People have warned against this ever since he made that remark. But then they're always called "judgmental" or "rigid" or whatever and their opinions are dismissed. These statements made here in this article are just the logical conclusion when you have an abundance of people in influential Vatican positions that don't have even a basic understanding of Catholic doctrine.
Maybe it's abuse of the phrase rather than misuse. What I mean is that it could be argued that the Pope paved a way for others in the Vatican to use that phrase as an excuse to justify decisions.
It's a misuse because it's literally his job (as a communications guy) to judge what this art communicates to the world in the present age, and what keeping it up versus taking it down communicates. I guess I could pray for him to receive more of the virtue of prudence (while I am asking I will ask for some more for me, also.)
As I understand it, the Pope was asked about a priest who was an active homosexual, and proceeded to discuss the hypothetical of a chaste homosexual priest, and then asked who he was to judge. Which would be the Supreme Legislator and easily the man who has made the most use of that power in modern times, who is in fact responsible for deciding what rules he will make regarding who is allowed into seminary, and what sexual sins of clergy result in punishment, along with being the final level of appeal for any canonical cases.
Given the context, I can't figure out what he was trying to say.
Seriously? Removing graphics from a website is annoying, but not the end of the world. In situ mosaics or frescos is a bloody nightmare to remove safely and time consuming.
I hear his point about ‘destroying’ seeming unnecessarily vengeful or excessive. But he also completely missed the point about art not always being appropriate for a sacred space. Most of the ‘art’ in the Tate Modern is not suitable for prayer and contemplation in a church. Rupnik’s ‘art’ inspired by his lust and illicit desires is also not suitable for a public sacred space. Perhaps he an Austin Invereigh can build a private chapel museum on his goat farm so the stripped art can be housed there.
I think 10 guys with sledge hammers could solve this problem quickly. And the scarring of the wall and shattered pieces of the mosaic or fresco that remain would be an appropriate reminder of the scars that victims must always carry.
Our family used to live close to the JPII Shrine in DC, and in the past they had continual challenges with visitors picking pieces of the mosaics off the walls in the chapels to take home as souvenirs (they do use some pretty materials & stone). If they gave the public free reign, they may not even need to use sledgehammers to disassemble them. To John M’s point, it’s the artistry of the physical mosaics, and not the artist’s vision that’s impressive. They took a large team of skilled artisans months to install. But no sun of money is more important than justice for Rupnik’s victims.
He does not like removal for the sake of removal so we need a campaign to sponsor and promote new art which will, just by coincidence (or to Christians, Providence) supplant digital use of the Rupnik products. We need art which is synodal; art which comes from the margins; art by people in countries where the faith is persecuted, art by people who are poor (we could PAY THEM for it and kill two birds with one stone), or art by people who have many challenges such as the Foot and Mouth artists. I think art by people with intellectual disabilities would also be something we could feature. All of this should be art that depicts Christ and inspiring situations. It is silly that we are not already doing this so someone with connections should get on it.
Of course there is no shortage of existing art. Appeals to reason have failed, and now they are attempting to virtue signal but, I argue, they are really bad at it.
You think art is simply interchangeable? That's an extremely poor solution. It's like saying "just turn something else on on Netflix" when you're bored.
I am intrigued to discover that someone would imagine that I think this. You should go on thinking it because the world would be a less interesting and less surprising place if you did not.
"Paulina Guzik of OSV News ... countered that she believed removing Rupnik’s artwork would demonstrate a greater closeness to victims, Ruffini retorted, “You think so? Well, I think you’re wrong. I think you are wrong. I really think you are wrong.” “Removing, deleting, destroying art does not ever mean a good choice,” he said. “This is not a Christian response.”"
Strange how quickly he decided he was the person to judge.
No, may they quickly convert and repent. Our Lady of Fatima asked us to offer our daily difficulties in reparation for sins and the conversion of sinners. I think most of us would agree on who those people are in this situation.
Make them bear their guilt, O God; let them fall by their own counsels; because of their many transgressions cast them out, for they have rebelled against you. - Psalms 5:10
The abuse crisis has been going on for over 20 years now. They have had plenty of time to repent and still refuse. Meanwhile, people are abandoning Christ and his Church in droves, having their faith destroyed by abusers and those who refuse to hold abusers accountable. If they repent, great. But until then, I pray the wrath of God falls on them to either bring them to repentance or get them out of the way so they stop being an obstacle to others knowing God’s love.
There is no contradiction between mercy and truth, between justice and forgiveness, between God's willingness to punish sinners eternally in hell, and His infinite desire that sinners convert.
We have an obligation to forgive, to make reparation, and to pray for them. We also have an obligation to pray that these people are removed from office and otherwise justly punished, and that the man's bad art all be destroyed. And both obligations continue until the problem is resolved... not until we think it's been long enough.
Yes, I don't pray God's wrath fall on anyone, but as a victim I certainly think the best thing that could be done with Rupnik's art is to rip off the tiles, grind them into dust, and throw the dust into the sea. And give up the pretence that you care about victims when you plainly don't. I will never willingly or knowingly go anywhere that has his artwork, no matter how much I would otherwise like to go there. Lourdes, Fatima, and so many other places. His artwork is grotesque.
Well, what we're calling Rupnik's "art" is not so far as I know demonstrably evil. Bad art, quite possibly. But there's a lot of that elsewhere throughout the Church.
Lots of comments here and Twitter about this event. I’m wondering what the reaction in the room was, other than people running to Twitter for another hand-wringing session. Did anyone storm out, argue their point, even “boo” this repugnant man? When has change ever happened as a result of a speech in room full of stenographers ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
To be fair, it can be hard to register your dissent in a proportionate way if you are thoroughly shocked by how blatantly and unreasonably a man defends the indefensible. I've experienced the same thing when hearing a "Catholic" speaker spout heresy, and a lot of people complained afterwards and I think got the diocese to blanket disinvite her.
I also expect journalists are trained and experienced in not reacting much, so that they can get accurate information and continue to get it.
I don’t think most of those people are trained journalists. They’re PR/comm’s at best, and none of them could make it in the real world. Grifting on by acting as stenographers for whoever is writing the cheques was the path of least resistance. They’ll save their real outrage and finger wagging for after the event, when they can take to Twitter or their little news site and really give the speaker a tongue lashing…and themselves a good massage of their amygdala.
This is a completely unfair characterization. The Q&A in question constituted a very short section of an otherwise lengthy and non-controversial presentation. Booing someone who flew from the Holy See to Atlanta to join our conference was no one's natural reaction. Everyone in the room was stunned by Dr. Ruffini's answer. At tables, we all looked at each other and asked, "Did he really say that?" With his accent and somewhat halting manner, we at first weren't sure. To me, it seemed that everyone there was dismayed.
This was not a press conference. This was Q&A at the end of a keynote address at a conference among professional colleagues. Without diminishing disgust at Dr. Ruffini's answer, please understand the context for those in the room. This was not set up as a "reporting" opportunity.
I get it. Years ago I was in the audience during a medical conference. Zeke Emmanuel was giving a plenary essentially encouraging DNR and assisted suicide for those who will “cost the state” too much $ during end of life care. I yelled “shame” and walked out. Others did too. Sadly not enough of my colleagues were outraged sufficiently to refrain from calling the speech “transformational,” and “awe-inspiring.”
Plus there is the plain fact that no one in any position of responsibility can avoid judging, even if it has unpleasant consequences for other people. I have been turned down for jobs for which I thought I was very well qualified and I have selected candidates according to my imperfect judgement.
As for removing Rupnik's artwork, I think that it is highly dubious policy to remove any work on the basis of its creator's character. Exhibit 1 is the infamous Eric Gill. His behaviour was at least as vile as Rupnik's. He bedded his sisters, his daughters, the family maid, the family dog and at least one bloke.
By the time this criminality was revealed in 1989 he had been dead for 49 years and his Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral had been in place before countless worshippers for 81 years. The one church he designed, St Peter's on the east coast of England, had accommodated thousands of Masses since 1939. No one is going to demolish it, not least because it is a Grade II* listed building. And it is arguably the second Vatican II church on earth. Gill was also an enthusiast for liturgical innovation.
And there is arguably the first Vatican II church on earth - the Church of the First Martyrs in Bradford in Yorkshire. Gill's great friend Father John O'Connor built it in 1935 and it contains a Gill sculpture of St John Bosco. Father John was also ready to defend Gill's plainly erotic sculptures.
And no one is going to destroy Gill's work elsewhere, least of all his numerous typographical designs around London and the sculptures in the Jesuit house in Oxford.
You could argue for the destruction or concealment of any amount of other work by unsavoury artists, eg Wagner's music, but it is never going to happen.
Let's assume (for the sake of that argument) that Rupnik's art is worth preserving. Asking the Vatican not to actively use his art is not the same as destroying or concealing it.
While other artists may be guilty of gravely evil acts, I'm not aware of any other artist who has used his art to commit gravely evil crimes against others. Or where the artist is still alive, where his art is still being promoted, and where his victims are still seeking justice. Whatever merits that Rupnik's mosaics may have in themselves, I don't think his art can (or should) be considered separately from the scandal to the faithful of using them in the present moment.
// Or where the artist is still alive, where his art is still being promoted, and where his victims are still seeking justice. //
Yes, agreed, that's the difference here. Thanks to electronic media, Rupnik's scandalous behavior is still fresh in a great many people's minds. Were he long dead, of course, there'd be little or no scandal.
Were he long dead, I would still argue that the Vatican has a moral responsibility not to actively use or promote his art, and that the Vatican should make an effort to conceal or take down his art from places of public worship. But the fact that Rupnik's scandalous behavior is "fresh" makes the Vatican's failure here all the more galling.
I’m admittedly not wholly familiar with the examples you’ve provided of other sacred art created by abusers, but I’ll repeat a bit of what I said in another thread here recently, and I’m happy to be corrected if you know otherwise:
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. Rupnik is also alive and remains unaccountable for some of his alleged crimes.
In light of these factors, I think Rupnik’s art presents a unique challenge for its owners, and it is reasonable to expect that it be taken down to avoid the active scandal that it creates.
I hesitate to say that the art created by others you mentioned isn’t a substantial source of ongoing scandal because I don’t know most of the facts, but it seems to me that the scandal related to the artists you mention is that they were prolific sinners, not that their art was a vehicle for itself. (I do also think that the time elapsed should be a bit of a factor here.)
I don’t envy those with Rupnik art in their stewardship.
As regards Eric Gill, I can recommend Fiona MacCarthy's biography, which revealed the scandal in 1989. It contains numerous illustrations which speak louder than any words.
It is plain that Gill's gravely disordered impulses were deeply linked to his art work. He used his sister and daughters as nude models. And I do not see that you can separate out his religious work from his sex life. Some explicitly religious works that he created are also explicitly erotic and his attitude to Our Lord is blatently and crudely sexual (p. 162).
And you could make a case that his enthusiasm for liturgical reform was just another aspect of his grossly subversive personality. He illustrated the liturgical magazine "Orate Fratres" of the Benedictines at St John's in Minnesota, who were among the very early pioneers of liturgical reform. And these OSBs were later caught up in abuse scandals of their own.
After the biography was published, there were calls for the Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral to be removed, even though they are innocuous by themselves. Whether they would survive more revelations in the present climate is questionable.
Not that Gill's work should be destroyed. It is an integral part of the horribly messy history of the Church and England itself, like the philanthropic slave traders.
A Dominican who dined with the Gills claimed to have seen a nimbus round Eric's head. Which reminds me of the old Russian saying: He lies like an eyewitness.
I was reading a book last week that summarized St. John of the Cross's list of extraordinary phenomena which the devil can also mimic or counterfeit (if he is permitted to) as approximately everything, thus we should place no stock in them whatsoever. But as you note, the always-simpler explanation is an unreliable witness.
// 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. Rupnik is also alive and remains unaccountable for some of his alleged crimes.
In light of these factors, I think Rupnik’s art presents a unique challenge for its owners, and it is reasonable to expect that it be taken down to avoid the active scandal that it creates. //
No, you can't go tearing all this stuff down. One may fantasize that, but ugliness is everywhere. With luck, this and its like were not built to last.
One can, though, I think, argue that Rupnik's non-structural creations ought to quietly disappear. Unlike Gill, the entire world has learned about this scoundrel while the paint on his stuff is not yet dry. Wherever there's a Rupnik in an ecclesiastical building, people will be reminded of him.
I would argue there's a difference between an artist who also happens to be a dirty, rotten, scoundrel (PLENTY of those) and an 'artist' who is a dirty, rotten, scoundrel in their creative process to create their 'art'. Gill sounds more like the former, rather than the latter.
I'm generally in favour of some separate judgement of the art and artist who produced it, however Rupnik decided to bind up the art with the his personal sinful scoundrelness. At the very least, anyone who's used images of his art for print, digital materials should stop using them and look harder for decent Christian artists who are producing stunning work, with just the boring old stock for a change.
I refer to my extra comment of 23 June concerning Fiona McCarthy's enthralling biography of Gill. It is plain that Gill's art was deeply bound up with his disordered sexual urges.
I agree that there are plenty of talented decent Christian artists who deserve our money. And there is nothing to stop us or the Vatican using the staggering treasury of religious art from previous eras.
How tone deaf can you be? Repugnant take on the situation.
It is possible that Pope Francis' legacy will be reduced to the misuse of the phrase "Who am I to judge?"
People have warned against this ever since he made that remark. But then they're always called "judgmental" or "rigid" or whatever and their opinions are dismissed. These statements made here in this article are just the logical conclusion when you have an abundance of people in influential Vatican positions that don't have even a basic understanding of Catholic doctrine.
Why is it a misuse? He clearly believes Rupnik is either innocent or that his guilt should not influence the artwork.
Maybe it's abuse of the phrase rather than misuse. What I mean is that it could be argued that the Pope paved a way for others in the Vatican to use that phrase as an excuse to justify decisions.
It's a misuse because it's literally his job (as a communications guy) to judge what this art communicates to the world in the present age, and what keeping it up versus taking it down communicates. I guess I could pray for him to receive more of the virtue of prudence (while I am asking I will ask for some more for me, also.)
As I understand it, the Pope was asked about a priest who was an active homosexual, and proceeded to discuss the hypothetical of a chaste homosexual priest, and then asked who he was to judge. Which would be the Supreme Legislator and easily the man who has made the most use of that power in modern times, who is in fact responsible for deciding what rules he will make regarding who is allowed into seminary, and what sexual sins of clergy result in punishment, along with being the final level of appeal for any canonical cases.
Given the context, I can't figure out what he was trying to say.
I doubt that he meant much of anything. He seems to be principally a professional politician, a clan that thrive on ambiguity and misdirection.
Wow. Just wow.
This is, as Christian D said, repugnant.
A cleansing of the temple(s) is in order.
I wonder if any art was destroyed when He threw the tables around.
Seriously? Removing graphics from a website is annoying, but not the end of the world. In situ mosaics or frescos is a bloody nightmare to remove safely and time consuming.
I hear his point about ‘destroying’ seeming unnecessarily vengeful or excessive. But he also completely missed the point about art not always being appropriate for a sacred space. Most of the ‘art’ in the Tate Modern is not suitable for prayer and contemplation in a church. Rupnik’s ‘art’ inspired by his lust and illicit desires is also not suitable for a public sacred space. Perhaps he an Austin Invereigh can build a private chapel museum on his goat farm so the stripped art can be housed there.
I think 10 guys with sledge hammers could solve this problem quickly. And the scarring of the wall and shattered pieces of the mosaic or fresco that remain would be an appropriate reminder of the scars that victims must always carry.
Our family used to live close to the JPII Shrine in DC, and in the past they had continual challenges with visitors picking pieces of the mosaics off the walls in the chapels to take home as souvenirs (they do use some pretty materials & stone). If they gave the public free reign, they may not even need to use sledgehammers to disassemble them. To John M’s point, it’s the artistry of the physical mosaics, and not the artist’s vision that’s impressive. They took a large team of skilled artisans months to install. But no sun of money is more important than justice for Rupnik’s victims.
Hey all -- just a reminder about The Pillar's commenting policy: Christian charity.
At The Pillar believe, and expect, that our commenters can exceed each other in Christian charity, toward each other, and toward their interlocutors.
In fact, we expect it.
// In fact, we expect it. //
Figure of speech, I take it, hortatory rather than strictly factual.
He does not like removal for the sake of removal so we need a campaign to sponsor and promote new art which will, just by coincidence (or to Christians, Providence) supplant digital use of the Rupnik products. We need art which is synodal; art which comes from the margins; art by people in countries where the faith is persecuted, art by people who are poor (we could PAY THEM for it and kill two birds with one stone), or art by people who have many challenges such as the Foot and Mouth artists. I think art by people with intellectual disabilities would also be something we could feature. All of this should be art that depicts Christ and inspiring situations. It is silly that we are not already doing this so someone with connections should get on it.
There’s no shortage of art from other sources, digital or otherwise. The continued use of Rupnik’s art is “tone deaf “ at best.
Of course there is no shortage of existing art. Appeals to reason have failed, and now they are attempting to virtue signal but, I argue, they are really bad at it.
You think art is simply interchangeable? That's an extremely poor solution. It's like saying "just turn something else on on Netflix" when you're bored.
> You think art is simply interchangeable?
I am intrigued to discover that someone would imagine that I think this. You should go on thinking it because the world would be a less interesting and less surprising place if you did not.
Words like "art" have many meanings. Getting into defining what it should mean in the Church at different levels is entering into a briarpatch.
This f***'n Church sometimes.......
It'd be nice to say I'm surprised, but I'm not. Par for the course.
This is absolutely disgusting. Maybe there's an opening in Vigano's communications department. Go, just go.
"“Who am I to judge?” he asked."
"Paulina Guzik of OSV News ... countered that she believed removing Rupnik’s artwork would demonstrate a greater closeness to victims, Ruffini retorted, “You think so? Well, I think you’re wrong. I think you are wrong. I really think you are wrong.” “Removing, deleting, destroying art does not ever mean a good choice,” he said. “This is not a Christian response.”"
Strange how quickly he decided he was the person to judge.
My comments would violate The Pillar commenting policy. God will have the last word though. May these men get the reward they deserve.
No, may they quickly convert and repent. Our Lady of Fatima asked us to offer our daily difficulties in reparation for sins and the conversion of sinners. I think most of us would agree on who those people are in this situation.
Make them bear their guilt, O God; let them fall by their own counsels; because of their many transgressions cast them out, for they have rebelled against you. - Psalms 5:10
The abuse crisis has been going on for over 20 years now. They have had plenty of time to repent and still refuse. Meanwhile, people are abandoning Christ and his Church in droves, having their faith destroyed by abusers and those who refuse to hold abusers accountable. If they repent, great. But until then, I pray the wrath of God falls on them to either bring them to repentance or get them out of the way so they stop being an obstacle to others knowing God’s love.
There is no contradiction between mercy and truth, between justice and forgiveness, between God's willingness to punish sinners eternally in hell, and His infinite desire that sinners convert.
We have an obligation to forgive, to make reparation, and to pray for them. We also have an obligation to pray that these people are removed from office and otherwise justly punished, and that the man's bad art all be destroyed. And both obligations continue until the problem is resolved... not until we think it's been long enough.
Yes, I don't pray God's wrath fall on anyone, but as a victim I certainly think the best thing that could be done with Rupnik's art is to rip off the tiles, grind them into dust, and throw the dust into the sea. And give up the pretence that you care about victims when you plainly don't. I will never willingly or knowingly go anywhere that has his artwork, no matter how much I would otherwise like to go there. Lourdes, Fatima, and so many other places. His artwork is grotesque.
To Dr. Ruffini, I can only, “Well, I think you’re wrong. I think you are wrong. I really think you are wrong.”
In Acts 19, we see that early Christians burned books of sorcery. Was that also not a Christian response?
The comparison to sorcery is interesting - an exterior some seem to find captivating, hiding a foul and ugly interior.
Well, what we're calling Rupnik's "art" is not so far as I know demonstrably evil. Bad art, quite possibly. But there's a lot of that elsewhere throughout the Church.
According to some reports, abusing religious sisters under his direction was part of his "creative" process.
Yes that is the distinction that Ruffini is missing
Lots of comments here and Twitter about this event. I’m wondering what the reaction in the room was, other than people running to Twitter for another hand-wringing session. Did anyone storm out, argue their point, even “boo” this repugnant man? When has change ever happened as a result of a speech in room full of stenographers ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The room was very quiet and he did not receive applause at the end of his speech, according to someone who was there.
A quiet room and no applause? That’ll show ‘em. Another Catholic media fail. Lemmings.
To be fair, it can be hard to register your dissent in a proportionate way if you are thoroughly shocked by how blatantly and unreasonably a man defends the indefensible. I've experienced the same thing when hearing a "Catholic" speaker spout heresy, and a lot of people complained afterwards and I think got the diocese to blanket disinvite her.
I also expect journalists are trained and experienced in not reacting much, so that they can get accurate information and continue to get it.
I don’t think most of those people are trained journalists. They’re PR/comm’s at best, and none of them could make it in the real world. Grifting on by acting as stenographers for whoever is writing the cheques was the path of least resistance. They’ll save their real outrage and finger wagging for after the event, when they can take to Twitter or their little news site and really give the speaker a tongue lashing…and themselves a good massage of their amygdala.
This is a completely unfair characterization. The Q&A in question constituted a very short section of an otherwise lengthy and non-controversial presentation. Booing someone who flew from the Holy See to Atlanta to join our conference was no one's natural reaction. Everyone in the room was stunned by Dr. Ruffini's answer. At tables, we all looked at each other and asked, "Did he really say that?" With his accent and somewhat halting manner, we at first weren't sure. To me, it seemed that everyone there was dismayed.
The laity sure seems to know its place. The “media” sure seems to understand its grift ceases if they piss off the wrong people. Shameful all around.
This was not a press conference. This was Q&A at the end of a keynote address at a conference among professional colleagues. Without diminishing disgust at Dr. Ruffini's answer, please understand the context for those in the room. This was not set up as a "reporting" opportunity.
I get it. Years ago I was in the audience during a medical conference. Zeke Emmanuel was giving a plenary essentially encouraging DNR and assisted suicide for those who will “cost the state” too much $ during end of life care. I yelled “shame” and walked out. Others did too. Sadly not enough of my colleagues were outraged sufficiently to refrain from calling the speech “transformational,” and “awe-inspiring.”
Thanks for that, Mike.
This cartoon contains one excellent response to "Who am I to judge?". See 2 mins 15 secs.
https://youtu.be/WEchg1KhmTY?si=oBfVOF3RgMi9iRla
Plus there is the plain fact that no one in any position of responsibility can avoid judging, even if it has unpleasant consequences for other people. I have been turned down for jobs for which I thought I was very well qualified and I have selected candidates according to my imperfect judgement.
As for removing Rupnik's artwork, I think that it is highly dubious policy to remove any work on the basis of its creator's character. Exhibit 1 is the infamous Eric Gill. His behaviour was at least as vile as Rupnik's. He bedded his sisters, his daughters, the family maid, the family dog and at least one bloke.
By the time this criminality was revealed in 1989 he had been dead for 49 years and his Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral had been in place before countless worshippers for 81 years. The one church he designed, St Peter's on the east coast of England, had accommodated thousands of Masses since 1939. No one is going to demolish it, not least because it is a Grade II* listed building. And it is arguably the second Vatican II church on earth. Gill was also an enthusiast for liturgical innovation.
http://www.norfolkchurches.co.uk/gorleston/gorlestonpeter.htm
And there is arguably the first Vatican II church on earth - the Church of the First Martyrs in Bradford in Yorkshire. Gill's great friend Father John O'Connor built it in 1935 and it contains a Gill sculpture of St John Bosco. Father John was also ready to defend Gill's plainly erotic sculptures.
https://www.locusiste.org/blog/2010/07/oriented_centrality_first_martyrs_bradford
And no one is going to destroy Gill's work elsewhere, least of all his numerous typographical designs around London and the sculptures in the Jesuit house in Oxford.
You could argue for the destruction or concealment of any amount of other work by unsavoury artists, eg Wagner's music, but it is never going to happen.
> it is never going to happen
Except for that time that someone used an image of a Mormon "angel" on the cover of a hymnal ("well, hardly ever" for Gilbert and Sullivan fans.)
Indeed. There is probably plenty of opportunity now for sensible people to quietly remove a lot of Rupnik angels.
Let's assume (for the sake of that argument) that Rupnik's art is worth preserving. Asking the Vatican not to actively use his art is not the same as destroying or concealing it.
While other artists may be guilty of gravely evil acts, I'm not aware of any other artist who has used his art to commit gravely evil crimes against others. Or where the artist is still alive, where his art is still being promoted, and where his victims are still seeking justice. Whatever merits that Rupnik's mosaics may have in themselves, I don't think his art can (or should) be considered separately from the scandal to the faithful of using them in the present moment.
// Or where the artist is still alive, where his art is still being promoted, and where his victims are still seeking justice. //
Yes, agreed, that's the difference here. Thanks to electronic media, Rupnik's scandalous behavior is still fresh in a great many people's minds. Were he long dead, of course, there'd be little or no scandal.
Were he long dead, I would still argue that the Vatican has a moral responsibility not to actively use or promote his art, and that the Vatican should make an effort to conceal or take down his art from places of public worship. But the fact that Rupnik's scandalous behavior is "fresh" makes the Vatican's failure here all the more galling.
I’m admittedly not wholly familiar with the examples you’ve provided of other sacred art created by abusers, but I’ll repeat a bit of what I said in another thread here recently, and I’m happy to be corrected if you know otherwise:
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. Rupnik is also alive and remains unaccountable for some of his alleged crimes.
In light of these factors, I think Rupnik’s art presents a unique challenge for its owners, and it is reasonable to expect that it be taken down to avoid the active scandal that it creates.
I hesitate to say that the art created by others you mentioned isn’t a substantial source of ongoing scandal because I don’t know most of the facts, but it seems to me that the scandal related to the artists you mention is that they were prolific sinners, not that their art was a vehicle for itself. (I do also think that the time elapsed should be a bit of a factor here.)
I don’t envy those with Rupnik art in their stewardship.
As regards Eric Gill, I can recommend Fiona MacCarthy's biography, which revealed the scandal in 1989. It contains numerous illustrations which speak louder than any words.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Eric-Gill-Fiona-MacCarthy/dp/0571143024
It is plain that Gill's gravely disordered impulses were deeply linked to his art work. He used his sister and daughters as nude models. And I do not see that you can separate out his religious work from his sex life. Some explicitly religious works that he created are also explicitly erotic and his attitude to Our Lord is blatently and crudely sexual (p. 162).
And you could make a case that his enthusiasm for liturgical reform was just another aspect of his grossly subversive personality. He illustrated the liturgical magazine "Orate Fratres" of the Benedictines at St John's in Minnesota, who were among the very early pioneers of liturgical reform. And these OSBs were later caught up in abuse scandals of their own.
After the biography was published, there were calls for the Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral to be removed, even though they are innocuous by themselves. Whether they would survive more revelations in the present climate is questionable.
Not that Gill's work should be destroyed. It is an integral part of the horribly messy history of the Church and England itself, like the philanthropic slave traders.
A Dominican who dined with the Gills claimed to have seen a nimbus round Eric's head. Which reminds me of the old Russian saying: He lies like an eyewitness.
New to me. Thank you. Further reading ahead.
Also see:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=eric+gill+autobiography&i=stripbooks&crid=2F0WD7PB99VGQ&sprefix=eric+gill+autobiography%2Cstripbooks%2C187&ref=nb_sb_noss
> claimed to have seen a nimbus
I was reading a book last week that summarized St. John of the Cross's list of extraordinary phenomena which the devil can also mimic or counterfeit (if he is permitted to) as approximately everything, thus we should place no stock in them whatsoever. But as you note, the always-simpler explanation is an unreliable witness.
// 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. Rupnik is also alive and remains unaccountable for some of his alleged crimes.
In light of these factors, I think Rupnik’s art presents a unique challenge for its owners, and it is reasonable to expect that it be taken down to avoid the active scandal that it creates. //
Very well said. Thank you.
// http://www.norfolkchurches.co.uk/gorleston/gorlestonpeter.htm //
No, you can't go tearing all this stuff down. One may fantasize that, but ugliness is everywhere. With luck, this and its like were not built to last.
One can, though, I think, argue that Rupnik's non-structural creations ought to quietly disappear. Unlike Gill, the entire world has learned about this scoundrel while the paint on his stuff is not yet dry. Wherever there's a Rupnik in an ecclesiastical building, people will be reminded of him.
I would argue there's a difference between an artist who also happens to be a dirty, rotten, scoundrel (PLENTY of those) and an 'artist' who is a dirty, rotten, scoundrel in their creative process to create their 'art'. Gill sounds more like the former, rather than the latter.
I'm generally in favour of some separate judgement of the art and artist who produced it, however Rupnik decided to bind up the art with the his personal sinful scoundrelness. At the very least, anyone who's used images of his art for print, digital materials should stop using them and look harder for decent Christian artists who are producing stunning work, with just the boring old stock for a change.
I refer to my extra comment of 23 June concerning Fiona McCarthy's enthralling biography of Gill. It is plain that Gill's art was deeply bound up with his disordered sexual urges.
I agree that there are plenty of talented decent Christian artists who deserve our money. And there is nothing to stop us or the Vatican using the staggering treasury of religious art from previous eras.
I just read that.. Yikes is all I can say and I stand corrected.
Outrageous.