Springtime always draws attention to the sweet harmonies and scratchy discord between style and substance. The ducks that escort their young across green lawns to brimming ponds, and peck at anything or anyone that dares approach them; young things in coats and tails, summer dresses and cornucopial hats sit sozzled in Cup Day mud.
And this springtime there is the glorious spectacle of politicians who make doubtful claims for recompense and repay them when they are made public, all the while proclaiming their essential honesty; of legislators who criminalise groups while asserting their respect for the rule of law; of spooks who are caught spying on citizens throughout the world, including national leaders, and protest that they do it to protect us.
In the Catholic Church, too, the expansively named Limburg Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst was summoned to Rome by Pope Francis and later suspended from office. This followed protests against a lavish building program that led the tabloids to dub him 'the Bishop of Bling' who spent more than $50 million on his private residence.
Of course there was more to the story than that. The building project included a library, conference rooms, chapel, museum and the restoration of old buildings and walls. The cost was closer to $30 million. And the controversy was part of a wider German debate about the way the state collects funds for churches. Still, $30 million is a great deal of money. In the Limburg church during a time of austerity, a project in such radical contrast with the style displayed by Francis was on the nose. In this case the bishop's style had consequences of substance.
The relationship between style and substance recalls questions earlier asked about Francis — whether the novelties of his papacy were a matter of style or substance, and indeed whether this distinction was particularly helpful. This discussion may illuminate the broader cultural contrasts between style and substance.
People who wanted to minimise the novelty of Francis' actions, words and casual remarks argued that his innovations lay merely in style. They saw the underlying substance to lie in the Pope's adherence to the inner truth of Catholic faith and life. The substance was important. The style in which he spoke and acted had to do with the surface, and was unimportant.
This way of relating substance and style failed to catch the inner logic of the Pope's conduct. The substance of his message does