Could you be a cloistered religious in an ugly monastery

[NadaTeTurbe]

So first : this is absolutely not a serious subject ! Thos are more very random thoughts I had recently.

We had this talk with a friend recently. We visited a monastery in our region who was built in the XIXth century, and who is very... ugly, neo-something, everything people hate about XIXth century art is here (very dark, without any soul, I could go on : it was really bad, especially in this part of the country where most church are from the early Middle Age and the prettiest in the country - I may not be totally objective here !). We started to talk about how hard it must be to be a religious in a monastery, specially cloistered, where you don't like the externals and how it looks. Specially in the beginning.

This led me to have some thoughts. I know in the church, we're not supposed to care about externals, like how a church looks, etc. I have been part of a Ignatian movement, and Ignatian are really into finding God everwhere, "but why do you need a church and a nice liturgy when you can find God in your garden, your school, and so on ?". But the truth is that we're only human being, and it matters. I know God used a church renovation to bring me back to a regular parish attendance. I know my prayer life is easier and less of a figh when I have externals - icons, candles, quietness.
So I wonder how it would be to cultivate a strong spiritual life, from years to years, without being able use this mean of a nice building, or other externals (I know if I enter the community I'm close with now, it will be kind of hard for me to enjoy the liturgies because they don't use the kind of music I like. I kind of have irrational worry about it from time to time).

(our conclusion with my friend was that the nuns in this monastery are probably more mature than us !)

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

Ha ha, I've thought about it, and honestly I don't think I could be a cloistered nun in a really ugly monastery! It wouldn't have to be the most beautiful monastery ever for me, but it would have to have some beauty.

For me, though, and ugly monastery would be one that has that very American "new construction" look--e.g., cheap materials, a lack of design principles, and convenience and function prioritized over beauty in almost ever way.

Although the Benedictine nuns in Gower have a brand-new chapel, and it looks beautiful from the pictures at least.

And actually, as a real-life example for me...I'm long-term temporarily moved to a diocese across the country from where I was consecrated, to help run the tribunal here. The house I live in is an old Victorian house--it's a little run-down and needs some work, but it has good "bones" and lots of lovely little original details. 

The other CV here lives in an apartment in a newer building, which is basically just like a few box-shaped rooms. 

I've often thought that there is no way I could have coped with being so far away from family and friends if I also lived in a "boring" new apartment building instead of a beautiful old house! 

Edited to add: Of course, God gives you the grace to go where you're called...but sometimes these little human things are a big help!

[GraceUk]

I wouldn't like one of those so called eco friendly monasteries. I preferred the old ones. But sadly the upkeep is too costly in a lot of cases. I'd rather have an old ugly monastery than one of these awful modern ones.

[NadaTeTurbe]

Of course, everything depends on your calling. The vocation of some communities is to live in all kind of place, no matter their beauty, because they are to live with the poors, like them, in every place, so I'm not talking about this.

Honestly, from pictures, I think a lot of modern american monastery looks lovely - this cistercian abbey of the Mississipi have some very nice pictures and I remember visiting such a beautiful and modern trappist monastery in Québec. What I hate is when bloggers post triumphant pictures of a perfectly normal and nice church, where some people have added terrible sulpician statues of the Sacred Heart, fake gilding and marble, Disneyland-like paintings, and call it a "beautiful and traditional renovation, splendid, very traditional...". I hate these blogs with passion (wich is why I read them every month ahaha), and think that their "if it looks old it's pretty no matter what !" denote a real like of taste and education more than any contemporary construction. Sorry for the snobbish rant.

Btw, it makes me think of our parish priest who used to complain because we had two chuches : one dates back from the XIth century and is amazing, another is from the 60's and looks dated and dirty. Married couple always wants to be married in the first church and the priest would complain that on your wedding's day, you are supposed to think about God and the one you love rather than pictures and architecture, but isn't it easier to think about God when you're looking at a Virgin Mary statue rather than at water infiltration ?

[truthfinder]

Many moons ago, I was speaking with a Prioress who was in the process of building a permanent monastery for her community.  She warned me that while the new house was simple, there was some thought put into the aesthetic.  Other monasteries, of the same order, she warned, were very austere.  Seeing pictures from some communities online now, I have to agree.  Some communities have very sparse buildings, low ceilings, white-washed brick.  I would indeed find that very difficult to live with day-after-day and appreciated the thoughts her community had put into even little design details.  But I've seen enough communities to see that many times austerities in one way (sparse buildings) may be offset, often unintentionally and perhaps Providentially, in other ways (perhaps a monastery is lucky and gets good preachers). 

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

@NadaTeTurbeI agree, a lot of modern architecture, including Church architecture, can be quite beautiful! E.g., I think I could live in a monastery that was designed like the Matisse chapel.

But beautiful modern architecture it has its own design sense that has to be respected. You can't just stick "traditional" details in and expect it to harmonize.

But I'm not talking about artistic and thoughtfully designed modern architecture, I mean new construction that basically has no coherent design principles. 

This blog give examples of what I'm talking about when applied to private homes: https://mcmansionhell.com/ "McMansion" bad architecture is, I think, a uniquely American thing, though!  

@truthfinder I think I could also be happy in an austere monastery, as long as the austerity reflected some concern for design and beauty. 

[NadaTeTurbe]

Oh I love McMansion Hell ! I wish she would talk about church achitecture ! I'm not sure McMansion is uniquely an American thing, but in France there are so many laws and regulation about what you can built, wich colours and materials you are allowed to use in wich place, that it limits the impact (and home are just smaller).
The monastery we visited in Québec is Abbey Val Notre Dame. They made good use of the nature around them. It was amazing. The fraternité de Tibériade in Belgium built a very simple monastery in the 2000's. The church is made so that it looks like a farm, I love it : https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipOYE-0fp31RUvp1sOTsWXXCTS5hAgRI3B_RdaqJdEGrjBtypEbUEmoydiYKWCKklQ?key=a1FkWmV2eVpFMHRyenN4QjZPeUl6NVNxbEhXeEJ3

and yes, sometimes "austerity" is more about "we really didn't have the budget" than anything else.

[Sponsa-Christi]

Ok, I'm not sure I could deal with my community's chapel looking like a barn, LOL! But their refectory (I think? The place with all the natural stone) is beautiful.

But if a barn-Church fits their charism, then good for them! I suppose it would work very well for Christmas eve Mass at least!

[truthfinder]

2 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

 

@truthfinder I think I could also be happy in an austere monastery, as long as the austerity reflected some concern for design and beauty. 

I think austere is one thing, but some of the Carmels I've seen online, like Nada says, is "we ran out of money," And reminds me quite of prison cell blocks. But then maybe I'm much more attached to aesthetics (or at least natural light) than the nuns called to these places.

[deusluxmea]

6 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

This blog give examples of what I'm talking about when applied to private homes: https://mcmansionhell.com/ "McMansion" bad architecture is, I think, a uniquely American thing, though!  

We have McMansions in Australia too!

[Guest]

9 hours ago, GraceUk said:

I'd rather have an old ugly monastery than one of these awful modern ones

[Antigonos]

IMO, it must be very individual.  Some people have very heightened esthetic senses, just as some people care passionately about the quality of their food, while others are absolutely blind to wha's around them, and feel that food's just fuel and shovel in whatever's on offer.

One point which has to be remembered, for anyone discerning, is that where you enter may well not be where you spend most of your religious life.  You must have flexibility or you'll have, pardon the expression, a devil of a time!

[Nunsuch]

4 hours ago, Antigonos said:

 

One point which has to be remembered, for anyone discerning, is that where you enter may well not be where you spend most of your religious life.  You must have flexibility or you'll have, pardon the expression, a devil of a time!

The exception to this, of course, would be within the Benedictine order, where the vow of stability means that no one can be coerced to move from the place of their perpetual commitment....

[FrauMolly]

There is a Benedictine monastery in Germany with an ancient kind of rustic looking chapel. The floor was made of cobblestones which looked nice but the nuns always joked about how kneeling on the floor was such a penance that they didn't need any other form of penance. I think in the meantime they changed the flooring to normal floor tiles.

[JHFamily]

Been there, done that, hated it. 

I spent several months as a postulant in a community that I loved but a monastery that I hated. It was hard to put up with the odd, modern architecture and a "pretend" austerity. Simple fact is, that a lot of money could have been saved by using simple architecture and then something better than linoleum could have been used in the chapel. Sometimes I think that the use of the term "austere" is just a way to make an excuse for ugly. Austere can be simple and yet very beautiful.

That probably says more about me than the monastery...

[gloriana35]

I doubt I could be cloistered. London is a perfect example of places (many not religious) which has a mix of classic architecture and nightmarish buildings which resemble pickles and cigars.

My musing is of another sort. I have never understood why many Religious (and not only those in the cloister) think rural areas are mandatory for mother-houses, novitiates, and the like. When I entered the convent, one novice had a friend who was entering a monastery - near Marble Arch, I believe. (That is about as rural as I ever would get, but be that as it may...) She didn't understand how 'anyone could learn anything about herself in a big city.'

 

[truthfinder]

Indeed @gloriana35! Many cloistered contemplative communities, when they were ‘revivals’ in the 16th and 17th century were often quite urban. Except for communities which have a tradition of farming (Benedictines) I’m wondering if some don’t cause themselves troubles by being profoundly in the middle of nowhere. On the other hand, maybe it was a donation or foresight that in generations the city will encroach.  

[Antigonos]

On 4/30/2021 at 3:44 PM, Nunsuch said:

The exception to this, of course, would be within the Benedictine order, where the vow of stability means that no one can be coerced to move from the place of their perpetual commitment....

Thanks for the clarification, although I thought it was not universal among Benedictines, only in certain foundations.  What happens if a house opens a subsidiary convent, and sends sisters from the mother house?

[Nunsuch]

They cannot “send.”  No one can be forced to go without consent. People must choose to go. 
 

of course, your question is based upon a generally outmoded understanding of obedience — it’s not “following orders” in most communities today, but rather mutual listening to the will of God. 

[NadaTeTurbe]

16 hours ago, truthfinder said:

Indeed @gloriana35! Many cloistered contemplative communities, when they were ‘revivals’ in the 16th and 17th century were often quite urban.

Even the carthusians had houses in city - even though this is an order whom vocation *is* to live in isolation. (btw - the architecture of the American charterhouse of the Transfiguration leaves me very... perplexed, but I don't want to criticize it too openly because I'm sure such a venerable order know what they're doing and why they're doing it).

In community where you make a vow of stability, when there's a fondation, it very often goes along the line : "Well, the abbot of our federation wrote to us because we are opening a new monastery in Someplace. If you feel called to join this, please tell me." If no one answer, then superior will write back saying "sorry, we can't."