Rupnik and bad choices made by the Knights of Columbus
I'm not actually okay with their reason for covering up the works
This is no small matter for them — the works are in two oft-visited and worshiped-in spaces of theirs and represent a significant exposure of Rupnik’s work.
“The decision by the Knights to cover the sprawling works, which envelop both spaces, was made at the end of a comprehensive, confidential review process that included consultations with sexual abuse victims and those who minister to them, art historians, pilgrims to the shrine, bishops, and moral theologians.
“The Knights of Columbus have decided to cover these mosaics because our first concern must be for victims of sexual abuse, who have already suffered immensely in the Church, and who may be further injured by the ongoing display of the mosaics at the shrine,” Kelly said in the statement.
The Knights’ statement is concerning and I know some of you will be exasperated with me for saying that.
Of course I endorse caring for victims of abuse, and make no mistake, the abuse was incredibly perverted (click here if you must).
The abuse was not just sexual. It was spiritual/sacrilegious abuse, and that twisted combination (not unusual) comes through in Rupnik’s pieces.
The main point about the art is actually not that Rupnik abused women.
Which leads me to my question: why did the Knights choose it in the first place?
The truth is that Rupnik’s works are now ubiquitous due to being promoted by a cabal within the Vatican and still relentlessly endorsed by them, despite general outcry.
As Phil Lawler and I said in a recent podcast, he’s not one among many artists one could patronize, he’s unaccountably the star, imposed on the entire Roman church. His depraved, often anti-human, often anti-divine style pervades our current vision, emanating both from his own studio and those of his many imitators. Every church event logo, every illustration has its Rupnik School of Deviant Aesthetics stamp: the cold eyes, the deadened figures, the twisted imagery, the anti-traditional symbolism, the stylized, and not in a good way, postures.
Why and how did the Knights allow their choices to be influenced by whatever faction promotes his work? What made them overlook the many traditional, creative artists not championed by the powers that be?
In short, who told them to buy it all — to make it their hallmark — and why did they listen?
What I can’t get over is why they didn’t consider the moral abuse perpetrated on the viewer (including children of course!) by his distorted images.
I want to try to temper my remarks to allow for honest mistakes in judgement, but I’m having trouble.
Is it really the case that they did not look at the images they were in essence associating, nay, identifying with their flagship chapels?
I’m shocked not because they didn’t know Rupnik was an abuser, but by their lack of independent thinking, sales resistance, or even the basic ability to look at something and know it’s terrible.
They should remove (not cover up, lest some future even more misguided entity decides to liberate them) the Rupnik atrocities now. They shouldn’t act as if art is all a matter of personal preference, not at all formative, until someone is discovered to be an abuser.
The primary issue is not that the artist abused anyone, though as I say, it’s a pretty big issue, but they shouldn’t act as if it’s the only one. No, it’s more that the Knights succumbed to the cabal when they made their choice, and thus betrayed their duty to everything beauty represents, namely, transcendental realities.
I spent a good part of my childhood in New Haven, CT, where they have their hideous headquarters, so I should not be surprised by their bad taste, which they inflicted architecturally on that city — on the little children there.
I guess I think they should repent of such a long march through the bog of bad art that of course ended up in the mire of sacrilege and deviancy and contributes to it — or do we not think art matters?
They should apologize for playing along with the church’s counterpart to what goes on in the secular modern art world — the corruption that has abandoned beauty and allowed ugliness to take its place.
Thank you for saying this. It frustrates me when people compare Rupnik to an artist like Caravaggio. No one with eyes to see would put them in the same artistic ball park. And that's just the beginning of it.
Agree. Also, who among most people today really understand what sacred art is? Compared to stuff people are bombarded with that is simply awful, they are not used to seeing sublime art (most Novus Ordo churches don't have high quality sacred art and sometimes are felted over with 70s banners and such). But this stuff is diabolical and if you had any spiritual sensitivity at all, you'd be disturbed. But I think you are right - they got the art for all the wrong reasons, perhaps even negating any feelings of repugnance some may have had. And I agree, it should all be ripped out.