Debate: Is modern church architecture always hideous?

Almost…

Clay Cross Portiuncula is modern,efficient and a reverential sacred space; although I love Gothic churches..also the book and dvd: A Glimpse of Heaven, is a revelation.

Difficult question for sure. Personally I don’t find many modern Churches that inspiring, but not because they’re modern. I guess that with any Church the question is whether you go into the place and feel that it’s a place where the spirit of God is really present, and I think that’s about more than just architecture. I also think that in any case it’s always important to do what we can to make Churches accessible in terms of how well they understand the significance of the place. i.e. Catechesis is needed.

No it’s rubbish. The old one was much nicer.

Modern Catholic architecture since the onset of Vatican 11 has reflected a mundane, functional approach to Church building which has resulted in drab,formless structures that lack any indication of a sanctified space reserved for the celebration of Holy Mass. This post-modern, secular trend has infected liturgy and the even the educational approach to teaching the basics of the Faith.  The Classic periods of Church architecture as reflected in the Romanesque,Gothic and Baroque eras, left behind glorious cathedrals and churches across the world, which in form, dimensions and and decoration left little doubt that we are in the presence of portals to Heaven.  The global Church needs to reinvest again in the establishment of Church buildings which continue the masterpieces in stone left behind by past generations of architects, artist, sculptors,master masons and artisans. One example of post WW11 Catholic religious architecture that present day Church designers might emulate, is the splendid church in Vence, southern France with those famous radiantly, beautiful stain-glass windows, which was designed by the great French artist Henri Matisse.

St. Mary’s Priory Church in Leyland, Lancashire is an excellent example of a modern but magnificant church. (built in the 1960s). It was, in fact, the brainchild of the then parish priest, the late Dom Edmund FitzSimmons, OSB (always with a capital S) and the Holy Souls Chapel bears the religious names of the monks who served the parish at the time it was designed; Anselm, Edmund,Vincent and Theodore, the latter (Dom Theodore Young OSB) still serving, in his nineties, in the Benedictine Parish of St Austin’s on the outskirts of Liverpool.

Much modern church architecture is uninspired and bland. Some of it is actively ugly. However, I think Gaudi’s cathedral is utterly wonderful.

I also think this Cistercian abbey:
http://www.cistercian.org/

and the new part of the church at Douai:

http://www.douaiabbey.org.uk/

are very nice, spiritual places.

Modern architecture can be good – it just needs to be done well. Old doesn’t equal good – there are plenty of perfectly hideous Victorian churches as well as the gorgeous Pugin ones.

I also quite like the new chapel at Buckfast, and the church in Nottingham  – the Good Shepherd – in both cases because of the glass. Also the cathedral in Brasilia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_Bras%C3%ADlia

http://swordinariate.blogspot.com/2011/02/ordination-at-buckfast-abbey.html

http://www.goodshepherd-arnold.org.uk/powerpoint/img2.html

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  I’ve seen stone barns turned into oratories which were far more “Catholic” looking than some renaissance or gothic revival churches. 

Let’s hope the Vatican doesn’t try to force a one- size- fits- all concept of the ideal church design upon all dioceses.  Then command bishops to submit every design they have for a new parish to the CDW for its approval. He needs to realize a pointed arch over a window does not a gothic church make.

Sorry Parasum, but a mature Catholic doesn’t need pretty pictures on the walls of a church.  Children, on the other hand, always like pretty pictures and usually need them in order to pray.

 Jewish architects, by the way, are usually far more talented their Catholic counterparts.  The latter are more likely to be slaves to the past, follow the strict rubrics of the Church like obedient sheep,  and are, with few exceptions, almost entirely without imagination.

How about Notre Dame du Haut, at Ronchamp? Or how about the Cathedral of Brasilia by Oscar Niemeyer?

I liked going to Saint Mary’s cathedral when I lived in San Francisco.
http://www.stmarycathedralsf.org/aboutUs.html
Kind of like a washing machine agitator on the outside, but the interior was very spiritually uplifting.

I have to say that, if I wasn’t already Catholic, if my only exposure was to watered down liturgies at these gymnasium-auditorium cold, soulless looking new churches, I’d have no desire to convert save for the Grace of God and some miracle.
When I visited this church, my spirits, rather than being lifted, shrank. I actually felt a sense of fear.

http://www.worldofstock.com/stock_photos/PFR2626.php

The crucifix (can’t find a photo) is so large and iron like and cold looking that even the priest told he me often worries it will fall on him and kill him during Mass!

An acquaintance who attends this parish said of the tabernacle,  “I could make a better one in my garage!”

http://www.cathnewsusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/0218-oc-a.jpg

I often feel it hard to even pray at these churches, as I’ve so distracted by the atrocious architecture. It seems to be a phenomenon in the western world, where, no doubt not a coincidence, the liturgy is much more watered down.

The 1960′s was an era of foresight, vision and hopefulness which was reflected in the architecture of the time, sadly in present times, people fail to have these qualities of optimism. Far from ‘throwing out tradition’ 1960′s style was based on tradition, which in those days people had the strength to follow, it’s noticeable that I can’t comment on ‘new’ church architecture as there are so few being built, here in the UK anyway.  To bring everyone back down to earth (as they say) the Roman Catholic church embraced ‘futurism’ in the 1960′s because most of it was untried and untested building methods and so came at a much reduced cost to the local parish. You see, it’s all down to money in  the end!

Perhaps the architectural ‘high art’ churches in metropolitan areas may manage upon occasion to inspire momentarily by surprises of light and structure. On the other hand, when disparate elements from these churches are latched onto by eager architects and design committees in far-flung suburban or regional areas the result is more likely to be a surprise of a less than inspiring nature.  (The Nun’s Ski Jump in Dubbo NSW for instance)  I have noticed as well, that the pendulum is swinging back toward a ‘more traditional’ style, of recognizably church-like structures. A simple country church inspires by its humility and gentleness. A simple country church could be housed in an old garage which may well have more architectural integrity dignity and human warmth than many of these moderne extravaganzas of glass, cement and steel; it could be transformed by the REALITY of The Church as an Outpost of the Kingdom of Heaven.  Building churches that end up looking like garages sends a very different message. The story of Christ’s birth would be a very different one if Joseph and Mary had commissioned a highly skilled craftsman to design a very expensive cradle for Jesus that only LOOKED like a ‘manger’.  Wouldn’t that be called ‘spin’ or even a publicity stunt? Would anybody be able to take the story seriously??

http://www.bathurst.catholic.org.au/Parishes/dubbo.html
The “Nun’s Ski Jump” church in Dubbo NSW is an interesting example. The interior, with its floor sloping down toward the altar… (oops, what kind of  theological statement is that please?) One is compressed into the pew by the ceiling, which swoops ominously. Curiously, the only place that has a feeling of ‘uplift’ is AT the Altar. I suppose this might encourage vocations, since the only seats in the house that don’t feel oppressive are the Priests and Servers.

The exterior, with ‘Soaring Spire’ (reminiscent of a fast food restaurant roof, only much taller,) is intended to, well, SOAR. Alas, the nickname for the church says it all… it’s all downhill from here.

It might help if you cherished your good archItects more – eg Rainer Senn, Von Branca, Gottfried Bohm – some of these classic modern churches being now in danger of demolition. There are always bad buildings and egotistical architects