John Paul II shrine ‘considering’ whether to remove mosaics by Father Rupnik

 

The Redemptor Hominis chapel of the National Shrine of St. John Paul II in Washington, D.C., is decorated with mosaics by Father Marko Rupnik. / Credit: Lawrence OP|Flickr|CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Mar 6, 2024 / 07:00 am (CNA).

In light of several serious accusations of abuse against Catholic artist Father Marko Rupnik, the Knights of Columbus told CNA that they “are carefully considering the best course of action” concerning the priest’s mosaics that adorn the St. John Paul II National Shrine in Washington, D.C.

With the assistance of the Congregation of the Sisters of Our Lady of Mercy and a small, lay staff, the Knights of Columbus own and operate the St. John Paul II National Shrine, which attracts tens of thousands of visitors and pilgrims from across the country and world.

Calls to remove the priest’s artwork from places of worship have been mounting around the world. Yet, extensive Rupnik artwork in the John Paul II Shrine’s two chapels remains in place.

CNA emailed the Knights of Columbus about the Rupnik mosaics. In response, the order signaled that it may be open to removing the mosaics from the shrine but did not give any indication for when a decision will be made.

“We are carefully considering the best course of action concerning the art that was installed by the Centro Aletti community here at the shrine,” the Knights responded.

“The shrine remains committed to carrying out its mission of evangelization through the teachings of St. John Paul II, to which instances of abuse are antithetical,” the email said, adding that they “are disturbed by these latest developments and continue to pray for those harmed by instances of abuse.”

The order purchased the John Paul II Cultural Center from the Archdiocese of Detroit in 2011 and it was designated a national shrine by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2014.

The Knights of Columbus declined CNA’s request for clarification.

A mosaic by Father Marko Rupnik depicting the miracle at Cana adorns a chapel at the National Shrine of St. John Paul II in Washington, D.C. Credit: Zelda Caldwell/CNA
A mosaic by Father Marko Rupnik depicting the miracle at Cana adorns a chapel at the National Shrine of St. John Paul II in Washington, D.C. Credit: Zelda Caldwell/CNA

Who is Marko Rupnik?

Ordained a priest in 1985, Rupnik has been a prolific artist in the Church over the last several decades, with his work prominently featured in such sites as the shrine in Lourdes, the Vatican’s Redemptoris Mater Chapel, and the St. John Paul II National Shrine.

Yet, his legacy and art are now marred by accusations of physical and psychological abuse of numerous religious sisters and his expulsion from the Jesuits.

As recently as Feb. 21, two former sisters of the now-dissolved Loyola Community in Slovenia accused Rupnik of subjecting them to spiritual, psychological, and sexual abuse.

His many once widely lauded works of art, characterized by bold, colorful mosaics with large, flowing figures and enormous eyes, are now proving a problem for the shrines and churches that they adorn.

‘His art now profanes the sacred spaces’

Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of a group that keeps an online database of clergy abuse, sharply criticized the John Paul II Shrine for not having removed the Rupnik mosaics, claiming that it signals that the Church’s “commitment to healing victims is shallow.”

“His art now profanes the sacred spaces that it inhabits,” she told CNA.

Doyle, who has met and spoken with some of Rupnik’s alleged victims, said that “he sometimes used his victims as his models for some of his pieces” and that “his art and theology and his sexual predations were all intertwined.”

She believes the only ones who should get to decide the future of Rupnik’s art are his victims.

While some claim that removing Rupnik’s art would necessitate the removal of any religious art by artists who lived sinful lives, Doyle said that this is a “bogus argument.”

“We’re talking about a living perpetrator with many living victims,” she said. “Who among us is going to be able to pray and contemplate God in a place with a Rupnik mosaic on the wall? That has now become an impossibility for anyone who’s followed this case at all.”

“Seeing the art of a predator in a sacred place is a terrible insult to our faith. But the worst insult is to his victims and the effrontery to them is unforgivable,” she explained, adding that “those places of worship need to be restored to the sacred, and that can only happen if his art is removed.”

The mosaic-covered chapel of the Mysteries of Light inside the John Paul II National Shrine in Washington, D.C., was decorated by the Jesuit artist Father Marko Rupnik. Credit: Lawrence OP|Flickr|CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
The mosaic-covered chapel of the Mysteries of Light inside the John Paul II National Shrine in Washington, D.C., was decorated by the Jesuit artist Father Marko Rupnik. Credit: Lawrence OP|Flickr|CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

More critics call for removal

Tim Law, co-founder of the group Ending Clergy Abuse, told CNA that the fact that there has been no public plan announced to remove Rupnik’s mosaics from the St. John Paul II National Shrine is “inconceivable” and sends a “horrific message” to the American faithful.

Law claimed that the Church’s handling of Rupnik’s case signals that a culture of cover-ups “continues to be intact.”

Father Paul Hedman, a priest in the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis who runs a Catholic website called Canon Law Ninja, has also been advocating for the mosaics’ removal on social media.

Hedman told CNA that the mosaics are “inherently connected to abuse” and that Rupnik’s victims “should not have to face the art of their abuser if they wish to visit such places as Lourdes [and] the JPII Shrine.”

“It leaves a path for re-traumatization of victims,” he said. “Additionally, survivors who were abused in a Church context, even if not by Rupnik, may also feel retraumatized to be subjected to a known abuser’s art.”

“Refusal to take down the art and continuing to actively use it in various publications, as the Vatican has, also gives the impression that the Church doesn’t take abuse seriously,” Hedman said.

Fate of Rupnik’s art remains uncertain

Approaching the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes with its soaring spires, it is hard to miss the 21st-century addition by Rupnik’s Centro Aletti to the facade of the lower basilica.

After forming a special commission last year to determine the future of the Rupnik mosaics at the Lourdes shrine, Bishop Jean-Marc Micas of Tarbes and Lourdes told CNA that he hopes to make a decision by this spring.

Micas said that this is a “very, very difficult decision to make” and that “this occupies my mind, my prayer, and my heart every day, especially when I meet victims of abuse.”

In the U.S., the question continues to go largely unaddressed, with the mosaics at the John Paul II Shrine remaining thus far untouched.

Staff at the John Paul II National Shrine did not reply to multiple CNA requests for comment.


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.


About Catholic News Agency 12541 Articles
Catholic News Agency (www.catholicnewsagency.com)

9 Comments

  1. Hate the sin, not the man… in this case his art. First time I’ve heard of him and seen his artwork. Let’s not get into this ‘cancel culture’ stupidity. Thats for the mentally ill secular world. It’s a slippery slope. Next we’ll be tearing down cathedrals and burning people at the stake who knew people who sinned. Idiotic.

    • I agree and disagree. The works should be judged not from the victims’ point of view but from the Church’s point of view, as “Are Rupink’s works really the sacred art?” They are not and it can be easily shown (I wrote about that before on this website). Most importantly, they convey a spirit which is contrary to a prayer. They do not help to recollect a mind and focus it on God but instead they disperse it. Look for instance at the photo of the shrine, ‘The Mysteries of Light’. It is quite disturbing, the eye cannot stop and rest but jumps from one semi-circle to another, back, forwards and so on. There is no unifying composition there that organizes the space, no clear thought. The oppressive rectangular ceiling clashes with the multiple curves. There is no air or a vector up to God.

      The same story is with figures and faces – they are very unsettling while being empty. This chaos is observed in most of Rupnik’s work. I have an impression that his works reflect his own chaotic mind, a mind that is not ruled by God.

      Next, the Church cannot have the works of someone who proposed to the religious Sisters to have threesomes with him, to imitate the Holy Trinity. A blasphemer cannot be an iconographer.

      Hence, the real problem with Rupnik is how a man who is not qualified to do the work of an iconographer was allowed to work in the major Roman Catholic shrines all around the world.

      • Anna, I agree wholeheartedly.

        Rupnik’s empty-souled imaging is a desecration and a blasphemy.

        I cannot imagine how his dozens of victims feel when they see it.

        As to your question about how a monstrous and dangerous perv was allowed to vomit his filth across the holiest places in Christendom, there is only one possible answer:

        Bergoglio is his buddy.

      • There was an interesting study posted on CWR [Extra extra] of Rupnik’s art by Hilary White, The eyes of Marko Rupnik: black “soulless” holes? Byzantine art HILARY WHITE FEB 2, 2024.
        Ms White coincides with what you say Anna, although she imputes much further.

        • I read this indeed interesting analysis. I will mention here that while I agree with many points I disagree with the thesis “an artist knows what he is doing” implying that Rupnik deliberately makes those black eyes to convey some menacing pretense and to the chaotic (plain bad, frankly) composition to unsettle the viewer. Precisely because I am an artist/iconographer I know the process from inside; the psyche/the state of a psyche during a work leaves its imprint on the work whether an artist wants it or not.

          I recently read ‘The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness’ by Erich Fromm. He speaks there about necrophilia as a necessary element of narcissism (Rupnik is a textbook case of a malignant narcissism in my opinion which is based on his actions/attitude). I agree; a narcissist’s trademark is that he turns life around into death. I mean not necessary via physical killing but via suffocating control/abuse/soul murder. Look at Rupnik, his fame began after he destroyed the mosaics of his “rival”, a well-known iconographer invited from Russia to make the mosaics for the papal chapel in the Vatican. It is very symbolic that the mosaics of the Russian were 1) new iconography, with the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Saints depicted together feasting in the New Jerusalem 2) were undoubtedly inspired 3) had light, serenity and a unifying composition scheme with a very clear vector towards God. Rupnik had to destroy it because those LIVING 1-2-3 things are contrary to a necrophiliac thus he cannot stand them. After that he made his own mosaics there which depict chaos and went on his non-marry necrophiliac way, transforming the living places of a prayer into their opposite via his deathly art.

          And not just that: as a perfect opposite to whom an iconographer must strive to be – humble, obedient to the church, unselfish, pure – he raped/abused otherwise young women. Again, those women were unbearable to a narcissist who feels an urge to pollute/to corrupt/destroy all that is pure, beautiful, bright and aspires to be with God.

          From here follows that those who support Rupnik (not just Pope Francis, there are many others I am sure) necrophiliacs in the Church tirelessly subverting and perverting the Life and Truth – without thinking about that, just via their BEING. I wrote so much here about Rupnik not because there is something unique about him but because he is so typical.

          • That was my response to the article, that although there is a lack of artistic continuity with previous mosaics regarding beauty visual and spiritual, it isn’t apparent that Rupnik had diabolic into. At least not consciously. As you do I believe art reflects the soul of the artist.
            Revealing that Rupnik ‘destroyed’ the opportunity of a Russian artist to contribute his work for the Vatican and Church. Russian iconography is superior to other national outputs. Necrophilia as a possible element exhibiting itself in Rupnik’s art seems quite plausible in reference to the soulless, dead look of his figures. Thanks for your insights Anna.

    • I think in this particular case you can hate the artwork also. It’s ghastly. A cartoon Jesus over the altar. Imagine making a Holy Hour in that chapel and having to look at that?

  2. All Rupnik’s “art” is tainted by due to it’s author being a vile rapist, and because it’s repulsive (the two headed mercy monster from 2016 still gives me nightmares). For these two reasons, it should all be destroyed.

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. John Paul II shrine ‘considering’ whether to remove mosaics by Father Rupnik – Via Nova
  2. John Paul II shrine ‘considering’ whether to remove mosaics by Father Rupnik – Pruebas del sismografito

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*