The Catholic Message Board

Some may have heard of the Priest Fr Marko Rupnik who has long contributed his artwork/mosaics to Church buildings, advertising material even the covers of lectionaries and the book of the Gospels. He is now credibly accused by many women including nuns and novices, of appalling sexual behaviour and manipulation dating back decades. The debate now going on is... should his artworks (some of which were created while the female subjects were being abused) be removed/wiped from Catholic places?

One of the aspects being raised is that his artwork is not infused with the evil things he has done and is therefore still edifying for people. Personally I'm so appalled by learning what he has done, that I'm repulsed when I see his work which is easily recognisable. But that's not objectivity.

What do you think?

https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/dc-kni ... rt-removal

Remove it because it’s ugly. If we get too pushy, we will have to get rid of all the Caravaggio paintings.

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 4:19 pm Remove it because it’s ugly. If we get too pushy, we will have to get rid of all the Caravaggio paintings.

I think we can distinguish between Rupnik and artists like Caravaggio, Caravaggio was merely a violent man, whereas Rupnik allegedly incorporated grooming and abuse into his process (one of the former religious claimed that his grooming started when he asked her to model a collarbone, e.g.).

But Rupnik's work is ugly. (And so is Eric Gill's.) I've come to think that the primary problem is that Rupnik's work is so ubiquitous and so closely associated with the liturgical reform, that to remove the former would detract from the latter, and the Church can ill afford the implication that the liturgical reform was botched.

I'm torn.

If we begin to remove art because of sins of the artists, OR because it is ugly, we won't have any art left.

peregrinator wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 6:44 am I think we can distinguish between Rupnik and artists like Caravaggio, Caravaggio was merely a violent man, whereas Rupnik allegedly incorporated grooming and abuse into his process (one of the former religious claimed that his grooming started when he asked her to model a collarbone, e.g.).

Guessing that more sins, worse crimes, were perpetrated in history, however, the records don't exist for us to know today.

What comes next? Do we tear down buildings because the architect committed heinous acts?

At the same time, when these sins/crimes are so recent that the survivors and their families are going to be looking at this art and being reminded, is removal, not the compassionate thing to do?

I do agree that this art is ugly, remember the three-eyed hunchback of Mercy?

I'm against cancel culture in general. I would be happy never to sing anything written by David Haas, but that is because it's generally trite words attached to cheesy music, not because of his misdeeds.

Kage_ar wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 10:12 am I'm torn.

Kage_ar wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 10:12 am At the same time, when these sins/crimes are so recent that the survivors and their families are going to be looking at this art and being reminded, is removal, not the compassionate thing to do?

How many of the survivors are likely to visit, for example, the JP II cultural center in DC? And how many others are even going to know that it was Rupnik who made the "art" in question?

The evidence seems strong that Michaelangelo was gay, at the very least it is extremely odd that he devoted so much time and attention to male anatomy and had absolutely no interest in female anatomy. Does this mean we have to smash David and the Pieta and paint over the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?

Kage_ar wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 10:12 am If we begin to remove art because of sins of the artists, OR because it is ugly, we won't have any art left.

Really? There are many great works of art produced by virtuous artists. Of course they were all sinners but I'm willing to bet few have been excommunicated for abusing a sacrament.

What comes next? Do we tear down buildings because the architect committed heinous acts?

No, but maybe we tear down ugly ones.

Speaking of atrocious architecture, and bad church architecture specifically, there is a reason Modernists make ugly art and ugly churches: they hate beauty, and by intentionally making things ugly, they are making a statement, a quite intentional one. The people who make this art do not so under any belief that what they make is beautiful. And in the case of the "wreckovaction" of churches, they are taking beautiful churches and making them ugly with full knowledge that they are destroying beauty. It's a statement of who they are and what they value.

Doom wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 3:28 pm Speaking of atrocious architecture, and bad church architecture specifically, there is a reason Modernists make ugly art and ugly churches: they hate beauty, and by intentionally making things ugly, they are making a statement, a quite intentional one. The people who make this art do not so under any belief that what they make is beautiful. And in the case of the "wreckovaction" of churches, they are taking beautiful churches and making them ugly with full knowledge that they are destroying beauty. It's a statement of who they are and what they value.

Gee that's quite cynical, Doom. There is a human condition that Pope Francis has coined 'indietrismo', in English meaning 'backwardness'. It's more than nostalgia for the past but revering the past so much that today seems like it's without any redeeming qualities at all.

I remember marvelling at the great old architecture in the UK and Europe but I didn't experience people that lived with it day in and day out extolling it's superiority to modern architecture. When it's no longer a novelty, it's just stuff and not as important as you might think.

The Holy Spirit will go anywhere for Gods people.

It's not cynical, it's based on listening to what they say about why they do what they do, and they definitely do not think that they are creating beauty.

Doom wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 7:22 pm It's not cynical, it's based on listening to what they say about why they do what they do, and they definitely do not think that they are creating beauty.

You're going to have to provide citations that back this up. Also what particular Catholic Church would you cite as representing this quest for ugliness?

Would these modern Churches have been made to be deliberately ugly for example?

https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gal ... n-churches

Stella wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 8:32 pm Would these modern Churches have been made to be deliberately ugly for example?

https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gal ... n-churches

I was going to post a reply pointing to many ugly churches but each of the churches in your link beat out for ugliness all the ones I found.

They are hideous.

No way! You can't just use the word 'hideous' without defining what aspects of the structure you find appalling to that degree.

This is what hideous traditionally describes.
And this is hideous...
Why are the Churches so bad now that we've ruled out 'hideous'?

Doom wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 3:28 pm Speaking of atrocious architecture, and bad church architecture specifically, there is a reason Modernists make ugly art and ugly churches: they hate beauty, and by intentionally making things ugly, they are making a statement, a quite intentional one. The people who make this art do not so under any belief that what they make is beautiful. And in the case of the "wreckovaction" of churches, they are taking beautiful churches and making them ugly with full knowledge that they are destroying beauty. It's a statement of who they are and what they value.

Oh, I think there are some that have been gaslit into thinking brutalist architecture or Rupnik's work is beautiful and edifying.

A church should not look like a wrecked spaceship.

Look up "Brutalism." As peregrinator already noted, this is the architectural style involved, and "beauty" is not something it's aiming for.

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 10:44 am A church should not look like a wrecked spaceship.

Look up "Brutalism." As peregrinator already noted, this is the architectural style involved, and "beauty" is not something it's aiming for.

It's no mistake that brutalism is used especially for government buildings, such as the FBI headquarters. The purpose of brutalism is to create fear and intimidation in the mind of the viewer, hence the name of the movement. Indeed, it is no mistake that brutalism at its peak was used most extensively in totalitarian societies such as the Soviet Union, communist Yugoslavia and communist North Vietnam. Indeed, the movement declined largely because it became associated in the popular mind with totalitarianism.

Brutalism has never been popular with the public, whenever buildings are destroyed for aesthetic reasons they are almost always brutalist designs. A recent poll in the UK asked for 12 buildings that should be destroyed and replaced, 8 of those chosen were brutalist designs. It is surely not a coincidence.