Sometimes it is embarrassing to be part of a Church whose leaders can be so insensitive and callous. Ruffini is arguing that discontinuing the display of Rupinik’s Art art would be a premature and unfair judgment on Rupinik. He gives no credence to the voices of the victims . It escapes him these are real people with real injury. He beli…
Sometimes it is embarrassing to be part of a Church whose leaders can be so insensitive and callous. Ruffini is arguing that discontinuing the display of Rupinik’s Art art would be a premature and unfair judgment on Rupinik. He gives no credence to the voices of the victims . It escapes him these are real people with real injury. He believes the display of art takes precedence over giving solace to the victims. It is just another sad commentary on why the Church fails in its duty to be a refuge for victims of sexual abuse committed by its ordained.
Nothing will happen to Rupinik or his hideous "art" because he is protected by those in high places. Why this should be so is profoundly puzzling, but encapsulates the corruption in today's Vatican. The other puzzle is why so many institutions chose to install that "art" rather than better artists' work.
Perhaps demonstrations at sites with installations of his "art" would pique the interest of secular media and cause enough embarrassment to change his patrons' minds. But probably nothing will make a difference short of sledgehammers and whitewash.
Sometimes it is embarrassing to be part of a Church whose leaders can be so insensitive and callous. Ruffini is arguing that discontinuing the display of Rupinik’s Art art would be a premature and unfair judgment on Rupinik. He gives no credence to the voices of the victims . It escapes him these are real people with real injury. He believes the display of art takes precedence over giving solace to the victims. It is just another sad commentary on why the Church fails in its duty to be a refuge for victims of sexual abuse committed by its ordained.
Nothing will happen to Rupinik or his hideous "art" because he is protected by those in high places. Why this should be so is profoundly puzzling, but encapsulates the corruption in today's Vatican. The other puzzle is why so many institutions chose to install that "art" rather than better artists' work.
Perhaps demonstrations at sites with installations of his "art" would pique the interest of secular media and cause enough embarrassment to change his patrons' minds. But probably nothing will make a difference short of sledgehammers and whitewash.