Here is an article from Zenit on how a curator is trying to find a suitable to Picasso to add to the Vatican art collection. The rub is this: why would the Vatican want art by someone who painted hardly any religious art, and basically completely objected to the moral dictates of the Christian faith? If you ask me, though, that should not be an issue. The collection should hold great art that has Christian themes as its subject matter.
I suspect, though, that many people would object to a Picasso being placed in the collection because of his abstract style of painting, which they wrongly assume is contrary to Christianity in some way. But really they should not think this way, as it was Aristotle who thought that the best art was that which imitated nature perfectly. Abstract art is not anti-Christian in any way in and of itself. In fact, some of the best Christian art is abstract (e.g. icons), that is to say it is an abstraction of something in nature (abstraction in art is different from non-objectivity in art). Medieval art is also very abstract and out of proportion. So the idea that the best Christian art is that which best represents the natural world simply doesn't fly. In fact, we have no way of knowing how well men such as Leonardo, Strozzi, Poussin, and others really represented what they were painting, as we do not possess photos of those who sat for them.
The Vatican collection (which I have been to) has wonderful examples of art by artists such as Bernard Buffet and Ben Shahn (not even a Christian) who painted in a very abstract manner. So why not add a Picasso to this collection, if a good one can found?
