I'm glad the pilgrimage is keeping its distance from Rupnik's art, but how sad it is that the burden to create that distance will fall on the young men and women who signed up to spend their summers walking with Christ as witnesses to the faith because the Church and the shrine have dragged their feet on what clearly ought to be done
As a 4th Generation Knight, with 5th generation sons in the Order, the present leadership is historically weak and cowardly.
The art of an ordained sexual deviant should be covered with a large tarp, and ultimately destroyed. Rupnik has done unspeakable and previously unheard of deviancies with consecrated women and continues to enjoy prominence...
BECAUSE THOSE IN POWER AT THE K of C APPROVE.
At this juncture, it is the only plausible reason. In the $1.3 Billion in assets and $120 Billion in insurance, under the full control of the Knights of Columbus, less than 0.1% can restore the St. JPII Shrine to the holiness the faithful deserve. This does not include over $2 Billion in assets reported on the K of C Charities IRS 990 in 2018. If they want to remodel, funds appear to be available.
Not a matter of money or prudence. It is a matter of courage and assent.
Hard to say exactly. I bet if the leadership wanted to, they could find an extra $4 million out of the $2700 million they consistently reserved as assets since the 2018 IRS 990. This could cover the removal of Rupnik art at Supreme and the St. JP II shrine along with a fitting restoration at less than 0.15% of assets claimed.
I'm greatly appreciative the Eucharistic Revival organizers were sensitive enough to the Rupnick scandal to take steps not get caught getting associated in the whole awful ugly mess. The Official Pilgrims on the Seton Route are fine young adults. We local pilgrims had a lovely, Adoration-filled, well-fed day walking with them through Hanover PA.
// A spokesperson for the National Eucharistic Congress told The Pillar that perpetual pilgrims on the National Eucharistic Pilgrimage have been directed not to pose for photographs June 8 in front of mosaics designed and created by Rupnik, who was expelled from the Jesuit order last year, and who has been accused of sexually abusing some 30 religious sisters. //
Even beyond the due process issue—if I understand correctly, this is still an open investigation—there’s the question of how many of our sacred spaces we’re prepared to dismantle because of the sins of their builders.
In the US, secular culture has misled victims of violence with the false assurance that they will obtain closure and be shielded from further pain if we destroy the one who perpetrated the crime against them. But is that really where healing comes from?
If the stewards of this shrine, through prayerful discernment, conclude that the art no longer serves to lift many hearts to God, and that the images themselves do not represent enough truth and beauty to warrant their presence—by all means, replace the art. We should be prepared to do this in the Sistine Chapel and our local parish, too. But it should not be motivated by the argument that such destruction is the only way to soothe and satisfy either injured persons or an angry and vengeful god.
However, your stance is one of false equivalence. Rupnik’s art was likely created through acts of sexual abuse. I’m not aware of allegations of sexual abuse being integral to the creation of other sacred art. Moreover, Rupnik is still living an unaccountable for his crimes.
If I knew the answers to a couple questions, I might be able to better understand the prevailing wisdom on this issue:
- Who suffers most by the destruction of this art? Is it the alleged perpetrator who has already enjoyed the process and the praise, or the religious institutions that commissioned and use the art?
- At what point in the condemnation process ought the demolition to begin? Immediately after the accusation, not until conviction, or when the enraged outcry reaches a certain level?
- Are the creators of sacred images and the objects themselves more important than the subject matter that they depict and the purpose they were meant to serve?
The primary issue is that apparently the artist made the violation of consecrated religious women over whom he had spiritual authority integral to the “theology” underlying the art. The creation of the art was used to abuse women and vice versa. As a result the art itself appears blasphemous. This is very different from taking down art that is created by someone who committed crimes not related to the creation of the art. A previous Pillar article describes the abuse in detail. Note that he has been accused by multiple women.
I could see potentially waiting until the case is officially closed and Rupnik convicted to take down art that already exists, but my understanding/memory is that the Jesuits have indicated that the allegations appear to be credible, and the fact that Rupnik was excommunicated for a related offense only adds to the credibility of the allegations.
Finally, the art itself is very distinctive (not to mention often visually creepy.). A simple glance tells you who the artist is.
Unlike a David Haas song (which have all been removed from our hymnals because he used his position as a Christian composer and musician to abuse women) one doesn’t need to look up the artist to know who created it.
I think that all of this is explains why people want “this” art removed and why doing so shouldn’t lead to any other art created by another artist who may have committed unrelated crimes being removed as well.
I’m not sure that these questions are particularly relevant as framed.
The focus of your questions appears to be on the concerns of the administrators of places of worship and the rights of Rupnik. These should be secondary to the needs andof faithful at large, that is the common good.
The faithful should be able to enter sacred spaces and read official church publications without encountering art from a disgraced cleric whose art is an ongoing scandalous reminder of his actions as long as it remains in prominent (public) view.
Rupnik was excommunicated for abusing a sacrament and subsequently expelled from his religious order following his disregard for ministerial restrictions placed on him in light of allegations of sexual abuse. My understanding is that further canonical actions weren’t initially taken, not due to a lack of substantiation of the allegations, but due to prescription (statute of limitations) which had not been waived.
Leaving aside the questions of whether the Jesuits should have done more, the facts as I understand them are more than sufficient justification to remove or otherwise cover his works.
Rupnik’s due process rights and the hardship on administrators of sacred spaces do not outweigh the ongoing scandal caused by the continued display of his works.
Edit: I should be clear that some of these questions are interesting and worth pondering in general. I just don’t think they need to be answered in this case. We can come to a conclusion about this gravity of this specific case because of some of the uniquely horrible facts.
I'm glad the pilgrimage is keeping its distance from Rupnik's art, but how sad it is that the burden to create that distance will fall on the young men and women who signed up to spend their summers walking with Christ as witnesses to the faith because the Church and the shrine have dragged their feet on what clearly ought to be done
This makes me love our bishops and this National Eucharistic effort even more.
As a 4th Generation Knight, with 5th generation sons in the Order, the present leadership is historically weak and cowardly.
The art of an ordained sexual deviant should be covered with a large tarp, and ultimately destroyed. Rupnik has done unspeakable and previously unheard of deviancies with consecrated women and continues to enjoy prominence...
BECAUSE THOSE IN POWER AT THE K of C APPROVE.
At this juncture, it is the only plausible reason. In the $1.3 Billion in assets and $120 Billion in insurance, under the full control of the Knights of Columbus, less than 0.1% can restore the St. JPII Shrine to the holiness the faithful deserve. This does not include over $2 Billion in assets reported on the K of C Charities IRS 990 in 2018. If they want to remodel, funds appear to be available.
Not a matter of money or prudence. It is a matter of courage and assent.
IRS 990 for 2022 = $2.7 Billion in assets, not counting insurance company.
How much of those assets are liquid or semi-liquid?
Hard to say exactly. I bet if the leadership wanted to, they could find an extra $4 million out of the $2700 million they consistently reserved as assets since the 2018 IRS 990. This could cover the removal of Rupnik art at Supreme and the St. JP II shrine along with a fitting restoration at less than 0.15% of assets claimed.
I'm greatly appreciative the Eucharistic Revival organizers were sensitive enough to the Rupnick scandal to take steps not get caught getting associated in the whole awful ugly mess. The Official Pilgrims on the Seton Route are fine young adults. We local pilgrims had a lovely, Adoration-filled, well-fed day walking with them through Hanover PA.
// A spokesperson for the National Eucharistic Congress told The Pillar that perpetual pilgrims on the National Eucharistic Pilgrimage have been directed not to pose for photographs June 8 in front of mosaics designed and created by Rupnik, who was expelled from the Jesuit order last year, and who has been accused of sexually abusing some 30 religious sisters. //
No cell phones. Nothing to see here. Move on.
Even beyond the due process issue—if I understand correctly, this is still an open investigation—there’s the question of how many of our sacred spaces we’re prepared to dismantle because of the sins of their builders.
In the US, secular culture has misled victims of violence with the false assurance that they will obtain closure and be shielded from further pain if we destroy the one who perpetrated the crime against them. But is that really where healing comes from?
If the stewards of this shrine, through prayerful discernment, conclude that the art no longer serves to lift many hearts to God, and that the images themselves do not represent enough truth and beauty to warrant their presence—by all means, replace the art. We should be prepared to do this in the Sistine Chapel and our local parish, too. But it should not be motivated by the argument that such destruction is the only way to soothe and satisfy either injured persons or an angry and vengeful god.
Indeed, all art is created by sinners.
However, your stance is one of false equivalence. Rupnik’s art was likely created through acts of sexual abuse. I’m not aware of allegations of sexual abuse being integral to the creation of other sacred art. Moreover, Rupnik is still living an unaccountable for his crimes.
If I knew the answers to a couple questions, I might be able to better understand the prevailing wisdom on this issue:
- Who suffers most by the destruction of this art? Is it the alleged perpetrator who has already enjoyed the process and the praise, or the religious institutions that commissioned and use the art?
- At what point in the condemnation process ought the demolition to begin? Immediately after the accusation, not until conviction, or when the enraged outcry reaches a certain level?
- Are the creators of sacred images and the objects themselves more important than the subject matter that they depict and the purpose they were meant to serve?
The primary issue is that apparently the artist made the violation of consecrated religious women over whom he had spiritual authority integral to the “theology” underlying the art. The creation of the art was used to abuse women and vice versa. As a result the art itself appears blasphemous. This is very different from taking down art that is created by someone who committed crimes not related to the creation of the art. A previous Pillar article describes the abuse in detail. Note that he has been accused by multiple women.
I could see potentially waiting until the case is officially closed and Rupnik convicted to take down art that already exists, but my understanding/memory is that the Jesuits have indicated that the allegations appear to be credible, and the fact that Rupnik was excommunicated for a related offense only adds to the credibility of the allegations.
Finally, the art itself is very distinctive (not to mention often visually creepy.). A simple glance tells you who the artist is.
Unlike a David Haas song (which have all been removed from our hymnals because he used his position as a Christian composer and musician to abuse women) one doesn’t need to look up the artist to know who created it.
I think that all of this is explains why people want “this” art removed and why doing so shouldn’t lead to any other art created by another artist who may have committed unrelated crimes being removed as well.
I’m not sure that these questions are particularly relevant as framed.
The focus of your questions appears to be on the concerns of the administrators of places of worship and the rights of Rupnik. These should be secondary to the needs andof faithful at large, that is the common good.
The faithful should be able to enter sacred spaces and read official church publications without encountering art from a disgraced cleric whose art is an ongoing scandalous reminder of his actions as long as it remains in prominent (public) view.
Rupnik was excommunicated for abusing a sacrament and subsequently expelled from his religious order following his disregard for ministerial restrictions placed on him in light of allegations of sexual abuse. My understanding is that further canonical actions weren’t initially taken, not due to a lack of substantiation of the allegations, but due to prescription (statute of limitations) which had not been waived.
Leaving aside the questions of whether the Jesuits should have done more, the facts as I understand them are more than sufficient justification to remove or otherwise cover his works.
Rupnik’s due process rights and the hardship on administrators of sacred spaces do not outweigh the ongoing scandal caused by the continued display of his works.
Edit: I should be clear that some of these questions are interesting and worth pondering in general. I just don’t think they need to be answered in this case. We can come to a conclusion about this gravity of this specific case because of some of the uniquely horrible facts.