Introduction
On October 27, 2023, Sabrina Carpenter released the music video for Feather, which included choreographed scenes filmed inside Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church in Brooklyn, New York. The video featured Carpenter dancing around the altar in a short black dress and posing before a crucifix inscribed with profanities. Following public backlash, the Diocese of Brooklyn suspended Monsignor Jamie Gigantiello, who had authorised the shoot. By November 2023, he was formally removed from his duties after an investigation revealed not only lapses in judgment but additional financial irregularities unrelated to the filming.
More recently, on June 2, 2025, AppleTV+ released Season 1, Episode 6 of Your Friends & Neighbours. The episode featured a fictional Eucharistic desecration in which consecrated hosts were consumed like snacks, dipped in jam, and used in a mock liturgical gesture. The scene culminated in a sexual encounter on the pews, with a ciborium set carelessly on the floor. Catholic groups responded with petitions and open letters, demanding accountability from the streaming platform.
These examples are neither exceptional nor new. In 1989, Madonna’s Like a Prayer spurned global protest for its overtly religious iconography, including burning crosses and suggestive scenes filmed in church-like interiors. Each controversy reignites the same question: why do these incidents keep happening? The problem is not simply irreverent celebrities or inattentive production teams. It is also a matter of clerical laxity, lack of process, and in some cases, abdication of custodial responsibility over sacred spaces.
Aestheticisation of the Sacred: The Industry’s Pattern
Churches appeal to cinematographers for obvious reasons. They have dramatic architecture, ambient lighting, and symbolic elements. In many cases, however, that symbolism is precisely what is being appropriated or undermined. Whether for shock value (Like a Prayer, Your Friends & Neighbours) or visual contrast (Feather), the Church becomes a visual prop, often without due consideration of what that space means to those who practise their faith within it.
There is nothing inherently wrong with using a religious space for artistic purposes. But the issue arises when the content:
- trivialises or caricatures religious practices
- ignores the sacred function of liturgical spaces
- uses shock or irony as its primary device
Production teams are not always malicious. But nor are they neutral. Their goals are aesthetic, commercial, and sometimes deliberately provocative. When permission is granted without vetting, it enables superficial or exploitative uses of the sacred.
Structural Weaknesses: Where Clergy and Church Management Fall Short
Much of the current public discourse has focused on the behaviour of celebrities. Less scrutiny has been applied to how and why religious authorities allow these productions to occur within sacred buildings.
In the Feather case, the Diocese of Brooklyn stated that “proper procedures for filming had not been followed.” The critical question is: were those procedures in place? If they were, why weren’t they enforced?
Church buildings are not neutral property. Canon Law treats them as sacred spaces reserved for worship, with specific norms governing their use (cf. Canon 1210). Even outside of canon law, prudence would suggest that any request for filming be subjected to:
- theological review of the proposed content
- clear written agreements stipulating acceptable use
- post-production oversight of final output
Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence suggests that many permissions are granted informally, sometimes for revenue or reputation, without full awareness of how footage will be used. In some dioceses, there is no centralised process for reviewing filming requests. This administrative inconsistency leaves the Church vulnerable to exactly the kind of backlash it now seeks to avoid.
The Limits of Public Outrage
After Feather, many Catholics took to social media to decry Sabrina Carpenter’s video. Similar outrage followed Your Friends & Neighbours. Letters were written. Petitions were circulated. Statements were issued. These are understandable responses. But they are not solutions.
If Church leadership wishes to avoid future desecration or embarrassment, the responsibility must extend beyond reactive condemnation. It must include proactive governance, the kind that anticipates misuse, not merely responds to it. It is no longer enough to assume good faith from production teams. Nor is it defensible to claim ignorance after the fact.
Four-Stage Framework for Filming in Churches
To move beyond vague caution, here is a practical four-stage framework for clergy and administrators when approached for filming requests:
1) Before Permission
- Request the full script or treatment. Do not rely on summaries or verbal gists.
- Ask for detailed information about the scenes to be shot, including specific areas (e.g. sanctuary, altar, tabernacle, nave).
- Obtain a list of props, costumes, set elements, and any special effects.
- Define non-negotiable boundaries, e.g., “No actors may enter the sanctuary,” “No use of altar for theatrical purposes.”
- Consult with your diocesan communications office or bishop if there is ambiguity.
2) During Filming
- Ensure a Church representative is present throughout. This is not ceremonial; it’s for oversight and enforcement.
- Confirm that the reserved Eucharist is removed and stored reverently. The tabernacle should be relocated if necessary.
- No sacred vessels or vestments should be used, unless the filming is of an actual liturgical event (e.g. a wedding or Mass).
- Photography or video in confessionals should be avoided due to sacramental sensitivity.
3) After Filming
- Include in the contract a right to review relevant footage before public release.
- Require a cleanup and reverence restoration protocol. If liturgical space was used, it may require a blessing.
- Debrief with the diocesan office and note procedural weaknesses or red flags.
4) If Something Goes Wrong
- Document all interactions and decisions related to the filming.
- Be transparent with parishioners, but avoid reactive language. Focus on facts, not sentiment.
- Issue a formal clarification if the video misrepresents or disrespects the Church, and consider civil remedies only if contractual terms were breached.
Grey Areas Worth Considering
Not all filming in churches is problematic. Some areas remain context-sensitive:
- Documentaries or biopics involving Catholic history
- Wedding or funeral scenes filmed respectfully
- Projects where the sanctuary is not used or is visually implied rather than entered
The distinction lies in the intent, content, and context, not in the act of filming itself.
Final Thoughts
Desecration, whether deliberate or careless, is avoidable. It occurs when sacred spaces are treated as sets, and oversight is delegated to goodwill. While public outcry may be cathartic, the long-term solution lies in procedural rigour, contractual clarity, and theological discernment.
Celebrity provocation is unlikely to disappear. But complicity begins when Church leadership fails to ask the right questions, or doesn’t ask any at all.
After all, if we don’t protect our altars, someone else will dance on them.
Leave a Reply