$190m Oakland Cathedral Most Expensive Ever

[Melissa]

So…being surrounded by God’s creation in a space that will be consecrated to worship him somehow doesn’t cut it unless we have a statue of the Sacred Heart poorly placed somewhere in the middle of the sanctuary?

Who says the statue of the Sacred Heart has to be poorly placed?

But why not have stained glass similar to what is in my parish? We have above and behind the altar four scenes of OT sacrifice (specifically, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Elijah) … at the left front (when you’re facing the altar) is a large stained glass depicting the joyful mysteries (Nativity is the largest, the other four surround it), to the right front are the glorious mysteries (‘featured’ mystery being the Resurrection). In the back (visible when you’re leaving) are the sorrowful mysteries (Crucifixion is the primary), and still more art. Or visit the cathedral of St. Louis (wow, we went there on a trip–talk about gorgeous!)

Now, I’m admittedly unlikely to go to Oakland (don’t know anyone there, and it’s pretty far away), so I’m not going to say anything about** this** cathedral+ w/o a completed virtual tour. But ‘surrounded by God’s creation’ just doesn’t seem to be as ‘lifting of mind and spirit’ as it could be (and perhaps that really ought to be ‘should be’).

 

[Tom317]

Who says the statue of the Sacred Heart has to be poorly placed?

But why not have stained glass similar to what is in my parish? We have above and behind the altar four scenes of OT sacrifice (specifically, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Elijah) … at the left front (when you’re facing the altar) is a large stained glass depicting the joyful mysteries (Nativity is the largest, the other four surround it), to the right front are the glorious mysteries (‘featured’ mystery being the Resurrection). In the back (visible when you’re leaving) are the sorrowful mysteries (Crucifixion is the primary), and still more art. Or visit the cathedral of St. Louis (wow, we went there on a trip–talk about gorgeous!)

Now, I’m admittedly unlikely to go to Oakland (don’t know anyone there, and it’s pretty far away), so I’m not going to say anything about** this** cathedral+ w/o a completed virtual tour. But ‘surrounded by God’s creation’ just doesn’t seem to be as ‘lifting of mind and spirit’ as it could be (and perhaps that really ought to be ‘should be’).

Very well said and I am happy you said it.

 

[frommi]

So…basically here…what we’ve established is that the only way to have a “Catholic” church is to use stained glass as a medium to portray scenes from the bible, the prophets, etc. Thus, anything that doesn’t scream out its point…and forces the worshiper to think and discern the meaning of…is not Catholic and should not be in a church…am I missing anything?

 

[Tom317]

So…basically here…what we’ve established is that the only way to have a “Catholic” church is to use stained glass as a medium to portray scenes from the bible, the prophets, etc. Thus, anything that doesn’t scream out its point…and forces the worshiper to think and discern the meaning of…is not Catholic and should not be in a church…am I missing anything?

You can drop the sarcasm, there is no need for it here.

Yes, Catholic Churches should be very easily discerned as being Catholic. The Catholic faith “is” different, it is the one tue faith given by Christ and His Churches should reflect the fullness and holiness of the faith.

The Oakland Cathedral is no doubt an engineering triumph, as well as a modernist twist on a Church. Yet, we lose a lot if we focus on how clever we are at building structures, rather then focusing on giving Christ all the glory. One should feel as if they are in literally in Communion with the Saints when they attend Mass and the structure can, and should, help make that connection. The Oakland Cathedral is a clever project, very expensive and very anti-septic, clean of all connections to the past.

 

[chicago]

So…basically here…what we’ve established is that the only way to have a “Catholic” church is to use stained glass as a medium to portray scenes from the bible, the prophets, etc. Thus, anything that doesn’t scream out its point…and forces the worshiper to think and discern the meaning of…is not Catholic and should not be in a church…am I missing anything?

While I don’t have any problem with some more intuitive elements of art being theologically expressed in ecclesiatical architechture (and I actually would like to see designs continue to move forward rather than hearing perpetual calls for “neo” this style or that), I also see the value in having tangible, human expressions present.

An example of how the abstract does not effectively work would be Chicago’s Holy Name Cathedral. During the 60’s renovation new stained glass was installed. It gets lighter in coloration as one moves from the back of the Church closer to the Sanctuary. the idea is that as we approach God we draw closer to the fullness of light. But nobody gets that. In fact, it doesn’t really even get explained. (I wouildn’t have known it had not the cathedral rector mentioned it on a tour he gave my class while a minor seminarian.) Instead, all anyone ever comments is about what plain looking, ugly glass we have at our cathedral and that it would seem that something much more worthy would be in order for the mother Church of such a significant archdiocese.

 

[mercygate]

What is so wrong about the LA Cathedral? It’s quite a liturgical space in my opinion.

I’m a dyed-in-the-wool fan of high Gothic. Love it, love it, love it.

I was prepared to loath Our Lady of the Angels when I visited LA last summer, and came away completely overwhelmed by the beauty of the building and its ingenious management of light, space, and volume. It is a tour de force of architectural and spiritual integration. You could actually hold a respectable Catholic liturgy in there, and maybe one day somebody will!

This is truly a building that must be experienced to be appreciated.

 

[john1863]

Yet, we lose a lot if we focus on how clever we are at building structures, rather then focusing on giving Christ all the glory.

Excellent statement. My question is…who do these obscenely expensive cathedrals glorify?

Probably already offered, but the thread is long and 5am comes quickly.

John

 

[LilyM]

Sooo…basically…if artwork is going to depict Mary…it has to do so only under the terms of the artists who put her in an all blue veil with white skin?

We don’t have any pictures of Mary…so it seems to me that, in theory, she could be quite happy with the depiction…if it actually looks like her.

Well it should look FEMALE if nothing else, since Our Lady was and is not just a woman but THE Woman of Genesis and Revelations And do you think Our Lady was bald as the statue is? Doubt it.

Abstraction is fine, but this isn’t an abstract artwork, it’s a realistic depiction of an androgynous (gender-neutral, in this case tending towards the male) person. As a woman, I can tell you most women would be insulted at depictions of them that look gender-neutral or mannish.

 

[Brendan]

Our Lady of the Androgynous Aliens? :ehh:

Correction,

It’s Our Lady, Queen of Concrete.

 

[rien]

Th scary thing is that the Oakland bishop is supposed to be one of the orthodox ones.

There is not need for this - the catholic population is declining in the Oakland area.

I simply don’t get it - as someone said above another sign the US church is in trouble.

 

[mercygate]

Well, I hope they don’t get earthquakes there. Otherwise that…that…cathedral……will fall apart.

I hope they have insurance.

The LA cathedral can sustain a 27" lateral shift in a magnitude 8 earthquake.

 

[mercygate]

I don’t get it…how do you obviously represent the fundementals of the faith through architecture?

Do you want a woman getting an color ultrasound at the entrance to show us that life begins at conception?

Take a stroll through any cruciform byzantine, Romanesque, Gothic, or Renaissance church with a raised sanctuary, baldacchino over the altar, an apse, side chapels, clerestory, stained glass windows, prominent pulpit, baptistry placed at the west end to receive people into the church . . . The very stones in such a building will preach.

That doesn’t mean that other forms cannot preach. But nobody looking a Chartres or Durham Cathedrals could say they do not compel an intense study that elicits something of what they are built for.

To suggest that architecture is incidental is naive. The very image of the spiritual community of faith used in Scripture is a building – built of living stones.

 

[mercygate]

Let me try to put this another way.

Just getting by is NOT what we are supposed to be going after. Sure, that Cathedral will be consecrated, Masses wil be said, all the usual things will happen there; however, it could have been done so much better in terms of the faith, in terms of lifting souls to Christ, in terms of a teaching experience for every eprson walking through the doors.

All one needs to do is to think about that Cathedral and St. Peter’s in Rome. Which “building” gives most people a larger feeling of the sacred? Which structure teaches and points us to God without needing a facility manual to learn what a given “light spire” might mean?

Being Catholic is to be part of a family–the family of God! Catholic structures have displayed that sense of family for most of its history…until recently, when we have seen so many ungly, cold, unfeeling structures that seem to be built to glorify people, not God.

I generally follow your argument and agree with it but to my reading St. Peter’s is not a building that exudes a sense of the sacred. Power? Yup. Majesty? Yup. Eternity? Yup. Granted, all of these things are aspects of the divine, but for that ineffable sense of mystery, of the unknowable communicated in stone, wood and glass, gimme Gothic any day.

 

[mercygate]

So…basically here…what we’ve established is that the only way to have a “Catholic” church is to use stained glass as a medium to portray scenes from the bible, the prophets, etc. Thus, anything that doesn’t scream out its point…and forces the worshiper to think and discern the meaning of…is not Catholic and should not be in a church…am I missing anything?

I think in this age we need to do a certain amount of “screaming.” For Pete’s sake. This is a period of consummate ignorance of our faith. Erecting buildings for the glory of God that put him conceptually out of reach of ordinary people is to invite confusion. Trust me. People do NOT come to a more intimate sense of the sacred in a space that resembles an exhibition hall than they do in a building ordered dramatically towards the Holy Sacrifice taking place on the altar.

 

[frommi]

I think in this age we need to do a certain amount of “screaming.” For Pete’s sake. This is a period of consummate ignorance of our faith. Erecting buildings for the glory of God that put him conceptually out of reach of ordinary people is to invite confusion. Trust me. People do NOT come to a more intimate sense of the sacred in a space that resembles an exhibition hall than they do in a building ordered dramatically towards the Holy Sacrifice taking place on the altar.

But these buildings are ordered ‘towards the altar’…the people are placed in a way that they can see the altar…the bishop is placed with the concelebrants in a way that exudes the collegiality expected between a bishop and his presbyerate…I could go on and on about this…

This church has an immersion font…which is a tremendous sign of baptism for people.

What is so confusing about this building?

I can understand that it doesn’t fit with the personal taste of some…but the original thesis was that it was ‘protestant’…which it clearly is not.

 

[frommi]

Th scary thing is that the Oakland bishop is supposed to be one of the orthodox ones.

There is not need for this - the catholic population is declining in the Oakland area.

I simply don’t get it - as someone said above another sign the US church is in trouble.

So now the cathedral isn’t orthodox?

I would say that a structure that impacts the skyline of a major city is a sign that the church is quite healthy in the US.

I swear sometimes I think people are hoping the church ‘dies’ so that they can replace it with something they think is ‘better’

 

[frommi]

Well it should look FEMALE if nothing else, since Our Lady was and is not just a woman but THE Woman of Genesis and Revelations And do you think Our Lady was bald as the statue is? Doubt it.

Abstraction is fine, but this isn’t an abstract artwork, it’s a realistic depiction of an androgynous (gender-neutral, in this case tending towards the male) person. As a woman, I can tell you most women would be insulted at depictions of them that look gender-neutral or mannish.

I’ll be honest…the picture I saw did not look gender-neutral.

But here’s a question…who’s to say that Mary wasn’t bald? It’s not an impossibility. And what DIFFERENCE does it make to our faith if a representation of her is outside the blue veiled, blue eyed, white woman we’ve seen for years. It always makes me chuckle that people who find Mary in salt runoff, french toast, chocolate, etc…always seem to find her appearing in a way that matches paintings of her…when we still don’t know what she looked like.

 

[rien]

So now the cathedral isn’t orthodox?

I would say that a structure that impacts the skyline of a major city is a sign that the church is quite healthy in the US.

I swear sometimes I think people are hoping the church ‘dies’ so that they can replace it with something they think is ‘better’

The church in the Bay Area is in collapse when it comes to teaching othodoxy. The Oakland bishop was a hope but this episode seems more business as usual. Its not about hoping - its about reality. The church is in defacto colapse in much of the US - not just the Bay Area.

IMO this is a total waste of money - its not like Oakland Catholic churches are bursting at the seems with parishiners - quite the opposite. So what is the point? Physical structures when there is no spiritual basis/beleif are of Mammon in my opinion. You can’t create physically what is not there spirtitually.

 

[Bruno_esqueXXII]

You can’t really compare modern creations of art to those created hundreds of years ago. We are in completely different periods of art and architecture and you can’t go back.

If we tried to recreate the great art/architecture of the past, it would just be weak and pale imitation – visit the Venetian in Vegas if you don’t believe me.

I agree modern art and architecture (and music) does leave a lot to be desired, but what is the other option? Building an imitation St. Peter’s in Oaktown?

Just curious: What do folks here think of Gaudi’s Cathedral in Barcelona?

 

[Bruno_esqueXXII]

Also, I am not a huge fan of spending so much money on huge buildings when there is so much poverty in the world, but I would not be surprised if many said the same when all those previous masterpieces of church architecture were built so long ago.