Arson Against Architecture?

[jbuck919]

The year is 1968, I am 14 and my home parish in a small town has been forced to build a new church because the old one has been condemned. Already, this is a modernistic church in the round, though very finely exectued for what it is (I liked it). Comes the latter part of the year, and the Cardinal Archbishop of a very large archdiocese which I suppose I am not supposed to name but take a good guess is coming for the dedication.

The church had as a reredos a modern-style tapestry of the last judgment. Again, I loved it. It was the highlight of the whole church.

A few days before the dedication, someone let himself be locked into the church in the evening and, with an accelerant, set fire to the tapestry. The entire sanctuary was severely damaged. Only the quality of the materials used in the original construction saved the builiding, including the tabernacle, which was damaged. A professional cleaning company had to be called in from a great distance and at a great cost to make the worship space usable again. The dedication went on as planned, in spite of the damage, with Cardinal ________ presiding (it was the first time I had ever seen a cardinal).

The perpetrator of the crime was never found out, but it was obviously some probably younger probably male fanatic who thought that deviation from traditional church architecture and art, which at that time was still an innovation, was an abomination. Think about it.

 

[Monica37]

It sounds like you are assuming a lot. Did I read correctly that the perpetrator was never caught? If so, it seems to me that the motive is completely unknown to everyone except the perpetrator. Could it be that that person was mentally unstable to begin with and had absolutely no opinion whatso ever on the architecture? Perhaps you may need to think about that.

 

[pm1853]

Uhmm…its possible. I think that its more like a) what monica37 said, or b) someone who was a lot more displeased than with JUST the architecture. My guess (and it can only be a guess since this person was never caught) is that the perpetrator’s motives were much more devious and aimed at the Catholic Church at large rather than an architectural style.

 

[proud2bcatholic]

I think you should think about the uncharitable and baseless assumptions you made in this ridiculous thread.

Having said that, I am sorry you had to experience this arson.

 

[jbuck919]

I am surprised at these responses. I am merely reporting a real incident and what at the time was deemed the likely scenario, which I have never had any reason to doubt. It is you who are being uncharitable in not taking into account the shock of a 14-year-old devout boy who had to face this.

Thanks to whatever moderator supplied the subject line when I forgot to.

 

[decn2b]

No Message

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I am surprised at these responses. I am merely reporting a real incident and what at the time was deemed the likely scenario, which I have never had any reason to doubt.

You make an unfounded assertion and point fingers at “traditionalists” for destroying “modern” architecture. What is your point?

Did the thread in which many of us expressed our dislike for modernistic church “architecture” ruffle your feathers?

Give us one founded reason why the arsonist(s) just has to be some traditionalist wackjob and not a run of the mill anti-Catholic or a pyro.