The Pope’s fashion statement
April 13, 2008, 8:43 am
Posted by David Gibson
Benedict’s vintage vesture has been a topic of much blog-babble and tongue-wagging. No, not just the Prada shoes (knockoffs, actually). Vestments of greater import, including the news that the pope has commissioned a set of 30 new vestments modeled on those worn by the notorious Medici pope, Leo X, a corpulent, corrupt fellow who at his election famously declared, “Let us enjoy the papacy since God has given it to us.” What’s going on here? In today’s Star-Ledger (that’s Tony Soprano’s paper of choice, for those trying to orient themselves), I make my own contribution to the hubbub, hopefully with a reasonably-argued connection to the pope’s larger theme of changing our notions of change in a church that cannot change. Feedback welcome.
on April 13th, 2008 at 10:33 am
The belief might get stronger that Benedict is losing it except for the fact that he has not opted for the sedes gestatoria or the Tiara. Yet.
David wrote in the referenced Star ledger:
“And Benedict’s choices are about tradition — an effort, Selvester says, to “show a continuity with the entirety of the papacy. He wants to say, ‘I am the successor of John Paul, Pius IX, Leo X, and Peter the Apostle.’” ”
I doubt if Peter the Apostle had any inkling of what these monarchs did. While they were crowned he was martyred upside down. Continuity is in the minds of the advantaged. That is the opposite of downtrodden is it not?
Many are writing about how much Benedict likes the United States. Yet he understands its Christianity so little. The Catholic faith thrives more here in Europe because the monarchy does not dominate like it did in Europe. More Catholics are like Dan Barry who “feel a palpable papal disconnect.”
And maybe it is a good thing that more Catholics are like Barry who writes: “That I mutter more about the priest’s aimless homily or some action by the local bishop than about anything the pope has said or done. That on Sundays, though hardly every one, I try to concentrate on the Gospel and on the celebration of the Eucharist as best I can with a distracted 10-year-old and a squirming 4-year-old. That I never once ask myself: What would the pope do?” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/weekinreview/13barry.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Especially if he even considers bringing back Medici apparel.
on April 13th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Robert Mickens’ Letter from Rome reports on all the of the fashion extravaganza of the current papacy. It is worth the subscription to The Tablet to be in the know. John Allen seems too busy intepreting and explaining the pope to notice what he is wearing.
on April 13th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Personally, I find the Pope’s frippery very inspiring.
Benedictus capam gerebat mensura insana
Quam ferebant cantatores in missa quotidiana.
Eum improviso de gradu dejectum,
Ii prolabantes ruerunt directum,
Ut nunc pedat cantione Gregoriana.
on April 13th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Leo X seems an odd choice to me for BXVI to emulate, even if it is only for the Medici prince’s fashion sense. Leo has just too much baggage associated with him.
According to R.S. Scotti in her book “Basilica,” Giovanni de’ Medici, son of Lorenzo il Magnifico, was destined for the clergy from birth. He was a priest by age 8, the abbott of a Benedictine abbey by 11, a cardinal by 13, and pope in his early 30’s. (Talk about fast tracking!) Leo was reportedly “generous to a fault,” and he kept a menagerie of exotic animals on the papal grounds, including a snow white elephant that wore two pairs of red shoes (early Pradas?) identical to the shoes worn by Leo. Though his predecessor, the indomitable Julius II, had left the Church economically sound at the time of his death, Leo squandered the Church’s wealth, so much so that he began the practice of selling indulgences, a fundraising device that, as we all know, greatly offended that fella Martin Luther.
on April 13th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
All of this stuff just goes to show how far removed Benedict is from this Catholic.
Rome fiddles while the institutional church slowly moves toward obsolesence.
Maybe Humpty Dumpty will splat after all!!!
(Let’s hope.)
on April 13th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
WWJD …. after he wretched, of course!
How, by anystrecth of the imagination, can such sartorial excess be a witness to being the Servant of the Servants of God?
As a gay man, I know high drag when I see it ….. and I’m seeing it in spades. He’s succeeding at out-Spellmaning Pell, Burke, ad nauseum
on April 13th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Oops .. I meant “retched”.. but maybe both words apply in this case.
on April 13th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Meantime, a notable writer and blogger was seen this evening on the ABC news answering questions about the papal visit while sporting a modest dark suit, looked like blue tweed with a charcoal fleck, but the color on our set’s going bad, so hard to tell. The ensemble included a neutral shirt and muted tie. I can’t vouch for the shoes, if they showed them, because my kid was jumping around wanting to know if the broadcast would be over in time for “America’s Funniest Videos.”
From the sublime to the ridiculous .
on April 13th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Jean, I believe that WAS “America’s Funniest Videos.”
Sartorially speaking, I will concede that an excess of imagination is not as bad as a lack of style.
on April 14th, 2008 at 7:46 am
AFV? Hardly.
For starters, you had on a shirt, did not have a karaoke mike in your hand, were not jumping on a trampoline or using playground equipment designed for toddlers, standing on a ladder barefoot, or uttering the always fatal prelude to disaster, “Hey! Watch what I can do!”
The problem was you weren’t on long enough. I had about enough time to say, “Hey! Shut UP! I think I know who that guy is!” and then you were gone.
on April 14th, 2008 at 8:43 am
We should not leave this subject without pointing out how liturgical garments in the church came from mostly Roman apparel. Like other religious dress they came from the ordinary dress of people of those times. It is uncanny to see women in the Mideast today wearing garments which are quite similar to what Catholic Nuns have worn for centuries. Like Latin, which was first and foremost the language of the people, the church canonized the vestments and made them immutable when they were just the dress of the day. The chasubles, in particular, seemed to be the dress of the rich.
So when people talk about continuity or holiness of the vestments they are really talking about peculiar creations and the minds of the promoters of this pageantry.
on April 14th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Whatever the Pope ultimately decides to wear for WYD08 in Sydney, it has been decided, either by himself or some dispprover in his retinue that he will not be wearing the beautifully designed chasuble for the big papal Mass Down Under. see http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23524542-2,00.html
This design has been described as “Southern Chic”; it involved the Southern Cross constellation on the front and a traditional bird symbol on the back – the Cross and the Holy Spirit in an imaginatively successful design.
Unfortunately our current Pope does not seem to be imaginative or successful. His refusal to use the celebratory vestments has provoked much diappointment – to put it mildly.But hey ho! who cares a fig leaf for what he wears?
on April 14th, 2008 at 11:03 am
I guess this whole discussion depends on how you view fashion.
Is it simply self-aggrandizement? The Pope spending thousands to get gussied up to look rich and powerful?
Or is it art? Making this stuff provides work for artisans, designers, and craftspeople, and it becomes part of the church’s artistic tradition. We were recently looking at a book of the former Soviet Union’s collection of Byzantine art, which includes some incredibly well-preserved sakkos, some with repeating abstract patterns, and others with scenes from the life of Christ.
A story in our diocesan paper highlighted the various companies and workers who were doing not only the Pope’s vestments, but the vestments for the assisting clergy and deacons, the presider’s chair, etc.
My husband is a cabinet maker, pretty much consigned to “handyman” work now, thanks to prefab chipboard junk that can be mass produced, not to mention the recession. Both of us felt it was nice to see artisans in the U.S. being tapped to make these things and being appreciated for their skills by the church.
Just askin’ if there isn’t another way to look at all this except in the worst possible light.
on April 14th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Sister Mary Wood, thanks for the WYD story–not a surprise, but too bad, I think. Jean, you make a good observation–and I am all for artisanship, for craftsmanship, for the kind of traditions and ecclesiastical version of the slow-food movement. I am something of an old fogey when it comes to culture. But when it comes to liturgy, I think it’s iportant that the pope reflect the culture he is visiting as well as the one he pefers. Fashion is inherently shallow. Not bad–just shallow. Much that is new is not good. But some is. And much that is old is not good. But some is. Benedict’s monofocus on the styles that he, as a die-hard Mittleuropean, thinks are preferable, risk turning the liturgy of the universal church into a reflection of one’s man’s tastes. But that’s my prefernce…
on April 14th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Sacrosanctum concilium:
“124. Ordinaries, by the encouragement and favor they show to art which is truly sacred, should strive after noble beauty rather than mere sumptuous display. This principle is to apply also in the matter of sacred vestments and ornaments.
Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense.”
One might say a few things. First, that this decree applies to ordinary bishops, not the Bishop of Rome. Or one might say that what’s being worn is not as sumptuous as it could be, in a dictatorially relativist sort of way. Most Catholics would not object to a “noble beauty,” but most of us would attach the quality of nobility to the lilies of the field, or maybe Shaker furniture if we were pressed to name the work of human hands.
Given all the yapping from conservative and traditionalist circles about self-worship in progressive circles with contemporary music, it’s hard to see by the same standard how this sort of fashion isn’t some sort of pretense. WWJD indeed.
on April 14th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
David and all, I’d only quibble a little with David’s contention that fashion is “inherently shallow,” though maybe “fashion” is a problem word here. We’re talking about vestments, which, as you note in your own article, goes well beyond the fake Pradas and chi-chi shades–the stuff of mere fashion.
You say in your story cited above: “Yet Benedict’s sartorial choices go well beyond matters of taste. Catholicism’s sacramental imagination, and the church’s sacred rubrics, invest great meaning in symbols, and each retro lace surplice and gilt-trimmed mitre that Benedict dons sends a message.”
I’d say, given Benedict’s style, that his vestments fit him perfectly.
on April 14th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Jean, I do think “fashion” is the problematic term here–I shouldn’t assume what it means, or what it means to different readers. It could in fact play a role in Benedict’s choices, which is okay, to the extent that it is simply fashion (which is kind of fun–Abercrombie & Fitch excepted). But when fashion or style or whatever IS liturgy, when it has a meaning far beyond mere trends and taste, then it takes on a different hue (I’m incorrigible). It’s actually hard to untangle. A mix of stripes and spots, I think. I’m all for vintage stuff. But I’d like B16 to mix it up with the new, too.
on April 14th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
PS: Todd–Many thanks for the V2 citation. I was trying to find that last-minute (story was too long anyway) and was sifting thru the mash of vestments-related documents that Paul VI issued (motu proprios mainly) from 1968-70.
I do think these fashions are all too often related to ego size and one’s view of the clerical state. Contrary to popular belief (at least mine), the cappa magna, the 25-foot red train that had to be held up by a bevy of altar boys (not girls)was never abrogated, and so when Archbishop Burke of St. Louis brought it back (you can Google the images) he did not receive special permission. Or so I’m told.
All a bit Fellini-eseque, as in “Roma.”
on April 14th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I think he’ll need a new miter for the DC mass, won’t he? The one he has, with the kitschy image of the BVM, isn’t quite as tall as the Washington Monument. But it’s obvious why he loves it so much:
Benedictus post missam regressus,
Deponit mitram ingentem defessus.
Deinde rursus incedit
Et in illam incautius consedit,
quam nunc colit amore possessus.
on April 14th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
David –
Hmm. Yes, “fashion” here is problematic. Or is it? ARTFORUM had an article several years back that maintained that fashion is primarily avant garde art. In support of this contention it pointed out that few of those weird garments that are marched down the runways are actually *bought* by anyone, even the rich whom the articles are purportedly designed for. Rather, they are the paradigms which associated lines of the houses and other knock-off companies emulate.
Most interesting to me abouut fashion shows, next to the unwearable but highly expressive garments, is the almost universal expression on the faces of the models — anger, even fury, sometimes mixed with seduction. So, yes, the fashion shows are art — they express what is going on in the culture of the day. They are only as shallow as the culture itself. They don’t *say* what the culture is, as do books and poetry, they *show* it, and, unfortunately, they often lead the way to change.
So what about Pope Benedict? It seems to me that perhaps, like the Pennsylvanians who cling to guns and religion???) the Pope clings to old art forms, No jazz for him. Why? I suspect that like all who wear out-dated clothes by choice he doesn’t feel part of the contemporary culture(s), or he finds little or nothing of value in it/them for himself or the Church at large. That is bound to turn people off, except for his fellow conservatives. In other words, he finds no reason to wear anything else.
The Church, a 2000 year old process, is much too complex to be represented in any one garment. So Benedict would do best to gve up trying. He should wear modifications of the old which also reflect the world he is actually in. Like it or not. Yes, dressing like a Renaissance pope gets attention, but not the sort the Church needs.
on April 14th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Editor’s note: I’ve removed JC’s comment, at his or her request, and subsequent references to it.
on April 14th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Re: the Australian imposition of dyspepsia.
What a great way to alienate 125,000 youth in one spot! Way to go, Bennie: that smaller church will be yours before you know it. First their parents and grandparents; now the kids.
on April 14th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Perhaps his Holiness should don a ball cap and shin guards?
And please, can we stop with the “Prada shoes” nonsense. They are not Prada or Prada “knock offs” and continuing to repeat that ridiculous fabrication says more about the writer than about the pope.
on April 15th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
“Perhaps his Holiness should don a ball cap and shin guards?”
I would suggest that that assertion says more about your contempt for the rest of us than it does about what we’re actually discussing.
But I’ll grant you that you don’t have to parse the vestment issue in order to realize that some Catholics find this papacy moral, articulate, cold, cerebral, remote, and wholly uninterested in helping the average Catholic understand (much less reconcile) himself to what seems to be a change in the direction the wind is blowing.
on April 15th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
If clothes didn’t matter, the pope wouldn’t be ordering new vestments or rejecting the ones prepared for him in Australia, would he? (The Australian example is such a disappointment and affront; it makes me deeply sad.)
It seems impossible that the pope is going in for Leo X vestments just because he just likes the way they look. He is telegraphing a message. But what is the message? I read somewhere recently that he plans to rehabilitate Martin Luther. Is this a little drama, in which he will play Leo with a new and better script, and these are the costumes?
Even as I write this, I don’t believe it, and liturgy is not a costume drama anyway… but what are the alternatives? That he admires Leo X? That he wants the church today to emulate the church of that period? That he really does think sumptuous display is a good thing, despite CSL?