La la land Cathedral

Last updated on: September 23, 2010 at 11:40 am by Fr. Dwight Longenecker

La la land Cathedral 2010-09-23T11:40:00-05:00 Fr. Dwight Longenecker

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Earlier this week I attended Mass in the new Our Lady of the Angels cathedral in Los Angeles. I said in a blog post that I was surprised to find that I like the building. Perhaps I should clarify by saying that I was surprised that I didn’t totally hate the building. I didn’t want it blown up. I didn’t want to say ugly things like, “Gee, this is a cathedral! I thought it was a parking garage!” and other snarky comments.

Let’s accentuate the positive. What did I like about the cathedral? I liked the inside better than the outside. I liked the tapestries. The vast open space inside the nave of the cathedral was awesome. The subtle, sand-like colors directed the eye to the altar. The organ was good (although they used it to play hokey praise and worship music) The cathedral plaza was a nice place to gather and the bells were good.

So what was not so good? First of all, there is a basic incongruity in a building being nice on the inside and awful on the outside. Surely a sacred building works as in integrated whole in which the beauty of the exterior frames the beauty of the interior. That the exterior is ugly and the interior beautiful presents us with a basic disconnect which jars and irritates. Furthermore, doesn’t a church which is repellent on the outside but beautiful on the inside declare to the world, “We don’t much care about you and what you think. This is all about us and what we do inside of church.”

So what should the exterior of a church be and do? A church is a witness to the world. A church building preaches. It declares the gospel. Built in beautiful natural materials, it stands forever and represents a faith that is beautiful, natural and everlasting. The carvings and artwork, the lofty arches and graceful lines of the church exterior extol the beauty, permanence and grace of the faith we proclaim. A beautiful church exterior proclaims the beauty and truth of our faith. An ugly church declares that we Catholics don’t think such things as beauty matter.

The modern architect will tell us that ‘form follows function.’ If the function is merely to provide seating place for everyone to hear God’s word, then our separated brethren, with their steel warehouses with a steeple on top are less hypocritical than we are. We say we believe in the brutal creed that ‘form follows function’ yet we go on to spend millions creating concrete barns with minimalist artwork and amateurish images–thus wasting money and showing that we really didn’t believe in ‘form follows function’ after all.

Even if this were true we have to ask what the function of a church really is. The unknown architect of Glastonbury Abbey in England said, “I want to create a church so beautiful that it will draw even the hardest heart to prayer.” In other words, one of the functions of a church is to lift the heart to prayer. It is to inspire with beauty, the heart that longs for beauty. Indeed, the medieval churches in England are vast, lofty and totally inspiring. Historians tell us that many of the huge churches in little towns and villages could never have been filled each week with the population of the place. They were built in a time when utilitarianism was not heard of, and if it were ever spoken it would have been recognized as a heresy.

Since one of the functions of a church is to inspire the hardest heart to prayer, then those who follow the dictum that ‘form follows function’ have not only failed, they have failed to even begin to understand what a church is for. Furthermore, their clerical masters who have squandered the money of the faithful on brutal travesties of churches reveal that not only do they not know anything about the tradition of sacred architecture, but they also don’t know very much about the meaning and purpose of worship.

It was not surprising to find in LA Cathedral that the worship was AmChurch in style. The music was hokey, Sunday School ‘me and Jesus’ music. Have they no concept of the great tradition of cathedral church music? Evidently not, or if they did they consider it ‘inaccessible’ or ‘not in touch with the people.’ This patronizing attitude was evident in the style of the main celebrant who said the Mass (rather than singing it) in a vocal style I can only call ‘Captain Kangaroo’. “The Lord be with You!” was said in modulated tones forcing out a mock enthusiasm like some kindergarten teacher. “Now boys and girls, today we’re going to have a story about a bunny rabbit!”

Absent was any idea that the worship itself should also inspire the hardest heart to prayer. Gone was the tradition that cathedral worship especially should be lofty, noble, worthy and true. Missing was any concept that the Mass should itself be celebrated with reverence, grandeur, magnificence and splendor. The perpetrators of this AmChurch style would argue that such things are ‘out of touch’ and ‘not appreciated by ordinary people.’ Nonsense. This is a false humility which is a twisted kind of pride.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

September 21, 2010

The Vicar on the Papal Visit

Next Post

October 1, 2010 Victor or Wrecker?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Anglican Matters Apologetics Architecture Blobble Study Book Reviews Brideshead Caitlin O'Rourke Catholic Art Catholic Culture Church Politics Chust for Nice Contemporary Culture Duane Mandible Ed Blanch Film Reviews Fr Harvey Nicolaitan Frank Viola Mantilla the Hon More Christianity Mrs Brady Catholic Old Lady Mystery of the Magi Norman Anderson Queen Hillary Saints and Supernatural Spirituality The Inklings The Vicar Theology Todd Unctuous Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz