Rupnik’s Art is Junk. Here’s Why:

[Michie]

Rupnik’s Art is Junk. Here’s Why:​

If he is guilty, Slovenian ex-Jesuit Markos Rupnik is clearly a pretty trashy guy, but what about his art? It’s junk and here’s why:

First we have to understand what sacred art is supposed to be and do. To do that one has to know a bit about art history.

In the earliest days Christians were wary of creating any religious images for fear of violating the commandment against making “graven images” (Exodus 20:4-5) However, the iconoclasm controversy in the 8-9th centuries clarified Christian teaching. Images were forbidden before the incarnation of Christ because no image of God was possible and pagan attempts to portray their gods were idolatrous. However, once the incarnation took place there was an image of the unseen God i.e. The Lord Jesus Christ. (Col. 1:5) Thereafter images of Jesus and his blessed Mother were permitted–and by extension images of saints who, it is argued–are sub-images of Christ.

A sacred image (icon) therefore pictures Jesus–the image of the unseen God and his mother and the saints. As such these image turn our hearts and minds to God through the physical senses. The second purpose of religious images is to aid our meditation on the events of the gospel.

Sacred art therefore has a unique function: it must somehow communicate the work of grace in the lives of mortals and within the events of human history. It must communicate the interaction of the human and the divine. This is not easy. If the artist is too literal in his representation of the human, it will be merely mundane–no more than a literal and uninspiring illustration. It fails to communicate the divine.

Continued below.

Rupnik’s Art is Junk. Here’s Why: | Fr. Dwight Longenecker

If he is guilty, Slovenian ex-Jesuit Markos Rupnik is clearly a pretty trashy guy, but what about his art? It's junk and here's why: First we have to understand what sacred art is supposed to be and do. To do that one has to know a bit about art history. In the earliest days Christians were wary

dwightlongenecker.com

 

[chevyontheriver]

Rupnik’s Art is Junk. Here’s Why:​

If he is guilty, Slovenian ex-Jesuit Markos Rupnik is clearly a pretty trashy guy, but what about his art? It’s junk and here’s why:

First we have to understand what sacred art is supposed to be and do. To do that one has to know a bit about art history.

In the earliest days Christians were wary of creating any religious images for fear of violating the commandment against making “graven images” (Exodus 20:4-5) However, the iconoclasm controversy in the 8-9th centuries clarified Christian teaching. Images were forbidden before the incarnation of Christ because no image of God was possible and pagan attempts to portray their gods were idolatrous. However, once the incarnation took place there was an image of the unseen God i.e. The Lord Jesus Christ. (Col. 1:5) Thereafter images of Jesus and his blessed Mother were permitted–and by extension images of saints who, it is argued–are sub-images of Christ.

A sacred image (icon) therefore pictures Jesus–the image of the unseen God and his mother and the saints. As such these image turn our hearts and minds to God through the physical senses. The second purpose of religious images is to aid our meditation on the events of the gospel.

Sacred art therefore has a unique function: it must somehow communicate the work of grace in the lives of mortals and within the events of human history. It must communicate the interaction of the human and the divine. This is not easy. If the artist is too literal in his representation of the human, it will be merely mundane–no more than a literal and uninspiring illustration. It fails to communicate the divine.

Continued below.

Rupnik’s Art is Junk. Here’s Why: | Fr. Dwight Longenecker

If he is guilty, Slovenian ex-Jesuit Markos Rupnik is clearly a pretty trashy guy, but what about his art? It's junk and here's why: First we have to understand what sacred art is supposed to be and do. To do that one has to know a bit about art history. In the earliest days Christians were wary

dwightlongenecker.com

I thought it was creepy before I even knew of the scandal of his life.

 

[Michie]

I thought it was creepy before I even knew of the scandal of his life.

I never found it all that inspiring.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I never found it all that inspiring.

Hey, after suffering the humiliation of the blowback from Fr. Rupnik getting a job in a Croatian diocese the Vatican finally finally decided to 'listen to women' and allow the previously protected Rupnik to face a canon law trial. He is being thrown under the bus after the previous handling of his case has been one big cluster ... scandal failure pretty much at the feet of pope Francis. Shades of McCarrick.

There isn't much way to popesplain this. It is sordid in the way one might expect of the Borgias.

 

[Michie]

Hey, after suffering the humiliation of the blowback from Fr. Rupnik getting a job in a Croatian diocese the Vatican finally finally decided to 'listen to women' and allow the previously protected Rupnik to face a canon law trial. He is being thrown under the bus after the previous handling of his case has been one big cluster ... scandal failure pretty much at the feet of pope Francis. Shades of McCarrick.

There isn't much way to popesplain this. It is sordid in the way one might expect of the Borgias.

Still waiting for the popesplaination…aren’t you?

Some of the things these nuns said he did. *shudder*

 

[chevyontheriver]

Still waiting for the popesplaination…aren’t you?

I don't think one is really possible without the 'splainer putting his or her foot in the cowpie.

Some of the things these nuns said he did. *shudder*

I guess I just don't understand depravity. But to let him get away with it for so long, what it says to the victims is that they need to just shut up. Finally finally something might be done about it. Maybe not justice, but some semblance of a dismissal from his priestly duties a la McCarrick.

I see his 'art' at mass in the missalettes. It makes me angry every time I see that cover.

 

[Michie]

I don't think one is really possible without the 'splainer putting his or her foot in the cowpie.

I guess I just don't understand depravity. But to let him get away with it for so long, what it says to the victims is that they need to just shut up. Finally finally something might be done about it. Maybe not justice, but some semblance of a dismissal from his priestly duties a la McCarrick.

I see his 'art' at mass in the missalettes. It makes me angry every time I see that cover.

I’m not into cancel culture but I would not complain about it in this case.

 

[Wolseley]

I don't like his artwork; it reminds me of Marc Chagall. But then, I never cared much for Chagall, either.

As for his life and actions, God will judge him.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I don't like his artwork; it reminds me of Marc Chagall. Bu then, I never cared much for Chagall, either.

As for his life and actions, God will judge him.

God will, and if it's not too much God will also call him to the opportunity of repentance. God is just.

The Church needs to judge that behavior wrong, and to judge that people who have done that behavior do not get to stand at the altar again. None of this 'who am I to judge' stuff. We don't judge their eternal fate, but those of us who are pastors of souls also judge who is fit for Church office. This guy should not be found fit to be a janitor in the Church.

And because his 'art' and his behavior are actually in his case related, it needs to all come down. In his case I don't see how an 'appreciation' of his 'art' can stand independent of his lecherous actions. I don't do cancel culture but this guy needs to either have all of his are removed OR it needs to stand as a recognized monument to lechery. At present that's what it stands for, and the buddy buddy system of Vatican protection of lechers.