Print Blog
Email a FriendPosted by Marquis on Tuesday, Apr 12, 2011 9:03 PM (EDT):
I want my basilicas to be huge and inspire me. In rural Texas there are a lot of simple inspiring churches. So I vote for both.
Fancy Churches?
Right or wrong?
Posted by Lisa Hendey in Faith on Tuesday, April 12, 2011 7:42 PM
Last week, while in Washington DC, I had the wonderful opportunity to spend a few hours praying at and visiting the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. While touring, I took nearly one hundred photos, wanting to recapture a few precious memories of the grandeur and sanctity of the many worship spaces inside the Shrine.
When I returned to my hotel, I promptly uploaded many of my favorite shots to Facebook since I was anxious to share them with my many fellow Catholic friends around the country. I was somewhat surprised when one of my contacts questioned the importance of building such luxurious buildings, underscoring the importance of our faithfulness and our actions along the path to salvation.
What followed was a respectful “debate” about the appropriateness of fancy church buildings. Some found them a symbol of God’s majesty and a way for us to pay homage to His glory. I found myself grateful for that first commenter, who truly gave me pause to stop and ponder why the Shrine had made such an impression on me.
Was it the amazing architecture, the diversity of the images of the Trinity and Mary from cultures around the world, or the “pomp” of the place. In retrospect, I found that my heart had been most moved by the people in that place—those fervently praying in side chapels, the long lines to receive the sacrament of Reconciliation, and the youth choir who had come to give glory to God with their singing. Don’t get me wrong, the building was amazing. But those who had come on pilgrimage to this special house of worship resonated with me.
We’re planning to take up this topic of “fancy churches” on this week’s Faith & Family Live Cast, but I’d love to hear from you now - how do you feel about ornate architecture in worship spaces? Is your home church “fancy” or simple? Does the art or architecture within a church enhance or detract from your worship? And finally what is the favorite church you’ve visited around the country, or even around the world?
Comments
Page 1 of 1 pages
Posted by Salome Ellen on Tuesday, Apr 12, 2011 9:40 PM (EDT):
In Pennsylvania mining towns (near where I grew up) the most beautiful building in town is the old Catholic church. Many miners kids in the 19th and early 20th centuries ate beans instead of meat so that God could have the best. The Protestant churches, by contrast, are boxy, ugly, and bare, befitting man’s fallen nature. I think the answer to your question really depends on who we see the building as “for.” (Modern Catholic churches in the same towns are distinctly less grand.)
Posted by Mark on Tuesday, Apr 12, 2011 10:02 PM (EDT):
The more ornate chrurches lift the hearts and spirits of so many to the awe and wonder of God. The same is true of the simplest setting. The people of God, His Church, can worship well in all places. I choose all, because God is too big to be defined by one set of criteria. And we glory in the reflections of His glory.
Posted by Lisa on Tuesday, Apr 12, 2011 10:02 PM (EDT):
I love a “fancy” church. I grew up in a protestant church of the round, theater-seat variety. I really appreciate soaring steeples, stained glass, beautiful statuary. My parish church is over 100 years old, and very beautiful (though not very ornate). We had the opportunity while on vacation last year to visit one of the most beautiful churches I’ve ever seen, Sweetest Heart of Mary, in Detroit, MI (http://www.sweetestheart.org)...very ornate, very old, made my spirit rejoice!
Posted by Ambrose Little on Tuesday, Apr 12, 2011 10:21 PM (EDT):
I guess people who complain about great churches should take it up with God and ask Him why he set the example first with the Tabernacle and then the Temple.
Posted by Bethany on Tuesday, Apr 12, 2011 10:40 PM (EDT):
I have wondered this same thing until being reminded by the Old Testament that they were to build the Tabernacle and Temple with the finest materials and great beauty. I think simple has it’s place as well. So I say both are appropriate!
Posted by LH on Wednesday, Apr 13, 2011 6:11 PM (EDT):
I agree…clearly God doesn’t think we’re being wasteful to build a beautiful temple to him. It also reminds me of the oil Mary “wasted” on Jesus’ feet. I certainly don’t think God would scorn a simple church (like one I went to once in Africa that was underneath a tree!) if that’s all you can afford, but I also think he’s pretty clearly okay with churches that are ornate and expensive. And how many of us try to make our homes simple, merely functional and inexpensive? I think most of us try to make our homes as nice as we can within our budgets, and I think we should do the same for our place of worship!
Having grown up in a very plain Methodist church, I like both styles, and I think they both say important things about faith and God. That being said, my favorite kinds of churches are ornate ones - churches that take advantage of the little details in how they’re presented, rather than lots of fancy or flashy things. My church here is the University Center in Madison, WI. Like many of the other building on campus, it’s built in the anti-riot/bunker fashion. I initially found it very weird, but now it’s home.
As for favorite church, I haven’t been here yet, but it’s definitely one I want to see: St. Mary’s Cathedral in Tokyo. I feel like when you talk about church architecture, there are traditional churches, modern churches, and then there’s this one. 
Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Mary’s_Cathedral,_Tokyo
Also, I love that basilica! My parents live just outside DC, so I visit every time I’m home.
Our home parish is very simple - almost like a cafeteria with pews and a few stained glass windows. We love our priest and deacon. And the parishoners are friendly (although most are much older than us). However, given my choice I love love love a grand and glorious church. For me there is something so faith inspiring about being surrounded by God’s granduer. That being said - my favorite church that I’ve ever visited is Basilica Sanctae Mariae Majoris ad Nives (St. Mary Major in Rome).
Posted by Sarah in Ottawa on Tuesday, Apr 12, 2011 11:17 PM (EDT):
I find historic, opulent churches to be awe-inspiring and faith-affirming. The cathedrals and basilicas of Europe were constructed by craftsmen doing their absolute best for the glory of God. How wonderful!
That said, I prefer to worship in a simpler space. Every day worship in a cathedral is too much for me; I find myself taking the beauty for granted.
I grew up Protestant and went to many plain churches. I’ve been in churches that were in warehouses. I have never been one to like the plain and unornamented. It’s almost like our take on modern art vs classical art. To say that modern art is just as good as classical art is like saying relativism is a good thing. I don’t like modern art because most of the time it’s ugly. My mom went to school to become an art teacher and found that all of her teachers were against classical art and learning to paint in a classical style. They were all about expressing yourself in a modern style. Seems to me like it was a path of reinventing the wheel.
People made their churches beautiful for God. It wasn’t for the people so much as giving God your very best. Give me a beautiful church and I’m a very happy camper.
We have a beautiful cathedral here in Sacramento, the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament.
Posted by Claire on Tuesday, Apr 12, 2011 11:37 PM (EDT):
I agree with the analogy about modern art. I think that ornate churches have their place. If a new church were being constructed, given the current economy, it would probably be better to keep it simpler and keep the budget down. But there is nothing wrong with preserving the old ornate churches. I’ve seen some very tastefully done newer churches that are simple but have some features that are beautiful in a simplistic way. I’ve also seen some really ugly churches, and I think it’s a shame that the beautiful churches in the cities are closing while these ugly suburban ones are thriving. (However, since I live in the suburbs, I know that I’m part of the problem.)
Posted by Casandra on Tuesday, Apr 12, 2011 11:40 PM (EDT):
A church should inspire awe,lift the heart, and draw one into prayer and worship. This can be done whether the church is ornate or simple. However, our culture has led us to the idea that the sanctuary should feel and look more like a living room, so the congregants aren’t put off or intimidated. I heartily disagree with the “living room” approach to church architecture. We should behave differently in the presence of Christ than we do in our living rooms. Just go into one of those churches and see how the people behave. The churches lack the silence and prayerful respect that the more traditional architecture inspires. I’ve attended mass in both styles of architecture and the traditional wins easily. That doesn’t mean that the traditional church needs to be ornate. Simplicity in the traditional style can be quite effective in encouraging prayer and worship. My husband and I were married in a stunning and quite simple parish that I loved. But I’m a sucker for the ornate. As a convert, I’m facinated by the depth of symbolism in the details carved and painted into the more ornate structures. In fact, as a leader in our RCIA program, I lead a class exploring various motifs in Catholic architecture and then we explore our sanctuary to identify those motifs in our own building. I believe it’s important to be drawn to a higher level by our surroundings and no kind of architecture has done it any better than our rich heritage of Catholic churches.
Posted by Anna on Tuesday, Apr 12, 2011 11:45 PM (EDT):
I love the ornate old churches. The modern ones try so hard to be ugly… we went to one parish recently that looked like an office cubicle, hideous even when it’s really a cubicle, but as a church there’s just no excuse! I love the European churches and the older American ones - though I must say too that simple doesn’t *have* to be ugly, it just usually is in modern parishes. But Cistercian Abbey in Dallas is a great example of simplicity and poverty along with beauty.
http://www.cistercian.org/abbey/tour/church.html
Posted by JJ's Mom on Wednesday, Apr 13, 2011 11:04 PM (EDT):
Anna! I went to UD and I, too, love the Abbey. Extremely simple, yet reverent and beautiful. Good choice!
Posted by Pearl on Wednesday, Apr 13, 2011 5:54 AM (EDT):
I’m going to be very honest: when I visited Rome I was deeply uncomfortable with the ornateness and wealth in the churches, when I could also see people living in tents along the river bank. I felt oppressed, rather than awed, by all the gold and glitter. It was a relief to visit to the tiny Methodist chapel, with it’s stark plainness and austerity.
My favourite church is in my native UK, and is awe-inspiring in a very simple manner, mainly because of the high vaulted ceiling. Early in the morning, the light flows in through the plain coloured windows, and it’s the place I feel God most profoundly. I once entered the church alongside a friend who is a priest, who commented to the brother showing us around, ‘This is a beautiful space. It feels prayed in’. I think that, for me, is the core of it. Space can be sanctified by prayer, and that is what I find beautiful.
Posted by Jay on Wednesday, Apr 13, 2011 3:12 PM (EDT):
I agree with this. As beautiful as I found the churches of Rome, I could not help thinking about the poverty of the people at the time those churches were constructed. It felt wrong to me that all that gold and precious materials were used on a building when people were starving. I appreciate the need for a church to inspire awe at God’s majesty, but the opulence of many of the European churches struck me as somewhat obscene.
Posted by Becky Le on Wednesday, Apr 13, 2011 6:51 AM (EDT):
I love, and am inspired, by both kinds of churches. To me really it is a question of how well the church building fits into it’s surrounding environment and how much I can “feel” the intent of the architect and builders. Very often in a church I get a sense of whether or not the building was built to glorify God or glorify man. Maybe a kind of Catholic Feng-Shui,
I absolutely adore the Basilica in DC. It is my go to when I need a spiritual pick me up. But I also loved the simple, wooden churches we visited in rural AZ and Mexico with simple wooden pews, wooden altars and tons of votive candles. There is something to naked and open about those churches and the expressions of faith of those who frequent them that is lacking in the grand majesty of the Basilicas. As for the churches of the 70s I have only two words, ugly and remodel, please!
Posted by Maureen on Wednesday, Apr 13, 2011 6:57 AM (EDT):
I prefer a church that you can’t mistake for an auditorium. It doesn’t have to be especially ornate, just God focused. My personal favorite is the church my husband and I were married in, St. John the Evangelist, in Schenectady, NY.
http://sjechurch.com/ministries.htm
There are so many angel faces carved all around looking to the altar as well as beautiful stained glass and the sanctuary is just stunning.
Our current church in CT was designed to be a school gymnasium and well, it feels that way. The planned church was never built in the 60’s so the gym has become the permanent church. Despite the physical building the parish is devout and our priest reminds and encourages people to keep the space holy and for prayer. We have an adoration chapel and the devotion to our Eucharistic Lord does come thru.
http://www.archdioceseofhartford.org/cgi-bin/history.pl?textdata=141
Posted by Patricia on Wednesday, Apr 13, 2011 8:08 AM (EDT):
The real beauty in our Churches, a beauty found only in a Catholic Church, is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the tabernacle. The statuary, stained glass & icons in Catholic Churches have always has the 2-fold purpose of giving glory to God & of educating people in the Faith. God is Truth & Beauty & we should not neglect that fact when building a structure to house His Real Presence. That being said, such beauty can be found both in magnificent cathedrals as well as simple chapels. My favorite Church is the tiny Eastern Catholic parish in our town, St. Mary’s Holy Protection. The envoys of the Russian Prince, St. Vladimir, after experiencing the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom for the first time at the Church of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople in the year 987, said: “We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth, for surely there is no such splendor or beauty anywhere upon earth. We cannot describe it to you: only this we know, that God dwells there among men…For we cannot forget that beauty.”
May we know that same beauty.
Posted by Camille on Wednesday, Apr 13, 2011 8:24 AM (EDT):
I love ornate churches, carefully and painstakingly built to glorify God. What I love the most about it though, is that each nook and cranny is an opportunity to learn more about our history, scripture, and tradition. Stained glass windows, statues, prayer chapels - there is something to lift the spirit no matter which way you turn. While more austere churches can certainly feel prayerful and quaint and lovely, you miss out on the awe that lifts the spirit immediately to God.
Posted by Monica (momof2) on Wednesday, Apr 13, 2011 9:06 AM (EDT):
The people who object to expensive ornate churches out of some misguided idea that the money should have been given to the poor should know that these churches were often built by the poor out of their own free will donations. The Church doesn’t tax people to build churches. People donate to build churches. Most of the beautiful ornate churches in the United States were paid for by the free will donations of poor immigrants. It was a sacrifice. Who are we to say that people are not allowed to sacrifice their own money to build something beautiful to honor God and lift their hearts and minds to the Divine? Humans are part spirit and part physical which is why Christ gave us the Sacraments, a tangible sign of the something intangible and Divine. The physical, concrete, sensory things can point to something abstract but just as real. Why else do we study poetry, music and art if they have no deeper significance? Our small creations of architecture and art in a church can mirror in a tiny way the sublimity of The Creator.
Posted by laurajean on Wednesday, Apr 13, 2011 10:00 AM (EDT):
Very true, Monica - the poor were often the ones who built the churches. In the middle ages, they gave of their talents because they had no money. But the other thing is, let’s say we sell the artwork, the statues, the gold and silver and use it to feed the poor. After a little while, the poor are still hungry, and the churches are bare and empty. We need to take care of the poor anyway.
Our parish church is only 13 years old, but was furnished from materials from churches closed down in other cities - I’m guessing mostly Italian from the number of Italian saints in our stained glass windows! But I love to look at them, or the ornately carved altar, and think of all the people who gave so that God could be glorified in their church, and hope they are happy that He is now being glorified in ours.
Posted by Jana on Wednesday, Apr 13, 2011 10:04 AM (EDT):
Well said. It’s like what they are saying now, that the Catholic Church should sell the riches to feed the poor. Yet, the Catholic Church cannot sell off it’s riches because it is entrusted with preserving church history. The beautiful stained glass windows are designed to help the illiterate with bible stories. We are not a church of bible alone. It is okay to give glory to God through our hard work and efforts.
I was thinking about this topic not too long ago. Having visited Rome last November, I was in awe of the beauty of the churches in that city. But, I also noticed that these churches were not built in months or years or even decades. The beautiful churches were built and finished over periods of hundreds of years in many cases. The construction and decoration employed many, many people. And it was work that was done in service to God. I’m sure that these workmen had some sense that they were part of a work that was bigger than themselves. The church must have been one of the greatest employers of craftsmen and just ordinary laborers during those years. And the beauty isn’t locked away in some rich man’s house, it belongs to the people who can see it at no cost. The beauty of the church always helped me to lift my heart and mind to the higher things and to God.
Do a post on ugly churches! We have one that looks like a volcano or sombrero. We hoped when they were collecting for a new roof that they would redesign the structure but we found they were only going to peel off the white cap and make it over with what looks like gold fish scales. yuck. Here’s their website: http://www.strosechurch.org/
I’m comfortable in either type. What matters to me is the focus of the style. The church we currently attend is nice, though somewhat bland. While there was always a crucifix during Mass, I found it a bit odd that there was no large crucifix behind the altar. After a while, I no longer noticed this. Two Sundays ago, a new large crucifix was hoisted up behind the altar during Mass. I can’t believe what a difference it makes to me. It seems more reverent now and I am reminded of God’s presence within much more.
And I am totally for the artwork within the Church. As one commentator already mentioned, our faith is not only for the literate. It’s for everyone!
And, last but certainly not least, it’s the people within the church that matters the most. As was already mentioned, people who show reverence to the sanctuary, lines for confession, praying in the pews, respect for others, these are the things that I value most in a church.
Posted by Karen on Wednesday, Apr 13, 2011 10:58 AM (EDT):
I can find beauty in churches that are simple and those that are ornate but a church should look like a *church* and not like an office building, a cafeteria, an auditorium or a space ship. I was raised protestant and the last church I attended was a pre-revolutionary war ‘big white church’. It was quite simple yet beautiful and when you walked in there was no doubt you were in a church, not like so many built now where the sanctuary is really nothing but an auditorium.
My personal taste in Catholic churches runs more to the simple/Gothic/small ethnic parish style. I really don’t care for a lot of gold and gilt and intricate carvings. Dh is the opposite. He loves the Rococco style
Posted by New mommy on Wednesday, Apr 13, 2011 11:22 AM (EDT):
This is an incredible discussion. Thank you for putting into the words what I have had a difficult time doing-defending our Faith regarding all the wealth it has. I absolutely love ornate churches-you can go back again and again and learn something new every time. So much love, care, and talent was put into these places of worship. It truly makes me feel like I am in a little piece of heaven. One of my favorite works of Catholic artistry is the 12 statues of the apostles in St. John in Lateran Archbasilica in Rome (the home of our Pope’s seat). These statues are HUGE! It reminds me that on of the pillars of our faith (holy Tradition and missions) is built on what these 12 incredible men accomplished. Let’s not forget all the beautiful shrines built to our relics, too. Incredible!
My favorite church is The Temple of Saint Michael the Archangel in Perugia, Italy. First of all, it has personal meaning because my maiden name is Arcangeli and my family originally comes from Perugia. Second, it is a round Church-very different. Third, it is ancient, built in the 5th century on the site of a Roman Temple, which itself was built on the site of an Etruscan Temple. That plot of land has been a place of worship for millenia!
Posted by Julie on Wednesday, Apr 13, 2011 12:52 PM (EDT):
I grew up in a parish with a very plain 1960’s-era (dare I say ugly?) church. As an adult, I have chosen to attend parishes with hundred-(plus)-year-old beautiful churches. I will always do so if given the chance. I really feel the “special-ness” of the place when I’m in a beautiful church. Every beautiful thing reminds me of God, turning my mind to Him more and more. I hate to say it, but in an ugly one, I’m often distracted and annoyed by its features, few though there may be. I’ve also noticed that children seem to be much more peaceful in a beautiful church. When the child gets antsy, simply point them toward a beautiful stained glass window and mention a few words about the Biblical story it represents. My 9-month-old already seems to notice the difference. He may only last 20 minutes in a plain parish we’re visiting, but in our beautiful, ornate church, he’s normally quiet the entire time.
Posted by Jennifer on Wednesday, Apr 13, 2011 4:38 PM (EDT):
Last summer I had the opportunity to visit the “painted churches” (Catholic) of East Texas with my mother, sister, aunt and grandmother. Built in the 19th century by German and Czech immigrants, they have a simple beauty on the outside, and amazing artwork on the inside. I could truely feel myself drawing closer to God just looking at all of the statues, and painted murals. My favorite was the image of a dove hovering over the ambo. What a beautiful statement of the Holy Spirit flowing out through readings.
As far as the complaint of Catholics spending money on their churches instead of the poor, I am reminded of the quote by Jesus John 12:8. When the apostles chastise Mary for washing Jesus’ feet with perfumed oil, instead of spending the money on the poor, Jesus replies “You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”
Posted by Suzi on Wednesday, Apr 13, 2011 5:35 PM (EDT):
There is something Spiritual for me about ornate Churches. They move me to pray differently. I too am reminded that there were times not so long past that others just didn’t have the opportunity to afford books of arts and litrature and the bible like I can today. They were not afforded the opportunity to travel and see and experience. Yet collectively they could each give a little so many could learn and be fed and grow close to Our Lord. Time and money was spent differently. I wonder if sometimes I miss out on a more simple closeness to Christ because I have so much more at hand, so easily accessible. Just a thought.
I think the temple was probably a pretty ornate and grand place so I don’t have a problem with fancy churches. I love beautiful basilicas. Our diocese’s cathedral is just gorgeous and it is inspiring. I appreciate humble too though. This past December, while in China adopting our fourth child, we attended the little Catholic Church on Shamian Island. It was devoid of decoration for the most part, but there was something pure about being there in the tiny little church, packed with 100 faithful worshipers (almost entirely Chinese), and worshiping Our Lord.
Posted by Beth on Wednesday, Apr 13, 2011 7:38 PM (EDT):
Are there 100’s or even 1000’s of parished closing across the country because the cost is too high to maintain them? (and no priests to serve them….)
Elaborate beauty is ok at times but I can not identify or embrace the pomp and circumstance of Rome. I prefer the beauty of simplicity. My parish is very elaborate but really too costly to heat to be remotely practical given the price of oil. Those resources could be used elsewhere. Given the choice between building a church the would take a huge amount of money to maintain or providing programs that feed and teach the poor to be independant—I really do not have to think long and hard.
Within a 3 mile radius of my parish there are 5 other Catholic Churches, 2 of which have closed in the last 5 years due to lack of priests and lack of money to maintain the church and property. The poor worked hard to build our church but I don’t understand why they did not collaborate with each other—why the need to build so many churches close together when they all could have fit into 2 of them? I know back then the French and Irish Catholics seemed to be at odds with each other so much so that they perhaps could not worship together at the same church let alone walk on the same side of the street. I sometimes wonder if they were trying to show each other up in what they built. Were they really building it for the glory of God? It is too bad that all their hard work is now a really difficult financially draining property to maintain. (But yes it is beautiful…)
I think it would do the church could to sell some of it’s millions and provide programs to the poor that offer them a lasting benefit and continue to build them up even after the original money is gone. The Vatican to me does not resemble the life and message of the Jesus I read about it the gospels.
Posted by Claire on Wednesday, Apr 13, 2011 11:42 PM (EDT):
Back when all those churches were built, there were plenty of parishoners to attend them and priests to staff them. Now the numbers are dwindling, and moving to the suburbs, the city churches are closing. I find it tragic. If you find the Vatican to be inconsistent with the gospels, then why are you Catholic?
Posted by Alice on Thursday, Apr 14, 2011 12:37 AM (EDT):
It’s kind of hard to collaborate in building an edifice when you don’t speak the same language. (I think there’s even a Bible story about this.) Of course, it was (and still is) fairly important to have churches where the immigrants can confess and hear sermons in their own language. Plus, different nationalities have different ways of practicing the faith. Generally when you try to force people to change the way they practice their faith, a good number of people leave the Church.
Posted by Beth on Thursday, Apr 14, 2011 9:07 AM (EDT):
There was only one different language here not 5. I think it was more a case of over identification of the group not just a language barrier. Irish and French Catholics could barely walk on the same side of the street as each other. I still saw that decades later when my parish had become more integrated. Love and kindness know no language barrier.
I completely understand letting people worship with their own cultural ideologies. As far as I know the number of Catholics is increasing here not decreasing so that theory mentioned does not hold. It is the cost of maintaining the poorly thought out buildings (some very grand) and the lack of priests that are closing churches. Frankly there are more Catholics now then there were then so in my opinion they over built because they could not get along. It was not wise use of money and resources and we are paying the price for it now.
“If you find the Vatican to be inconsistent with the gospels, then why are you Catholic? “
ouch:( That sounds like an attack if I am reading correctly. Let me give you a few more words to help you understand my opinion. I find the pomp and circumstance, wealth and institutional bureacracy of the vatican to not be consistent with the gospels of Jesus Christ. (Other messages and parts of the vatican are consistent with the gospel) I’m Catholic because that is where God asks me to be and my faith does not depend on whether or not I find the Vatican living Jesus’s message 100%. I’m a simple person and the extravagance of the vatican does not lead me to be closer to God. We live in a fallen world—the church is not perfect and neither am I. It is only my humble opinion not an infallable document. I thought this was a thread where we could state our opinion on whether or not we thought fancy churches were (right or wrong?) what God wants not be questioned about whether or not we are really Catholic. I think the excessive wealth in the vatican is wrong.
I say sell all the gold in the Vatican and use it to empower, educate and feed the poor—do something that changes the world for good. This message of “don’t bother because the poor will still be there after the money is gone” does not make sense to me. Money can be used to create changes that last forever and bring people to a place where they can then help other people.
I hope that helps you to understand.
Posted by Claire on Thursday, Apr 14, 2011 9:29 AM (EDT):
Beth, I honestly did not mean it as an attack. I meant it as a question, because every comment of yours that I’ve ever read regarding the Catholic church has been negative. Thank you for clarifying. I am very surprised that the number of practicing Catholics in your area is increasing. That is certainly not the norm in the rest of the country, but I’m happy to hear that there are areas where it is happening. Of course, this is a forum to express how you feel about fancy churches. That wasn’t the part of your comment that I was referring to. But I do appreciate your clarification. I don’t agree with it 100%, but I’m glad to know that you don’t find all aspect of the Vatican to be inconsistent with the gospels.
Posted by Lina MGM on Thursday, Apr 14, 2011 9:46 AM (EDT):
I agree with Claire here - your comments often seem designed to antagonize those who do “agree with Rome.”
You said that:
This message of “don’t bother because the poor will still be there after the money is gone” does not make sense to me.
This is from Christ Himself - doing things to glorify God are never wrong because they are done to please Him. Obviously serving and loving the poor is also a way to love the Lord, but offering Him our gifts and talents is 100% legitimate - Jesus said so Himself!
Of course, everyone is free to prefer whatever sort of worship space speaks to them; there certainly isn’t anything wrong with that. However, it is not wordly nor contrary to the Gospel to build and make works of art (and architecture certainly qualifies) for the glory of God.
Posted by Monica (momof2) on Thursday, Apr 14, 2011 11:07 AM (EDT):
Beth, I have found your comments to be increasingly judgmental. Did you personally interview all the French and Irish immigrants who built the churches you refer to and therefore have evidence that they were built to outdo the other? I would like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I believe that most people building ornate churches have good intentions to honor God and not vain intentions to honor themselves or their ethnic group. Obviously ethnic prejudices have always existed but to extrapolate that this was behind all the immigrant churches is pretty big stretch. I doubt you were even alive when these churches were built so I don’t know how you can be so sure of your conclusions. You are tanishing whole peoples with your negative judgments.
Posted by Beth on Friday, Apr 15, 2011 8:39 PM (EDT):
Claire, I felt you were insinuating that I should not be Catholic. I don’t think Catholics have to agree with every decision that church has ever made.
No, of course I did not interview of all the immigrants Monica and neither did you!!! You are making inferences (just as I am) and you are trying to justify the money spent as glorifying God when you do not know the hearts either. You can have your opinion and I can have mine—I have no problem with that. And I repeat it is my opinion and I treat everyone I meet with the same respect—dropping previous experiences. I’m sorry but the church that was built on the backs of the poor is not pratical to run—that is not being judgmental—it is the reality as you can see 1000’s of these churches are closing.
I only observed and interacted with the French and Irish that were still around years ago and my experience did not lead me to believe what you believe—not fact—just my experience-that is different from yours. It was well know that the Irish and the French did not love each other and as I said would cross the street when they saw each other coming—that is not the love of God as it is suppose to be shown in the building of these churches.
As for the poor and having riches around that glorify God—-Jesus also tells is something about the rich and heaven—I’m sorry to say all the gold/riches in the vatican do not sit there to glorify God.
Your right my comments sounds harsh at times but sometimes I think it is good to hear all sides of an issue. I think there have been people in the church in the past that were very critical of it and did it some good—I think more critical thinking would have done the church a lot of good.
And I change my statement from above there are 8 or more Catholic churches in a 3 mile radius—(and these are not all different cultures..) I can hardly count them all. Endless the number within 10 miles but they will continue to close as the years go on. I think it would have been wise to collaborate just a little bit. Now that is not judgmental—just pratical and does not make me a hater of Rome.
Posted by Claire on Friday, Apr 15, 2011 8:47 PM (EDT):
Beth, no I was not insinuating that I didn’t think you should be Catholic. I was asking because I couldn’t fathom why someone who thought that the Vatican was opposed to the gospel would even want to be Catholic (as I interpreted your first comment). When you further explained that you didn’t think all aspects of the Vatican were opposed to the gospel, that was a helpful clarification.
Of course it’s understandable that you don’t agree with everything that has ever occurred within the church. There are plenty of things that have occurred that I can’t say I agree with either (doctrine is not one of them, however, although I admit that some teachings have taken me a while to understand and accept, not necessarily in that order).
Posted by ViolinMama on Thursday, Apr 14, 2011 8:34 AM (EDT):
I LOVE this topic, as I recently saw an piece on ABC or NBC on what it was like in the Pope’s private quarters and it took a tour of St. Peter’s. It was a nice program and very respectful to the church. I, though, for the first time thought about all the riches in a different light. The program touched upon a special part of the Vatican that houses centuries of treasures, and I took thought about the poor and how this could fund efforts to end poverty - and that feeling affected me - why was I thinking this way about our loving and giving church? Especially when I LOVE LOVE “fancy churches” and I know the historical background of why they were built (so many touched on that above). Also, many churches were built and the workers anonymous to give God the glory - so churches were not built to be a storehouse for riches, but to be beautiful for God and to show the beauty of God. I love feeling awed, wowed, inspired, and taught by this incredible churches. Incredible!
I also love a simple church - I love driving in the country and see a whitewashed wooded church - and have seen Catholic churches in this style. The spirit of the Church touches me more than inspiring arches. While not white and wooden, my Catholic church home is large, but pretty simple in how it is decorated. I’d love to see more stained glass, and have noticed how bare it’s walls are….but our church is also now paid for and our collections can go towards more than just the bank. I also get fed by both the community and Our Lord.
So…I think both feed me. I just wonder about the riches of the church and how we are called to use it? Am I being fair in that quiet question in my heart? (And I do love the treasures of the church! I just wonder about how so many are locked away anyway…what could we do with them to serve others, perhaps? I’m sure someone can explain it to me).
GREAT post!
Posted by ViolinMama on Thursday, Apr 14, 2011 12:48 PM (EDT):
I should add - the program did NOT raise these questions….I did on my own.
I love all these perspectives! And please know…I LOVE the treasures of the church!! I love that we have them - Lisa just asks a great question I’ve thought quietly about - but have no answer for aside that I LOVE the treasure of our Church, the Glory of God, and I love “fancy churches”. They are a masterpiece for God!
Posted by ViolinMama on Thursday, Apr 14, 2011 8:38 AM (EDT):
I love the comment on how fancy churches are like heaven’s grandeur. It’s why I love old, fancy, ornate, churches….it refreshes my spirit. I definitely love them, and we need them!!
I forgot to add my eldest loves visiting our cathedral - when we sit in the front row there, she almost participates BETTER in the Mass than our home church - so that’s something to ponder and rejoice in too.
Posted by laurajean on Thursday, Apr 14, 2011 12:23 PM (EDT):
Many of these old, beautiful ornate churches and their artworks are of great historical value as well. Should we sell all the artwork and treasures in museums? Do we ask Obama to sell the White House and the historical artwork in it to feed the poor? Here’s another question - who is going to buy all these things - where is that money going to come from? Why don’t we just ask those people instead of buying them, to give the money to the poor instead, and leave the treasures in the churches, where they can lift people’s hearts and minds to God.
Lisa said, “Don’t get me wrong, the building was amazing. But those who had come on pilgrimage to this special house of worship resonated with me.” I was struck by the idea that it is often the beauty and glory of such places that inspire pilgrims. Beauty feeds the soul and gives glory to God. I’ve read a few pieces recently about the importance of beauty and splendor in places of worship.
I don’t think this detracts from the appeal of simplicity that many of the commenters here attest to preferring, though. The cell of a religious, where much personal prayer occurs, is almost always sparse, right? It makes sense that such a bare, “uncluttered” atmosphere free of visual distractions might allow deeper contemplation.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Faith And Family Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
