On April 20, the permit to remove and replace the windows in one of the nave’s southern chapels, designed under Eugène Viollet-le-Duc, the architect behind Notre Dame’s iconic spire, was publicly posted on the cathedral’s railings, triggering an almost immediate legal response.
The heritage preservation group “Sites et Monuments,” which watched helplessly as scaffolding was erected on April 27, announced that it would file an urgent legal appeal before the Paris Administrative Court, targeting the authorization itself.
The plan to replace these windows with contemporary creations by French artist Claire Tabouret — unveiled to the public at the Grand Palais late last year — has drawn unusually broad opposition over the past two years, from heritage experts to Catholic figures.
A Battle Over the Cathedral’s Identity
Included among the main arguments against the project are that the Viollet-le-Duc windows belong to the cathedral’s 19th-century restoration and that introducing contemporary works in the nave would disrupt its balance.
The proposed designs have themselves been criticized as overly figurative for the nave.
For many, removing windows that survived the 2019 blaze — and have since been cleaned and restored — runs counter to the logic of the restoration itself.
Critics also point to the estimated cost of the project, around 4 million euros (around $4.7 million ), as disproportionate, given broader heritage needs.
The project has also faced opposition from France’s National Commission for Heritage and Architecture, which issued a negative opinion in July 2024.
For the president of Sites et Monuments, Julien Lacaze, the issue touches the core of heritage protection.
“The question is whether the Viollet-le-Duc windows that are to be removed have artistic and historical value or not,” he said in an interview with Famille Chrétienne. “Viollet-le-Duc was not simply a restorer; he was a creator in the full sense. What matters is his vision of the Middle Ages and the freedom with which he approached it.”
The association had already filed a previous legal challenge last year, contesting the authority of the public body overseeing Notre Dame’s restoration to remove the windows.
That case is still under appeal, while the new action goes directly to the substance of the decision.
To support its legal efforts, Sites et Monuments has also launched a crowdfunding campaign.
Beyond the courtroom, the backlash continues to grow across France, with more than 340,000 people having signed a petition calling for the preservation of the Viollet-le-Duc windows.
The scale of public opposition has done little to slow the project, which many see as a reflection of President Emmanuel Macron’s desire to leave a contemporary mark on the restored cathedral — a vision already tested after the 2019 fire, when his proposal to replace the spire with a modern design was ultimately set aside after intense controversy.
Critics now see the stained-glass project as a renewed attempt to leave his mark on the monument.
More broadly, the controversy points to a deeper divide over how the past should be treated — preserved as an inherited whole or reinterpreted through contemporary artistic choices. Supporters of the project argue that historic monuments must remain open to new forms of expression; Tabouret, who designed the controversial windows in question, has warned against “freezing” a monument in time.
Priest’s Call to Protest
While Paris Archbishop Laurent Ulrich has approved the current project, a position echoed by some within the Church who see contemporary art as a legitimate expression within historic monuments, the proposal is not enjoying unanimous support within Catholic ranks.
One of the most outspoken voices in recent days has been Father Michel Viot, a Paris-based priest, who has called for a peaceful public protest.
In a message on social media, he said that Catholics in Paris, across France and abroad — particularly those who contributed to the cathedral’s restoration — should be “warned of the day hands are laid on the windows.”
He urged them to gather on-site either with rosaries, or simply “to pray or protest,” all to “demand respect for the law.”
He denounced what he described as an arbitrary decision and an attack on beauty that, in his words, serves a “culture of death.”
The fact that the works were authorized despite repeated negative opinions from heritage authorities has reinforced the perception of a top-down initiative driven primarily by political considerations — a perception that has since ignited a broader wave of outrage across social media.
For now, all eyes turn to the administrative court, where the fate of the project may soon be tested.