.
Here is a rather nuanced article from the National Catholic Reporter about the controversy of Rupnik's art
I agree — there’s a moral equivalency here that demands consideration, if that’s the right term. Hilary offers what I think is the most coherent distinction: artists, like all of us, are flawed. But accepting human imperfection requires boundaries. The real question is: where do we draw those lines? The phrase "There but for the grace of God go I" comes to mind.
Rupnik’s art is not just mediocre — it’s suspiciously prevalent. How did he get his foot in the door? Just curious... It feels lifeless, like a hollow imitation of sacred art. I remember when my parish was renovated in the '70s. The old traditional art and design was replaced with gaudy, glittery, simplistic mosaic decor. It was if they had stripped the space of its soul. My childhood religious imagery had vanished. It reminded me of Rupnik’s work: visually loud, spiritually empty.
We live in a fractured world — yet beauty persists, often defiantly. None of us is without flaws. The best we can do is practice contrition and seek redemption — not necessarily in the religious sense, but as a form of moral integrity. That’s what gives art its potential: the ability to reveal what others cannot see, unless the artist shows them.
Caravaggio is a perfect example. His personal darkness and intensity radiated through his use of light and shadow — a reflection of the man himself. To speak of Rupnik and Caravaggio in the same breath makes me gag.
And isn’t it always unsettling when someone described as kind, charitable, even saintly — is revealed to be capable of something monstrous?
.