I too love my “old” church buildings (current parish).
Yet I love my “new” childhood parish in Chicago too.
It was begun in 1959, long before VII had an impact on anything.
The church and school were finally completed in 1969.
It’s a simple structure, accessible all around (handicapped in mind).
It was built because the older structure, combining church and school,
had to come down, obvious to all of Chicago after the fire at Our Lady
of the Angels school, DEC 1958, killed 93 people (students and nuns).
A few years earlier, there might have been great
objections to the simplicity of the new structure.
After the fire-deaths, objections ceased.
The new church-building is now about 50+yrs old. Time flies!
PS - “Eighty-seven children and three nuns died on
December 1, 1958 as a result of the Our Lady of the Angels fire.”
Absolutely no doubt about it -
my view of more modern structures as newer
church and school buildings is very influenced
by the facts of the tragedy in Chicago.
Even as a child I understood that the safety of
parishoners had to be apparent in new buildings.
Not to mention the costs of labor and goods had to be
appropriate in building new structures.
IOW, I have no resistance to newer Church structures.
None at all! Deo gratias!
Oh, my goodness, you have no idea how much that fire affected our lives. We lived in Indy, I was 11, but everyone was so upset. My sister and I couldn’t sleep at night. Our pastor went from room to room explaining, consoling, and so forth, to all the kids.
I have read three books about it over the years, visited the monument, and then found the website (haven’t looked at it lately) where the survivors get together for reunions.
We visited an exhibit called Catholic Chicago a couple years ago and got to write about the fire in a memory book. There was also an old map of Chicago with all the Catholic churches and schools, and it seemed like there was one on every corner. Very different from mostly Protestant Indianapolis.
As for modern, ugly, etc., let’s face it, some folks have different taste. There are some “ugly” old statues that we used to have, very plaster-y and not painted too well, eyes rolled heavenward, and sometimes gory looking blood, depending on how they were martyred.
I know two converts, one being my mother, who walked into a quiet, stained glass window, vigil light church (St John’s-- the oldest church in Indy) she “felt God’s presence”, possibly due to the Real Presence, but also because of the sacred space.
Another Jewish friend visited St David’s in Wales and converted because it just felt “right”.
I can’t imagine anyone walking into our Origami mish-mash of styles and weeds in vases, burlap banner using church and feeling anything other than “I want out of here”.
And the priest feels it, because he says things like, “I’ll have this (mass) over with in thirty minutes.”
Don’t get me wrong, I made my share of burlap banners in the late 1960’s, but that was over 40 years ago. It would make our fingers sore.
I do like “modern” and abstract art, but there is a lot of “bad” art that we just put up with.My favorite is a blending of old and new, not getting stuck in either old (medieval?) or used to be new but now dated 1960/70’s styles.
And always with an attitude toward reverence and contemplation, which never go out of style.
hands in the prayer posistion.