It has effectively been destroyed and should not be rebuilt because if it were it would be utterly fake. It's a tragedy but to me it's symbolic of modern Christianity and almost appropriate in a horrible way. A restored cathedral would be spiritually completely hollow. Better than nothing some might say but I think the ancient medieval ruins would have a far greater spiritual power and message than a modern facsimile.
16 April 2019 at 12:21
dearieme said...
There is nothing the French government can say that will persuade (many) people that it was an accident because so many people despair of ever hearing truth from a government.
I suppose that's why so many people voted for Trump: his blurted out mixtures of truth, error, and misconception contain more truth than they'd get from anyone else.
@d. Indeed. In this instance it was clear that the 'authorities' could not have known the fire was an accident at the time this was officially announced - unless maybe they knew *exactly* who did it and how, but were deliberately concealing the facts.
The point is that officials are not even trying to be truthful, it simply does not occur to them to be honest.
ted commented: "But the powers that be will want to rebuild to some extent. Not for spiritual symbolism, but cultural tourism. And yes, it will not be the same."
For those with eyes to see - a literal picture of what has happened to France.
For everyone else, just a random event in a Universe with no purpose or meaning.
16 April 2019 at 17:25
dearieme said...
Mind you, any ancient building, especially in a North European climate, needs an endless round of maintenance and repair. So not all of it will truly be original anyway. It's a bit like The Bruce's axe in our childhood stories. Except that the axe didn't involve massive lumps of stone.
@d - True - at a materialist level. Nonetheless, most people have a gut-level feeling that there is a qualitative difference between an incrementally maintained ancient building, and an all-at-once replica. The one is usually able to retain the spirit of the original, the other not.
The important structural bits are all stone, and all still there.
I'm sympathetic to your general point: What made it extraordinary was the faith and love it took to construct. And now most of those involved in a rehabilitation will not be living the same faith and love. Hence it won't be the same.
But the patient is still there. She's still alive. It'll be the same patient after rehabilitation. Reflecting us. Hence less powerful, and less important. But still, the same patient.
16 April 2019 at 19:43
Howard said...
True repentance suggests that it is rebuilt exactly as it was. Of course it can never be the same, but that is the best that can be done. Definitely not rebuilt "for modern times" as I understand President Macron has said. I disgree about leaving it as a ruin. I think all our "ruins", abbeys etc. should be rebuilt but perhaps that awaits a different time. I agree rebuilding should come from the spirit as you suggest in your post.
If the French bureaucrats are anything like their English counterparts in my neck of the woods then they'll have 20 odd years of inconclusive conferences, debating what course of action should be taken, and then sell it off to a private contractor who will convert it into an office block or some other profit centric development. That's assuming that it hasn't collapsed beyond repair through bureacratic neglect (like Brightons West Pier did), which is what they actually want to happen to it.
I am glad I saw this awe-inspiring place when I was a tourist in Paris, but I also remember my distress when I realized that I had followed the crowd into a church during worship. There were guards, but they were not there to enjoin silence and reverence. If the priest and his few congregants insisted on conducting a Mass, they could do so as long as they didn't inconvenience the public.
16 April 2019 at 21:25
dearieme said...
'rebuilt "for modern times" as I understand President Macron has said.'
How very Toni Blair that remark is.
16 April 2019 at 22:36
Hun said...
I disagree. It hasn't been destroyed. Damaged yes, but not destroyed. Most of the inside is in relatively good shape. It should be renovated.
I must admit that when I wrote my first comment I didn't realise that as much had survived as has. But I still think too much has gone and that it would not be a renovation but a rebuilding. The thing is, what is being rebuilt, a cathedral or an empty monument?
@William - We only know what we are shown. *Something* was burning, very rapidly and for several hours - presumably *that* stuff was destroyed?...
Either the fire is a tragedy because what was destroyed was irreplaceable, or else it was a minor degree of damage that can be *repaired* in a few years, given sufficient money.
But it can't be both!
What we are seeing is clearly a coordinated attempt to distract the public (from how the fire happened and who started it, and the irreversibility of what happened) and divert attention to the 'rebuilding'/ replica project (Give us your money - Now! - and trust us to spend it wisely...); which is as self-seeking as it is offensive as it is dishonest.
If only it could be rebuilt in the spirit in which it was first built.
The Cathedral is still a church, after all, and not a museum or tourist attraction. Therefore if rebuilding is undertaken it should be done by The Church. All the Church owes the secular authorities is compliance with building codes and labor laws; to the tourist trade, nothing.
And there need be no hurry. It took a century to build it in the first place and was modified and restored in subsequent centuries. It was also desecrated during the French Revolution. So if we think it will never be the same, well, it never was 'the same'.
18 April 2019 at 16:23
The Whole Point is that rebuilding is not an option. If Notre Dame could be rebuilt, then it would not have been so precious. Does this really need pointing-out?
We can no more 'rebuild' Notre Dame than we can change our sex - but the fact that so many of us believe such nonsense is what we ought to be noticing.
A modern, 21st century, secular materialist Replica of the destroyed parts could, presumably, be constructed. But that which made the cathedral what it was has been destroyed - the Age of Faith love and supreme medieval craftsmanship... all that is gone.
And who would rebuild the Replica?
Perhaps the French State aided by the European Union, could raise the money by coercively extracting a few extra billions worth of taxes from the dwindling numbers of productive workers; then corruptly channelling some into their own pockets and more into political favours for cronies and a sliver into a politically correct version of what (for them) is merely a National Monument, an icon, a tourist attraction...?
Or the Roman Catholic Church - in a spirit of piety, using purely voluntary contributions and labour? Which of these options (or others) makes a difference to the reality of the final result. The real value of a putative Replica depends mainly on such considerations.
And why are we even discussing this before the smoke has cleared? Have we already forgotten that the crucial question of who set the fire, and the circumstance how it came to destroy so much of Notre Dame so quickly, has not 'yet' been answered...
But that this, one would have imagined, rather important matter is already off the agenda is probably answer enough. We already know that there never will be an honest answer. We already know as much of the truth as ever we will; and must each make up his mind on that basis.
Our official job now (according to those guardians of morality, the mass media) is miserably (or rejoicingly?) to accept what has happened, learn nothing from it; and allow it to amplify the already prevalent Western mood of hopelessness and despair.
After all, in a universe that is officially, compulsorily, both purposeless and meaningless - and therefore having nothing to do with human consciousness and desires - what else is there to do?
"Should Notre Dame be 'rebuilt'?"
17 Comments -
It has effectively been destroyed and should not be rebuilt because if it were it would be utterly fake. It's a tragedy but to me it's symbolic of modern Christianity and almost appropriate in a horrible way. A restored cathedral would be spiritually completely hollow. Better than nothing some might say but I think the ancient medieval ruins would have a far greater spiritual power and message than a modern facsimile.
16 April 2019 at 12:21
There is nothing the French government can say that will persuade (many) people that it was an accident because so many people despair of ever hearing truth from a government.
I suppose that's why so many people voted for Trump: his blurted out mixtures of truth, error, and misconception contain more truth than they'd get from anyone else.
16 April 2019 at 13:24
@d. Indeed. In this instance it was clear that the 'authorities' could not have known the fire was an accident at the time this was officially announced - unless maybe they knew *exactly* who did it and how, but were deliberately concealing the facts.
The point is that officials are not even trying to be truthful, it simply does not occur to them to be honest.
16 April 2019 at 14:28
ted commented: "But the powers that be will want to rebuild to some extent. Not for spiritual symbolism, but cultural tourism. And yes, it will not be the same."
16 April 2019 at 16:19
For those with eyes to see - a literal picture of what has happened to France.
For everyone else, just a random event in a Universe with no purpose or meaning.
16 April 2019 at 17:25
Mind you, any ancient building, especially in a North European climate, needs an endless round of maintenance and repair. So not all of it will truly be original anyway. It's a bit like The Bruce's axe in our childhood stories. Except that the axe didn't involve massive lumps of stone.
16 April 2019 at 18:55
@d - True - at a materialist level. Nonetheless, most people have a gut-level feeling that there is a qualitative difference between an incrementally maintained ancient building, and an all-at-once replica. The one is usually able to retain the spirit of the original, the other not.
16 April 2019 at 19:28
The important structural bits are all stone, and all still there.
I'm sympathetic to your general point: What made it extraordinary was the faith and love it took to construct. And now most of those involved in a rehabilitation will not be living the same faith and love. Hence it won't be the same.
But the patient is still there. She's still alive. It'll be the same patient after rehabilitation. Reflecting us. Hence less powerful, and less important. But still, the same patient.
16 April 2019 at 19:43
True repentance suggests that it is rebuilt exactly as it was. Of course it can never be the same, but that is the best that can be done. Definitely not rebuilt "for modern times" as I understand President Macron has said. I disgree about leaving it as a ruin. I think all our "ruins", abbeys etc. should be rebuilt but perhaps that awaits a different time. I agree rebuilding should come from the spirit as you suggest in your post.
16 April 2019 at 19:52
If the French bureaucrats are anything like their English counterparts in my neck of the woods then they'll have 20 odd years of inconclusive conferences, debating what course of action should be taken, and then sell it off to a private contractor who will convert it into an office block or some other profit centric development. That's assuming that it hasn't collapsed beyond repair through bureacratic neglect (like Brightons West Pier did), which is what they actually want to happen to it.
16 April 2019 at 20:34
I am glad I saw this awe-inspiring place when I was a tourist in Paris, but I also remember my distress when I realized that I had followed the crowd into a church during worship. There were guards, but they were not there to enjoin silence and reverence. If the priest and his few congregants insisted on conducting a Mass, they could do so as long as they didn't inconvenience the public.
16 April 2019 at 21:25
'rebuilt "for modern times" as I understand President Macron has said.'
How very Toni Blair that remark is.
16 April 2019 at 22:36
I disagree. It hasn't been destroyed. Damaged yes, but not destroyed. Most of the inside is in relatively good shape. It should be renovated.
17 April 2019 at 00:06
Commenters focused on rebuilding have been manipulated.
The ashes are still warm. Why this urgency? Was this the spirit in which a cathedral was built?
Do we go directly to the pet shop and buy a new 'replacement' dog before we have even buried the deceased, old faithful hound?
17 April 2019 at 07:17
I must admit that when I wrote my first comment I didn't realise that as much had survived as has. But I still think too much has gone and that it would not be a renovation but a rebuilding. The thing is, what is being rebuilt, a cathedral or an empty monument?
17 April 2019 at 09:02
@William - We only know what we are shown. *Something* was burning, very rapidly and for several hours - presumably *that* stuff was destroyed?...
Either the fire is a tragedy because what was destroyed was irreplaceable, or else it was a minor degree of damage that can be *repaired* in a few years, given sufficient money.
But it can't be both!
What we are seeing is clearly a coordinated attempt to distract the public (from how the fire happened and who started it, and the irreversibility of what happened) and divert attention to the 'rebuilding'/ replica project (Give us your money - Now! - and trust us to spend it wisely...); which is as self-seeking as it is offensive as it is dishonest.
17 April 2019 at 09:41
If only it could be rebuilt in the spirit in which it was first built.
The Cathedral is still a church, after all, and not a museum or tourist attraction. Therefore if rebuilding is undertaken it should be done by The Church. All the Church owes the secular authorities is compliance with building codes and labor laws; to the tourist trade, nothing.
And there need be no hurry. It took a century to build it in the first place and was modified and restored in subsequent centuries. It was also desecrated during the French Revolution. So if we think it will never be the same, well, it never was 'the same'.
18 April 2019 at 16:23