Viewpoint A longing for architecture to stand the test
of time
By JOSEPH WEMHOFF
In reading Michael DeSanctis
essay in the April 21 NCR, I remembered advice from a former teacher:
Listen to what they are saying; listen to what they are not saying; and
listen to what they are trying to tell you but dont know how.
While the essay elucidates the New Classicism of Thomas Gordon
Smith and Duncan Stroik of Notre Dame, it sadly devolves into a philippic
against New Classicism, and, more disturbingly, into a singularly
mean-spirited, ad hominem attack.
DeSanctis raises more questions than he answers. Isnt the
world big enough for both modernism and classicism? Why denigrate others
preferences? Why not lead the way for more tolerance and diversity around
church architecture? Where is this negative energy coming from?
Even more significantly, DeSanctis is strangely silent on the
forced nature of modernist renovations and on the new theology that
both drives and flows from these changes.
The best way to implement modernistic church design would be as
nature generally does evolution -- slowly, for new churches first, adjusting
for experience. Instead, there has been a massive, compressed wave of
renovations of existing churches, unseen since The Great
Plundering, when Cromwell, Cranmer et al. smashed statues, whitewashed walls,
converted altars to tables, ripped out kneelers and so on in
forming the Church of England.
Todays wave of renovations is not driven externally by
Roundheads, but internally by modernist bishops, priests, theologians,
liturgical consultants and others whose agenda is similar to the
English iconoclasts: the establishment of a new theology.
But Vatican II mandates these changes, you say. Is that your final
answer? Oh, sorry, you do not win the million dollars.
In his new book, The Renovation Manipulation, Michael Rose
demonstrates conclusively that the modernist style is neither mandated nor
supported by Vatican II, either in letter or intent. The
renovations are being lead by dissidents who cloak
themselves in the spirit of Vatican II to justify their own agenda
for unauthorized change.
Which brings us to the second omission: the theology around the
architectural changes. A church is now domus ecclesiae (house of the church),
not domus Dei (house of God). The tabernacle containing God Himself is:
- Banished to an adoration chapel or hidden behind a
rood screen; or
- Cast to one side of the sanctuary; and
- Lowered vertically to be level with the congregation.
In the round seating mimics meeting halls or Masonic
lodges. Kneelers disappear so Catholics stand at the consecration -- just as
the first Protestants did to underscore separateness from Rome and nonbelief in
the Real Presence. The altar of sacrifice (so-named since Melchizedek) becomes
a table.
We are now told that the community effects the Mass --
not the priest in lieu of Christ -- and that the Mass is the action of the
community -- not the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary. We are now told that humans
reverence each other and consecrate places. Walls are whitened so
we focus on human faces instead of transcendent images of the divine. Hymns
speak of not in some heaven light years away but here in this
place
while movement liturgies strut profanely.
Sometimes the community is literally elevated via amphitheater seating -- with
the subconscious message of human supremacy.
These events are not coincidences but parts of a coherent agenda
drawing from secular humanism, Freemasonry, pantheism and egalitarianism. In
short, the goal is to refocus our churches -- and our theology -- away from God
and onto mankind. The renovators know that it is easier to
act our way into a new way of thinking than to think our way into a new way of
acting. It remains true that the most dangerous heresies are the
subtlest.
At least twice, DeSanctis reveals his theology. He speaks of
sacramentalizing the here-and-now -- in stark contrast to our
faiths focus on eternity. Another time, he blasts
tabernacle-obsessed bishops. At the Nov. 18, 1999, meeting of the
National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 36 bishops spoke for the central
placement of the tabernacle, including one who told of a congregation that
burst out in spontaneous applause when asked about the idea. Could
it be that DeSanctis is tabernacle-obsessed, while the bishops are simply
affirming the Catechism and, coincidentally, the wishes of the people for New
Classicism in everything from baseball stadiums to Coca-Cola Classic?
Stripped of its pretensions, DeSanctis essay is a plaintive
wail. It manifests the realization by the archi-liturgical
establishment that their theology and architecture likely will not stand the
ultimate worldly test: the test of time.
Those who live for the here and now have no fallback
when, ironically, the secular world rejects their ideas in favor of eternal
truths, or when, even more ironically, the inevitable long-term judgment of
human history itself damns both their ideas and their architectural
representations.
This terrifying reality explains the current frustration,
desperation and paranoia of those struggling to create the Church of
America.
Smith and Stroik should continue their magnificent mission.
Bishops should continue to listen to the Catechism and to the people (after
all, We are church) in their hunger for classicism. Lastly,
DeSanctis might ponder the words of Winston Churchill: Men sometimes
stumble over the truth. Most of the time, though, they pick themselves up, dust
themselves off and continue on their way.
Joseph Wemhoff is a banker and an orthodox, Vatican II,
thinking, non-Latin-Mass Catholic. With his wife and three children, he
resides in Oak Park, Ill., the home and workplace of Frank Lloyd
Wright.
National Catholic Reporter, May 26,
2000
|