I dunno, Mike, St. Peter's Basilica is a gorgeous building, built over a number of centuries by the best Renaissance artists. The rest of the Vatican looks a bit run-down, and there is very little that one would call "sumptuous." I'm kinda glad they didn't tear down St. Peter's in an austerity move, or paint over the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel. St. Peter's is well-used, by the way.
St. Peter's is the only real church in the Vatican, although there is the Sistine and other chapels. The Sistine has that nice painting on the ceiling, but it's otherwise pretty austere. There are lots of beautiful churches in Rome - in general, they belong to the local parishes. Catholic dioceses do spend a lot of money maintaining museum-piece churches that are no longer needed, but who wants to tear them down or buy them? Most Catholics, even we liberals, are quite fond of those beautiful churches and the stories behind them. Seems like a better use of money than the Cathedrals of Sport that cities build for privately-owned athletic teams in the United States. Our local basketball team wants the city to help them build an arena to replace their 20-year-old building. How often are churches considered obsolete and torn down after 20 years?
-Joe-