For those of you who are (or will be) reading Scruton, pay special attention to what he has to say about judging art.

These things are interesting for their own sakes. But they also confer other benefits. They create a frame of reference which permits us to communicate our states of mind. They offer consolation, amusement, enjoyment, and emotional stimulation in a thousand ways. But we do not judge them by measuring those good effects. On the contrary, we judge them on their intrinsic merits. The question before the critic is not: "does this have good or bad effects?" but "is this a proper subject of interest?"

He then discusses the defects in art that is obscene and art that is sentimental.

It is possible that the commercialization of the human heart by the modern media is responsible for the hysteria with which modern traumas are greeted. But it is not such bad effects to which a critic refers, in criticizing a sentimental work of art. Sentimentality is there on the page, on the canvas, or in the notes: it is an intrinsic property of the work itself. The task of the critic is to reveal it for what it is, and to show also that a work with this defect does not justify the attention for which it clamors.

I suggest you do two things. First, give some thought to how your liturgy addresses "proper subjects of interest". What is being clamored for?

Second, compare this type of criticism with the sort you find here. Note the points of contradiction. If the church is going to dither over bringing art into the church, you'd best prepare yourself for the sort of "art" some people have in mind. Mark's views are as intellectually stimulating as a sideline interview with an NFL player.

It is easier to spot the discrepancies between what the church has done historically and Scandrette's apery, but then make the same comparison of the work of, say, Faber, Milton, Newton and Watts with today's fundagelical kitsch.

What, exactly, has been aped, and why?