Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve only seen it in pictures, but I’m not a fan either. Looks completely secular, might as well be a concert hall or something. Maybe that’s the point, throw an as wide net as possible to appeal to everyone to try to justify the cost.
Secular? I mean, it's not conventional 19th century cathedral design, certainly, but it has more religious symbolism than you can shake a stick at. Gaudi himself was deeply religious; this wasn't just the church commissioning a famous architect for the sake of it or anything. It was very much a labour of love for him, AIUI.
The two temples and all the subsequent churches from the time of Solomon up to and including the nineteenth century may have looked radically different in terms of architectural style, but what they had in common is that they were unambiguously constructed for offering propitiatory sacrifices to God.
Churches built after that are instead built for offering a meal to mortal humans. If that’s not a secular activity, then it’s one of a completely different religion. In fact the transformation of the twentieth century was a far more radical change than the one going from the old to the new covenant, in that it has rejected both of them.
Of course like all the other new age hippie nonsense that came from that century it will eventually fall out of fashion, just like Arianism eventually did despite the Church apparently being completely overcome with it. The question is just how long it will take.