I probably shouldn’t be allowed to post on this one, because I hate “Modern Church Architecture” with everything that’s in me.
Returning to topic, though, my impression is that the early churches in the U.S. were built by immigrants, who brought their heritage with them. Thus, churches built largely by ethnic Germans tend to be Gothic, with a lot of carved wood inside. Early Germans in the U.S. seem to have been excellent carvers and joiners. Irish churchest tended to be sort of “English Gothic” (apologies to the Irish) or a Gothic/Romanesque mix; certainly not as Gothic as the German-built churches, and with nowhere near the interior wood and carving. German churches tend to be rather dark inside; perhaps a preference from the Black Forest or other forests, which are common and deep in Germany. Irish church interiors, to me, seem lighter.
I have not seen a lot of Polish churches, but in my limited experience, they are surprisingly bright inside. Lots of color. If you look at Polish ethnic outfits, they are as well. Perhaps the brightness of the Polish fields. “Polonie”=“People of the fields”.
Italian-built churches tend to be Italianate, which is no great surprise. Bright. Lots of stone, plaster and art. About what one would expect.
There are surprises. St. Louis Catholics are pretty German, though there are a fair number of Irish and Italians. But the Cathedral is Byzantine, both inside and out, with gorgeous acres of mosaics inside. Go figure.
Now, this isn’t really a Catholic thing. But ever notice how all Episcopal or Anglican churches in the U.S. either look like an English cathedral or something that looks like it was built by hobbits? There might be Catholic “hobbit churches”, but I have never seen one.
So, now, what should new Catholic churches look like? Well, I’m not sure mere reproduction of the old European models would quite be it. However, I think modern architecture is an excrescence inspired by Bauhaus as an expression of socialist materialism. (Read Tom Wolfe’s “From Bauhaus to Our House” a hilarous irreverent pillorying of modern architecture)
I personally admire the work of Adam Stroik and Henry Menzies. Both have websites and if you google the names, you will find them. They seem to me a blending of modern materials and classic themes; though not quite a repetition of those themes. I like them very much.
One of these days, there is going to be a lot of retrofitting of “modernistic” Catholic churches when parishioners and new bishops have finally taken the ugliness all they can stand. It’s already going on in some places. Both Stroik and Menzies have done a fair amount of it and the last I looked, they had examples on their websites.
There have always been purposes in the way churches were built. Gothic, for example, had a way of drawing the eye upward to enormous heights. Romanesque had an ageless solidity to it. Italianate architecture seems to me an expression of pure joy. People like Stroik and Menzies also have “themes” and “Purposes”; some of which they explain.
