Not a parody

I know where he got the idea for this monstrosity. He took his plastic K-mart wast basket, turned it upside down, and "VOO-WAH-LAH" Cathedral!!!

Holy s--- *covers her mouth before saying something profane*

Just WHAT is wrong with these people's sense of aesthecism? And what's this joke about the center altar? Where's the tabernacle? (Wait, don't tell me, is probably outside this 'church')

Is it my imagination, or the church's inside looks a lot like the Jedi Council in Star Wars, except bigger and with more seats, and with more of a 'galactic' feeling to it? This could very well be a spaceship's control room as well...

"So if Oakland and L.A. were having an ugly cathedral contest, who would win?"
I don't know, but the number of losers cannot be counted.

I like that interior. The focus will truly be on the Sacrifice that is re-presented to and for us in the Eucharist. I do have concerns over the unknown location of the tabernacle and the cross without a corpus (a processional crucifix can work here). I also don't like chairs; maybe they will be changed to pews.

I still think the edifice of the LA cathedral is ugl, though.

It made me think of an upside down laundry basket (and I think these guys are being taken to the cleaners)...

The round Church doesn't focus the community on the Holy Eucharist. It closes it in on itself. The priest becomes the focus of attention. He is "performing" for the community. The traditional cruciform structure gives the proper sense of corporate sacrifice. The community is not there to watch the priest do something. They are there to join the priest in offering to God an eternal sacrifice. Most of the Mass is spent addressing God himself. The Church should express this reality. We are addressing God, not the altar. The only time we focus on the altar is when the Host is consecrated; and there is no need for a center altar in that case, because the priest holds the host up (during the consecration itself, and then during the agnus dei).

I find Mass at churches "in the round" mightily distracting... I really want to pay attention to Our Lord, but with so many other faces staring back at me from across the way, it's difficult. Backs of heads (a la rectangular church, all pews in straight rows) are far less distracting.

So where's the stand for the overhead projector?

At least Robert Schuller could be a con-celebrant if they're in a pinch... he'd feel right at home.

Oh..but this "cathedral" will be just dandy for continued leotardation!

Here's a design that lost: Oakland Cathedral.

Did you know that it has a Retractable Roof? I wonder if people will be tailgating before services?

Am I the only one who thinks this looks like the smokestack on a nuclear power plant?

It reminds me inexplicably of the unfinished Death Star in Return of the Jedi.

This "thing" is just plain spooky! Ugly doesn't capture its alien environment. I expect that L. Ron Hubbard will appear or Edgar Cayce. Possibly Elvis.

I would forbid anyone under eighteen from entering this thing in order to prvent nightmares and lifelong psychological damage.

As a matter of fact, I will now sprinkle my monitor with holy water.

This is going to be blinding in the day. I know, my high school had a similarly blinding circle of glass design, even after they painted the glass with black to cut down on the greenhouse effect.
It was originally designed to have clear glass as well. Here's what it looks like now:

http://www1.priory.org/

I think it's a very nice looking, modern-designed, office building. Or maybe a museum of some sort.

Wait, a cathedral? *faints*

Oh dear!

Does Bishop Vigneron know about this? I would hope he would have the sense to notice that the tailor (er architect) is trying to sell him a new "suit of clothes." This is the ugliest thing I have seen in a while (perhaps even worse than the RajMahal/TajMahoney in L.A.)

Though not a church or a chapel, when Mundelein Seminary was seeking to build a new library, they first proposed a steel and glass structure (to blend in perfectly with the early american Georgian Architecture of the rest of the campus!) An influential donor/benefactor managed to help the administration in changing their mind and they built a worthy building in the end. Unfortunately, I guess this is a settled issue! The seating in the round is a disaster especially! Maybe they will suspend the tabernacle from the cieling above the altar! ugh.

Does anyone else see a certain "feminine" aspect to this failed design? As for the sifi angle, take a look at the crashed starship in Alien where the eggs were encountered...

Hi,
It's another Crystal Cathedral. I could see the thing from my kitchen window when I lived in California. It's a BIG bird averary. No kidding, it's a hot house with a lot of birds in it.

AWEFUL!

John

Yeah, the Cathedral does kinda look like a vulva.

This may be appropriate. The Church is both Mother and Bride. I would argue that there are at least a couple of sexual imageries present in the symbolism and rituals of the Church; for instance, the blessing of the holy water font with the paschal candle at the Easter Vigil.

I find this rather beautiful; not at all perverted.

Still, the Death Star--I mean, Cathedral!--is still a monstrosity.

Funny! I remember a similarly beautiful classic design which bid on the L.A. Cathedral job and was rejected (that architect was also from Notre Dame!) It seems the only good coming from Notre Dame is the school of architecture, and many bishops don't pay any attention to that!

Well, the good thing is that if the exterior ever needs renovations, they've already got the scaffolding set up. As for the interior, the planet Krypton sets from the 1978 Superman: The Movie come to mind, only larger and "more airy." Ain't nobody gonna get claustrophobic in there!

I thought it was a joke at first... Yikes.

Is there some sort of restriction against stone or marble nowadays?

What's with all the lighting rods lining the top of the building? Are thunderstorms a big problem in Oakland?

Well, at least half the people at Mass will be facing in the same direction as the priest, regardless of where he stands. So will the priest have to keep running around and around the altar to keep from "having his back to the people"? Or what? (Maybe they could have the whole central circular section rotate like a giant lazy Susan?)

I just hope no one goes snow-blind in there.

But if it was a church that looked like a church, people might mistake it for a church and not a faith community ;)

Lord, don't people enjoy havingn things to look at?? you know like a variety in the archetecture, decoration, or at least COLOR SCHEME? schnikies.

Quick, somebody call the Papal Nuncio!

Why a basket? Doesn't St. Paul tell us not to keep the light of Christ under a bushel?

Please... God.... make it stop....

Actually... I think it's quite artistic and beautiful.

For a stadium.

"BEER here!"

It needs to have all the flags of the world atop those lightening rods though.

Well, I would have to see it in person but it reminds me of shark teeth from the pictures, big scary ones, inside and out. Maybe they got their inspiration from Jonah and the Whale? I think I might like the LA one better. Looks like I'll have to take a cathedral tour some day when I go to California. I wonder if that design is a very efficient use of interior space? I don't know, not being an architect. Can someone architecturally literate address the use of space issue?

The top looks like a venus fly trap! lol

What a disgrace, a 131 million dollar piece of heresy. That is 131,000,000! Firstly, how many people could we help with that. Second, it is ugly as hell. Third, whats so wrong with a traditional church, a truly beautiful one. Does anyone make beautiful churches anymore? Fourthly, when people finally get past this odd vision of beauty it will still be here. We will have to deal with it :-(

"It may give me nightmares" indeed!

I agree... Architecture at Notre Dame is the epitome of the classical education... Not only is it one of the most respected overall programs in the country, it is also dedicated almost entirely to a "restorationist" brand of classical architecture. As for none of the bishops looking to Notre Dame, that is mostly true at least. Archbishop Burke, to my knoweldge, is using a design by one of ND Architecture's most esteemed professors for the new basilica being built in his old diocese of LaCrosse, Wisconsin. He is on the board of directors for that basilica.

I wonder if the Diocese will actually be able to afford the heating and air conditioning costs

" ..Based on the aerial view Instead of cruciform we have football form and I have to admit that this design makes me call out Hail Mary! ...[jeff miller]

"Does anyone else see a certain "feminine" aspect to this failed design? .... [John Hearn]

" ... This may be appropriate. The Church is both Mother and Bride. I would argue that there are at least a couple of sexual imageries present in the symbolism ...." [Eric Giunta]

I suggest that Sheela na Gig has been called forth once again .... where is St. Malaisse when you need him ......

Hmm. What would the AC costs be for such an overgrown greenhouse, albeit one that seems to have tinted glass? (And if it's as high as I'd fear, how Gaia-friendly is that supposed to be?)

On the plus side, being of glass and metal means that they'll probably have to build another one in a few decades. Expensive but necessary. [But if they did it right the first time...]

We should borrow the Feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy from our brothers in the East. I thought we dealt with iconoclasm a while ago.

white is boring. but when I'm bored, I can look out of the windows at all those pedestrians... Jesus is in them too!

Both buildings are ugly. That is beyond dispute. Oakland looks like a roller coaster at Six Flags. L.A. looks like a Soviet nuclear power plant. What they have in common is that neither of them is recognizable as a “domus Dei,” a house of God.

If the proposed Oakland Cathedral had been built in L.A., it could have been named: "Sick Fags Over Los Angeles."

Dear Phillip,

You believe this example of architecture to be "heresy." That is a large charge to make. What is your basis for making such a claim?

Is it too late to get a petition drive going to stop them? Ground-breaking is still an early stage...

Andy - maybe the answer to your question can be found in the document -
Architecture and Theosophy, An Introduction
Susan R. Henderson
Syracuse University ...

just a suggestion .....

"Now imagine that basket wrapped in opaque glass. In daylight the glass is a veil, shrouding what's within; but at night, light seeps out through the basket and the veil, glowing for all to see. " [promotion]

continuing w/the "eco" theme ..... how much will it cost to keep "lights on" in order to justify the viewing of the "veil[ed]" beauty??

Does anyone no anything about the architect?? Background ....

This is all part of the movement to slowly lessen the importance of tradition, destroy the catholic identity, take away the signifigance of the mass, and so on. In addition they are spening so much money that does not need to be spent. They could easily make a very beautiful Cathedral for a fraction of the price and use the rest of the money for something good. How many people could be helped if they just spent even 20 million. That is 100 million for others. Though it is just a building, the ideas behind things like this are not always good. Maybe heresy is not the best word, but that's all it comes off to me as.

Bout of nausea over...can now write.

No quite as ugly as the armadillo of Los Angeles, but close enough. I kept wondering where the goal posts were.

Seriously, this looks like a temple of humanism built to worship us, not God.

We need to acquire a theology that sees the church building not as a meeting hall or an artistic expression, but as an icon of heaven. (If heaven is like this place, frankly I am not interested.)

As an aside, the church I am pastor of is a church in the round. It is a nightmare to celebrate and preach in. Fortunately, we start construction on the new building in August.

The Wanderer is going to have a field day with this one.

Dear pml,

I do not understand the connections you are making with the article you suggest I read. Please help me to see why you recommended it.

Dear Fr. Erik,

You give another reasonable criticism of the interior. Thank you for your thoughts.

" ... This is all part of the movement to slowly lessen the importance of tradition, destroy the catholic identity, take away the signifigance of the mass, and so on. ..." [philip]

Can we say ..
Lausanne Conference Thailand
Cell Churches
House Churches
Mega Churches
Emergent Churches
non-denominational Churches .......
reformation ....

strip, strip, strip, strip.........

Comment line from Tim Boucher: Occult investigator blog:
http://www.timboucher.com/

" .... Though a very loose term, Wikipedia says that the
Emerging Church generally follows a more postmodern approach:

This has led to a climate where many individual Christians are
deconstructing each area of their Christian faith and analysing it
piece by piece. Each individual experiences his or her own unique journey through this deconstruction process. One observed phenomenon is that many Christians subsequently start to reconstruct their Christianity thus finding a faith that, while basically Christian, is often distinct from the more established churches.

One definition of the Emerging Church is that it is the collective noun for the individuals who are emerging from this process of deconstruction and reconstruction of Christianity, or those who have joined groups being led by such individuals.

From that alone, I'm already very intrigued by the whole thing. It
sounds exactly like the process that occultists, New Agers, Wiccans, Neo-Pagans and others have been following for years. Maybe this means there will be more dialogue between these groups and Christians. Of course, the major issue will become the uniqueness of the Christ story. In either case, it seems like a GIGANTIC step forward from us- versus-them rigid reactionary fundamentalism. I only hope this movement gains ground ...."

Let us all sit in the circle .....

Dear Philip,

Forgive my misspelling of your name when I first addressed you.

Now, I need to ask about your thoughts that this "lessen[s] the importance of tradition, destroy[s] the catholic identity, take[s] away the signifigance of the mass, and so on." The change from Gothic to Baroque broke from the architectural tradition. Without it, we would not have architectural masterpieces that many cathedral from that era are. If composers did not break from tradition, we would not have the wealth of sacred music we have today. I am not seeing it. The way I see it, by placing the liturgy of the Eucharist at the physical center of the cathedral, the Sacrament inherently becomes the focus. Now, I would imagine hat the back section would be the place of reservation, as it is a smaller space. That is typical of many cathedrals.

Anyway, I babble here. I look forward to this discussion.

What disturbs me the most about this.... this... THING, is that is completely lifeless. Sterile. Empty.

Where are the images of the saints? Why is there no statue of the Holy Virgin Mary? Why is there no crucifix? This thing looks more like a spaceship than anything else! Not to mention the high costs of maintenance... I hope the diocese of Oakland has enough money to pay for the A/C inside this, and I hope the pastor buys enough dark glasses to pass to each member of the congregation, lest they go snow blind.

Veronica,

I don't like this "church" anymore than anybody else here, but does it actually SNOW in Oakland? If it does, excuse my ignorance of California (southern v. northern etc. etc.) but I thought, though it gets cold up there, that it never snowed in northern Cal. except in the mountains! So when you say "snowblind" are you talking in the same sense someone from, say, the U.P. would or are you just using it with the emphasis on blindess - in which case I would suggest an alternate word: ("snow")BLIND ?

I think Philip has said it best here. We as a church are being stripped of everthing we hold dear to us. First it was statues out the door, replaced with banners. Prayers at the end of the mass...gone. And now even the buildings we worship in are going to look like "white washed tombs". P U

ya know, the more I look at the inside photo, I think this will be an ideal place for "ecumenical" gatherings. No one will be offended ... there will be no need to hide or cover-up statues or a crucifix .... the building is "fluid, morphing, evolving" friendly, if you know what I mean.

However, the white modern columns remind me of shark teeth ... or ribs in the belly of a whale ....

oh, "snow blind" = "sun glare" perhaps.

Dare I? Oh yes...

What is wrong with you people? Are you stuck in the middle ages or what? This is a modern design for a modern church, get over it. You ask," where are the statues"? Do you need them? I think not. Are you stuck on idols?(Lord helps us)

If Christ is in your heart, what your worship space looks like does not matter. As long as Christ is present at mass, what more do you need.

Yes, I find this wonderful design and wish there was more like it. But then I'm just a modern artist with modern tastes living in the 21st Century.

God Bless...

Ugh this thing looks like the United Federation of Planets council chamebers. You'd think that they could hold off building it at least until we've made first contact with the Vulcans.

Does the local Una Voce chapter have anything to say about it? Perhaps we could start a paper/online petition with their help. There must be SOME way to keep this thing from being built. Why couldn't they look to Sacramento's Cathedral as a model? Why, why, why?!?

James,
It's because church archetecture is supposed to 'lift up our hearts' to God.
It's all very well to say that 'If Christ is in your heart, what your worship space looks like does not matter', but we are not just spiritual beings, we are physical as well. And, as physical beings, we are affected by our surroundings.

Father Totton:

"So when you say "snowblind" are you talking in the same sense someone from, say, the U.P. would or are you just using it with the emphasis on blindess - in which case I would suggest an alternate word: ("snow")BLIND ?"

LOL. I meant 'snowblind' to describe the sun glare one might experience inside this monstruosity of a church. Similar to people in the Artic, that have to wear goggles to avoid being blinded by the sun reflecting on the snow's surface. Since this thing is completely white, and surrounded by windows, one can only imagine what it would be like to be there at Mass at midday. You might even have to put on some sunblock before entering...

(Also, I'll admit that my English is still a bit limited. Lack of practice, I guess...)

"Yep, it’s designed to be the first cathedral with a retractable roof. No kidding."

http://www.dellachiesa.com/-/article?a=criticism-oakland

Does anyone know if the final design included a retractable roof and, if so, why?

Dear Maria,

I actually have an agreement with James. I do find this architectural design quite stunning and uplifting, especially if the glass is to be colored. Now, if I find it uplifting and you do not, then has the design met the stated goal of "'lift[ing] up our hearts' to God"? Thusfar, the majority of complaints I have read about this have been aesthetic. Only a handful have spoken about practicality (e.g., difficulties with preaching, interior temperature).

Interior design of churches has evolved over time. This is tradition, not Tradition, over which we squabble. I have faith that Bishop Vigneron is not leading his flock astray. He has acted within the principles of subsidiarity and of collegiality of bishops.

That's funny, Andy. As I recall, the Jews kept the basic interior design of the temple the same each and every time a new one was built. As far as evolution is concerned, do you mean to suggest that our Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox brethren have not "evolved" because their temples all have had the same interior design for thousands of years just like our churches did until a few short years ago? Frankly, the West has devolved, if anything. Iconoclasm is suddenly alive and well again in the Roman Church. I agree with the poster who suggested that celebrating the Sunday of Orthodoxy in the West might be beneficial for us.

Dear Gavin,

In the West, though, the architectural style has changed. We have Classical, Gothic, Baroque, Neo-Classical, Romanesque, etc. Pews are an addition. The communion rail that was at one point more like the iconostasis is likewise an evolution (the word "evolution" itself means change).

Iconoclasm on the rise? I can agree with you there, as history since the 1960's shows. Does iconoclasm truly refer to the interior design and architecture, or the lack of statues, icons, and other images of saints and blesseds? I'm not certain.

I do find this discussion amusing. I hear bad things about the new L.A. cathedral, which at least looks like a basic church design (i.e., it's rectangular) and not many people making those comments appreciated H.E. Mahony. Those same people thanks H.E. Vigneron for what he has done in Oakland, and now this broughaha comes along. It makes me wonder if the smoke in the sanctuary is on both sides of the aisle. I know I sin, so this is not me trying to pull a speck out of anyone's eye.

While some aspects of the architecture may have changed, the transition from Romanesque to Gothic, Gothic to Baroque, etc. never stripped the churches of the sense of the sacred. You will find statues honoring the saints in all these design schools. You will find a lot of things of grandeur pointing to heaven. While these "breaks with tradition" changed the style, the substance remained the same.

I cannot say the same for this monstrosity. It evokes nothing sacral. It is a triumph of commercialism and humanist/egoist triumphalism. In short, this cathedral design, more likely the product of an architect "artiste" with an overblown ego, is a disgusting sham. It can be called many things, but it must never be called a house of God.

Heck, it looks like something wherein you play the Imperial March for a processional.

Maybe it's not too late to look at the architects who designed the new Greek Orthodox cathedral being built there. At least it looks like a church. http://www.ascensioncathedral.org/

Dear Jonathan,

You are giving an aesthetic argument. This type of argument reflects your personal preferences. "It evokes nothing sacral" for you. For those of us which it does evoke something sacral, are we too to be ignored? The Ordinary of Oakland has determined this to be an appropriate design for a cathedral. I trust his judgment in this instance.

Further, people are complaing about the cost. Part of that is to fulfill the codes that require the building be eathquake proof. Another legitimate concern is: with all that glass, is the building truly safe?

I believe in my aesthetical sense that the glass would make the cathedral beautiful if it was colored.

What if I barf on it (involuntarily, of course, but merely as a result of looking at it)? That will give it some color.

wow, that is an ugly building... looks like michael s. rose is going to have to write Ugly As Sin 2. what the heck is going out in California.

Hi. I like the design of that new Cathedral. I don't know if it should be the design, but I suspect it is no more shocking that the first Romanesque or Gothic Cathedrals might have been.

The Basilica model that more or less set the form for Church architecture in the West began to be adopted after the conversion of Constantine in the 4th century.

There is nothing touching the Creed in Church design as such.

The big problem would be if a design changed the way the Church prays somehow.

Dear Michael,

Many will now try to tell you that this will change the way people pray.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who likes this design.

That is not a good design for a cathedral. First those ikea seats. Where is the kneelers? there's none in the model, that's a simple but important detail. Since the design of the seats isn't straight, when they add kneelers later it will reduce the capacity dramatically. My first impression of the interior is cold. frigid cold. bright but cold. If they say the vertical planks are for shades, it doesn't show that idea in the model, use sunscreen to go to Mass? ridiculous. I dislike the interior so much I even doubt even faith based community will built this design. It is definitely not an inviting place for people to take refuge in. Seriously, the locals should form a Sash Movement to protest this thing. I would.

Dear Andy,

Thanks for the comment.

I think making final decisions on such things as a design like this would a very involved process. At some point someone who has the competence and the authority to make the decision would have to be trusted to make the right one. Someone mentioned the Bishop above. He would seem to be the right person.

But I do recognize there are many elements involved. I happen to like the way it looks from the outside. There is something stunning and beautiful about it. Like Cathedrals of old, it is meant to be noticed and contemplated for what the architectural statement is saying theologically. I guess it is even meant to be enjoyed just for the way it looks. And it could also be a statement to the culture, as if to say, "Yes, we build beautiful things in this world too, more beautiful than your square office building. We do this because there is something inside that is very important. Yes, it is so important we will even spend lots of money, time, energy, thought, etc. to do it".

I wasn't thrilled with the way it looked inside. Someone asked about kneelers. To me the Church praying includes actual people kneeling to pray, and I like that. On my first glance, the inside seemed almost too light. I'd like a bit of darkness, a feeling of solitude. I wish there were stained glass and saints as well. I want the whole history, the teaching, the great saints, letters on walls, etc.

I don't know how you balance everything. It takes a genius. If there is a modern Michelangelo or Bernini or Medieval Cathedral designer out there, I hope the Bishop would find him/her and hire that person. I don't mean making a medieval or Rennaissance Church building. I mean that kind of genius in the contemporary Catholic world.

Anyway, there are probably a million things that go into it, and my likes or dislikes would only be mine. If there were lots of other people feeling prayerful in it, praying in it, if liturgies had that - I'd like it even more. I would take that to be a sign of something too.

On the third hand, the place becomes prayerful if there are people praying in it, no matter what it looks like.

The more I think of this, the more mysterious it gets, the more complicated it gets. The outside looks good to me. The "whole" project? That's why the Bishops get paid the big bucks.

Hi Andy!
I'm glad you somehow find it 'lifts up your heart'.
Quite frankly, I don't. Aesthetically speaking, I find the outside ugly and the inside cold and dead. Modern architecture with all glass and metal and plastic somehow tends to have that effect on me.

I find it interesting that Michael said that, 'Like Cathedrals of old, it is meant to be noticed and contemplated for what the architectural statement is saying theologically', because I don't really see what it manages to say, theologically speaking.

It has done away with the symbolism that ecclesiastical architecture has developed over the centuries.

The only plus I can think of it having, theologically speaking, is the idea of the light radiating from the church, but, in practice, that would probably only happen at vigil services, and it does seem to sort of put the light under a bushel basket.

God bless!

"This type of argument reflects your personal preferences. "It evokes nothing sacral" for you. For those of us which it does evoke something sacral, are we too to be ignored?"

Well, while I do not know how this "cage" evokes any subjective sense of the sacred in anybody, I meant my statement to be objective. There is nothing celebrating sacredness and holiness in that place, save for a drab Protestant cross in the center hanging like a puppet. It evokes "conference room" or "convention center", or "Galactic Senate", but not "church". (Which lends to my puzzlement with how any can subjectively find sacredness here...perhaps, people who find convention cneters sacred?) There are no statues or sacramentals, no grandeur of the sacred befitting the God it is supposed to house.

Quite a few people MUST like it I reckon, or wouldn't there be 500,000 Alamedeans and Contra Costians revolting?

I'll betcha it's going to be a you-know-what to clean! Priests with black soled shoes scuffing up the white floor. We won't be able to find brides or altar servers against all that white, it'll be just faces and hands like maumenchante (sp??) theatre.

I saw an earlier post regarding kneelers, but how about those bucket seats? I'm trying to see the family of seven with their babies (who tend to fall asleep somewhere in the Mass), they usually spread out in a pew on their blankeys, and little ones usually nestle up against their Daddies and Mommies with their arms around each other... or is that frowned upon now? Maybe this cathedral wasn't meant for those cozy family types.

Since this is only an architectural model, I don't think the floor will necessarily be white. That's the positive side of things. But we have a reasonably small family (four children) and we wouldn't be able to sit together in the "front" row of this church. Perhaps families with children are not intended to attend such a place?

Even with fins or shades or whatever they have, the sun is likely to be a problem for the people facing the windows where the sun comes in (because it will still be very bright--that's the point, isn't it?) and the people with their backs to those windows (because they may get uncomfortably warm).

Leaving aside the question of the building's architectural significance (of which I believe it has plenty--all of it bad), I'm trying to figure out the purpose for the walled off area. Is it supposed to be a small chapel of sorts, or is it for the choir? And is that small box or lectern at the back of it the tabernacle?

Looks an awful lot like Superman's Fortress of Solitude to me.
Can't we get some Kryptonite for that thing?

I think it's stunning. As someone who lives in the Bay Area and will most likely be visiting this cathedral from time to time, I can't wait until it is completed. The faithful of the church in Oakland has not had a cathedral since 1989, since the Loma Prieta earthquake, which damaged the old cathedral and ultimately caused it to be condemned and torn down. The church in Oakland had to fight an unfriendly civic leadership and other local citizens unfriendly with the Catholic church just to purchase the land on which this cathedral will be built. The groundbreaking is something that this local community has waited for years. The people there are simply grateful for this gift: for a chance to finally worship with their bishop at a centrally designated location. Isn’t it rather funny that after the battles they had to go through with the secular folks up at city hall, they now have to contend with fellow catholics who are less than generous with their observations about their cathedral’s design?? Many people I have talked to in that diocese are actually proud of this cathedral and are simply grateful that soon they can worship around their bishop and around his chair. And isn't the preference of the local Church there what really counts, not our rather “small” comments? So, please, we here in the Bay Area have to deal with a lot of folks who are less than friendly with the church, and it doesn’t really build up the house and church of God to have fellow catholics talk thusly about their bretherens’ endeavors. Those outside the Church see your comments and think how petty we Catholic must really be. So, do take it easy.

regards,

vox

Wow, vox, is it really that bad out there? I saw an earlier posting on JPII (when he was Bishop of Krakov) having built the "ark" church in Nowa Huta, which I've seen and must say, don't care for. But you've got me thinking that maybe in hostile territories disguising our churches is better than not having one at all. I'm being genuine here. Is it getting like China, where priests are hidden and Mass is being conducted in basements? This is breaking my heart.

Teresa, I invite you to read more about the situation that is going on with the faithful in China and to realize how indeed more dangerous their situation there is compared with the faithful here in the Bay Area who merely have to deal with folks whom I have described as "less than friendly" with the Church--not outright martyr-makers. And if you are indeed aware of their more perilous situation there compared to the climate here in the Bay Area, then I must say I do not understand why the "broken-heartedness." With respect, I presume that expressing this "sentiment" of yours is a way perhaps of extending the gibing mood of the comments I have read, without any real genuinness or sincerity in it. Yesterday was my first visit to this blog, and so to the author of this blog, I must give my apologies and say that I am not familiar with the kind of mood, humor, or atmosphere of the comments or the posts. For myself personally, I am just glad that the ungenerous words I have read here are directed merely to aethetics, design, and architecture, and not to any substantial matters of faith and religion.

cheers,

vox

Oh Vox,
How horrible for you.
We had to sell our church some years ago (now we share Notre Dame de Grace church with the French parish). It wasn't especially a pleasant experience -- aside from the pain of having to leave the building, the people of the neighbourhood seemed to be as determined as possible to make it impossible to sell it. Well, that is a biased view, but they made is so that we couldn't sell it to developers (even though we had a condition that the church structure could not be changed), and that the rectory and garden could not be changed.
And then everybody else thought our community no longer exsisted.

I know the two situations aren't the same, but when you're going through something that's already difficult, even a little more makes it much harder.

I'm sorry if my comments have made things harder.

I'm glad your diocese will have a cathedral again.

No, no Vox, I was not being glib or making light. I was trying to express worry for you because I've heard of some places where groups like "Act Up," and such, actually attack churches. Your original mention of the unfriendliness of others surrounding you made me think of how such things in China and Poland can start. First, with begrudged permission to have a church -- but no visible (or significantly visible) identification is permitted (which, I'm recognizing in the design of your cathedral) -- and then progressing to full out prohibition of excersing one's faith. I welcomed your original post, since most of us posting likely don't live where you are. I expressed in an earlier a statement to others that surely those in Alemeda and Contra Costa must like the design or there would have been strong protest. I was trying to express empathy and failed. Perhaps I'm leaping way out of proportion here? Of course you are not at a level such as China, but I am authentically concerned for you and other Catholics if you are suffering, and I wanted to know more from you.

Love, Teresa

Well, if it really was so difficult for the diocese to buy the land and get permits to build a cathedral there, they are certainly getting their own back. They've managed to come up with a building design so ugly that it's the functional equivalent of mooning the entire downtown area. It's only a pity that it has to be Catholics who are guilty of inflicting it, and obliged to pay for it and use it.

tanks for sharing