Jaded by Gilded Religion

This was originally a long reply on a friend's weblog. It will be posted here instead, out of respect for the friend (whose original update was not similar in tone to this reply) and for the originally-intended reader of the reply (who I want to feel encouraged to reply fully on my blog, whereas he may not have felt so encouraged on our mutual friend's).

With all due respect, I think it is an invalid or a poor rebuttal to label as "petty" the criticism that the Vatican preaches modesty but exhibits lavishness. In short, that it is petty to point out the Vatican's hypocrisy. That it is a simple observation does not mean it is not profound. As a matter of fact, it is incredibly important! You cannot believe in a man who preaches charity while wearing robes of gilded silk. You would have to either be a fool or else a willing fool to believe that a man leads an austere life despite the extremely high financial quality of his diet, his dress, and his housing.

Yes, nowhere does it say that the Pope must suffer in itchy wool throughout his life as Pope; but nor does it say that he needs to ornament himself with gold, to surround himself with paintings and statues in order to be nearer to God; unless his God has some link to gold and to paintings and to statues? And the God of Moses most certainly does not have any link to those things other than that He is their Creator; and as He is the creator of all things in the Universe, this is a rather insignificant association indeed.

To suggest to Jay, "If you don't like ornamentation, you are free to join an Order of the Church which separates itself from the material world" is to dodge the question of the Church's legitimacy altogether. To simply tell Jay, "You are free to ignore the man behind the curtain. And if you so do, then all will be right with the world. If you cannot ignore the man behind the curtain, then it is you who chooses to live in sin and doubt." The man is there, Matt. He's right there. A proper theory of the world -- and more importantly to the discussion of selecting a religion, a proper philosophy by which to live one's life -- must hold up to logic & reasoning. The more obvious the error in logic, the more serious, Matt! Not the more petty!

I agree that it is illogical to ask the Pope to get rid of his expensive robes now that he has them. We can introduce a long list of economic arguments which we both already understand and agree upon regarding depreciation of wealth, inability for Papal donations to reach the intended charitable targets, etc. But I do not agree that it is therefore logical or appropriate to conclude that he had an original right to them, either: some right which was predicated by the Church's need for "real beauty" in the world. Gandhi is beautiful to me, but he is a toothless old man in cotton rags. I see his face and I am filled with the affection a nephew feels towards an uncle, or a grandson towards a son. If the Pope wants to beautify the church, inside and out, that is fine by me. If he needs to beautify it, fine. But he cannot convince me that he needs material wealth to do it. You can convince me that Bach is beautiful and that you need a pipe organ to play Bach, but you cannot convince me that the Church needs Bach. The Church will always have beautiful visuals -- the congregation -- and beautiful sounds -- the choir -- and a beautiful message -- the word of God -- to which it can point when one asks, "What is beautiful about Catholicism?" And the issue here is not even that mean! One is happy to allow the Church to receive donations from its congregation with which to purchase things like pipe organs and paintings, things which will please the congregation. But I am not convinced that the congregation is significantly pleased by an improvement in the papal dress's financial value. There is little that gold trim does to his robes that artificial gold trim could not match, if it is a question of visual aesthetics.

Buddhism in Japan paralleled Catholicism in Europe, and (similarly) did not lose its control in world matters until the 19th century; yet Buddhist temples, inside and out, have always been very modest, and Buddhist monks from the highest to the low have worn simple clothing. While he belongs to a completely different sect, look at the Dalai Lama. He can't even be compared dress-wise with the Pope! And yet he is again more beautiful to me. In his simplicity, he is golden. In gold, he would be a simple man.

Among Christ's many lessons, one was that beauty is within. Yet you have stressed a "need" for material beauty where no such spiritually-determined need exists. If you would have me believe that men require beauty because they are weak creatures of flesh and clay, then I would say that the Church, as the pinnacle of piety, ought to least require material beauty, not most require it.

The great tragedy in all of this is that the Church, recognizing the validity of such arguments, has encouraged people of Christian faith for years to give up their worldly possessions and to seek closeness with God in immaterial and everlasting ways. The tragedy of course being that so many humble believers have proven capable of doing what a hermitage of old men in Rome has not.