Victims and advocates are running out of patience with Pope Francis and the Vatican, as official Vatican outfits including the communications dicastery continue to make use of artwork produced by a disgraced former Jesuit, Fr. Marko Rupnik, who is now a priest of Koper diocese in his native Slovenia, though he reportedly resides in Rome.
Vatican Media used a Rupnik studio image to illustrate their brief on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, causing an international uproar.
“It’s so injurious,” Antonia Sobocki of the UK-based LOUDFence survivor advocacy group told CWR on Thursday.
“I cannot think of a less appropriate artist to choose to illustrate this feast day than a serial rapist like Marko Rupnik,” Sobocki—herself a survivor of familial abuse—said March 19th on social media. “Please,” she said, “just make this stop.”
Rupnik is alleged—by numerous “highly credible” accusers, according to one senior Jesuit investigator—to have spiritually, psychologically, and sexually abused dozens of victims over three decades, most of them women religious.
According to several victims’ accounts, the abuse Rupnik perpetrated was integral to his “creative process” and central to his art, something that victims and advocates say magnifies the already appalling trauma of seeing it in use.
When Church outfits use Rupnik’s art—and the Vatican is hardly alone in continuing to do so—it compounds the hurt.
“I don’t know what to say to victims in that situation,” Sobocki told CWR, “except that ‘I am the Church too and I see you’.”
CWR asked several high-ranking officials at the Vatican’s Dicastery for Communications whether there have been discussions regarding the use of Rupnik’s artwork, and if so, who has made which decisions.
Natasa Govekar, who heads the theological-pastoral department, did not reply to calls or electronic text messages. Govekar is also a native Slovenian with close ties to Rupnik. She has written at least one book with the disgraced former celebrity artist.
Massimiliano Menichetti, the head of Vatican Radio—Vatican News, also did not reply to CWR’s electronic queries or answer this journalist’s call.
Andrea Tornielli, Vatican Media’s editorial director, did not reply to CWR’s e-queries either, and declined this journalist’s call.
The silence of the Vatican regarding the reasons for their continued use of works designed by Rupnik and his studio is making it hard for victims, advocates, and observers not to think the worst.
“The only explanation for it is that someone who doesn’t give a damn, or who thinks Rupnik’s behavior is no big deal, decides to use it,” Sobocki said of the Vatican’s continued use of Rupnik’s work.
The official management of the Rupnik case continues to be a cause of consternation.
Rupnik is now a priest of Koper diocese in his native Slovenia and reportedly at large in Rome, where he remains listed as in charge of the mosaic art workshop and theological laboratory at the Centro Aletti art institute he founded in 1993.
The Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) declined to prosecute Rupnik, citing the expired statute of limitations on Rupnik’s alleged crimes.
Observers were flummoxed and voices from across the spectrum of opinion in the Church were incensed at the refusal to lift the statute of limitations. There was mountainous evidence already collected and ample opportunity for defense. There was no discernible reason not to lift the statute bar in Rupnik’s case.
Rupnik was eventually expelled from the Jesuits for “disobedience” but was not called to answer at Church law for his abusive behavior. When news broke that Rupnik would be welcomed by the Koper diocese as a priest in good standing, international outrage exploded into incandescent fury.
Increasingly intense media pressure and the extraordinary intervention of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors led to Pope Francis reversing course and waiving the statute of limitations on Rupnik and returning his case to the DDF for re-examination.
Nearly half a year has gone by since those developments, but there has been no word from the Vatican on progress in the case.
Sobocki is hanging on, but barely, and she says she’s not alone.
“I’m trying very hard,” Sobocki said, “but it significantly challenges my charity. As a survivor myself—a lot of survivors will tell you they are literally hanging on by their fingertips—that they, we stay Catholic despite the Church, not because of it when we see things like this—like Rupnik’s art on display.”
Sobocki told CWR she can’t imagine why Pope Francis—why anyone in the Vatican in a position to do it—wouldn’t put a stop at least to the use of Rupnik’s art.
“I think that Pope Francis is a committed, decent man, but I don’t understand this.” Sobocki in fact met Pope Francis in September 2023, when she presented the work of her LOUDFence survivor support and advocacy organization to officials in the Vatican.
“When I met [Pope Francis],” Sobocki said, “I had the impression of a kind parish priest, but I don’t understand this.”
“I don’t want to bash Pope Francis,” Sobocki explained. “I’m just trying to understand it.”
“What does Marko Rupnik have on these people,” Sobocki wondered aloud, “that they should continue to use his art?”
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
The Rupnik scandal is now the Bergoglian scandal.
Francis has shown when he wants to do something, he does. That means when he doesn’t, it’s equally his decision, which tells you a lot more than his rhetoric about how serious he is (isn’t) about cleaning up the clerical sewage of the Church.
Thank you for your very perceptive comment.
St Joseph is a paradigm of the perfect father, the protector and thus an image of God the Father. The Virgin Mary and Jesus were safe with him.
Rupnik, on the other hand, is a diabolical version of the father (since he is a priest he is a father) who rapes. The Sisters were not safe with him but violated. It is a perfect anti-father image. It is just another “brink” in the anti-church building.
Now something more important, the quote:
“I think that Pope Francis is a committed, decent man, but I don’t understand this
“When I met [Pope Francis],” Sobocki said, “I had the impression of a kind parish priest, but I don’t understand this.”
“I don’t want to bash Pope Francis,” Sobocki explained. “I’m just trying to understand it.”
I am compelled to address Sobocki personally in case if she reads it:
You are making a mistake which costs you healing. First of all, to meet someone briefly does not mean to know him. There is no way to ascertain whether a man is decent or not in such circumstances.
Second, forget about Pope Francis and ask yourself, would a hypothetical “decent man” be a friend, support and cover a serial sexual abuser, sadist, pervert and blasphemer? Would you call “a decent man” someone who doesn’t care about the victims of abuse, women? No, it appears that such a hypothetical man is not decent because decent men do not behave this way. Perhaps he just wears a kind mask?
The most crucial for a victim of an abuse to see an abuser and those who help the abuser for who they are. As soon as you see Pope Francis for who he is (at the very least someone who doesn’t care about the victims at all and who is devoid of empathy) you will begin solidifying about who you are.
I fully relate to your temptation to leave the Church. There is one problem though: Christ is in the Church in the Eucharist and, from my expertise, the victims of abuse need the Body and Blood of Christ even more than others. So, my advice would be to find a church where nothing reminds of Rupnik and go there for the sole purpose of the Eucharist.
Very good advice, dear Anna. Your observations about Bergoglio are undeniable.
He doesn’t care about Rupnik’s victims any more than he cares about faithful Catholics.
Rupnik and his hideous predations will be forever linked to Bergoglio and his unholy papacy.
But every time a faithful Catholic leaves the Church because of Bergoglio, the creepy ratfaced unholy spirit wins. Because he’s managed to separate another one of us from our Creator.
Being victimized by evil like Rupnik’s just means we need our healing Savior that much more.
Stay strong. Stay true. Stay Catholic.
The Bergoglio’s and the Rupnik’s cannot last.
What does it have to take for Bergoglio to do the right thing in the Rupnick case? I have the sense that Bergoglio is a very stubborn person.
Most likely PF will discard Rupnik when he feels that doing otherwise would gravely threaten his position. I.e. he would act as he should only if he perceives that his non-action posits a grave threat to his public image. You may say “but his image is already bad, with this scandal”. No, not enough because there is still a grey area to manoeuvre and distance himself from the scandal and also plentiful popsplainers who will readily explain to you why Vatican continues using Rupnik’s work and why Rupnik is a priest etc.
Agree that stubbornness is at the root of the pastoral heresies of this pontificate. And that the only thing that will move Pope Francis beyond decades of lip service are courageous victims and those who fearlessly report like Altieri. It should be clear by now that those abused by the Pope’s collaborators are on their own during this pontificate.
Papal sycophants will not be punished until they are caught in a way that even the secular press cannot ignore the wickedness. When Altieri reports, AI kicks in and other reporter birds are encouraged to fly off the fence following his lead. So there is hope.
This pattern also helps explain why the Pope bullies those who oppose his theological howlers and endless appointments of ne’er-do-wells or worse. What other response will yield the results Pope Francis wants to defend his religious inventions? Obviously, appealing to the Truth and Tradition of Christ or previous pontificates is useless to explain the innovations of his personal magisterium. Anyway , who needs Denzinger when Pope Francis has his long-time collaborator, a mystical porn writer heading the DDF, at his side to promulgate pastoral heresies. 💋 Until bad press affects his agenda, Pope Francis is too busy burying the backwardist practices of rigorists to bother with the whining of those sexually abused by his supporters.
Perhaps I should add “rigorist” and “whiner” to my sign-in identification. It would then read “Deacon Edward Backwardist Rigorist Whiner Peitler.” Perhaps shortened to read “Deacon EBRW Peitler.”
Don’t sell yourself short Deacon, you are even more than these. You can find further “accompaniment” at: http://popefrancisbookofinsults.blogspot.com/
If that doesn’t satisfy sufficient gaslighting, try the Lutheran Insulter:
https://ergofabulous.org/luther/insult-list.php
As I outlined elsewhere, Mt 18:15-17 is available to all Christians.
Three verses, four steps, any concerned witness can start the process.
The result, in the case of an unrepentant violator of God’s laws, is his removal from the organization by the organization. He remains out – his choice – as long as unrepentant. Thus he’s no longer a problem for nor a burden on the faithful.
And all set forth and approved by our Lord.
These quotes explain Pope Francis and his legion of sexually sick cronies, like Rupnik:
“What I don’t like at all, in general, is that we look at the so-called ‘sin of the flesh’ with a magnifying glass.”
“The most minor sins are the sins of the flesh.”
“I would like to remind those people that ‘indietrismo’ (being backward-looking) is useless, and we need to understand that there is an appropriate evolution in the understanding of matters of faith and morals.”
Etc.
Kuddos to you for reminding us of these statements. What is interesting about Bergoglio’s beliefs about sexual sin, are their complete blindness to the fact that the “sins of the flesh” have today morphed into the sin of idolatry. When a christian begins to view his sexual identity as above the divine or natural law, he has moved from the territory of the 6th commandment into the territory of the first commandment. This may be what was behind the statements of the Blessed Mother at Fatima, when she warned not only about communism, but also about sexual sin. The current sexual movements are the fusion of communism and sexual deconstruction.
Wonderful Fool!
The website you cited listing thousands of Bergoglio’s insults is most instructive.
It certainly casts his endless complaints about judgmentalism in a curious — even hilarious — light.
Well done!
But what if–notwithstanding any kind of abuse of others–Francis knows something that we don’t? What if there were a way to separate acts of love from acts of sin, whereby or view of the truth would be greatly altered?
…whereby OUR view…
What if we just set it up differently?
See if you get the sense of it. The woman was caught in adultery and our Lord declared the condition of forgiveness, “Go and sin no more.”
Free-thinkers use the passage to interpret the whole Gospel as a proclamation to live and let live; which is just not the case of the Gospel as a whole nor of the plight of the woman in the particular instance. I’m not just making it up or putting 2 and 2 together. I’ve had direct encounter with it and THEY ARE VERY DOGMATIC about it and and very activist finding justifications and openings to persist, to have it, to spread it.
Below, I gave the true (opposite) example of Guthlac. There are many others, eg., among the men, Serenelli, Bambino Longo and Charles de Foucauld.
We could also insert Merton, adding that he kept spoiling his seclusion and penance and “journey”.
Such matters will remain with the Church even without the Modernist engagements and the Church is obliged to deal with them in her perennial wisdom.
The Modernism wants to retire that perennial wisdom and in THIS AREA Pope Francis (so it seems) hasn’t yet gotten the handle of it or is rejecting it. The way forward for those in such situations is thrown into muddles. Meanwhile the “journey” of whatever description is made as “the vogue”.
Even if he “knows something”, he is still obliged in justice to be true to mercy and the faith according to the occasion; not use each one for confusion that somehow will turn everything right.
You ask: “What if there were a way to separate acts of love from acts of sin?”
There is. It is called Christianity. God is love. A Pope should know that love is not sin. We do not need another truth than Christ Himself, the Truth. (Written from my Growlery;)
Whatever a “theological laboratory” might be, it seems like a place where one would expect to find someone as ghastly as Rupnik. This is yet another instance of Francis signaling what he thinks of us without using words.
Ms. Sobocki has posed the ultimate question: “What does Rupnik have on the people in the Church establishment in Rome, that they would continue to use his art?”
Something very, very bad…no doubt about that anymore.
It appears that Rupnik has = shares with “them” a similar vector of extreme egocentricity, away from Christ. Rupnik of course is quite extreme because he did not just molest and rape, he did it on the “theological basis” (threesomes and other sacrilege) and used (according to his victims) those practices to perk himself for his art. Not everyone who supports Rupnik is as imaginative yet the vector of dehumanizing, depersonalizing (the victims) is the same. Rupnik, arrested in his emotional development, did not see the persons in the Sisters. Those who cover him also do not see persons in them. If they saw they would not cover.
It is also important to note that Rupnik and his supporters make Jesus Christ a non-person as well. If they did see the Person in Jesus Christ they would understand that a priest who did what Rupnik did must be barred from touching Christ in the Eucharist (I mean epiclesis) because it is a sacrilege. The rapist and blasphemer cannot be an icon of Christ during Mass. Hence in this case truly Our Lord shares the sufferings of the victims of abuse because He Himself is being abused NOW, by Rupnik.
To be fair, we are all in danger of joining that vector of dehumanization/depersonalization. One who turns away and pretends that nothing happened when he sees abuse (including emotional) is aiding “rupniks” and his friends. It is very important to be clear about that and also the fact that the victims of abuse are driven to suicide not so much by abuse itself but by silencing them, by the Church.
Anna:
I am of the same mind and heart.
And a thousand times yes to your point that they make Jesus into a “non-person.” It is as Fr. Robert Imbelli has alluded in his warning: they are trying to “de-capitate the Body of Christ.”
And yes…we are all in danger of falling: “I am the Vine, you are the branches…apart from Me, you can do nothing.”
Thank you for giving voice as you have done.
O Holy Spirit: strengthen us.
St. Michael the Archangel defend us in battle.
Anima Christi, sanctifica me…Ne permittas me separari a te.
The silence of the Vatican on this matter is deafening.
Did you ever notice how sex crimes, homosexuality and so on seem to be the things that Pope Francis favors the most? His whole papacy has been dedicated to advancing perversity in the church. Perverts are protected and rise high in the church. I wonder how much sway the pervert clique will have at the next conclave.
Bishop Sheen warned about the criminal having more sympathy than the victim.
Read this article, go to Crisis Magazine and see the pathetic picture of Joe Biden and Fr. James Martin, and THEN try to tell me that I’m wrong when I state that ‘the imp is loose’ – There can be NO doubt of that.
Our weapons? – prayer and penance.
Dear Ms. Sobocki, Good luck in trying to understand what is happening regarding Fr. Rupnik. Be patient, if God is allowing all these things to happen it is because he will eventually draw good out of the current evil.
Dear Rene: “God is allowing all these things to happen . . because He will eventually draw good out of the current evil.”
According to *Ethical Encounter Theology*, our world is suited for the just separation of all that is godly right ethical from all that is ungodly wrong ethical.
God’s Word is Just and does not judge potentials but allows the world to freely actualize all ethical potentials, so they can be justly judged. As you say, the bad things have to be allowed to show themselves so as to be eternally separated.
In Summary: Ethical Encounter > Binary Ethical Apocalypsis > Ethical Dialysis
As a consequence, when asked: “When & where will the Apocalypse be?”, the faithful reply: “It is always right here and right now for each person, including the pope.”
Whilst not welcoming evil, we realize it HAS to make itself known.
The matter is made perfectly clear by our LORD in Matthew 18:7 and Luke 17:1.
Ever in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
It is shameful the way the Vatican is protecting this so called priest! It is total injustice , let us pray to God for justice to be done for the victims !
What kind of pope will we have next, given that he will be elected by those who voted for Francis, as well as Francis’ subsequently appointed buddies?
Come Holy Spirit
We must differentiate between the man and his work: the morality of the man and his creations. We look on awe at the “creation”on the ceiling of the sistine chapel, but the personal life of Michelangelo was not that of a saint by no means. The art will live on while the artist dies and is judged by God. Michelangelo’s sin in no detracts from the magnificent fresco.
I think thoughtful observers recognize that every artist is a sinner. As an artist myself, I’m well aware of my sins and failings, and I don’t think it would be fair to dismiss my art because, “Carl was a sinner!”
But, as I pointed out last month, in responding to this same point (someone made it about Raphael):
Yes, it’s widely accepted that Raphael (like so many creative types) had a number of affairs and mistresses. But:
• Was Raphael a sexual abuser? (No.) Of multiple women? (No.)
• Was he a priest? (No.)
• Did he abuse his office to prey on women under his authority? (Not that we know of.)
• Was he a Jesuit priest who was close to the Pope? Or apparently protected by the Pope? (No.)
• Was his art grotesque and lacking in artistic merit? (No. He was an artistic genius, ranking with Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci.)
• Did he commit crimes? That is, were his affairs illegal and did they demand civil justice? (Not as far as I know.)
• If he committed crimes, were they very well documented, with numerous witnesses? (Probably not.)
• Did he, ill and dying, confess his sins and receive last rites? (Yes, according to Wikipedia.)
And so forth. The key point is that this artist or that musician was a sinner (we all are), but that the nature of the sins, one’s position in committing them, and the scandal/knowledge surrounding them are very important. Especially when talking about a priest producing lousy art that appears in far, far too many churches, sacred sites, etc.
Addendum:
Did he commit sacrilege with the elements of the Holy Eucharist during his concupiscent acts?
Did he profane the Sacrament of Reconciliation in order to mollify his victims?
Did he cheat his clients with pedestrian and derivative products?
This Rupnik is no Caravaggio.
Well James in this instance the man and his work are on a similar level. Not much to differentiate about. It’s all bad.
The abuse problem must have a release valve, I think. Otherwise the Church would be nothing different from the rest of society.
This is what I mean. If you have found repentance and forgiveness in the Church, some provision must be made to secure the peace of the Church. You may be obliged to retire your years in a penitential seclusion in a monastery.
This wouldn’t be new to the Church. You could make good by it and even win sanctity. Canonizable. The practice instead of just promoting those we are supposed to imagine have repented thoroughly, is bound to bring upheaval.
Be wise about it yourself. Don’t court “being accepted” or gaining some official position or popularity; and don’t let others court you.
Besides which, repentance and forgiveness do not necessarily entail receiving so many extra gifts needed for the more public life as well.
Consider retreating in favour of seeking to be made fit for the Kingdom.
Presently such a thing is not widely recognized or offered. In fact talking about it explicitly ahead of the decision will be shunned. Be astute then.
St. Guthlac –
‘ ….. after eight or nine years spent in warfare, during which he never quite forgot his early training, he became filled with remorse and determined to enter a monastery. This he did at Repton (in what is now Derbyshire). Here after two years of great penance and earnest application to all the duties of the monastic life, he became fired with enthusiasm to emulate the wonderful penance of the Fathers of the Desert. For this purpose he retired with two companions to Croyland, a lonely island in the dismal fen- lands of modern Lincolnshire. In this solitude he spent fifteen years of the most rigid penance, fasting daily until sundown and then taking only coarse bread and water. ‘
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07092a.htm
It is, on the contrary, highly appropriate that Rupnik’s Sex Abuse Creations and three eyes continue to be used as the flag of Post-Conciliarism and the final stage of the the Modernist Apostasy : Bergoglioism.
Bergoglioism’s Fate is Rupnik’s.
Some may argue that sins below the belt are no big deal. Sadly, this is argued by some Church pastors.
The Apostles wrote these sins are enough to exclude one from The Kingdom of God.
Sins below the belt are considered a necessary qualification by those in Hell.
As Moses instructed: “I have set before you Life & death; . . now, chose Life.”
Ever in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
Those with black pupils are found in to ways the “art” of rupnik and in some possessed people! There has to be a link here some where?