One of the most visible and surely most controversial effects of the
Second Vatican Council is the radical restructuring of existing churches,
many of considerable historic and artistic merit. No action can stir up
bitterness and create division within a parish more quickly and deeply than
the announcement of plans to renovate the church. In the dispute that so
often arises, both sides appeal to documents from the council, the post-
conciliar period and from local bishops' conferences. Opposing positions
both claim justification in legislation and decrees. But these official
statements need a clear reading and interpretation.
For example, the "Third Instruction on the Correct Implementation of the
Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy," issued by the Congregation for Divine
Worship on September 5, 1970, directs that "...all the churches should be
given a definite arrangement which respects any artistic monuments,
adapting them as far as possible to present day needs." A little thought
about the syntax of that statment makes it clear that the preservation of
artistic monuments is given priority over adaptation to present needs. A
check of alternative translations into English gives no reason to alter
that interpretation.
Perhaps the most telling statement issued from Rome is the relatively
obscure circular letter, "Opera artis," sent to the presidents of the
national conferences of bishops by the Congregation for Clergy on April 11,
1971. That letter addresses specifically the care of the Church's artistic
and historic heritage, and contains the following: "Disregarding the
warnings and legislation of the Holy See, many people have made unwarranted
changes in places of worship under the pretext of carrying out the reform
of the liturgy and have thus caused the disfigurement or loss of priceless
works of art." That same letter directs that "...bishops are to exercise
unfailing vigilance to ensure that the remodelling of places of worship by
reason of the reform of the liturgy is carried out with the utmost
caution."
Finally, one is justified in deriving conclusions about the policy of the
Catholic Church by observing the treatment of historically and artistically
important churches in the direct control of the Vatican. In those churches,
including the major basilicas of Rome, virtually no alteration has been
carried out in response to liturgical reform, and, in fact, in some cases
Mass is still said at the pre-Vatican II altar, with the priest facing away
from the people. This is not cited to advocate that practice, but to
demonstrate the conservative approach of the Vatican itself to liturgical
renovation.
It seems to me that there is a simple answer to the apparent conflict
between statements in various documents, and that is that directions
concerning the appropriate character of worship spaces do not necessarily
apply equally to new buildings and existing artistically and historically
valuable churches. One searches in vain for "noble simplicity" (called for
in "General Instruction of the Roman Missal") in the basilicas of Rome, the
baroque churches of southern Germany, or in the Victorian churches of the
United States, but such churches should not be substantially altered.
"Noble simplicity" is obviously an expression of a design ethic of our own
time ("Less is More"), and as such may well be a valid goal for today's
architects--or perhaps for the architects of twenty years ago,
architectural theories being subject to change. Any attempt to apply the
contemporary idea of "noble simplicity" to older buildings inevitably
attempts to apply the design philosophy of our own day to the accomplished
art of another, and that attempt is always a philosophical anachronism.
Admittedly, the documents cited above, especially the circular letter, are
of lesser standing than the constitution on the sacred liturgy. But used as
guidelines for interpreting the more important documents, and given that
advocates of "radical renovation" find supportive material in what is
called "generalization," we are free to point out that interpretation
leading to radical renovation is directly at odds with the interpretation
of the Vatican itself, as demonstrated in writing and in practice.
In conclusion, one must respect the past and its art as a heritage given
to us to use and to preserve. New structures and new expression in all the
media must reflect the need, the style and legislation of the present time,
but to destroy the past in the name of liturgical reform is not only
contrary to the legislation itself but to common sense as well.
