When do you think this church was built?

When do you think this church was built? June 8, 2011

Would you believe…2003? It’s an Anglican Catholic Our Lady of Walsingham Church near Houston.

And this one below? 2008. It’s St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Farragut, Tennessee.

Both are part of a growing trend toward more traditional church architecture, according to this piece in the National Catholic Register:

“That is an enormous change from 10 years ago,” said architect Ethan Anthony of HDB/Cram & Ferguson Architects of Concord, Mass. “I’ve seen it go from nobody even thinking about this to it becoming kind of a cause. It’s a big deal things are happening.”

The trend pushes against the modernist architecture that frequently typified church construction in the second half of the 1900s — and returns to design seen in the first half of that century. In the United States, traditional architecture gave rise to churches such as St. Florian in Hamtramck, Mich. Built with a penny campaign and dedicated in 1928, it is a “most spectacularly huge,” Gothic church, according to Anthony.

It is as much statement as it is stature. St. Florian was designed by renowned Boston architect Ralph Adams Cram (a founder of Anthony‘s firm). The St. Florian website notes that “Cram rebelled against the hard-nosed social Darwinism of the Industrial Age and sought to reclaim the beauty and spiritual values of the cathedrals of the Middle Ages.”

Not long thereafter, though, such churches became a thing of the past.

First the Depression strapped parishes and put church construction projects on hold, Anthony said. World War II caused another interruption, and Anthony said men returned from the war “really in love with science.” That, he added, coincided with “a huge secularization, even in the Catholic Church.”

Architecture, meanwhile, began to emphasize “basic, simple, modern, straightforward” design. More changes were sparked by Vatican II, especially the document addressing art in churches, Sacrosanctum Concilium. That document, though primarily about the reform of the liturgy, also spoke about church architecture. Some church designers, though, went farther than the document itself.

“People within the various dioceses in the United States seized up on that because they wanted to promote modern architecture in the Catholic Church and said, ‘Well, Vatican II said we have to tear out all this old furniture because it’s old,’” Anthony said. “What a terrible destruction happened.”

Duncan Stroik, an architect in South Bend, Ind., said, “The misinterpretation of Vatican II was like Pandora’s box in which architects and clients thought that it meant anything goes. Anything as long as it was not traditional styles.”

Check out the rest.

"I think I would have been happier had the CDF handled the nuns the way ..."

Vatican challenges “interpretation” of cardinal’s remarks ..."
"Blaming "Islamics" for this is like blaming the Pope for the Holocaust Denial of Hutton ..."

One killed, 44 injured in Catholic ..."
"It smacks to me of hyper-sensitivity, a veiled spiritual and intellectual pride, with regards to ..."

Pope Francis: “A Christian who complains, ..."
"Oh, no, we never change our mind, and we always agree, even on points of ..."

Vatican challenges “interpretation” of cardinal’s remarks ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

4 responses to “When do you think this church was built?”

  1. Except for most cases I would say modern architecture is an aesthetic failure, but especially so when it comes to church buildings. I believe this revert back to traditional achitectural styles for catholic churches has been going on for a bit now. Thank God! I love both Romanesque and Gothic.

  2. Wow those churches are BEAUTIFUL. The only new churches in my state have mostly been cathedrals. I used to think that St. Mary of the Assumption Cathedral, San Francisco, was an ugly monstrosity.

    Then I saw the LA Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels and was glad to be able to worship in St. Mary’s. LA’s Taj-mahoney (as man in So Cal ncknamed it) looks like a huge cold tomb. The tabernacle in a glass-walled adoration room looks like a large golden garbage can that a car backed into causing a huge dent. The nave/sanctuary makes one think of a huge Hollywood ampetheater with the sanctuary being the center stage. I DO like the murals of the saints all in procession towards the altar. And the crypt is beautiful because it is down there that one will find the colorful glass windows from the old cathedral.

    After this I saw the Cathedral of Christ our Light in Oakland, CA, which was built in the outline-form of a fish (yes a fish as in ICTHYS). This made me even more appreciative of St. Mary’s. The confessionals are very odd: no doors, just an open walk-in space so one can see the penitent clearly. The “screen” allegedly providing anonymity is wooden and of such an open-weave design that I do not think anonymity is really guaranteed but I have not confessed there so this is just a guess. I suppose this is an exmaple of the post-abuse architecture which places “safety” above privacy of the penitent.

    Maybe one of the contributions of the Anglican Catholics will be a renewal of inspirational church architecure. These CA cathedrals cost millions to built; i would imagine we can likewise build something traditional for less money.

  3. My kids go to the school attached to St. John Neumann in Farragut. They have perpetual adoration (for the past 14 years, I believe). The interior is beautiful. The sound… well they’re working on that. It’s a joy to go to Mass at SJN.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.