Vatican Media illustrated its Feast of St. Joseph liturgical calendar post with a Rupnik studio image.
So, what?
Well, Fr. Marko Ivan Rupnik (olim Fr. Marko Ivan Rupnik SJ) is a disgraced celebrity artist-priest and sometime retreat leader credibly accused of spiritually, psychologically, and sexually abusing more than two dozen victims—most of them women religious—over the course of three decades, much of it spent right in Rome.
So, that’s what.
Officially, March 19th is the day on which the Church celebrates the universal patronage of Our Lord’s earthly foster father. In many Catholic countries, the March 19th solemnity is therefore celebrated also as Fathers’ Day.
Nothing conveys the real sense of fatherhood or says, “Hail, glorious patron of the Universal Church!” like this:
In fact, Rupnik’s Centro Aletti art studio—he founded it and ran it for thirty years, and is still listed on the studio’s website as the man in charge of the outfit’s spiritual art workshop and theological laboratory—is a stone’s through from the Basilica of St. Mary Major, where Pope Francis says he’d live if ever he should retire. If that seems fitting, well, there you go.
I thought you all should know. That’s what this job is mostly all about, if you ask me: Letting people know.
I write a lot of news analysis these days, but I made my bones as a shoe leather reporter before I became an investigator and editor. “Organized crime,” I remember telling an old school crony several years back when he asked me about my beat. My tongue ever so lightly ensconced in my cheek, I quickly added, “…perhaps disorganized.”
Even for this bunch—the Vatican comms outfit, I mean—it shouldn’t be too difficult to realize that this sort of thing is killing their guy. Sure, it’s a calorie burn to change all the images, but it would be worth it, even if only to save the principal needless grief.
It makes good sense, in other words, even if you don’t care a whit about the victims—Rupnik’s or anyone else’s—who are traumatized every time they see Rupnik’s stuff, not to mention the faithful who are scandalized and appalled.
To be perfectly frank, it is getting more and more difficult to imagine how the Vatican types from Pope Francis on down could possibly mean it when they say they do care about victims or about justice for them in the Church.
I worked in the Vatican comms outfit for a lot of years and haunted the Vatican for several more after I left—let me say that it is always a great honor to be in the service of the Holy Father, one I bore for more than a dozen years and did not put down lightly—so I have great respect for the capacity of Vatican types (of higher-ups especially) to miss the thing that’s right in front of them, to miss the point, to just not see.
That said, folks may be forgiven the impression that active contempt for the faithful is at work in the Vatican’s continued support of the former Jesuit, inveterate creep, and professional pervert incomprehensibly and intolerably still styled Fr. Marko Rupnik.
Church types all around the world are dithering over what to do with their Rupnik pieces and installations. Not a one of them has been taken down, as far as I can tell. They’re all over everywhere, by the way, adorning shrines and chapels from the Apostolic Palace and more than a hundred other locations on the boot to Lourdes, Fatima, Beirut, Brisbane, the District of Columbia and even in my hometown of Fairfield, Ct.
Now, the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Aparecida is getting a massive new Aletti-produced installation. It’s not their first, either. The north façade of the shrine saw the first big Rupnik installation inaugurated two years ago.
The Aparecida shrine will unveil the works on the south façade just in time for—get this—Mother’s Day, 2024.
“On the eve of Mother’s Day, we want to make this beautiful delivery, as a gift, as a big thank you to all of you who help us build this great sanctuary,” Our Lady of Aparecida’s rector, Fr. Eduardo Catalfo CSsR, announced late last month.
Nothing says, “Happy Mother’s Day!” like a gargantuan hodgepodge by a notorious predator whose former superiors believe to be a serial rapist and sacrilege.
By the way, the Redemptorists at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Aparecida are accepting donations.
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.
Yes, they do love to rub it in our faces. Surely that does not shock you at this point, Mr. Altieri.
DSM criteria for a narcissistic personality disorder includes:
“a lack of empathy
a sense of entitlement
a demonstration of arrogant and haughty behaviors or attitudes”
A typical conduct of a narcissistic person looks like this: he abuses a victim and then approaches her as if nothing happened. For example, he can steal from her and later be surprised and even angry if she does not want to deal with him or deal not readily and joyfully enough. “How dare you speak to me like that?” he shouts. “Yes, I took your savings so what?” (I am not exaggerating here by the way) Such behavior could not be possible if a narcissist 1) had a normal empathy 2) was not entitled. A normal person knows that if he abused someone he must beg for forgiveness and recompense. But a narcissist is entitled so this is alien to him.
In the light of that knowledge, there is nothing surprising in the fact that the Vatican continues exhibiting Rupnik’s work. If the people involved in that are narcissistic, they do not FEEL that their actions are wrong. The victims are beneath them hence their feelings are nothing to them. They lack empathy, entitled and their position in the Church makes them even more entitled, in their eyes. If there is some psychopathology there, they may also do that to mock the victims. To do something that is morally outrageous gives them a sense of a power.
Of course, their lack of empathy and an entitlement renders them not suitable for being priests. Our Lord, the Son of Man and the Son of God is the exact opposite of a narcissist. Those people are unable to understand that our faith is not only theology but anthropology in one, the Person of Christ. They can fake it to some extent discoursing about “love for neighbor” but their actions in the realm of human relationships exposes them.
The only question remains what the victims should do? I would say, see those people for what they are, shake the dust and stick to Christ.
Do you think Rupnik slipped into the Jesuit order before psychological examinations became standard practice?
Perhaps a more balanced question might be:
“Before or AFTER…?”
How can I know that? I know however a story of a priest in the local parish who was sentenced for raping and molesting the altar boys; he also sexually abused a woman. One of the boys he even raped in the sanctuary if I am not mistaken (alas, too many cases!). He is currently serving a prison sentence but he was free to do all that for two or three decades because his bishop and later another one covered him up and moved him around – this is a common practice in the Roman Catholic Church as we all know now. While studying his case, I discovered that in the seminary his mentor and the head of seminary both wrote to his bishop stating that he must never be ordained. However, the bishop ordained him. When later he was asked why he said that his mother was a very pious woman and he did not want to upset her. The priest’s colleagues noticed something wrong with him together with his “mucking with the altar boys” as they put it but never thought it was something to report.
The moral of this story is that psychological screening does not work in a corrupted narcissistic environment. “Our” dude was definitely a malignant narcissist (a narcissist with a pronounced psychopathy) i.e. one who must NEVER be a priest (or a teacher or any similar professional in the fields of care) but it did not withstand the desire of the bishop to be “nice” to his mother.
I must add that psychologists are often ignorant of narcissistic personality disorder and narcissistic abuse, especially covert (those who wear a mask of the humblest man). Also, psychoanalysis (Freud, Fromm, others) is not taught now.
Returning to the church, I witnessed here what I call an institutional narcissism from the top to the bottom including psychologists who deal with victims in such a way that a trauma is made worse. In this respect the Church now is no different from an abusive family. This is why I maintain that to navigate the current mess one needs both mystical theology and human psychology.
For all those who are tortured in their souls by the murky wickedness of what is currently pontificating in Rome, please dwell on these crystal-clear words spoken by our Everlasting Lord & God & King:
“Enter by the narrow gate, since the road that leads to perdition is wide and spacious, and many take it; but it is a narrow gate and a hard road that leads to Life, and only a few find it.” Mt 7:13-14
So, persevering Catholic Christian sisters & brothers, never be ashamed to be numbered among ‘the few’. Never be intimidated by ‘the many’.
Our call is not to win but to persist in bearing witness, even when ignored.
From marty – ever seeking to hear & lovingly follow The Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ.
The answer is more moral principles. There wasn’t bad judgement on the part of the Bishop not wanting to upset a mother. There was moral depravity. Not only in trivializing the evil of the depraved priest but in believing that “nice people” are somehow exempt from sins of their own that they need to confront. Maybe it was lousey parenting that contributed to damanging the mind of her son. Either way, evil must always be confronted head on if this is the case, with truthfulness.
What is mystical theology?
Those tests were used in the 1980’s and 90’s to EXCLUDE anyone with real Catholic faith. They certainly did not want believers becoming priests. The Jesuits were in fact gleeful once psychological testing became the norm. All they had to do was get a homosexual psychologist and he would weed out the straight men. Simple.
Have observed the same. Classic: 5th columnists-infiltration of head office.
It’s a weakness in Catholic administrative structures that there’s no effective filter to stop the most subtle enemies of Christ (e.g. Heretics, Marxists, Satanists, Freemasons, Mafia, & the morally corrupt) from rising to the highest positions. In many dioceses the Church is their ‘happy hunting ground’.
Perhaps the PF disaster is a blessing in that it makes this institutional Achilles Heel abundantly clear to all faithful Catholics whose eyes are open.
Short of schism, we need inspired methods to shrive the body corporate.
Ever in the persevering love of our Saviour, Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
“Why is the Vatican still featuring artwork by disgraced Rupnik?”
Very simply, because the Vatican is on a campaign of corruption. Their intent – like that of all “progressives” is to destroy every remnant of the past so they can better extol their vision of the Man on whose shoulders the future of the world depends. It is the new Church where Man replaces the God-made man who is the Savior. (Boy, these types must loathe Good Friday and the Day of the Resurrection.)
Keep plowing ahead with your outrage, perhaps you will prick a conscience. But this is not a new problem. Decades ago, Rupnik’s “art” studio earned the nickname: Centro “A Letto”. Like McCarrick, virtually every Vatican leader under the Popes knew and did nothing, unless they were accepting honorariums!
Don’t look to Bishop Strickland for official help. He was deposed and you piled on with your reporting.
Perhaps a Redemptorist with papal pull can lobby this pontificate, like Cardinal Tobin? Or not. He is likely too busy “blessing” sodomy.
We lambaste. And yet, at this point, prayer is all we have left. Let’s beg God for more Bishops willing to actually defend the Body of Christ like St. Joseph. We are reminded on his feast day, that St. Joseph actually cared for Christ.
shoe leather reporters are needed more than ever today.
Those who administrate Our Lady of Aparecida might have (should have) called a halt to the installation process. Those parishes and institutions that display Rupnik’s work should consider the possible consequences of their indecision or lack of consideration. Given that his work is all over Rome, literally in the face of his victims, it would not be surprising if at some point a church will be vandalized and the art work defaced. Better to remove it before that happens. Cost? Perhaps the Vatican should be pressed to underwrite the expense.
Twelve year old: “Mom, it’s really wrong when a bad priest who runs an orphanage abuses those kids, like Father Grassi did in Argentina.”
Mom: “Yes dear, it’s very wrong.”
Twelve year old: “And Mom, it’s really wrong when a bad bishop goes to his seminary and abuses the seminarians, like Bishop Zanchetta from Argentina did.”
Mom: “Yes honey, it’s really, really wrong.”
Twelve year old: “And Mom, it’s really wrong when a bad priest abuses nuns in his community, like that priest Father Rupnik, who makes all of those mosaics being put up in churches and shrines all around the world.”
Mom: “Yes darling, you are right to be concerned, it’s just a horrible thing.”
Twelve year old: “Mom, those priests really aren’t good fathers, they’re abusive fathers.”
Mom: “You’re right dear, they are abusive fathers, and they don’t care about the vulnerable people that they hurt.”
Twelve year old: “Mom, someone told me that all of those bad priests are friends of Pope Francis, even though they are abusive fathers.”
Mom: “Honey, I’m sorry to say it, but that’s true, those bad priests are friends of Pope Francis.”
Twelve: “Mom, if I know that those men are bad priests, how come they are still friends with Pope Francis? Doesn’t he already know what I know?”
Mom: “Yes he does know dear. I am sorry to have to say this, but Pope Francis just doesn’t feel the same way we about those things.”
Most or all of us are familiar with the facts about which the imagined twelve year-old in your post inquires. Hearing it expressed from the perspective of an adolescent, even if fictitious, is jarring anew.
It’s dreadful, cartoonish art. That should be enough of a reason to not promote it. The other reason seems very obvious to everyone, excepting our Catholic powers that be. People living in bubbles…
To answer the question posed in the title — because the corrupters in power at the Vatican either don’t believe or don’t care (and I don’t know which is worse) that Rupnik actually did anything wrong. Oh sure, they’ll pay lip service to caring about victims of clerical sexual predation, but does anyone at this late date believe they actually mean it? This is the pontificate that put Uncle Ted McCarrick back in circulation and only took him out again when the headlines, which they obviously care more about than the Gospel, made it inconvenient to keep him in. Nothing — absolutely nothing — corrupt, perverse, or heretical about this pontificate should surprise anyone. If they reversed Traditionis Custodes or Fiducia Supplicans, *that* would be surprising, but we’ll have to wait for the Vatican to become Catholic again for anything that radical to happen.
“That said, folks may be forgiven the impression that active contempt for the faithful is at work in the Vatican’s continued support of the former Jesuit, inveterate creep, and professional pervert incomprehensibly and intolerably still styled Fr. Marko Rupnik.”
Yes, and add Cardinal Hollerich and James Martin to the list and you have the trifecta.
Why? Because they are as corrupt as Rupnik. He is one of theirs
Something that might work in America is to have female abuse victims mounting campaigns against this ghastly art wherever it’s been installed. Get the news media involved. How about SNAP doing something useful?
But in Rome, the “artist” and his “art” clearly have friends in high places. I’d be ever so curious to hear how the popesplainers spin this one.
“I’d be ever so curious to hear how the popesplainers spin this one.”
Austen Ivereigh, who has written two biographies of Pope Francis and is the Court Hagiographer, has taken the stance that getting rid of art because of an artist’s sins/failing is wrong, as the art has to be judged on it’s own merits. He has mentioned Caravaggio in this regard. Of course, it’s a really bad comparison for several reasons: Rupnik is a priest and was a Jesuit, he is accused of abusing religious sisters under his spiritual care, and he is accused of multiple cases of sexual abuse. Caravaggio may or may not have been a homosexual. Quite different. Further, of course, Caravaggio had breath-taking artistic talent, while Rupnik’s talent appears to be mostly in the field of deception, manipulation, and abuse. He’s a horrible artist.
Another approach by popesplainers is to simply ignore the entire Rupnik scandal and/or act as if Francis is innocent in all of this. That surely works, as long as one ignores the facts and evidence, which are fairly damning.
OK, Austen, Rupnik’s art is childish, creepy beyond words and unbearably ugly. Now let’s remove all that demonic art.
Amen.
I want to take this opportunity to defend our dear Patron and Protector, St. Joseph. After all this particular art work depicts this great Saint.
If the Eternal Father’s plan for our salvation required such a pre-eminent woman as the Blessed Virgin Mary, the only human being to come into the world without the original sin that we are all prone to, in order to give us a Savior totally without any trace whatsoever, not even a shadow of sin, so that by His selfless allowing Himself to be scourged, beaten, crowned with thorns and nailed to a Cross … Who would become for us “the Bread of Life” in the Holy Eucharist … God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten, not made, One in Being with the Father, through Whom all things were made … Who we have the great privilege to receive in the Eucharist … if we are in the state of Grace;
how can we imagine that the one human being chosen by God from all eternity to be proxy for the Eternal Father to not be the holiest man ever to come to the earth except Jesus?!
Can we not gleen even from St. Matthew chapter 1 that St. Joseph, himself, was a perpetual virgin? Could the Immaculata stand living with a carnal man that She would have to fight off his sexual advances?! What kind of man did St. Joseph have to be to keep his libedo continuously in check?
If in fact the trinity of the Holy Family was going to be the model for all families, who else would be their perfect model except the Sacrosanct Trinity, Who Is God, for a family?
The sin that generated Cain, the fruit of the old Eve’s womb, … “in what day soever you eat of the tree in the middle of the garden” (Genesis 2:17)… brought the sin into the world that every human being since is born with, had to be atoned for by the Fruit of the Virgin’s Womb, and result in the Man-God without sin… the replacement for the original Adam. Since that act which produces a child begins with the senses, and is therefore part of that sin, what kind of man did St. Joseph have to be, HAVE TO BE(!!) to not be a source of temptation to the New Eve … Blessed Mary Ever Virgin, even in Her thoughts?!
Could the Eternal Father trust the mission of the Redemption/Salvation of all mankind to anyone who was not perfectly committed to the New Adam and the New Eve?
What would we receive in the Eucharist otherwise? Can sin take away sin?!
In order for the Redeemer to be effective in His purpose in opening the gates of Heaven for us, St. Joseph had to be just as committed to Mary’s virginity, and therefore to his own, as was the Blessed Trinity; and Mary conceived of the Holy Ghost our Redeemer/Savior, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and the Only Begotten of the Father. Just how HOLY was St. Joseph to be chosen to be in such august company with Our Lady and the Blessed Trinity… God?!
Can any of US live up to that standard?!
To put St. Joseph in the company of abominable sinners is as much a blasphemy of our Triune God and the Blessed Virgin Mary as it is to St. Joseph. May God have mercy on their souls!!!
For the love of Pete.
This is just pure ‘liberal’ clericalism. It is also pure institutional elite neutralisation tactics in action which denies the existence of injury, victims, and responsibility for the harm and ‘crimes’ committed, but laughingly then expects us all to still believe they have legitimacy.
“Inveterate creep,” “professional pervert,” “dithering,” “predator,” “rapist,” “traumatized,” “scandalized,” “appalled.”
I heartily applaud Mr. Altieri for using plain, direct and potent language to describe Bergoglio’s reprehensible Dark Vatican and its monstrous crimes against our Lord and His people.
Indelicate outrages call for indelicate language.
By the way, the Redemptorists at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Aparecida are accepting donations.
Is anyone listening? I repeat:
“By the way, the Redemptorists at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Aparecida are accepting donations.”
STOP DONATING!
In fact, put only the bare minimum in the Sunday collection plate. Lack of funds will clear the chaff out of the Sanctuary. When the Vatican and the USCCB are on the brink of complete bankruptcy their tune will change. Yes, prayer is the first and most important weapon, but the power of the purse is extraordinaire in accomplishing the needed change.
Think: if we contribute, we are complicit.
I absolutely can see why people would want Rupnik’s “art” removed. I’d be willing to bet that the “hesitation” to do so is more economic than arrogance or moral weakness. They probably paid a pretty penny for that stuff. To remove it and then replace it, would be economic disaster for the budget of any Church institution. With that said, I can only say that Rupnik’s “art”, like most modern Church art, is ugly and uninspiring. When I look at Church artwork, I want to be inspired by beautiful and heroic images of the Lord and His Saints. I want powerful depictions of the Sacraments and Church symbols…not the stuff we see too often today.
Sacred artwork should make its viewer want to pray. Rupnik’s work does the opposite.
And not just Rupnik’s. On several occasions when I lived in Lancaster, PA, I attended a church built in the ‘70s, a modern church-in-the-round, the stained-glass windows of which resemble what I recalled from the Sunday newspaper “funnies pages” when I was a child. A far cry from the glorious ones in the 19th-century church I usually had the great blessing to attend.
Maybe the hesitation to remove Fr. Rupnik’s artworks is economic. When costs for removal and replacement are added to the original cost, it may be cost prohibitive. On top of that, I prefer Church art that is inspiring. I want to see powerful and beautiful Saints in the dramatic and inspiring moments of their sojourn with us here. I want my thoughts to be lifted up to God by inspiring symbols of the Sacraments and Church symbols. That’s transcendence to me!
Does the Church still perform music by Gesualdo, an adulterer and murderer?
Stupid comparison. Gesualdo’s music was and is beautiful. He also was not a rapist priest with authority over a religious community. Gesualdo killed in a fit of passion. Rupnik is an unrepentant serial rapist, sacrilegious confessor, manipulator and liar whose victims are all still very much alive to be wounded over and over by the honor paid to him by our faithless pope. His “art” is also trash, pure and simple.
So that we might have something other revolting to talk about besides what’s being proferred as Catholic doctrine.
Maybe we should by now be discussing HOW GOD WANTS US TO REMEDY MATTERS.
One reason why a work of art by a sinner might be chosen for display is that is is a good work of art. Normally, we distinguish the excellence of a work of art by the product; we distinguish excellence of human character by a habitual track record of good choices. Choices, unlike artifacts, are not easily separable from the agent. We would not hire a plumber if, when he leave, the plumbing leaks. We would blame him as an incompetent plumber. If, in addition, he pretends to be a olumber when he is not, we would blame him globally as a fraud and a bad human being. Are we using the relevant criteria in making our judgment?
I have seen grassroots calls for getting rid of Rupnik’s trash. I’m near the above mentioned display of it in Fairfield, CT and I await a group forming here.
The pope and all the bishops and cardinals who have not called for this monster’s laicization and the removal of all vestiges of his demonic “art” are complicit as they spit in the faces of all those Rupnik abused.
They forget that they, too, have expiration dates and will have their day of reckoning.
“Why is the Vatican still featuring artwork by disgraced Rupnik?”
Why not? Catholic praise works by Michaelangelo (whom Sister Wendy says was a sodomite) and Eric Gill (who was a sex maniac and a pedophile), why not Rupnik?
I don’t like to think of it, either, just pointing out there’s precedence.
That argument has been answered above: Michaelangelo, Leonardo, Raphael, Caravaggio, and Eric Gill produced works of lasting beauty. Rupnik’s “art” is anything but. Although Michaelangelo likely was SSA, what’s the evidence that he acted on those inclinations?
I’ll throw in another Bad Man/Good Work example: Back in the 15th C, one of the Brothers Limbourg, creators of the most beautiful Books of Hours ever made, raped a 12 year old girl. His patron, the Duke of Berry, protected him from legal consequences. We still admire the books and rightly so.
Dear Sandra Miesel, can it really be: “rightly so”?
They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder – actually, it’s in our visual cortex; and our cerebral cortex also holds knowledge of foul abuses. So, presumably cognitive dissonance results if we choose to perceive intrinsic beauty in works that our brains know to have been created by abusers of human dignity?
All the best from marty; ever seeking to follow The Lamb.
OK, dear Margarita, but NOW is the time for Catholics to abjure that precedent.
By its actions the Vatican clearly shows it is NOT upset with this repulsive priest. This is a clear decision to ignore evil.
To EMBRACE evil & so DEFY our Lord who St John says was manifest to destroy the evil works of the devil.
Francis is the first pope of recent times who is a slave of sin. His embrace of unshriven Rupnik is just one example of many revealing the master of sin working in him.