I understand the outcry over the public display of the artwork. But, why is there not greater outrage over the fact that Marko Rupnik has full faculties as a Diocesan priest at this moment? He is credibly accused of multiple acts of abusive behavior on different levels. He was excommunicated (albeit for a very short time) for committing the sin of absolving an accomplice in sexual sin. To me, he is a real danger to the faithful of Slovenia. The Bishop who incardinated him there should be ashamed and indeed, he should face accountability for the potential future victims of this man. This disgusts me even more than the displayed public artwork. This whole situation leads me to doubt the real commitment of the Church to victim outreach and protection.
ok…but from the Vatican and hierarchy, I have heard little or worse than little…Cardinal O’Malley’s request regarding digital art and the terrible remarks of the Papal spokesperson regarding deleting Marko Rupnik’s art…I would appreciate citations of any other public remarks from the hierarchy and/or Vatican regarding Marko Rupnik’s status…thank you J.D. for coverage by the Pillar…
I expect, because in order to directly and publicly criticize Rupnik's status, you have to publicly and directly or indirectly criticize the Pope, who has either intervened to protect him or failed to intervene to get things rolling, with the people he appointed. That isn't something any bishop or anyone in the Curia will be comfortable with, and not just because of what happens to people who publicly critique him.
We have a lot of priests and bishops who consider their ability to serve as a priest or bishop to be more important than seeing justice done or speaking up publicly for victims. McCarrick abused *seminarians*, which means adult men kept quiet, and many became priests, and that sort of thing was/is widespread enough that I think we can call it a Church culture problem, not a localized one.
The reason is that the powers that be don't think sexual abuse by clerics is important. In America we do and his work will no longer be observable. In the rest of the world it's just inferior people being harmed so who cares.
Oh don’t worry, plenty of people are mad about Rupnik’s crimes themselves. But he is in the justice system of the Vatican which seems slower than usual and well and truly out of our control. Rupnik’s work though around the world, something can be done about that in an attempt to demonstrate some kind of recognition of his depravity to those he’s directly harmed. Crumbs are better than nothing when you’re starving.
Alleluia! I thank my Brother Knights for making the right decision. May this unleash a wave of other shrines and churches and chapels throughout the world doing the same thing, starting with the Redemptoris Mater chapel in the Apostolic Palace.
“This is not the way to be close to the victims, to think that if I pull away a photo of art from my website, our website, I would be more close to victims,” Ruffini said.
vs
“The Knights of Columbus has decided to cover these mosaics because our first concern must be for victims of sexual abuse, who have already suffered immensely, and who may be further injured by the ongoing display of the mosaics at the Shrine,” said Supreme Knight Patrick Kelly.
-In service to one, in service to all. Who is actually thinking about the victims of abuse between these two men?
It stood out to me that they referenced the Bishop of Lourdes' decision and Cardinal O'Malley's letter as helping them make their decision - may their own actions now inspire others still waffling in return!
Thank you to the Pillar for its persistent coverage of this issue! However, it's very disappointing that this article includes an image of the Rupnik mosaics at JPII Shrine while discussing the harm public displays of his work does to sexual abuse victims. Please remove this image and please stop using any/all images/footage of Rupnik "art". Thank you.
Interestingly enough, this was the first time I realized why the image of Christ in this mosaic gives me the creeps. (More than some of the other images that I still don’t like.). Somehow it reminds me of a snake.
I am pleased to see that the Knights are doing a lot of what I suggested in earlier Pillar discussions about Rupnik. They are asking for prayers for his victims and providing educational material about the provenance of the artwork.
But I am backing the much maligned Ruffini as regards removing or concealing Rupnik's artwork. Have we not had enough cover ups already? Let it remain visible as a reminder of a shameful episode in the history of the Church. And as an example of art which was once highly fashionable and may well become fashionable again.
Germany continues to display huge amounts of evidence about far worse crimes and no one is accusing the entirely innocent post war population of potentially traumatising the far larger numbers of Nazi victims and their families. Several concentration camps are preserved for visitors and educating schoolchildren. Documentation Centres are found in several cities. And many buildings, such as the oddly named Hygiene Museum in Dresden, still exist. But with an unforgettable reminder of their Nazi periods.
Up the north side of Dresden, the German Army Museum covers their whole history. When I was there in 2016, a postcard pointed me to a huge temporary exhibition on the east side of the city about the massive RAF bombings.
And the DDR Museum on the west side of Dresden covered a little of the 1945-1989 tyranny. Not one but two Stasi museums (plus another DDR museum) exist in Berlin. The Stasi were vile, but their impact on a whole society should not be concealed or forgotten.
I’m pleased that the Knights are going to cover up their mosaics. They don’t belong in a sacred space. If there was an easy way to remove them to another location, I would have no issue with that. I’m all for publicly acknowledging the awful things we should take responsibility for, but a Church is for worshiping God, not a museum to human frailty.
I would have thought that the Stations of the Cross in every Catholic Church is a horribly vivid reminder of human cruelty. I see no good reason to remove Rupnik's work. Any more than we should remove the various works of the equally depraved Eric Gill, such as the Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral.
On the contrary, I think Eric Gill’s work is also monstrous and should also be removed. Let those Stations of the Cross be replaced by more beautiful work.
OK, I assume you are picking up the tab for the new Stations. It will be you or the luckless congregation at Westminster who will have to foot the bill. And I hope that someone else will pay the bill for demolishing and replacing St Peter's, Gill's only church. Except that we can't demolish it, as it is a Grade II* listed building.
Or decommission the Church and sell it! Plenty of weirdos out there who would enjoy turning it into a home and put it all on Grand Designs. And proceeds from the sale could be put towards removing and replacing rest of Gill’s corpus from other sacred spaces. I’d even be okay with selling to private collectors with proceeds going to the support of victims or commissioning new art and supporting sacred artists who are just regular sinners like me.
Maybe they should be as well. I would equally have a problem with an artist who murders a model and then hangs them on a cross in order to create a crucifixion scene. Or tortures a model to try and get the perfectly pained expression on Christ’s face as he is scourged. Egregious sins committed in the name of ‘creative process’ might produce fine art, but it does not belong in a sacred space. Let a gallery have it. Worse has graced the walls of contemporary art museums.
Stations of the Cross are a relatively recent devotional practice popularised by St Francis in the 13th century as are Nativity scenes. Neither are compulsory. I’d imagine removing Gill’s work could be restoring Westminister to an earlier glory given its age.
> Let it remain visible as a reminder of a shameful episode in the history of the Church.
Every so often I accept that "leave it sitting out in the open as a reminder" is no way to live my life, and I clear off my dining room table and file paperwork in the file cabinet where it belongs. Since there are a lot of high quality crumbs in there, the mice do not thank me, but it does make it easier for the family to eat meals without being distracted by a heap of sheaves of things I need to remember (but could choose some other means of remembering). Until the pile (actually several piles) accretes again.
Though I wish to rejoice in this great news, it still pains me. It feels too much like an allegory for what happens to those who’ve been hurt by the Church. “Lets just cover it up, so youre not reminded of the pain” like “we’ll send him away so you wont see him and be reminded of the pain”. Like no. Thats not truth. Thats not how family *should* treat eachother.
If my brother sexually assaulted me WHILE making a painting, I wouldn’t rejoice if my father was like “dont worry sweetie, I’ll cover it up.” Like seeing a covered painting at the dinner table wouldn’t still hurt. No! I’d want him to smash it to pieces! In full fury! Mercy shown to people yes, BUT A PAINTING?!
And thanks be to God they are ugly!! So there should be no hesitation in its destruction. It should’ve been swift. It should’ve been easy.
I understand the outcry over the public display of the artwork. But, why is there not greater outrage over the fact that Marko Rupnik has full faculties as a Diocesan priest at this moment? He is credibly accused of multiple acts of abusive behavior on different levels. He was excommunicated (albeit for a very short time) for committing the sin of absolving an accomplice in sexual sin. To me, he is a real danger to the faithful of Slovenia. The Bishop who incardinated him there should be ashamed and indeed, he should face accountability for the potential future victims of this man. This disgusts me even more than the displayed public artwork. This whole situation leads me to doubt the real commitment of the Church to victim outreach and protection.
I totally agree but as I understand it, while Slovenia helped him on paper, he remains living in Rome with no restrictions yet.
For myself, I've seen a lot of public outcry over that.
ok…but from the Vatican and hierarchy, I have heard little or worse than little…Cardinal O’Malley’s request regarding digital art and the terrible remarks of the Papal spokesperson regarding deleting Marko Rupnik’s art…I would appreciate citations of any other public remarks from the hierarchy and/or Vatican regarding Marko Rupnik’s status…thank you J.D. for coverage by the Pillar…
that's a good point. O'Malley didn't raise that publicly. Good observation.
I expect, because in order to directly and publicly criticize Rupnik's status, you have to publicly and directly or indirectly criticize the Pope, who has either intervened to protect him or failed to intervene to get things rolling, with the people he appointed. That isn't something any bishop or anyone in the Curia will be comfortable with, and not just because of what happens to people who publicly critique him.
We have a lot of priests and bishops who consider their ability to serve as a priest or bishop to be more important than seeing justice done or speaking up publicly for victims. McCarrick abused *seminarians*, which means adult men kept quiet, and many became priests, and that sort of thing was/is widespread enough that I think we can call it a Church culture problem, not a localized one.
The reason is that the powers that be don't think sexual abuse by clerics is important. In America we do and his work will no longer be observable. In the rest of the world it's just inferior people being harmed so who cares.
Oh don’t worry, plenty of people are mad about Rupnik’s crimes themselves. But he is in the justice system of the Vatican which seems slower than usual and well and truly out of our control. Rupnik’s work though around the world, something can be done about that in an attempt to demonstrate some kind of recognition of his depravity to those he’s directly harmed. Crumbs are better than nothing when you’re starving.
Thank you Knights! Great decision!
Alleluia! I thank my Brother Knights for making the right decision. May this unleash a wave of other shrines and churches and chapels throughout the world doing the same thing, starting with the Redemptoris Mater chapel in the Apostolic Palace.
I needed some good news today.
Thank you Pillar and Supreme Knight Kelly!
“This is not the way to be close to the victims, to think that if I pull away a photo of art from my website, our website, I would be more close to victims,” Ruffini said.
vs
“The Knights of Columbus has decided to cover these mosaics because our first concern must be for victims of sexual abuse, who have already suffered immensely, and who may be further injured by the ongoing display of the mosaics at the Shrine,” said Supreme Knight Patrick Kelly.
-In service to one, in service to all. Who is actually thinking about the victims of abuse between these two men?
Very strong point, well said.
Hopefully this is just one of the first of many dominoes to fall regarding getting rid of Rupnik and all of his art out of the public.
It stood out to me that they referenced the Bishop of Lourdes' decision and Cardinal O'Malley's letter as helping them make their decision - may their own actions now inspire others still waffling in return!
Thank you Knights of Columbus. At least you are letting the rest of the world know what should be done with artwork created through sexual abuse.
Thank you to the Pillar for its persistent coverage of this issue! However, it's very disappointing that this article includes an image of the Rupnik mosaics at JPII Shrine while discussing the harm public displays of his work does to sexual abuse victims. Please remove this image and please stop using any/all images/footage of Rupnik "art". Thank you.
Interestingly enough, this was the first time I realized why the image of Christ in this mosaic gives me the creeps. (More than some of the other images that I still don’t like.). Somehow it reminds me of a snake.
I am pleased to see that the Knights are doing a lot of what I suggested in earlier Pillar discussions about Rupnik. They are asking for prayers for his victims and providing educational material about the provenance of the artwork.
But I am backing the much maligned Ruffini as regards removing or concealing Rupnik's artwork. Have we not had enough cover ups already? Let it remain visible as a reminder of a shameful episode in the history of the Church. And as an example of art which was once highly fashionable and may well become fashionable again.
Germany continues to display huge amounts of evidence about far worse crimes and no one is accusing the entirely innocent post war population of potentially traumatising the far larger numbers of Nazi victims and their families. Several concentration camps are preserved for visitors and educating schoolchildren. Documentation Centres are found in several cities. And many buildings, such as the oddly named Hygiene Museum in Dresden, still exist. But with an unforgettable reminder of their Nazi periods.
https://www.dhmd.de/en/exhibitions/archive/racism
Up the north side of Dresden, the German Army Museum covers their whole history. When I was there in 2016, a postcard pointed me to a huge temporary exhibition on the east side of the city about the massive RAF bombings.
And the DDR Museum on the west side of Dresden covered a little of the 1945-1989 tyranny. Not one but two Stasi museums (plus another DDR museum) exist in Berlin. The Stasi were vile, but their impact on a whole society should not be concealed or forgotten.
I’m pleased that the Knights are going to cover up their mosaics. They don’t belong in a sacred space. If there was an easy way to remove them to another location, I would have no issue with that. I’m all for publicly acknowledging the awful things we should take responsibility for, but a Church is for worshiping God, not a museum to human frailty.
I would have thought that the Stations of the Cross in every Catholic Church is a horribly vivid reminder of human cruelty. I see no good reason to remove Rupnik's work. Any more than we should remove the various works of the equally depraved Eric Gill, such as the Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral.
On the contrary, I think Eric Gill’s work is also monstrous and should also be removed. Let those Stations of the Cross be replaced by more beautiful work.
OK, I assume you are picking up the tab for the new Stations. It will be you or the luckless congregation at Westminster who will have to foot the bill. And I hope that someone else will pay the bill for demolishing and replacing St Peter's, Gill's only church. Except that we can't demolish it, as it is a Grade II* listed building.
https://www.stpetersrc.org.uk/
Or decommission the Church and sell it! Plenty of weirdos out there who would enjoy turning it into a home and put it all on Grand Designs. And proceeds from the sale could be put towards removing and replacing rest of Gill’s corpus from other sacred spaces. I’d even be okay with selling to private collectors with proceeds going to the support of victims or commissioning new art and supporting sacred artists who are just regular sinners like me.
Maybe they should be as well. I would equally have a problem with an artist who murders a model and then hangs them on a cross in order to create a crucifixion scene. Or tortures a model to try and get the perfectly pained expression on Christ’s face as he is scourged. Egregious sins committed in the name of ‘creative process’ might produce fine art, but it does not belong in a sacred space. Let a gallery have it. Worse has graced the walls of contemporary art museums.
Stations of the Cross are a relatively recent devotional practice popularised by St Francis in the 13th century as are Nativity scenes. Neither are compulsory. I’d imagine removing Gill’s work could be restoring Westminister to an earlier glory given its age.
Rupnik incorporated his abuse into the very creation of his art. That makes it especially heinous and inappropriate for a sacred space.
Well said!
> Let it remain visible as a reminder of a shameful episode in the history of the Church.
Every so often I accept that "leave it sitting out in the open as a reminder" is no way to live my life, and I clear off my dining room table and file paperwork in the file cabinet where it belongs. Since there are a lot of high quality crumbs in there, the mice do not thank me, but it does make it easier for the family to eat meals without being distracted by a heap of sheaves of things I need to remember (but could choose some other means of remembering). Until the pile (actually several piles) accretes again.
Though I wish to rejoice in this great news, it still pains me. It feels too much like an allegory for what happens to those who’ve been hurt by the Church. “Lets just cover it up, so youre not reminded of the pain” like “we’ll send him away so you wont see him and be reminded of the pain”. Like no. Thats not truth. Thats not how family *should* treat eachother.
If my brother sexually assaulted me WHILE making a painting, I wouldn’t rejoice if my father was like “dont worry sweetie, I’ll cover it up.” Like seeing a covered painting at the dinner table wouldn’t still hurt. No! I’d want him to smash it to pieces! In full fury! Mercy shown to people yes, BUT A PAINTING?!
And thanks be to God they are ugly!! So there should be no hesitation in its destruction. It should’ve been swift. It should’ve been easy.
And no one should be pushing to prevent it.