Sacred art under construction at Centro Aletti. (Credit: Vaticano/EWTN News)
Rome Newsroom, Aug 1, 2024 / 16:16 pm (CNA).
As Church leaders and Catholic groups around the world increasingly call for the removal of sacred art created by Father Marko Rupnik, the art institute founded by the disgraced former Jesuit is punching back, saying Rupnik’s art is being subjected to “cancel culture.”
“In the face of growing pressure for the removal of the works of art created by Centro Aletti, we feel obliged to express our great concern regarding the widespread diffusion of the so-called ‘cancel culture’ and of a way of thinking that legitimizes the ‘criminalization’ of art,” Centro Aletti Director Maria Campatelli contends in a letter addressed to friends of the institution.
In the letter, Campatelli says the center continues to face a “time of trial” while the allegations of sexual abuse by more than two dozen women, mostly former nuns, against Rupnik continues to be investigated by the Vatican.
“The removal of a work of art ought never to be thought of as a punishment or a cure,” Campatelli continues. “While pastoral care for suffering persons if of course necessary, this cannot become justification for the removal or covering of works of art.”
In the letter, Campatelli also reiterates that Rupnik “has always firmly denied, in the appropriate forums, having ever committed the abuses described by those accusing him.”
Rupnik has faced numerous allegations of sexual misconduct since 2018 and in recent years has faced repeated allegations of past sexual abuse.
During a June visit to Atlanta, Prefect of the Dicastery for Communication Paolo Ruffini also expressed reservations about removing Rupnik’s art in places of worship.
That same month, Cardinal Seán O’Malley, the archbishop of Boston and outgoing head of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, sent a letter to heads of the Holy See expressing hope that “pastoral prudence would prevent displaying artwork in a way that could imply either exoneration or a subtle defense” of those of accused of abuse.
Last month, Bishop Jean-Marc Micas of Tarbes and Lourdes issued a statement and expressed his personal opinion to remove Rupnik’s mosaics affixed to the entrance of the Basilica of Our Lady of the Rosary in the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes.
“Many people who were victims of sexual violence and abuse at the hands of clergy have in fact expressed their suffering and the violence that this exposure now constituted for them,” he wrote in the statement.
The Knights of Columbus last month temporarily covered Rupnik art at the St. John Paul II Shrine in Washington, D.C., as well as at the fraternal organization’s headquarters in New Haven, Connecticut.
Pope Francis ordered the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith to begin a judicial process to investigate the sexual abuse allegations against Rupnik after lifting the statute of limitations of his case in October 2023.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Rome, Italy, Jul 2, 2021 / 04:00 am (CNA).
Safeguarding expert Fr. Hans Zollner S.J. will serve as the director of a new anthropology institute succeeding the Center for Child Protection in Rome.The Pontifical… […]
Bishops process into St. Peter’s Basilica for the closing Mass of the first assembly of the Synod on Synodality on Oct. 29, 2023. / Vatican Media
Rome Newsroom, Jul 9, 2024 / 06:00 am (CNA).
The guiding document for the final part of the Synod on Synodality, published Tuesday, focuses on how to implement certain of the synod’s aims, while laying aside some of the more controversial topics from last year’s gathering, like women’s admission to the diaconate.
“Without tangible changes, the vision of a synodal Church will not be credible,” the Instrumentum Laboris, or “working tool,” says.
The six sections of the roughly 30-page document will be the subject of prayer, conversation, and discernment by participants in the second session of the 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, to be held throughout the month of October in Rome.
Instead of focusing on questions and “convergences,” as in last year’s Instrumentum Laboris, “it is now necessary that … a consensus can be reached,” said a FAQ page from synod organizers, also released July 9, answering a question about why the structure was different from last year’s Instrumentum Laboris.
The guiding document for the first session of the Synod on Synodality in 2023 covered such hot-button topics as women deacons, priestly celibacy, and LGBTQ outreach.
By contrast, this year’s text mostly avoids these subjects, while offering concrete proposals for instituting a listening and accompaniment ministry, greater lay involvement in parish economics and finances, and more powerful parish councils.
“It is difficult to imagine a more effective way to promote a synodal Church than the participation of all in decision-making and taking processes,” it states.
The working tool also refers to the 10 study groups formed late last year to tackle different themes deemed “matters of great relevance” by the Synod’s first session in October 2023. These groups will continue to meet through June 2025 but will provide an update on their progress at the second session in October.
The possibility of the admission of women to the diaconate will not be a topic during the upcoming assembly, the Instrumentum Laboris said.
The new document was presented at a July 9 press conference by Cardinals Mario Grech and Jean-Claude Hollerich, together with the special secretaries of the synodal assembly: Jesuit Father Giacomo Costa and Father Riccardo Battocchio.
“The Synod is already changing our way of being and living the Church regardless of the October assembly,” Hollerich said, pointing to testimonies shared in the most recent reports sent by bishops’ conferences.
The Oct. 2-27 gathering of the Synod on Synodality will mark the end of the discernment phase of the Church’s synodal process, which Pope Francis opened in 2021.
Participants in the fall meeting, including Catholic bishops, priests, religious, and laypeople from around the world, will use the Instrumentum Laboris as a guide for their “conversations in the Spirit,” the method of discussion introduced at the 2023 assembly. They will also prepare and vote on the Synod on Synodality’s advisory final document, which will then be given to the pope, who decides the Church’s next steps and if he wishes to adopt the text as a papal document or to write his own.
The third phase of the synod — after “the consultation of the people of God” and “the discernment of the pastors” — will be “implementation,” according to organizers.
Prominent topics
The 2024 Instrumentum Laboris also addresses the need for transparency to restore the Church’s credibility in the face of sexual abuse of adults and minors and financial scandals.
“If the synodal Church wants to be welcoming,” the document reads, “then accountability and transparency must be at the core of its action at all levels, not only at the level of authority.”
It recommends effective lay involvement in pastoral and economic planning, the publication of annual financial statements certified by external auditors, annual summaries of safeguarding initiatives, the promotion of women to positions of authority, and periodic performance evaluations on those exercising a ministry or holding a position in the Church.
“These are points of great importance and urgency for the credibility of the synodal process and its implementation,” the document says.
The greater participation of women in all levels of the Church, a reform of the education of priests, and greater formation for all Catholics are also included in the text.
Bishops’ conferences, it says, noticed an untapped potential for women’s participation in many areas of Church life. “They also call for further exploration of ministerial and pastoral modalities that better express the charisms and gifts the Spirit pours out on women in response to the pastoral needs of our time,” the document states.
Formation in listening is identified as “an essential initial requirement” for Catholics, as well as how to engage in the practice of “conversation in the Spirit,” which was employed in the first session of the Synod on Synodality.
Pope Francis and delegates at the Synod on Synodality at the conclusion of the assembly on Oct. 28, 2023. Credit: Vatican Media
The document says the need for formation has been one of the most universal and strong themes throughout the synodal process. Interreligious dialogue also is identified as an important aspect of the synodal journey.
On the topic of the liturgy, the Instrumentum Laboris says there was “a call for adequately trained lay men and women to contribute to preaching the Word of God, including during the celebration of the Eucharist.”
“It is necessary that the pastoral proposals and liturgical practices preserve and make ever more evident the link between the journey of Christian initiation and the synodal and missionary life of the Church,” the document says. “The appropriate pastoral and liturgical arrangements must be developed in the plurality of situations and cultures in which the local Churches are immersed …”
How it was drafted
Dubbed the “Instrumentum Laboris 2,” the document released Tuesday has been in preparation since early June when approximately 20 experts in theology, ecclesiology, and canon law held a closed-door meeting to analyze around 200 synod reports from bishops’ conferences and religious communities responding to what the Instrumentum Laboris called “the guiding question” of the next stage of the Synod on Synodality: “How to be a synodal Church in mission?”
After the 10-day gathering, “an initial version” of the text was drafted based on those reports and sent to around 70 people — priests, religious, and laypeople — “from all over the world, of various ecclesial sensitivities and from different theological ‘schools,’” for consultation, according to the synod website.
The XVI Ordinary Council of the General Secretariat of the Synod, together with consultants of the synod secretariat, finalized the document.
According to the working tool, soliciting new reports and feedback after the consultation phase ended is “consistent with the circularity characterizing the whole synodal process.”
“In preparation for the Second Session, and during its work, we continue to address this question: how can the identity of the synodal People of God in mission take concrete form in the relationships, paths and places where the everyday life of the Church takes place?” it says.
The document says “other questions that emerged during the journey are the subject of work that continues in other ways, at the level of the local Churches as well as in the ten Study Groups.”
Expectations for final session
According to the guiding document, the second session of the Synod on Synodality can “expect a further deepening of the shared understanding of synodality, a better focus on the practices of a synodal Church, and the proposal of some changes in canon law (there may be yet more significant and profound developments as the basic proposal is further assimilated and lived.)”
“Nonetheless,” it continues, “we cannot expect the answer to every question. In addition, other proposals will emerge along the way, on the path of conversion and reform that the Second Session will invite the whole Church to undertake.”
The Instrumentum Laboris says, “Synodality is not an end in itself … If the Second Session is to focus on certain aspects of synodal life, it does so with a view to greater effectiveness in mission.”
In its brief conclusion, the text states: “The questions that the Instrumentum Laboris asks are: how to be a synodal Church in mission; how to engage in deep listening and dialogue; how to be co-responsible in the light of the dynamism of our personal and communal baptismal vocation; how to transform structures and processes so that all may participate and share the charisms that the Spirit pours out on each for the common good; how to exercise power and authority as service. Each of these questions is a service to the Church and, through its action, to the possibility of healing the deepest wounds of our time.”
CNA Staff, Jan 14, 2021 / 12:00 pm (CNA).- The Catholic Church is resuming public Sunday Masses in Iceland after the government raised the number of people permitted to gather in churches from 10 to 20.
Digesting “digestive” at breakfast. 🤮 There can be no doubt that Rupnik’s abuse “art” is revolting. It is wicked to put money and art before victims. Justice is inadmissible in Rome.
I hoped that there would be news about the nine-month investigation of Marko Rupnik by the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith but there is none. (Guess everyone did.). However, Maria Campatelli’s letter to Centro Aletti patrons and donors reminds us of the enablers who have helped Rupnik elude charges of abuse for years and years. There always are enablers and the small group of women, like Campatelli, who followed Rupnik from the Loyala Center over thirty years ago are among his most reliable supporters. So much for believing that women always help other women who have been abused.
Rupnik himself is the subject of serious scrutiny. If his product is being subjected to “cancel culture” it should be primarily because of its derivative, unimaginative, vacuous character. That it was produced by a con artist and a serial rapist does not contribute any redeeming value to it aesthetically or financially.
Let it be gone.
So, they rehashed an old story verbatim, but tack on a PR release from Rupnik studio at head, giving it air time when many readers never get past first paragraph or two…the Rupnik studio thanks the author for this “news”…and for me a wasted click…all that was missing was a string of tweet quotes expressing “disappointment” at the Rupnik studio PR release.
I have a problem with the discussion of the quality of art. What changed in this art from before and after. The artwork is the same – I happen to not enjoy his art and never have enjoyed it. The point, for me, is that it is clearly obvious that a great number of individuals found the quality of this artwork worthy of being placed on a great number of sacred structures. Who is evaluating the artwork and who is approving its placement. How and why did this style gain such precedence when there was a host of other sources for artwork I would deem worthy of being on sacred structures.
Nothing changed, in the sense that there were also plenty of people who thought the mosaics, or at least Rupnik’s contribution to them (the illustrations) were overrated and mediocre. Those people just never got a vote or a voice. Artwork for churches is rarely chosen by laypeople or parishioners. A small group of people usually select the art, including architects,donors, pastors and priests. Anyone else gets shut out, so you’d never know that anyone disliked it. One of the ways in which Rupnik’s reputation as an artist was propped up and inflated. (I also suspect that Rupnik has been handing out sweetheart deals to prominant prelates with influence but can’t prove that.)
Rupnick’s work has been chosen not because of his expertise as an artist, but because he was a Jesuit priest. While he regretfully remains in active ministry he continues to be nothing more than a privledged amateur artistically. Those absent training in the visual/fine arts are easily impressed by anyone who can produce an image of any sort, particularly if its big. The like big. We also have the critical circumstance that his financial impact upon his clients was regarded an “inhouse” expense. If you want to get a “picture” of what can be accomplished in contemporary ecclesiastical mosaic do an image search for “mosaic of our Lady of Knock.” The work is within the interior of the Basilica at Knock. You’ll immediately recognize the deficiency of Rupnik’s confections and those of his studio across the range of craft, aesthetics, and devotion.
There is nothing there, there in Rupnik’s work. It nothing more than filler — bastardized formula confections gleaned from Byzantine masterpieces. Sherwin-Williams flat latex white would substitute in more appropriately suit any “worship-space.”
I was going to tell you how Rupnik began his career but I have done it several times here already so here is the link to an article about it in Italian, you can use Google translate option. https://amargipress.com/2023/11/
Two images above: on the left is ‘Christ Pantocrator’ by the Russian Orthodox mosaic artist Alexander Kornoukhov in the Vatican Capella ‘Redemptories Mater’. It was destroyed, together with the whole ceiling and parts of the wall, by Rupnik who then put there his own work like the image on the right, his own rendition of ‘Christ Pantocrator’.
I think the wok of two artists speaks volumes.
Anna, I have been meaning to thank you for bringing up the distressing story of the “Heavenly Jerusalem” mosaics by Alexander Kornoukhov at the Redemptoris Mater chapel several months ago. After that, I did more investigating but I did not find the book with complete images of his work that was subsequently removed and replaced by Marko Rupnik and Centro Aletti staff. Thank you so much for sharing it. (I am being deliberately calm as I write this because I might get taken over by rage otherwise.). The replacement mosaics reportedly put Rupnik on the map and led to Centro Aletti’s first series of major commissions.
I do not know who was responsible for the narrative on this page but it is substantially at odds with some of what I read when I first started looking for information about the creation of the mosaics. I do not have any English-language sources to share but used the Google translation feature that Anna mentioned.
Maybe a skilled, diligent journalist will some day be able to put the entire story together.
Psychopaths and narcissists can get pretty good at flatly denying reality. Sane people do not listen to them.
I get that there are problems with “believe all women” when it’s a case of he said, she said. But when it’s he said, she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said…. with no political reason for a takedown…
Anna you have provided the most illuminating evidence for not only the character of Rupnik, but the contrast between his inadequacy and the warmth and artistry of Alexander Kornoukhov. Many thanks. It seems to me the case is now closed. God reward you.
Would that it were so.
He deserves canceling like few ever have.
On so many grounds:
Moral. Artistic. Religious.
Even digestive — since every reference to him is utterly revolting.
Digesting “digestive” at breakfast. 🤮 There can be no doubt that Rupnik’s abuse “art” is revolting. It is wicked to put money and art before victims. Justice is inadmissible in Rome.
By defending Rupnik’s vile oeuvre, Ruffini and the rest of the Dark Vaticanners are showing what they really are. And which spirit they serve.
The whole affair makes me want to Rupnik.
Except that “Rupnick’s art” is no art at all.
The choice being offered by the woman running Centro Aletti is the same choice offered by the Pontiff Francis: “You can choose us, or choose Jesus.”
Sharp insight, in tbe sense of “cutting”.
I hoped that there would be news about the nine-month investigation of Marko Rupnik by the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith but there is none. (Guess everyone did.). However, Maria Campatelli’s letter to Centro Aletti patrons and donors reminds us of the enablers who have helped Rupnik elude charges of abuse for years and years. There always are enablers and the small group of women, like Campatelli, who followed Rupnik from the Loyala Center over thirty years ago are among his most reliable supporters. So much for believing that women always help other women who have been abused.
Rupnik himself is the subject of serious scrutiny. If his product is being subjected to “cancel culture” it should be primarily because of its derivative, unimaginative, vacuous character. That it was produced by a con artist and a serial rapist does not contribute any redeeming value to it aesthetically or financially.
Let it be gone.
So, they rehashed an old story verbatim, but tack on a PR release from Rupnik studio at head, giving it air time when many readers never get past first paragraph or two…the Rupnik studio thanks the author for this “news”…and for me a wasted click…all that was missing was a string of tweet quotes expressing “disappointment” at the Rupnik studio PR release.
I have a problem with the discussion of the quality of art. What changed in this art from before and after. The artwork is the same – I happen to not enjoy his art and never have enjoyed it. The point, for me, is that it is clearly obvious that a great number of individuals found the quality of this artwork worthy of being placed on a great number of sacred structures. Who is evaluating the artwork and who is approving its placement. How and why did this style gain such precedence when there was a host of other sources for artwork I would deem worthy of being on sacred structures.
Nothing changed, in the sense that there were also plenty of people who thought the mosaics, or at least Rupnik’s contribution to them (the illustrations) were overrated and mediocre. Those people just never got a vote or a voice. Artwork for churches is rarely chosen by laypeople or parishioners. A small group of people usually select the art, including architects,donors, pastors and priests. Anyone else gets shut out, so you’d never know that anyone disliked it. One of the ways in which Rupnik’s reputation as an artist was propped up and inflated. (I also suspect that Rupnik has been handing out sweetheart deals to prominant prelates with influence but can’t prove that.)
Rupnick’s work has been chosen not because of his expertise as an artist, but because he was a Jesuit priest. While he regretfully remains in active ministry he continues to be nothing more than a privledged amateur artistically. Those absent training in the visual/fine arts are easily impressed by anyone who can produce an image of any sort, particularly if its big. The like big. We also have the critical circumstance that his financial impact upon his clients was regarded an “inhouse” expense. If you want to get a “picture” of what can be accomplished in contemporary ecclesiastical mosaic do an image search for “mosaic of our Lady of Knock.” The work is within the interior of the Basilica at Knock. You’ll immediately recognize the deficiency of Rupnik’s confections and those of his studio across the range of craft, aesthetics, and devotion.
There is nothing there, there in Rupnik’s work. It nothing more than filler — bastardized formula confections gleaned from Byzantine masterpieces. Sherwin-Williams flat latex white would substitute in more appropriately suit any “worship-space.”
I was going to tell you how Rupnik began his career but I have done it several times here already so here is the link to an article about it in Italian, you can use Google translate option.
https://amargipress.com/2023/11/
Two images above: on the left is ‘Christ Pantocrator’ by the Russian Orthodox mosaic artist Alexander Kornoukhov in the Vatican Capella ‘Redemptories Mater’. It was destroyed, together with the whole ceiling and parts of the wall, by Rupnik who then put there his own work like the image on the right, his own rendition of ‘Christ Pantocrator’.
I think the wok of two artists speaks volumes.
Hence, if you want to see the work of Kornoukhov here is a printed book with photos of his (mostly) destroyed art
https://www.kornoukhov.com/_files/ugd/2181c1_2c93aa63b56640c68ae385544491d6e6.pdf
I think the story of lies and deception will answer your question, of why Rupnik’s art is everywhere.
Anna, I have been meaning to thank you for bringing up the distressing story of the “Heavenly Jerusalem” mosaics by Alexander Kornoukhov at the Redemptoris Mater chapel several months ago. After that, I did more investigating but I did not find the book with complete images of his work that was subsequently removed and replaced by Marko Rupnik and Centro Aletti staff. Thank you so much for sharing it. (I am being deliberately calm as I write this because I might get taken over by rage otherwise.). The replacement mosaics reportedly put Rupnik on the map and led to Centro Aletti’s first series of major commissions.
If anyone wants to see the current state of the walls, there is a virtual 365 degree display but anyone looking at it may want to pray beforehand, in case you respond like I did, It is to weep: https://www.vatican.va/content/dam/vatican/virtualtour/redemptorismater/index.html
I do not know who was responsible for the narrative on this page but it is substantially at odds with some of what I read when I first started looking for information about the creation of the mosaics. I do not have any English-language sources to share but used the Google translation feature that Anna mentioned.
Maybe a skilled, diligent journalist will some day be able to put the entire story together.
Psychopaths and narcissists can get pretty good at flatly denying reality. Sane people do not listen to them.
I get that there are problems with “believe all women” when it’s a case of he said, she said. But when it’s he said, she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said, and she said…. with no political reason for a takedown…
Casting Rupnik as a ‘victim’ – I must admit that I didn’t see that one coming.
Nice touch.
Anna you have provided the most illuminating evidence for not only the character of Rupnik, but the contrast between his inadequacy and the warmth and artistry of Alexander Kornoukhov. Many thanks. It seems to me the case is now closed. God reward you.