I have noticed that when it comes to discussions on liturgical music and church architecture on my blog and on others that there is a direct correlation between the theological views of the commenter and whether they like or dislike something pertaining to those subjects. Those that accept all Church teaching are usually critical of much of what goes for modern liturgical music and church architecture, while those that disagree with one or more Church teaching are generally approving of these forms.
Why is that? If beauty is suppose to be so subjective and in the eye (or ear) of the beholder, then why does opposing or support develop along theological fault lines? For the sake of shorthand I will use the terms conservatives and progressives even though they are an inexact and mainly political term. Plus maybe it is a little more charitable then dividing it between the faithful and the heretics.
If all of this was just a matter of taste then we should expect to see equal amount of like and dislike for modern liturgical music and church architecture among conservatives and progressives. Why is it that we never see a Bishop Bruskewitz or an Archbishop Chaput tearing up their Cathedrals, removing statues and kneelers, and putting in Mass in the round arrangements? Why is it that it is always the Cardinal Mahoney types that are constructing the Cathedral bunkers? I think it goes much farther then just that conservatives like older more traditional stuff and that progressives like less traditional modern stuff.
I don’t pretend to have the answers totally for why this is. I can only speak for myself that I don’t think I like Gregorian Chant and for example Romanesque architecture just because it was around before I was born. I am a geek who likes SF and music of the head banging variety, yet I discern that some forms a music are more applicable to worship then others. Sacred means to be set apart and music and architecture that can not be separated from the culture around it does not seem to me to be set apart and sacred. I have often read in defense of modern hymns that the form of music just doesn’t matter. If that is true then why won’t they simply accept chant and polyphony to make peace with those of us who think that it does matter?
One church that I sometimes go to adoration at has a more modern appearance throughout and a 3D mural in the back of the Sanctuary. The church is mainly simple in appearance and yet it helps me to worship. The mural which contains an embedded crucifix as part of it is not traditional but again it helps to turn my thoughts to God. I think that others that consider themselves to be traditionalists would also find beauty in this church. The other argument often made is that it doesn’t matter what our churches look like. Again speaking for myself I need the equivalent of liturgical training wheels to help me in prayer. I am not advanced enough to walk of into the desert and to easily raise my heart to God. I think a specific test of church architecture is that you should be able to identify it as a church and not for example a modern art museum. Too many modern structures seem to be made more to worship the architectural prowess of the architect and not God. If you are thinking this is a daring structure are you really thinking about worship? Looking at the Oakland and L.A. Cathedrals the words beauty just does not come to my mind. Interesting structure perhaps, but are people going to want to get their pictures taken in front of it (other then for Halloween)? Do they elicit the same awe as the churches in Rome or other places? Would the majority of people want to have a screensaver of these structures on their computer?
As for the argument that the structure just doesn’t matter I would whole-heartily disagree with. We are not just spirit and the idea that just as long as the Eucharist is being celebrated that the rest is of no concern. We have fallen natures that need all the help we can get. Our churches to celebrate the incarnation should be incarnational themselves. Sure during times of persecutions the faithful were happy to just be able to celebrate Mass whether it was out in field or secretly in someone’s house. To pretend that whether Mass is celebrated in St. Peters or in a conference room that the faithful will have the same spiritual dispositions I believe is mistaken.
When God instructed Moses on the tent of the offering in the book of Exodus he did not just say "do what ever appeals to you since it just doesn’t matter", but laid out specific instructions on how it was to be built and how parts of it was to be overlaid with gold and even mentioned the type of statuary that it was to be decorated with (two cherubim of gold).
The fact is that there is a divide in the appreciation of liturgical music and church architecture mainly along conservative/progressive lines and I would be interested in the insights that my readers may have for why this is.
42 comments
Tony —
Yes, it is to happen in “community,” which is why there is a central place — the parish church — for it to take place. But the actual worship is not centered on the people present and their interpersonal relationships, the worship is focused on God. The community prays, but not to each other, not focused on each other, but focused on God as a whole, a community of individuals, each individually focused on God — a community focused on God, not on each other. “In the round” Mass may indeed have the altar at the center, but the people moving around in the pews beyond the altar, on the other side of the church, going into and out of the doors, kids playin’ around, parents disciplining (if they do that any longer) etc… is faaaaaar less conducive to meditating upon That which is Important: the Eucharist. Is it “wrong” or “evil”? No. But ya might as well have Mass in a Methodist church, since eschewing statues and stained glass — they called it “idolatry” — is a big part of why they broke from the Anglicans.
Being “in community” to pray the Mass does not mean “praying to the community” or thinking the community is paramount, as Mass “in the round” emphasizes. Mass, while intrinsically a community event, is to be the people praying through the priest (not even “with” the priest, but “through” the priest) to God as a community focused on Him. Mass in the round is a less-than-optimal setting for that.
****************
Andy K–
No one’s “forcing” their own aesthetics upon anyone, any more than the Catholic Church is “forcing” respect for life upon those who disagree when it opposes birth control and abortion. There are, in fact, objective standards of beauty — Renoir is beautiful, Jackson Pollock is not — and much of what “progressives” have supported since Vat. II is, frankly, not beautiful.
I say all that while insisting you consider my line in a previous post that I could accept the beauty of the Oakland cathedral’s innovative glass work and rib structure, if they changed some important aspects, like not making it in the shape of a football and giving folks something a little more conducive to Eucharistic adoration rather than community adoration with the Eucharist tossed in.
Jeff,
I agree with you. To me the test for whether music is liturgically proper is “does it move my soul”? The test for architecture is “does it give me a sense of the sacredness of the Christ and His Church”? If the answer to the questions is “no” then I don’t like it. I have been in churches in the round that are actually beautiful pieces of ecclesial architecture, but I’ve been in some that remind me of a Protesant meeting place (what they call a church) that has no sacred symbols and no feeling of sacredness.
I’m not sure what the experience is in other places, but here in the Pensacola, Florida area, our parishes have been having more Gregorian Chant and more Latin in the liturgical music since the pope’s funeral. Maybe some Catholics who had not grown up with Latin discovered its sacred beauty and those who had grown up with the Latin finally found what they missed.
Russell D. James, M.A.,K.C.
Milton, Florida
I’m not a moderate. I wouldn’t call myself conservative or progressive. I’d call myself a traditionalist, but I think a “traditionalist” might view me as a “progressive”.
I think the tradition is vital in Catholicism, and because of that I know that the tradition has always “changed” with the times on key respects.
I think Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi is crucial. But I get dismayed when I google it and see that the people who most loudly proclaim it sometimes think Vatican II was an illicit council and that all changes since then have harmed the Church.
I know some of the history. That view is simply not with the tradtion. It is an anti-tradition view.
I agree there were excesses. But I also know Councils take a century (or more) to figure themselves out.
I actually had a discussion the other night about how it might be better if the priest faced away from the congregation, or if there were more Latin, and much less “sing along, let’s be hip” music.
But here is an example of what I think is right there in the tradition, and many people might think it wrong or unholy.
There was a day when Bishops and Popes paid the best and brightest of their day to design Churches or write music. Think Michelangelo, Mozart, etc. Real artists.
If I was a Bishop, I’d want to pay someone like Bruce Springsteen to write good Church music. He’s a genius in his field. For whatever type of music, art, homiletics, etc. we are talking about, I want that genius. He/she need not be a saint. He/she should be Catholic, and be serious. And I think they would be if they were asked, and pressed on the urgency of doing it “Catholic”.
I think we suffer from timidity. And one aspect of that is a kind of retreat. That is not our history. That is not our tradition. We had a network of monasteries for 1000 years that not only saved the West, but it was on the “cutting edge” of almost every modern field I can think of – before it was modern.
I want that monastery back today.
We’d be building new Churches right and left. And exactly what they looked like would be secondary. They’d be reflections of the people of God, the Holy Church, the life-giving Spirit.
Francis of Assissi was a crazy man. He revolutionized society all across Europe. Thomas Aquinas was a radical Aristotelian who had the nerve to, among other things, disagree in points with Augustine. That wasn’t done. Augustine had been around for 800 years by that time.
I think we need those kinds of things – or could use them. I also think Benedict XVI might be the Pope to press those kinds of things, cultural things – intellectual, artistic, ethical, even technological. Everything – because we have everything. I’m hoping anyway.
I have no idea if that made sense. But I do worry that conservatives could make the same mistakes that progressives made 30 years ago, only from the other direction.
Although if it came down to picking a Church to walk in and pray – that new Cathedral, or the more traditional one you showed – I’d probably walk into the more traditional one. The Church has to somehow manage all of us.
P.S. In its way, and I emphasize “in its way”, the most beautiful Church I was ever in was a thatched roof job in Quatemala with a huge tree growing in the middle of, out of which they managed to carve an altar. I thought I might climb that tree straight up to heaven. They made it up as they built. It fit their place. It was holy; it was beautiful; it was Catholic.
Dear Jeff,
I think the challenge is time. The architecture, music, etc., has not met the challenge of time yet, and, therefore, we do not know if it is truly worthy or not. The Arts are to support prayer, but not replace prayer.
Secondly, you are falling for the argument that many progressives will call you on. As you know, the interior is the essential. The rest is meant to support, but is ancillary. Your mention of the Old Testament commands will be pulled apart because we as Catholics do not need to keep Kosher.
Beauty does not come to your mind. This is aesthetics, a branch of philosophy. I believe that the Oakland Cathedral design is beautiful, you do not. As long as the Mass is the Mass according to the rubrics (which is the most important function of any parish church), then the problem is upon those who do not like it.
In other words, this entire conversation smacks of PRIDE. Much seems to be, “I know what is best for the Church.” Well, to be honest, I do not know what is best for the Church, but I know She is best for me. Therefore, I will strive to be as obedient as I can to Her. This sin is present in both camps, the “Why won’t they do what we want?” is heard in the NCReporter and on many blogs. (I read the “conservative” blogs mostly.)
Bld. Pope John XXIII wanted Vatican II to be a renewal of the faith. Ideally, this morass we are in would not have happened, but the renewal will come. The Holy Spirit knows what He is doing.
The Church is divided. We need to pray over what St. Augustine said: In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.
“They’d be reflections of the people of God, the Holy Church, the life-giving Spirit.”
I think this statement sums it all up.
Too often, though, are churches are built with the the earthly Church Militant in mind, focused on God in us, rather than on God, Creator & Redeemer. Keeping my focus earthward is not the struggle for me, but keeping my focus on Jesus, His Father, the Holy Spirit, and hopefully, my ultimate home is.
The same is true for music. I must admit, though, that even beautiful music with non-Catholic sentiments expressed is one of my pet peeves. My daughter once brought home a tape from our parish vacation Bible school and was happily singing along, “We stand on the Bible alone.” I nearly came unglued.
Recently our Lifeteen choir led us in a song that stated often that we should “come as we are.” I had a long talk with my children that God does welcome us as we are, but He also gives us Himself in the sacraments and challenges us to become perfect as He is perfect. Though we’re welcomed as we are, if we are conscious of mortal sin, we MAY NOT receive our Lord in the Eucharist.
If my Church and the music don’t help to remind me to keep my ears and eyes on Jesus, then I close my eyes and listen to the words of Scripture, and the Liturgy and ask God for the grace to let me do so in my heart.
That said, there’s nothing like being in a huge cruciform church surrounded by stained glass and statuary reminders of our presence among Mary, the angels, and saints, and our fellow Church Militant as the music helps lift us all together to that heavenly worship. I get goosebumps at the thought of Isaiah and John having seen the angels and saints singing, “Holy, holy, holy…” and we join in.
PS: I love this line: Again speaking for myself I need the equivalent of liturgical training wheels to help me in prayer. We all need this, regardless of what our preferences are. Many complaints are legitimate. We just need to separate them from aesthetic opinion. I heard one song at a Chrism Mass. Beautiful melody, but I do not enjoy receiving in the hand. The line, “Let us make our hands a throne for God” irritated me. I could no longer sing it.
I’m orthodox and I like the old stuff. Old hymns, kneelers, holy water, statues, incense, candles, Gothic or baroque architecture, etc… So maybe you’ve made a connection here.
My sensibilities are not modern or postmodern. I guess when I think I’ve got a good thing I don’t need to change. I don’t even like to move the furniture around at home like some people do.
I don’t like modern movies. I like movies which are set in the past. I already live in a postmodern world and I don’t need to see it reflected in my entertainment.
“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.” – GK Chesterton
In the Eastern Churches (Catholic eastern rites) we don’t have this problem to the same extent…I’d say we should get rid of the churches-in-the-round, bring back Palestrina and his colleagues who thrown out with the bath water…and bring back the tradition of Sunday Vespers with Adoration for the parishes…..
I’m not a philosopher — but I play one on the blogs! And yet, I’m stumped on this one. I don’t think it easily distills down to traditionalist = old stuff, progressives = new stuff either. I like classical looking churches, but (as you might expect of a traditional-type person), I attend my local church where I am registered, warts and all. I don’t travel to a different parish that might suit me because I have young children and I think their close connection with their parish church and school, and yes, I’ll say it… community, is more important than minor liturgical irritants and “mod” touches. I know the Lord is there, and I think about secret Masses in gulags (not great surroundings). Unless something is aggregious (a liturgist once thought it would promote world peace to sprinkle the name Allah among the readings!), I mostly keep my mouth shut if it’s out of my control, but offer my opinion when asked for suggestions… and then I go on the Curt Jester as a cathartic for things out of my control that annoy me. To promote world peace.
On the whole, I tend to agree with your observation. However, there is at least one significant anomaly: John Paul II. He (by definition!) agreed with everything the Pope teaches, but what about that crazy “ark” church in Nowa Huta, or the papal audience hall that was built in his papacy?
While it might be difficult to group the people that like “modernist” churches and those that do not into “progressive” and “conservative” camps, respectively, it is perhaps a more accurate grouping than you are likely to get with some other criterion. Perhaps the difference stems simply from the theological perspective of person with regard to what, exactly, a church building’s function is. Those people who argue against what conservatives might term a “beautiful” church would probably posit that such churches are, in fact, detrimental to worship and the liturgy because they are distracting. This is the most common argument I myself have heard- that we need to “simplify” churches so that people are focused on what is going on in the liturgy and are not distracted by all these statues and so forth. I would disagree and argue that people are going to be distracted anyway, and surely it is better to be distracted by a statue of the Blessed Virgin than by a copious amount of blank wall space? Anyway, my two cents.
I wrote my thesis on the theology of sacred architecture. In it I tried to discuss how different visual structures influence your perception. For my main example, I contrasted ‘The Yellow Armadillo’ of California with St. Patrick’s in New York. Basically, more modern theology emphasizes different parts than more traditional theology. When you enter a church, you can instantly get the impression of what sort of theology it ascribes to, whether the Body of Christ faith and worship community, or the Sacrifice of the Mass eternally united with the heavenly sacrifice of Christ before the Father.
I tried to base my research in Scripture and Tradition – so wherever in the Bible God gives man instructions on how to worship, and what Christ did with his apostles, primarily at the Last Supper. There is a major difference in the suitability of different churches to prayer, but there are certain basic elements that must not be neglected or shown less than appropriate dignity, such as the altar and the crucifix. I hope this has given you a few more thoughts. Thanks for your wonderful blog!
Alaina wrote:
When you enter a church, you can instantly get the impression of what sort of theology it ascribes to, whether the Body of Christ faith and worship community, or the Sacrifice of the Mass eternally united with the heavenly sacrifice of Christ before the Father.
—
I have to disagree with this, having lived through a church renovation. When you walk into a church, you might be able to get an idea of what the current pastor thought, or the renovation committee thought, but not the people in the pews.
It is fair to point out that there can be a difference in individual tastes as far as what leading one to piety. That I respond best to traditional type devotions doesn�t mean someone with a charismatic bend will too. It seems many on the progressive side dismiss the traditional side�s views on things like architecture and sacred music, because they believe we cannot differentiate personal taste from reality. That being said, the arguments against Taj Mahoney, etc. are not really merely a matter of personal taste. One can objectively view a structure and determine whether it has the characteristics for inspiration, and what that inspiration is.
The designers of the �old� architecture were not imbeciles or merely building structures that reflected their antiquated architectural technology. They purposely designed churches the way they did so that anyone, regardless of personal taste will have their focus drawn upward. A mark of a good church is that when you�re looking up at the sanctuary, you can�t help but to follow the altar upward. We are humans in a physical world and our material aspect needs props like that. That is why the sacraments have a visible aspect.
Church architecture that has circular seating, no prominence of sanctuary, altar, etc. draws our focus down. It has the effect of changing our focus from the Heavenly to those around us. This too is done by design. It is an objective reality, it�s not just someone like myself promoting my personal taste by criticizing another�s.
I also think therein lies, if not the answer to Jeff�s question, a supporting observation; that as Catholics we do define our theology and spirituality by where we stand on these issues.
While I agree with a few points here, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that we are “sheep” in some sense, we definitely have a herd mentality, and I honestly think that for many people, they like what their friends like, they like what the people they look up to suggest that they like (or “assume” that they like).
If you are “progressive,” you hang out with progressives, and you like what the other progressives like, and defend it with the reasons the progressives give to defend it. Flip the coin and if you are a “conservative” you will do the same with the conservative side.
Now, obviously this does not get at the root of the divide, but only perhaps helps to explain how the divide is currently embedded in our Western Catholic culture.
The root of it, I feel, is what some have already mentioned here — the difference in theology between worshipping God and worshipping what God has made (us). Most progressives I know seem to see going to church as self-affirmation, as a way to “encounter” God in each other. They may believe in the Real Presence, at least we hope so, but the thinking is decidedly anthropomorphic (is that the word I’m looking for?), turned toward man (or “person” I guess). Because of this, most of the pet projects of progressives are also focused on man — social justice, welcoming committees, social gatherings, support groups, etc etc. Mass is a family gathering, a meal shared among friends. The architecture reflects all of this, giving us football shaped churches where the people can “see Christ” more easily in the othe people across the way, and be exposed to culture by liturgical dance and “diversity” by hearing about how we need to accept our actively gay bretheren (not that you would ever hear the word bretheren here!)
On the other hand, we have the “conservatives” who maintain that God is holy, perfect and beyond us, He is Creator, we are created. In this way, earth is not our home, heaven is what matters, and whatever we do on earth is meaningless unless it moves us into the direction of God and heaven.
In this way, while charity towards neighbor is important, the conservative focus will be more on forming disciples of Christ with Adoration, processions, catechism classes, pilgrimages, rosaries, etc. Mass, while a celebration, is also a sacrifice, The Sacrifice, and as such it combines both joy and sorrow, a baptism and a funeral. The people participate in Mass, but they are not necessary for Mass — Mass is to be celebrated whether there are people there or not, countless priests are asked to celebrate Mass daily, even when they do not have a public Mass scheduled.
In turn, the architecture that supports this view is necessarily pointed towards Someone, not a bunch of someones, churches built by conservatives will have high ceilings to remind us of heaven, beautiful art to remind us of God’s creative majesty, music that soars and fills the space with music that inspires awe and fear of the Lord (one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit! Good to encourage!), side chapels for quiet prayer, a crucifix with a real corpus and not a “Risen Christ” or “empty cross” so as to remind us that we are still on earth and thus Christ’s sacrifice is still continuing for us, statues of favorite saints to provide us examples of joyful Christian living on earth that will help us on our way to heaven, and of course — the tabernacle will be dead center, or very prominently located.
To progressive eyes, the Church exists to “be Christ” on earth.
To conservative eyes, the Church exists in order to lead us “to Christ” from earth to heaven.
Hmmm… I guess it all boils down to what you beleive about heaven! If earth is heaven (ie, there is no heaven and/or we all go there) then the Church’s mission is earth-centered. If heaven is heaven, and not earth, then the Church’s mission is to help us transcend earth.
I think the reason people fall into these two amps is very simple, and has everything to do with how they approach truth and progress.
The ‘conservative’ believes that there are absolute standards of truth and beauty. What was once beautiful is still beautiful, and mere innovation holds no charm for him.
The ‘progressive’ believes that we are smarter and more enlightened than any generation before us. He believe in progress – that what is newer is better. He believes that truth and beauty are not absolutes, but are relative to their environments. As a result, he favors innovation and regards traditional forms as out-of-date or irrelevant.
I’ll side with the absolutists myself.
Veritas,
I liked that, mostly. It sounds like you are describing a medieval cathedral.
You might have painted the “progressive” theological side (I don’t like the political implications of conservative or progressive, but I don’t have better words) in terms not completely accurate, but I take the general point.
That is one reason I wouldn’t mind the priest facing away from the congregation. Of course, originally, he was facing East, towards Jerusalem. That is how that “tradition” started. But I think the point was that he was praying to God, to Christ (the Incarnated One who died and was resurrected in Jerusalem). The focus of prayer was beyond the building and the liturgy somehow – to that God who made the community to be the community.
Ironically, people might be able to participate more in that prayer if they were all facing the same direction. I don’t know.
On the other hand, there is the Last Supper, and early House Churches, where it seems the community would be more face to face around a table. And there is also the Our Father, and the Gospels, where God is in heaven, but the Kingdom is coming here – Thy Kingdom come.
It could be that “progressives” and “conservatives” both have to be there for each other, supplying what is lacking in one or the other. Ecclesia Suplet.
It is all very complex and mysterious. One reason I’m quite happy to be in a Church that has a Pope, Bishops, etc. If I had to figure this stuff out on my own it would be a disaster. Probably why we should pray for them.
Tony Miller writes: “When you walk into a church, you might be able to get an idea of what the current pastor thought, or the renovation committee thought, but not the people in the pews”.
I couldn’t agree more.
I think that many of the more modern looking churches are just built according to whim. Our parish church was built to mimic the mine that was the main employer of our community. It’s even partially underground. It is ugly as can be, set-up so that no matter where you sit, you have a better view of the people around you than the altar. The tabernacle off to the side. There is very little stained glass and that is out of view of most seats and the beautiful Stations of the Cross that were brought from the old church are grouped together on the back wall like so many paintings.
As one old miner put it when the chosen design was unveiled. “Why in H E double toothpicks would I want to go to a church every Sunday that looks like a mine when I can’t wait for my shift to end and get up out of the dirt every other day of the week?
The mine is now closed and we are left with this hideous church that reflects a decorating fad that has no meaning for the community that is here now. If they had designed this church with the eternal God in mind and not “mining eternally” it would still be relevent.
The lines about making your hands a throne for God are actually muy Catholic. I recommend the Catechism classes of St. Cyril of Jerusalem to you, sir. (They also deal with the vexed question of what to do if you get extraneous wine on your lips, which I for one was grateful to find out.)
That said…throwing all the pretty pictures away is a little heresy called iconoclasm. It’s wrong to say pictures and beauty are wrong.
Yes, you could go to Mass in the middle of a field and still have it work. But why would you be doing that? Because you’re being persecuted, most like, in which case you would be surrounded by the beauty of the Church’s resistance to the world.
Also, you might be doing that because it’s a special occasion and there’s too many people to fit inside a church. Again, that situation has its own structural beauty — though I’ll note that when people do this, they almost always make some effort to decorate the area or bring banners or decorate their own persons to the glory of God.
Finally, you might be doing that because it was a special occasion, like being out camping and having a priest along, like JPII did as a prof. (Though that was also in a persecution situation.) Again, though, there would be a beauty in the situation; and I would fully expect those participating to try to make even a picnic table with a cloth over it as beautiful as possible. Flowers would be picked, or nifty rocks arranged, or _something_, if circumstances allowed.
We are humans and Christians. We love our God, and we try to do things for Him. Uglification and derision have no place in a church.
But if those with ‘advanced aesthetic principles’ are honest and sincere, they certainly ought to realize that the vast majority of others don’t share their vision, and take pity on the weakness of their brethren (or at least sacrifice their Christian freedom so as not to cause scandal). They certainly shouldn’t be destroying perfectly good church interiors in the name of their own taste.
Likewise, ‘progressive’ artists are free to sell progressive Christian art to those who appreciate it; but they certainly shouldn’t force it on the rest of us.
The early House churches were a matter of necessity, not design. And if you ever suggested to Martha that she not prettify her house in preparation for Jesus’ arrival, I bet she’d’ve reacted badly! Likewise, I suspect the people whose houses were used as churches found their houses becoming more and more churchy all the time.
Then look at the catacombs and see how quickly people began to decorate things in a holy way. There is no lack of ornamentation in the catacombs, and tons of those paintings are still around today. Finally, think about the Temple in Jerusalem. Not a stark place, even though they weren’t into graven images.
Letting Mary do her thing doesn’t mean stomping on Martha, folks. Christian art and church decoration are supposed to serve God and serve the members of the Body, too. Something that induces nausea or perpetual annoyance is not something that builds up the Church. “By their fruits you shall judge them.” Purity of intention is fine for honoring God in a solitary way; but it doesn’t make something suitable for viewing and useful for the edification of the faithful.
I’m a singer. I love to sing, and I love to sing to God. But the way I sing when I’m walking to church and nobody can hear me, and the way I sing when I’m standing in a choir or leading a song — those are two different things. They have to be. (Acoustics are totally different, just for one….) 😉
Why is it such a horrible thing to ask artists (and church decoration committees) to put the needs of the faithful above their own? There’s no need to go against one’s own artistic judgement; it’s artistic judgement that allows one to both exercise creativity and do one’s duty by God and everyone else. It’s not a demand for mediocrity; it’s a plea for love and care.
Fr. Thomas Dubay wrote The Evidential Power of Beauty. In it, he talks about how beauty is not merely “in the eye of the beholder,” any more than truth is. I think you touched on something with your main point: that the beautiful is related to the right, the ugly to the wrong.
As an overall point, I’m not surprised that those who are orthodox in belief prefer that which is more beautiful and those who are less-orthodox (or at least less zealous) are indifferent or prefer that which is minimalist and/or emphasizes the individual and “community” rather than God and the Eucharist, or is downright ugly and offensive.
I don’t see it as a old vs. new or gothic vs. modern battle — there is beauty in some modern architecture (I live in Northern Virginia, where the recession of the last few years has not slowed the construction boom, and there are some very beautiful buildings going up including — thankfully — some churches), and there is some beauty in some modern music (I’ve sung in choirs and done “Mass of the Children” by John Rutter, very, very beautiful and moving; and Bernstein’s “Chichester Psalms,” which I found very moving and beautiful in its complexity. But I’ll be the first to admit that “modern” music grates on the ear of someone who is devoted to Bach/Mozart/Beethoven, etc. — and I loooove Gregorian Chant and the Tridentine Mass with which I am quite familiar.) I see it as a matter of appreciation: those who prefer gothic and are accustomed to it may see modern as a threat, and, since so many churches were built in the 1970s and 1980s when architecture was at its worst, and traditionalists were under greatest siege, the knee-jerk reaction of “orthodox” is, naturally, “modern=ugly/wrong/offensive,” which may or may not be true, on a case-by-case basis.
All that said, much of what is “modern” in today’s Church is, in fact, ugly. Architecture, art, music — mostly the stuff from the 1970’s is hideous. Thomas Day has a great book called Why Catholics Can’t Sing, and he talks about how after Vat. II, there was no music to use with the new Mass (because Lord forbid that “old” music be used with the “new” Mass) and that which was available was in Latin. So the song writers of the day wrote stuff… and by our awful luck, that meant the song writers of the 1970s did the writing. Ugh.
Luckily, the more recent stuff is much, much better, in art, architecture, and music.
Jeff, I think you have a point, modern can be ugly, but perhaps all that which we consider old is also considered beautiful because all the ugly old stuff became “lost” precisely because it was ugly and no one cared to sustain it. Since we just had a Council within the last 50 years, and it left such a dramatic mark on the outward signs of the Church, we really can’t expect anything otehr than strife and “experimentation” in those areas.
But I think you will see that that which truly is ugly, not just subjectively ugly but truly ugly, will fall out of use in places where the faith is strong, while the heterodox and lax will perpetuate the use of the ugly, comfortable, self-actualizing modes and forms until they go the way of the dodo (since heterodoxy, like homosexuality, is sterile and results in no Church at all) and take the ugly with them.
All THAT said, while my initial reaction to the new Cathedral in Oakland is wonderment, the only part I find “wrong” about it is the “in the round” aspect of the sanctuary. When at Mass, I find it very distracting and not at all God-centered to be staring across the way at other people. But my inability to focus aside (though a church not being conducive to focusing on God is hardly a trifling issue), there is something NOT RIGHT about a church that feels it necessary to de-emphasize the unbloody re-presentation of the sacrifice on Calvary, and emphasize the “community.” Sorry, folks, Mass isn’t a social event, it is first and foremost the meeting of the divine with the natural and the individual’s meeting with God in a radical, personal way. Donuts and coffee afterward can be used for “face time” with other parishoners.
I heard a joke that B16’s first encyclical will be called “Ad Orientam.” Wouldn’t that throw some folks for a loop!
I think the overall design idea of the Oakland cathedral could well be beautiful with the innovative use of opaque-by-day, clear-by-night glass and the soaring lines, but in a better design layout, one that emphasizes God’s Self-Sacrifice on the Cross and doesn’t sacrifice God’s Self-Sacrifice on the altar of the self.
In light of the last few posts, I�d like to float an observation, which I think also touches on this subject, though it is a much bigger issue. What I see as the root of the differences between the progressive minded and the traditional minded is much more than mere preferences. I�m trying not to sound uncharitable to the progressives, but I think this case can be made (at least in speaking generally).
Traditional minded Catholics want to conform themselves to what IS Catholic. Often times, as with people like myself, it comes at the price of doing great violence to our seemingly natural inclinations. For us, we try to change our way of thinking to conform to the Church, and we view any progress in doing so as a step toward virtue. Converts and reverts like myself, find that it�s no easy chore going from being a fornicator and user of birth control, to being chaste and open to life, but we make a conscious effort to do so until it becomes our new inclination.
Progressive minded people don�t seem to put the same emphasis on conforming to the Church. Hence the Cafeteria Catholic mentality; if they are even looking for virtue, they find it in attempting to make the Church conform to their own personal belief system rather. Therefore, they are the ones who will view Church teaching on birth control and homosexuality as antiquated, etc.
Taste in church architecture and music is merely of a reflection of those attitudes.
Well, I’m what you would term a “progressive”, which isn’t too far off the mark.
I actually remember the first prototype of the Mass being held in a room, possibly a hotel room. The real Mass was held on a dirty hill near a garden in Israel, so I don’t get this whole argument about Mass only being in a church, etc. Sure sounds legalistic to me. I guess that first Mass means that we have to have flowers in church at every Mass???
Nate
P.S. Is there any way to tweak your softward so that it will email us when there are responses to our posts?
How would you categorize us greedy orthodox who want it all? Who know that Holy Mass is both the re-presentation of the one Sacrifice of Calvary _and_ the forming and nourishing of the Body of Christ active in _this_ world? Who acknowledge the reality of both Heaven and Earth? Who love all the beautiful — music of all eras, chant forms and polyphony, Palestrina and Peloquin and Messaen and Foley and Fabing, All Creature with the German-titled tune and All Creatures with the Swahili-titled tune, a cappella and organ and piano and orchesta and timpani …. Our Lady of Perpetual Help _and_ Maria Mater Ecclesiae, the saints in classical Greek clothes in stained glass and the saints in jeans and tennis shoes in tapestries ……
I back the wise ones who bring from the Church’s great storehouse things both old and new.
karen marie
I think the key is in the history of what the Churches looked like. Gothic flows from Romaneque, which flowed from previous classical forms, etc.
The Modern churches seem like a break, taking secular architecture and trying to ‘make it work.’
There’s a Church around where I live (St. Mary’s in Mt. Angel), which is an example of American New Gothic – it takes from both the American frontier church and Gothic styles. It’s American and Catholic – and Beautiful. It works because it flows from previous history, and takes from sacred architecture when possible.
Yes, Mass can be said anywhere, but a well-designed and decorated Church can help lift up the spirit to God.
Nate, a few points:
1) “Garden” didn’t necessarily mean flowers back then, so that was a snarky, irrelevent comment.
2) The Sacrifice on Calvary wasn’t the “first Mass,” that was at the Last Supper, which preceded the Crucifixion.
3) The Mass is the un-bloody re-presentation of the Sacrifice on Calvary, so clearly there will be differences in elements (e.g., no blood flowing, no actual crucifixion, no nails, etc.) so there may well be a change or two on other aspects.
4) If anyone said “Mass has to be in a church,” I didn’t see it (I admit I haven’t read the entire thread) but the point isn’t that Mass must be in a “church,” the point is that the building designated as the parish church edifice should conform to certain standards of sanctity and beauty (which are not subjective, as I alluded to above) that are conducive to worship and uplifting of heart and mind — that necessarily means they separate us from a focus on our human selves, something that minimalist architecture and decoration and a “Mass in the round” do not help with. Regardless of where Mass is celebrated — church, firehouse, someone’s house, banquet hall, back porch, back of a Humvee, field, whatever — the environment should be made as conducive to worship as possible. Since a church is specifically built for that purpose (after all, Vat. II affirmed that the Eucharist is the “source and summit” of Christian life, so, by extension, the Celebration of the Eucharist is the most important function for a church) it should be particularly and permanently conducive to worship of God in all His aspects, but most particularly in His Sacrament of Love, the Eucharist.
Karen Marie Knapp and JohnH:
exactly. As I said in a previous post: the modern is not, ipso facto, ugly, and the ancient is not, ipso facto beautiful. Taking the new on a case-by-case basis is vital. The treasury from the ancient that we retain is likely to be only the beautiful because the ugly likely has been dropped and forgotten, just as today’s ugly shall be once the post-Vat. II smoke clears (which it seems to be)
This could be me being overly judgmental… but honestly, I feel I can get a sense of the sentament behind what people’re doing at church. I think i KNOW when they’re actually trying to worship God and be closer to God, and when they’re trying to recreate god “in the community.” or “as we see him” I get pretty bent out of shape over it. I’m so frustrated and flustered today that I’m not sure I can explain myself fully. I just don’t feel like my respect for, and need to connect with “old” stuff and “old” ways of doing things is being respected… you know, the way I’m supposed to respect everybody elses’ ideas and opinions on how things are “supposed to be” (ever notice how ‘they’ use that phrase a lot when attempting to explaint hemselves?) I have about two hours to decide whether I’m cantoring this sunday at mass. Honestly, I don’t like the music. I can do without the jazzy r&b gloria and alleluiah. I’m not sure the new music director and I are on the same page, and it’s a battle I’ve fought and lost before, so I’m considering just packing up and moving on. I don’t have anything left within me to stand up even for my own rights, ideas or preferences, much less what I feel deep down inside is right for the church. I’m just so weary, I want to cry when I think about “getting into it” or attempting to explain myself and my feelings to someone who’s automatically going to be critical of me and my feelings just because they differ from the majority.
Dear Maureen,
You wrote: “‘[P]rogressive’ artists are free to sell their progressive Christian art to those who appreciate it; but they certainly shouldn’t force it on the rest of it.”
You fall for a logical fallacy here. If one side cannot force their aesthetics upon you, then why are you able to force yours upon them?
Thank you for the info. on the line that irritated me. I appreciate learning.
Dear Maureen,
I commented as I did not to offend but to strengthen arguments. I am seeking the strongest reasons why the Cathedral in Oakland has been deemed “unacceptable” by many blogs whom I read and respect. Currently, I am discerning if I wish to continue reading blogs like this and others. I sense too much pride coming through many of them, and I am weary that I am too weak to prevent my soul from being swept away.
Crowe wrote:
Sorry, folks, Mass isn’t a social event, it is first and foremost the meeting of the divine with the natural and the individual’s meeting with God in a radical, personal way. Donuts and coffee afterward can be used for “face time” with other parishoners.
—
I’m going to somewhat have to disagree with you, Crowe. While I agree that it isn’t a “social” event, what it is not is a *personal* worship of God. You don’t need other people for that. What mass *IS* is a communal worship of God, where your prayers, my prayers and the prayers of everyone else there comingle for the Glory of God.
This is where our separated bretheren miss the boat. Jesus instituted a *community* (ecclesia) not a “book club”. Community is vital and necessary to Catholic worship.
Seems to me that the mantra of heterodox Catholics is, “We’re trying to get away from that.” Substitute for the word “that” the doctrine, musical or architectural style of your choice.
Speaking of “heterodox”, the Orthodox have a wonderful word which means about the same thing – “kakadox”. But that’s a comment for another day 😉
We greedy orthodox
Karen Marie of the Anchor Hold responded to The Curt Jester regarding A Divide:
How would you categorize us greedy orthodox who want it all?…
Atheling2 you said it all for me. I like the old stuff. I feel closer to our Lord when I’m at a latin mass, with all of the bells and smells that go with it. Some of the new religious music out today I like, and I listen to it in my car. But I find myself only buying Catholic singers or musicians. Hey, that’s me and I’m stick’in to it.
I think the issue is a little more complex. The crux is not the architecture, it is the liturgy. I can imagine a very beautiful old rite Mass celebrated in Cardinal Mahony’s cathedral, where the religious mood evoked would be early mediaeval. What makes us recoil from that building and others like it (whose history in Europe begins in the early 20th century) is the fact that we know there will be dancing girls with bowls of incense parading around the altar and the “presider” looking like Herod at a banquet. Modernist architecture cannot tarnish traditional liturgy; by contrast traditional church design utterly defeats modernist liturgy. There is an important theological point to be observed in this difference.
Dear Crowe,
No problem.
Dear David,
Please develop your point. It is important.
David — I disagree, to an extent. I think both a beautiful space and a beautiful liturgy are needed.
I was in NYC recently and was in some breathtakingly beautiful churches built anywhere from 75 to 200 years ago — all well before architecture went south. I would enter the church, awed by the soaring gothic arches and gorgeous stained glass and the statues, and murals and the old altars that hadn’t been removed, etc., kneel down to pray, very somber, very uplifted and contemplative, and focused on God in all His glory……..
and then an acoustic guitar started going and the spell was broken.
I was there as part of a parish-to-parish Eucharistic procession so this happened in a number of churches within a day. After a while I got used to it, having my deep, contemplative, awe-struck prayers immediately before the guitarists got all set up, and then labor to maintain focus as they crooned away with their plosive chords.
I’m not completely opposed to guitar music in church, and it’s certainly not as bad as the dancing girls and clown Masses, but guitar music doesn’t match a somber gothic church that begs for Gregorian Chant to reverberate through the arches.
Guitar and (shudder) drum music in a beautiful, uplifting church is like having a Def Leopard Concert at Carnegie Hall or the Met: it just doesn’t fit.
As far as the liturgy itself, of course the liturgy is more important than the architecture. I also had the privilege of joining a Naval Reserve Chaplain when he said Mass for Marins OCS candidates at Marine Base Quantico, and we said Mass in a dirty old WWII-era hangar-turned-classroom. An 8-foot banquet table for an altar and the OCS emblem as the backdrop because that’s what was there. The floor was dirty, the men were all in fatigues… but for those few moments, it was the holiest place on earth as far as i was concerned. The difference for a church is that, unlike that classroom, a church is primarily, permanently for the worship of God and the Celebration of the Eucharist. it isn’t converted into a banquet hall afterward — though with some of today’s churches you could see a wedding reception setup easily — so the architecture should emphasize that primary, permanent function as well as possible.
And once at the OCS Mass, one of the candidates actually sung a hymn at Communion of his own volition and entirely on his own (i didn’t know the one he chose). His voice was pretty good, and certainly confident — he is a Marine, after all. And for that moment, it was the best sound in the holiest place on earth — though it would have been inadequate for a parish’s regular setup, and certainly for a cathedral.
For all the beauty of Gothic and Baroque and Romanesque churches, one of the most..inspiring? churches I’ve ever been in was the Crypt Church of St. Francis in Assisi. Just bare, rough-hewn rock, with St. Francis’ tomb in a pillar of earth behind the altar. And yet it was at least as much a place of worship as St. Peter’s was. It wasn’t “beautiful”, but it was beauty.
Exception to the rule
Everyone is drawn into worship differently. Different forms of worship does not make one superior to the other on face. It’s what that form of worship focuses on, and what (or should I say Who) it leads people to.
Noooooooooooo!
The St. Louis Jesuits are going to record again!!! Somebody please make the bad men stop…
(Catholics with decent musical taste who are horrified at the thought more Jesuit dreck should head to the Society for a Moratorium on the Music of
Marty …
“Speaking of ‘heterodox’, the Orthodox have a wonderful word which means about the same thing – ‘kakadox’. But that’s a comment for another day ;)”
Actually, it’s cacodoxy. The prefix “caco” means “bad”. Cacodoxy is bad thinking. Cacophony is bad sound (i.e. chaos or noise). Hmm…there might be a connection there… 😉