AmericanPapist Comments
I drive past the Houston cathedral twice a week. It's gorgeous, inside and out.
Now which looks more like a Catholic church to you?
Now which looks more like a Catholic church to you?
Depends on which time period, the Rite and the place.
They both look like a Catholic Church to me.
The second doesn't strike me as being all that beautiful - it reminds me, in some respects, of a prison.
Both are ugly IMHO
Sadly, they both look like a Catholic church to me -- they are both unattractive, at least on the outside.
They are on the right track, but Houston still has a problem. The basic design is good, but reinforced concrete exteriors really do detract from any semblence of beauty. Perhaps put up some stone facing on the exterior, and redo the nearly all-glass front, and it would be vastly improved.
As for Oakland . . . well, it is Oakland, after all. Too bad that they will be saddled with that monstrosity for the next 50-100 years. But perhaps that is the point. The "progressives" of the Church realize that they are dying out and cannot leave their mark theologically, so they are leaving their mark architecturally, knowing that building construction is so prohibitively expensive that, once their baby is built, we will have to live with it long after they are returned to dust.
I agree that the second cathedral's concrete architecture detracts from its beauty.
Marble, ladies and gentlemen, is what cathedrals should be made of.
Histor
Sandstone or red brick are most popular here in OZ... sandstone is very very nice.
Occassional blue stone as well.
To Deirdre and Stefan... When you go to Mass on Sunday, are you worshipping God or are you just there for the fashion show? I'm from Houston and I find that new "ugly concrete and reminded-me-as-prison" church marvelous and it's great place to worship Him. Period!
My first thought on the Houston cathedral was that it looked a bit too much like a prison. It is a step in the right direction but we have a long journey ahead of us. At least is is shaped correctly. Probably it was intended to have a traditional layout within a modern architectural style. The only problem with that is that modern architectural style is ugly in a way that is difficult to express without resorting to foul language. You just can't borrow the artistic sensibilities of an almost completely secularized culture, they have none. Not even a govt buildings should look so stark. It really annoys me when presbyterian and episcopalian churches look more traditional and reverent than ours. I am really impressed with Abp. DiNardo and the red hat could not have gone to a better bishop, but I do think he will eventually regret the "Concrete for Christ" look if he doesn't already.
Peter, was the building built for your worship experience or to honor our Lord? Be careful before you go accusing the motives of another. What is wrong about honoring God by adding architectural interest to building? And doesn't a beautiful building beckon a dark society to come in and worship?
This is a great building compared to what we have had to endure over the last 50 years, and yet it still bears so much of the influence of the last 50 years. I don't mean to criticize the building so much as to criticize our society and its architectural tastes. Perhaps we are being too hard on it and not being thankful enough for what we have been given. On the other hand lets never build something for God, then sit back and say "That is good enough."
If what a church looks like is of no consequence, why make a fuss about them at all?
It is fitting that a church, the house of the Lord, be beautiful. A church *should* be beautiful.
That a church isn't beautiful doesn't mean that we can't worship there, but it does remove qualities that aid in focusing our minds on God.
And, as Celibatarian mentions, there t'ain't nothing wrong and there is much right in honoring God by building Him a church of beauty.
YUCK. Throw in a Bed Bath and Beyond while you're at it.
Churches ought to be constructed so as to inspire awe and wonder from children - and those laity not on drugs or who have Ph.Ds in modern art theory.
Now in Western civilization certain forms just have a cultural 'look' that inspires awe. Neo-Romanesque shapes such as in the Capitol building or Federal Reserve banks cast the immediate impression of permanence, strength, power.
Classic Romanesque, Bzyantine, and Gothic lines also each created this sense of wonder and peace. And they were processional - there was a beginning and end to them. Plus, the artwork and glasswork allowed for RECOGNIZABLE human forms and pictures as opposed to vague colors, bland or cartoonish blocks of glass, sterile 'spaces'.
Praying quietly in a natural light lit Gothic or Baroque church where anywhere the eye falls one spots some little message, some image, icon, statue, or instantly recognizable form re-directs one's mind back to religion. Try that in modern churches and you're more likely to notice the annoying off-center lines, the odd, haphazard brickwork, the rough wood work, and the second rate metal or stone used.
And acoustics! Modern box or round churches need all sorts of amplification to make up for their architectural problems.
And shelter space in time of distress! Not much wind, water, fire, or ballistic protection inherent in the Oakland Church.
I've prayed in dozens of the major churches of the the world including Guadalupe in Mexico, Lourdes, France, the major basillicas in Rome, and other churches of Europe and the Americas... from St John's concrete monstrosity in Collegeville to L shaped curiosities in America.
Simply put, modern sui generis 'churches' that don't look like churches aren't respecting our cultural heritage, aren't respecting human nature, and aren't beautiful.
There's wonder, awe, and mystery in the classic Western lines and materials - but when the modern buildings don't even match the Marriott or Ritz for design and quality how can we realistically compare them with the masterpieces of yore?
I just have to jump in here, even if a bit late, to point out that the Houston Cathedral is not faced with concrete. The concrete you see is simply the structure of the building and has since been covered in Indiana Limestone and Marble. It's a very beautiful building and extremely fitting to its place and time. Just had the urge to clear that up.
To think that we can say what is and isn't beautiful, and moreover what God thinks is beautiful or isn't - is asinine.
Admit that you don't like the church because it isn't traditional, and that will get you further than trying to mask the argument on what a church should or shouldn't be. The Oakland church does very nice things architecturally - things that are enabled by its tectonics not afforded by traditional means. If you look to the building to embody the breadth of God's beauty, then sadly you you fail everytime.
The beauty is in the message and the deed. Those two things could come out of a hovel, and be beautiful.
BTW I am Catholic.
Commenting by HaloScan
