Italian, english, español

WHY CARAVAGGIO YES AND RUPNIK NO?

If the value of a work depends on the morality of its author, then we will have to empty churches, museums and art galleries across the West

- Actuality -

.

.

PDF print format article – article print format – article in printed format

.

For some years now hosts of candid souls have formed who demand that the works of Jesuit Marko Ivan Rupnik be removed from churches, sanctuaries and places of worship. There is no shortage of professional indignants, the permanently scandalized and the vestal virgins who, after suddenly discovering the existence of sins against the Sixth Commandment, they call for the cancellation of the mosaics created by the former Slovenian Jesuit.

The fiercest accusers of this artist they are precisely those subjects who, a page before or two pages later, state and explain that certain rainbow-coloured ecclesiastics cannot be questioned for their life conduct, because certain vices and habits would be part of their private life.

An inevitable question then arises: the execrable sexual conduct attributed to Marko Ivan Rupnik perhaps took place in St. Peter's Square during the Sunday Angelus recitation, or they also belonged to his private life? Because, if private life is invoked as a reason to remove some subjects from any public judgment, it is difficult to understand why the same criterion should be suddenly abandoned when the subject in question is Marko Ivan Rupnik.

The accusation according to which the artist would have had a moral conduct incompatible with the presence of his works in sacred buildings, in fact it introduces a criterion so eccentric as to be impracticable when tested by facts. If applied with a minimum of consistency, it would in fact force us to empty not only part of the history of Christian art, but a considerable part of the history of Western art, especially the sacred one. Yet this very criterion is today proposed with increasing insistence. It is not simply asked that any personal responsibilities be ascertained by the competent ecclesiastical authorities, something different is expected: that the work is dragged into the same process as the man who created it; that the moral judgment on the author automatically transforms into condemnation of the work; what mosaics, frescoes, paintings and sculptures are evaluated not for what they represent, but for the private biography of those who created them.

The question, therefore, It's no longer just about Marko Ivan Rupnik. It concerns a much broader principle. Because if the artistic and spiritual value of a work must be measured on the basis of the moral conduct of its author, then we need to have the courage to apply this criterion to the entire history of art and not just to the artist who, for media or ideological reasons, has become the target of the moment.

Already in December of 2022, when the case had taken on international dimensions, Vicar General of His Holiness for the diocese of Rome, Cardinal Angelo De Donatis, recalled that Father Marko Ivan Rupnik had provided the Church of Rome with "numerous and precious ministerial services" and that his artistic activity had left a visible mark in ecclesial places of primary importance. At the same time he expressed dismay at the matter and assured full collaboration with the competent authorities. Two statements that are not mutually exclusive and that, indeed they should be kept together. One thing is to ascertain any personal responsibilities, another is the judgment on the artistic work produced by a person (cf.. Diocese of Rome, Statements by Cardinal Angelo De Donatis on the Rupnik case, 19 December 2022, who).

At this point the question becomes inevitable: we are really willing to apply to the history of art the criterion according to which the work must be condemned together with the man who created it? Because, if this is the path we intend to take, we will have to be consistent all the way. And then the problem will no longer concern only Marko Ivan Rupnik.

Let's start with Michelangelo Merisi known as Caravaggio. Extraordinary painter, author of some of the greatest masterpieces of sacred art, he was at the same time a violent man, involved in constant fights and legal affairs, until he killed Ranuccio Tomassoni in 1606 and to be formally condemned to death by the justice of the Papal State. Yet no one proposes removing the Vocation of Saint Matthew from the churches, the Conversion of Saint Paul, the Deposition, the Martyrdom of Saint Lucia and so on. Evidently the value of the work is not judged on the basis of its author's criminal record.

Let's move on to Benvenuto Cellini, sculptor, brilliant goldsmith and artist. The chronicles of his time and his own autobiography tell of murders, violence, fights and trials for sodomy. Even in this case no one has ever thought of eliminating his works from museums or erasing his name from the history of art.

We continue with Giovanni Antonio Bazzi, went down in history with the nickname of Sodom, which was not attributed to him out of distraction or gratuitous slander. Yet his frescoes, filled with clearly homoerotic scenes in Renaissance style, continue to be admired in churches and monasteries without anyone calling for campaigns to remove or cancel series of frescoes from monastic cloisters.

We then come to Gian Lorenzo Bernini, the greatest artist of the Roman Baroque. When he discovered the relationship between his brother and Costanza Bonarelli, of whom he was a lover, he reacted with such violence that one of his servants slashed the woman's face in revenge. This did not prevent his works from continuing to adorn basilicas, squares and churches, without anyone ever thinking of demolishing the Ecstasy of Saint Teresa or the Baldachin of Saint Peter.

We could go on and on. But the point is already clear: for centuries Christian and Western civilization has distinguished the moral judgment on man from the artistic judgment on the work. Today, instead, someone claims to introduce a new criterion according to which the artist's sin should automatically contaminate what he has created. Except support, when the protagonists are others, that no one should be interested in their lifestyle because they belong to that private sphere which, apparently, it remains inviolable for some and becomes a criterion of public condemnation for others.

Florence, 14 June 2026

.

WHY CARAVAGGIO YES AND RUPNIK NO?

If the value of a work of art depends upon the morality of its creator, then we shall have to empty churches, museums and art galleries throughout much of the Western world

— Actuality —

.

.

For several years now, whole ranks of pure souls have been demanding that the works of the Jesuit Marko Ivan Rupnik be removed from churches, shrines and places of worship. There is no shortage of professional moralists, perpetual scandal-seekers and modern vestal virgins who, having suddenly discovered the existence of sin, call for the removal of the mosaics created by the former Slovenian Jesuit (cf. here). The most relentless accusers of this artist are often the very same people who, one page earlier or two pages later, explain that certain rainbow-coloured churchmen should not be criticised for their conduct because such vices and habits belong to their private lives (cf. here).

An inevitable question therefore arises: were the sexual acts attributed to Marko Ivan Rupnik carried out in Saint Peter’s Square during the Sunday Angelus, or did they also belong to his private life? For if private life is invoked as a reason for shielding certain individuals from public scrutiny, it becomes difficult to understand why the same principle should suddenly be abandoned when the person concerned is Marko Ivan Rupnik.

The accusation that the artist’s alleged moral conduct is incompatible with the presence of his works in sacred buildings introduces a criterion so eccentric as to prove unworkable when tested against historical reality. Applied with even a minimum degree of consistency, it would require us to empty not only a significant part of Christian art, but a considerable portion of Western art as a whole, especially sacred art. Yet this is precisely the criterion that is being proposed with increasing insistence today. What is being demanded is not simply that any personal responsibilities be investigated by the competent ecclesiastical authorities. Something far more radical is being proposed: that the work of art be dragged into the same trial as the man who created it; that moral judgement upon the artist automatically become a condemnation of the work itself; that mosaics, frescoes, paintings and sculptures be evaluated not according to what they represent, but according to the private biography of their creator.

The issue, therefore, no longer concerns Marko Ivan Rupnik alone. It concerns a much broader principle. For if the artistic and spiritual value of a work must be measured according to the moral conduct of its creator, then one must have the courage to apply the same criterion to the whole history of art and not merely to the artist who, for media or ideological reasons, has become the latest target of public condemnation.

As early as December 2022, when the case had already assumed international dimensions, Cardinal Angelo De Donatis, Vicar General of His Holiness for the Diocese of Rome, recalled that Father Marko Ivan Rupnik had rendered «numerous and valuable ministerial services» to the Church of Rome and that his artistic activity had left a visible mark upon ecclesiastical sites of primary importance. At the same time, he expressed deep concern over the affair and assured full cooperation with the competent authorities. These are two statements that do not exclude one another and which, indeed, ought to be held together. One thing is the investigation of any personal responsibilities; quite another is the judgement to be passed on the artistic work produced by a person (cf. Diocese of Rome, Statement of Cardinal Angelo De Donatis regarding the Rupnik case, 19 December 2022, here).

At this point the question becomes unavoidable: are we truly prepared to apply to the whole history of art the principle that a work must be condemned together with the man who created it? For if this is the road we intend to take, then we must be consistent to the very end. And in that case the problem will no longer concern Marko Ivan Rupnik alone.

Let us begin, then, with Michelangelo Merisi, known as Caravaggio. An extraordinary painter and the creator of some of the greatest masterpieces of sacred art, he was at the same time a violent man, constantly involved in brawls and legal troubles, eventually killing Ranuccio Tomassoni in 1606 and being sentenced to death by the courts of the Papal States. Yet no one proposes removing from churches The Calling of Saint Matthew, The Conversion of Saint Paul, The Entombment, or The Burial of Saint Lucy. Evidently, the value of the work is not judged on the basis of the criminal record of its creator.

Let us move on to Benvenuto Cellini, sculptor, goldsmith and artistic genius. The chronicles of his age and his own autobiography recount murders, acts of violence, brawls and trials for sodomy. Yet no one has ever suggested removing his works from museums or erasing his name from the history of art.

We may continue with Giovanni Antonio Bazzi, who entered history under the nickname of Sodoma, a name that was certainly not bestowed upon him by accident, still less through gratuitous slander. Nevertheless, his frescoes, permeated with unmistakably homoerotic Renaissance imagery, continue to be admired in churches and monasteries without anyone calling for campaigns of removal or for entire cycles of frescoes to be erased from monastic cloisters.

Then there is Gian Lorenzo Bernini, the greatest artist of the Roman Baroque. Upon discovering the relationship between his brother and Costanza Bonarelli, with whom he himself was involved, he reacted with such violence that he had the woman’s face slashed by one of his servants in an act of revenge. Yet this has not prevented his works from continuing to adorn basilicas, churches and public squares, nor has anyone ever suggested demolishing the Ecstasy of Saint Teresa or the Baldachin of Saint Peter’s Basilica.

We could continue at length. Yet the point is already clear enough: for centuries Christian and Western civilisation distinguished between moral judgement upon the individual and artistic judgement upon the work. Today, by contrast, some seek to introduce a new criterion according to which the artist’s sin should automatically contaminate whatever he has created.

This principle, however, is not applied consistently. For the very same people who demand that works of art be judged according to the moral conduct of their creators are often the first to insist, when confronted with the conduct of others, that such matters belong exclusively to the sphere of private life and should therefore be of no concern to anyone else.

The question, then, remains unanswered: why should one principle apply to Marko Ivan Rupnik and another to everyone else? If the value of a work of art truly depends upon the moral perfection of its creator, then consistency would require us to remove from churches, monasteries, museums and galleries a considerable part of the artistic heritage of the Christian West. If, on the other hand, we recognise that the value of a work cannot simply be reduced to the virtues or vices of its author, then we must admit that the issue extends far beyond the case of Marko Ivan Rupnik.

For this reason the debate is not really about one artist. It is about whether we wish to preserve a civilisation capable of distinguishing between the moral failings of a human being and the objective value of what that human being has created.

From Florence, 14 June 2026

.

WHY CARAVAGGIO YES AND RUPNIK NO?

If the value of a work of art depends on the morality of its author, then we will have to empty the churches, the museums and art galleries of much of the West

— Current Events —

.

.

For some years now True legions of candid souls have formed who demand that the works of the Jesuit Marko Ivan Rupnik be removed from churches, shrines and places of worship (cf. here). There is no shortage of those who are indignant by profession, the permanently scandalized and the vestal virgins who, after suddenly discovering the existence of sins against the Sixth Commandment, They call for the elimination of the mosaics made by the former Slovenian Jesuit. The fiercest accusers of this artist are precisely those who, one page before or two pages after, They affirm and explain that certain rainbow-hued ecclesiastics should not be questioned for their way of life, because certain vices and customs would be part of their private sphere (cf. here).

An inevitable question then arises.: Did the execrable sexual behavior attributed to Marko Ivan Rupnik take place in St. Peter's Square during the Sunday Angelus prayer?, or they also belonged to his private life? Why, if private life is invoked as a reason to remove certain people from all criticism, It is difficult to understand why this criterion should be abandoned when the person in question is Marko Ivan Rupnik.

The accusation according to which the artist would have maintained a moral conduct incompatible with the presence of his works in sacred buildings introduces, indeed, a criterion so eccentric that it is impracticable when confronted with the reality of the facts. This criterion, Applied with a minimum of consistency, would force not only to empty a part of the history of Christian art, but also considerably from the history of Western art, and in particular sacred art. Y, however, Precisely this criterion is today proposed with increasing insistence. It is not simply requested that possible personal responsibilities be clarified by the competent ecclesiastical authorities; something very different is intended: that the work be dragged into the same process as the man who made it. That the moral judgment on the author automatically becomes a condemnation of the work; what mosaics, frescos, paintings and sculptures are valued not for what they represent, but for the private biography of the one who created them.

The question, therefore, It no longer concerns only Marko Ivan Rupnik. It refers to a much broader principle. Because if the artistic and spiritual value of a work must be measured on the basis of the moral conduct of its author, then it is necessary to have the courage to apply this criterion to the entire history of art and not only to the artist who, for media or ideological reasons, has become the target of the moment.

Already in December 2022, when the case had acquired international dimensions, the Vicar General of His Holiness for the Diocese of Rome, Cardinal Angelo De Donatis, He recalled that Father Marko Ivan Rupnik had provided the Church of Rome with "numerous and valuable services of a ministerial nature" and that his artistic activity had left a visible mark in ecclesiastical places of primary importance.. At the same time, expressed its dismay at the events and assured full collaboration with the competent authorities. They are two statements that are not mutually exclusive and that, on the contrary, they should stick together. One thing is the clarification of possible personal responsibilities; It is quite another to judge the artistic work produced by a person. (cf. Diocese of Rome, Statements by Cardinal Angelo De Donatis on the Rupnik case, 19 December 2022, here).

At this point, the question becomes inevitable: Are we really willing to apply to the history of art the criterion according to which the work must be condemned along with the man who made it?? Why, If that is the path we intend to take, we will have to be consistent until the last consequences. And then the problem would no longer affect only Marko Ivan Rupnik.

Let's start with Michelangelo Merisi, known as Caravaggio. Extraordinary painter, author of some of the greatest masterpieces of sacred art, who was at the same time a violent man, continually involved in fights and legal proceedings, to the point of killing Ranuccio Tomassoni in 1606 and be formally sentenced to death by the justice of the Papal States. Y, however, no one proposes removing the vocation of Saint Matthew from the churches, The conversion of Saint Paul, The descent of Christ, The burial of Saint Lucia and many other works. Evidently, The value of a work is not judged based on the criminal record of its author.

Let us now turn to Benvenuto Cellini, sculptor, brilliant goldsmith and artist. The chronicles of his time and his own autobiography recount homicides, acts of violence, fights and trials for sodomy. Nor in this case has anyone ever thought about removing his works from museums or erasing his name from art history..

Prosigamos with Giovanni Antonio Bazzi, gone down in history with the nickname of Sodom, which was not attributed to him either through carelessness or gratuitous slander. However, its fresh, impregnated with openly homoerotic scenes in a Renaissance key, They continue to be admired in churches and monasteries without anyone calling for withdrawal campaigns or the elimination of entire cycles of frescoes from monastic cloisters..

Let us now come to Gian Lorenzo Bernini, the greatest figure of the Roman Baroque. When he discovered the relationship between his brother and Costanza Bonarelli, of whom he was a lover, He reacted with such violence that he ordered one of his servants to disfigure the woman's face out of revenge.. This has not prevented his works from continuing to adorn basilicas., squares and churches, without anyone having ever thought of demolishing the Ecstasy of Saint Teresa or the Baldachin of Saint Peter.

We could continue like this for a long time. But the point is already made clear: for centuries, Christian and Western civilization distinguished between moral judgment on man and artistic judgment on the work. Hoy, instead, Some seek to introduce a new criterion according to which the artist's sin should also automatically contaminate what he has created.. Except hold, when the protagonists are others, that no one should be interested in their life behaviors because they belong to that private sphere that, apparently, remains inviolable for some and becomes a criterion of public condemnation for others.

Florence, 14 June 2026

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.