So says this article in La Croix. The trend in the 70s and 80s was to build “humble” churches which blended into their environment unobtrusively. Now the trend is to go big and beautiful – with a variety of opinions, to be sure, about the latter. Difference of opinion too about the ethics of spending so much on buildings. France is increasingly multi-cultural, multi-religious, and post-Christian. Some believe this creates a need to give clearer witness to Christianity and to stir up curiosity about what goes on inside the building. Not sure what I think about the church in the photo. Sure wish they included more photo examples. – awr
The era of cathedrals is not past
Comments
9 responses to “The era of cathedrals is not past”
-
I never thought of the churches built in the 70’s and 80’s as being humble. Plain and modern, yes, but not necessarily humble or inexpensive looking. Some of the engineering and elaborate wooden ceilings in the semi-circle churches I grew up attending were impressive and seemed expensive.
The church in the photo looks like a theater or trendy concert venue. Also, there doesn’t look to be enough space around the altar to walk around it without stepping down or to celebrate Mass facing with the people. My preference is for simple rectangle churches with steeples (it’s nice to be able to spot a church on the horizon) that can be decorated and embellished over the course of time.
-
+JMJ+
The church in the photo first made me think of the frame of a capsized boat (oy!). Then it made me think of rooms I have been in that had similar sorts of walls, mostly lecture halls at schools and colleges. Then it made me think of a concert hall with an orchestra pit wherein the conductor faced both the musicians and the audience.
I’ve not read the article closely enough (my French has been out of use for some time) to know when the cathedral will be completed, but it looks austere and unwelcoming. I would dread listening to a lecture in such a room… is that supposed to lift my spirits as I go there to worship God?
-
Easily convertible to a cinema.
-
Praying hands the article states – its almost as kitsch as Ave Maria’s giant gothic arch, which isn’t that gothic anyway. I prefer Jeff’s image of the inverted hull of a boat. At least this has precedence in Christian architecture. All in all the building seems to be a poor imitation of the engineered louvers of Christ the Light (Which I happen to appreciate as a church). Nor am I into balcony theology. As a cathedral I’m surprised by how distinctly clear the passivity of the liturgy there would be according to the model. Seemingly there is no suggestion of, nor room for, meaning liturgical movement. A typical problem from what I’ve seen in contemporary French structures. Interesting form, maybe, but little liturgical insight.
Regarding big. One might read about the BIG architecture movement – absurdly big objects and architecture. It’s a post-modern phenomenon to convince the public of relevance and power in light of declining institutional stability and identity – its also tantamount to an advertising campaign, look at us! One might make a somewhat similar social critiques of gothic building programs of the past or the like, but previous examples of large structures had other motivations as well, and one could well point to the more dominant motivations like faith and operative aesthetic theories of the time, I would think. Not necessarily so with contemporary BIG architecture.
-
I think the hull of an upside down ship is the reason why we use the term “nave” (navy) for our churches. My Church which is neo-Romanesque revival with twin spires is right up against First Baptist Church which is built on the pinnacle of a downtown hill. It was built before our Church,so, we’re a bit lower on the hill. So the good Jesuits of the 1890’s decided that our spires would so high as to make our Church taller than First Baptist. So even though we are lower on the hill, we appear taller! Fret not though, we have good ecumenical relations with our neighbors on the pinnacle.
-
-
An interesting bit from the article (alluding, I think, to the fact that this cathedral will rarely be filled): “les questions sont aussi d’ordre pratique : le diocèse est-il un échelon pertinent dans la vie des chrétiens ? Les grands rassemblements ne sont-ils pas, de plus en plus, l’apanage des pèlerinages ou des familles spirituelles ?”
“There are also practical questions: does the concept of diocese still have a meaning in Catholic life? Is it not the case that, more and more, large gatherings mostly happen in pilgrimages or within spiritual movements?”
It is also mentioned that in the same town, a large new mosque opened two years ago, and the diocesan interfaith representative jumps in to say that one must absolutely not see this grand project as a reaction to the grand mosque or to the local synagogue.
-
Something I’m curious about – is this replacing another Cathedral? Are there other older churches nearby that can be modified to serve as a Cathedral?
I’ve heard that a lot of France’s great churches are underused or sit empty (I recall reading a newspaper article a few years ago where some of the less historically important ones were actually being dynamited since the upkeep was so much of a financial drain), so I wonder how necessary it is to build large new churches if there are ones of artistic or historic merit possibly nearby.
-
That diocese was created in 1966 so there is probably no existing Cathedral being replaced. In the Paris area the population has tripled since 1900, with many urban areas in what used to be fields, so the suburbs of Paris have to manage enormous growth.
-
I read a very interesting article in the journal Sacred Architecture on new church construction. It gave two contributing factors to the decline of monumental church architecture.
First, dioceses often require a parish to have a third or even half of the funds in hand before breaking ground and expect the debt to be paid within several years. In previous times many parishes barely had 10% of the funds in hand when they broke ground on ambitious projects completed over many years’ time.
Second, in a modern building around half of the construction cost is in the building’s systems: electrical, heat, air conditioning, etc. Back when churches were built of stones and a few decorative finishes, all of the funds went toward the structure and adornment.
by
Please leave a reply.