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.
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.
I agree, but Caravaggio’s paintings are mostly in side chapels and museums. My point is that Caravaggio’s art is far superior and theologically rich/sound (with some exceptions). He uses a different artistic language than iconography, but his art is not flagrantly heretical in the way Rupnik’s is. Many Vatican officials now compare the two when there is really no comparison to be had. An entirely different character comes through in Caravaggio’s work verses Rupnik.
It is a travesty that even Lourdes and Fatima are covered with this soulless, or worse, advertisement for hell on earth. Hilary White has some good commentary on why this - I can't even call it art - this product is so ugly. https://substack.com/home/post/p-146060247 I wonder what Rupnik did with the bajillions? Could he be made to pay it back in reparation to the victims of his aesthetic abuse?
... I had never before seen the above image. I am familiar enough with Rupnik's diabolical trademark - the black hollows where the eyes should be - but this is echoed here in the black heart-shaped wounds, the black cross, and the equal lengths of the top and bottom parts of the cross in the stole of the soulless figure to the far right. (A Christian cross is not a difficult shape to make, is it?) Is that a tabernacle door stuck into the black and blue wall? The whole thing is a hellscape.
I tried not to post any of his work and failed. I guess it has to be done but it hurts.
I have always felt a bit guilty about not wanting to go there (insofar as I thought about it). It's so ugly and anti-reverent. For me, besides all the things you say, it's the line he puts Our Lord into -- the asymmetry and effeminate swoop, as if He is here to affirm all our most sentimental wallowings.
Hey. Survivor of sexual assault by a priest here (as a 21 year old young adult. The guy was my spiritual director/mentor).
I'm not a fan of Rupnik's art on a artistic level, but I think, "the guy was a rapist who used spiritual manipulation to groom his victims and as part of his artistic process, this rendering the art itself a sacrilege" outranks "it's ugly and doesn't do a good job transmitting truth and beauty." Saying otherwise quite frankly feels a bit like a slap in the face.
(I'm aware of Carvaggio's sins. His case is different because he didn't use spiritual manipulation to groom his victims. He was a sinner, but his art wasn't a conscious act of sacrilege).
But because I have personal experience with it, my opinion is biased and thus to be taken with a grain of salt, right?
Edit: I'm sorry, that may have been a little harsh. I am struggling to see why aesthetics are a more important reason to take those images out of the public eye than the fact that they were created in and through literal sacrilege. That seems to be what your piece is suggesting.
Perhaps you didn't mean to, but please don't patronize me by refusing to engage with my argument. I may be a survivor of this type of abuse, but that doesn't mean I'm not capable of dialogue about things that involve it.
I understand that your comments come from your experience and that is of course valid. I really do understand why you feel the way you do.
Both your comments impute a lot to what I'm saying. I am not sure why you would go to "don't patronize me" on the basis of my comment? I simply said I understand. But -- it's not really an argument. And the problem with using personal experience as a sort of trump card is that there is not much I can say to you without seeming callous and belittling to something evil, despite my protestations -- yet I have a point to make and I insist on making it. One thing is that people should be given the benefit of the doubt and not be made to take up all the time with obvious disclaimers.
I said I regard Rupnik's abuse history with utmost repugnance.
I invite you to see things differently. Perhaps it's not just a matter of aesthetics. The topic is actually the art itself.
Perhaps, and this is what I'm getting at, the Knights' installation of his works represents cooperation with a cabal of evil doers and teachers who groom those who, for instance, are subjected to this art, for sexual abuse and worse *because it is bad art* -- not because it is made by a bad person, though he and it are so bad they are inextricable. A point not made by the statement!
The art itself is abusive towards the truth and towards beauty, and in so being, harms those who approach it in innocence and openness, expecting to experience the transcendent.
Those subjected to it -- over time perhaps -- are groomed for corruption about the truth of God.
And yes, abuse of God is the worst action. That doesn't mean sexual abuse isn't horrible -- think about it. It means that as horrible as it is, there is something more horrible.
It's like he and his corrupt promoters and defenders took his abuse of this woman or that and projected it onto every person who enters the space, including children!
My point here is that their statement is not good enough. It fails to address the real issue, which is how they came to be complicit with an abuser.
You may not understand my point because I may not be able to express it well, but please be assured of my deepest heartache for you and all who endured or endure abuse.
"Yeah, abuse is bad and whatnot but the REAL issue here is they put in art I don't like or think is theologically correct. I mean that is way more important than than the lives and faith destroyed by this evil man the pope continues to support. And the countless victims watching this all go down and seeing how little the Church cares and how unwilling the Church and her leadership are to act. All of that is secondary to my perspective of the theological implications of the art itself."
As a clerical abuse survivor myself, this blog post is harmful and thoughtless.
As someone who accompanies many survivors of clerical sexual abuse, I would invite you to reconsider this way of thinking and speaking about the issue of Rupnik's art. For abuse survivors who often see Catholics minimizing and even denying the impacts of their abuse, it can be incredibly painful to read a post like this. This may not be what you intended, but it seems to imply that artistic sensibilities are more important than the devastation created by this kind of evil abuse.
It's about formation -- or, as I said, do you not think art matters? When people are surrounded by art that in itself abuses, they are more vulnerable to abuse and more likely to abuse.
Instead of approaching things in this binary manner, try to see the big picture. We have created a culture where abuse is only confronted when it becomes too obvious to ignore.
I think what people are reacting against is your using the word “abuse” to mean “poor artistic choice” or “inflicting bad taste on the public.” You may think the art communicates evil, (I wonder if you would feel that strongly if we never found out about rupnik?) but art does not abuse people.
I used to work at the hq and actually found the art lovely because it was like being inside an icon. Now that I know about rupnik I can’t see it the same but it assisted my prayer and felt ecumenical when I was really missing an old Byzantine liturgy I used to attend. Icons are flat stylistically, but we don’t say they’re deadened. It’s ok for people to have different taste. The Catholic Church is a big tent. Not just Rome, not just renaissance, not just Latin, etc.
You're speaking as if the formation that art gives us is obvious. It's not.
As I said earlier, I'm not a fan of Rupnik's work. But his style does remind me of certain Byzantine style icons. Why are those good art, and Rupnik isn't (according to your standard)? Or are those icons good art? What objective standards are you measuring his art against?
It's not a matter of taste. There are objective standards especially for sacred art. If nothing else, the eyes have a characteristic dead quality of corrupt images -- no true icon has them, nor the lack of symmetry, nor the strange postures, nor the tell-tale strange perspective vis-a-vis the viewer.
My position is that in our time it's sadly not difficult to impose such things on the innocent viewer, and so those choosing the art have a duty to be extremely careful. If the Knights were in the position of choosing, then they were in the position to LOOK at them and see that they are objectively ugly (lack unity, harmony, and radiance of the truth).
I have been in far uglier chapels and been subjected to far worse religious art, and probably my capacity to recognize such objective standards of beauty as you insist exist, Leila, is untrained and mostly intuitive.
Is that really as big a problem as your tone and heat implies?
I care about beauty, and vulgarity, and what we expose youth to. I’m a homeschooling mom who has been blessed to be exposed to lots of beauty - abroad, on pilgrimages, even, and in good Catholic education. If you think I’m so off base merely because I didn’t perceive see the evil qualities you see in rupniks work, what hope is there for any of us? My aesthetic sensibility is not likely to be improved by a diatribe on Substack ☺️
My diatribe is aimed entirely at the Knights. They are not, like you and I, untrained wanderers. When they choose art they have a duty to make it good art -- good SACRED art.
They have been failing at this for a long time. For them to take refuge in "oh he was an abuser" is not enough. It implies that anyone who was not a victim or carer for a victim would otherwise be untouched or unharmed by his works.
That is not true. His works are in themselves, as art, abusive. They harm the spectator's interaction with truth, goodness, and beauty in a sacred place.
I am not sure why it's necessary to take this personally.
I think some of your heat is radiating from the knights to anyone who dare disagree with you that rupniks art is objectively abusive regardless of his sins.
I hope i know myself well enough not to take your opinion personally - even though I could, as a former employee of the k of c at that “hideous” building.
Look, I agree with you, the whole church has a responsibility to do better with beauty - to build it, steward it, articulate what it is. But picking on the knights, when that is not at all central to their mission, confuses me. It’s a bunch of dudes. Traditionally blue collar salt of the earth dudes, who love God and get together, often in ugly church basements, for fraternity and charity. Their leadership is no more to be expected to choose art well than, say, bishops, or any liturgical director in any parish in America. Who have often failed terribly, but who were also poorly taught themselves… I’m just saying this is clearly a systemic problem, a lack of aesthetic literacy, and you are all fired up at holding the diaper-drive guys accountable?
I go into very specific technical detail in these two articles to explain that his work is NOT Byzantine, and not even "based on" the Byzantine standards. Not only is his work just plain bad, it is in fact a deliberate, conscious mockery of the Byzantine calculated to mislead and ultimately theologically corrupt the minds and souls of the people who look at it. It is important to remember what Byzantine sacred art IS. It is not mere decoration, and we don't judge its value based on personal aesthetic preferences, as we would with Western paintings of religious subjects.
In the East sacred iconography is held to be a conduit to Divine realities, a means of both conveying theological truths and bringing those realities into this world, into the very room in which the image is kept. The object itself, the panel icon or mosaic, is held to be a sacred object, equivalent to how Western Christianity treats the relics of saints or other sacramentals. In the Byzantine world, icons are equal to Holy Scripture in their importance for conveying and incarnating the Christian Faith.
Marco Rupnik's works are not just "bad" aesthetically. This is a determination and a standard suitable for secular painting. *His works are heretical*; the spiritual equivalent of lies, disinformation, and intended to lead the viewer away from God.
I'm curious why you aren't referencing my work on this precise topic, Leila. I go into considerable technical depth on why Rupnik's artistic work is of a piece with his sexual abuse, why it must be considered a part of his abuse, why sacred art is in fact important and not merely a matter of personal taste or preference, and is not intended merely as a decorative element in churches.
~
Byzantine sacred art, and those forms that followed it in organic continuity from the Romanesque to the Gothic, is a kind of visual language. Its very particular use of line, form, value, space, colour, gesture etc., constitute the vocabulary of the language used to convey very specific theological ideas.
So what happens when those forms are used for ill, instead of good, to deceive, confuse or obfuscate that truth?
How does an icon teach and confirm Christian doctrine? And more to the point, how can that visual language be misused to convey ideas opposed to doctrine? What is a heretical icon, and can we find a use for this concept in the western tradition of sacred art?
Last week Anthony Visco, in an op ed for the journal of the Institute for Sacred Architecture, brought up a point that needs some more focus in the Rupnik situation. “It should not have taken his scandalous behaviour to see how problematic his art was.”
No, it certainly should not have, but how did that happen? How were Christians so easily duped, or more likely shamed into silence, told they couldn’t possibly understand his work? How has the modern artistic doctrine of visual indifference - a variety of moral relativism - come to dominate our thinking about sacred art?
Byzantine sacred art, as I’ve said, is extremely specific and so deeply infused with meaning that it is literally held by Eastern Christianity as equal to Scripture. The abstraction of traditional sacred art has a purpose; it’s necessary to convey the meaning with precision and clarity.
That's why the liturgical artwork the western Church has been bludgeoned with for 60 years, is obviously deliberately transgressive. Its intention is to distort, to de-clarify, to muddify and create confusion. Ultimately the goal is despair. And this is the essence of the western Church’s so-called “New Paradigm” in which random change, chaos, disorderliness, and above all, empty, nihilistic meaninglessness, is the overarching message.
The Modernists’ message is not that the human being is made in the image and likeness of God, that creation and man’s existence in it makes sense, but that nothing makes sense, least of all God. Do you still hold fast to your belief? Curse God and die! They abhor the idea that God is reasonable, consistent and benevolently orders the universe for us as a reflection of His divine goodness. The Modernist “worships” chaos and randomness, things not making sense, things falling apart, corners not meeting up, not creating an orderly picture.
Thanks Jessica. Yes, I know Allen, and several of the other authors in that book. I'm glad you found it helpful. If you're interested in reading more stories from a wide variety of survivors, you can find many stories on the Awake blog here: https://www.awakecommunity.org/survivor-stories. It's truly and honor to listen to and learn from so many beautiful people who have experienced abuse.
I didn't realize the artist was an abuser of the gravest kind. Seeing his art reminded me of a visit I had to the Redemptoris Mater chapel at St Peter's Basilica in the Vatican.... Please, please someone tell me before I venture down an unwanted rabbit trail of moral demise, that he was commissioned to do this work (and others everywhere, as others have noted) before he was ever known to be an abuser??? I am trying to figure out the timeline because the implications would be much different... Although not acceptable in the least as sacred art, if one didn't know he had a history of abuse, would it be so offensive? I see Leila's point here that the art itself is offensive to be labeled as sacred art, and the view of those who have been abused by church officials to see it as support of an abuser by the Church. I am just hoping beyond hope that popes (the good ones, please Lord!) didn't know of his sins when asked to do a mosaic of such high level of visiting....
Idk about the Vatican or Jesuit officials in recent years since he has still oddly been on some committees and things (the pillar has good coverage of the details) but most of his works are decades old and the knights chapel in dc and in New Haven were definitely created before any of this news broke 👍🏼
It's a long complicated story, but the short version is that the process through which Rupnik was first excommunicated (for attempting to absolve an "accomplice" after a sexual encounter) began in 2019. That excommunication, which was kept very quiet, was later lifted, before this more recent iteration of the scandal. So, much of this art was commissioned before that date, but he did continue to receive commissions after that date (and even preached a Lenten meditation for the Roman Curia in 2020). I don't know how long these women were trying to be heard before 2019.
Leila, you’re one of the few Catholics I follow on social media because I’ve admired your writing and I normally don’t comment but I’m going to here because while I absolutely see your point about the depravity of Rupnik’s art, I think you really missed the mark by placing the depravity of the art itself as a greater travesty than Rupnik’s abuse of women under his pastoral care. I think that your statement really touched a nerve with survivors of clerical sex abuse because for any person for whom a priest used God, the sacraments and the priesthood to satisfy ungodly, evil and sexually depraved fetishes, it’s just not possible to align with your statement. It’s near impossible for someone who hasn’t experienced abuse by a Catholic priest to really understand or empathize, so I can understand your comments to the survivors who have commented here. I can see your intentions are good, but I would really invite you to meditate on the dignity of the human body being violated in the name of God vs. laying eyes on ugly art with painted dead eyes. Yes, I am also a survivor of diabolical spiritual, psychological and perverted sexual abuse by a priest and that is in no way a trump card for survivors, but it does mean we have a unique perspective from someone who hasn’t experienced diabolical abuse by someone acting in Persona Christi and using my love of Christ and His Church. There is a part of me that is actually grateful when someone can’t empathize because it means they haven’t been subjected to it but your statement did hurt, myself and others survivors who are choosing not to comment. Peace to you.
No, in the Western Church, we don't think art matters. Not for 500 years. And all the 'how dare you say that" comments here demonstrate how corrupted our concepts of sacred art have become in the Latin Church.
I am the survivor of sexual abuse - not at the hands of a priest or clergy member, but a family member. I know that my experience differs to those commenters here, but I also believe I can empathize with the hurt and anger clearly communicated in the comments. Having said all that, I think such a personal and scarring experience can prevent us from reading, objectively, the thrust of Leila's main point about the quality of the art, what it conveys and to what it subjects the viewers. I went back and re-read the post because of the heated nature of the give and take in the comments and Leila is pretty clear that she finds Rupnik's actions unquestionably horrific. One of her first statements is such:
"Of course I endorse caring for victims of abuse, and make no mistake, the abuse was incredibly perverted (click here if you must)."
She even warns us of clicking the link (I did). It is a harrowing retelling of one woman's victimization. Rupnik should be condemned outright. She goes on to say:
"The abuse was not just sexual. It was spiritual/sacrilegious abuse, and that twisted combination (not unusual) comes through in Rupnik’s pieces."
This is the jumping off point: clearly, her aim in writing this particular post was to talk about the quality of the artwork and to wonder how an organization, so trusted in the Church, could have ever consented to purchasing it. I don't think she intended to rank the ugliness of the art as somehow more of a sin than the actions committed by Rupnik against his victims or the actions committed by other clergy against their victims. Personal experience, though, can certainly color how we receive writing and effect our response to it. That is undoubtedly true and is clearly on display in these comments. A great deal of anger is present, but it seems a little misdirected at Leila and her reflection.
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.
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.
And Caravaggio doesn't belong above an altar either.
I agree, but Caravaggio’s paintings are mostly in side chapels and museums. My point is that Caravaggio’s art is far superior and theologically rich/sound (with some exceptions). He uses a different artistic language than iconography, but his art is not flagrantly heretical in the way Rupnik’s is. Many Vatican officials now compare the two when there is really no comparison to be had. An entirely different character comes through in Caravaggio’s work verses Rupnik.
As you point out so well in your writing on Rupnik!
It is a travesty that even Lourdes and Fatima are covered with this soulless, or worse, advertisement for hell on earth. Hilary White has some good commentary on why this - I can't even call it art - this product is so ugly. https://substack.com/home/post/p-146060247 I wonder what Rupnik did with the bajillions? Could he be made to pay it back in reparation to the victims of his aesthetic abuse?
... I had never before seen the above image. I am familiar enough with Rupnik's diabolical trademark - the black hollows where the eyes should be - but this is echoed here in the black heart-shaped wounds, the black cross, and the equal lengths of the top and bottom parts of the cross in the stole of the soulless figure to the far right. (A Christian cross is not a difficult shape to make, is it?) Is that a tabernacle door stuck into the black and blue wall? The whole thing is a hellscape.
I tried not to post any of his work and failed. I guess it has to be done but it hurts.
I have always felt a bit guilty about not wanting to go there (insofar as I thought about it). It's so ugly and anti-reverent. For me, besides all the things you say, it's the line he puts Our Lord into -- the asymmetry and effeminate swoop, as if He is here to affirm all our most sentimental wallowings.
It is a hellscape! It's SO UGLY
Hey. Survivor of sexual assault by a priest here (as a 21 year old young adult. The guy was my spiritual director/mentor).
I'm not a fan of Rupnik's art on a artistic level, but I think, "the guy was a rapist who used spiritual manipulation to groom his victims and as part of his artistic process, this rendering the art itself a sacrilege" outranks "it's ugly and doesn't do a good job transmitting truth and beauty." Saying otherwise quite frankly feels a bit like a slap in the face.
(I'm aware of Carvaggio's sins. His case is different because he didn't use spiritual manipulation to groom his victims. He was a sinner, but his art wasn't a conscious act of sacrilege).
I can see why you feel this way.
But because I have personal experience with it, my opinion is biased and thus to be taken with a grain of salt, right?
Edit: I'm sorry, that may have been a little harsh. I am struggling to see why aesthetics are a more important reason to take those images out of the public eye than the fact that they were created in and through literal sacrilege. That seems to be what your piece is suggesting.
Perhaps you didn't mean to, but please don't patronize me by refusing to engage with my argument. I may be a survivor of this type of abuse, but that doesn't mean I'm not capable of dialogue about things that involve it.
^Edited
I understand that your comments come from your experience and that is of course valid. I really do understand why you feel the way you do.
Both your comments impute a lot to what I'm saying. I am not sure why you would go to "don't patronize me" on the basis of my comment? I simply said I understand. But -- it's not really an argument. And the problem with using personal experience as a sort of trump card is that there is not much I can say to you without seeming callous and belittling to something evil, despite my protestations -- yet I have a point to make and I insist on making it. One thing is that people should be given the benefit of the doubt and not be made to take up all the time with obvious disclaimers.
I said I regard Rupnik's abuse history with utmost repugnance.
I invite you to see things differently. Perhaps it's not just a matter of aesthetics. The topic is actually the art itself.
Perhaps, and this is what I'm getting at, the Knights' installation of his works represents cooperation with a cabal of evil doers and teachers who groom those who, for instance, are subjected to this art, for sexual abuse and worse *because it is bad art* -- not because it is made by a bad person, though he and it are so bad they are inextricable. A point not made by the statement!
The art itself is abusive towards the truth and towards beauty, and in so being, harms those who approach it in innocence and openness, expecting to experience the transcendent.
Those subjected to it -- over time perhaps -- are groomed for corruption about the truth of God.
And yes, abuse of God is the worst action. That doesn't mean sexual abuse isn't horrible -- think about it. It means that as horrible as it is, there is something more horrible.
It's like he and his corrupt promoters and defenders took his abuse of this woman or that and projected it onto every person who enters the space, including children!
My point here is that their statement is not good enough. It fails to address the real issue, which is how they came to be complicit with an abuser.
You may not understand my point because I may not be able to express it well, but please be assured of my deepest heartache for you and all who endured or endure abuse.
https://www.amazon.com/Abuse-Trust-Healing-Clerical-Sexual-ebook/dp/B07VXLMLBB?ref_=ast_author_mpb A friend wrote this book and I HIGHLY recommend. How to stay Catholic in the face of the gravest of abuses. He himself is a survivor. I am so very sorry for the breach of trust you faced and may God heal every wound of yours.
Thank you. I haven't come across this one yet, I'll have to take a look.
"Yeah, abuse is bad and whatnot but the REAL issue here is they put in art I don't like or think is theologically correct. I mean that is way more important than than the lives and faith destroyed by this evil man the pope continues to support. And the countless victims watching this all go down and seeing how little the Church cares and how unwilling the Church and her leadership are to act. All of that is secondary to my perspective of the theological implications of the art itself."
As a clerical abuse survivor myself, this blog post is harmful and thoughtless.
Please don't put words into my mouth.
As someone who accompanies many survivors of clerical sexual abuse, I would invite you to reconsider this way of thinking and speaking about the issue of Rupnik's art. For abuse survivors who often see Catholics minimizing and even denying the impacts of their abuse, it can be incredibly painful to read a post like this. This may not be what you intended, but it seems to imply that artistic sensibilities are more important than the devastation created by this kind of evil abuse.
I'm afraid you just didn't read it.
It's not about sensibility.
It's about formation -- or, as I said, do you not think art matters? When people are surrounded by art that in itself abuses, they are more vulnerable to abuse and more likely to abuse.
Instead of approaching things in this binary manner, try to see the big picture. We have created a culture where abuse is only confronted when it becomes too obvious to ignore.
I think what people are reacting against is your using the word “abuse” to mean “poor artistic choice” or “inflicting bad taste on the public.” You may think the art communicates evil, (I wonder if you would feel that strongly if we never found out about rupnik?) but art does not abuse people.
I used to work at the hq and actually found the art lovely because it was like being inside an icon. Now that I know about rupnik I can’t see it the same but it assisted my prayer and felt ecumenical when I was really missing an old Byzantine liturgy I used to attend. Icons are flat stylistically, but we don’t say they’re deadened. It’s ok for people to have different taste. The Catholic Church is a big tent. Not just Rome, not just renaissance, not just Latin, etc.
You're speaking as if the formation that art gives us is obvious. It's not.
As I said earlier, I'm not a fan of Rupnik's work. But his style does remind me of certain Byzantine style icons. Why are those good art, and Rupnik isn't (according to your standard)? Or are those icons good art? What objective standards are you measuring his art against?
I think we have been trained not to LOOK at it.
It's not a matter of taste. There are objective standards especially for sacred art. If nothing else, the eyes have a characteristic dead quality of corrupt images -- no true icon has them, nor the lack of symmetry, nor the strange postures, nor the tell-tale strange perspective vis-a-vis the viewer.
My position is that in our time it's sadly not difficult to impose such things on the innocent viewer, and so those choosing the art have a duty to be extremely careful. If the Knights were in the position of choosing, then they were in the position to LOOK at them and see that they are objectively ugly (lack unity, harmony, and radiance of the truth).
Who's declared those objective standards, and where can I find them?
First start with St. Thomas on beauty. Then perhaps John Paull II's letter to artists -- the footnotes would be the syllabus: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_23041999_artists.html
I also highly recommend the chapter on art in The Spirit of the Liturgy by Romano Guardini (can be found online here: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/spirit-of-the-liturgy-11203)
and the one in Ratzinger's Spirit of the Liturgy (Pt 1: https://adoremus.org/2002/02/art-and-liturgy-the-question-of-images/
The second part seems not to be available online)
I wrote about these chapters here:
Guardini: https://likemotherlikedaughter.org/2016/02/style-and-symbol-the-spirit-of-the-liturgy-a-lenten-book-club/
Ratzinger: https://likemotherlikedaughter.org/2016/07/what-is-sacred-art-the-spirit-of-the-liturgy-a-book-club/
David Clayton is the author who I think best conveys the objectivity of art, in his book The Way of Beauty
Start with the writing on icons by St. John of Damascus who defended their use in Christian liturgy against the iconoclasts in the 8th c.
https://archive.org/details/threetreatiseson0000stjo
Hillary White does an excellent job breaking down why Rupnik’s style is an abhorrent mockery of Byzantine art, which is theologically very thoughtful and precise: https://hilarywhite.substack.com/p/what-marko-rupniks-art-tells-us-about
Thanks, that's helpful.
I have been in far uglier chapels and been subjected to far worse religious art, and probably my capacity to recognize such objective standards of beauty as you insist exist, Leila, is untrained and mostly intuitive.
Is that really as big a problem as your tone and heat implies?
I care about beauty, and vulgarity, and what we expose youth to. I’m a homeschooling mom who has been blessed to be exposed to lots of beauty - abroad, on pilgrimages, even, and in good Catholic education. If you think I’m so off base merely because I didn’t perceive see the evil qualities you see in rupniks work, what hope is there for any of us? My aesthetic sensibility is not likely to be improved by a diatribe on Substack ☺️
My diatribe is aimed entirely at the Knights. They are not, like you and I, untrained wanderers. When they choose art they have a duty to make it good art -- good SACRED art.
They have been failing at this for a long time. For them to take refuge in "oh he was an abuser" is not enough. It implies that anyone who was not a victim or carer for a victim would otherwise be untouched or unharmed by his works.
That is not true. His works are in themselves, as art, abusive. They harm the spectator's interaction with truth, goodness, and beauty in a sacred place.
I am not sure why it's necessary to take this personally.
It's pretty clear who I'm angry at!
And furthermore, I am not just tossing off a random point when I say there is a cabal.
I am keenly interested in how the Knights came to decide to purchase these works from this ring of abuser-protectors.
The faithful have a right not to be inflicted with such machinations.
I think some of your heat is radiating from the knights to anyone who dare disagree with you that rupniks art is objectively abusive regardless of his sins.
I hope i know myself well enough not to take your opinion personally - even though I could, as a former employee of the k of c at that “hideous” building.
Look, I agree with you, the whole church has a responsibility to do better with beauty - to build it, steward it, articulate what it is. But picking on the knights, when that is not at all central to their mission, confuses me. It’s a bunch of dudes. Traditionally blue collar salt of the earth dudes, who love God and get together, often in ugly church basements, for fraternity and charity. Their leadership is no more to be expected to choose art well than, say, bishops, or any liturgical director in any parish in America. Who have often failed terribly, but who were also poorly taught themselves… I’m just saying this is clearly a systemic problem, a lack of aesthetic literacy, and you are all fired up at holding the diaper-drive guys accountable?
I go into very specific technical detail in these two articles to explain that his work is NOT Byzantine, and not even "based on" the Byzantine standards. Not only is his work just plain bad, it is in fact a deliberate, conscious mockery of the Byzantine calculated to mislead and ultimately theologically corrupt the minds and souls of the people who look at it. It is important to remember what Byzantine sacred art IS. It is not mere decoration, and we don't judge its value based on personal aesthetic preferences, as we would with Western paintings of religious subjects.
In the East sacred iconography is held to be a conduit to Divine realities, a means of both conveying theological truths and bringing those realities into this world, into the very room in which the image is kept. The object itself, the panel icon or mosaic, is held to be a sacred object, equivalent to how Western Christianity treats the relics of saints or other sacramentals. In the Byzantine world, icons are equal to Holy Scripture in their importance for conveying and incarnating the Christian Faith.
Marco Rupnik's works are not just "bad" aesthetically. This is a determination and a standard suitable for secular painting. *His works are heretical*; the spiritual equivalent of lies, disinformation, and intended to lead the viewer away from God.
https://hilarywhite.substack.com/p/what-marko-rupniks-art-tells-us-about
https://hilarywhite.substack.com/p/the-eyes-of-marko-rupnik-black-soulless
I'm curious why you aren't referencing my work on this precise topic, Leila. I go into considerable technical depth on why Rupnik's artistic work is of a piece with his sexual abuse, why it must be considered a part of his abuse, why sacred art is in fact important and not merely a matter of personal taste or preference, and is not intended merely as a decorative element in churches.
~
Byzantine sacred art, and those forms that followed it in organic continuity from the Romanesque to the Gothic, is a kind of visual language. Its very particular use of line, form, value, space, colour, gesture etc., constitute the vocabulary of the language used to convey very specific theological ideas.
So what happens when those forms are used for ill, instead of good, to deceive, confuse or obfuscate that truth?
How does an icon teach and confirm Christian doctrine? And more to the point, how can that visual language be misused to convey ideas opposed to doctrine? What is a heretical icon, and can we find a use for this concept in the western tradition of sacred art?
Last week Anthony Visco, in an op ed for the journal of the Institute for Sacred Architecture, brought up a point that needs some more focus in the Rupnik situation. “It should not have taken his scandalous behaviour to see how problematic his art was.”
No, it certainly should not have, but how did that happen? How were Christians so easily duped, or more likely shamed into silence, told they couldn’t possibly understand his work? How has the modern artistic doctrine of visual indifference - a variety of moral relativism - come to dominate our thinking about sacred art?
~
https://hilarywhite.substack.com/p/marko-rupnik-and-iconographic-heresy
https://hilarywhite.substack.com/p/what-marko-rupniks-art-tells-us-about
https://hilarywhite.substack.com/p/the-eyes-of-marko-rupnik-black-soulless
https://hilarywhite.substack.com/p/corita-kent-how-the-new-art-helped
https://hilarywhite.substack.com/p/visual-torture-in-the-real-life-objective
Byzantine sacred art, as I’ve said, is extremely specific and so deeply infused with meaning that it is literally held by Eastern Christianity as equal to Scripture. The abstraction of traditional sacred art has a purpose; it’s necessary to convey the meaning with precision and clarity.
That's why the liturgical artwork the western Church has been bludgeoned with for 60 years, is obviously deliberately transgressive. Its intention is to distort, to de-clarify, to muddify and create confusion. Ultimately the goal is despair. And this is the essence of the western Church’s so-called “New Paradigm” in which random change, chaos, disorderliness, and above all, empty, nihilistic meaninglessness, is the overarching message.
The Modernists’ message is not that the human being is made in the image and likeness of God, that creation and man’s existence in it makes sense, but that nothing makes sense, least of all God. Do you still hold fast to your belief? Curse God and die! They abhor the idea that God is reasonable, consistent and benevolently orders the universe for us as a reflection of His divine goodness. The Modernist “worships” chaos and randomness, things not making sense, things falling apart, corners not meeting up, not creating an orderly picture.
Thanks for adding your links, Hilary.
https://www.amazon.com/Abuse-Trust-Healing-Clerical-Sexual-ebook/dp/B07VXLMLBB?ref_=ast_author_mpb A friend wrote this book and I HIGHLY recommend. How to stay Catholic in the face of the gravest of abuses. He himself is a survivor. I am so very sorry for all of the hurts so many endured at the hands of disorder and disdainful abuse.
Thanks Jessica. Yes, I know Allen, and several of the other authors in that book. I'm glad you found it helpful. If you're interested in reading more stories from a wide variety of survivors, you can find many stories on the Awake blog here: https://www.awakecommunity.org/survivor-stories. It's truly and honor to listen to and learn from so many beautiful people who have experienced abuse.
I didn't realize the artist was an abuser of the gravest kind. Seeing his art reminded me of a visit I had to the Redemptoris Mater chapel at St Peter's Basilica in the Vatican.... Please, please someone tell me before I venture down an unwanted rabbit trail of moral demise, that he was commissioned to do this work (and others everywhere, as others have noted) before he was ever known to be an abuser??? I am trying to figure out the timeline because the implications would be much different... Although not acceptable in the least as sacred art, if one didn't know he had a history of abuse, would it be so offensive? I see Leila's point here that the art itself is offensive to be labeled as sacred art, and the view of those who have been abused by church officials to see it as support of an abuser by the Church. I am just hoping beyond hope that popes (the good ones, please Lord!) didn't know of his sins when asked to do a mosaic of such high level of visiting....
Idk about the Vatican or Jesuit officials in recent years since he has still oddly been on some committees and things (the pillar has good coverage of the details) but most of his works are decades old and the knights chapel in dc and in New Haven were definitely created before any of this news broke 👍🏼
It's a long complicated story, but the short version is that the process through which Rupnik was first excommunicated (for attempting to absolve an "accomplice" after a sexual encounter) began in 2019. That excommunication, which was kept very quiet, was later lifted, before this more recent iteration of the scandal. So, much of this art was commissioned before that date, but he did continue to receive commissions after that date (and even preached a Lenten meditation for the Roman Curia in 2020). I don't know how long these women were trying to be heard before 2019.
Leila, you’re one of the few Catholics I follow on social media because I’ve admired your writing and I normally don’t comment but I’m going to here because while I absolutely see your point about the depravity of Rupnik’s art, I think you really missed the mark by placing the depravity of the art itself as a greater travesty than Rupnik’s abuse of women under his pastoral care. I think that your statement really touched a nerve with survivors of clerical sex abuse because for any person for whom a priest used God, the sacraments and the priesthood to satisfy ungodly, evil and sexually depraved fetishes, it’s just not possible to align with your statement. It’s near impossible for someone who hasn’t experienced abuse by a Catholic priest to really understand or empathize, so I can understand your comments to the survivors who have commented here. I can see your intentions are good, but I would really invite you to meditate on the dignity of the human body being violated in the name of God vs. laying eyes on ugly art with painted dead eyes. Yes, I am also a survivor of diabolical spiritual, psychological and perverted sexual abuse by a priest and that is in no way a trump card for survivors, but it does mean we have a unique perspective from someone who hasn’t experienced diabolical abuse by someone acting in Persona Christi and using my love of Christ and His Church. There is a part of me that is actually grateful when someone can’t empathize because it means they haven’t been subjected to it but your statement did hurt, myself and others survivors who are choosing not to comment. Peace to you.
Please see my comments above in response to this charge.
Also I would caution against assuming whether a person has been abused or not.
Keep in mind that my post is about their statement, which clearly does not take into account any offense against GOD.
What I want to emphasize, Jennifer, is that basically those who patronize his works are imposing his spiritual abuse on everyone.
I wish you peace as well. Sorry if I didn't make it clear that I think his abuse of women is a crime of the first order -- I certainly do think that.
No, in the Western Church, we don't think art matters. Not for 500 years. And all the 'how dare you say that" comments here demonstrate how corrupted our concepts of sacred art have become in the Latin Church.
Its a life insurance company
I am the survivor of sexual abuse - not at the hands of a priest or clergy member, but a family member. I know that my experience differs to those commenters here, but I also believe I can empathize with the hurt and anger clearly communicated in the comments. Having said all that, I think such a personal and scarring experience can prevent us from reading, objectively, the thrust of Leila's main point about the quality of the art, what it conveys and to what it subjects the viewers. I went back and re-read the post because of the heated nature of the give and take in the comments and Leila is pretty clear that she finds Rupnik's actions unquestionably horrific. One of her first statements is such:
"Of course I endorse caring for victims of abuse, and make no mistake, the abuse was incredibly perverted (click here if you must)."
She even warns us of clicking the link (I did). It is a harrowing retelling of one woman's victimization. Rupnik should be condemned outright. She goes on to say:
"The abuse was not just sexual. It was spiritual/sacrilegious abuse, and that twisted combination (not unusual) comes through in Rupnik’s pieces."
This is the jumping off point: clearly, her aim in writing this particular post was to talk about the quality of the artwork and to wonder how an organization, so trusted in the Church, could have ever consented to purchasing it. I don't think she intended to rank the ugliness of the art as somehow more of a sin than the actions committed by Rupnik against his victims or the actions committed by other clergy against their victims. Personal experience, though, can certainly color how we receive writing and effect our response to it. That is undoubtedly true and is clearly on display in these comments. A great deal of anger is present, but it seems a little misdirected at Leila and her reflection.
Thank you for your insightful and kind remarks.
I really appreciate it.
My heart goes out to all who have suffered abuse. It's hard to recover -- if one ever does.