Notre Dame 'is being turned into a woke theme park': Cathedral is being revamped with a 'discovery trail' and 'Christianity for dummies' exhibits, claim critics

Rome was corporate HQ, but Paris was a theological thought center of Western Christianity for centuries. Now the beauty that was constructed to draw people into the mysteries of faith are no more meaningful to the residents than Totem poles outside of a lodge, except popular culture demands that you respect the Totem pole.

They have made it a Cathedral to The Narrative. Just like Communism throughout history...it must survive off of the accomplishments of others. It is cancer and cannot survive without infecting other organisms.

MindofCarlos said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

It's probably not as bad as is being portrayed, but the bigger point is this:

Quote:

---

"it should be a landmark where the slightest change must be handled with great care."

---

It should be a restoration, not a "re-imagining", but the woke never rest.

After all, never let a good crisis go to waste.

---

Curious as to why you believe it should be what you specifically want it to be vs the people in charge and handling the rebuild. What's your basis exactly?

---

What would you chose to do specifically if you were in charge?

Did we ever figure out who set it on fire?

Is Notre Dame still even a Catholic church? I thought it was just a state historical site now.

wbt5845 said:

---

Is Notre Dame still even a Catholic church? I thought it was just a state historical site now.

---

I attended mass there in 2016 so yes....

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

Did we ever figure out who set it on fire?

---

Same people who are burning down Christian churches across Europe...

No one even angry, but Keith has to start asking why everyone is angry anyway. Lol. What a tool.

rocky the dog said:

---

---

Sure, why not. I know the RCC folks don't do immersion baptism but imagine what they could charge for the privilege of letting some rich folks say "I was baptised by a bishop in the Notre Dame swimming pool, and swam four laps to absolve me of all sin."

Seriously, having been there it is a beautiful building, or was. Amazing to think it was close to demolition/used essentially as a warehouse after their revolution(s) until Napoleon sort of fixed the place up for his coronation. Fun fact; a bunch of the monarch's statues were decapitated during the revolution, and they found the heads under a bank in the past 20 years. They're in a museum somewhere close now.

Hot Dogs and Diet Coke for Communion???

Quote:

---

Dumbing down Notre-Dame with an awful pastiche of "emotional spaces" will not end well. A church itself, properly construed, is already an emotional space.

---

This is it for me. I've been in churches all over the UK, France, Spain, Germany, and the Vatican and simply standing in such majestic architectural spaces is an emotional experience. And I was cursory religious at the time that I visited all of those sites.

And now there is going to a "Discovery Trail" with, naturally, an emphasis on the environment and China. Just more political marxism tainting everything it touches.

MindofCarlos said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

It's probably not as bad as is being portrayed, but the bigger point is this:

Quote:

---

"it should be a landmark where the slightest change must be handled with great care."

---

It should be a restoration, not a "re-imagining", but the woke never rest.

After all, never let a good crisis go to waste.

---

Curious as to why you believe it should be what you specifically want it to be vs the people in charge and handling the rebuild. What's your basis exactly?

---

Well my primary basis is twofold: 1) I'm Catholic, and 2) I love history.

I obviously will have no say in the final product, but I would hope that a building with as much history as Notre Dame (both in terms of things that have happened and architecturally) would be put back as it was prior to the fire (excepting whatever minimally invasive modern safety features may need to be added), because I can guarantee you that the vast majority of the money donated to help in the rebuild (note the word) was with that in mind, not some altered vision of the cathedral. I mean, while they are at it, why don't they get some live-in scoliosis patient to live in the upper levels of the building? Then we could make a statement about loving the "differently-abled" while we are at it.

The best course of action (as with most things in life) is to leave well enough alone and don't "fix" what isn't broke.

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

Did we ever figure out who set it on fire?

---

I think it was the Las Vegas shooter

Also, this sort of thing is what happens when you let the government own your church buildings. (French government owns practically all churches in France.)

The Catholic Church simply gets to "use" the buildings and has to pay for their upkeep. Same as in Mexico and most other countries that have had a "French"-style revolution.

Reading the British tabloid linked in the OP it says that the things complained of are proposals (presumably amongst many), and that "The majority of the members of the scientific committee overlooking the restoration are not keen on the plans. . ."

It also mentions that the French national heritage commission is meeting Dec. 9 to discuss the proposals. Looking into France's National Heritage and Architecture Commission I think it unlikely it approves anything outlandish.

Gets the blood flowing though.

justcallmeharry said:

---

Hot Dogs and Diet Coke for Communion???

---

Make it Coke Zero and I'm on board.

Faustus said:

---

Reading the British tabloid linked in the OP it says that the things complained of are proposals (presumably amongst many), and that "The majority of the members of the scientific committee overlooking the restoration are not keen on the plans. . ."

It also mentions that the French national heritage commission is meeting Dec. 9 to discuss the proposals. Looking into France's National Heritage and Architecture Commission I think it unlikely it approves anything outlandish.

Gets the blood flowing though.

---

As stupid as these proposals are, these are not structural components, so even if they were implemented, they could be changed in the future.

As to the actual restoration, I think that they are making a mistake by rebuilding the roof supports with timber. Yes, it's historically accurate, but it's never seen by the public and will present an ongoing fire danger. I think they should probably have used metal for this part, but at least they are trying to do a restoration rather than some of the other crazy proposals (one called for a glass roof to be installed).

It's sad that these changes are even being discussed, much less supported.

Quote:

---

The majority of the members of the scientific committee overlooking the restoration are not keen on the plans, but General Jean-Louis Georgelin, who Macron has tasked with leading the restoration, and the Paris Archbishop want to press ahead.

The fate of the 'woke' plans could be decided at a major meeting of the French national heritage commission on December 9.

---

The way the world is today I won't be holding my breath.

If they can manage to avoid muslim laborers smoking up there doing restoration for the next thousand years it should be ok.

cypress-ag said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

Is Notre Dame still even a Catholic church? I thought it was just a state historical site now.

---

I attended mass there in 2016 so yes....

---

Ditto. Just don't be surprised if a tourist steals your pew while you're receiving Communion.

Corporal Punishment said:

---

cypress-ag said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

Is Notre Dame still even a Catholic church? I thought it was just a state historical site now.

---

I attended mass there in 2016 so yes....

---

Ditto. Just don't be surprised if a tourist steals your pew while you're receiving Communion.

---

I think that's how PewDiePie got his name.

MindofCarlos said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

It's probably not as bad as is being portrayed, but the bigger point is this:

Quote:

---

"it should be a landmark where the slightest change must be handled with great care."

---

It should be a restoration, not a "re-imagining", but the woke never rest.

After all, never let a good crisis go to waste.

---

Curious as to why you believe it should be what you specifically want it to be vs the people in charge and handling the rebuild. What's your basis exactly?

---

If MLK's statue in DC were accidentally hit by a wrecking ball, would you be ok with "reimagining" it by putting all of his hoars and mistresses pawing at his feet so we don't forget that he was also a misogynistic womanizer and serial adulterer? Or how about if he was just omitted entirely and replaced him with an explanation that even though he was an influential civil rights leader, he was also a member of the "patriarchy" that perpetuated the subjugation of women by a male dominated and misogynistic society and didn't do anything for gays and trans individuals because he only advocated for equal treatment of blacks?

twk said:

---

Faustus said:

---

Reading the British tabloid linked in the OP it says that the things complained of are proposals (presumably amongst many), and that "The majority of the members of the scientific committee overlooking the restoration are not keen on the plans. . ."

It also mentions that the French national heritage commission is meeting Dec. 9 to discuss the proposals. Looking into France's National Heritage and Architecture Commission I think it unlikely it approves anything outlandish.

Gets the blood flowing though.

---

As stupid as these proposals are, these are not structural components, so even if they were implemented, they could be changed in the future.

As to the actual restoration, I think that they are making a mistake by rebuilding the roof supports with timber. Yes, it's historically accurate, but it's never seen by the public and will present an ongoing fire danger. I think they should probably have used metal for this part, but at least they are trying to do a restoration rather than some of the other crazy proposals (one called for a glass roof to be installed).

---

In many cases timber framing of a structure like this will often provide a better fire rating than steel. When steel is exposed to fire it will melt and fail quickly. Wood timbers will char on the outside, and the char creates an insulation effect so the inner areas of the wood provide some strength for a longer time than steel will.

Burdizzo said:

---

twk said:

---

Faustus said:

---

Reading the British tabloid linked in the OP it says that the things complained of are proposals (presumably amongst many), and that "The majority of the members of the scientific committee overlooking the restoration are not keen on the plans. . ."

It also mentions that the French national heritage commission is meeting Dec. 9 to discuss the proposals. Looking into France's National Heritage and Architecture Commission I think it unlikely it approves anything outlandish.

Gets the blood flowing though.

---

As stupid as these proposals are, these are not structural components, so even if they were implemented, they could be changed in the future.

As to the actual restoration, I think that they are making a mistake by rebuilding the roof supports with timber. Yes, it's historically accurate, but it's never seen by the public and will present an ongoing fire danger. I think they should probably have used metal for this part, but at least they are trying to do a restoration rather than some of the other crazy proposals (one called for a glass roof to be installed).

---

In many cases timber framing of a structure like this will often provide a better fire rating than steel. When steel is exposed to fire it will melt and fail quickly. Wood timbers will char on the outside, and the char creates an insulation effect so the inner areas of the wood provide some strength for a longer time than steel will.

---

I think the alternate idea was to use concrete beams, which have been used as replacement in some other damaged cathedrals, including I think at Reims. I'm sure concrete presents other problems, though, like all materials. Interesting about the charring, but the old wooden beams at Notre Dame seem to have failed in the fire. I do support using wooden beams because I'm a purist.

The modernization of Notre-Dame was approved by France's National Heritage and Architecture Commission.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/10/arts/design/notre-dame-contemporary-art.html

Quote:

---

. . .
The latest in a series of controversies that have surrounded the renovation of Notre-Dame unfolded on Thursday, when a commission of heritage experts gave the green light to a revamp of the interior of the fire-stricken cathedral.

France's National Heritage and Architecture Commission approved proposals by the diocese of Paris to bring a more modern look to Notre-Dame before its planned reopening in 2024, including the installation of contemporary artworks and new lighting effects. Opponents say the changes will debase the 850-year-old cathedral and disturb the harmony of its Gothic design.

The heritage commission also authorized cathedral administrators to rearrange the tabernacle and other items to create more room for visitors. Msgr. Patrick Chauvet, Notre-Dame's rector, said the proposals would allow for an easier and more pleasant visit to the religious monument and create "a dialogue" between Notre-Dame's medieval architecture and new, more modern features.
. . .
Most of the confessionals would be moved to the first floor in the rearrangement of the cathedral's 2,000 or so furniture items, Chauvet said, and Notre-Dame's more than 12 million annual visitors would now enter through the central portal instead of via a side door.

"The idea is that the faithful, or visitors, are first struck by the grandeur, by the beauty of Notre-Dame," Chauvet said.

Yet the addition of modern touches threatens to disfigure the cathedral, according to dozens of cultural figures and intellectuals who have stood up against the proposals.
. . .
French authorities initially contemplated seizing the opportunity to significantly rework the cathedral's architecture. Heritage experts eventually recommended that the monument be restored to its prior state and, last year, President Emmanuel Macron dropped the idea to replace the 19th-century spire with something more contemporary.
. . .
Le Monde newspaper said the proposals had led to a fierce battle within the French Catholic Church between "advocates of modernity and ecumenism and the guardians of a nostalgic conservatism."

Some conservative British newspapers seized on passages in the redevelopment plan about creating "emotional spaces" and "a discovery tour." A headline in The Daily Telegraph said that Notre-Dame faced a "woke Disney revamp." [They're talking about our sources!]

Didier Rykner, the editor in chief of the art magazine La Tribune de l'Art and one of the signatories of the open letter in Le Figaro, said that criticism in the British press was based on caricatures, but that he agreed with their general thrust.

"The church is 2,000 years old it is an old lady," he said. "It has a history that we must respect, that today's people cannot erase with a stroke of the pen."

The heritage commission may have heard some of the criticism. It did not accept the proposal put before it by the diocese in full, and rejected or questioned some elements. The committee denied a request, for instance, to remove statues of saints from several chapels. It also asked for a review of a design for removable benches that were proposed as a replacement for the cathedral's traditional wooden chairs, according to a statement issued Thursday by the minister of culture.

Chauvet said that the changes to Notre-Dame's interior were not revolutionary and would only "bring a little more sense to the visitors."

"Don't think we're going to make Disneyland," he said.

---