Co-Cathedral Of The Sacred Heart At 1111 St. Joseph Parkway

[fernz]

I suppose it doesn't "need" buttresses any more than the cathedral needs its dome or rose window. In both cases they are just decorative elements that reference historic styles, only at St Martins the package on the whole seems far better executed.

That is not correct. Buttresses are not "just decorative elements". Unlike the dome or the rose windows, buttresses are meant to be a structural element, just like a column would be.

Having fake buttresses in a concrete and steel church is an architectural absurdity.

[Subdude]

That is not correct. Buttresses are not "just decorative elements". Unlike the dome or the rose windows, buttresses are meant to be a structural element, just like a column would be.

Having fake buttresses in a concrete and steel church is an architectural absurdity.

But since the buttresses in this case are not providing structural support, then they are design elements. What on earth is absurd about using different design elements on buildings?

The dome on the cathedral, just like the buttresses at St Martin, are both components meant to evoke traditional architectural features of churches. There's nothing wrong with that. Whether they provide structural support is besides the point.

[Vertigo58]

Flying buttresse's like that of Notre Dame:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_buttress

and we can't forget Pugin's contributions. A true hero of Gothic design:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Pugin

[H-Town Man]

The plan of the church is the classical plan of a cathedral, forming a cross. At the intersection of the cross is a dome. There are rose windows. There are lots of cues taken from old world cathedrals. Only they are rendered in contemporary design and modern construction methods. For example, St. Martins looks wonderful but does a steel and concrete church really need buttresses? That Sacred Heart is devoid of elements like this doesn't make it lacking history and culture. Anyway I applaud the catholic church for moving forward, you can't always look back. Look at the stupid fire station 1 for an example.

There are a few cues to older cathedrals, but the design is incredibly banal overall. You don't have to put in fake structural elements, you could just have carved stone elements that communicate to the viewer the way older cathedrals do. You could have grand windows full of tracery instead of the prison/armory type windows that this thing has.

It's a shame when Shiner, TX has a more beautiful Catholic church than any church in Houston.

Also, I'm not sure about this "moving forward" thing... the church emphasizes its continuity over the past 2,000 years. There is nothing in our older architecture that we are trying to "move forward" from, and most of our attempts since Vatican II to be creative or "progressive" architecturally have failed.

Edited March 31, 2008 by H-Town Man

[H-Town Man]

"Explain to me again why modern cathedrals can't have elaborate designs."

"Well, because of the new technology. You can do anything with steel, so you don't need the elaborate design."

"But you can still have it anyway, right? I mean, just because you have steel and all sorts of other things besides stone doesn't mean you shouldn't make your designs elaborate!"

"It's this thing called 'form follows function.'"

"Okay..."

"A building should only be designed to carry out its function. If its function is to hold people, then it should be designed to hold people. Anything extra, besides maybe a couple of basic statues, is superfluous."

"So we're superfluous."

"Right."

Edited March 31, 2008 by H-Town Man

[musicman]

Also, I'm not sure about this "moving forward" thing... the church emphasizes its continuity over the past 2,000 years. There is nothing in our older architecture that we are trying to "move forward" from, and most of our attempts since Vatican II to be creative or "progressive" architecturally have failed.

The cathedral that opened in LA 5 or so yrs ago is a 21st century design. St. Mary's in San Francisco is also modern. They definitely work well with both cities' style of architecture as does the new Sacred Heart. The Catholic Church doesn't have one style of architecture. Just look at the older vs. the newer churches here.

[texas911]

Well, to architects, it is a big difference.

When you start recreating past design, you walk a tight line between "historical" and cheap Disney. Anyway, a church should reflect the time it was built.

[fernz]

But since the buttresses in this case are not providing structural support, then they are design elements. What on earth is absurd about using different design elements on buildings?

The dome on the cathedral, just like the buttresses at St Martin, are both components meant to evoke traditional architectural features of churches. There's nothing wrong with that. Whether they provide structural support is besides the point.

I disagree; it is not besides the point. There is a big difference between a design element that has a significance that still holds true (such as a dome or a cruciform floor plan) and a "design element" that is untrue to its form.

The dome is not there merely to evoke a traditional feature, it creates a special place in the church under which the liturgy takes place, where the word of God is spoken and where the Eucharist is consecrated. The buttresses used to have a very significant, albeit structural role. If you take that role away, they are just a meaningless, nostalgic, neogothic add-ons. They are no better than the "columns" on the side of Randall Davis' Gotham building in River Oaks.

[fernz]

"Explain to me again why modern cathedrals can't have elaborate designs."

I'll tell you why this Cathedral does not have elaborate designs:

"I wanted something that would be really simple in design, not overly ornate. I didn't want any type of baroque church. Something that would have a simplicity about it but a simplicity that would show its nobility, simple nobility, the elegance of simplicity. I wanted the lines of the church to be clean and attractive, and I think the architects did a very good job."

Archbishop Fiorenza, from the Houston Chronicle interview.

[Subdude]

Well, to architects, it is a big difference.

When you start recreating past design, you walk a tight line between "historical" and cheap Disney. Anyway, a church should reflect the time it was built.

There is a tight line as you say; it is a matter of execution. I can think of several examples of cheap Disney, such as the new downtown courthouse. That said, the old "form follows function" idea is a bit old-fashioned and dated. Decorative elements are a legitimate component of architecture. There's nothing "wrong" in any sense with decoration for the sake of decoration.

It's probably a different argument for a different thread, but I'm not quite sure how to interpret your comment that a church should "reflect the time it was built". Reflect in what sense? And why should they? Is there a moral argument for modern architecture?

To some extent, churches are inherently un-modern. If anything, to me it seems more appropriate that churches should adopt more evocative, historical designs. I simply believe these are more compatible with the religious experience. That is one of my main complaints about the cathedral - the design is modern, but bland and soulless. That hardly seems appropriate for a place that is supposed to convey spirituality. If it takes fake buttresses or whatnot than fine, go for it. Just do it well.

[texas911]

I see your point. But even back when the Gothic cathedrals were going up, people thought it didn't look religious enough, and the term Gothic was actually a slight against it. So maybe it will grow on you.

[H-Town Man]

The cathedral that opened in LA 5 or so yrs ago is a 21st century design. St. Mary's in San Francisco is also modern. They definitely work well with both cities' style of architecture as does the new Sacred Heart. The Catholic Church doesn't have one style of architecture. Just look at the older vs. the newer churches here.

Didn't say that the church had one style of architecture (though there are certainly prevalent themes and motifs), nor that departures from the prevailing styles were unacceptable. I'm simply saying that the church as a whole is not trying to move away from anything.

I see your point. But even back when the Gothic cathedrals were going up, people thought it didn't look religious enough, and the term Gothic was actually a slight against it. So maybe it will grow on you.

The term was coined by Renaissance critics a few hundred years later who wanted a return to classicism.

[musicman]

Didn't say that the church had one style of architecture (though there are certainly prevalent themes and motifs), nor that departures from the prevailing styles were unacceptable. I'm simply saying that the church as a whole is not trying to move away from anything.

No but you said attempts since Vatican II to be creative or "progressive" architecturally have failed. not sure i'd call it a failure.

Edited April 1, 2008 by musicman

[H-Town Man]

No but you said attempts since Vatican II to be creative or "progressive" architecturally have failed. not sure i'd call it a failure.

I would. Outside of architecture buffs, most people don't seem to care for the new designs much. I would be willing to bet that if you took the last five cathedrals built in America and compared them to the first five cathedrals built in the twentieth century, and polled a bunch of laypeople to see which one they liked more, the vast majority would pick the older ones.

The reason for this is that the older architects were content to be creative within the framework of an existing tradition, whereas today's architects seem to feel they must achieve some ideal of complete creativity, and that any traditional pattern is an artistic impediment. It's the same reason why most modern orchestral music has sounded so bad, and why modern painting is so empty: the past is jettisoned in favor of egoistic creative self-worship.

[musicman]

I would. Outside of architecture buffs, most people don't seem to care for the new designs much.

At one time or another everything was new and the same statements were made then as you are making now. Your preference is for older design and i understand that however that doesn't make it a failure.

[H-Town Man]

At one time or another everything was new and the same statements were made then as you are making now. Your preference is for older design and i understand that however that doesn't make it a failure.

True to a point, but I can't recall any other periods in the history of church architecture when there was the radical break with tradition that we have seen since the 60's, and the attempt by individual architects to create a whole worship environment from a blank slate. Most changes in church architecture have been changes within continuity - the gothic cathedrals preserved the same basic design as the romanesque, later churches carried on elements of gothic, etc.

Architects were not "starchitects" - they were not gargantuan personalities trying to create bold statements to make a name for themselves, but were rather workers dutifully skilled in their tradition, creative to a point, but only with the purpose of trying to add a bit more to the accumulated wisdom of the past.

Incidentally, when the first modernist churches started coming out in the 60's and people cried out at their ugliness, there were many who said what you said: People always criticize what's new, give it time and you will adapt. Well we've given it forty years, and if anything we have come to more of a consensus of the artistic failures that those places were. Now there is a movement back to tradition in church architecture, and many of the new, traditional churches built around the state have received great praise and expressions of relief from their congregations.

[editor]

If the National Cathedral can have a Darth Vader gargoyle, certainly Houston's Catholic flagship can have something.

[Subdude]

I would. Outside of architecture buffs, most people don't seem to care for the new designs much. I would be willing to bet that if you took the last five cathedrals built in America and compared them to the first five cathedrals built in the twentieth century, and polled a bunch of laypeople to see which one they liked more, the vast majority would pick the older ones.

The reason for this is that the older architects were content to be creative within the framework of an existing tradition, whereas today's architects seem to feel they must achieve some ideal of complete creativity, and that any traditional pattern is an artistic impediment. It's the same reason why most modern orchestral music has sounded so bad, and why modern painting is so empty: the past is jettisoned in favor of egoistic creative self-worship.

Excellent post. I concur! as they say around HAIF.

I admit I have absolutely no evidence for this, but my hunch is that the brain is somehow wired to be responsive to complex visual fields, not plain unadorned surfaces. That could be part of the reason why so much modern architecture tends to be so unsatisfying and unloved, except for scoring intellectual points. To some degree I guess we can thank the "ornament is crime" crowd for a lot of it.

I'll tell you why this Cathedral does not have elaborate designs:

"I wanted something that would be really simple in design, not overly ornate. I didn't want any type of baroque church. Something that would have a simplicity about it but a simplicity that would show its nobility, simple nobility, the elegance of simplicity.

Well, it was simple he wanted, and simple he got. In the photo Editor posted above it resembles a child's drawing of a church, or something carved out of a hunk of styrofoam with an exacto knife.

[ricco67]

While some say that a House of god should be a grand house, what is wrong with a plain simple elegance? One could read that you don't have to be outspoken to be faithful.

[musicman]

Incidentally, when the first modernist churches started coming out in the 60's and people cried out at their ugliness, there were many who said what you said: People always criticize what's new, give it time and you will adapt. Well we've given it forty years, and if anything we have come to more of a consensus of the artistic failures that those places were.

I'm not sure if WE have come to any consensus.

Now there is a movement back to tradition in church architecture, and many of the new, traditional churches built around the state have received great praise and expressions of relief from their congregations.

Where are the many, new, traditional churches in Houston located? I think we're having sematics differences.

[H-Town Man]

I'm not sure if WE have come to any consensus.

Where are the many, new, traditional churches in Houston located? I think we're having sematics differences.

I said "around the state," but there is one in the Woodlands and one in Sugar Land that are both traditional, and have been much talked about around the diocese. At Assumption Church on Little York Rd. they did a renovation that restored it to the way it looked before it was renovated in the 60's, and added a traditional mural behind the altar - that was met with much enthusiasm. In Austin there is a new one in Georgetown that is traditional, and has received a lot of talk.

While some say that a House of god should be a grand house, what is wrong with a plain simple elegance? One could read that you don't have to be outspoken to be faithful.

I think that can be done well, at least in a small church where you don't have huge expanses of bare wall staring you in the eye, but this place does not seem very elegant. "Plain simple boxiness" might be a better description.

[infinite_jim]

it's interesting reading everyones responses

The architecture you see is a direct reflection of the church, if you think it looks fake it is because at the core values and enlightened awareness of the church leaders themselves are fake in your view.

Good architects place great value to "material honesty" in terms of selection and execution.

[ricco67]

Well, I like it.

I admit that I like the more traditional churches, but this is understated, minimalist, and I would dare say "pure."

[H-Town Man]

The architecture you see is a direct reflection of the church, if you think it looks fake it is because at the core values and enlightened awareness of the church leaders themselves are fake in your view.

Good architects place great value to "material honesty" in terms of selection and execution.

Well I don't know about the architects, but there is nothing fake in my view about the core values or "enlightened awareness" of the Catholic Church. Some of the most amazing people I have ever met are priests and nuns, and I am more inclined to take my cues on the true nature of the church from their example than from those who stand on the sidelines and take potshots.

[infinite_jim]

Well I don't know about the architects, but there is nothing fake in my view about the core values or "enlightened awareness" of the Catholic Church. Some of the most amazing people I have ever met are priests and nuns, and I am more inclined to take my cues on the true nature of the church from their example than from those who stand on the sidelines and take potshots.

So where do you see a connection between the authenticity of the client and the aesthetic expression?

Personally I've not been impressed by ZC's previous work but this one in peticular I'm waiting to see/feel the patina of time wash over it.

Also, does this church remind anyone of those russian nesting dolls in its site relationship with the church to the south of it? It would interesting to see another church to the north of greater dimension.

[musicman]

I said "around the state," but there is one in the Woodlands and one in Sugar Land that are both traditional, and have been much talked about around the diocese. At Assumption Church on Little York Rd. they did a renovation that restored it to the way it looked before it was renovated in the 60's, and added a traditional mural behind the altar - that was met with much enthusiasm.

we are having differences in semantics because i've been to Assumption. for me, there's no comparison overall. I like the mural however there are many great religious symbols in churches throughout houston old and new. the chapel in the our lady of mt carmel rectory i always found to be very grand with its mid century design, yet it is small.

[editor]

While some say that a House of god should be a grand house, what is wrong with a plain simple elegance? One could read that you don't have to be outspoken to be faithful.

Reminds me of the little Lutheran churches that dot the prairies of the upper Midwest. "We're just simple people and we like simple things."

The history of the Catholic church is a celebration of the ornate. That's what we had the Counter-Reformation for. Leave the stoicism to the Lutherans and the Mennonites, and the Quakers.

[ricco67]

But the thing is, Ed, you're right, the Catholic church has always enjoyed the trappings of the wealth it had generated, but why can't the church take a low key approach for a growing population that is generally suspicious of the church?

I know this is a poor example, but the pope was buried in a (Granted, by Catholic standards) a plain pine box as a sign of piety?

[Subdude]

While some say that a House of god should be a grand house, what is wrong with a plain simple elegance? One could read that you don't have to be outspoken to be faithful.

Nothing is "wrong" with elegance, but to me the standard for being elegant is higher than just lacking ornamentation. Granted it is subjective, but in most cases plain, stark, and ponderous are just that, and no more. If I were making a call as to a building being elegant, I would consider things like the level of detailing at different scales, the scale of the structure in relation to its neighbors, quality of materials, the texture or articulation of surfaces, and perhaps most importantly the overall proportions. I'm not quite convinced the cathedral makes the cut.

Maybe I am just wary of tossing around words like "elegant" and "minimalist" for buildings that are more just unimaginative. It reminds me of people arguing that that cheapo parking garage on Main Street was actually minimalist. I mean c'mon!

That said, there are a number of modern places in Houston that I would consider elegant. The Mies wing of MFAH and the Menil have it down, the Beck building does not. The Byzantine Fresco chapel is - very much - but not the Rothko chapel. Pennzoil yes, Tenneco almost, BoA no.

[Vertigo58]

I believe THIS WEDNESDAY April 2, there will be a LIVE televised official christening on ABC 13 locally. Hundreds of levels clergy and govt. officials from around the world will be in attendance. Wish I could skip work! I'll be there in spirit.

This will be a big deal down here.

Drumroll!

TODAY at 11:00AM - ABC 13

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=...&id=6056322

Edited April 2, 2008 by Vertigo58

[H-Town Man]

we are having differences in semantics because i've been to Assumption. for me, there's no comparison overall. I like the mural however there are many great religious symbols in churches throughout houston old and new. the chapel in the our lady of mt carmel rectory i always found to be very grand with its mid century design, yet it is small.

I just used Assumption as an example of how people seem to be favoring a move back towards tradition.

[H-Town Man]

So where do you see a connection between the authenticity of the client and the aesthetic expression?

I'm really not sure what you mean by that. Traditionally there was an attempt to embody as many of the church's views and teachings as possible in the design of the church. The effect was to transport the viewer into a different world than the world outside. Now there seems to be some relaxation in that objective, although this is probably due also to changes in materials and labor, as well as in the stylistic orientation of the architectural profession.

But the thing is, Ed, you're right, the Catholic church has always enjoyed the trappings of the wealth it had generated, but why can't the church take a low key approach for a growing population that is generally suspicious of the church?

I know this is a poor example, but the pope was buried in a (Granted, by Catholic standards) a plain pine box as a sign of piety?

Why should they be low key when it comes to glorifying God? A cathedral is God's house. Why would they cater to a population that is suspicious of the church?

The pope was buried in a plain pine box because that is something that relates to him personally, whereas a church is a symbol for the community. If the church was as corrupt as you imply, then our church buildings would be stripped down and plain and clergy members would have lavish coffins, living quarters, etc.

The history of the Catholic church is a celebration of the ornate. That's what we had the Counter-Reformation for. Leave the stoicism to the Lutherans and the Mennonites, and the Quakers.

Have you ever been to a monastery?

[ricco67]

Why should they be low key when it comes to glorifying God? A cathedral is God's house. Why would they cater to a population that is suspicious of the church?

The pope was buried in a plain pine box because that is something that relates to him personally, whereas a church is a symbol for the community. If the church was as corrupt as you imply, then our church buildings would be stripped down and plain and clergy members would have lavish coffins, living quarters, etc.

Well, I know it was his choice to be buried in a plain box.

I'm saying that they probably want to rely more on metaphor for a more contemporary culture. One of the reasons that the churches were so ornate and, just plain huge, was the flying buttresses and other architectural necessities that were required for the technology at the time. Another reason I would suspect is that it took FOREVER to build the things, I know several that took at least 10 years to build. If you're going to take that long, you might as well add a few things to the project.

From what I have seen inside of the new facility, it simply slams you with beauty.

Full disclosure: I was raised catholic and generally am Agnostic (or apathetic), but you have to have a dead heart to not appreciate art in its various forms.

[H-Town Man]

Well, I know it was his choice to be buried in a plain box.

I'm saying that they probably want to rely more on metaphor for a more contemporary culture. One of the reasons that the churches were so ornate and, just plain huge, was the flying buttresses and other architectural necessities that were required for the technology at the time. Another reason I would suspect is that it took FOREVER to build the things, I know several that took at least 10 years to build. If you're going to take that long, you might as well add a few things to the project.

From what I have seen inside of the new facility, it simply slams you with beauty.

Full disclosure: I was raised catholic and generally am Agnostic (or apathetic), but you have to have a dead heart to not appreciate art in its various forms.

You make some good points there. The slow construction period did make possible a lot of detail and thoughtfulness that our modern impatience does not allow. Clearly if your community is able to wait over a hundred years for their cathedral to be finished, they're going to end up with a pretty awesome cathedral.

I wonder how much construction times have changed just in the last hundred years. Even if they were just willing to wait ten years, I imagine that allowed a lot more than you can get today. The funny thing is that so many of those great churches, like the Polish churches in Chicago, were built in communities of poor immigrants who nonetheless managed to fund far better construction than our suburban bourgeois. I think their churches were symbols of pride for the community in a way that ours are not.

I hate to be so critical of this cathedral, and really hope that when I see the inside, I will be blown away and can take back some of my comments. But I am continually stunned by how much more sensitive and awe-inspiring the designs were of older churches in this state, particularly ones in small towns, like all those that were designed by Leo Dielmann across central Texas. I think our era can do better than it has.

[ricco67]

I highly recommend that the title be changed to the proper name with the subheading as "Houston's New Cathedral" since everything is done as far as construction.

A similar notation has been made on the great list.

EDIT: HAIF is 3rd in a google search.

Edited April 2, 2008 by ricco67

[Subdude]

Well, I know it was his choice to be buried in a plain box.

From what I have seen inside of the new facility, it simply slams you with beauty.

Yeah, I know I have been griping about the exterior, but I really am looking forward to being able to check out the interior.

[ricco67]

I stayed home so I can see the consecration of the Cathedral on TV. That's my story, at least.

I'm watching it live and its absolutely amazing.

[rsb320]

The Washington National Cathedral is an excellent example of traditional European, Gothic architecture. However, it took 83 years to build!

Our cathedral is designed as so because that's what the church wanted. See quotes below.

"There's a kind of peacefulness and serenity about it in the inside that I hope will be conducive for people, for their worship and to again bring them closer to God," he said.

Archbishop Joseph Fiorenza helped in the planning of the co-cathedral and decided to keep everything simple.

"These clean, simple, noble lines help accomplish that," he said. "It brings the attention of the worshiper immediately to the center spot."

[dalparadise]

Bleh, articulating beautiful Italian stone veneer as formed concrete on a big-box store isn't noble.

I generally love clean designs, but having toured many of the great cathedrals of the world, I can tell you the class of this building type is not understated. A cathedral should leave you awestruck in your procession to it, then double the effect upon entering. Ours is very beautiful inside -- I have been lucky enough to go in -- but outside, it could be mistaken for the downtown headquarters of Ryland Homes.

[N Judah]

As has been stated, I seem to remember the church issued some guidelines a while back for construction of future cathedrals. They emphasize focus on the community etc. etc. and not so much on ornate things which might be distracting. They're not so much moving away from things as moving towards a more community focused church experience. The most obvious example would be the semicircle layout tendency rather than the usual pews in a straight line.

Back during the Renaissance, the catholic church was the only game in town and so commissioned a lot of artists to make stuff for them. I guess the modern equivalent is the NEA.

Anyway thats my recollection/interpretation of things.

[editor]

But the thing is, Ed, you're right, the Catholic church has always enjoyed the trappings of the wealth it had generated, but why can't the church take a low key approach for a growing population that is generally suspicious of the church?

Because the Church doesn't move with the whims and fancies and fashions of the times. The Church is very slow, very deliberate, and very ponderous. This is on purpose. Very little comes out of the Catholic Church that doesn't go through dozens, even hundreds, of layers of review.

This is because the Church doesn't plan for the next paycheck like the average American. It doesn't plan for the next quarter like a big company. It doesn't plan for the next generation like a big charity. It plans for the next 500 to 1,000 years. Many of the decisions it makes literally and figuratively shape the world we live in. That's one of the reasons it's been so slow to issue decisions on condoms, pre-marital sex, and similar issues. Because these things have to be reviewed over and over and over again to ensure they're absolutely correct, or as correct as the Church can make them at the time. It took over 1,500 years for the Catholic Church to go through its first reformation (Vatican II in the 1960's).

That's not to say the Church hasn't made mistakes. The writ of Papal Infallibility was rescinded decades ago. Often the mistakes that are made are the reflection of people catering to the whims of the age. Sure, in the 1500's the Church didn't speak out (to my knowledge) against slavery. One reason is that at the time, slavery was part of most active cultures. The Church is learning to think bigger than that -- to think beyond the current age and into the next.

This, of course, raises problems. Many people interpret a lack of outward action by the Church as a sign of complacency. A good example of this is the hands-off approach the Church took toward Hitler. Many people believe the Church should have done much more to stop him. The problem was that much of what was being done was behind-the-scenes debating. The Church leaned from that mistake, and now Pope John Paul II, along with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are credited with being the trifecta that brought down the Soviet Union.

Seriously, I don't think the Vatican cares what the cathedral in Houston looks like. It just wants attendance numbers up. But I don't think it's right for some bishops or cardinals or whatever on the local level to pander to a population, suspicious or otherwise. They're supposed to be leaders, not followers.

I know this is a poor example, but the pope was buried in a (Granted, by Catholic standards) a plain pine box as a sign of piety?

Actually, the Pope (I assume you mean JPII) wasn't buried in a plain pine box. He's buried in Pope John XXIII's former marble crypt inside a cypress casket, which is inside a zinc casket, which is inside a walnut casket.

If the Pope was buried in a plain pine box, that would be nice -- kind of symbolic of Jesus the carpenter and all that.

But if we're going for piety, why have a cathedral at all? Why not go with an old-fashioned (except in West Virginia) tent mass? Or the diocese could have even created an outdoor amphitheater carved into the ground like Jesus would have used.

I think the problem we have with cathedrals is that they're not like other architecture. They're not simply form-follows-function. The form matters a lot more and has a direct impact on the usefulness of the function.

Nothing is "wrong" with elegance, but to me the standard for being elegant is higher than just lacking ornamentation.

Exactly. Art Moderne, for example, is minimalist and still elegant.

Houston's Ikea cathedral is neither.

Have you ever been to a monastery?

Yes. Dozens of times. My high school was paired with a nearby monastery and we had a number of classes there.

A monastery and a cathedral are very different buildings, created for very different purposes. It's like comparing a science classroom with a rocket launching facility.

[editor]

Another reason I would suspect is that it took FOREVER to build the things, I know several that took at least 10 years to build.

Since we're talking buttresses, I assume you mean European cathedrals. Most of them took HUNDREDS of years to build. Sometimes it would take three or four generations of architects to get the things done.

One of my personal favorites, The Church of Our Lady Before Tyn, was built from 1365 to 1511.

The Mont-Saint-Michael abby was on-and-off from 1023 to 1879.

Beauvais Cathedral: 1225-1384

Il Duomo: 1296-1421

Sure, we got Houston's cathedral up in just a few years. But as any good baker will tell you -- you can't rush quality.

[fernz]

That's one of the reasons it's been so slow to issue decisions on condoms, pre-marital sex, and similar issues.

???

The Church has very clearly issued decisions on condoms (or any form of contraception) and pre-marital sex; they are just not the decisions that our self-centered culture of instant gratification likes.

On another point, one reason old churches were so ornate and full of interpretative art is that they were a tool to spread the teachings of the Church in a time when most people were illiterate and had no access to books.

[CDeb]

???

The Church has very clearly issued decisions on condoms (or any form of contraception) and pre-marital sex; they are just not the decisions that our self-centered culture of instant gratification likes.

I think what he meant was that those decisions were a long time coming.

[editor]

The Church has very clearly issued decisions on condoms (or any form of contraception) and pre-marital sex; they are just not the decisions that our self-centered culture of instant gratification likes.

Actually, the church's position is Don't do it until we come up with a decision, but for now don't do it. It's currently under review, and I agree with you about everything after the semicolon.

On another point, one reason old churches were so ornate and full of interpretative art is that they were a tool to spread the teachings of the Church in a time when most people were illiterate and had no access to books.

Excellent point. Just like the paintings of the Renaissance, the art that adorns the cathedrals are teaching tools showing not only the stories from the Bible, but in many cases the local history as well.

[CDeb]

Actually, the church's position is Don't do it until we come up with a decision, but for now don't do it. It's currently under review, and I agree with you about everything after the semicolon.

How do you figure, editor? I don't get that take from reading Humanae Vitae, which seems pretty decisive to me.

[H-Town Man]

It took over 1,500 years for the Catholic Church to go through its first reformation (Vatican II in the 1960's).

What do you consider the Counter-Reformation to have been?

That's not to say the Church hasn't made mistakes. The writ of Papal Infallibility was rescinded decades ago.

When was Papal Infallibility rescinded? As far as I know, it's alive and well.

Seriously, I don't think the Vatican cares what the cathedral in Houston looks like. It just wants attendance numbers up.

I definitely think the Vatican cares what cathedrals look like.

Yes. Dozens of times. My high school was paired with a nearby monastery and we had a number of classes there.

A monastery and a cathedral are very different buildings, created for very different purposes. It's like comparing a science classroom with a rocket launching facility.

I wasn't comparing monasteries to cathedrals. You said "The history of the Catholic Church is a celebration of the ornate." For the majority of that history, monasteries played every bit as much if not more of a role than cathedrals in church life. Are they celebrations of the ornate?

[H-Town Man]

As has been stated, I seem to remember the church issued some guidelines a while back for construction of future cathedrals. They emphasize focus on the community etc. etc. and not so much on ornate things which might be distracting.

Oh, it's so distracting, I can't take it!!

Too... distracted.... Can't... focus... on... worship....

[editor]

I'm going to let the rest of the message drift away because I don't want to derail this thread.

I wasn't comparing monasteries to cathedrals. You said "The history of the Catholic Church is a celebration of the ornate." For the majority of that history, monasteries played every bit as much if not more of a role than cathedrals in church life. Are they celebrations of the ornate?

I guess in my mind I don't associate monasteries with everyday Catholicism because most people don't go to monasteries or interact with monks or friars. Of the three monasteries I've been to, two operate entirely independently of the local archdiocese and take their orders from a higher power (someone in Rome, presumably). The third one may do the same, but I don't know for sure.

All of the monasteries I've been to have been very plain affairs. Not dirt-walls kind of plain. More like 1950's elementary school plain. I think this is for two reasons -- one, that they don't get a lot of visitors compared to a church. And two, because the monks and friars spend most of their time busying themselves with their ministry outside of where they live. Unlike a church, which is the spiritual center of a community drawing people in, the monastery is more on the outskirts of the ordinary person's church experience. Because of this, it doesn't need to be ornate or instructive. They'd, literally, be preaching to the choir.

Or at least that's been my experience. Your mileage may vary.

[Vertigo58]

Tell me someone took photo's of yesterday's events?

All eyes were on Houston for this event!

Tour's for the public begin Saturday. Can't wait!