How did we go from this:
to this?
The traditional church at the top — St Mary’s in Bairnsdale, Australia — was designed by an Italian artist from Florence.
The new, modern church — St Peter’s in Boerne, Texas, near San Antonio – exhibits the Vatican II style of art. (Boerne is pronounced ‘Bernie’, by the way.)
Which would you rather attend? Which would you rather kneel and pray in afterward? Which makes you think of aspiring to the Kingdom of Heaven?
I remember that at the end of the 1960s many Catholic churches in the US went through a ‘refurbishment’ programme. We in the pews figured it consisted of structural repair and a new coat of paint. So, we weren’t surprised to see antique statues of St Joseph, St Therese of the Child Jesus and parish patron saints removed. Same for the wrought iron stands with votive candles. They’d be back. After all, we wouldn’t want them damaged whilst the works were going on.
Wrong!
The refurbished churches had one or two statues and that was it. The displays of any other saints had mostly disappeared or were some modern confection out of stained wood. Votive candles were gone for good. Even worse were the new sets of modern Stations of the Cross! Everyone talked about it, especially parishoners whose families had donated works of art in previous generations. ‘My family paid for that!’ And we’re talking about immigrant ancestors with blue-collar jobs, not millionaires. ‘And it’s gone — just disappeared! The priest didn’t even bother to notify me. I could have donated it somewhere else.’
Perhaps not. Priests were smugly silent about the refurbishments. They said very little about them: in fact, nothing. But, they were all in keeping with Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Chapter VII.
Sorry, but I must interject my thoughts on St Peter’s above. At the same time that the refurbishments were going on, I read an illustrated article in a movie magazine about Anton LaVey, who had a small coterie of followers in Hollywood. I can’t help but think that Satan worked through the architects of St Peter’s, Boerne. It looks so much like LaVey’s place. All they need is a pentagram. But I digress.
In brief, this is why we have the Catholic churches that we do. Chapter VII of Sacrosanctum Concilium says:
- The Church reasserts its ‘right to pass judgment on the arts’ to determine which works of art are ‘suitable’ for sacred use through new ‘decrees’
- Changes to what acceptable art is have gone on through time, so the Church has ‘admitted changes’ in light of new materials, styles and ornamentation
- Churches must be suitable for the ‘active participation of the faithful’
- The number of sacred images must be ‘moderate’, lest other Christians might find them ‘incongruous’ or of ‘doubtful orthodoxy’
- Priests must seek the opinion of the new diocesan commissions with regard to sacred images in their churches
- New sacred art academies would be instituted to create images in line with Vatican II
- Sacred ‘furnishings’ must not be destroyed (and my comment: this is why there is such an online market nowadays for pre-Vatican II art).
So, there you have it. Keep in mind that St Peter’s, unlike St Mary’s, fosters the ‘You are Christ’ notion. People look at each other instead of at the altar. At St Mary’s, you must look at the altar and focus on Our Lord. What an outmoded idea.
To see and read about Vatican II church transformations in Coffs Harbour, Australia, click here. This is an excellent compendium.
For more on Vatican II, click here.
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 6, 2009 at 11:11 am
Gabriella
How sad! Very very sad
Understanding architectural modernism as a form of puritanism helps explain why it simply doesn’t work for Catholic churches. Calvinists, having rejected the Real Presence, devotion to the saints and other aspects of Catholic spirituality, don’t need sacred space: their churches are “functional” meeting halls. Ornament distracts from the Word, delivered in written form or by the preacher, and from the austere way of life demanded of a puritan.
This has little in common with the Catholic attitude to good living, expressed poetically by Hilaire Belloc:
“Where’r the Catholic sun does shine
There’s music and laughter and good red wine
At least I’ve always found it so,
Benedicamus Domino”.
Have a nice weekend!
June 6, 2009 at 11:15 am
churchmouse
Thanks, Gabriella, for the excellent insight and added bonus of Belloc!
Hope your weekend is a good one, too!
June 6, 2009 at 11:14 am
Gabriella
I forgot to add that your post strongly made me feel like going out and black spray paint “Spank the architect” on all the modern churches here in Rome!
June 6, 2009 at 12:06 pm
churchmouse
Love it!
We’ll never get rid of them now, although they might be built of post-war and new materials that won’t stand the test of time. We can but hope. As long as we can replace them with something magnificent (churches, that is)!
March 12, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Tammy
I think they’re both beautiful! I especially like how the pews face each other… very reminiscent of the old monasteries. I can imagine singing the Liturgy of the Hours with the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament at St. Peters.
March 12, 2011 at 11:08 pm
churchmouse
Our eyes should be focussed on the altar, not each other. We are in church to worship God. Note that the V-II document (cited above, with selected summary bullet points) shifts the focus from God to Man.
Maybe you are a parishoner at St Peter’s?
March 22, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Jason
To be honest, I am not a fan of the seating arrangement in the second picture at all. My wife and I are considering a move to that exact area and when I started looking for churches locally I was having a hard time getting my head around what those pictures actually were showing. However, to be fair, there are aspects of the second picture that I do like. I enjoy the open feel, the warm wood tones, and the placement of the organ.
While the older church above is quite beautiful, I can easily see becoming distracted looking at the magnificent artwork rather than focusing on the liturgy. There has to be a way to pull off more modern styling along with maintaining the reverence that is needed as part of the Church.
Finally, it is my understanding that the picture you reference is at St. Peter’s in Boerne Texas, not Houston. http://www.stpetersboerne.com/
March 23, 2011 at 9:24 am
churchmouse
Thanks for the link and geographical note. Have amended the post accordingly.
Now, to the main body of your comment. A reading of the post in full would have revealed that it’s not about ‘warm wood tones’ but the way the pews are facing, which should be towards the altar (see my comment to Tammy above) to direct our attention to Christ and the Mass.
A church building is God’s house. They probably don’t teach that to kids anymore, and I sense that you might have grown up during Vatican II. Prior to that, children’s missals had guidance notes on behaviour in church. They instructed children to admire the art and architecture before they knelt down to pray before Mass, at which time they were to focus on the altar and the priest’s prayers. Every child knew that — through prayer books, parents and catechism teachers.
Again, Mass is not about us but our Lord. We are there to glorify God, to give humble and heartfelt thanks for Christ’s propitiation for our sins and the Sacrament of His Body and Blood.
Yes, I agree with you that there must be a better way to incorporate ‘more modern styling with maintaining the reverence that is needed’. Old church structures were built to give glory to God, not Man.
Best wishes on your move to Hill Country — it looks very pretty — and on finding a suitable Catholic church for you and your wife.
July 7, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Michael
I think that discussion about these things is important, but to maintain charity and unity while doing so is even more important. I think we need to do a little homework before saying hurtful and uninformed things. The pentagram comment was extremely tacky and uncharitable. Education is the main thing lacking here, and perhaps if we as a Church were better informed we would have a good place to start discussing architecture with pastors, building committees, and designers rather than scoffing at all contemporary architecture and dividing into deeply entrenched factions that throw stones at one another. I am just as dismayed as many at the stripping of sacred imagery from many current church designs, but St. Peter’s is a poor example and I think there is a lot that can be said here.
To dispel one misconception up front, the seating at St. Peter’s is NOT in the round. It’s antiphonal and it’s an ancient tradition (thank you Tammy!). Those who have written here about preferring traditional seating focused on the altar need to visit a monastery to understand this is very different from contemporary round seating plans. The purpose is to allow Liturgy of the Hours into the same physical space, a beautiful expression that pre-dates the rosary by 100 years.
I have to say that the Renaissance paintings are very distracting and in my humble opinion, in poor taste in this particular application. They appear a bit too much like wallpaper. Michelango painted this way in the Sistine Chapel that was built in his lifetime. To attempt to recreate that now is just not a genuine expression of today. To cling to the 16th century is silly. Who says that nothing good can come after? If the Church in Michelangelo’s day felt that way, we would not have churches like St. Mary’s to look at. It was Michelangelo’s expression of his day, and believe it or not, it was looked down upon by many at the time as modern and irreverent.
The average Catholic is not very well versed in Church or art history, and admittedly, the last few decades under the influence of modernism have really starved us for beautiful church design and the aforementioned depth of the various statues, stained glass windows, and other sacramentals. However, it is not the one “right” answer to start cutting and pasting elements that are over 500 years old into our new churches to try to make them beautiful. It is definitely not the right answer to expect every church to look that way. It seems that the author of this piece and some of those who have responded overlook the fact that Jesus did not leave blueprints for a Gothic or Romanesque or Renaissance church and demand that all other Catholic churches look exactly that way. While you might not be a fan of the architecture of St. Peter’s, the church has a pretty wide local reputation for being beautiful.
Every community is different and everyone sees every church differently. Please read the Church’s documents on sacred art and architecture. They describe this beautifully. There is a way to blend our history and Tradition with the influence of the age we live in. I can guarantee you that even though St. Mary’s *looks* like The Sistine Chapel, besides the poor artistic composition, the architecture is nothing alike below the surface. I think the attitude of cheap reproduction fails to pay tribute to the sacredness of the building and places a incongruous emphasis on a certain period of Church history while failing to understand everything that came before and has come since.
I must also point out as an architectural professional that this church is far from modern. In fact, it’s not even post-modern. The design of many parts of the church appears to me to reference the style the early Central Texas settlers of European descent would have been familiar with, as well as using local materials. The quick dismissal of the design based on the fact that it doesn’t look like a Renaissance revival copycat neglects a great amount of effort that I’m sure went into the symbolism of tying in the design to ancient traditions.
For instance, I can probably safely wager that the Baptismal Font in St. Mary’s is a round or octagonal marble piece somewhere to the left or right of the communion rail in the front with a big ornate baroque cover with a cross on it. St. Peter’s Baptismal Font is actually at the entrance, where the font should be located, and is in the shape of a shell, an ancient symbol of Baptism. It allows full immersion, as preferred by the Church, I might add. In addition, the beautiful repetition of wooden trusses at St. Peter’s is actually much closer to what the first generation basilicas would have looked like in Rome, in keeping with the idea that the ceiling looks like an inverted hull of a ship with the priest as it’s captain (in persona Christi), as opposed to the plaster application of the barrel vault in St. Mary’s, a style that is approximately 1400 years younger. These are just a few examples of how we can miss the truth when we let knee-jerk reactions take over.
I hope this is in some way helpful. God bless.
July 7, 2011 at 2:58 pm
churchmouse
You’ll find, Michael, that I did a lot of research into my Vatican II posts (click the link in the cloud tag). I am an ex-Catholic, and had the Church not changed so radically during the 1960s I would probably still be one today.
Your comments themselves, lengthy as they are, are somewhat dismissive and unkind towards the more traditional church pictured. I am sincere in what I wrote — as I said in previous comments, the pews in the modern church face each other, not the altar. We are not in church for our own mutual gladhanding but to worship and give glory to God. We also see the 20th century notion of severe plainness. Catholic immigrants coming from Germany in the 19th century would have had a sense of aesthetics. I grew up in a small city which had a variety of Catholic churches built by different immigrant groups — Hungarian, Belgian, Irish and Polish — each was beautifully adorned and designed, even though the parishes were made up of working class people.
If you look into the background of Vatican II, you will see many dark forces at work which go against centuries of Church teaching and doctrine. Church architecture is one of them and bears out, as the post says, the emphasis on Man-to-Man worship rather than Man-to-God.
July 7, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Michael
My comments are not at all dismissive or unkind towards the traditional Church. Stating that Satan was at work in the design of a beautiful church is far more harmful than anything I would dare post on the internet. I am part of the traditional and orthodox Catholic Church, but it’s posts like this that cause problems. In fact, it seems almost pointless to debate at this point since technically, as you state, you are lo longer part of the Church. You are free to believe as you wish, but you cannot tell an educated Catholic what is right or wrong without being one; that just doesn’t make sense. If you do not accept the authority of the Magisterium, then we are simply on different pages. As a faithful Catholic, I in no way do I look down upon respect for tradition, as I made clear by pointing out that many elements of the style of St. Peter’s far predate the Renaissance, which St. Mary’s imitates.
What I attempted to make clear in my lengthy response (guess it wasn’t long enough) is that you can’t be selective about which traditions you accept and which you toss out if you call yourself a traditionalist. Last I checked, even before Vatican II, there was no papal edict stating that all churches must commission fresco painters. Vatical II homework or not, you are uninformed on the issues I cited. You reinforce that by insisting to acknowledge the antiphonal form as an ancient tradition of prayer and worship and grouping it in with “gladhanding” and looking at one another vs looking at God. It is too easy to force a dichotomy to win people to your side with selected bits of the truth.
July 7, 2011 at 4:05 pm
churchmouse
Thanks, Michael, for your visit and for your perspective.
It would seem that our exchange is over.
I no longer accept the Magisterium. I became a Protestant 25 years ago.
July 7, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Michael
Thank you for your tolerance of opposing perspectives. It is much appreciated. I also regret that you found reason to leave the Church after Vatican II. I imagine those reasons extend beyond architecture, and I absolutely respect them.
Please know that you are always welcome to reconsider and return to the Church. I know through my own experience how difficult it is to respect authority when we disagree with the outcome. It is easy to assume God is not at work in the lives of those with whom we disagree, especially when our beloved Church is moving in a direction that is scary and different. Despite our fears, Christ is still working in the Church by the continued presence of the Holy Spirit. With the Church now facing huge new liturgical changes yet again in a few months, the younger generation has I have the opportunity to experience what many of you did during Vatican II. To the relief of many, it is a move back in the other direction. Not at all to impute a motive, but in my own life, prayer for humility has led me to realize how much pride drives my opinions and resistance to change, and more often than not, the areas where I separate myself from God. Communion is clearly a very important idea to you. You know the other place it is really important? The Catholic Church! 
Thank you for the dialog and I wish you well on your journey.