I am in more agreement with the second view…that the millions of dollars used for gold and fine art would be much better used to help feed, clothe, heal, and shelter people.
If the religion, mass, and sacraments themselves are the beauty, why would external adornments be needed? Jesus didn’t need any of it. He walked around in simple robes and sandals it seems.
You say: “we should give Him our very best, which is why churches traditionally have lots of gold and fine art.”…
But you are interpreting your “best” as gold and fine art; I wouldn’t interpret “best” that way.
A church doesn’t need fine art and gold to be considered “beautiful”. Can they not be beautiful by the souls and love of the people inside, instead?
The pope himself is not partaking in all the ostentatious clothing and the extravagant Vatican digs offered to him.
.
I think it may be argued that in a
particular case, this or that money is better spent on the poor than on a church’s decorations or whatever. However, it is exceedingly clear in Scripture and the Church’s practice that it is not wrong, or bad, or even slightly incorrect to spend money, even lots and lots of money, on church decorations, vestments, etc. So we can certainly say, “I think this money is better spent here rather than there,” but I don’t think it’s ever possible to make a
principle and say, “It is always better to spend money on the poor than on building beautiful churches.”
Secondly, I think this view (your post) assumes that we are able to receive the beauty of God, which is true to a limited extent.
However, our puny human minds are not capable of perceiving the objective beauty very well. I say that with firm conviction and it’s not a judgement about someone’s intellect or whatever, it’s just that we are human and are literally incapable of receiving/perceiving/containing the beauty of God except in extremely small “amounts.” God is infinite, we are finite creatures. These external things are not intrinsic to the Mass, no, but they are “helps,” if you understand what I mean. We may say that we don’t need this or that particular physical thing even, but we can’t make a principle and say, “Gut the church, we don’t need any physicality,” because we most certainly, definitely do.
Certainly, they can be considered beautiful by the souls and love of the people inside. But… this isn’t the whole picture. Our God is incarnational. He made the world good, even though because of us there is now evil in it. He gave us meaty bodies with which to interface in the world.
We humans
need symbols, materiel, water, touchable feelable smellable tasteable
stuff, textures, flavors, spit, salt, scents, melodious sounds, flickery lights, slick oil, beautiful statues. We need these things to remain sane and because the physical universe is the universe God placed us in. I sometimes think that if some people had their way, all we humans would be is brains sitting in sealed jars with electrodes attached to our brains stimulating us. I don’t think you think that, but there is an ideology which, if you take it to its logical end, that could be a result.
Now, this has not a whole lot to do with simplicity vs ostentation. It is completely legitimate to have a simple church, like a Benedictine monastery chapel, for example. But even these simple churches, like all, are quite expensive to build. Heck, some of the “simplest” structures in recent history have been hellishly expensive. And the Pope can wear whatever he wants and that is his prerogative. He may not be wearing a mozzetta but he is also not walking around in a tank top and shorts on the one hand, or a seamless plastic bodysuit laser cut from space-age materials on the other hand.
Look at some early Roman churches. They are, very often, but not always, quite simple structures. But there is a gravity, a giantness combined with a lightness, a diversity of artistic forms, different materials which stimulate the senses. We humans are not insensate beings. We need to be stimulated in the physical, touchable world.
What I don’t like about this conversation is a certain one-sidedness that is present. There are too many “wingers” if you understand what I mean. Either churches MUST be extravagant and have golden accents everywhere and be penny-pinchers when it comes to the poor OR churches MUST look like bo-dump structures or either dull exposed steel beam abstract white warehouses pathologically afraid of architectural tradition and spend all their money on the poor. Well… why not do both? Is it not possible to both help the poor and build beautiful physical structures? When did this conversation become so one-sided?
One way of managing this, I think, is the abandonment of the idea that when a church is built it must be finished. Maybe the art and stuff inside a church will add another 1/3 to the costs of building it. Well, let’s recover what was done in earlier centuries: build a noble building and if money is an issue, just decorate the sanctuary area. Paint and give a little decoration to the rest of the building so it doesn’t look unfinished, but make it a point to add something else every, let’s say, 5-10 years. A statue here, a painting there. It won’t hurt. In fact this can be a great way of managing money and allowing parishioners to feel something of ownership of the building.
So either he purchased this relatively nice garment, or some wealthier person gave it to him, for his glory. And he just happened to be wearing that night in the garden…