I had the good fortune to stop by Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church in the Chicago suburb of Glenview recently and saw a pretty remarkable thing: a Catholic church which used a colonial mode to “prove” that Catholic were Americans, well-designed traditional architecture, a cruciform plan with seating on four sides of the altar, a Blessed Sacrament chapel for private devotion which is nonetheless on the center axis and visible from the larger church, and a baldachino of sorts with a two-sided crucifix. All to a building dating to the late 50s by architects Barry and Kay, I believe. This building is proof that the “updates” of the Liturgical Movement and Vatican II did not require the “empty boxes” and industrial aesthetic of the 1970s.
The outside is surprisingly free of Catholic imagery, which would have been a particular preoccupation of the times. 60 years later its easy for us to forget the climate in which Catholics had to prove themselves as cultural equals, and where John F. Kennedy had to overcome suspicions that he was loyal to a foreign power like the Vatican. But one does see a very competent classical architecture in the colonial mode, with proper details and even some freedom within the tradition. The inside shows a lush sort of baroque-inspired Colonial architecture, with painted pews, light colors and clear glass as well as the closest thing to an Art Deco-Colonial “baldachino” that I’ve ever seen. It’s clear that the design was affected by the movement in the 30s and 40s to remove any obstacles to clear sight lines to the altar, while maintaining the primacy of the altar itself and the crucifix above it. Behind the altar is a daily Mass chapel where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved. This allowed for Mass to be offered versus populum or ad orientem while giving a noble place for reservation of the Blessed Sacrament. On Sundays, the chapel can be used for overflow seating because the very traditional wooden pews have a seat back which adjusts like a train seat and the baldachino has a corpus on both sides of the cross.
There are some who see this effort as Americanization and reserved Colonial Willamsburg-inspired “good taste” as something of a sell-out. But strangely, this sort of high-level design is currently so far above the standards of today’s church design that it looks remarkably traditional. Some more photo’s to enjoy: the rectory as a replica of George Washington’s home, Mt. Vernon, the narthex interior with portraits of important colonial Catholics, and other nice details. Enjoy.
July 19, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Interesting! Thanks for the pictures. I've never walked into this church, but it looks from the pictures as though the architects, as well as those who planned and created the interior, managed to implement American architecture in a way that serves the sacredness of a space where Christ is reserved in the Blessed Sacrament and where the Holy Mass is offered. It's a welcome sight after having seen so many parish churches that were hard to distinguish from the Protestant churches I attended growing up.
July 19, 2009 at 11:57 pm
It's pretty, and it's clearly a Church rather than, say, a public speaking hall.
The Crusifix actually has both cross and Jesus.
A little lacking in color for my tastes, but what color there is is rich.
I think it would lift up your heart to walk into it– which is basically the base-rule for churches in my mind. ;^p
Nice.
July 20, 2009 at 12:43 am
What a gorgeous use of the American tradition. Awesome.
July 20, 2009 at 2:51 am
And did you harass Molina-dog (FATHER Molina-dog) for failing to buy the cam pizza as promised?
July 20, 2009 at 5:31 am
Maybe it's my cultural bias, but this church just looks wrong. Not as wrong as "Our Lady of the Angels in LA wrong" but still wrong. Just too dumbed-down "Catholic lite" for my tastes.
July 20, 2009 at 6:09 am
You must check out the Chapel of the Immaculate Conception at Mundelein Seminary in Mundelein, Illinois. It may be the inspiration for OLPH Church. Cardinal Mundelein built the chapel in the 1920s with the same desire to show that Catholicism and Americanism were compatible, The chapel is gorgeous – fully American Colonial/Georgian architecture outside, and many Roman details inside.
July 20, 2009 at 6:35 am
Thanks for the pictures.
July 20, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I agree that it is a little lacking in "stained glass" for my taste…but clearly a beautiful church…unlike so many in "Ugly As Sin" that chose to use the Protestant paradigm of meeting hall with removable seating…
July 20, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Absolutely fantastic! Thanks for posting this.
July 20, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Elizabeth my opinion/point exactly. I think this was the begining of the Protestant revolution in our church. It's almost like some errant group of traitors cozying up to the heretic saying, "yes, Massah! See? We good Americans too! yes suh! Anything you say, Massah!"
And just look where that got us. The buildings just got more and more Protestant and the people got further and further away from church teaching to the point where a large segment of the "Catholic" population of the US elected a pro-abortion president.
If no one else can see a cause and effect here then I'm sincerely at a loss.
July 20, 2009 at 11:18 pm
I there is a difference between proper inculturation and improper inculturation… wanting to be culturally American is not the same thing as wanting to be Protestant. In proper inculturation, all that is opposed to Catholicism must be rooted out, and all that is good in the culture is to be elevated and completed. I don't think that just because this church isn't Gothic means that Catholics were going down the slippery slope toward Lutheran-inspired meeting houses. There are plenty of Protestants who worship in Gothic churches…
July 21, 2009 at 2:58 am
While it may be true that there are Protestants worshiping in "Gothic" churches, that is, churches built from the 12th to 16th centuries, it must be remembered that they were originally Catholic churches and were very detailed in hagiography. In countries which became Protestant (i.e. the UK, Netherlands, Nordics etc) the statuary, painting, tabernacles etc were destroyed/covered over thus eliminating the actual structure's ties to Catholicism. In other cases, the buildings were simply destroyed (as was the case throughout England) because they were simply "too Catholic" to salvage for Protestantism. So, I really don't see your point.
July 21, 2009 at 2:57 pm
I'm not talking about intital reformers using old Catholic churches, I'm talking about almost every Prebyterian, Episcopalian, Methodist and even some Baptists who built Gothic Revival churches in the 19th century in the US. Sdaly, giving in to the medievalist revival culture never made them Catholic.
July 21, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Gothic revival is different than Gothic…400 years different. A Gothic revival church built by Protestants will not have the same orientation, hagiography or traditional architecture which was designed to evoke a specific message there. Once again, you miss the point. Something that merely "looks" Gothic or Catholic to someone who does not know any better doesn't have the same impact. Pretending Catholicism is "just as good" or "can pass" as Protestantism is wrong on so many levels.
July 21, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Medieval English style: good.
Early 20th century American: a vile blight and you're going to hell if you like it, you bloody protestant.
Got it!
July 23, 2009 at 1:13 am
Why do hostile, Anonymous? Foxfier: perfect response!
July 23, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Its a fairly beautiful church. I wish there were more like it, especially out west.
– Father M