Non-Church Worship Spaces Mandated in Cincinnati
Archdiocese releases guidelines on church architecture
(May/June 2000)

BY MICHAEL S. ROSE

AT A TIME WHEN BOTH the authority and appropriateness of Environment and Art in Catholic Worship is much disputed, and after decades of having been the cause of bitter division in the Church over the subject of sacred architecture, the Archdiocese of Cincinnati has ratified the controversial design recommendations set forth in the 1978 document. Entitled A House of Salvation and Grace (HSG), a recently released 11-page booklet sets forth principles to be used by archdiocesan parishes in building new churches and renovating existing ones. The document was prepared by the Archdiocese’s Office of Worship, led by Father Lawrence Tensi.

The timing of the release of this document is revealing. The U.S. bishops are in the midst of preparing a statement on church architecture (tentatively called Domus Dei), to be discussed and possibly voted on at the bishops’ national meeting in November of 2000. Likewise, the Vatican is prepared to release the third edition of the Roman Missal. Both documents seem likely to contradict specific directives given by Cincinnati’s HSG.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, known as the GIRM, is due to be released in early June. This is the section of the Roman Missal that sets forth liturgical directives. An April 28 report by Catholic News Service quoted an unnamed Vatican official as saying the new Vatican instruction "will emphasize the need to show ‘special respect’ for the tabernacle containing the Blessed Sacrament, urging that it be ‘close to the center of attention’ in a church." If the new GIRM, last issued in 1975, does indeed make such a statement, it will come as a welcome qualification of previous editions, which allowed that the Blessed Sacrament, in those churches where marriages and funerals take place frequently and those which are much visited for their historical or artistic treasures, be reserved in a chapel separate from the main body of the church. Liturgical consultants have long misinterpreted the GIRM’s pronouncement to mean that the tabernacle cannot be located in the sanctuary.

Domus Dei’s treatment of the tabernacle is expected to be based on the Vatican’s forthcoming instruction. It is instructive to note, however, that during a discussion of the draft document at the U.S. bishop’s meeting last November, more than thirty bishops expressed their strong desire for the document to treat the tabernacle as a central element in church architecture.

HSG, on the other handed, makes a recommendation to the contrary. Introducing the section on the "Eucharistic Reservation Chapel," the authors pit the Mass (as an "active, participative" celebration) against reservation of the Eucharist in the tabernacle. Thus HSG repeats the canard that there is "a tension that exists between the Mass as an act of worship and the tabernacle as a place of adoration and reservation." And so, the document claims that "provision for a separate chapel avoids the confusion between what it is that we do at Mass and how we reserve the sacred elements outside of Mass." Although this claim has been oft-contended now for three decades, the powers-that-be, detached as they are from the devotion and practices of pew Catholics, continue to promote their own distaste for adoration and Eucharistic devotion. Their own preferences then are translated into built form and foisted upon the general Catholic public, who is told that all this is "mandated!"

Most other recommendations follow the same pattern. Although the document states that "Since the Second Vatican Council, worship spaces have been built and renovated to reflect the liturgical theology and ecclesiology of that council" (a spurious statement), the recommendations, in fact, reflect no more than the personal whims of liturgical ideologues. With this document, however, the Archdiocese of Cincinnati seeks to break new ground: it appears to ratify the disputed theories and recommendations put forth by the archi-liturgical establishment. Now, liturgical design consultants and cooperating pastors will be able to point to a document, presumably approved by their archbishop, to justify the latest fads in arranging "worship spaces."

Prototype "worship space"
St. John’s Church in West Chester, Oh., one of the newest church buildings in the Cincinnati archdiocese, provides a prototype for the kind of "worship space" envisioned by the new document. When some parishioners of nearby St. Michael’s Church in Sharonville attended a retreat at St. John’s, they were "appalled," they say. For at least the past year, the Sharonville parish has been engaged in a process that will inevitably produce a newfangled "worship space" for their parish. St. Michael parishioners who spoke with SCR say they are now worried that their new church, to replace an existing structure, will be similar to St. John’s.

Instructions given in Cincinnati’s new document that bear out in the design of St. John’s new "worship space" building include the following:

1. "Gathering space"
The authors of HSG reject the vestibule of former times in favor of what archi-liturgists call a "gathering space." Such a space, which one experiences at the entrance to the building "should be large enough for the community to gather before and after the liturgy. It should be a place that speaks of the importance of communal fellowship." The only documentation provided to justify their recommendation comes from EACW, and even then no mention of a "gath-ering space" per se is made.

2. Baptismal pool
HSG touches little on 2000 years of history and symbolism regarding the baptistery, instead favoring a simplistic "the-wetter-you-get, the-better-your-baptism" mentality. The section begins with a truncated expression of the Sacrament of Baptism, introducing it simply as an "initiation into the community of faith." The document recommends that the font should be located either in the "gathering space" or at the entrance to the main worship space. Following on recent trends, it says, "the font itself should be large enough to accommodate baptism by immersion, since immersion is the fuller sign of baptism." Again documentation is made by way of EACW.

3. In-the-round seating
HSG instructs that the assembly be "seated together, facing one another, gathered around the ambo [i.e., lectern] and the altar, allowing for visibility of all the main focal points in the liturgy."

As for seating, the authors argue against the use of traditional pews and even benches because these "do not offer flexibility for celebration of particular rites." Although the churches of the past 2000 years have indeed accommodated the various rites (e.g., funerals, baptisms, and weddings), we are to believe that the spaces have been inadequate before this generation of liturgical thinktanks. Chairs are recommended as the seating of choice, supported by the claim that these flexible seats provide for ease in celebration of the rites and offer "fuller participation in them as well." Chairs may come "with or without kneelers," HSG states. Again, documentation of this recommendation comes by way of EACW.

4. The centralized sanctuary
The document uses the traditional terminology of sanctuary but describes rather a non-sanctuary space. "For many years the sanctuary was separated by a rail and accessible to a few. There is now a need for the sanctuary to be experienced as a space that the assembly can gather around with a sense of active involvement in the action that takes place there." No real rationale is given for such a recommendation, but is rather taken for granted. The other "ministers," the document continues, "such as servers, and other furnishings, such as credence table(s) should be near, but not necessarily in the sanctuary."

5. Processional cross
The sign of the Christian, the cross, is another element of the traditional church building that takes a beating. Generally, the document recommends there should be no cross or crucifix present within the main worship space except during the celebration of the liturgy, which is only done on weekends: "As a processional cross moves through the midst of the assembly, it will become a constant reminder of our way of life." Crosses affixed to a wall are not allowed because they do not "provide for the flexibility of a processional cross." Again, the only documentation that supports such an irrational recommendation is EACW.

6. "Presider’s" chair
A presider is presumably a priest-celebrant. His chair, according to the document "may be placed in a prominent place in the sanctuary area or within the assembly." Although an appeal is again made to EACW, even the 1978 document does not recommend that the priest sit out in the assembly. The sacerdotal nature of the priest is disregarded and the presider is spoken of as "leader of prayer."

The choir too, just as the priest, is ideally located "in the midst of the assembly," according to the document. HSG disregards the acoustical reasons for the traditional choir loft in favor of a visible choir, which many Catholics find distracting.

7. Day chapel
Assuming that very few people would ever attend a daily Mass in the new "worship space" buildings, HSG instructs these new buildings to include something called a "day chapel." In the more traditional and vibrant parishes of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati (as well as others, of course) more than a hundred people may attend a noon Mass on an average weekday. It is ironic that the large mega-parishes in the suburbs attract so few people that a day chapel should even be a consideration.

One could even be led to believe that the liturgists who make such recommendations (and not just the authors of HGS) have no desire to see the flock attend Mass other than on the obligatory Sundays and Holy Days (the ones that still remain). This speaks volumes.

8. Lack of sacred art
In the document’s treatment of sacred art, "devotional spaces" are defined as the place where such works of art should be placed. Above all, these devotional spaces should not "distract or compete with the act of celebrating the Eucharist." What’s more, "there may be only one image of any given saint." Certainly, no one will ever be distracted by liturgical art or devotional images at St. John’s new church (unless the flying draperies above the altar count). The only semblence of artwork in the worship space are several bas-reliefs, depicting folk heroes such as Cardinal Joesph Bernardin and Dr. Tom Dooley (see article in May/June 1999 issue of SCR).

The future: trendy or timeless structures?
St. John’s Church is truly a prototype. It incorporates all of the elements set forth in A House of Salvation and Grace, and provides an opportunity to experience the new paradigm of modernist Catholic worship. Other recent churches used the exact same scheme, although the brick pattern or the size and shape of the immersion font may vary. No doubt, such non-church worship spaces will continue to be built for some years to come, but the prototype will not endure. It is not timeless; it does not adequately express the Catholic faith; it is uninspiring; and it is unable to carry the weight of religious symbolism.

In other parts of the country this prototype, promoted by designers such as Father Richard Vosko — responsible for St. John’s — is already on its way out or has been extinguished entirely. In other places (mainly on the East Coast) these secularized worship space fads never actually took hold. God willing, some years from now such fad-driven churches will be transformed into school buildings or civic auditoriums, and new churches, noble structures based on the timeless Classical principles of sacred architecture, will be built to supplant the "old fad" as a mere parenthesis in the history of Christendom.

The following questions were posed by SCR to Father Lawrence Tensi, the Director of the Office of Worship for the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. Repeated attempts to get Fr. Tensi to address these questions failed (even though he agreed to answer them). Should he respond to SCR after this issue is in print, we will publish his response in these pages in the July/August, 2000 issue.

1. A House of Grace and Salvation was released at a time when the Church is expecting the publication of the new edition of the GIRM and (in the U.S.) the bishops are drafting a statement on church architecture. It seems that these two documents, when released, may very well contradict some of the recommendations made in HSG. Why was this document released before the GIRM and Domus Dei, and if these two documents do make recommendations contrary to HSG, do you plan to reissue your document in a revised form?

2. Many of the recommendations made in HSG are predicated on statements made in the 1978 document EACW, which seems to be at the heart of much of the controversy that has surrounded church architecture in recent years. Father James Moroney of the BCL has given the impression that EACW is a document of little authority (except where it repeats specific directives from the 1975 GIRM). Why are the recommendations of HSG based on statements that are made in EACW? (GIRM is often quoted, but rarely does a quote from GIRM substantiate the recommendations made by HSG.)

3. On page 2 in the "Process" section, the document recommends hiring a "reputable liturgical design consultant." What are the criteria by which to evaluate such consultants? Should they have certain credentials? If so, what ought their credentials and competence be?

4. Was HSG promulgated as "particular law" by the Archbishop of Cincinnati and to be understood as directives given to all parishes under his jurisdiction? Or is HSG merely a set of recommendations that may be applied as is seen fit by a particular parish?

[ St. Catherine Review ]