1st St Francis was a reformer (in his way), you are thinking of St Thomas More, who was named "defender of the faith"Jason C. said:
Uhh lighten up, St Francis. The criticism isn't anti-Catholic in any way; rather, it's that those objectively look like dog sheet and, legally, are utterly a-liturgical with no precedent in our religion's past or present (and nothing to offer its future).
The saddest thing of all, it's probably just another prelate giving make-work to his boyfriend. Thank God the revolutionary French government preserved Notre Dame against her current bishop's desires. He wanted to clown-vestment the whole place up to bring it in line with Vatican II! Notre Dame! That building, standing there empty and silent, even literally burned up, has brought more people to Christ than that pathetic bishop ever will.
2nd Notre Dame Cathedral was built in 1163 as the Abbey of Saint-Remi, and has never been deconsecrated. The French people own the building and the Catholic Church is their tenant. The "bishops" have no official say on the renovations.
3rd Vatican II is silent on vestments. Vestments go back to Jesus, who is said to have worn a seamless "tunic" often translated to outer garment or robe (John 19:23). Early church leaders also wore robes, which by the 4th century had evolved into vestments to reflect the liturgical season (as I have said).
Finally It is Jesus that brings people to the faith, not an individual or building. Jesus, working through the individual or the labor of the individuals (the church buildings etc.) provide a way for people to find their path to God. You can also find your own path (or not) to God and that too is acceptable.
