Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Josee's avatar

To Ed Condon, I love your music insertions! I also like your personal reflections on the world. To JD, I love your personal reflections on life and family too. You are both outstanding journalists who obviously love the Church and, I have to assume, who love the Lord. Thank you for all that you do. There are SO many online Catholic resources that we can be overwhelmed, but The Pillar articles are something I don't miss reading. Keep up the good work. I wish you a well deserved time off. Come to think of it, I thank your whole staff for their reporting. Thoughtful Catholics need The Pillar.

Expand full comment
Alicia's avatar

I’m all for separating art from the artist, but in addition to what Ed explains, I think timing matters. Before there are credible allegations, display that Rupnik art proudly. Once the dust has settled and hopefully justice is done, there may come a time when the crimes committed are less raw and the artist can recede into the background, then if you love Rupnik’s art, sure, go for it. (I do think Rupnik’s position as a Jesuit priest makes it more continuously scandalous to display the art in a church setting, but in non ecclesiastical settings it could be ok.) But to display it and defend it in the very midst of the horrendous abuses being made known and while justice is barely being served is tasteless at best. It feels like taking a side and taking the wrong side. You don’t have to trash the art forever but put it away or cover it up until such a time as we can separate the art from the horrible things the artist has done. I understand many of the situations for his art would be difficult to immediately remove (like whole walls of chapels etc) but it feels like there would be ways to tastefully cover it up at least for a while.

Expand full comment
20 more comments...
Latest

No posts