Pope’s management aide, girls who say they were abused by former Jesuit artist, ask to get rid of mosaic

ROME (AP) – The Scandal over a famous ex-Jesuit artist Some of his alleged victims and the Pope’s personal anti-abuse aide, who is accused of psychological, spiritual and sexual abuse of adult women, pleaded Friday not to publicize or display his works of art.

Distant works underlined how the case of the Rev. Marko Rupnik, whose mosaics grace perhaps the Catholic Church’s most visited temples and sanctuaries, headache persists For the Vatican and Pope Francis, who as a Jesuit himself has been caught up in the scandal.

Earlier Friday, five women who said Rupnik had abused them sent letters to Catholic bishops around the world asking them to remove his mosaics from their churches, saying their permanent display in parks of prayer was “inappropriate.” and re-traumatizing victims.

One by one, Cardinal Sean O’Malley, head of the Pope’s Pontifical Commission for the Coverage of Minors, sent his personal letter urging Vatican offices to prohibit displaying Rupnik’s works. He said the enduring importance of the actions ignores the pain of the victims and may indicate patronage of the Slovenian priesthood.

Two-way messages have been issued from the Vatican’s management communications officer, strongly defending the use of photographs of Rupnik paintings on the Vatican News website, stressing that it caused unfair harm to the victims and was a was the Christian response.

The Rupnik scam first came to public notice in 2022 during a Jesuit spiritual group admitted that he was excommunicated In short, for committing one of the Catholic Church’s most serious crimes: using a confession to exonerate a girl with whom he had had sex.

The case caused trouble for the Jesuits and Francis, as several more women came forward to declare that they too had been victimized by Rupnik. The Vatican at first declined to prosecute, saying the claims were too old.

However, the next hearing will be from additional patients Jesuits expelled Rupnik out of line and Francis – out of suspicion that he had secured his fellow Jesuits by force – waived the statute of limitations so that the Vatican clearly the right kind of canonical test,

Rupnik has not spoken publicly on the allegations in the future and has refused to answer to his Jesuit superiors during their investigation. His supporters at the Centro Altea artwork studio have condemned what he said A media “lynching.”

The controversy about what to do with Rupnik’s works, as the Vatican’s investigation into them continues, is not an issue of “cancel culture” or the age-old debate over whether one can respect art, such as Caravaggio. , one by one by the artist’s actions: Probably most of the girls who say they have been victimized by Rupnik say that the abuse occurred during the installation of the paintings themselves, resulting in mosaics that are a triggering and nerve-racking reminder. What they stand for.

One nun said she was abused on the scaffolding when the mosaics were being installed in the church, while another said she presented herself as one.

His letter states, “Despite the passage of so many years, the trauma that both had to endure has not been erased, and it is alive again in the presence of both of Father Rupnik’s works.” Names of his 5 buyers,

It was sent from Brazil to the bishops of Lebanon and the dioceses in between, including chapels, church buildings or basilicas, which contain some of Rupnik’s 230 mosaics.

The Vatican’s lawsuit against Rupnik is ongoing – Asgro says he has not been contacted to testify for his clients – and many of Rupnik’s defenders in the Vatican and beyond say they will wait until the Vatican hears its decision. Till then it is not appropriate to test the final decision.

However the scandal was revived when the head of the Vatican’s communications branch, Paolo Ruffini, was asked at a Catholic media conference why the Vatican News website was still displaying the image of the Rupnik mosaic.

Ruffini defended the use of the picture, saying that he was in the wrong position to pass judgment on the painting and that in the history of civilization, “removing, erasing, or destroying art has never been a good option.”

When it was revealed that he had not discussed the effects on the victims of the Vatican-promoted optical illusion images, Ruffini said that the girls were not minors and that in that era “proximity to the victims is important, not me”. “I don’t know that this (removing the artwork) is a form of healing.”

When our Sunday Customer Information reporter Paulina Guzik recommended otherwise, Ruffini noted: “I think you’re wrong. I think you’re wrong. I really think you’re wrong.”

His comments surprised the victims and seem to have prompted O’Malley to send a letter to all Vatican offices, stating that he was hoping “pastoral prudence would prevail over displaying artwork in this way.” which could mean either an acquittal or a subtle defence”. Perpetrators of abuse.

“We must avoid sending the message that the Holy See is oblivious to the psychological distress from which so many people are suffering,” O’Malley wrote on June 26 in the name of the charges.

The five girls reiterated his message in their letter.

The letter noted, “Let us be clear, this message is not a judgment about Father Rupnik’s actions, but rather a reflection about the appropriateness of his presence in holy places dedicated to our Lord.”

He noted that he did not want to prejudge the final outcome of the Vatican’s canonical trial or mandate that the mosaics be destroyed. Instead, he requested that they be taken out of parks of worship as a sign of respect for the victims and the sacred areas themselves, so that they “cast no shadow on the spirituality of the believers.”

For supporters of the victims, the Rupnik scandal and Ruffini’s comments are evidence that the Church fundamentally, and the Vatican in particular, Regularly ignore abuse of adult girls Rather than nerve-wracking abuse, it is unholy conduct by the monks that haunts them.

Sarah Larson, executive director of Conscience, a survivor support and advocacy group, said, “The continued use of Rupnik’s art is incredibly harmful to many abuse survivors, calling it a symbol of a continued lack of concern for the needs of all survivors. see as.” In an e-mail.

On the other hand, the removal of mosaics is not an easy matter as few protect the basilica facades (Lourdes, France); the entire interior (the Vatican’s private Redemptoris Mater Chapel); Or, on the theme of the Sanctuary of St. Padre Pio in southern Italy, a small church gilded all floor to ceiling.

Mosaics are a rough, expensive business, even for the church buildings that pay for them: At Most Life, the Basilica in Aparecida, Brazil – another major shrine for Catholics – capped its allegorical career with exuberant Hollywood-style music and dance productions. Designed façade inaugurated. and a nearly two-hour documentary about its building.

Alternative church buildings have smaller-scale mosaics but they still exist. The allegorical-designed mosaics at the Basilica of the Holy Trinity in Fatima, Portugal are so integral to its inventive and iconographic quality that the temple is seeking a place as an online UNESCO International Heritage Website.

However alternative church buildings are being reconsidered. Bishop Jean-Marc Michas, whose diocese includes the Lourdes, France pilgrimage site, started it Setting up to learn about the team Last day of imagining what to do with Rupnik’s mosaic. He took action when victims sent letters demanding a “gesture” from Lourdes and described Rupnik’s mosaics as a supplemental source of pain as they sought healing from their abuse.

A call is expected soon.

A reflected image of what may be a playground at the Knights of Columbus’ St. John Paul II National Shrine in Washington, D.C.

“We continue to pray for the victims and are carefully considering the best course of action regarding the mosaics that were installed in the temple,” Knights said in a comment. He said the final outcome of the Vatican’s canonical trial against Rupnik could be “one”. Important factors in our views.”