than to reply to my musings. You’re more than welcome to write back, but should feel no obligation. I just wanted to draw your attention to what I thought was a statement susceptible to misinterpretation by your audience.

In Christ through Mary,
Theodoric