Rome Newsroom, Aug 1, 2024 / 16:16 pm (CNA).
As Church leaders and Catholic groups around the world increasingly call for the removal of sacred art created by Father Marko Rupnik, the art institute founded by the disgraced former Jesuit is punching back, saying Rupnik’s art is being subjected to “cancel culture.”
“In the face of growing pressure for the removal of the works of art created by Centro Aletti, we feel obliged to express our great concern regarding the widespread diffusion of the so-called ‘cancel culture’ and of a way of thinking that legitimizes the ‘criminalization’ of art,” Centro Aletti Director Maria Campatelli contends in a letter addressed to friends of the institution.
In the letter, Campatelli says the center continues to face a “time of trial” while the allegations of sexual abuse by more than two dozen women, mostly former nuns, against Rupnik continues to be investigated by the Vatican.
“The removal of a work of art ought never to be thought of as a punishment or a cure,” Campatelli continues. “While pastoral care for suffering persons if of course necessary, this cannot become justification for the removal or covering of works of art.”
In the letter, Campatelli also reiterates that Rupnik “has always firmly denied, in the appropriate forums, having ever committed the abuses described by those accusing him.”
Rupnik has faced numerous allegations of sexual misconduct since 2018 and in recent years has faced repeated allegations of past sexual abuse.
During a June visit to Atlanta, Prefect of the Dicastery for Communication Paolo Ruffini also expressed reservations about removing Rupnik’s art in places of worship.
That same month, Cardinal Seán O’Malley, the archbishop of Boston and outgoing head of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, sent a letter to heads of the Holy See expressing hope that “pastoral prudence would prevent displaying artwork in a way that could imply either exoneration or a subtle defense” of those of accused of abuse.
Last month, Bishop Jean-Marc Micas of Tarbes and Lourdes issued a statement and expressed his personal opinion to remove Rupnik’s mosaics affixed to the entrance of the Basilica of Our Lady of the Rosary in the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes.
“Many people who were victims of sexual violence and abuse at the hands of clergy have in fact expressed their suffering and the violence that this exposure now constituted for them,” he wrote in the statement.
The Knights of Columbus last month temporarily covered Rupnik art at the St. John Paul II Shrine in Washington, D.C., as well as at the fraternal organization’s headquarters in New Haven, Connecticut.
Pope Francis ordered the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith to begin a judicial process to investigate the sexual abuse allegations against Rupnik after lifting the statute of limitations of his case in October 2023.
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.
Would that it were so.
He deserves canceling like few ever have.
On so many grounds:
Moral. Artistic. Religious.
Even digestive — since every reference to him is utterly revolting.
Digesting “digestive” at breakfast. 🤮 There can be no doubt that Rupnik’s abuse “art” is revolting. It is wicked to put money and art before victims. Justice is inadmissible in Rome.
By defending Rupnik’s vile oeuvre, Ruffini and the rest of the Dark Vaticanners are showing what they really are. And which spirit they serve.
The whole affair makes me want to Rupnik.
Except that “Rupnick’s art” is no art at all.
The choice being offered by the woman running Centro Aletti is the same choice offered by the Pontiff Francis: “You can choose us, or choose Jesus.”
Sharp insight, in tbe sense of “cutting”.
I hoped that there would be news about the nine-month investigation of Marko Rupnik by the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith but there is none. (Guess everyone did.). However, Maria Campatelli’s letter to Centro Aletti patrons and donors reminds us of the enablers who have helped Rupnik elude charges of abuse for years and years. There always are enablers and the small group of women, like Campatelli, who followed Rupnik from the Loyala Center over thirty years ago are among his most reliable supporters. So much for believing that women always help other women who have been abused.
Rupnik himself is the subject of serious scrutiny. If his product is being subjected to “cancel culture” it should be primarily because of its derivative, unimaginative, vacuous character. That it was produced by a con artist and a serial rapist does not contribute any redeeming value to it aesthetically or financially.
Let it be gone.
So, they rehashed an old story verbatim, but tack on a PR release from Rupnik studio at head, giving it air time when many readers never get past first paragraph or two…the Rupnik studio thanks the author for this “news”…and for me a wasted click…all that was missing was a string of tweet quotes expressing “disappointment” at the Rupnik studio PR release.
I have a problem with the discussion of the quality of art. What changed in this art from before and after. The artwork is the same – I happen to not enjoy his art and never have enjoyed it. The point, for me, is that it is clearly obvious that a great number of individuals found the quality of this artwork worthy of being placed on a great number of sacred structures. Who is evaluating the artwork and who is approving its placement. How and why did this style gain such precedence when there was a host of other sources for artwork I would deem worthy of being on sacred structures.
Nothing changed, in the sense that there were also plenty of people who thought the mosaics, or at least Rupnik’s contribution to them (the illustrations) were overrated and mediocre. Those people just never got a vote or a voice. Artwork for churches is rarely chosen by laypeople or parishioners. A small group of people usually select the art, including architects,donors, pastors and priests. Anyone else gets shut out, so you’d never know that anyone disliked it. One of the ways in which Rupnik’s reputation as an artist was propped up and inflated. (I also suspect that Rupnik has been handing out sweetheart deals to prominant prelates with influence but can’t prove that.)
Rupnick’s work has been chosen not because of his expertise as an artist, but because he was a Jesuit priest. While he regretfully remains in active ministry he continues to be nothing more than a privledged amateur artistically. Those absent training in the visual/fine arts are easily impressed by anyone who can produce an image of any sort, particularly if its big. The like big. We also have the critical circumstance that his financial impact upon his clients was regarded an “inhouse” expense. If you want to get a “picture” of what can be accomplished in contemporary ecclesiastical mosaic do an image search for “mosaic of our Lady of Knock.” The work is within the interior of the Basilica at Knock. You’ll immediately recognize the deficiency of Rupnik’s confections and those of his studio across the range of craft, aesthetics, and devotion.
There is nothing there, there in Rupnik’s work. It nothing more than filler — bastardized formula confections gleaned from Byzantine masterpieces. Sherwin-Williams flat latex white would substitute in more appropriately suit any “worship-space.”
I was going to tell you how Rupnik began his career but I have done it several times here already so here is the link to an article about it in Italian, you can use Google translate option.
https://amargipress.com/2023/11/
Two images above: on the left is ‘Christ Pantocrator’ by the Russian Orthodox mosaic artist Alexander Kornoukhov in the Vatican Capella ‘Redemptories Mater’. It was destroyed, together with the whole ceiling and parts of the wall, by Rupnik who then put there his own work like the image on the right, his own rendition of ‘Christ Pantocrator’.
I think the wok of two artists speaks volumes.
Hence, if you want to see the work of Kornoukhov here is a printed book with photos of his (mostly) destroyed art
https://www.kornoukhov.com/_files/ugd/2181c1_2c93aa63b56640c68ae385544491d6e6.pdf
I think the story of lies and deception will answer your question, of why Rupnik’s art is everywhere.
Anna, I have been meaning to thank you for bringing up the distressing story of the “Heavenly Jerusalem” mosaics by Alexander Kornoukhov at the Redemptoris Mater chapel several months ago. After that, I did more investigating but I did not find the book with complete images of his work that was subsequently removed and replaced by Marko Rupnik and Centro Aletti staff. Thank you so much for sharing it. (I am being deliberately calm as I write this because I might get taken over by rage otherwise.). The replacement mosaics reportedly put Rupnik on the map and led to Centro Aletti’s first series of major commissions.
If anyone wants to see the current state of the walls, there is a virtual 365 degree display but anyone looking at it may want to pray beforehand, in case you respond like I did, It is to weep: https://www.vatican.va/content/dam/vatican/virtualtour/redemptorismater/index.html
I do not know who was responsible for the narrative on this page but it is substantially at odds with some of what I read when I first started looking for information about the creation of the mosaics. I do not have any English-language sources to share but used the Google translation feature that Anna mentioned.
Maybe a skilled, diligent journalist will some day be able to put the entire story together.
Psychopaths and narcissists can get pretty good at flatly denying reality. Sane people do not listen to them.
I get that there are problems with “believe all women” when it’s a case of he said, she said. But when it’s he said, she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said…. with no political reason for a takedown…
Casting Rupnik as a ‘victim’ – I must admit that I didn’t see that one coming.
Nice touch.
Anna you have provided the most illuminating evidence for not only the character of Rupnik, but the contrast between his inadequacy and the warmth and artistry of Alexander Kornoukhov. Many thanks. It seems to me the case is now closed. God reward you.