Do Bishops Knowingly Allow Churches To Be Ugly?

[Apotheoun]

The proposed Cathedral of Christ the Light in Oakland (a.k.a., the Oakland Diocese Nuclear Power Facility) is an expensive and hideous building, which the Latin Church in Oakland will be stuck with at least until a major earthquake hits the Bay Area and mercifully destroys it.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1312077' date='Jul 4 2007, 02:38 AM']The proposed Cathedral of Christ the Light in Oakland (a.k.a., the Oakland Diocese Nuclear Power Facility) is an expensive and hideous building, which the Latin Church in Oakland will be stuck with at least until a major earthquake hits the Bay Area and mercifully destroys it.[/quote]
I feel like tearing my garments, putting on sack cloth and ashes and sitting in a dung heap.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Budge' post='1311880' date='Jul 4 2007, 04:39 AM']Theres occultic imagery in that shape, YONI...and eye of "horus".....[/quote]

While I don't like the design, it looks nothing like the eye of Horus.


[quote name='MichaelF' post='1311943' date='Jul 4 2007, 05:35 AM']Imperial Command:

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Liverpool_Metropolitan_Cathedral.jpg/180px-Liverpool_Metropolitan_Cathedral.jpg[/img]

Actually, Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral.[/quote]

Hey, I like our cathedral. The crown of thorns is pretty amazing. Even though people here do often refer to it as "Paddy's Wigwam". That's not to say that I don't like the traditional designs better, but the Metropolitan Cathedral of Christ the King is still pretty awe-inspiring. And they do Latin Mass there. The original design for it was quite traditional, and would have been larger than St. Paul's in London, but they only got the Crypt built before WWII. So the Crypt has a completely different style than the Cathedral itself. And it's nice because it's right beside campus, so I can go to daily Mass (which is in the Crypt) during my lunch break.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1312091' date='Jul 4 2007, 03:55 AM']While I don't like the design, it looks nothing like the eye of Horus.[/quote]
Agreed.

[img]http://www.liturgicalenvirons.com/images/cmp_phoProjChristTheLight_03.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.netconstructions.com/horus/images/wedjat.jpg[/img]

I'm not seeing it; it looks more like a football or some kind of weird clam thing.

[img]http://img.search.com/6/60/Vince_Lombardi_Trophy.jpg[/img]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[img]http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2000/11/30/mn_cathedral4.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/war-of-the-worlds.jpg[/img]

[MichaelF]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1312157' date='Jul 4 2007, 08:42 AM'][img]http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2000/11/30/mn_cathedral4.jpg[/img][/quote]

Might make a decent opera house, depending on the acoustics.

[Maggyie]

Who comes up with these designs? I am not at all opposed to all modern architecture, when it is done well it can be beautiful. Hopefully the Cathedral will look better when it is done than in the models. Whenever I see these big blank expanses in church buildings I have this impulse to call in an army of icon painters...

[God the Father]

Looks pretty cool if you ask me

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1312157' date='Jul 4 2007, 08:42 AM'][img]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/war-of-the-worlds.jpg[/img][/quote]

[Lil Red]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' post='1312043' date='Jul 4 2007, 12:28 AM']Bishops don't always have a say in the design. The parish my in-laws attend is, admittedly, very modern looking and ugly. When the plans were drawn up for the building (the old church building got hit by lightning and caught fire) there was a lot of opposition from the parishoners to the modern design but the pastor (he's not there anymore) insisted and wouldn't have it any other way.[/quote]
okay, but couldn't the bishop overrule the pastor? isn't that part of his duty to protect his flock?

[journeyman]

MichaelF raises one important distinction between "then" and "now" . . . compliance with local building codes
The old cathedrals could take 150 years to finish because they could be put to use before they were "finished" . . . under today's governmental requirements - not likely

But there is also the lowered expectation of the clergy - our primary visiting pastor mentioned this a few weeks ago - talking about the "millions" of dollars it takes to build even a "bland" building . . . when the Church takes the "long" view and says we can finish in 100 years or so, then the Peters Pence method of fund raising works . . . when your options are cash in advance or bank loan, your architectural options are also limited . . . I think that those parishes who built what are today "lovely" structures built as far above their means as one of our parishes today would have to reach to build a "lovely" structure . . . but the idea of sacrifice for the Church is considerably downplayed in the modern Church . . . and the idea of the Church (building) being evidence of one's awe and wonder at the power and goodness of God is also downplayed (another thread elsewhere here at Phatmass talking about wouldn't the funds be better spent on mission work touches on that concept)

The idea of the Church building being as much a worship tool as good music or good liturgy or passionate belief in the sacraments has also diminished . . . although the general design specs (Built of Living Stones is the US Bishops version) doemphasize that the building is much much more than "just" an auditorium in which the parish gathers once a week.

As an earlier poster mentioned, each parish has primary authority - the diocesan review is typically limited to making sure the proposal doesn't fly in the face of the requirements established by the Church through Tradition and (where applicable) canon law or the GIRM

Without big dreamers, there aren't big visions. The nice thing about a "plain" facility is that it allows an incremental interior design process that (after 50-100 years) could result in icons, stained glass windows, statues, even banners, that start to approach the "wow" level epitomized by chuches like the one Apotheon shsowed us. (or not, if the parish doesn't try to make each addition make the space more praiseworthy to God . . . and ends up with a mismatched jumble of this and that . . . which, while all well intentioned, just didn't go together and didn't work)

[KnightofChrist]

If anyone has ever listened to or read the works of ArchBishop Fulton Sheen that could help to understand why modern churches lack beauty. Its the same reason why liberal nuns did away with their crucifixes and habits. Vatican II in his opinion was an attempt to balance the two extremes in the church, those that cared for only social justice and the world, and those that care for only the inside of the church and not at all the world. These extremes have both rebelled from the Church. The protestant like catholics, and the Rad Trad like catholics. Both see Vatican II in the same false light but come to two very different conclusions. This is why you have the SSPX (although they seem to want to get better) and Ultra Liberal Catholics who want Christ without His Cross, and never mention hell to hears delight.

I dont know why the Bishops go along with such a lack of beauty and reverence but cost is surely not the real reason. Because its not only that these "ugly" churches are ugly but down right blank, without feeling, without reverence to the Our Eucharistic Lord.

[prose]

I have been to bowling alley Churches (That is what my hubby and I call them) that have reverence and feeling. Afterall, it is the PEOPLE that make the Church, and not just the structure.

[KnightofChrist]

It is good you have been able to overcome the blankness... and I understand your point. Yet Churches are sacred places and as I have always read and been taught Catholics are to cherish theses places with an outward sign of reverence, not blankness.

[Apotheoun]

For Eastern Christians, faithfully following the teaching of the Second Council of Nicaea, icons are a dogmatic issue, and not merely an issue of pious devotion. That said, a Church without icons lacks a necessary incarnational element and would be seen as theologically and liturgically deficient and illicit.