Sacred Spaces are Mortal Like Us

The recent fire in Notre Dame cathedral in Paris has me thinking about the nature of sacred space. Every church I have served has worshiped in a building that was at least a century old. My present church worships in a meetinghouse that is 211 years old this year. In New England, church buildings of this age are fairly common.

I have been annoyed with reporting about the Notre Dame fire. What's irritating is that the cathedral is described as Paris' most popular tourist destination. Yes, it is that. But primarily it is a place of worship, first and foremost. Obviously, many tourists go there, but first and foremost it is a church. Referring to it simply as a "tourist destination" trivializes the significance of this church.

A church is not just a place where people go to see art and architecture. It embodies something for those who feel a strong connection to it. It is a place where people have brought their children to be baptized, to get married, and to say farewell to loved ones. I had a conversation once with an elderly parishoner an he said he was sure that the walls of the church absorbed the sound of singing, of preaching and the reading of scripture, and of children laughing. He said he could feel the presence of people from the past. I agreed.

Any sacred space, whether it's a storefront church in a poor city, a New England meetinghouse, or a cathedral such as Notre Dame, mediates a connection between us and God. Depending on our upbringing and aesthetic sensibilities, some sacred spaces will work for some but not for others. That's inevitable. It's important, though, to respect someone else's sacred space even if it doesn't speak to you.

Notre Dame is such a place for the people of France. Cynics will point out that the billionaires who have pledged large donations will get nice tax breaks. That's true, and I'm sure that the Church will happily take the donations. They'll need it. Apparently donations have topped 1 billion. That should do it. I made a donation to the black churches in Louisiana instead. The rich people will take care of Notre Dame.

The three churches in Louisiana? I'm sure that architecturally they are forgettable. But that doesn't matter. They are gathering places for people to worship God and to give thanks for God's blessings. They probably worship in a way that I would not find evocative. It doesn't matter. Those church buildings are just as important to their congregations as Notre Dame is to France. On top of that, the destruction of Notre Dame appears to have been the result of an accident related to renovations and restoration on the roof. Unfortunate, but not intentional. The destruction of the church buildings in Louisiana were the result of hatred. I can't abide by that. I do not accept it.

France's President Macron's promise to rebuild in five years is totally unrealistic. This isn't just a matter of setting up forms and pouring concrete and slapping a roof on it. It will take them five years to just thoroughly inspect the remaining structure and reinforce what needs support with appropriate materials, construct a temporary roof, do an archaeological dig in the cathedral to recover damaged material as evidence for the restoration, and come up with a plan. Long term, as one historian suggests, is that they will probably have to take down and rebuild the vaulted ceiling because, although most of it did not collapse, it undoubtedly was weakened by the fire. Fire stresses stone and weakens it. This building is made out of limestone, which is especially vulnerable to damage and cracking from high heat. The vaulting certainly did its job of protecting the interior from the worst of the damage from the fire above, but it may not be salvageable. Just because most of it is still in place does not mean it can be kept. I'm sure the engineers are on high alert with the vaulting to watch for any signs of a potential collapse. If they decide that it is strong enough to remain in place they may decide to put in temporary supports while the rebuilding of the damaged sections of the vaults can be done.

Then, there will be infighting between those who want to restore it to its appearance just before the fire, and those who want to include more contemporary features. That should be good for a year or two. If I had a say I would suggest to maintain the original structure, reproduce what is damaged beyond repair, but leave open the possibility of contemporary elements such as new stained glass windows if the original ones are not salvageable, and some contemporary elements in sculpture if stonework has to be replaced. And, if the side chapels are damaged and need to be rebuilt there is always the possibility of contemporary elements there. This could be done in a tasteful manner in keeping with the general appearance of the building. And, they could certainly replace the roof with one made out of a composite fireproof material, and make the supports out of something that is similarly fireproof and lightweight enough so as to not stress the stone structure. Wood is not out of the question, but it would most likely have to be laminated and treated wood with the lack of availability of trees of the size that would be needed. Wood can survive a fire depending on the temperature. The ancient wooden support structure didn't stand a chance because of its age and dryness.

Sacred spaces change with time. Not only do they age, but they also need repair. A building as old as Notre Dame has gone through many alterations and repairs, some to restore what was already there, and some to update the building to suit contemporary tastes and uses. New England churches go through this. Our church has a music room behind the organ, which is in the choir loft opposite the pulpit. Originally that room would have been open to the rest of the sanctuary, but at some point it was walled off when a pipe organ was installed. Similarly. the palladian window behind the pulpit, which is now walled in and contains quotes from the New Testament in Old English lettering, was originally a glass window. Buildings change and they age.

The engineers and architects in charge of the Notre Dame restoration will have to recruit and train the workers who will ultimately spend the rest of their lives working on the restoration. I would anticipate 20-30 years at least. All this will be to restore the church from the damage of a 12 hour period in a building that is 850 years old and took over a century to build. That's also the nature of sacred space. It is mortal, like we are. We hope and expect that buildings such as Notre Dame will abide forever so we can enjoy them, but they age and change just like we do.