Why do modern church buildings have to be so ugly?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tenebrae
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tenebrae

Guest
I’ve recently seen a couple of truly spectacular old Catholic churches in Chicago–built at the turn of the last century, or before. Their beauty is breathtaking. So why, I wonder, when they build a new church these days, do they make it so plain and ugly? I realize that labor and materials were less expensive in the old days, but the parishioners were not affluent. They still managed to put up beautiful churches for the glory of God. These new churches, instead of lifting the mind and heart to God, oppress the spirit.
 
I’ve recently seen a couple of truly spectacular old Catholic churches in Chicago–built at the turn of the last century, or before. Their beauty is breathtaking. So why, I wonder, when they build a new church these days, do they make it so plain and ugly? I realize that labor and materials were less expensive in the old days, but the parishioners were not affluent. They still managed to put up beautiful churches for the glory of God. These new churches, instead of lifting the mind and heart to God, oppress the spirit.
Actually, the trend of ghastly church architecture is turning around. Architecturally, the whole world went off its rocker in the 1960s and '70s but, as Fr. George Rutler has observed, these hideous buildings have the virtue of being easily torn town.
 
I guess its just like everything else. Its a matter of opinion. I love to tour Gothic structures and such when I travel - but for weekly worship I much prefer my modern home parish what was built in the 70s. My parish has Stations of the Cross, Stained glass, statues, etc - but it is not all in the Worship Space. I much prefer the newer architecture.
 
Probably money has something to do with it…I worship in a church of great beauty…I really feel like I am in church and not some lecture hall
 
You might be right, but I have yet to see an ugly old church, but I have seen hideous modern ones…horrible looking stained glass windows, ugly and plain interiors ,and they look like a dairy queen
 
One of many different but the one that priest has most problem with is to convince people to donate. My priest said not long ago that the hardest homily to give is to mention about money.

People would like to go to Mass, ask for all kinds of services in return, but when they are asked to support, they complain.
 
My opinion.

In the 1970s and into the recent past, many bishops and parish priests were inclined to think of anything traditional as “old fashioned”, “out of touch”, “not today”, “oppressive”. A sort of trendy intellectualism also crept into the thinking, so that much of the “literalness” of old church design was rejected in favor of the “ultra symbolic”. As a consequence, those who controlled the funds and the projects tended toward the prejudices of the architectural world, which, at the time, was very much into Bauhaus-influenced design; a thoroughly secular progressive school. (Form follows function…leave that steel exposed.)

Architects themselves tend to view their work as a means of “talking to each other”, in much the same way as suburbanites “talk to each other” by the perfection of their lawns, landscaping, the country clubs to which they belong, etc., except that the conversation is conceptual in the case of the former. Those in power in the parishes and dioceses are “let in on” the architectural “conversation”. “This represents this…that represents that…the beams in the celing represent an inverted Ark of Peter…inverted to shelter the poor, etc, etc, etc.” Problem is, a lot of parishioners “don’t get it” and wouldn’t care for it even if they did.

At the core, it is, in my opinion, an elitist exercise on the part of those who, for whatever reason, do not like Tradition; usually in more ways than one.
 
I must say that Cathedral that was built in California is the dumpiest looking structure I have seen and I think it cost a fortune
 
My opinion.

In the 1970s and into the recent past, many bishops and parish priests were inclined to think of anything traditional as “old fashioned”, “out of touch”, “not today”, “oppressive”. A sort of trendy intellectualism also crept into the thinking, so that much of the “literalness” of old church design was rejected in favor of the “ultra symbolic”. As a consequence, those who controlled the funds and the projects tended toward the prejudices of the architectural world, which, at the time, was very much into Bauhaus-influenced design; a thoroughly secular progressive school. (Form follows function…leave that steel exposed.)

Architects themselves tend to view their work as a means of “talking to each other”, in much the same way as suburbanites “talk to each other” by the perfection of their lawns, landscaping, the country clubs to which they belong, etc., except that the conversation is conceptual in the case of the former. Those in power in the parishes and dioceses are “let in on” the architectural “conversation”. “This represents this…that represents that…the beams in the celing represent an inverted Ark of Peter…inverted to shelter the poor, etc, etc, etc.” Problem is, a lot of parishioners “don’t get it” and wouldn’t care for it even if they did.

At the core, it is, in my opinion, an elitist exercise on the part of those who, for whatever reason, do not like Tradition; usually in more ways than one.
Uh huh. You left out the word “relevant”. And don’t forget the architecture of dead-White-European-male-patriarchal-phallocentric-linear thinking! All that HAD to go!
 
Actually, the trend of ghastly church architecture is turning around. Architecturally, the whole world went off its rocker in the 1960s and '70s but, as Fr. George Rutler has observed, these hideous buildings have the virtue of being easily torn town.
As anything engendered by the spirit of VII, it’s as sterile as its adherents: it leaves no followers to continue it. Have you checked out the brand spanking new co-cathedral of Houston? Beauty is back!

:blessyou:
 
One of many different but the one that priest has most problem with is to convince people to donate. My priest said not long ago that the hardest homily to give is to mention about money.

People would like to go to Mass, ask for all kinds of services in return, but when they are asked to support, they complain.
Then maybe he and others need to talk about it a lot more. Let’s face it. It’s not so much that Catholics don’t have money. We’re the third wealthiest religious group in the U.S., after Jews and Episcopalians. It’s that Catholics, like everybody, are so into consumerism we don’t THINK we have any money to spare. Parish priests ought to be hammering peoples’ heads about that.

I don’t know if you have any children, but if you do, you know how hard it is to wean children off consumerism. “Johnny has this…everybody has…I can’t be seen dead wearing…” Adults are no different, so many of us just didn’t get weaned from it back when we were younger. We actually think we need all that stuff.

No, I think priests need to talk about money a LOT more than they do. But they really need to start with the overconsumption.
 
Then maybe he and others need to talk about it a lot more. Let’s face it. It’s not so much that Catholics don’t have money. We’re the third wealthiest religious group in the U.S., after Jews and Episcopalians. It’s that Catholics, like everybody, are so into consumerism we don’t THINK we have any money to spare. Parish priests ought to be hammering peoples’ heads about that.

I don’t know if you have any children, but if you do, you know how hard it is to wean children off consumerism. “Johnny has this…everybody has…I can’t be seen dead wearing…” Adults are no different, so many of us just didn’t get weaned from it back when we were younger. We actually think we need all that stuff.

No, I think priests need to talk about money a LOT more than they do. But they really need to start with the overconsumption.
Uh-oh. Somebody stuff a washcloth down mercygate’s throat. I feel a HUGE rant coming on about the level of giving in the average Catholic parish. But then, I’m a convert and we converts tend to go INSANE when we see the one dollar bills in the collection basket, and then hear people whine about how the Church wouldn’t let Aunt Marva sing Danny Boy at LoraBelle’ls weddingand wouldn’t let them have the wedding at 11:00 a.m. on a Sunday on the beach . . . Somebody STOP me!!! AAAaahhhhhh!
 
Actually, the trend of ghastly church architecture is turning around. Architecturally, the whole world went off its rocker in the 1960s and '70s but, as Fr. George Rutler has observed, these hideous buildings have the virtue of being easily torn town.
Many of the “modern” structures are not hard to retrofit either. I had the pleasure of making the acquaintence of a Catholic architect who designs a lot of retrofits. His name is Henry Menzies. Google his name and look at some of his retrofits. Some are astonishing…that he could do so much with stuff that was so ugly to begin with.

When my parish “building committee” (read “hand-picked shills of liberal bishop”) proposed a new parish hall and church upgrade, I offered to pay Menzies fee myself if they would even let him draw a proposal. I mean, the guy is a world-class architect. But nothing doing. The bishop (now retired, thank God) wouldn’t allow it, and they built one of the ugliest things I ever saw anywhere, and the only “renovation” they did on the church itself was to lower the ceiling. Lots of parishioners left the parish for a parish about five miles away because of it. In retrospect, I don’t know what I was thinking, offering to pay for Menzies’ services myself, but I would have found a way, I guess. Well, I would certainly have gone to some friends who have money, for help. But I would have done it one way or another.

There is another thread on here where someone is wondering why Cathoics don’t donate more than we do. Well, that’s an example of how and why it happens that way.
 
If you look up Henry Menzies on Google, look particularly at “St. Aloyisius Church Phase 2”. He had a horrible building to work with, but actually made a church out of it. As I said, all is not lost. Some of those awful buildings can someday be retrofitted, and I’ll bet they will be too.

Not all of his retrofits are on his website. I saw one not long ago that absolutely blew me away. It was not a “church retrofit” exactly, but an ugly Manhattan offfice building that he turned into a chapel for a Catholic school. But I don’t know where to find the photos now.

Another Catholic architect who does “retrofits” is Adam Stroik, who is the head of the architecture department at Notre Dame. If you google his name, you can probably see some more.
 
Many of the “modern” structures are not hard to retrofit either. I had the pleasure of making the acquaintence of a Catholic architect who designs a lot of retrofits. His name is Henry Menzies. Google his name and look at some of his retrofits. Some are astonishing…that he could do so much with stuff that was so ugly to begin with.

When my parish “building committee” (read “hand-picked shills of liberal bishop”)
Hey! I think these same guys are on OUR building committee!
proposed a new parish hall and church upgrade, I offered to pay Menzies fee myself if they would even let him draw a proposal. I mean, the guy is a world-class architect. But nothing doing. The bishop (now retired, thank God) wouldn’t allow it, and they built one of the ugliest things I ever saw anywhere, and the only “renovation” they did on the church itself was to lower the ceiling.
Yes. I am sure it is a fine example of all the fashion statements of the liturgy police that have disrupted church architecture for the past 30 years.
Lots of parishioners left the parish for a parish about five miles away because of it. In retrospect, I don’t know what I was thinking, offering to pay for Menzies’ services myself, but I would have found a way, I guess. Well, I would certainly have gone to some friends who have money, for help. But I would have done it one way or another.

There is another thread on here where someone is wondering why Cathoics don’t donate more than we do. Well, that’s an example of how and why it happens that way.
Well, I know for sure that several people have refused to cough up for our capital campaign because they are SURE that the last standing communion rail in the diocese will be ripped out and a wading pool built in the middle of the nave . . .
 
If you look up Henry Menzies on Google, look particularly at “St. Aloyisius Church Phase 2”. He had a horrible building to work with, but actually made a church out of it. As I said, all is not lost. Some of those awful buildings can someday be retrofitted, and I’ll bet they will be too.

Not all of his retrofits are on his website. I saw one not long ago that absolutely blew me away. It was not a “church retrofit” exactly, but an ugly Manhattan offfice building that he turned into a chapel for a Catholic school. But I don’t know where to find the photos now.
One word: wow.
 
Then maybe he and others need to talk about it a lot more. Let’s face it. It’s not so much that Catholics don’t have money. We’re the third wealthiest religious group in the U.S., after Jews and Episcopalians. It’s that Catholics, like everybody, are so into consumerism we don’t THINK we have any money to spare. Parish priests ought to be hammering peoples’ heads about that.

I don’t know if you have any children, but if you do, you know how hard it is to wean children off consumerism. “Johnny has this…everybody has…I can’t be seen dead wearing…” Adults are no different, so many of us just didn’t get weaned from it back when we were younger. We actually think we need all that stuff.

No, I think priests need to talk about money a LOT more than they do. But they really need to start with the overconsumption.
We actually did a good job at our fundraising. Our priest did great jobs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top