Should Rupnik's Art Be Destroyed? w/ Fr. Jason Charron
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 авг 2024
- Full Episode: mattfradd.loca...
Fr. Jason and Matt Fradd read an article from Katie McGrady on accidentally buying an art piece made by a serial abuser.
Source: international....
🟣 Join Us on Locals (before we get banned on YT): mattfradd.loca...
📖 Fr. Pine's Book: bit.ly/3lEsP8F
🖥️ Website: pintswithaquin...
🟢 Rumble: rumble.com/c/p...
👕 Merch: shop.pintswith...
🔵 Facebook: / mattfradd
📸 Instagram: / mattfradd
From my understanding his abuse was a part of his “artistic process” when creating his “art”. If true, that alone is reason to remove them, because they were made specifically in a blasphemous way.
He used his artistic reputation to groom, classic abuser behavior
Lord have Mercy. How vile.
Why are we forced to appreciate “art” that on first glance is ugly and almost demonic, but gaslight ourselves that it is sacred and beautiful? No one looks at Da Vinci and forces themselves to think it’s beautiful-it just is. Why is it so hard for masterful, elevating, and transcendent sacred art to be promoted and created today?
Well, did you know about davinci's personal life? Was he a man of prayer? If anything many people have said he was Homosexual. It is not Davinci the artist that makes his work meaningful. It is not davinci that makes the last supper meaningful, it is Christ that makes it meaningful. Davinci last supper is not his personal story.
How about caravaggio who was a violent man, but yet his paintings are in Rome? How about Mozart who lived a reckless life, yet his Requime is one of the Most powerful piece of Catholic music?
@iphang-ishordavid2954 Their point is that there is under- appreciated value to a non-stylised and more realistic type of artwork and not everything has to be “deconstructed”. Da Vinci’s are was just used as an example for that, I don’t know why you thought that they were implying something else.
Da Vinci’s artwork is so beloved because it is done well and masterfully. That does not inherently mean that it is holy, but it is incredibly well done artwork.
@iphang-ishordavid2954 also another commenter here has mentioned the possibility that this priest in question (btw this artist was actually ordained as a priest, unlike Da Vinci, Mozart and the others you mentioned) may have used his “activities” to help inspire his “art”, so that adds an element to this that isn’t there when discussing Da Vinci’s or Mozart’s lifestyles.
@@iphang-ishordavid2954 i don’t care about their personal lives. Their art is sublime, elevating, and timeless
@@iphang-ishordavid2954 You can be a man of faith while having any sexual orientation. You can also be a sinner and a man of faith... that's pretty much the deal & our lot in this life. You're right that it's not Da Vinci the man that makes his works meaningful, it's not a cult of personality and he's no saint. It's the produced works themselves, the mastery of craft and employment of it, his gift of perception and capacity to communicate it clearly in/through his craft. To do so in a universal language at that. And so his works are universally acknowledged. This aspect of his life is very much in accordance with the faithful's practice & way of life; that is, to value Truth, Beauty, the Good, the sublime -- all one and the same -- and strive towards it. It is not the New Testament's words that make Da Vinci's art a glimpse of the sublime. The words and the tale itself is sublime, yes. There are many ugly & incompetent cross-media communications of the very same words. Miscommunications. A broken telephone. Some individuals throughout history, once in a while, are capable of communicating with clarity what it is that they've grasped. Be it God's works or words.
Pope Francis lifted the statute of limitations so that he could further investigate Rupnik. Let’s pray that this is fruitful.
I have been using this guide to praying the rosary from the Knights of Columbus. They put some art in there to illustrate the mysteries. There were a few illustrations that bothered me, and I could never put my finger on why exactly… I looked at the credits and of course they’re Rupnik’s. Now I’m going to throw it away or burn it. I’m telling you there’s something deeply disturbing about the way the eyes look in his paintings/mosaics.
The difference is Rupnik is a priest!!!!! Da Vinci is not!
Btw he's from Slovenia and a half hours drive from my town
I completely agree. God bless, gentlemen.
I think Rupnic's art just has a creepy, off-kilter vibe. Even if he was innocent, I wouldn't put his art on holy things.
Totally creepy
It’s disgusting that it’s still up at Lourdes
Who liked the art? The only people who liked it were the yes people around him and people who are ignorant of icons.
Actually a lot of people in Slovenia were (probably still are) obssesed with his art😥
Byzantine style of Icon Making is not the only way of making icons. And the Byzantine style of art was not generally for religious purpose alone... though much of it survived, because of its preservation in the Orthodox church.
But If you go to Ethiopian or Coptic churches you find a different style of icons. No Council ever dogmatised a particular style of iconography. Though I too am very comfortable and love the Byzantine style
@@iphang-ishordavid2954 I know it’s not the only way and I didn’t say anything about any of it being dogmatized. I was just saying that his style comes from him, and he turned out to be an evil pervert. I haven’t met really anyone but yes people and ignorant people who liked it. Most people who were honest with themselves admitted it wasn’t good art. How could it be when it comes from a man like that. That’s why his style will not catch on, nobody will want to carry it on as a tradition like with other styles.
@@laraluna9365 well, I don't think people who have done evil automatically make bad art. Most of the art that was done in the Renaissance were not made by pious godly people. Caravaggio, whose works are in Rome and admired by a lot of people all over the world, was known to be very violent and a convicted murderer.
It's a very modern way to look at art only through the lense of the artist. Subject matter also matters. Many artist from the Renaissance and backwards were not telling their personal stories. Personal stories is a modern approach to art.
When davinci was told to make the last supper, it wasn't because he was a pious and godly man. It's because he had skills and the subject matter had nothing to do with him. For the most part, many people say he was a Homosexual.
When I see an icon of Christ, I don't start trying to find out who was the artist and what his moral life was. I see Christ
@@iphang-ishordavid2954 i agree that there can be good art, even if the artist is corrupt, but in the case of Rupnik it is art itself that is not to be admired, empty black eyes, random blue and white circles, the theology behind it etc...
His art should be banned for the simple fact that it’s absolutely horrendous.
Horrendous & evil!
He's got some 3 eye demonic stuff going on there.
It's a very modern and poor recreation of Byzantine art. It makes me think of art very popular in modernist circles. Never been a fan of it.
Even before hearing about the scandal, I never liked it
Totally agree with Fr. Jason, we need more Priests to take this same stance. Maybe even one day the Vatican will as well, IDK.
Watch full episode: mattfradd.locals.com/support
I never liked his art anyways.
Without question YES
If is turns out that Michelangelo was a blasphemer, how the hell is the Vatican going to take down the Sistine Chapel?
Iconography is not “art” per se, it is first of all prayer, or an extension of Scripture, as Father said. The process of creating an icon is inseparable from the rich theological symbolism behind it, from the canon of colors to the proportions of the face to the process of adding highlights. Highlights are particularly important in icons because of the theological significance of light. One of the last and most important brushstrokes in the creation of an icon is the highlight using pure white paint added to the inner eye of the Saint depicted. It is one of the only places in the entire icon where pure white paint is used (because in other places in the icon, the white is tinted with color). Rupnik’s work rebels against and departs from this principle of light in traditional iconography. Rupnik depicted eyes with pure black, the absolute opposite of pure white. That is, theologically, a symbol of the demonic. Also, in iconography the faces of angels and saints are depicted either in full face or in three quarters of the face, but never in profile. Only demons or non-saints such as Judas are allowed to be depicted in profile. So this nonsense in Rupnik’s work with faces sharing one eye is not only hideous at an aesthetic level, it is demonic at a spiritual level. Now… about Michelangelo… this gets tricky. Michelangelo wasn’t making an icon- he was creating a statue and was therefore not operating under the canon of iconography. His artwork stands alone as a masterpiece which leads the viewer to contemplation of higher things via its objective beauty à la the three qualities of beauty outlines by St Thomas Aquinas. If Michelangelo turned out to be a blasphemous loser, it wouldn’t change the fact that his art stands alone, culturally speaking, as a masterpiece. It would be iconoclastic to remove Michelangelo’s work. The Pietà is indisputably an artistic masterpiece which leads to contemplation according to the classical principles of art. Rupnik’s “art” however is bad art, period, and doesn’t even hold a candle to Michelangelo, so there isn’t much of a loss in tearing it out of the churches. But more importantly, Rupnik’s art was professing to be an ICON but was done in a totally rebellious, actively sacreligious way. It isn’t at all iconoclastic to remove Rupnik’s work because it isn’t an icon in the first place- it is the opposite of iconography- it is, by Rupnik’s choice, sacreligious, and there is no loss either artistically or spiritually, to remove that art. There are plenty of traditional Catholic artists out there who are faithful and hard-working and trying to support their families and they ought to be the ones adorning the walls of churches with art rather than creepy heretic “Jesuits.”
Well said. Thank you.
Yeah, I think so, but let me press something that's bugging me: say an icon is written by a schismatic or a heretic. Should that icon be forgotten by Catholics? Certainly not. An icon is an icon, and the Church at Her best has adopted and adapted the best rival traditions like paganism and non-Catholic Christianity have to offer since the beginning. I don't want us to fall into the trap of polarization. That being said, let's forget about this man's work.
The thing is that the Icon was deliberarely made to be ugly, it by design fails its purpose of glorifying God and His Saints
Is it obvious that an icon written by a schismatic shouldn't be forgotten? If we're talking about icons written early on when the churches theology wasn't as uniform, and some views where later decided to be dogmatically heretical, that's one thing. But if someone is openly committing heresies within the church, that could be another thing entirely. The symbolism of iconography is deeply theological, it seems like there's a chance Rutkin was putting theological language into his icons that is intentionally and blatantly heretical.
@@etheretherether I regret not qualifying that I don't believe all icons are good, beautiful, and worth preserving. There is an Orthodox icon that comes to mind that portrays the Catholic Papacy as a persecutor of Christ's Church. That being said, how many icons venerated by us today were written by Orthodox post-schism? That's not a rhetorical question, but I suspect it's significant.
I literally played rap music with a blue-grass melody at Chesterton's this past weekend... I'm convinced everyone loved it! Hahahaha Seriously though, the "art" is ugly and that's reason enough to destroy it.
My first reaction was that those images looked like the same style at the JPII Shrine in DC, and sure enough, one quick google search confirmed it. I remember when that shrine was made and knew someone who was directly invoved in its coming together. It was a ton of work over several years and cost a pretty penny.
Im torn, because my emotions say to remove it. I dont think I could ever go into that chapel again and not think about the scandal. At the same time, I know the painstaking efforts it took to transform an ugly building into a shrine and it wasnt that long ago, 2011, I think. I feel sorry for all those involved that after all their hanrd work, they might have to redo the chapel, not to mention the significant costs that they accrued and will accrue again if rhey redo it.
So are you the same person who would get rid of "the last supper" because it was painted by a gay man?
@@david-nt3cz there's a difference between a lay artist painting a religious image and a priest writing an icon - which is supposed to be the fruit of prayer- when in reality he was incorporating his abuse into it.
The former is a sinful man (just like we ALL are) creating art and the latter is someone who deliberately used his position as a means for abuse and united that with what is supposed to be prayer visualized in art and instead is abuse visualized in art.
If there was something profane in the Last Supper, then I'd say, get rid of it. But there isn't.
@@mementomori7266 Interesting observation.
I don't know enough about the abuse to comment on it, but I never liked Fr. Rupnik's "art." The eye thing is grotesque and meant to shock/cause scandal, it draws attention to the artist and away from God and does nothing to explain or illustrate the message of the gospel. It's pretentious and prideful in the way that modern art tends to be and alienates the viewer. On the one hand, the post-conciliar church wants to be more "welcoming," on the other hand, more modern art was brought into the church after the council despite it being ugly, off-putting, confusing and pretentious. I used to think the ugly art was there because of lower church attendance and lower collection money, but I was shocked to find out how much that stuff costs (an argument could be made for it if it was truly cheaper). It's time to course correct. What's worse is that there are other, more talented artists out there struggling to make a buck like DelphinaRoseArt/Stellamarigoldart, Baritus Catholic, and Visual Litany, and worthless art like Rupnik's takes up the space that others could have. It wouldn't be possible for the church to just tear it all down in one day, but to slowly replace it with something of greater merit and made with greater love would not be a bad move.
Amen!!!
His art doesn't glorify God. It is a distraction by association with its gravely abusive creator, but it also fails to glorify God in its own right.
Would you say Caravaggio, who was a very terrible person, a murderer, and whose paintings are in Rome Glorify God? And if there do how will you know?
There is artwork of him outside the sanctuary of Our Lady of Ta Pinu in Gozo, Malta (four of them depicting each mystery of the rosary) and another piece of art work in front of the church, and I feel conflicted that everytime I visit the sanctuary I remember that an abuser did them. At the same time the project of making the sanctuary beautiful costed millions of euros which were paid from the Maltese taxes. So it's a double-edged sword!
Cardinal O’ Malley was clear on this in June: “Pastoral prudence would prevent displaying artwork in a way that could imply either exoneration or a subtle defense” [of alleged perpetrators of abuse] “or indicate indifference to the pain and suffering of so many victims of abuse.”
But then we have the problem of Caravaggio the murderer and the practicing homosexuals Raphael, Michaelangelo and many others whose work is the essence of some of our most important churches. Will we be tearing down St Peter’s?
Trust the art, not the artist.
Thanks Fr Jason
Id put a slightly different take on it. I think Fathers point was well made that this incorporates the church as opposed to simply secular art. I don't know the theology but could, rather than destroying it, we recognise that these were the productions of systematic mortal sin and perform some kind of excorsistic rites over them as we could with just about any object and then simply pass them over to the secular authorities or put them out of public access? Whilst it might be justified in this case, id be hesitant to start down the road of destroying art because it was done in a milui of sin. Shakespeare could be censored on this basis in fact virtually all renaissance art could too. Carravaggio was a murderer and a habitual grave sinner. The point that this was iconographic is the dileneation point though. Pragmatically, nobody must profit from this art in any way.
evil of course it should be removed.....
How about San Giovanni Rotondo? There are works of his on an immeasurable scale. What if all these were done from donations? Should these people all be contacted and asked what to do with hia art? Just wondering...
His iconography is a mockery of the Byzantine style. It's creepy and intentionally distorted. There's a reason there are established forms for creating iconography, without them you get the heart of the artist drawn or painted into the art, and in this case the artist's heart is black and disordered and it really shows.
Before you broadcast, let the vatican trial go forth and a verdic rendered. Why is it these "catholic" channels love to rush to judgement?
Michaelangelo was not a priest.
I understand the circumstances concerning this question, But in a way it sounds too puritan. If a murdered makes an image or icon of jesus, and follows all the artistic rules of iconography, does it mean the Icon or image is invalid? Or demonic? I think there are two approach artist take. They are some artistic who tell personal stories, there are others who make art that are not exactly personal.
I think subject matter is important too. I am glad you mentioned Michelangelo, many people have alluded to His Homosexuality. Caravaggio was a Murderer, yet his paintings are in Rome. Should we all together ban their works? I am sure when you dig into the personal lives of many of this artist, they were not really pious men, how about the last supper by Davinci, davinci was far from a man of faith, should we remove his work?
This argument, sounds very similar to those who thinks its okay to tear down and vandalise historical statues, became of moral failings on their part.
I am not saying his terrible sin were good or justified, but what i am looking at now are the subject matter of the art.
When i see a beautiful painted icon, i see Christ. I have no idea of the Artist who painted it, or what his personal life was.
I think they should be gone because the art is awful. Forgive me it’s the artist in me. 😂
Agree!
Thank God their Knights of Columbus are covering and then removing the mosaics from St John Paul II National shrine also in CT .
Been wrestling with his exact question. Appreciated what you said about it being a distraction from the gospel and that being more at the heart of the matter. Obviously, also want to consider what might affect the victims, but I always kept ending up at what length if the Lord may have used the abuser in some way in the past through creating good art. Not saying that was the case with this priest but thought it was a great take that can be applied to a lot of situations we are seeing throughout the church.
keep up the great content.
A priest having a greater influence on the people is also held to a higher standard. To support his works is to condone his sin and endorse him as a spiritual leader.
Are there any mosaics by Rupnik, or any paintings, in the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Washington D.C.?
If true then yes, stoke the fire under his stake with his own art.
I found this interesting.
"Expelled from the Jesuits" is all you need to know. What the hell have you got to do to be kicked out of the Society???
Art, like any other creation or service, should be evaluated on its own merits. Just as we don't judge the quality of electrical wiring or plumbing based on the personal lives of the electricians or plumbers who installed them, we shouldn't conflate the value of art with the moral character of its creator. The Sistine Chapel doesn't become less beautiful if we discover Michelangelo was unkind to his neighbors, nor does a perfectly installed toilet lose its functionality if the plumber has personal flaws. While it's natural to be curious about artists' lives, it's important to separate the art from the artist when assessing its cultural, aesthetic, or functional value. After all, we seek out art for its ability to move, inspire, or challenge us - not as a referendum on its creator's personal conduct.
@@crazyedswonderfulworldofso9370 yeah, but it seems that the sins attached to this art is more than that Rutnik was “unkind to his neighbors”…
I really want to get a Catholic symbol tattooed on my arm, but I'm not sure what to get. Can anyone help me?
Tattoos are gay
A Chi-Rho Christogram tattoo is a centuries old practice
Don’t do it at all.
You should not tatoo on your body read Leviticus in old Testament and there is even a prayer for decommission of tatoos in the exorcism prayer book. So tatooing is a bad idea who knows if the ink is cursed that too affects you badly. Why do you want any afflictions for yourself. Think about it.
Read about the oldest tattoo place in Jerusalem, pilgrims have been going there for centuries. Fr Mike Schmitz got a Jerusalem cross tattoo there.
Art doesn’t have to be destroyed, but it also doesn’t have to be displayed. His shouldn’t be as long as his case still hasn’t been dealt with properly. Really, it’s not as if he’s the only artist out there…
Yes.
What, precisely, is the sin of absolving an accomplice to the sin of the 6th commandment?
Basically, Rupnik slept with a woman he wasn't married to (so, a sin against the 6th commandment) and then he acted as her priest and absolved her of the sin in which he participated.
That was a great video. I love this priest. ❤
The style looks like a caricature of orthodox icons for sm reason, the eyes & faces in his works are unsettling. Not in a sublime or contemplative way, but in a bestial way. The eyes on those people are bestial instead of human with the proportion choices.
No
Where did you dig up this Charron guy?
Was there any definitive judgment pronounced on fr. Rupnik? Or is everyone going after him based on mere allegations?
Yes. He got excommunicated for awhile.
The judgment was pronounced: he was found guilty and excommunicated for a while. But when he repented he was accepted back in the church. But he cannot work as a priest anymore as far as I know.
He was also thrown out from the Jesuit order. And I was wrong, he can still offer masses, but only privately (without other people present). The investigation was from I think 2019-2022. He was very much found guilty. Unfortunately. I'm from Slovenia where he's from, that's why I'm quite invested in this case.
And he cannot offer sacraments anymore.
I find his artwork creepy and asymettrical, I want it removed and replaced with real Byzantine art.
Sorry, but I need to take issue with Father's contention that rap and bluegrass don't mix. The group Gangstagrass is a thing, and they are GREAT!
He's just trying to make a point...
😢
It’s because he was used the art as of the abuse.
Ex opere operato
I think you always need to separate the art from the artist. This was T.S. Eliot's take a century ago, and I agree with it. If an artist's sins reflect in the art itself (as with Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will e.g.), then yeah get rid of it. But otherwise you're down a slippery slope of having to discern the moral character of every artist. How would I read Homer? I don't know what he was up to in his spare time... But if Rupnik is current and people are viscerally reminded of his perversion when in a church, then I take your point, but only as an exception to the general rule.
God Bless you! You are the only comment that has spoken objectively in this discourse. I think this is a puritan slippery slope . I thinks subject matter matters a lot. There are many works of art that we know nothing of the artist. This is a modern way of looking at art through the lenses of the artist only. When davinci was commissioned to paint the last supper, he wasn't commissioned because he was a faithful and pious Christian, and he wasn't commissioned to paint about himself. If you've never known about davinci, you will look at the last supper and think of Christ, not davinci. Many have accused davinci of even being Homosexual.
How about caravaggio, who murdered and was known to be very violent, yet his works are in Rome, when I see his works, I don't think of a murderer, I think of the subject matter I am seeing. I think subject matter really artist. I can't see an icon of Christ and start asking if the artist was a faithful Christian or not, because its not a personal subject matter.
Like you said, except the artist it's trying to promote that lifestyle in the art, then that will raise more concern.
Modernism views art only through the Artist and that is the sentiments I am seeing in this comment section
Yes, moving on
We could also ask tje question: if his art is repulsive to look at even without knowing anything about the artist, why was he chosen? Because many people liked his style. As simple as that. There is a lot of ugly artwork btw...
It’s not even good art. It’s weird post V2 faux exaggerated versions of traditionalist Catholic art.
Hallelujah!!! I’m favored and blessed with $60,000 every week! Now I can afford anything and also support the work of God and the church.
Oh really? Tell me more!
This is what Ana Graciela Blackwelder does, she has changed my life.
After raising up to 60k trading with her, I bought a new house and car here in the US and also paid for my son’s (Oscar) surgery. Glory to God.shalom.
I know Ana Graciela Blackwelder, and I have also had success...
Absolutely! I have heard stories of people who started with little or no knowledge but managed to emerge victorious thanks to Ana Graciela Blackwelder.
Yes, but for different reasons: It's sacreligious trash, not sacred.
Yes.