[Glenn Wright]

I have changed my thinking about how to judge art created by villainous people. My training in the study of art and literature was dominated by the New Criticism of Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren in the late 60’s and early 70’s. In this school, a work of art is to be judged per se on the basis of its internal consistency, wit, unity, complexity, originality, and harmony of parts. The author’s life and milieu were discounted as more or less irrelevant to interpretation and evaluation.

As I matured, I came to realize that a work of art is more than merely a text, score, or fabrication. Every work of art is informed by its social, political, historical, biographical and philosophical considerations. This is especially true of sacred art, where the Church or diocese implies its endorsement of the views expressed in the mosaic or hymn and risks scandal if the artist’s life makes a mockery of the moral values promoted by the Church.

In the case of Marko Rupnik, I agree that the art is inferior, irrespective of the artist’s scandalous life. Because sacred art is displayed or presented in public ceremonies, you rightly point out the danger of re-victimizing those who suffered abuse by the artist.

David Haas’s case is similar to Rupnik’s, but his music is beautiful. Does this fact justify performing his music at religious ceremonies? When the news of Haas’s abuse of women was made public, our diocese responded by banning performance of his work. A couple of years later, his hymns have reappeared at Mass. I know we are all sinners, and that we should not judge lest we be judged, but I have concluded that out of respect for his victims, his music should not be part of a ceremony sponsored by the Church. Performing his work suggests tacit tolerance of his behavior by the institution entrusted with providing guidance in these matters.