I don’t envy the KoC in this position. There’s no quick or simple solution that’s going to please everybody.
It’s not a simple drapery job to cover all the art up and if my husbands parish is anything to go by, they’ve had the same blonde brick coloured beige curtain covering a laughably bad depiction of the Last Supper (apparently Aryan Jesus also enjoyed roast suckling pig at Passover *headdesk*) behind the altar for 25 years (as least). You want to do it properly and an aesthetically pleasing manner so it doesn’t become more of a distraction.
Very quick & simple solution actually… Cover them immediately, and without delay with almost anything (plywood, draperies, felt banners, white wash, etc.)
Nothing they could cover these up with could possibly rise anywhere close to the scandal of their continued inaction without explanation. It would be a sign that they take this extremely seriously, and are not seeking ways to excuse such horrific acts of violence and sin.
I’m guessing you haven’t seen them bc they are floor to ceiling (and into the ceiling) of all four walls Including the entire altar of the chapel. It’s literally not cover-able unless you just paint over the rocks as one color.
if you mean those of us who are in full communion with Rome, but view the Luminous Mysteries as violation of the Rosary given to us by Our Lady, and Rupnik art as commupance for the homoclerical modernism tolerated in the 20th century Church, yes.
If Mother Teresa had repeated a catchy tune, "Ba-da-ba-ba-baaa", does a Big Mac get it's wings? If a satanist sings Ave Maria, is the song no longer sacred? Did Michelangelo ascend into heaven after carving the Pietà? Have bad people ever made good things?
I am unaware of any artwork available from Jesus or Mother Mary, so all art, including sacred art, has had its source in poor wretched sinners like me. I don't fully understand why the Creator choose to make it that way, but that is the way He made it. Therefore, we should judge the art apart from the artist.* Has the art changed since it's commission? Is the art true, beautiful and good? If so, let it stand.
* I acknowledge the is an interconnection between artist and art that can complicate and be an exception. In fact, there's lots of nuance to acknowledge, but this is an internet discussion thread, not a dissertation. I'm just adding my wildly unpopular take to moderate reactions and add a different point of view for consideration.
> all art, including sacred art, has had its source in poor wretched sinners like me.
The souls of poor wretched sinners who are in a state of grace are (I have read) extremely beautiful and in them God finds delight, so don't sell yourself short. A person ought to have contrition for one's own past sins, and to beg for the grace of final perseverance, and to reject any temptation to presumption, but a person (in particular a baptized person who is a temple of the Holy Spirit, as I was reminded by a Flannery O'Connor story) ought also to desire to be made into something more and more beautiful (holy) by the Holy Spirit whom we sometimes call the Sanctifier.
> Therefore, we should judge the art apart from the artist.
Sometimes a person reads part of someone's writings and is troubled by them without being able to put a finger on "what is wrong" ("there's no there there", or "something feels twisted but I am unable to feel exactly what", like Fiver unable to explain what unsettled him about Strawberry's warren; it feels like mist and losing one's way) and then later finds out that this author had been living a lie. The reverse is also true (reading one specific bit of Forget Not Love a reader can smell that the author, while nominally writing speculatively about a saint's mystic experience, is writing experientially about his own.) What I hear is that some people have for years looked at some of Rupnik's various mosaics and been troubled by them without being able to define exactly why. Your argument cuts both ways, which is neat: when those people thought "something about these feels wrong", the rest of the world ought *not* to have basically said "but he is a famous popular artist and a priest; therefore the problem is in you, not in the art", because that *is* judging the artwork by the artist's reputation rather than judging it by looking at it.
And you have a point, it has been made in previous comment threads on this site. Great sinners have also produced great liturgical art. Caravaggio comes up frequently. He was a violent drunkard who fled several cities after getting into murderous fights and gambling debts. He also produced amazing (and controversial) sacred art.
The difference that most people take umbrage with is that Rupnik’s sin were part of his artistic process. If you want to ruin your day, read the prior pillar reports and the links to the testimonies of his victims. He used all sorts of blasphemous and sexual crap to manipulate ‘his models’ for an unknown number of artworks and commissions.
The equivalent would be Caravaggio murdering people to get compliant models, which for his sins, he did not do. That’s why most people here arguing for their removal are doing so. Rupnik is not some regular sinner who also is a reasonably competent artist. He built it into the ‘inspiration’ for the work. It’s not at all suitable for a sacred space on those merits.
For what it’s worth, if there was good evidence that Michelangelo murdered someone in order to pose them for his Pieta, I would expect it to be removed from St Peter’s Basilica. Thank goodness Michelangelo is a much better artist and has a better artistic imagination.
Also... is Caravaggio really that great as a *liturgical* artist? I get that his technique and expression are wonderful, but is his work optimal for devotion? Mozart wrote a fabulous work of music and called it a Requiem, but that doesn't necessarily mean that his almost sensual music matches the stark, somber, and transcendent Requiem Mass itself.
Go to Santa Maria de Popolo in Rome and let me know what you think of the St. Peter and St. Paul paintings therein. They are wonderful for devotion in the space, if you ask me, albeit Paul falling off a horse is incorrect. Yes, Caravaggio is controversial for both his life and the 'timeliness' of his art, i.e., everyone looks like a 17th C. Florentine. I find his work, precisely by elevating the earthy (not just the earthly) with accuracy of form, to be highly in keeping with the longer tradition of the Western liturgical art before it.
I’m not sure how anyone wouldn’t consider The Calling of St. Matthew or the Incredulity of Saint Thomas to not be fit for devotion? The detail and use of light in those paintings is powerful stuff.
I would consider sacred art and sacred art for use in the liturgy synonymous, but Daniel's point has merit. It is worth considering if art for use in the liturgy has some higher standard to meet, and if a part of that standard is the reputation of the artist. If so, how do we handle if the artist is still alive? Even if highly unlikely, Rupnik could still become a great saint. Shall we only evaluate the art after the artist is deceased so their reputation can be evaluated safely, as a whole?
Fair point. There’s room for differences of preference there. I would argue that Caravaggio is a much better artist than Rupnik. Rupnik’s style is highly graphical and it takes all the least interesting parts of the Byzantine Iconographic tradition and ‘modernises’ with flatter colour palettes, far less detail in the eyes, faces and expressions. They look far less human than even the most exaggerated Byzantine figure which, the florentine renaissance (perhaps over) emphasised. I grew up surrounded by Byzantine iconography (my mother writes them) and right from my first exposure to Rupnik (that Year of Mercy Graphic) I found it repulsive.
The other aspect of Byzantine iconography is the practice of prayer built into the very process of creating it. Every part, from preparing the board to painting and finishing has multiple layers, between 3 and 12 depending on how old school you’re going. There are ALWAYS at least three layers of gauche paint from darkest to lightest. And the whole time the writer is supposed to be a meditation and prayer on the image being written.
This is again why Rupnik is even MORE reprensibile in corrupting a process of creating that itself is supposed to be a prayer, and he used it to get his jollies…
Yes, it's probably worth pointing out that Rupnik's art is much worse than Caravaggio's. But your comment on iconography is something I was trying to get at as well. The icon is *not* just art, it is written and not drawn, and there are expectations on the spiritual life of the writer. Why? Because you can't write what you don't know.
Artistically, if you don't study nudes you can't paint the body realistically under clothing (at least that's what I hear). So how can you possibly portray God Incarnate if you don't study God? And the saints tell us that you cannot know God unless you are seeking Him, which requires a life of perpetual purification.
If an artist's life is clearly devoid of all attempts at purification, their art, as art, may be quite wonderful (though I don't think Rupnik's is; in fact I'm inclined to agree with everything you said about his aesthetic), but what it cannot be is a spiritual revelation of God, unless God chooses to act in total disregard of the artist's disregard of Him.
The situations you mention do not involve the blasphemy and sacrilege (though what true satanist would sing the Ave Maria) committed by Rupnik on women consecrated to the Lord.
At this point, I'm of the belief that it is a testament to Catholic's good will that people aren't just walking in to the various locations where his odious artwork is displayed and fixing this problem with a sledge hammer.
I refused to touch the music issues and missals in my parish after his crimes came to light. I was also tempted to rip off the covers. And, as Bridget and others have mentioned, I never understood the wide empty eyes and was frequently unnerved by them in a way I couldn’t quite articulate.
I’m wondering if it’s even possible to cover everything up. The mosaics are everywhere, not only all over the shrine but around the world…huge areas of mosaics in the most visible areas. Are they all his or are just certain walls his own handiwork? I thought the colors and the workmanship was beautiful but even before I knew anything about Rupnik, I didn’t like the vacant eyes, the modernity, and the big circle of color (usually red) that is his signature. Now that I have been traveling more, I recognize them everywhere and really, it’s too much! Have we no other artists in the 21st century? Must we use Rupnik art in every new liturgical space? His work is greatly over represented. What a mess.
It will take significant time, effort and money to replace them all with worthy art - you are correct that the stuff is all over the place. But in the meantime, cover it all with black drapes, and a sign imploring prayers of reparations. I would rather see all our churches in mourning than continue to give space to this man's despicable testament to his crimes.
The sad reality is the long and troubled history not just of the Rupnik art in this Shrine, but the very existence and architecture of the facility itself. It is neither pretty, nor hospitable, nor functionally interesting. It was in disuse for almost a decade. It houses Rupnik's work, yes, but I submit that the reason why Rupnik's work is there at all is that the whole conception of the JPII Center/shrine was ill-conceived and barely accomplished. It would have been better if someone had come up with a different vision for the place 30+ years ago. The architectural revulsion I have always had to this place stands in stark contrast to what it could have been, so closely located to the Basilica Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. Would that some entire other vision happened, and that the Cardinal Archbishop of Detroit signed off on this other vision instead. Anyway, that is my lament. The building, in a strange way, deserves the Rupnik art because it is always-already a mistake.
There has been a lot of flagrantly bad art shoved at Catholics as live-with-it propaganda since Vatican II. Is anyone seriously considering tearing it all down?
A more constructive approach would probably be to find a good artist (according to one's own preferences) who is alive and producing Catholic art, and support that artist with commissions and prayer. If a person cannot afford commissions and does not have a network of friends to endorse good artists to, prayer still has real value as a contribution to a shield against the enemy (who would prefer the production of ugly or misleading things, or anything that occupies us but does not lift our hearts and minds to God.)
I don’t envy the KoC in this position. There’s no quick or simple solution that’s going to please everybody.
It’s not a simple drapery job to cover all the art up and if my husbands parish is anything to go by, they’ve had the same blonde brick coloured beige curtain covering a laughably bad depiction of the Last Supper (apparently Aryan Jesus also enjoyed roast suckling pig at Passover *headdesk*) behind the altar for 25 years (as least). You want to do it properly and an aesthetically pleasing manner so it doesn’t become more of a distraction.
Good luck to them.
Not easy, but it sounds like they've had over a year and a half to think about it.
Very quick & simple solution actually… Cover them immediately, and without delay with almost anything (plywood, draperies, felt banners, white wash, etc.)
Nothing they could cover these up with could possibly rise anywhere close to the scandal of their continued inaction without explanation. It would be a sign that they take this extremely seriously, and are not seeking ways to excuse such horrific acts of violence and sin.
I’m guessing you haven’t seen them bc they are floor to ceiling (and into the ceiling) of all four walls Including the entire altar of the chapel. It’s literally not cover-able unless you just paint over the rocks as one color.
Not a bad idea
"It’s literally not cover-able unless you just paint over the rocks as one color."
That's a fantastic idea! Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to mud over everything first so that tile patterns are no long discernable.
The Rupnik mural in the JPII building with the Luminous mysteries
The sedevacantists must be loving this one
if you mean those of us who are in full communion with Rome, but view the Luminous Mysteries as violation of the Rosary given to us by Our Lady, and Rupnik art as commupance for the homoclerical modernism tolerated in the 20th century Church, yes.
If Mother Teresa had repeated a catchy tune, "Ba-da-ba-ba-baaa", does a Big Mac get it's wings? If a satanist sings Ave Maria, is the song no longer sacred? Did Michelangelo ascend into heaven after carving the Pietà? Have bad people ever made good things?
I am unaware of any artwork available from Jesus or Mother Mary, so all art, including sacred art, has had its source in poor wretched sinners like me. I don't fully understand why the Creator choose to make it that way, but that is the way He made it. Therefore, we should judge the art apart from the artist.* Has the art changed since it's commission? Is the art true, beautiful and good? If so, let it stand.
* I acknowledge the is an interconnection between artist and art that can complicate and be an exception. In fact, there's lots of nuance to acknowledge, but this is an internet discussion thread, not a dissertation. I'm just adding my wildly unpopular take to moderate reactions and add a different point of view for consideration.
> all art, including sacred art, has had its source in poor wretched sinners like me.
The souls of poor wretched sinners who are in a state of grace are (I have read) extremely beautiful and in them God finds delight, so don't sell yourself short. A person ought to have contrition for one's own past sins, and to beg for the grace of final perseverance, and to reject any temptation to presumption, but a person (in particular a baptized person who is a temple of the Holy Spirit, as I was reminded by a Flannery O'Connor story) ought also to desire to be made into something more and more beautiful (holy) by the Holy Spirit whom we sometimes call the Sanctifier.
> Therefore, we should judge the art apart from the artist.
Sometimes a person reads part of someone's writings and is troubled by them without being able to put a finger on "what is wrong" ("there's no there there", or "something feels twisted but I am unable to feel exactly what", like Fiver unable to explain what unsettled him about Strawberry's warren; it feels like mist and losing one's way) and then later finds out that this author had been living a lie. The reverse is also true (reading one specific bit of Forget Not Love a reader can smell that the author, while nominally writing speculatively about a saint's mystic experience, is writing experientially about his own.) What I hear is that some people have for years looked at some of Rupnik's various mosaics and been troubled by them without being able to define exactly why. Your argument cuts both ways, which is neat: when those people thought "something about these feels wrong", the rest of the world ought *not* to have basically said "but he is a famous popular artist and a priest; therefore the problem is in you, not in the art", because that *is* judging the artwork by the artist's reputation rather than judging it by looking at it.
This is the second time in as many days that I encounter a Watership Down reference. Maybe it's time for me to reread it.
And you have a point, it has been made in previous comment threads on this site. Great sinners have also produced great liturgical art. Caravaggio comes up frequently. He was a violent drunkard who fled several cities after getting into murderous fights and gambling debts. He also produced amazing (and controversial) sacred art.
The difference that most people take umbrage with is that Rupnik’s sin were part of his artistic process. If you want to ruin your day, read the prior pillar reports and the links to the testimonies of his victims. He used all sorts of blasphemous and sexual crap to manipulate ‘his models’ for an unknown number of artworks and commissions.
The equivalent would be Caravaggio murdering people to get compliant models, which for his sins, he did not do. That’s why most people here arguing for their removal are doing so. Rupnik is not some regular sinner who also is a reasonably competent artist. He built it into the ‘inspiration’ for the work. It’s not at all suitable for a sacred space on those merits.
For what it’s worth, if there was good evidence that Michelangelo murdered someone in order to pose them for his Pieta, I would expect it to be removed from St Peter’s Basilica. Thank goodness Michelangelo is a much better artist and has a better artistic imagination.
Also... is Caravaggio really that great as a *liturgical* artist? I get that his technique and expression are wonderful, but is his work optimal for devotion? Mozart wrote a fabulous work of music and called it a Requiem, but that doesn't necessarily mean that his almost sensual music matches the stark, somber, and transcendent Requiem Mass itself.
Go to Santa Maria de Popolo in Rome and let me know what you think of the St. Peter and St. Paul paintings therein. They are wonderful for devotion in the space, if you ask me, albeit Paul falling off a horse is incorrect. Yes, Caravaggio is controversial for both his life and the 'timeliness' of his art, i.e., everyone looks like a 17th C. Florentine. I find his work, precisely by elevating the earthy (not just the earthly) with accuracy of form, to be highly in keeping with the longer tradition of the Western liturgical art before it.
I’m not sure how anyone wouldn’t consider The Calling of St. Matthew or the Incredulity of Saint Thomas to not be fit for devotion? The detail and use of light in those paintings is powerful stuff.
I would consider sacred art and sacred art for use in the liturgy synonymous, but Daniel's point has merit. It is worth considering if art for use in the liturgy has some higher standard to meet, and if a part of that standard is the reputation of the artist. If so, how do we handle if the artist is still alive? Even if highly unlikely, Rupnik could still become a great saint. Shall we only evaluate the art after the artist is deceased so their reputation can be evaluated safely, as a whole?
Fair point. There’s room for differences of preference there. I would argue that Caravaggio is a much better artist than Rupnik. Rupnik’s style is highly graphical and it takes all the least interesting parts of the Byzantine Iconographic tradition and ‘modernises’ with flatter colour palettes, far less detail in the eyes, faces and expressions. They look far less human than even the most exaggerated Byzantine figure which, the florentine renaissance (perhaps over) emphasised. I grew up surrounded by Byzantine iconography (my mother writes them) and right from my first exposure to Rupnik (that Year of Mercy Graphic) I found it repulsive.
The other aspect of Byzantine iconography is the practice of prayer built into the very process of creating it. Every part, from preparing the board to painting and finishing has multiple layers, between 3 and 12 depending on how old school you’re going. There are ALWAYS at least three layers of gauche paint from darkest to lightest. And the whole time the writer is supposed to be a meditation and prayer on the image being written.
This is again why Rupnik is even MORE reprensibile in corrupting a process of creating that itself is supposed to be a prayer, and he used it to get his jollies…
Yes, it's probably worth pointing out that Rupnik's art is much worse than Caravaggio's. But your comment on iconography is something I was trying to get at as well. The icon is *not* just art, it is written and not drawn, and there are expectations on the spiritual life of the writer. Why? Because you can't write what you don't know.
Artistically, if you don't study nudes you can't paint the body realistically under clothing (at least that's what I hear). So how can you possibly portray God Incarnate if you don't study God? And the saints tell us that you cannot know God unless you are seeking Him, which requires a life of perpetual purification.
If an artist's life is clearly devoid of all attempts at purification, their art, as art, may be quite wonderful (though I don't think Rupnik's is; in fact I'm inclined to agree with everything you said about his aesthetic), but what it cannot be is a spiritual revelation of God, unless God chooses to act in total disregard of the artist's disregard of Him.
I find that his art visually fits into the “uncanny valley.” The eyes look similar to those of famously creepy robots like “telenoid.”
https://robotsguide.com/robots/telenoid
The faith of the artist is proclaimed in the art.
The situations you mention do not involve the blasphemy and sacrilege (though what true satanist would sing the Ave Maria) committed by Rupnik on women consecrated to the Lord.
> though what true satanist would sing the Ave Maria
What fallen angel would appear as an angel of light?
What does the title mean?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mum%27s_the_word
Oh, I see. I know the expression but I never made the connection. Is it American usage or that was Luke just being whimsical?
I guess it's just American usage? Someone being "mum" on something means they're not saying anything... never realized it was an Americanism!
At this point, I'm of the belief that it is a testament to Catholic's good will that people aren't just walking in to the various locations where his odious artwork is displayed and fixing this problem with a sledge hammer.
As an aside, where DID I put my sledge...?
Thank you. Sensus fidelium might become involved when the authorities don't act. Enough hand wringing...
I refused to touch the music issues and missals in my parish after his crimes came to light. I was also tempted to rip off the covers. And, as Bridget and others have mentioned, I never understood the wide empty eyes and was frequently unnerved by them in a way I couldn’t quite articulate.
I in fact did rip the cover off the one such missalette that my parish was using
I’m wondering if it’s even possible to cover everything up. The mosaics are everywhere, not only all over the shrine but around the world…huge areas of mosaics in the most visible areas. Are they all his or are just certain walls his own handiwork? I thought the colors and the workmanship was beautiful but even before I knew anything about Rupnik, I didn’t like the vacant eyes, the modernity, and the big circle of color (usually red) that is his signature. Now that I have been traveling more, I recognize them everywhere and really, it’s too much! Have we no other artists in the 21st century? Must we use Rupnik art in every new liturgical space? His work is greatly over represented. What a mess.
It will take significant time, effort and money to replace them all with worthy art - you are correct that the stuff is all over the place. But in the meantime, cover it all with black drapes, and a sign imploring prayers of reparations. I would rather see all our churches in mourning than continue to give space to this man's despicable testament to his crimes.
The sad reality is the long and troubled history not just of the Rupnik art in this Shrine, but the very existence and architecture of the facility itself. It is neither pretty, nor hospitable, nor functionally interesting. It was in disuse for almost a decade. It houses Rupnik's work, yes, but I submit that the reason why Rupnik's work is there at all is that the whole conception of the JPII Center/shrine was ill-conceived and barely accomplished. It would have been better if someone had come up with a different vision for the place 30+ years ago. The architectural revulsion I have always had to this place stands in stark contrast to what it could have been, so closely located to the Basilica Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. Would that some entire other vision happened, and that the Cardinal Archbishop of Detroit signed off on this other vision instead. Anyway, that is my lament. The building, in a strange way, deserves the Rupnik art because it is always-already a mistake.
https://washington.org/find-dc-listings/saint-john-paul-ii-national-shrine#gallery-1
https://washington.org/find-dc-listings/saint-john-paul-ii-national-shrine#gallery-5
https://washington.org/find-dc-listings/saint-john-paul-ii-national-shrine#gallery-9
https://sdcason.com/content/images/size/w1200/2021/09/20190625_133110_o.jpeg
https://www.whiting-turner.com/projects/community/st-john-paul-ii-national-shrine/
There has been a lot of flagrantly bad art shoved at Catholics as live-with-it propaganda since Vatican II. Is anyone seriously considering tearing it all down?
A more constructive approach would probably be to find a good artist (according to one's own preferences) who is alive and producing Catholic art, and support that artist with commissions and prayer. If a person cannot afford commissions and does not have a network of friends to endorse good artists to, prayer still has real value as a contribution to a shield against the enemy (who would prefer the production of ugly or misleading things, or anything that occupies us but does not lift our hearts and minds to God.)