I feel like we're overstating the importance of this all round. When it comes to the red shoes (among other things), Pope Francis is no iconoclast--he is returning to the same pattern as John Paul II.
To my mind, the most that can be said for the fanon, for example, is that using it is a matter of indifference. I really do not think it prideful to sand back the build up--I am frankly very glad that recent popes have preferred the mitre of their pastoral office to the tiara. I do not miss the gloves at all either, and I find it perfectly acceptable that they choose to walk on their own feet rather than being carried around in a sedan chair. Is any pruning really unacceptable?
It never bothered me at all that Pope Benedict reinstituted the red shoes--along with several other distinctive papal accoutrements--nor does it bother me that Pope Francis has chosen not to continue the same policy. Overall, I support the emphasis to the Pope's proper office as bishop, and I'm happy that popes have decided to look like bishops. Several popes have now shelved the tiara entirely in favor of the mitre, but Benedict was the first to do the it in his coat of arms. Francis has followed suit.
It's been rightly pointed out how overstated the contrast between these two has been in media coverage. I think we should try hard to avoid reproducing it in our conversation here.
