My thoughts about Prince Rosti: (a) Wait, he's 38?! Looks about 13. And (b) Wait, there are still Romanovs? And (c) Fascinating that his family *elected* him as their leader. I wonder what the electoral process was like. How many voting members were there? Was it a secret ballot?
As a non-royal-watcher (apart from keeping an eye on the slow decline of the Japanese Imperial Family as a sort of reality-infused symbol of their whole society), I was surprised at all of this. I had also not realized there were still Hapsburgs until JD shared their beautiful funeral ritual. There are so many things I don't know.
I legitimately thought he was a teenage kid when I first saw his picture. After seeing your comment I scrolled back up and took a closer look and I can see he looks older than a teenager, but he does look deceptively young.
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.
“All that you see here—the days will come when there will not be left a stone upon another stone that will not be thrown down.” Even beautiful art will be gone one day. But a cup of water given in the name of Jesus to someone who is thirsty has eternal consequences. I'm not suggesting iconoclasm; but it is good to keep where we're headed in mind and to make decisions toward that end.
"We reported this week that opponents of a new liturgy in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church have publicly burned copies of an ultimatum to adopt the change issued by an archbishop."
"this has become one of the most long-running and combustible stories in the Church right now."
The statement, "I am not sure it’s possible to argue that Rupnik’s art, being the product of a process of sexual abuse, is a 'work of grace,' unless you think that grace can be the product of an evil" should simply be retracted. Grace comes as a result of evil all of the time; indeed, it is very often the vector of the greatest of redeeming graces. Straight out of scripture: "you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). The child conceived in rape, adultery, or fornication is perhaps the most blazingly obvious example that occurs daily. Felix culpa!
Your scripture references are accurate, but Joseph’s brothers selling him into slavery was not a work of grace. It was a terrible sin. Sure, God worked it out for good. But I don’t think that makes a sinful action a work of grace.
I may have missed it but when the Germans take themselves off the Catholic registry do they save thousands of dollars in taxes or does that tax money that was going to the church just go to a general government tax fund instead?
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.
I’m no fan of “cancel culture” but as antithetical as it is to my way of thinking there are certain situations where I don’t think of removing someone’s work to be the same thing. For example, I am not in favor of tearing down civil war monuments but am okay with removing a confederate flag from a courthouse. I think it has more to do with what the object was meant to convey at the time and the harm it might render today than simply making assumptions that it should be removed. If someone wants to look at art created by Marco Rupnik in his home, and believes it brings him closer to God in some way I can question that but not care. But if parishioners are forced to walk in and see the art and would associate it with scandal then that is different to me. That seems to send a message that takes one’s thoughts away from God, not closer to Him. I understood it was scandal that removed the music of David Haas (no great loss to me but upset many) and it would seem the same concept would apply in this instance. Same with Fr Cesareo Gabaraon. But along that same line, why haven’t more churches done away with “Life Teen” masses that were invented/inspired by Dale Fushek (excommunicated 2008; laicized 2010) who used the program to attract teen boys? Talk about scandal.
The thing most people miss about Rupnik is that he is still alive and so are his victims. Because of that, I do think his art should be avoided and removed. It’s one thing to admire the art of a murderer who died hundreds of years ago and another to display a mural from a sexual abuser who is still walking around. Plus, the Church’s tolerance of abusers in recent (even current) memory makes promoting his art particularly gross.
Excellent article especially the analysis of the Romanov family heir being a possible acceptable head of state if the world 🌎 was lucky enough to have Putin removed from power and the senseless war crimes in Ukraine 🇺🇦 ceased. Who knows what they might have stirred up in the powers of Heaven by misusing that Russian icon as a prop to justify their "holy" war just a month or two ago, especially since Pope Francis had already consecrated Ukraine 🇺🇦 to the heart of Mary over a year ago.
Just never know really what the good Lord's Providence may turn out to be. That's why he is omnipotent and we are not, thankfully.
Good discussion about Fr. Marlo Rupnik and the connection between one’s inner spiritual state and the art produced. Could I ask for comments on this quote from Jacques Maitain?
“Reason does not consist of its conscious logical tools and manifestations, nor does the will consist only in its deliberate conscious determinations. Far beneath the sunlit surface thronged with explicit concepts and judgments, words and expressed resolutions or movements of the will, are the sources of knowledge and creativity, of love and supra-sensuous desires, hidden in the primordial translucid night of the intimate vitality of the soul. Thus it is that we must recognize the existence of an unconscious or preconscious which pertains to the spiritual powers of the human soul and to the inner abyss of personal freedom, and if the personal thirst and striving for knowing and seeing, grasping and expressing.”
From Creative Intuition in Art and Poetry 1953
If this is correct, does art ever stand apart from the artist? Can one ever really look at the artist’s work without also seeing the artist’s soul?
I honestly don't see the appeal of Rupnik's art in the first place. At best it's acceptable, at worst it's grotesque - like that infamous three-eyed image. Caravaggio, he ain't!
I continue to be baffled by the extreme passions roused in the Syro-Malabar Church - although the "uniform mode" does sound like the sort of solution designed to make everyone equally unhappy. I would have thought that if people would be rioting over anything, it'd be over keeping their ancient forms, not something that's only been around for 50 years!
“And while Rupnik’s work has always struck me as simultaneously weird and cloying, I fully accept that many people find beauty in it.”
I thought I was the only person repulsed by his “art”.
Looks like no one wants to remove his stuff either. Knights of Columbus are not making a move to dump his work either. (Did he do the work with the bishop or cardinal showing his derrière?)
The usual excuses. “We paid a lot of money” being the most important.
At some point, the astonishing principle of DTRT (doing the right thing) might infect their thinking forcing them to DTRT.
Plus, I’m pretty sure that’s a platonic precept so it’s gonna happen.
Ok well, kinda sure.
If not Plato, then I’m certain Sr Mary Margaret would’ve given you That Look when you made a bad decision/do something stupid so you fix it ASAP.
(Not meaning to make light of our dear sisters who suffered under this demon who abused them. Frankly, I keep hoping the Vatican really does have a hit team of former Marines/SF/SEALS to take out the evil ones.)
My thoughts about Prince Rosti: (a) Wait, he's 38?! Looks about 13. And (b) Wait, there are still Romanovs? And (c) Fascinating that his family *elected* him as their leader. I wonder what the electoral process was like. How many voting members were there? Was it a secret ballot?
As a non-royal-watcher (apart from keeping an eye on the slow decline of the Japanese Imperial Family as a sort of reality-infused symbol of their whole society), I was surprised at all of this. I had also not realized there were still Hapsburgs until JD shared their beautiful funeral ritual. There are so many things I don't know.
I legitimately thought he was a teenage kid when I first saw his picture. After seeing your comment I scrolled back up and took a closer look and I can see he looks older than a teenager, but he does look deceptively young.
My first thought was, "He looks like a 14 year old wearing his dad's clothes!"
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.
“All that you see here—the days will come when there will not be left a stone upon another stone that will not be thrown down.” Even beautiful art will be gone one day. But a cup of water given in the name of Jesus to someone who is thirsty has eternal consequences. I'm not suggesting iconoclasm; but it is good to keep where we're headed in mind and to make decisions toward that end.
"We reported this week that opponents of a new liturgy in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church have publicly burned copies of an ultimatum to adopt the change issued by an archbishop."
"this has become one of the most long-running and combustible stories in the Church right now."
https://giphy.com/gifs/images-monkey-drums-Xvz7fb8rEWZtS
I love Ed's writing.
The statement, "I am not sure it’s possible to argue that Rupnik’s art, being the product of a process of sexual abuse, is a 'work of grace,' unless you think that grace can be the product of an evil" should simply be retracted. Grace comes as a result of evil all of the time; indeed, it is very often the vector of the greatest of redeeming graces. Straight out of scripture: "you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). The child conceived in rape, adultery, or fornication is perhaps the most blazingly obvious example that occurs daily. Felix culpa!
Your scripture references are accurate, but Joseph’s brothers selling him into slavery was not a work of grace. It was a terrible sin. Sure, God worked it out for good. But I don’t think that makes a sinful action a work of grace.
I may have missed it but when the Germans take themselves off the Catholic registry do they save thousands of dollars in taxes or does that tax money that was going to the church just go to a general government tax fund instead?
No. They have to designate another church or charity.
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.
I’m no fan of “cancel culture” but as antithetical as it is to my way of thinking there are certain situations where I don’t think of removing someone’s work to be the same thing. For example, I am not in favor of tearing down civil war monuments but am okay with removing a confederate flag from a courthouse. I think it has more to do with what the object was meant to convey at the time and the harm it might render today than simply making assumptions that it should be removed. If someone wants to look at art created by Marco Rupnik in his home, and believes it brings him closer to God in some way I can question that but not care. But if parishioners are forced to walk in and see the art and would associate it with scandal then that is different to me. That seems to send a message that takes one’s thoughts away from God, not closer to Him. I understood it was scandal that removed the music of David Haas (no great loss to me but upset many) and it would seem the same concept would apply in this instance. Same with Fr Cesareo Gabaraon. But along that same line, why haven’t more churches done away with “Life Teen” masses that were invented/inspired by Dale Fushek (excommunicated 2008; laicized 2010) who used the program to attract teen boys? Talk about scandal.
So Life Teen masses still exist? They used to be everywhere but I haven't seen one in years (no great loss to me either).
Sadly, yes. But glad to read you aren’t seeing them where you are. 😊
2809?
The thing most people miss about Rupnik is that he is still alive and so are his victims. Because of that, I do think his art should be avoided and removed. It’s one thing to admire the art of a murderer who died hundreds of years ago and another to display a mural from a sexual abuser who is still walking around. Plus, the Church’s tolerance of abusers in recent (even current) memory makes promoting his art particularly gross.
Excellent article especially the analysis of the Romanov family heir being a possible acceptable head of state if the world 🌎 was lucky enough to have Putin removed from power and the senseless war crimes in Ukraine 🇺🇦 ceased. Who knows what they might have stirred up in the powers of Heaven by misusing that Russian icon as a prop to justify their "holy" war just a month or two ago, especially since Pope Francis had already consecrated Ukraine 🇺🇦 to the heart of Mary over a year ago.
Just never know really what the good Lord's Providence may turn out to be. That's why he is omnipotent and we are not, thankfully.
Good discussion about Fr. Marlo Rupnik and the connection between one’s inner spiritual state and the art produced. Could I ask for comments on this quote from Jacques Maitain?
“Reason does not consist of its conscious logical tools and manifestations, nor does the will consist only in its deliberate conscious determinations. Far beneath the sunlit surface thronged with explicit concepts and judgments, words and expressed resolutions or movements of the will, are the sources of knowledge and creativity, of love and supra-sensuous desires, hidden in the primordial translucid night of the intimate vitality of the soul. Thus it is that we must recognize the existence of an unconscious or preconscious which pertains to the spiritual powers of the human soul and to the inner abyss of personal freedom, and if the personal thirst and striving for knowing and seeing, grasping and expressing.”
From Creative Intuition in Art and Poetry 1953
If this is correct, does art ever stand apart from the artist? Can one ever really look at the artist’s work without also seeing the artist’s soul?
In the case of David Haas, it’s likely that the removal of his music meant denying him royalties owed when it was used.
I honestly don't see the appeal of Rupnik's art in the first place. At best it's acceptable, at worst it's grotesque - like that infamous three-eyed image. Caravaggio, he ain't!
I continue to be baffled by the extreme passions roused in the Syro-Malabar Church - although the "uniform mode" does sound like the sort of solution designed to make everyone equally unhappy. I would have thought that if people would be rioting over anything, it'd be over keeping their ancient forms, not something that's only been around for 50 years!
You nailed it!
“And while Rupnik’s work has always struck me as simultaneously weird and cloying, I fully accept that many people find beauty in it.”
I thought I was the only person repulsed by his “art”.
Looks like no one wants to remove his stuff either. Knights of Columbus are not making a move to dump his work either. (Did he do the work with the bishop or cardinal showing his derrière?)
The usual excuses. “We paid a lot of money” being the most important.
At some point, the astonishing principle of DTRT (doing the right thing) might infect their thinking forcing them to DTRT.
Plus, I’m pretty sure that’s a platonic precept so it’s gonna happen.
Ok well, kinda sure.
If not Plato, then I’m certain Sr Mary Margaret would’ve given you That Look when you made a bad decision/do something stupid so you fix it ASAP.
(Not meaning to make light of our dear sisters who suffered under this demon who abused them. Frankly, I keep hoping the Vatican really does have a hit team of former Marines/SF/SEALS to take out the evil ones.)
Holy Spirit help us!
Did you say that you swore allegiance to the British crown? If so, why? Aren’t you an American?