Vatican speaks out against modern Church art and architecture

[J_Peterson]

Ugly churches have no place in Catholicism

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Filii_Dei]

I’m sure that there are some Churches that go to far, but I think there are some “modernist” (though not in the theological sense) Churches that are very beautiful and not at all Protestant in mentality, like the Cathedral of Brasilia by Oscar Niemeyer,

http://en.wikiarquitectura.com/images/3/31/Catedralbrasilia25.jpg

To be fair to the architect, I must say it is certainly a powerful and attention-grabbing design. The sheer scale and clever use of light does lend to some very nice effect, and I must give the architect due credit for that.

However, the overriding and sad fact of its design, however, is that it does not fit in with its function of the Church well at all. Yes, the ceiling is certainly magnificent, but it directs the attention toward the absolute centre of the church, which has absolutely nothing of note save for three suspended figures on the ceiling and rows of pews on the ground, and the pews aren’t even coordinated with the design. They’re just facing off to one side. It is terrible use of the effect, and simply shows how little (or how poorly) the architect was actually thinking of its purpose as a place where the highest form of worship and prayer is held.

Now look further toward the altar and sanctuary and you will realise it has been relegated to one side, completely unbalanced and uncoordinated with the architecture. The ceiling draws no attention to the sanctuary but instead distracts people away from it.

The interior is completely made stark and bare. Yes, I know that many religious traditions have simple churches as well, but this is nothing like that. The religious employ the principle of noble simplicity, where they build their churches with true simplicity but elegantly. They do not go out of their way to make it seem “simple”, nor do they attempt grand designs and then remove all ornamentation to make it “simple”, but only build it in a way that makes it truly essential in all its manifestations. This, however, is anything but that. The design is not one of simplicity but of a deliberate and conscientious absence of feature. It seems to me that the architect almost wished for people to focus on his ceiling, instead of the altar. If I may say so myself, it is almost a kind of ostentatious pomposity. There is such an overwhelming and almost prideful focus on a single innovative design that all other elements have been deliberately toned down so that people will marvel at this only artistic focus away and apart from the sanctuary. This is not how the religious build their churches at all.

Furthermore, there is poor coordination of religious art, and what little art I see seems completely out of place and alien to their environment. They do not meld with the church to direct worship towards God. Instead, it seems almost that only two-thirds of this space was meant for worship, while the other third is a incidental art gallery. Now, I don’t believe that religious art need be used for all parishes, for the religious have many examples of simple and unadorned churches, but in this case, they have been put in but are so glaringly out of place that they look like they have been forcibly shoehorned into the church.

In short, while I fully respect this place as a consecrated ground which has been dedicated to the worship of God, I still must point out that its objective beauty has not been truly realised. What I see is not one church, but a glass ceiling superglued onto a different church’s floor.

I am not opposed to modern designs in principle, but said modern designs must be in continuity with tradition. Too many architects these days simply take it and break away with it. This is unfortunately one such example. If it’s any comfort to you, at least it’s nowhere nearly as bad as Jubilee Church.

 

[october_baby]

I think that the Vatican has a point, I attend St. John the Evangelist church in Indianapolis
and love the architecture, it’s very traditional . It was built in the 1880’s I believe.

 

[edwest2]

Architects are hired. The client tells them what they want. They produce a series of designs. The client gets to pick which one gets built. So again, a group of someones in authority in the Church, approved the final design and were able to obtain funds for the actual construction. This is not a ‘whoops! That’s not what we were hoping for’ sort of thing.

Ed

 

[gracepoole]

Ugly churches have no place in Catholicism

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ld2HZzmhh...s400/catacomb-sabina-chapel-cc-santagnese.jpg

Exactly!

 

[Cojuanco]

For those who would say ewwwwww, I would refer them to the edifices built in Los Angeles and Oakland, particularly LA.

I’m actually not that miffed, especially if one considers the interior, with its tapestry of the Saints, pointing towards the altar, as if they are at Mass with us. Now the windows, on the other hand…

For an arguably modernist architecture of a church that I particularly like, how about the Sagrada Familia Basilica in Barcelona?

 

[KEP1983]

Ugly churches have no place in Catholicism

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ld2HZzmhh...s400/catacomb-sabina-chapel-cc-santagnese.jpg

So modern ugly Churches are comparable to Churches that haven’t been occupied for 1,800 years?

And that’s supposed to support your argument?

Yes, Churches are supposed to be beautiful. They are supposed to have beautiful art. They are to avoid ugly forms. Vatican II states so in Sacrosanctum Concilium. vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

“Very rightly the fine arts are considered to rank among the noblest activities of man’s genius, and this applies especially to religious art and to its highest achievement, which is sacred art. These arts, by their very nature, are oriented toward the infinite beauty of God which they attempt in some way to portray by the work of human hands; they achieve their purpose of redounding to God’s praise and glory in proportion as they are directed the more exclusively to the single aim of turning men’s minds devoutly toward God.”

“Bishops should have a special concern for artists, so as to imbue them with the spirit of sacred art and of the sacred liturgy.”

“Besides the commission on the sacred liturgy, every diocese, as far as possible, should have commissions for sacred music and sacred art.”

“Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense.”

So yes, art and beauty are important to Catholic Churches. Vatican II clearly states it.

 

[KEP1983]

I’m actually not that miffed, especially if one considers the interior, with its tapestry of the Saints, pointing towards the altar, as if they are at Mass with us. Now the windows, on the other hand…

For an arguably modernist architecture of a church that I particularly like, how about the Sagrada Familia Basilica in Barcelona?

Very good point about La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona. It’s not a “traditional” Church in that it’s not Gothic, Byzantine, Neo-Classical, etc. I’m going there in August and really look forward to it.

So yes, Gaudi DID create a non-traditional more “modern” Church, but Gaudi DID try to keep the Church beautiful.

I think what a lot of people here don’t realize is that modern art philosophy purposely set its mind against beauty. Just read the writings of Clement Greenburg and other important modern art theorists.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So modern ugly Churches are comparable to Churches that haven’t been occupied for 1,800 years?

And that’s supposed to support your argument?

Yes, Churches are supposed to be beautiful. They are supposed to have beautiful art. They are to avoid ugly forms. Vatican II states so in Sacrosanctum Concilium. vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

“Very rightly the fine arts are considered to rank among the noblest activities of man’s genius, and this applies especially to religious art and to its highest achievement, which is sacred art. These arts, by their very nature, are oriented toward the infinite beauty of God which they attempt in some way to portray by the work of human hands; they achieve their purpose of redounding to God’s praise and glory in proportion as they are directed the more exclusively to the single aim of turning men’s minds devoutly toward God.”

“Bishops should have a special concern for artists, so as to imbue them with the spirit of sacred art and of the sacred liturgy.”

“Besides the commission on the sacred liturgy, every diocese, as far as possible, should have commissions for sacred music and sacred art.”

“Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense.”

So yes, art and beauty are important to Catholic Churches. Vatican II clearly states it.

Evidently this is a chapel in the catacombs. At the time, they had no choice but to do this. My Irish ancestors were obliged to attend Mass in fencerows, but that does not mean we are somehow obliged to construct churches today that look as much like fencerows as possible.

 

[gracepoole]

Evidently this is a chapel in the catacombs. At the time, they had no choice but to do this. My Irish ancestors were obliged to attend Mass in fencerows, but that does not mean we are somehow obliged to construct churches today that look as much like fencerows as possible.

On the other hand, it doesn’t mean that catacombs and fencerows are less holy places to worship. And if a worship space is holy, doesn’t that in and of itself make it beautiful? Maybe beauty is also defined by what takes place in a church, rather than simply how it appears.

 

[YoungTradCath]

On the other hand, it doesn’t mean that catacombs and fencerows are less holy places to worship. And if a worship space is holy, doesn’t that in and of itself make it beautiful? Maybe beauty is also defined by what takes place in a church, rather than simply how it appears.

Well, that’s a fun and poetic way to describe it.

 

[LisaA]

As others have mentioned, architecture is an art form in that taste really isn’t entirely arbitrary. There are things that are innately beautiful and things that are innately ugly. But church architecture is more than just beauty. Architecture ALWAYS says something about the purpose and meaning of the building.

Once catholic churches were laid out such that the people all faced the same direction (including the priest) during the liturgy of the Eucharist. That was an architectural message that the people were united in worshipping God together. Sometime in the 1960’s, prominent liturgists decided to attack that paradigm. They decided that the people should be fanned out so that they faced each other. The altar was still a focal point of sorts, but the message was blurred when the priest faced the people. Suddenly the people had THREE focal points: the altar, the priest and each other. Not coincidentally, the meaning and reality of the Eucharist as actual body and blood of Christ sacrificed to God for our sins has been radically de-emphasized in popular understanding ever since. It wasn’t by accident either. Those liturgists WANTED to change the emphasis of mass from one of holy sacrifice to one of community meal sharing. Architecture was a powerful tool towards that goal (good luck finding a church built in the last 30 years where the seating doesn’t place people facing each other). IMO, this was less a mistake than a nefarious intention.

Much of what some catholics perceive as merely ugly in modern churches is actually bad architecture from a THEOLOGICAL perspective (like the above). Another example is the tabernacle. It used to be that the placement of the altar and tabernacle together made for a unified focal point that didn’t create confusion. There was little separation in location because there was little separation in meaning. Today we stuff the tabernacle into architecturally insignificant cubbies. That sends a message and I’m not remotely convinced that it wasn’t done on purpose.

An idea I had that I think is worth kicking around is to construct a beautiful altar with a tabernacle at the center. The tabernacle would be beautiful and secure, but could be designed so that it actually moves! During mass, the tabernacle could retract down into the altar out of sight, leaving a flush surface. After the consecration, the tabernacle would rise up our of the altar into view so that the remaining hosts could be reposed there after communion. The tabernacle could then stay in view until shortly before the next mass (or perhaps retracted when the church is locked up for better security). It’s just an idea and if done badly it could be too gimmicky. But if done well it could be a way to restore the architectural unity of focal point in the church without having to fight a civil war in the church over the priest celebrating mass ‘ad orientum’ (standing on the people side, facing the altar with the people). In any case, my point here is that the problem with new architectural ideas is not that they’re new, but that they are BAD. New ideas need to be faithful to what the building is FOR.

excellent and worth reading again! We had a Liturgical Environment specialist come and do a workshop in our church. The building was brand new and we wanted appropriate touches. There is a real ‘science’ to this…the emphasis is on the worship and drawing our eyes to the altar. Ours is a more modern church with a view of each other and of course the priest who’s literally in the middle of the Sanctuary. I find it easier to focus when in a more traditonal church where literally every line points to the altar. My DH grew up in a very traditional Parish and hasn’t even gotten used to the EM’s much less the coliseum seating

The moving tabernacle is interesting…we have an Ambow that moves up and down to accommodate readers of different heights rather than having the shorter lectors have to pull out a stepstool! Quite distracting. I like the idea of the tabernacle being more in focus. Ours is sort of back in a corner and blends into the walls.

But as several posters have noted, it’s a matter of taste. For everyone who doesn’t like the modern design there are others who say “oh your church is SOOOO beautiful…”

Lisa

 

[KEP1983]

On the other hand, it doesn’t mean that catacombs and fencerows are less holy places to worship. And if a worship space is holy, doesn’t that in and of itself make it beautiful? Maybe beauty is also defined by what takes place in a church, rather than simply how it appears.

Incorrect. I put the Vatican II document above which clearly states that Sacred Art should be in all Churches and that visual beauty is essential to public worship. The document also states that every diocese should commission Sacred Art. This document is from an Ecumenical Council, so therefore it is infallible.

Again, the following is from Vatican II, and is infallible:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

“Very rightly the fine arts are considered to rank among the noblest activities of man’s genius, and this applies especially to religious art and to its highest achievement, which is sacred art. These arts, by their very nature, are oriented toward the infinite beauty of God which they attempt in some way to portray by the work of human hands; they achieve their purpose of redounding to God’s praise and glory in proportion as they are directed the more exclusively to the single aim of turning men’s minds devoutly toward God.”

“Bishops should have a special concern for artists, so as to imbue them with the spirit of sacred art and of the sacred liturgy.”

“Besides the commission on the sacred liturgy, every diocese, as far as possible, should have commissions for sacred music and sacred art.”

“Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense.”

Again, this is an infallible document. So yes, art and beauty are important to Catholic Churches. Vatican II clearly states it.

 

[gracepoole]

Incorrect. I put the Vatican II document above which clearly states that Sacred Art should be in all Churches and that visual beauty is essential to public worship. The document also states that every diocese should commission Sacred Art. This document is from an Ecumenical Council, so therefore it is infallible.

Again, the following is from Vatican II, and is infallible:

“Very rightly the fine arts are considered to rank among the noblest activities of man’s genius, and this applies especially to religious art and to its highest achievement, which is sacred art. These arts, by their very nature, are oriented toward the infinite beauty of God which they attempt in some way to portray by the work of human hands; they achieve their purpose of redounding to God’s praise and glory in proportion as they are directed the more exclusively to the single aim of turning men’s minds devoutly toward God.”

“Bishops should have a special concern for artists, so as to imbue them with the spirit of sacred art and of the sacred liturgy.”

“Besides the commission on the sacred liturgy, every diocese, as far as possible, should have commissions for sacred music and sacred art.”

“Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense.”

Again, this is an infallible document. So yes, art and beauty are important to Catholic Churches. Vatican II clearly states it.

But the question is how we define beauty, not its requirement in Catholic churches.

 

[KEP1983]

But I DO want to point out that I’m not claiming beauty is restricted to “traditional” Gothic or Neo-Classical Architecture. Someone earlier brought up Sagrada Familia in Barcelona. That is a more modern art-nouveau Church. It’s beautiful but not very traditional.

The point is that the architects and artists should be striving for beauty. And they should be following a “hermeneutic of continuity,” as Pope Benedict stated.

Modern art purposely strived for ugliness and a complete rejection of tradition. There are some exceptions in that there is some beautiful Modern art and architecture, but these are exceptions that prove the rule. The founders, leaders, and philosophers of Modern art purposely rejected tradition and beauty.

 

[gracepoole]

But I DO want to point out that I’m not claiming beauty is restricted to “traditional” Gothic or Neo-Classical Architecture. Someone earlier brought up Sagrada Familia in Barcelona. That is a more modern art-nouveau Church. It’s beautiful but not very traditional.

The point is that the architects and artists should be striving for beauty. And they should be following a “hermeneutic of continuity,” as Pope Benedict stated.

Modern art purposely strived for ugliness and a complete rejection of tradition. There are some exceptions in that there is some beautiful Modern art and architecture, but these are exceptions that prove the rule. The founders, leaders, and philosophers of Modern art purposely rejected tradition and beauty.

Got it!

 

[KEP1983]

But the question is how we define beauty, not its requirement in Catholic churches.

I agree, there can be different styles of beauty. But Vatican II seemed to understand that some art is purposely ugly, and bishops need to be sure that the art commissioned is not ugly in form. Modern art was purposely designed to reject beauty and tradition.

But what was stated earlier was that a Church is beautiful “because of what happens in the Church, not what it looks like.” You can’t hold to this position and accept Vatican II. Vatican II clearly states that fine art-- paintings, sculptures, architecture, and music-- are essential to Catholic worship and every diocese should be commissioning these arts.

You can’t truly follow Vatican II and be an iconoclast. You can’t just minimize the Church to the actions taking place inside of it and remove the beauty. If you do you contradict both Vatican II and the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 AD.

 

[KEP1983]

Got it!

ok

I think we’re overlapping in our posts.

 

[livingwordunity]

Cardinal Ravasi, the President of the Pontifical Council for Culture, is speaking out against modernist

Modernism itself is ugly, and it was condemned by Saint Pope Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis. Here’s a sample of it:

Though they express astonishment themselves, no one can justly be surprised that We number such men among the enemies of the Church, if, leaving out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge, he is acquainted with their tenets, their manner of speech, their conduct. Nor indeed will he err in accounting them the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For as We have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation not from without but from within; hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain, the more intimate is their knowledge of her. Moreover they lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fires. And having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth from which they hold their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skilful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious arts; for they double the parts of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and since audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance. To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for the strictest morality. Finally, and this almost destroys all hope of cure, their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.

Once indeed We had hopes of recalling them to a better sense, and to this end we first of all showed them kindness as Our children, then we treated them with severity, and at last We have had recourse, though with great reluctance, to public reproof. But you know, Venerable Brethren, how fruitless has been Our action. They bowed their head for a moment, but it was soon uplifted more arrogantly than ever. If it were a matter which concerned them alone, We might perhaps have overlooked it: but the security of the Catholic name is at stake. Wherefore, as to maintain it longer would be a crime, We must now break silence, in order to expose before the whole Church in their true colours those men who have assumed this bad disguise.

Source:
Pascendi Dominici Gregis

 

[LisaA]

But I DO want to point out that I’m not claiming beauty is restricted to “traditional” Gothic or Neo-Classical Architecture. Someone earlier brought up Sagrada Familia in Barcelona. That is a more modern art-nouveau Church. It’s beautiful but not very traditional.

The point is that the architects and artists should be striving for beauty. And they should be following a “hermeneutic of continuity,” as Pope Benedict stated.

Modern art purposely strived for ugliness and a complete rejection of tradition. There are some exceptions in that there is some beautiful Modern art and architecture, but these are exceptions that prove the rule. The founders, leaders, and philosophers of Modern art purposely rejected tradition and beauty.

Very thoughtful…and certainly true in my estimation. We have quite the arts community and a monthly gallery walk that draws hundreds, sometimes thousands in good weather. The art displayed in most galleries is frankly hideous…disturbing and certainly not beautiful. There is some theory explained that “art is supposed to startle, to make you think…” Ugh… I’ve often wondered if anyone would ever speak up and say the Emperor has no clothes. I guess if people are foolish enough to admire or buy it.

Bad enough in the secular world but when incorporated into what should be sacred space, truly a rejection of the noblest and most creative possibilities.

Someone posted a very old stone sanctuary and while not ornate, there is beauty in the history, the roughness and the focus on the altar. It doesn’t have to be all gilt and stained glass to be beautiful. Further at the time, the people used the materials and talent available. We have no excuse for ugliness now. I’m glad it’s something that the Vatican takes seriously as well

Lisa