FROM THE EDITOR
Foundations, Corporations to Fund "Wreckovation"
...new draft document on church architecture... and... angry liturgists
(Nov./Dec. 2000)

BY MICHAEL S. ROSE

IN RECENT YEARS concerned Catholics all over the U.S. have been giving the church renovators a run for their money. Armed with hindsight and educated about the renovation "process," they have been questioning the fundraisers, liturgical consultants, and in some cases, the bishop. Many, however, have found that no matter what they do, the pastor and bishop (or his liturgical footsoldiers) are hell-bent on "wreckovating" their church using the same tired plan we keep hearing about—moving the tabernacle, evacuating the statues, rearranging the pews, pulling out the altar, adding a "gathering space," and of course constructing one of those whirlpool jacuzzi baptismal fonts that bubble all through Mass. Consequently many parishioners have learned that the only way to stop these unpopular plans from being implemented is to stop the flow of money. The more parishioners who understand what exactly it is they’re pledging their money for, the easier it is to stop the flow of money. These plans, once known, are not exactly popular.

But now it seems that even "withholding the money" isn’t enough to stop the church renovators from their determined effort to radically "renew" the church building by stripping it of its uniquely Catholic character. Some projects are funded by bequests to the church—money from the deceased is a sure bet since it’s hard for a dead man to object. (Incidentally, these bequests are rarely, if ever, specifically earmarked for remodeling the parishioner’s church building, but often naively left to provide for maintenance and upkeep of the parish plant).

In other cases, when money from parishioners is not forthcoming, the diocese suddenly becomes a lending agency and wham! the parish is in debt for $1.6 million. In other cases secular corporations seem to do the trick. Grants! In a recent article that appeared in the Express-News, San Antonio’s daily newspaper reported that the local cathedral renovation was being funded by more than $8 million in grants from corporations and foundations. That’s $8 million!

Thus the controversial renovation of the nation’s oldest cathedral (engineered by Albany, N.Y., priest Father Richard Vosko) is being paid for by Southern Bell Communications, the Goldsbury Foundation, Anheuser-Bush Foundation, Scanlan Foundation, H-E-B Foundation, Zeller Foundation, Frost Bank, the Hearst Foundation, the May Company, and even the San Antonio Express-News. Then add to that $1.5 million from the Archdiocese of San Antonio, $100,000 from Archbishop Flores’ personal bank account, and $50,000 from Catholic Cemeteries. Talk about bound and determined to renovate. Forget the "hold your money campaign" in San Antonio.

From "House of God" to "Living Stones"
As this issue of SCR goes to press, the U.S. bishops are preparing to discuss the second draft of a document on church architecture and renovation. Originally entitled Domus Dei (the House of God), it is now known as Built of Living Stones, presumably a less controversial title since most liturgists and the church renovation crowd do not believe that the church building is a "house of God." Apparently though they believe that the church is built of "living stones," even though the Scriptural reference to "living stones" in 1 Peter refers the Church universal, not the church building. (But never mind. No need to be so picky on that point. There are bigger fish to fry.)

Although many liturgical design consultants seem to be nervewracked about the forthcoming document, the new text leaves just about everything open to the interpretation of the diocesan bishop (and his liturgical infantry). In fact, according to the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy’s latest newsletter, initial plans are to produce the church architecture document in "a looseleaf format that would allow diocesan bishops to insert local provisions and guidelines for their own dioceses within the text itself." A logical question: why then bother drafting national guidelines if the local chancery can just add provisions to justify doing what they’ve been doing all along: "wreckovating" our traditional churches and building new "worship centers" that look like libraries, medical centers or shopping plazas? (We can look on the bright side though: at least they no longer resemble sea shells, honeycombs, lunar landing pods or various shapes of origami; that fad has apparently passed).

The walking wounded
At least for the moment, the tables seem to have turned. Instead of concerned pew Catholics being angry with liturgists, it now seems the liturgists are angry with us. They’re angry with the Vatican (as usual); they’re even angry with Father James Moroney, head of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy. In an October meeting of the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions, 200 or so of the nation’s liturgists—those who have engineered liturgical confusion in past decades, driving thousands of Catholics away from the Church—vented their anxiety over the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal. The National Catholic Reporter, longtime organ of American Catholic dissent, characterized the meeting in Costa Mesa, Calif., as a confab of "the walking wounded." The liturgists’ beef: a new English-language "study translation" of the GIRM has caused liturgical confrontations provoked by the new directives. According to NCR, "Pastors have been verbally attacked by liturgical factionalists in their parish for not immediately putting into practice the new rules."

Consequently, the liturgists drafted a resolution urging the U.S. bishops to quickly limit the damage caused by the July 28 release of the study translation. According to the NCR, a prime promoter of the liturgical confusion and silliness that has been a hallmark of post-Vatican II worship, the new GIRM directives "smack of a return to clericalism and rubricism in a church where Rome and many bishops—especially the younger ones—are afraid of the laity’s role in taking ownership of the Church."

Ironic, eh? First the liturgical legion grouses about the laity confronting pastors on liturgical matters, simply asking their Church leaders to follow the Church’s guidelines. Then they accuse Rome and the younger American prelates of being afraid of what the laity might have to say. Someone might want to tell the tired old folks at NCR what the laity have to say. The resounding chorus is: "We’re sick and tired of liturgists!"

It is also worth noting that while the liturgists bellyache about the new directives smacking of "rubricism," these same liturgists—apparently without much self-awareness—partake of their own brand of rubricism: "Do it my way or get out of the Church." Liturgists and their design consultant sidekicks have for too long been fabricating the requirements of Church law to effect their own idiosyncratic rubrics. Never was there such a cadre of hard-headed ideologues so detached from both the mind of the Church and the desires of the Catholic faithful.

[ St. Catherine Review ]