One of today’s questions is whether or not Pope Leo will occupy the Papal apartments in the Apostolic Palace or whether he will follow Francis’ example and move into a suite at the Domus Sanctae Martae. The first option will be portrayed as a shift back to the splendor, wealth, power and pomp of the Borgia and Medici popes. The second will be portrayed as the choice of a simple, humble follower of St Francis.

While this is the obvious (and shallow) conclusion to draw, the question of splendor and simplicity is rather more complicated. First let us examine the reasoning and motivation for the call for the pope to live in the St Martha Hotel. Some folks on social media point out that Jesus wouldn’t live in a papal palace. He was a poor man–born in a stable, raised in a carpenter’s home and said he had no place to lay his head. This is undeniable. Critics of the apostolic palace also criticize the splendor and magnificence of the grand Catholic Churches and cathedrals observing that the early Christians would not have worshipped in such grand edifices. Both of these arguments miss their mark to the point of absurdity.

Yes, we worship the Lord Jesus Christ–born in a stable into a poor family–a homeless, itinerant preacher. However, that same homeless man is now risen, ascended and glorified and sits at the right hand of the father as the King of the Universe. His dwelling in heaven is described in the Book of Revelation as a place of unimaginable splendor: Gates of pearl and streets of gold surrounded by a crystal sea. Come now. The splendor of Catholic buildings has always been to give the faithful a little glimpse of their heavenly home–a little foretaste of the glory that awaits them. It was never for its own sake or for the glory of man.

As to the second point that the early Christians would not have worshipped in grand buildings. To be honest, after the fourth century (when it was suddenly legal to be a Christian) the early Christians DID build and worship in splendid buildings and some of them–like the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem–are still standing to this day. But there is another problem with the “early Christians didn’t worship this way” argument. It is a more general problem which is the problem of primitivism. I have an extended article on primitivism here. But to summarize it–we live in the 21st century not the 1st. It is impossible to replicate the conditions of the first century, and even if we could, what would be the point and who is to say what to keep from the 21 c and what to abandon? Shall we meet in cellars without electricity and HVAC? Will we be allowed a sound system in our churches? Pews? Indoor toilets? Must the walls be whitewashed, the windows (if we’re allowed windows) plain glass? What would be the point? For 2000 years the Christian faith has grown in truth, beauty and goodness. Shall we abandon the art, architecture and fine music that was inspired by the glory of the Lord? Be Amish if you wish, but spare us.

Which brings me back to the question of splendor and simplicity. Should Pope Leo occupy the papal apartments of St Martha’s Bunkhouse? There are practical and economic advantages to both. The papal apartments are easier from a security and workplace point of view as they are already equipped with the offices and support rooms the pope needs. Their isolation makes them easier from a security standpoint. One hears that the renovations and adaptations required at the St Martha Hotel for Pope Francis to live there were actually quite costly.

But putting aside those considerations, what about the optics and ethics of the question? Is it somehow more ethical to live in a very simple hotel room rather than the papal apartments? Only if you think that those material differences are, in and of themselves, morally and ethically superior or inferior. In other words, are the rooms at the St Martha Hotel intrinsically, morally superior? If so, how so? In fact, both residences are comfortable, efficient and adequate to a single man’s needs. There only remains, therefore, the question of optics. How does this appear to the world? What kind of a Christian witness does it establish? Clearly, to reside in St Martha’s Hotel is a Public Relations headline. It purports to show the man’s humility and simplicity. But does it really? One take is that it is actually a not so subtle way to show off.  “Look at me! See how humble I am! I wear work boots and drive a dinky car and sleep on a mattress on the floor!” I call this fake Franciscanism. Its a kind of overblown ostentatious humility therefore not very humble at all.

On the other hand, if the pope doesn’t make a fuss of where he lives and simply conforms to the tradition and moves into the papal apartments it would seem to me that he is, by doing so, much more self effacing. He does not presume to make the office in his own image and to his own liking, but accepts the office and its traditions as it is.

Finally, there is the larger question of splendor and simplicity in the Catholic Church. Catholicism is always both/and not either/or. Yes, we have splendor, but we also have simplicity–lots of it. All one needs to do is take a look at the numerous religious orders in the church: men and women who take solemn vows of poverty–who live with the poor and serve the poor the world over. In fact Pope Leo himself exhibits this both/and. As an Augustinian friar he has taken a vow of personal poverty. As a missionary in Peru he has spent decades living with and serving our poorest brothers and sisters. He shows us how one can live in simplicity within the splendor–after all–if he occupies the papal apartments–they’re not his. He just lives there.

Splendor and simplicity? Yes, we have splendid basilicas, but we also have mud hut churches with thatched roofs. Yes we have towering gothic cathedrals, but we also have tin churches in the shanty towns.  Yes we have churches on Fifth Avenue in New York, but we also have churches on the smoking dumps of Manila.

 

We are in the paradoxical situation of being a church of the poor for the poor–and we go so far as not even excluding those who are poorest of all–the rich.