Last summer the Vatican announced the 10 Commandments for motorists. In May it amended the church’s list of sins to include harming Mother Earth, joining the ranks of gluttony, envy, sloth and other less desirable traits. It’s nice to see this modernizing of religious principle, but Pope Benedict XVI conveniently omitted ‘thou shall not indulge.’ In a society so preoccupied with consumerism, industry and progress, why not chime in on our lifestyle of excess? Perhaps that’s because, according to Newsweek, the Pope’s visit to Washington, D.C. earlier this month was marred by the peculiar decision to sport Prada shoes. Perhaps it’s a desire to stimulate the local Italian economy or, Pope Benedict XVI is simply a label whore. For those of you, like myself, who have never stepped foot in a Prada store, a pair of men’s shoes will typically cost you between $300-400. With unprecedented levels of poverty in the world, and an increasing divide between rich and poor, I’d be curious to know how Mother Theresa or Gandhi would feel about the lavish wardrobe. It certainly makes me think twice when the Catholics come by with their second collection basket at Sunday Mass.
32 responses so far ↓
asimplesinner // April 10, 2008 at 10:29 am
Are you of the thinking that the second collection that is taken goes to by papal footwear?
Doesn’t occur to you they get donated in what ends up being a major coup of free advertising? Or that Prada in turn may donate money to hunger relief?
I am thinking that no one starved to death because the pope had donated Prada shoes.
cautiousoptimist // April 13, 2008 at 9:51 am
To dismiss the choices and behavior of someone who holds such an iconic post in the world as a possible strategic marketing tool for the greater good is just naive.
Last Sunday, Catholics in the Archdiocese of New York were exhorted to help ‘defray costs of the Pope’s visit’. I don’t know about you but I’ve not been shown a spending spreadsheet from collections like this. Maybe this money is going toward renting holy water fonts… or maybe it is going toward a New York wardrobe. Who knows?
Because of who he is, this man’s every choice from clothing accessories to gesticulations, will be (and should be questioned). He has a myriad advisors , how could these flunkies not think through something as blatent as this?
Seriously…what message do people associate with the donning of exorbetent footwear when, in the next breath, someone is calling for worldwide social justice? Ask the average person and my guess would be they might say the message is ‘hypocrisy’ or at the very least ‘arrogance’.
People’s perception is their reality. Shouldn’t Benny’s ‘right hand men’ think about the perception perpetuated by decisions like wearing Pradas? Especially in an already broken and untrusting church.
asimplesinner // April 13, 2008 at 2:33 pm
“To dismiss the choices and behavior of someone who holds such an iconic post in the world as a possible strategic marketing tool for the greater good is just naive.”
There is no naivete there. Presiding over the largest organization in the entire world, no wife, no kids, no real life of his own (the pope doesn’t disappear on vacation off to anonymity) I don’t begrudge the man a pair of shoes. To make a bigger issue out of this than the simple fact that a company made shoes for him, I am sorry, you can call me naive all you like, the “guns or butter” theories of economics still being what they are, it wasn’t a choice between poor people eating or the Pope wearing shoes that were donated.
I grew up in an ethnic church in a post-ethnic neighborhood. The people were poor but built a church that was magnificent - to them nothing was too good for God. People spent 10 hours in the factory and then ate a sandwhich and spent half the night building it by hand. It was actually the only beautiful thing in their neighborhood or their lives. They wanted it to be the best, it was a source of pride.
Seeing the Pope, our leader and an icon of our unity dressed in a nice pair of shoes and a crisp white soutane… well even though you perceive us as broken and untrusting, we simpy don’t feel that way and we look at him with pride and want our leader who has such burden to be well appointed not just who he is but for his office.
All things being equal, that Prada sent him some shoes really just doesn’t bother us.
thirdpartypirate // April 14, 2008 at 11:16 am
First, show me some evidence of some Prada humanitarian work. Secondly, for comparison, a CEO of a company living life so lavishly would have a tough time earning respect from minimun-wage workers. this is no different, if not worse because the Pope is essentially the CEO of an organization that claims to spread the teachings of God. the pope’s shameful lifestyle of excess demonstrates self, over selflessness.
asimplesinner // April 14, 2008 at 12:41 pm
“First, show me some evidence of some Prada humanitarian work”
Why?
That is so arbitrary it rather seems you are “bringing water to the well” on this one - examining the matter for a foregone conclusion.
If the Catholic Church were - the eyes of her faithful - simply analagous to a large corp with the Pope being the CEO… maybe there would be a question there. We simply don’t see it like that.
Just curious, in your metaphor, who in the Catholic Church is analagous to the min wage workers?
Would you have the Pope live in a youth hostel? Going barefoot?
If you just don’t like the Pope and the Catholic Church, that is one thing… Seizing on the fact he wears shoes donated by Prada… The logical fallacies start to show.
thirdpartypirate // April 14, 2008 at 1:01 pm
since you cant provide proof of Prada’s ‘donation’ to hunger relief, why don’t you at the very least provide some proof that Prada donates its footwear to the Catholic Church. By proof I mean a link from a reputable news source, not an agenda-driven amateur blog!
cautiousoptimist // April 14, 2008 at 8:57 pm
First of all, who is “we” you refer to in your above comment? You? The people of your parish church? I was raised in the Catholic church and I have volunteered with, worked for and ministered to the church for over twenty years. You should be clear (with yourself and others) that you are speaking only for yourself and like minded Catholics in your circle of “the faithful”. A small contingent of the millions.
Listen…it’s irrelevant to me whether Prada donated the shoes or not. Again, I go back to people’s perception. Not only Catholics, but our sisters and brothers of other faiths (and even the agnostics) get a sense of the Vatican’s grotesque excess. And, for fear of further confusion, allow me to clarify: the shoes are only ONE of MANY indications of this excess. Go to Rome and stand in one of the many Vatican museums, chapels or offices. Need I say more?
Additionally, I’m not sure what Catholic church you attend, but if you don’t get a sense that the Church is divided and in dire need of healing on so many fronts, then your parish priest and his pastoral associates have ‘missed the boat’ in their ministries.
I don’t dislike Benedict. I don’t know him. I only know what I see and how it epitomizes “the Office” you claim is so sacred. It is simply counterintuitive.
asimplesinner // April 14, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Hmm - I had a response I posted with some of the links asked for - it has either not been approved yet or won’t be. We will see.
As to:
“First of all, who is “we” you refer to in your above comment? You? The people of your parish church? I was raised in the Catholic church and I have volunteered with, worked for and ministered to the church for over twenty years. You should be clear (with yourself and others) that you are speaking only for yourself and like minded Catholics in your circle of “the faithful”. A small contingent of the millions.”
Well, back at ya. I mean honestly, my opinion represents (because you just know?) a small circle but yours is the gold standard?
It would be better for the pope to shop for second hand sneakers at Good Will Thrift Roma?
His shoes are this big of a deal?
cautiousoptimist // April 16, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I humbly acknowledge that my opinion is only one of many. But clearly you’re more interested in having the last word than coming to an understanding of a different point of view and achieving clarity.
It ceased being about the shoes several posts ago. How disappointing that we can’t speak objectively about the deeper issues.
…now when shall I expect your next post?
asimplesinner // April 16, 2008 at 5:49 pm
right now.
“I humbly acknowledge that my opinion is only one of many. But clearly you’re more interested in having the last word than coming to an understanding of a different point of view and achieving clarity. “
The irony is that it is cutting both ways.
What of your worldview are you thinking I don’t understand? It could well be that I understand, but disagree - these things happen.
What deeper issues do you want to objectively discuss at a deeper level?
cautiousoptimist // April 16, 2008 at 6:47 pm
The issue that materialism, even the appearance of, is in diametric opposition to church teachings. If the church has (literally) been built on the backs of the poor, lowly, humble and suffering… how is it OK to justify an Archdiocesan-wide second collections to subsidize a papal visit or the choice to wear lavish, indulgent accessories? I am appalled that any truly Catholic Christian could excuse such hubris. No wonder the Pope chose to begin his U.S. visit spending time with another blatently arrogant, self-involved world leader: they’re ‘two peas in a pod’!
asimplesinner // April 16, 2008 at 8:37 pm
” I am appalled that any truly Catholic Christian could excuse such hubris. “
That is regrettable that you have such feelings.
What is not diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching - which is sacramental and includes an understanding that Christ is truly physically present in the altar and works through our priests - is the idea that for the Church, we provide. And in doing so, this is not at the expense of the poor. No one starves for our efforts in giving to Christ through His Church.
The orphanages, hospitals, schools, adult education, and hospices we Catholics have set up around the world for the poorest of the poor, the betterment of people’s lives, and in meeting their needs have been a model others have envied and copied. My grandmothers were both poor rural farm girls taught by nuns who sacrificed a lifetime for the service of Christ in other people. Those same nuns were known for doing exquisit needlepoint for vestments - they saw no dichotomy there - they wanted to give Christ the best, at the altar, to His people, to His priests.
That being the case, to say the church was built on the backs of the poor makes for ominous sounding script, but is that fair?
The parish I grew up attending was built with the love and labor of the poor. In a working class neighborhood where nothing was very beautiful, nothing was too good for the Church - it was the beautiful thing in our lives, it was important to donate a good deal of time and money to its contruction, it rose like a fairy tale out of the ground even though it was surrounded by houses that were shabby filled with families that struggled but didn’t mind - they placed their hope in higher things.
So skipping the opinion on the president (why that is being brought in, except to spend your 2¢, I can’t say), I will only comment that this materialism that you bemoan (from likely your own personal computer with your own internet connection) represents our appointment of the places, people and things we care about with fine things.
No one starves because Prada donated some shoes, which in turn the Pope has turned around and donated. But believing in what his office is and his character and dignity, for him to have some nice things when standing at the altar and engaged in ministry, don’t begrudge those of us who don’t share in your sensibilities that.
asimplesinner // April 16, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Just curious if people aware that the Pope donates his shoes to the homeless?
The shoes that are donated to him, he in turn donates, Were it not for the fact that he accepted them - his one opportunity for some stylistic flourish to go with the traditional garb - those folks who now have shoes he donated would not have them. Does peopleknow about that? Does that get coverage? “The Pope Wears Prada” makes headlines for snickering, but “The Pope Donates Prada” doesn’t. Why is that?
When someone gives fine things like that to you, do you give them away to the poor and the homeless like the Pope?
cautiousoptimist // April 16, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Needless to say, this dialogue is over for me. The story of heartache and struggle you continue to weave is beautiful, but still conveniently overlooks the very same question you asked me to clarify for the purpose of objective discussion. We could go on in this circle into eternity, which would serve absolutely no purpose.
May God bless you…with Prada shoes for you to donate.
asimplesinner // April 17, 2008 at 12:32 am
“The story of heartache and struggle you continue to weave is beautiful, but still conveniently overlooks the very same question you asked me to clarify for the purpose of objective discussion.”
Like heart-wrenching concerns over the have-nots having not because of the papal shoes?
May God bless you… with humble abject poverty in never having anything fancy that would “betray the gospel message” to donate or provide comfort and support for your octogenarian soles as you stand at an altar for several hours a day.
Prada, The Pope, Poverty & Some Questions « The Black Cordelias // April 17, 2008 at 12:45 am
[...] Apropos: And We Thought The Devil Wore Prada « MediaMyopic [...]
thirdpartypirate // April 17, 2008 at 8:51 am
Hahaha…since when is Prada worn to “provide comfort and support” for soles. May I ask what brand of shoes you wear? And, yes, the Pope may be a Godsend for donating his smelly, worn Pradas but just think of all the people he could help if he sold that pair of Pradas (seeing that he is the Pope he could probably get at least double or triple the $300-400 asking price), then he could buy close to 1,000 pairs of functional, COMFORTABLE (not lavish) shoes for a plethora of poverty-stricken people.
If you care about the Church as much as you claim, you’d be bothered by such a careless display of materialism. I guess you’re unaware of the declining number of Cathlic priets, nuns and parishioners. HAPPY RECRUITING, buddy!
asimplesinner // April 17, 2008 at 9:27 am
Thanks for the weel wishing buddy, but in fact the numbers are on the upswing, with the number or seminarians and religious growing worldwide and the Catholic Church growing by over 300M in the past 4 decades. How did your theory about us shrinking go again?
So now the Pope is a bad guy for not going right to eBay with shoes?
I wear Shoes for Crews at work because they produce a good non-slip steel toe shoe. I ususally wear Adidas otherwise. Thanks for asking.
Jennifer // April 17, 2008 at 9:50 am
It’s not Prada, that’s a rumor. Check out more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_shoes
thirdpartypirate // April 17, 2008 at 10:06 am
jennifer, if you’re going to rebuke what’s been reported in the press at least provide a reputable news source…”asimplesinner” could’ve posted that on Wikepedia
asimplesinner // April 17, 2008 at 11:12 am
“jennifer, if you’re going to rebuke (sic) what’s been reported in the press at least provide a reputable news source…”asimplesinner” could’ve posted that on Wikepedia (sic)”
Now you are just trifling. I assure you, I didn’t edit a Wikipedia just to spite you or the fine com-box warriors of Media Myopic.
Does the Pope where Prada?
No, I don’t write for the Wall Street Journal…
Jennifer // April 17, 2008 at 11:45 am
Seriously, I would have figured you could search the internet as easily as I. After all many news sources have commented on this fact. It even made Regis and Kelly today. You can watch their Host Chat for 4/17, if interested. In the end, it is merely a rumor. A rumor that really only serves/affects Prada.
Yet another story:Benedict Is More Than Just Pope
thirdpartypirate // April 17, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Let me get this straight: first you say the Pope wears donated Prada shoes. Now, you say the Pope doesn’t wear Prada shoes at all. So, WHICH is it? you’re flip-flopping more than Mitt Romney
asimplesinner // April 17, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Why does politics keep getting mentioned?
Let me get this straight: first you say the Pope wears donated Prada shoes. Now, you say the Pope doesn’t wear Prada shoes at all. So, WHICH is it?
I don’t make up the news or the truth or determine which one is true - but these are the choices that are out there that are.
Worth noting, neither story supports the insinuation the Holy Father whips out the Vatican Visa at Prada Roma, do they?
Jennifer // April 17, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Pardon? How can an unconfirmed rumor constitute flip-flopping??
A reputation for being his own person and something of Vatican fashion celebrity came on the heels of gossip about his wearing red Prada shoes and Gucci sunglasses. (The Vatican later announced the loafers were not made by Prada, but provided by the pope’s personal cobbler.)
True or untrue, donated or nonexistent. The Vatican didn’t buy them. So why does it matter? Is your faith built on shoes?
Truly, we’ve all given more time to this then it deserves. But Prada thanks you.
couldthisreallybeaboutshoes // April 17, 2008 at 7:28 pm
This seems too personal to be objective, folks. Maybe someone could clarify exactly what the core argument is for me?
ignorance // April 18, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Those shoes were NOT Prada — those shoes were made by Adriano Stefanelli, the Pope’s cobbler:
http://www.romereports.com/index.php?lnk=700&id=657
DUH!
thirdpartypirate // April 18, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Thank You IGNORANCE for your ignorant religious propaganda. I’ve copied and pasted the mission of your ‘reputable’ news source known as romereports.com …. You right-wingers are relentless. Keep the wikipedia and rome reports stories coming!!! and while youre at it, you might as well submit essays you wrote in junior high - since credibility is so high on your list.
ROMEreports offers quality, religious-based programmes with a high level of professionalism. As with any specialization, reporting on the Catholic Church requires proximity to the source, in-depth knowledge of the institution, and a high standard of creativity and technical excellence.
——————————————————————————–
ROMEreports is geared to meeting the needs of television broadcasting companies around the world, offering more extensive reporting from Rome, and coverage of the life of the Church, papal addresses and other current social, political, economic, cultural and religious debates taking place in and around the Vatican.
——————————————————————————–
ROMEreports is an international agency funded by Fondazione Perseus, a non-profit Italian organization. For the past 20 years, the foundation has been devoted to promoting audiovisual activities, drawing on the expertise of communication specialists and professionals from around the world.
jos76 // April 20, 2008 at 8:35 am
“Humble” is not in the “Catholic” Bible…or at least they ignore it if it is. “hypocracy” on the other hand is alive and well. I saw the Pope in New York yeaterday and crowds of people wer clapping. He just took it as if he had done something personally to deserve it. If Jesus walked into a room and people clapped for him, he would have put a stop to it.
Jos76
http://www.jos76.wordpress.com
asimplesinner // April 20, 2008 at 9:39 am
“If Jesus walked into a room and people clapped for him, he would have put a stop to it.”
Well if you say so, we certainly can’t argue with it! All the more so since it is expedient in your critique…
The fact that Pope Benedict…
… is a visiting head of state
… the spiritual leader of 1.1B
… the head of the world’s largest charity
… has spoken out for peace
… is a successful author in his own right - he had best selling books before he was even pope
… has spoken out on human rights
… has promoted religous freedom and inter-religous understanding…
Well none of these things could make him admirable at least to us?
Just put any man in a white cassock and red shoes (Prada or otherwise) and we will clap hysterically for no good reason?
couldthisreallybeaboutshoes // April 21, 2008 at 5:01 pm
It seems asimplesinner will blindly defend and unwaiveringly question Benedict simply because of his ‘office’, so please leave him alone. If he is wishes to stand by a man who was elected by a group of theologically conservative, morally bankrupt, self-loathing homosexual aristocrats who desperately cling to dogma for their only sense of comfort and control, then please let him be.
Needless to say, I’m still unclear why we’re arguing. But while we are… whose authority states that the Catholic Church is the world’s largest charity, aimplesinner? And also, while we’re clarifying, I’d like to say that I admire Benedict’s tenacity and his ability to hold his head high amid the cries of hypocrisy– that his ‘office’ has shuffled pedophile, financially crooked priests around for innumerable years. That his ‘office’ has overlooked myriad global social injustices (when it is deemed convenient). That his ‘office’… (insert your own blatently grotesque dichotomy here) I’m not sure I could sleep at night with the sound of all those demons, but sure glad he can. Good for you, Benny !
asimplesinner // April 21, 2008 at 7:14 pm
You are so unclear you keep coming back for more?
” If he is wishes to stand by a man who was elected by a group of theologically conservative, morally bankrupt, self-loathing homosexual aristocrats who desperately cling to dogma for their only sense of comfort and control, then please let him be. “
Back at ya… the differnce being, Couldthisreallybeaboutshoes is intent at seeing the negative, putting the most angry spin and blindly raging.
So maybe it is part of your not being sure what it is about that with each returning response your claims against the Catholic Church - like buckshot out of a shotgun - grow more scattered and vitriolic.
You didn’t like that he wore Prada. Fine - we explained why if it was prada it would not bother us and noted that he makes donations and overseas an the largest charity in the world. Fair enough.
So then, not being sure what this is about any longer, you cast aspersions on me painting me as a blind loyalist and declare my faith to be bankrupt and run by homosexual aristocrats. Because that might have been what it is about?
At this point it is about grabbing any stick to beat that horse.
Leave a Comment