Vatican City, Jun 26, 2017 / 04:34 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Vatican’s top personality on social justice issues has voiced his concern for the increased demand for drugs, including recreational marijuana, saying debate on the plant’s usage doesn’t take ethical concerns into account.
In a June 26 letter on the occasion of the U.N. International Day against Abuse and Illicit Trafficking of Drugs, Cardinal Peter Turkson lamented the fact that narcotics “continue to rage in impressive forms and dimensions” throughout the world.
“It is a phenomenon that is fueled – not without concessions and compromises on the part of institutions – by a shameful market that crosses national and continental borders, intertwined with mafias and drug trafficking,” he said.
Prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, Cardinal Turkson noted that compared to the recent past, drugs have now become “a consumer product made compatible with everyday life, with leisure activity and even with the pursuit of well-being.”
Pointing specifically to cocaine, he noted that the drug is linked to the spread of heroin, which at 80 percent represents the highest number of new requests for opioid-related treatments in Europe.
However, despite the high numbers for heroin and opioid treatment requests, the cardinal noted that “the most commonly consumed recreational drug is cannabis.”
The current, raging international debate on the use of the drug “tends to overlook the ethical judgment of the substance, by definition negative as with any other drug,” he said, pointing to the current focus on its possible therapeutic uses.
This, he stressed, is “a field in which we await scientific data to be validated by monitoring periods, as for any experiment worthy of public consideration.”
According to September 2016 report from the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, which compared marijuana-related statistics from previous years in Colorado to data from 2013-2015, the first years after the legalization of recreational marijuana in the state, the prospects of the drug’s increased use are grim.
Not only have the number of marijuana-related deaths, hospitalizations and traffic accidents increased since the drug’s recreational use was legalized, there has also been growing concern over marijuana-related crime and a decrease in the IQ of youths who use it.
But before making a firm decision on the issue that is perhaps based on various prejudices, Cardinal Turkson said it would be better to first “understand trends in the use of cannabis, related damages and the consequences of regulatory policies in the various countries.”
It’s especially important to recognize the factors “which push the illegal market to develop products intended to affect patterns of consumption and to reaffirm the primacy of the desire that is compulsively satisfied by the substance.”
On this point, concern has grown for many that the recreational use of marijuana is often a gateway for youth to become addicted, and eventually move on to other drugs such as cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, or meth.
In addition to voicing his concerns on marijuana, heroin, and the dangers of using them to improve one’s “wellbeing,” Cardinal Turkson also pointed to the risks of other addictive behaviors such as gambling, saying its legalization, even in cases aimed at unmasking its criminal managers, “exponentially increases the number of pathological players.”
“Moreover, taxation by the state is to be considered incompatible from an ethical standpoint and contradictory in terms of prevention,” he said, adding that the development of “models of intervention and adequate monitoring systems, associated with the allocation of funds, is highly desirable to tackle the phenomenon.”
The cardinal noted that as the array of addictions continues to diversify, “indifference and at times indirect complicity in this phenomenon contributes to diverting the attention of public opinion and governments, focused on other emergencies.”
Plans to fight the increasing demand for drugs often collapse, he said, explaining that the present-day state of addictions shows “gaps in planning, policies and prospects,” which in turn is a sign of “sluggish progress” in the face of the drug market, “which is highly competitive and flexible to demand, and always open to novelties such as recently-created, extremely powerful synthetic opiates, ecstasy and amphetamines.”
“It is precisely the growing and widespread consumption of ecstasy that may serve as an indicator of how the use of illicit substances has now spread into everyday areas of life,” he said, adding that it could also be an indication of how the ecstasy user no longer identifies with the heroin addict, but “with the new profile of the user of multiple substances and alcohol.”
Because of this, strategies of intervention can’t depend solely on reduced damage, “nor can drugs still be considered as a phenomenon that is collusive with social disorder and deviance.”
Rather, damage reduction “must necessarily involve taking on board both the toxicological aspect and integration with personalized therapeutic programs of a psycho-social nature, without giving rise to forms of chronic use, which are harmful to the person and ethically reprehensible,” the cardinal said.
Cardinal Turkson stressed the importance of not seeing the addict as a problem to be solved or as being beyond the hope of rehabilitation.
To consider people as irrecoverable, he said, “is an act of capitulation that denies the psychological dynamics of change and offers an alibi for disengagement from the addict and the institutions that have the task of preventing and treating.”
“It cannot be accepted that society metabolizes drug use as a chronic epochal trait, similar to alcoholism and tobacco, withdrawing from exchange on the margins of freedom of the state and the citizen in relation to substance use,” he said.
The cardinal recognized that there is no singular cause of drug use, but rather a panorama of causes including the absence of a family, various social pressures, the propaganda of drug dealers, and even the desire to have new experiences.
“Every drug addict has a unique personal story and must be listened to, understood, loved, and, insofar as possible, healed and purified,” he said.
“We cannot stoop to the injustice of categorizing drug addicts as if they were mere objects or broken machines; each person must be valued and appreciated in his or her dignity in order to enable them to be healed.”
For the cardinal, part of this process means finding effective means of prevention, beginning with education.
“The scenario which we must all face is marked by the loss of the ancient primacy of the family and the school, the emptying of authority of adult figures and the difficulties that arise in terms of parenting,” he said, stressing that this is not time for “protagonism,” but rather for “networks” that are capable of “reactivating social educational synergies by overcoming unnecessary competition, delegation and forms of dereliction.”
“To prevent young people from growing up without care, bred rather than educated, attracted by ‘healing prosthetics,’ as drugs appear to them, all social actors must connect and invest in the shared ground of basic and indispensable education values aiming at the integral formation of the person.”
In this regard, educational aspects “are crucial,” he said, especially during adolescence, when youth are more vulnerable, and at the same time curious and prone to periods of depression and apathy.
Youth look for the “vertigo that makes them feel alive,” he said, quoting Pope Francis. “So, let us give it to them! Let us stimulate all that which helps them transform their dreams into plans, and that can reveal that all the potential they have is a bridge, a passage towards a vocation.”
“Let us propose broad aims to them, great challenges, and let us help them achieve them, to reach their targets. Let us not leave them alone.”
In order to combat the ephemeral happiness of addictions, a “creative love” is needed, Cardinal Turkson said, as well as the presence of adults capable of both teaching and practicing healthy self-care.
“A spiritual vision of existence, projected towards the search for meaning, open to the encounter with others, constitutes the greatest educational legacy that must be handed down between generations, today more than ever,” he said.
[…]
Poor Mary. No one is less deserving of being associated with Rupnik and his vile monstrosities.
Somehow it is not surprising that Rupnik’s grotesqueries are favorites of Bergoglio’s.
Rupnik’s creepy, bug-eyed, soulless images are the perfect metaphor for the disordered Bergoglian papacy.
Here’s a tip for future historians, generations from now:
As you tell the story of this horrific period of Church history — indeed, of world history — use the ugliness of Rupnik and his images to illustrate the manifest evil of this Dark Vatican and its perpetrators.
Well put, brineyman.
I have no wish to keep saying “How could they do such a thing!” (the usage of Rupnik’s works) because it is very clear to me “they” see no reason not to.
Hence, I will simply give a link to an icon on this subject by Theophanous the Greek
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Theofanus_uspenie.jpg/800px-Theofanus_uspenie.jpg
(Rupnik used the iconography of ‘The Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos’ but ruined it. It is instructive to compare what he did with our (Eastern Orthodox) iconographic scheme. For example, there is no air/space around Our Lord Who is holding the Soul of His Mother. Noteworthy, the Soul which on the Orthodox icons is depicted as a new born baby, in Rupnik’s take becomes much older. Hence, Rupnik failed to understand the symbolism of a new born baby as the Soul born into eternity. Also, on the Orthodox icons the Soul looks at Christ/turned towards Christ Who carries up her yet on Rupnik’s work the soul is staring at the dead body which she has just left. Rupnik does not get that the Soul held by Christ has no care for the body she left – this is more about an attachment than anything else.
Note how stuffy and crowded is his composition. It is horizontal, which means a lack of a heavenly realm which should be represented by a vertical vector and a space above. On the icon of Theophanous the Greek we can see that vector up very clearly and also two realms: one is earthly, with the dead body and the apostles and another is heavenly, with Christ holding the Soul and also the red Seraph.)
‘it is very clear to me “they” see no reason not to’. Nailed it, Anna. So when we jokingly say, ‘is the pope Catholic?’, well it’s now become a valid question. In all my research into clergy sexual misconduct, ‘they see no reason not to’ could almost be the title of a book dealing with the approach to in this case adult victims of clergy sexual abuse/misconduct/crime/rape. Clearly, there is absolutely no reason to be concerned.
Oh, and I meant to say, thank you for the insights into the art/spirituality of iconography, something Rapenik has probably never actually had the depth of spirit to grasp, or even bother with. No time; too many nuns (and others) to seduce.
Stephen, properly made icons can be a source of healing because they bring an abused person – one who feels extremely isolated – into a dialogue with the depicted. An icon pulls a person into the transformed, safe space where there is no evil; you may also notice that Christ or a Saint on a portraits-like icons always looks intently at the viewer and His glance follows him no matter where he stands. Our Lord on the icons wants to engage with the other, just like He did during His earthly life. After dealing with the evil in the church I would spend hours simply looking at Christ on an icon and it would restore me by breaking my numbness and shock.
Unlike Christ, a narcissist-abuser is one who does not engage in a personal way because he does not see the other as a person. This is why he can neither understand nor paint a proper icon. He cannot depict Our Lord who relates (or His Mother, or Saints). He cannot depict a true relationship, an attachment. This is also why his “icons” are damaging – they lack that personal quality of an invitation to a relationship.
Anna, your final paragraph resonates with my recent experience of seeing the now-covered Aletti Center mosaics at the two chapels of the St. John Paul II Shrine in Washington,DC. I am not a survivor of clerical sexual abuse but have been deeply troubled by what I have read to a degree that rivals or surpasses my response to the abuse by Theodore McCarrick.
When I read the accounts by religious sisters from Marko Rupnik’s Loyola Center about how he abused them, I started being unable to pray at the Shrine, which I visit yearly. I could never forget that he was not simply their artistic mentor but was a priest who had some type of role in their spiritual formation and direction. I had immediately disliked those mosaics (and Rupnik’s oeuvre) but could not isolate a reason, except that I felt unsettled because of their skewed off-center compositions, distorted bodies and blaring “in your face” presence that kept me from concentrating.
So when the Knights of Columbus covered the mosaics, I wanted to travel to the Shrine to see how I felt, particularly hiw my reactions had changed. They had, but not as I expected. I felt relief. Not satisfaction, as I had expected. The thick paper covers are provisional, look jerry-rigged, and are awkward in spots. They cover the figurative images but not the background images. Significantly, a viewer cannot see any bodies or faces.
But it is enough for now because I felt calmer and more serene. And I prayed. I sat alone in the Luminous Mysteries Chapel for a half hour and prayed to St. John Paul II to intervene for Marko Rupnik, that he may be brought to full repentance as well as to make reparations willingly for everyone he has injured, then I added my own prayers for that intention. I also thanked John Paul for whatever he may have done to get those images covered. Next, I spent 45 minutes at a Eucharistic Adoration service in the Redemptor Hominis Church and prayed without agitation or distress.
What most struck me was the sensation that the Rupnik-designed images of Christ, the angels and saints had stopped existing. They did not seem to to be covered or hidden, but … not there. Perhaps this is because there’s no spiritual or emotional substance to emanate forth from behind the thick covers, because they express a void. Could this be the void of narcissism that “lack[s] that personal quality of an invitation to a relationship” of which you spoke?
This was one of the strangest experiences I have had and now that I have gotten into words, almost seems a bit crazy.
Has anyone else been to the St. John Paul II Shrine recently, and if so, how did you respond?
Mary, I think your experience is very important and definitely not “crazy”. The first thing that came to my mind was “a boundary”. When one comes into the church with diabolical art, he is literally invaded by it because he does not expect to encounter glaring evil within the Church (analogically to not expecting to encounter an acting priest who is a sexual predator). It is very reasonable to expect that the Church is a safe place, first because of the doctrine that condemns evil and second because Jesus Christ is its head. Furthermore, one cannot engage in a prayer without trust – this is why the victims of abuse within the Church often cannot go there after an abuse – they lose trust and most often than not they experience a triumph of evil over them because the abuser is not punished.
And so, a person who comes with trust is suddenly invaded by Rupnik’s narcissistic art. If he understands what is wrong with it, he will try to raise a boundary, to defend himself against that art which is contrary to Christ and to a normal human psyche. However, one cannot raise a boundary selectively. His psyche will be affected by a contradiction: the dark/strange/evil art in a holy place. As a result, it is unlikely that he can pray with trust and serenity there. He also will be troubled by a question “How is it that the Church allows such art?”
You experienced Rupnik’s art as non-existent when it was covered, even imperfectly. On a very simple level, you did not see the disturbing art so it did not bother you via connecting with you (evil needs a human psyche “to incarnate” so to speak). On a deeper and more important level the cover represents a protection, of you and of others who come to pray. The Church took a step to protect those who come and this is very important! The cover says “yes, it is abusive art” so it is a statement of a recognition of the truth. It is a step towards normality, both human and divine; the Church recognizes the needs of those who come not to not to be abused by the evil art and also – I hope so – the need to cover the blasphemy. On the deepest level, the actions of the Knights of Columbus say “no” to the evil and via their “no” the place is changed. The evil, being named and dealt with (albeit imperfectly), now cannot spread.
Every time the enablers of Rupnik use his art they say “yes” to the evil and the higher is their position in the Church the bigger the evil becomes. They harm believers and they deal a blow to Christ.
“Could this be the void of narcissism that “lack[s] that personal quality of an invitation to a relationship” of which you spoke?”
There is more than the void there. It is not just void instead of an attachment; it is a perversion of normal attachment into something sick and potent, via giving the product of a sick (narcissistic) psyche a supernatural dimension. I will give an example.
Rupnik’s take on Our Lord and His Mother often has a connotation of an emotional incest that is parentification/covert sexualizing a child by a parent without an overt sexual action. A boy grows up as a vice-spouse of his mother, his normal development as a man stunted by a relationship with his mother which is overtly sexual (same can happen with a girl but we discuss Rupnik here). This is not a rare phenomenon in narcissistic families – a powerful narcissistic mother, a weak or absent father-enabler and a child who becomes “a vice-spouse” who is emotionally entwined with his mother and never separates from her emotionally.
If such a person becomes a priest, he often channels his abnormal relationship with his mother into theology. Such a priest (I am speaking from experience) tends to sexualize the relationship between Our Lord and His Mother hence his homilies acquire a flavor of incest – often subtle but still ruinous for the souls. I witnessed such homilies and it was incredible to behold how a sick psyche changes theology into something with a flavor of diabolical.
Hence, I suspect that Rupnik, Fernandes and others like them act out their unresolved Oedipal complex = a desire for sexual relationship with their mother via transferring it onto Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary. Literally all Fernandez’s pseudo-mysticism can be explained by that proposition. Same with Rupnik, but in his case there is quite prominent sadism as well. For example, he takes a rare depiction of a symbolic figure of Ecclesia (Church) standing under the Cross and collecting the blood of Christ flowing from His side into the Chalice. But instead of Ecclesia he depicts the Virgin Mary that is a perversion because no mother would engage in such an act and this is why the sacred art has always depicted Her fainting or standing heartbroken. Rupnik obviously does not get it so he paints a perfect symbol of a relationship with a narcissistic mother who literally drains blood = life out of her tortured son. Tortured by her.
So, one can see how an extremely sick psyche can corrupt the sacred art making it diabolical.
Thank you for your insights again. Yes, I find holy icons deeply healing. I did once paint a large icon-like painting of Christ Pantocrator based on one of the frescos in … actually, I forget where. I was on retreat at the Carmelites and it just seemed the right thing to do. It turned out well, but more importantly, the prayerful relationship with the ‘sitter’ deeply increased. I can’t remember whatever happened to it. Doesn’t matter, though. I offer it up for the women and others Rupnik attacked for his own deceptive pleasure.
Anna, thank you once again for your invaluable insight into these difficult matters. (I didn’t see a Reply button under your latest post and used the first one up the list.).
This makes sense to me, that the covering offers both physical and psychological protection to viewers. Physical because their sense of sight is “satisfied” by not being provoked into shock at things that they would never expect to find in a sacred place, and psychological because the covering also protects their psyches from the onslaught of brazen figures that demand recognition–but don’t deserve recognition because they are fraudulent. After meditating on the spiritually lovely image of our reposed Mother Mary’s newborn soul dwelling in total attachment to her Son, I had the thought that a newborn soul could only perceive a Rupnik figure asserting itself as Christ as an imposter and would instinctively avoid it. Or it would not exist to that infant soul because it does not belong in Heaven.
So my response makes sense to me. I was protected from whatever that thing wanted from me and could turn my full attention for the purpose of those chapels: prayer and communion with God. Also, I was comforted by visible signs that somene, anyone, officially connected to the Chuch had said “no” to the evil represented by those Aletti Center mosaics that are even now being actively promoted by the Vatican’s official communication apparatus. The feeling of relief must be even more powerfully transformative for those suffering from clerical abuse. Or I hope so.
It also sounds like my psyche responded in a healthy fashion and THAT truly reassures me that I am beginning to heal. One other response: I read and understood the explanations of the perverse psychic attachments expressed in the works of those like Rupnik and Fernandez, but felt something like a wall emerging when I tried to think about it further. I was blocked from proceeding. Then I realized that I had no need to understand more because I understood all that was necessary for someone in my state. I didn’t feel distress, conflict or incompletion. Quite the opposite. So that must be another healthy defense and protection, perhaps originating from my guardian angel.
Now I am ready to write my letter thanking the Knights for deciding AND acting to protect the faithful, and I now feel comfortable sharing some of my reactions because I can put them in context. Once again, thank you Anna. I believe you have been sent by God to help us sort through the ravages of the Marko Rupnik mess.
Mary, you wrote: “The feeling of relief must be even more powerfully transformative for those suffering from clerical abuse. Or I hope so.”
I am sure that the covering is making and will make a huge difference. The victim of sexual abuse within the Church typically experiences a loss of meaning. It is one thing to be abused outside the Church – still bad but at least it is the world which lies in the power of the evil one. But when it happens in the Church which preaches a fight against the evil and that very Church begins blaming, silencing and persecuting the victim of the evil – then the abused feels like her world collapses, because she is treated as if she was a non-person, nothing. Being treated as a non-person is the worst aspect of such stories. This is why even a small step of seeing the victim via establishing justice, like the Knights of Columbus did, is incredibly important. To victims it says “we recognize what has been done to you, we see you”. To others “the art is sick, we made a mistake allowing it to be done here”. And also “this art is not sacred; it is not fit to depict Our Lord” that means that the Church is no longer indifferent to sickness and blasphemy.
Your experience with an emerging protective wall is something that is known in mystical life. The evil which I described is so thick that it is impossible to live in a constant conscious awareness of it.
Yes. Their staring downward at a corpse sends a sinister, cryptic message. Apparently obsession with death rather than rising to life.
Replying to Anna, AUGUST 17, 2024 AT 2:36 AM, the Roman doctrine is that the BVM is assumed into heaven body and soul. It is not the case with the BVM that she had to be re-born anew whether into an infancy or otherwise. I would say that both original the Orthodox icon and the Rupnik interpretation suffer respectively but differently from not attending to the truth of the matter according to faith.
Rupnik might have had the chance to capture something of the realities of the true faith, for art and for the faithful; but didn’t. Rupnik is Catholic from Slovenia. Catholics who live amidst Orthodox tend to be more easily influenced in Orthodox ways and it is possible that Rupnik could not find the breakthrough for mature Catholic artistic appreciation and expression, precisely for trying too much to appease certain religious sympathies and Orthodox hyper-sensitivity or insensitivity.
But you (and Mary E) both miss the fact that his training comes from a certain school with its own characteristics that stuck to its limitations during a certain era when the idea of reconciliation between east and west was rushing into the future. In this context it can be said about the both icons -the original Orthodox and Rupnik’s,- additionally, that they are too caught up in their own worlds.
Pope Francis needs to attend one of his own now-famous “listening sessions.” (By the way, has he yet scheduled a meeting with those four dubia Cardinals?)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but two of those cardinals died waiting to hear a response.
Rupnik projects his one eyed monster onto the compliant.
What? A picture of The Dormition in the Apse of St Mary Major either wasn’t good enough or not available? I could send one from my cell phone, if needed. Also, with the Memorial of the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary on August 22, here’s a hint: there’s an absolutely beautiful mosaic of The Crowning of Mary as Queen of Heaven in the same place.
In my opinion, the Vatican desperately needs its own equivalent of a Project 2025 because, once Francis is gone, there will be a massive need to flush out and replace all the sycophants, incompetenti, and those who apparently never heard “let your ‘yes’ be ‘yes’ and your ‘no,’ ‘no'” from the Jorge Bergoglio amateur hour.
Eloquently put, Dr. Grondelsi
I agree but it can happen only if the next consistory, despite the fact that a majority will have been named cardinals by Francis, has the testicular fortitude to vote for a pope that will abrogate Traditionis Custodes and purge the lavender mafia.
I am so sorry, Blessed Virgin Mary, Coredemptrix.
It is a marvel to behold how the Pontiff Francis and the members of his “Pontiff Francis establishment” so strongly cling to their collective veneration of the “ouvre” manufactured by the sociopath serial sex abuser “Rev.” Rupnik.
It’s a cause for wondering about them…
Having been treated to these 11 years of theater by the Pontiff Francis and “the Pontiff Francis establishment,” it is fitting to the performance that the Pontiff Francis and “his establishment” persist in their veneration of “the occult artifacts” of their favored sociopath sex abuser, their esteemed “Rev.” Rupnik.
Rupnik and Bergoglio form a “perfect marriage”… in the Fiducia Supplicans meaning of the words. No “artist” more perfectly illustrates the corruption and perversity of this pontificate than Rupnik. No Pope in history more completely embraces the degenerate in thought and deed than Bergoglio.
I wish I could say that this is surprising.
Alas, I cannot.
I would ask why Francis continues to protect and venerate this worthless serial rapist, but then the same can be asked about McCarrick, Zanchetta, Inzoli and Grassi. His entire Pontificate has been dedicated to protecting homosexual rapists and sex pests. Any other Pope would have resigned in disgrace a long time ago, but because he parrots the Woke talking points of the Far-Left on Climate hysteria, Illegal Immigration and other talking points, the Leftist media run cover for him.
All Rupnik’s art needs to be painted over or burnt publicly.
Rupnik wants to capture something of the inner life of the Church and give it an outward form of communion-relation. But it suggests an effect of adulation not piety or communion. I wouldn’t have said narcissism; neither would I say it was dark. It’s just not to do with true holy relation; where, in addition, it fails to depict how the divine and saintly icons and their impact are distinguished. Then, adulation is absent from some content whether for this reason or that and the artwork appears very dull and prop-like dispossessed of its centre or theme or left searching.
I do not know why Rupnik was propelled to such prominence. If he is a repentant abuser, there is a way for that to go both in the inner and outward life of the Church; and by all appearances it is going badly for everyone including him. His artwork achieved that much elevation/”acclaim” long before Pope Francis was stressing “closeness”. In a way, the trouble Rupnik is now encountering is helping to show how the theme of closeness is running the risk of being pushed beyond the bounds of holiness, where things are super-emotionalized and confusing or running into meaninglessness.
Marcial Marciel also achieved high prominence and then Pope Benedict XVI had to make arrangements for rectifying the situation. Three other lessons can be found. First, it would be better to choose the right way from the start than to have to make everyone endure so much confusion later. Second this applies to the un-celebrated penitent and you have to be as fair to him even as an unknown. Third, Pope Francis has nonetheless to come to some right resolution. Maybe some of Rupnik’s art pieces could find niche emplacements where they might work well.
There are four more general lessons for the whole Church. On the one hand, you don’t have to be propelling every penitent to public stardom. On the other hand, you have to be considerate enough to be able to defend the penitent for sake of the truth and to know when this is to be done and how to moderate it and edify him. In view of which, overall, we have a condition of destabilized church communities which is contributing to confusion should it arise and adding to defection, division, distrust, etc. But some of the Holy Father’s offerings for harmony are aggravating it.
The Pope is trying to show the intrinsic feeling in the particular Rupnik piece, our Lord stepping into the world via our Lady (her hands like a ladder as it were), bearing forth the Scriptures and adhering to her mantle. Rupnik sought inspiration from the past works of others in order to try to bring new perspective. This one would be a case where he achieved it. I do not particularly like the figures in the way they are formed up cartoonish; nonetheless, the piece does carry an essential originality.
Pope Francis himself seems to use the word cartoon. Is he suggesting we should all have a meltdown over an evil art?
I haven’t seen the one where the Precious Blood is being collected by the BVM. Devotion to the Precious Blood of Jesus touches upon everyone and it’s possible Rupnik’s inspiration or motive is not something unclean or even dapper. It is said the origin of the Way of the Cross is the BVM and I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the origin of the devotion to the Precious Blood is her too.
Some of Rupnik’s art is sustainable for this or that reason. It is not necessary for anything of his to be sustainable in order for his soul to be retrieved fully. On the other hand, crashing all his art as a way to emphasize the extent of his fall and a needed comeback, or explicate hiswont of justice, I think is incommensurate. You are outraged as women by an event of of a leader priest caught in sexual escapades. So were they who wanted a particular adulteress stoned to death.I do not know what the facts are with the Rupnik debacle, but suppose in one of the cases he was not the initiator; the woman there would have been the predator and if she was at the beginning of it all, she started the ball rolling.
By the way I didn’t use the reply button because I read the updates elsewhere and they do not yet show on this server. This escapes the clutter too.
If Rupnik is redeemed would it be on account of his art whether good or bad?
The comments above involving “attitude to one’s mother” seems to invoke Freud’ and his Oedipus. Here is what I understand about Freud and the inherent absurdities in Freduian analysis.
A. Not only are Freud’s ideas 1. untenable as science, they are 2. subversive and 3. meant to be used as subversion by those who would positively protract the Freudian project.
B. Freud’s purpose was promoting autonomy-rationalism by overcoming “natural” disorganized neurotic condition including religious and religion impulse – as a common to men and women.
C. For him, consciously refined religious feeling is not a valid Freudian autonomy, it is just a more elaborate slavery to the subconscious with an attempt to impose constructs.
D. But Freud validates sexual deviance as “variation” not deviance; he can not establish the basis for validating some categories as amenable to science and reason yet others not.
This would show his intent and the purpose of his “theories” in contorting experience, nature, reason, science and religion. If I were going to find fault with Rupnik I would prefer a Christian approach.
The Lavender Mafia is trolling the faithful through its media, like it always does.