If I designed my posts like modern Catholic churches design their Sacred Space...

.

this is a blog post

it is about Catholic stuff

Glory be to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
(thx: Badger Catholic)Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier!

.

It should make us think of Heaven

Fr. Acervo is a young, pious, and awesome priest. He is an associate priest at my former home parish back in Michigan, and he is a frequent celebrant at the parish in which we attended Mass in the usus antiquior. So I think I am qualified to say that he is a humble and precise speaker. The same rings true for his blogging.

That being said, Fr. Acervo has taken his gloves off a bit in his most recent post: On Sacred Architecture

Church architecture has suffered greatly over the last few decades with people building not churches, true temples of God, but functional or multi-functional gathering spaces and community halls.  If our architecture is bland, then our worship will be bland, which in turn will make our faith bland.  While it’s understandable that parishes are always trying to keep their costs down, what’s resulted has been a very minimalist approach to architecture.  In short, we’ve become cheap toward God.

 He was commenting on a post over at Our Sunday Visitor: "Catholic Churches: Houses of Heaven on Earth". You should go read the article, and go read Fr. Acervo's comments, one of the most poignant points that he makes is:

If the sanctuary looks like a stage or if the church looks like an auditorium, it's hard for the Mass to not look like a show...Heaven is not perpetual entertainment.  It is perpetual adoration.  Architecture should fill us with awe so that we can experience this foretaste of heaven.

The hard question is this, what do we do if our parish church does have a Sanctuary that looks like a stage?

5 Ways Your Parish Can Improve Its Sacred Space

Matt over at Shrine of the Holy Whapping has posted a "How-To" instructional on 5 easy ways (concepts) that any parish can follow to improve their Sacred Space. All of his advice is practical and can be implemented easily and best of all, over time. In other words, his advice takes into account the fact that most parishes don't have millions of dollars to renovate their parish "Extreme Home Makeover Style" and therefore his advice comes in a form that can be implemented at most parishes.

Why "Improve" your Sacred Space? Well unless you are fortunate enough to go to a BEAUTIFUL parish already, then you probably go to a church that in the last 40 years has undergone either renovation or is newly built in the modern-auditorium style. Lately, the faithful have been clamoring for a more Sacred and reverent place for God.

His post is worth reading, and is a very straightforward piece. I suggest that folks print out the post and send it in, or take it in to their local pastoral council, or Pastor. But remember, if you want change, you will have to get your hands dirty, so be willing to either do the work or write a check.

His post is here:

Five Things Any Parish Can Do To Improve Sacred Space

(Church: after simple changes)

Here is the quick list (with my commentary):

1. Rearrange Furniture:
• This is the easiest to do.  The point is to be intentional about what you do and liturgically sound. Most Sanctuaries are "random" at best. His advice is small changes to make the Sanctuary more focused on the important things: (for those keeping score at home) The Altar and the Tabernacle. Bringing the Tabernacle "in-line" with the Altar and the Crucifix is an easy start. The Sanctuary should be "useable" in the sense that people walk around in it throughout Mass, and do so in a pretty set pattern. The Altar, Tabernacle, Priests chairs, and altar servers seating should be placed in logical areas and directions.
2. Consider a New-Color Scheme:
• This is a simple change. Add some color and texture to the walls. The posters main point here is, because many parishes have white or grey walls running throughout the church, they have a very institutional and cold feeling. Whitewashed walls aren't very visually appealing. They also don't draw people to the Sacred. Use patterns, textures, and break-up for areas of large uninterrupted color.
3. Add New Paraments and Hangings:
• This is dangerous advice to give to churches, especially with the fondness for FELT that has be acquired in the last few decades. His point is to use hangings in a way that create a new visual look to the church at a low cost, and in some cases to cover other "problems." We aren't talking "liturgical" colors here necessarily; instead we are taking more semi-permanent hangings, therefore he suggests that colors should be used that are more harmonious to the overall look and feel in the church.
4. Put In a New Floor
• This is probably the most "expensive" piece of advice. Carpet is bad. It kills sound, it looks "domestic" and the pattern looks outdated the day that it is new. Not to mention the fact that it gets dirty, and for health reasons should be cleaned way more often than it is. I know in Alaska, carpet is used because there is this thought that it is "safe" in terms of slipping. (Because of all the snow and ice.) Yet, this doesn't have to be done, lock, stock and barrel. Start with the Sanctuary. Use "various" flooring in different parts. The main aisle, near or around statues, etc. The point is you are trying to make the church look more Sacred.
5. Re-Organize Well-Meaning Clutter 
• More is not More, and Less isn't always More. The advice here is: taking things away can make things look bland and bare, while adding things, such as statues, to bare areas might just look cluttered. The point is to use a logical relationship between art and structure to create a look and "feel" of Sacred space.

Finally, he gives on last over-arching piece of advice:

Work with what you have, and don't work against it. You may not be able to turn your 1950s A-frame church into Chartres, but if you try to find art that harmonizes with its perhaps now rather quaint attempts at futurism, while at the same time seeking to reconnect it with tradition, the result may have a pleasing consistency to it. Simply dropping garish plaster statuary in a dull modern church results in a museum diorama of the history of American Catholic bad taste. Try instead to find common ground, while at the same time ennobling it in some fashion. Many of the examples of the "other modern" we have showcased on this website may give you ideas. While it may lack the grandeur of Rome or Florence, it can still become a beautiful, unified expression of the Faith.

My advice is to re-evaluate your parish every 3-5 years. This doesn't mean make BIG changes every 3-5 years, it just means re-evaluate. Think about how often you re-decorate your home. I don't mean new furniture and new carpet, I just mean a re-evaluation, and yes buying a new home counts. I would say most folks do it more frequently than 3-5 years. So, why wouldn't we do the same with our parish? Again, the point isn't to stay "modern" or in "fashion" it is to ensure that the space, the church, is Sacred. Little things help and can move toward the Sacred.

Lastly, change is hard for people to accept. My advice is the more regularly you change, add, or remove small things the more comfortable people will get with the idea. This doesn't mean to change for change's sake, it just means that there is no time like the present. Also, Catechesis on the "WHY" of the change is very important. It will explain to people WHY the change is being made, and settle in their hearts a bit the change. Again, change is difficult for many to accept, unless of course the change is POSITIVE and DESIRED. If you explain that the DESIRE comes from GOD, and the POSITIVE is that the new "look" creates a more Sacred and Worship-Worthy space, people will be much more likely to be on board. Remember, you can't please everyone... but we are only looking to please one person here: God.

Homebases of Learning

After the Oxford Debate formally finished this morning, the assembled took three questions -- two from the audience and one from online.

Richardson has a great observation about Jupp's inability to answer one of the questions and what it implies about his understanding of what's really going on in ed tech.

It would be enough to write the guy off. After all, buildings? As 'houses of learning'?

But, it's funny: despite the fact that I'm surrounded by all of this technology and it allows me to work beyond or even without the walls of that old school building, I'm still in favor of having a building, a homebase, some physical space where your own mind rather than your digital device can develop memory and love and pride.

That's not to say that you can't develop those things on-the-go, but I'm still a sucker for having a 'homebase'.

A 'homebase' is a safe place you can always return to. The doors are not locked. And they swing both in and out. A 'homebase' is a place where you don't always feel like a tourist.

I guess the bigger point related to so many of our schools is that they are not 'homebases'.

I see a future where we treat the school building as a community headquarters.

Students and teachers do not always have to be together in the building; and world travel, virtual learning, and global networking are encouraged. But the building still remains the place where we can gather as a local community with our neighbors and families. It's the place where members of our community who have been off on wild travels can return to tell us what they found out there. It's the place where we can gather to share something you can't share online: real smiles, real laughter, real hugs, and high-fives.

Because that's important stuff; it's stuff that teaches us how to live with one another.

If we really wanted to walk the walk and not just blame the talk, we'd sit down and rearrange how we organize our streets. Our neighborhoods. Our cities, suburbs, and farms. Because how we are spatially, geographically, and architecturally organized directly effects how we teach. And how we learn.

Buildings are important. I agree with Jupp that a school-building can be a 'house to learning'. But not if we don't take the broader implications of architecture and urban planning seriously.

I went to a high school situated on a campus. We had six main buildings. Underclass, Upperclass, Cafe, Performing Arts, Field House, and an old tower.

My sisters went to a school where everything was stuck in one fortified brutal building.

I have deep feelings and memories of places on my campus. They still inspire my memory.

What does that fortified brutal high school my sisters went to inspire?

As we talk about the integration of technology into the learning experience, we also need to talk about the re-examination of school architecture. Let's take what Jupp calls those 'houses of learning' and make them 'homebases of learning'.