ARTICLES

LETTERS

NEWS

ROAMIN' CATHOLIC

Contents © 2001
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

A Message Clear and Strong

But Will It Halt Bad Church Renovations?

By Christopher Zehnder

One might have thought that the age of architectural oddities had died with the 1970s, that, by now, priests and prelates would have learned, and retreated, from the indiscretions of the first days after the council. The renovations of older churches, the modernesque designs of newer churches, seem to us of a younger generation faintly ridiculous. Yet, far from abating, queer and curious construction and renovation continue and, what's more, seem to be on the increase. In our own state, we have, as examples, the cathedral, Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles, and the proposed cathedral of Christ the Light in Oakland.

Recently, the Vatican seems to have called into question some of the elements that are typical in modern church design. In late May, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments asked Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee to suspend the renovation of the 150 year-old Cathedral of St. John. A group of laymen in Milwaukee had petitioned Rome to halt the renovation, questioning whether Archbishop Weakland's renovation violated norms of canon and liturgical law.

Weakland's renovation design removes the old high altar from the apse and places a new altar table further into the nave. This allows some of the congregation to sit in a semi-circle around three sides of the altar. The design places an imposing pipe organ and seating for the choir in the former presbyterium or sanctuary in the apse. The seating of the congregation is little distinguished from the seating of the priests, who are placed facing liturgical north and south between the altar and the more elevated choir. Other design elements include the removal of the old baldacchino over the altar; the placing of the tabernacle in a small, 390 square-foot-chapel (the former baptistery) behind and to the right of the altar; the reduction of confessionals from four to two (there will, instead, be a reconciliation chapel); and the addition of statues of Catholic men and women who have not been canonized.

Cardinal Jorge Medina, prefect for the Congregation for Worship, on July 2, replied to Weakland's letter in which the archbishop defended the renovation. The congregation, said Medina's letter, "remands the plan for the interior renovation of the Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist to the renewed consideration of Your Excellency, bearing in mind the need for the project to be revised in accord with the above-cited canonical and liturgical requirements." The requirements to which the cardinal refers are four, having to do with the placement of the altar, the location of the tabernacle, the number of confessionals, and the placing of images of the non-canonized in or immediately adjacent to the cathedral.

Weakland's interior design for the renovation of his cathedral is, in many points, similar to the interior design of Cardinal Roger Mahony's new cathedral in Los Angeles. (Incidentally, both are using the same liturgical design consultant, Reverend Richard Vosko.) Though in Mahony's cathedral, the altar will be elevated above the congregation, the choir, and, presumably, the organ will sit in a highly conspicuous position to the rear of the altar and the seats for the priests in a place traditionally reserved for the high altar and the tabernacle. The tabernacle itself will rest in a chapel that is not directly accessible from the main body of the church. Though Cardinal Medina's letter deals with the renovation of an existing church, are its strictures be applicable to new construction, such as Cardinal Mahony's cathedral?

The St. Joseph's Foundation in San Antonio, Texas, assists Catholics in cases concerning their rights according to canon law. The foundation helped the Milwaukee faithful who challenged Archbishop Weakland's design, to prepare and file their case and located a canon lawyer for them in Rome. Charles Wilson, the foundation's executive director, said the Milwaukee case is but one of the 88 renovation cases they've handled in the last decade -- the vast majority of which have been in the last three or four years. Of those 88 cases, only six, said Wilson, have gone to Rome. The Milwaukee case, he said, "is the only one where we are sure that Rome intervened and asked for changes. There are a couple of others where we expect that they did, but it was done very quietly and not publicly. Milwaukee is the first one I've heard of, where Rome has made its decision public."

Wilson does not think that Medina's letter is itself applicable to new construction, since it applied to the Milwaukee building alone. He cited the letter: "The first serious obstacle to approving the planned renovation of the Cathedral is the incongruity of the proposed floor plan with the architectural structure of the church. Perhaps in the case of a new church construction there could be more latitude for decisions about the layout of the church, but this becomes much more restricted in an existing church like the Cathedral." Wilson said one might "object to a new building on similar grounds" to Medina's. "There may be theological reasons for it, but I don't think the same conditions would necessarily apply to a new building.

"The law on the construction of new churches is extremely broad," continued Wilson. "There has to be an altar. There has to be some discernible sanctuary, but how it is delineated is not really clear. There has to be an ambo or a pulpit. If it's parish church there has to be a baptismal font. You have to have a tabernacle and the Blessed Sacrament reserved, and it has to be conspicuous. Beyond that, there is not really a lot that you have to do, nor is there really a particular style of architecture or arrangement that is preferred."

Michael Dunnigan, who handled the Milwaukee case for St. Joseph's Foundation, said that the foundation has handled at least one case that had to do with new construction rather than renovation. In that case, he said, deception of the donors and the placement of the tabernacle were the issues. "They raised money for about a year," said Dunnigan, "and circulated sketches of the tabernacle placed in the sanctuary;" but when the money was raised, the pastor changed the plans, removing the tabernacle from the sanctuary. The foundation, he said, has never handled a case dealing directly with the interior design of a new church.

Dunnigan, though, thought the Medina letter could be applied to new construction. Though the letter emphasized the age of the Milwaukee cathedral and the inconsistency of the archbishop's plan with the existing architecture, "it also said things about the placement of the tabernacle and confessionals that I think could apply in other areas," said Dunnigan.

Michael Rose, author of the Renovation Manipulation and editor of St Catherine's Review, thinks Medina's "message is clear and strong." Though Medina's letter addresses only Weakland's cathedral, and so, in that sense, applies to it alone, "the obstacles that Medina enumerates," said Rose, "are applicable universally because he applies Church norms and liturgical regulations to the design (or re-design) of church buildings. That means that several of the other points naturally apply to all church buildings, even new construction."

That Medina admits "more latitude" for the interior design of new church buildings, said Rose, his letter "only stresses the fact that Weakland is dealing with an existing building. I do not take Medina's statement to mean that if Weakland were building this design as a new structure, everything would be fine and dandy with the design. This cannot be so since the obstacles he enumerates in his letter have to apply universally, otherwise they would be meaningless to the Milwaukee project."

Medina said the position of the presbyterium or sanctuary in relation to the nave would deprive the former of its "internal coherence, as well as a position where attention is naturally focused in the cathedral." Placing a "new and visually imposing organ in what is the clear natural focal point of the Cathedral, that is the apse," wrote Medina, "and in placing the altar, in effect, in the midst of the central nave, fails adequately to respect the hierarchical structure of the Church of God that the Cathedral by its scheme is to reflect and likewise diminishes the necessary distinctiveness of the presbyterium with respect to the rest of the Cathedral." To Rose, the Church norms cited by Medina would specify that the "layout in a new church would have to have a distinct sanctuary in a properly hierarchical layout with the altar -- not the choir, organ, pulpit, hanging drapes, or banners -- as the focal point of the church."

Medina declares that the proposed tabernacle relocation in the Milwaukee plan contravenes canon law because it does not "offer to the people of God a placement in which is truly conspicua, since only with some investigation might the chapel be found. The small size of the chapel, too, said Medina "does not satisfy the requirement that the chapel be ad privatam fidelium adorationem et precationem idoneo [fitting for the private adoration and prayer of the faithful]. since it would restrict to so few the number of the faithful who might actually take advantage of the opportunities for private prayer before the Blessed Sacrament."

The Cathedral Project, a document found on the Milwaukee archdiocesan website, states that the relocation of the tabernacle and the development of a "new chapel for Eucharistic devotion in the space currently occupied by the baptistery" finds its justification in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (among other documents), which states: "It is highly recommended that the holy Eucharist be reserved in a chapel suitable for private adoration and prayer."

Rose, however, insists that the Church does not specify that the tabernacle must be placed in a separate chapel, but that its placement on the main altar "always remains a valid option and is nowhere ruled out. According the pertinent documents," said Rose, "the place where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved should be truly prominent, duly decorated, and suitable for private prayer. The Church's regulations regarding separate chapels would seem to be an exception to the above requirements. This is basic, everyday commonsense. Where is the most truly prominent place in the church? Front and center. Other documents make it clear that that the tabernacle must have a close relationship with the altar since the reserved Blessed Sacrament is an extension of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which takes place on the altar. In other words, the tabernacle should be an 'extension' of the altar. Eucharisticum Mysterium recommends a separate chapel for churches 'that are much visited for their artistic and historical treasures,' but that chapel must still be seen as an extension of the altar: 'It must be a very special place, having nobility about it, and it must be suitably decorated.'"

Towards the end of his letter, Cardinal Medina refers to "regrettable instances of statements in the fund raising pamphlet entitled The Cathedral Project," which, he said, "are inaccurate in asserting that several of the changes have been required by the liturgical law." Medina seems to refer to such statements, as the one above about the eucharistic chapel, and the following. Quoting the General Instruction of the Roman Missal -- that the altar is to placed "as to be a focal point on which the attention of the whole congregation centers naturally" -- the Cathedral Project states, "the relocation and redesign of the Cathedral altar is perhaps the single most significant change proposed for the worship space. This change is recommended to bring the altar forward, to become central to the assembly;" as if bringing the altar to the center makes is the "focal point" on which attention centers.

The archdiocese of Los Angeles has made similar "regrettable" statements. The Eucharistic chapel, according to the archdiocesan website, "in keeping with tradition. should be a Chapel separate from the main body of the Church, but easily accessible to it, suitable for the faithful's private adoration and prayer as well as providing a place for reservation of the Eucharist for the sick and dying." Cardinal Medina seems to know no such imperative of "should" in regards to Eucharistic reservation. "It would seem to this Congregation," wrote Medina in his letter to Weakland, "that the ancient and venerable high altar together with its baldacchino should be retained, given also that it is a most suitable location for the reservation of the Most Blessed Sacrament."

The archdiocese of Los Angeles makes other statements justifying, it seems, the placement of choir and organ in the new cathedral. "The ministers of music should be able to sing and play facing the rest of the assembly in order to elicit the participation of the community without distracting from the central action of the liturgy," says the archdiocesan website. "Practically speaking, the choir must be near the director and the organ (both console and sound)."

If, indeed, the principles in Cardinal Medina's letter can apply to new construction, what can one do to challenge such modernism incarnate in concrete? One can contact the St. Joseph's Foundation (11107 Wurzbach, Suite 601B, San Antonio, Texas 78230-2570; telephone: (210) 697-0717; fax: (210) 699-9439; http://www.st-joseph-foundation.org/). The foundation can guide someone in what steps he needs to take.

"It's worth testing out some of these things -- assuming Rome comes out of the case better than Archbishop Weakland," said Michael Dunnigan. "If Weakland comes out winning everything, then, I don't know. We would still help people do these cases, but if this one isn't won, it's hard to see other ones that really could be won."

Since receiving Medina's letter, Archbishop Weakland has raised the stakes. Claiming to have consulted canonists and other bishops, Weakland has said that Medina's letter "means that things were left in my hands," and so has continued on with the renovation. Weakland has received the public support of Bishop Joseph Fiorenza, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Saying, "the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has considerable interest in this case," Fiorenza said, "I have spoken to Archbishop Weakland and I am confident that he is following the proper procedures in this dispute and that he has responded faithfully to the questions of the Congregation." According to the Washington Post, Weakland has received calls of support from Cardinal George of Chicago, Cardinal Law of Boston, and Cardinal Roger Mahony.

TOP