"New" Cathedral in Haiti...

[JReducation]

Last time I checked, choosing the winner of an architecture competition or approving the structure of a church did not fall under infallibility I mean, probably the cuboid was also approved by a Bishop

@Br. JR, I understand and I was not necessarily criticizing the choice or judging the intention behind it, just expressing my personal distaste with a certain kind of architecture that seems to depart at great length with what Catholicism has always been about. I am sure you will agree in the spirit of humbleness that no matter who approved the design, I am still entitled to dislike it - though if I were a member of the community I’d bow my head in obedience to his choice, if my vow so required.

If you ever visit there, just don’t say a word or the friars will literally have you arrested for contradicting the Father General. It has happened. The town magistrate has imposed penalties on people for disrespecting the General Superior. Outside of the large cities, the Italians take the Franciscan General Superior very seriously. I think it has something to do with the fact that St. Francis is the patron saint of Italy and that he wrote a letter to the Italian heads of state that commanded them to obey him.

Ah yes the “ornate vs plain”, “old vs new” debate. Un-winnable I’m afraid, but since we’re allowed to have an opinion:

Ornate (and for a Benedictine Monastery, scandalous IMHO), the conventual chapel of Monte Cassino, rebuilt after WWII:

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w312/OraLabora/Italy 2009/DSCN0457.jpg

St. Benedict would roll over in his grave if he saw this. It’s beautiful and I’m sure that it was very expensive and act of love. But it is not consistent with the Benedictine charism of austerity and simplicity.

Plain, a small chapel in the same monastery, the floor dates back to the 11th century. Much more to my tastes:

Old (very, very old; now Anglican but once Catholic), St. Senara’s in Zennor, Cornwall, England, about 1400 years old though rebuilt in the 12h and 14th centuries I think:

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w312/OraLabora/Stsenara1.jpg

New (1994, the conventual chapel of the abbey I’m affiliated with):

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w312/OraLabora/eglisesbl.jpg

Even newer, the Trappist monastery in St-Jean-Matha, Quebec:

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w312/OraLabora/EgliseVND.jpg

This is what Franciscans, Cistercians, Benedictines, Trappists, and Camaldolese always had until the bishops and the laity pushed the elaborate churches on us.

Can anyone set this up as a poll so we can express in specific numbers our opinions for whomever might listen–we might influence other design teams even if not Haiti itself.
For my part, I think the concept is very important that our sanctuaries should attempt to reflect the Glory and Perfection of God, to the best of our ability to design, construct, and finance them. Our local Parish is the closest to God’s Kingdom of Heaven that we will probably come in our lives, and I think our personal goals should be to assist our Parish, as well as our Diocesan Cathedral, reflect God’s Glory.

I support your idea of assisting, but we must keep in mind that no one, not the clergy, not religious, nor the laity are allowed to have an opinion over the construction and design of churches unless the bishop asks for it. At the end of the day, they are his property and he is the Church. Without a bishop, there is no Church.

We do better to express our opinions quietly with our pastors over a cup of coffee than to try to get polls and signatures and other means that people have tried to use to influence bishops and religious superiors.

Think of it like a sled dog. The more that you pull on the harness, the harder that he pulls in the opposite direction, to the point that the sled goes forward. If you want the dog to think a certain way, you have to get him when he is open to listening to you and in a way that he does not feel intimidated or invaded.

 

[Tx3bro]

Tbh I don’t think it is that bad,except for the fact I think a the dome shaped top makes it look more like a mosque.

 

[Lawrence178]

before & after

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/epic-jackie-chan-template.png

 

[JReducation]

Tbh I don’t think it is that bad,except for the fact I think a the dome shaped top makes it look more like a mosque.

I don’t mind the dome. Have you ever seen the dome of the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in DC? It was patterned after the Muslim Dome of the Rock. The designs and patterns are from Mooresque Spain. I like it very much.

What I don’t like about this building is the towers. They’re too boxy. Maybe if they just had the crosses at the top, without the backdrop, they would look nicer. There is nothing wrong with the design.

I have never been one to say “This is bad” or “This is a scandal” or “This is a sacrilege”. As a theologian and a scholar I know that are and architecture evolve. If we travel through Europe and through the Eastern nations, we find diverse architectural designs for churches.

It’s contrary to human intelligence to want to freeze art and architecture in a certain time period or a certain school. Art and architecture reflect man’s own growth and evolution, as well as move man toward the divine. It has two goals, one human and one divine, as is the Church. It is not the goal to freeze in time or in a school of art.

That being said, I have to admit that there are certain forms of art and architecture that do not represent who I am and certainly do not move me to look toward the divine. This particular design is one of them. However, just because it does not work for me, it does not mean that it may not work from someone else. I’m not the center of the world. Everything does not have to work for me. We know that there is such thing as perfect religious art and architecture.

St. Mark’s Cathedral in Venice is allegedly one of the most beautiful building in the world. I don’t like it. I love St. Peter’s on the outside. I hate the inside. The canopy over the main altar is annoying. The canopy over the main altar at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception blends into the background rather than call attention to itself during the mass. I like that one. It works for me. Another design that works for me is the Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament built by Mother Angelica. It’s very simple on the outside. and very beautiful inside, without being overdone.

 

[Dale_M]

St. Mark’s Cathedral in Venice is allegedly one of the most beautiful building in the world. I don’t like it.

I haven’t been inside of it, but its exterior seems too “busy,” particularly the roof
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Veneza47.jpg

I like the exterior of Florence’s cathedral, Santa Maria del Fiore, which is detailed but more restrained. It, too, has a large dome.
arch.mcgill.ca/prof/sijpkes/arch374/winter2001/sfarfa/ensayo1.htm

 

[choliks]

I know some of you don’t like it, but i think it’s important to remember that this is a nation trying to rebuild itself. This design may have been chosen because its practical and economical.

 

[Dale_M]

I know some of you don’t like it, but i think it’s important to remember that this is a nation trying to rebuild itself. This design may have been chosen because its practical and economical.

The money to build the new cathedral will need to be raised, and that will probably be from foreign donors. As it is, the Catholic Church in Haiti is rebuilding much more than its cathedral.

This includes the rebuilding of dozens of Catholic schools and churches — a process that has not only been delayed by familiar Haitian issues, such as land titling and false land claims, but also by technical preparations and disagreements over architectural design, availability of materials and costs.

“Sometimes I am not happy with the costs of designs, and I say we cannot accept that,” said the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Bernardito Azua, who is in charge of dispersing the funds for the church’s rebuilding efforts. “The problem isn’t necessarily money. It’s more technical, it’s more the availability of expertise. It’s where your architect lives, where your engineer lives.”

While the reconstruction of some churches and schools is being overseen by different religious groups, the largest effort is being overseen by a Church rebuilding commission put in place after the quake. It is overseeing 60 construction sites, said Azua, the pope’s representative in Haiti.

“I am always pleading for patience with donors. If I were outside Haiti, and had not observed all of these things, I would be impatient, too,” he said. “Even though we are slow, we are ahead.”

miamiherald.com/2012/12/18/3148117/um-school-of-architecture-hosts.html

 

[Aramis]

At least it’s not a Quonset Hut. I’ve been to several parishes which are.

 

[JReducation]

I haven’t been inside of it, but its exterior seems too “busy,” particularly the roof
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Veneza47.jpg

I like the exterior of Florence’s cathedral, Santa Maria del Fiore, which is detailed but more restrained. It, too, has a large dome.
arch.mcgill.ca/prof/sijpkes/arch374/winter2001/sfarfa/ensayo1.htm

The interior of St. Mark’s is equally busy. I can’t attend mass there. There is too much to look at.

The interior of Florence is absolutely stunning and peaceful. It’s colorful without being distracting.

On another note, I wonder if we (all of us on this thread and others like us) are acting appropriately. At the end of the day, the decision on what a cathedral or parish church looks like is the decision of the bishop and his committee.

Not being on that committee, I often question myself and those who act like me on these matters. Are we taking this business of free speech to an inappropriate extreme where we feel the need and the right to comment on everything, including that which has nothing to do with us?

Are we trespassing boundaries by commenting and even disparaging what clearly is in someone else’s jurisdiction, not our own?

When I ask myself these questions, I can see the wisdom of men like Benedict, Bernard and Francis who commanded that their sons and daughters never express an opinion that is in conflict with the bishop or the pope. When in doubt, they should seek the guidance of the superior.

Unfortunately, laymen and diocesan clergy have forgotten that these great men were raised up by the Holy Spirit not to found religious orders, but to educate and enlighten the entire Church: clerics, religious and laity. The tendency is to say that their commands and teachings apply only to those who are bound by obedience., which in my mind creates a chasm between “us and them”.

“They can’t say anything about this, but we can say whatever we want without impunity. Regardless of the mastery over virtue of their spiritual fathers, those fathers are not our fathers and were not sent for us, only for them.”

I always ask myself these kinds of questions, which maybe I shouldn’t. What often happens is that I end up asking myself, what purpose does my life serve if the faithful are going to isolate me?

 

[R_C]

Br. J, I understand your point. However, my only goal in posting this news was to emphasize that yet another church design has been presented based on the idea that somehow we need to “fix” or “renew” our architecture to match the “new liturgy”. That’s all that I’m bothered by. Which is why I said: “I don’t like the way this is being presented”.

It’s not a merely aesthetic issue that I see, nor one of fundraising. If I ever visit that sanctuary, or this new cathedral, I would never dare to criticize it, because it’s hardly a polite thing to do to go into someone’s house and criticize it. However, I do think that there needs to be some discussion on where does this architectural trend come from, and why is it being accepted as if it were the “normal” way of doing things.

It seems to me that it’s not the building’s shape or feeling that matters the most…is the fact that someone tries to change, fix, adapt how we should see the Church, the priest, God. We don’t need that, and we don’t need lay people whom we ignore if they are even Catholic to define these things for us - despite their inspiration from the light of Vatican II or the approval of the local ecclesiastic authority. Consider the third-place design or even the honorable mention that simply proposed to reconstruct the very same Cathedral with a more solid structure. Why were the futuristic-looking buildings preferred over the more classical? Regardless of this competition, or of any existing churches, I think we should be at least be aware of this trend, because once established and widely accepted it won’t be reversed, to the point that someone in the future who wants a classical church may simply be laughed at.

 

[JReducation]

Br. J, I understand your point. However, my only goal in posting this news was to emphasize that yet another church design has been presented based on the idea that somehow we need to “fix” or “renew” our architecture to match the “new liturgy”. That’s all that I’m bothered by. Which is why I said: “I don’t like the way this is being presented”.

It’s not a merely aesthetic issue that I see, nor one of fundraising. If I ever visit that sanctuary, or this new cathedral, I would never dare to criticize it, because it’s hardly a polite thing to do to go into someone’s house and criticize it. However, I do think that there needs to be some discussion on where does this architectural trend come from, and why is it being accepted as if it were the “normal” way of doing things.

It seems to me that it’s not the building’s shape or feeling that matters the most…is the fact that someone tries to change, fix, adapt how we should see the Church, the priest, God. We don’t need that, and we don’t need lay people whom we ignore if they are even Catholic to define these things for us - despite their inspiration from the light of Vatican II or the approval of the local ecclesiastic authority. Consider the third-place design or even the honorable mention that simply proposed to reconstruct the very same Cathedral with a more solid structure. Why were the futuristic-looking buildings preferred over the more classical? Regardless of this competition, or of any existing churches, I think we should be at least be aware of this trend, because once established and widely accepted it won’t be reversed, to the point that someone in the future who wants a classical church may simply be laughed at.

I often share with the brothers interesting things that I see or hear during breakfast. Then they go off. The three houses come together for morning mass and breakfast.

This morning I was sharing about some interesting things on CAF. I had printed the picture of the proposed new cathedral for Haiti. I told the brothers why I didn’t like the design.

The brothers made me realize how wrong I’ve been. Here are some of the comments that I received.

“Father, is this your opinion or the opinion of the bishop? Unless it’s the opinion of the bishop, we have no right to express a different opinion. The bishop is the local church.”

“Father, doesn’t St. Francis command all men to be quiet and to accept what the bishop accepts unless it’s a sin?”

“You’re not the ordinary there. You’re the ordinary here. You have no jurisdiction; therefore no right to opine.”

“Father, is it not true that we are not to criticize or reject what comes from those who are greater in dignity and merit than we are?”

Then the kicker . . .

“Father, did you know that the superiors general of the religious who administer that cathedral gave the design their blessing. Therefore, the case is closed, because those superiors general who have jurisdiction over the building and over the laity there have spoken and the bishop has agreed. You’re overstepping your bounds.”

My brothers have put their superior general (me) in his place. I will refrain from saying anything more about this building.

I will say that no all designs are beautiful or inspiring, be they new or old. I also believe that we will never go back to designing churches as they did in the past. I think that we will see a blend of the classic with the modern, more like the pictures that I posted in a previous post

 

[OraLabora]

I think the least successful one of the austere examples is the one you’re affiliated with. The image shows it to be quite drab. I think the most successful one of the austere examples is the first, the chapel at Monte Cassino. Extremely simple without being modernist and hateful toward symbolism. It is very elegant. However, I think without the touch of art above the altar it would be less successful. (Please note that the last example is not showing up and so I cannot .

It would be pretty hard for that chapel at Monte Cassino to be “modernist” since it dates from the 11th century!

The one I’m affiliated with is not done justice by the photo. It’s actually quite beautiful in person and not at all drab. In fact it does a superb job of capturing the light appropriate to the time of day, the season and the weather. It’s the only church I’ve ever been in that does that. It is on an east-west axis with the altar at the east end. Watching the sun rise over the altar at Lauds (or Vigils in high summer) as the shafts of light capture the incense is quite spectacular. You would never have to consult a clock there to know which hour was being celebrated.

Similarly the quality of the light highlights the season, both liturgical and physical.

It was consecrated Dec. 4 1994; the crypt was built some 30-odd years prior. When the finally raised enough money for a new church the monks voted on whether to go modern or more traditional. They chose modern. Their decision and their home

I should also point out that the acoustics are fantastic. Not insignificant as it is the foremost place for Gregorian chant in Canada; it is used daily for Lauds, Mass and Vespers and also for hymns at the other hours. So it certainly respects the Benedictine tradition for both liturgy and simplicity. It is very carefully designed for the liturgy including to accommodate disabled monks so they can participate in the liturgy for as long in their lives as possible.

It truly shows an attention to detail that a small pic can’t capture.

 

[JReducation]

When the finally raised enough money for a new church the monks voted on whether to go modern or more traditional. They chose modern. Their decision and their home

That was the correction that my brothers made this morning. There is a point at which freedom of opinion or freedom of speech, whichever, crosses the boundaries of jurisdiction. At that point, it becomes invasive.

The monks have jurisdiction over the abbey church. It makes no difference who’s paying for it. The law is that the ordinary has the last word and the ordinary does not have to consult. In the case of an abbey, the ordinary is the abbot. The monks are fortunate to have an abbot who gave them a vote. I have known other superiors who have not given anyone a vote.

I had one superior who tore down our entire house and rebuilt it. We had one week notice telling us where our temporary quarters were going to be. When we got back to the rebuilt house, it was the ugliest thing that I have ever seen. It looked like a pound of butter. It was the same shape and color. Yuk!

We took a deep breadth, closed our eyes and moved back in. The laity who had donated the money for the project were furious, because they expected a friary that looked like they imagined a friary to look like. The superior’s response was very simple. “I like it.”

The following year he did the parish church. That was a nicer building, but also painted in butter yellow.

 

[R_C]

I understand, Br. J, and much more than I did before. However, don’t you think this sort of discussion would at least benefit architects who in the future may be designing new churches?

And I understand your position on the authority of the Bishop (I love to always quote St. Ignatius of Antioch who said “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles”), but then again if we express that we enjoy a certain type of classical architecture more than the modern/futurist style that is more and more common, then they’d exercise their authority with a greater awareness of our feelings on these matters, and perhaps they would not be prone to prefer one style over the other.

 

[JReducation]

I understand, Br. J, and much more than I did before. However, don’t you think this sort of discussion would at least benefit architects who in the future may be designing new churches?

And I understand your position on the authority of the Bishop (I love to always quote St. Ignatius of Antioch who said “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles”), but then again if we express that we enjoy a certain type of classical architecture more than the modern/futurist style that is more and more common, then they’d exercise their authority with a greater awareness of our feelings on these matters, and perhaps they would not be prone to prefer one style over the other.

That’s why I said that I will limit my comments to say that some designs are better than others. I don’t particularly wan to commit to classic vs modern. Personally, I hate Baroque, which is classic. I love the Spanish style, which is not quite classic, but it is traditional, while at the same time very simple. I have seen modern churches that combine classic elements with modern elements. I think it’s all in the hands of the architect. The more talented, the better the design.

I certainly do not like geometric shapes. The house in which I live is designed to look like three triangle intersecting. I hate it on the outside and love on the inside. The inside is modern, but it’s dynamic, not a bunch of boring cubes. Had it been built for me, I would have gone for a Cape Cod. I love that style.

 

[Genesis315]

There’s a reason this is happening:

“The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments is establishing an office to promote the development and use of appropriate liturgical art, architecture and music.”
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1204806.htm

 

[JReducation]

There’s a reason this is happening:

“The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments is establishing an office to promote the development and use of appropriate liturgical art, architecture and music.”
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1204806.htm

It’s what I said in a previous post. We can’t get stuck in time or in one school or art and architecture. That’s not what the Church wants to do.

 

[OraLabora]

That was the correction that my brothers made this morning. There is a point at which freedom of opinion or freedom of speech, whichever, crosses the boundaries of jurisdiction. At that point, it becomes invasive.

The monks have jurisdiction over the abbey church. It makes no difference who’s paying for it. The law is that the ordinary has the last word and the ordinary does not have to consult. In the case of an abbey, the ordinary is the abbot. The monks are fortunate to have an abbot who gave them a vote. I have known other superiors who have not given anyone a vote.

I had one superior who tore down our entire house and rebuilt it. We had one week notice telling us where our temporary quarters were going to be. When we got back to the rebuilt house, it was the ugliest thing that I have ever seen. It looked like a pound of butter. It was the same shape and color. Yuk!

We took a deep breadth, closed our eyes and moved back in. The laity who had donated the money for the project were furious, because they expected a friary that looked like they imagined a friary to look like. The superior’s response was very simple. “I like it.”

The following year he did the parish church. That was a nicer building, but also painted in butter yellow.

One minor point, and this I know because it was yesterday’s chapter reading of the Rule of St. Benedict, the abbot is supposed to consult the community for major decisions.

But the Rule does not say it has to be a democratic vote. The monks could have unanimously expressed a desire for a more traditional church and the abbot chosen modern after consulting them.

It may not be wise to do so, but on the other hand he may have information that compells him to do so, for example available budget and locally available skills and materials. Or even spiritual reasons, for example the monks want “traditional” for all the wrong reasons.

First and foremost the Rule makes clear that the abbot is entrusted with the care of souls, and must make decisions based on driving those souls to eternal life. If he sees an attachment to “tradition” among his monks border on idolatry of small t tradition instead of respect for Tradition, then he is likely to say “thank you for your viewpoint” and do what he believes will minister best to the souls he’s entrusted with.

 

[mafh]

Please share. What makes it pretty to you? What do you like about it? What specifically do you find pretty?

The juxtaposition of the strong rectangular blocks and the dome remind me a little bit of some ancient Roman architecture, like Hagia Sophia and the Pantheon. This combined with the large, prominent clear windows remind me a bit of Frank Lloyd Wright’s architecture. This blends well together. Also, I like the floor to ceiling glass in the nave, and the reflecting pools. This makes the nave an indoor/outdoor blended space full of light, and it gives the impression of the narthex being a separate building from the actual church. I rather like that, because it reminds me of the old (no longer done) practice where the unbaptised stayed in the narthex until baptism when they were admitted into the church proper. I think the symbolism seem nice – you are baptised, and then you are admitted into this bright, glorious space filled with sunlight. I like the sliding walls that separate the sanctuary part from the nave, so you can close this off if you want to, and this also reappears that there are a second set of sliding walls so that you can either open the tabernacle to the main church, or you can close it off into the adoration chapel. That seems both utilitarian and a nice design element. The cruciform layout of the original church is still there, but it is now superimposed by a circular element. This reminds me of some of the old Celtic crosses, and since I like Celtic design, I like this as well. My favorite part of the building is the front facade, which to me is the perfect blending of old and new. I like the juxtaposition of the strong towers with the delicacy of the scrollwork on the windows from the original building. So, yes, I think it is pretty.

I also like that it is a striking, modern building. The old building was pretty too, but you know it was a copy of a style of architecture that is prominently found in Europe. And in Europe, there are much better examples, much prettier examples, of that type of architecture. So, I think it suffers some by comparison. The new building, however, is a far more original design (maybe a unique design), as far as I know. It stands on its own, and you like it or don’t like it on its own merits, not in accordance to how well it exemplifies a particular style. So, artistically, it becomes a more important building, if that makes any sense.

Note, I’m not Catholic, so please excuse me if I have gotten any terms or Catholic concepts wrong. (Though please feel free to correct me!)

 

[Genesis315]

It’s what I said in a previous post. We can’t get stuck in time or in one school or art and architecture. That’s not what the Church wants to do.

No, but at the same time not all forms of art and architecture are appropriate. A lot of modern art and architecture is too subjective. A while back I read an article where an architect was explaining why he designed a highly criticized church as he did. This church looked like a cross between an empty warehouse, a Flintstones living room, and a space ship. It was just weird. The thing is, when the architect actually explained what he was trying to get across, it was all really good and traditional Catholic notions. The problem was, no one else got any of it from walking into the church he designed. He’s the only one who could see it.

Art and architecture are like a form of communication, and when one is communicating to an audience, one must address the audience in a way that makes the message or purpose intelligile to the audience. In the West, most people appreciate and understand what, say, Gothic, churches are all about–it elicits in them what was intended. It’s like speaking English, if even Elizabethan English, to an English speaking audience. Modern architecture is not even speaking another established language, it’s making up your own language that no one understands.