Last week, at the Catholic Media Conference in Atlanta, Paolo Ruffini, Vatican head of communications, communicated some fascinating thoughts about Father Marco Rupnik and his art.
I don’t think it’s necessary to rehash the details of what he said – if you are reading this, you are probably already familiar with them – but if you want a refresher and astute, knowing analysis, head to the work of Chris Altieri at Catholic World Report here and here. Oh and here.
There are so many aspects to this situation, reflective of so many problems and pathologies, it is challenging to focus, be helpful and not simply rage.
Let’s try, beginning with the very simple issue raised by the good reporters from America and OSV to Ruffini.
Why is Vatican News still using Rupnik images? Set aside the question, for the moment, of the continued use and existence of his mosaics. Discontinuing the use of his images on digital platforms is a very, very simple matter.
The refusal to do so seems to lead to either one of two conclusions:
- They don’t believe the accusations.
- They believe them and they don’t care.
Either rationale demands further explanation, and I hope that other correspondents and reporters continue to press the Vatican News office and other curial officials, including the Pope himself, to provide them.
Chris Altieri points to the Rupnik situation as a crisis, not only in communication, but in governance, and of course he is absolutely correct. When you consider the Rupnik timeline, and the timeline of other similar situations occurring during this papacy, it is, it seems to me, impossible to avoid questions about coherence, consistency and principles. That is, governance.
At the very least, the governance and decision-making of this papacy certainly raise questions about the impact of a more self-proclaimed “pastoral” approach. In short: while any style of church leadership or mode of church governance can be exploited for ill, what this papacy raises is the question of if a “pastoral” approach – that is privileging individual circumstances before the rule of law, broadly speaking – can become simply selective enforcement, favoritism and dis-favoritism.
(Again – any mode of governance can be misused and evolve in authoritarian, anti-humane directions. The trick to understanding when this is happening is to listen for assurances that this is all for your own good. Then, yes, you know that it’s probably not.)
In this case, over the past years, the inconsistencies are wild and inarguable. The Vatican arm can reach far, dictating to bishops in every corner of the world what kind of Masses can be celebrated and where and how they can be advertised and who can or cannot be ordained, but apparently, it cannot reach across the continent to Slovenia and instruct a bishop no, you may not incardinate this man who was excommunicated (for a while), expelled from his order, credibly accused and under investigation for serious matters. Just don’t.
In his response to questions, Ruffini expertly weaponized this no-rules, super-pastoral, no judgment zone.
He mused about throwing stones, about judging, about the destruction of art as anti-Christian and of course assured the audience that of course he cared about victims – he was “close” to them.
“Do you think that if I put away a photo of an art (away) from my—from our—website, I will be more close to the victims?”
I must say, this is a bizarre construction – even given language challenges. It’s the thought that counts, and the thought that is being communicated here is that what matters in this situation is essentially that the most important thing here is that victims of abuse understand that Ruffini – and by extension church leadership – are “close” to them.
Thoughts and Prayers.
Don’t trust your own experiences, your own understanding of right and wrong. Ignore all of that.
Thoughts and Prayers.
It’s hard to even begin to unpack how many ways this is wrong.
First, the answer to Ruffini’s question up there is obviously yes. The follow-up questions are also obvious and pretty simple: Why do you keep using Rupnik’s work?
His response centers the perpetrator – not Ruffini himself, but the institution of the Church, which bears responsibility here, not for the work itself – that’s all Rupnik – but its continued use. It’s a standard feature of abusive situations: to elevate the perpetrator’s experience and feelings, connect them to a higher principle – love, loyalty, God’s will – and diminish those, not only of the direct victims, but of anyone who is disturbed or even questions the goodness of the situation.
Secondly, the declared “closeness” of a church leader to a victim is not the point at all. The point is justice, goodness and truth. The point is fidelity to Jesus Christ and the Gospel and God’s law.
The point is not if Ruffini or the Pope or whoever express “closeness” to victims. Who cares? Why is that the standard of justice and truth? Answer: it’s really not, and only becomes so in a context in which you don’t want to actually right a wrong.
Here is what Ruffini and those for whom he speaks and those who defend the continued use of Rupnik’s art, both digitally and in situ, don’t or won’t understand, assuming the accusations are true, and I am going to assume so, based on the testimony of the accusers and the disciplinary actions taken against Rupnik – even though they have been mitigated over time.
The Rupnik situation is about the horror of sexual exploitation and abuse, and as such, it is about even more. It’s about spiritual abuse of all kinds.
It’s about the temptation that all those in positions of spiritual authority, formal or informal, face, to meld their own will and desires with God’s will. And it’s about institutional failure to prevent, stop or hold spiritual abusers accountable. To protect them instead, in fact.
Some would say that religion – Christianity, specifically and Catholicism even more specifically – is inherently spiritually abusive. I obviously don’t agree or else I wouldn’t still be here.
But I am also acutely aware of the smooth road that can lead from authentic teaching and guidance to authoritarian and exploitive control and abuse.
What Rupnik did was extreme, but at its core lies that temptation to identify our desires with God’s will and to manipulate others into cooperating.
It’s a cycle. It’s at the core and it’s in the defense.
Spiritual abuse can emerge from all kinds of contexts. It can be authoritarian and rule-based. But it can also be based in a more self-proclaimed “pastoral” sensibility. Principles and pastoral concerns are both elements of religious institutional life. Both can be perverted and used for abusive and exploitive ends.
And in most spiritually abusive situations – whether they occur on an individual scale or institutionally – the most “successful” abuse artfully exploits both elements – to declare that one’s hands – and the hands of victims – are tied by the rules, while at the same time skirting rules and minimizing principles, justified by one’s deeply unique gifts, qualities, circumstances and connection to the divine.
Oh, and by how much they care.
Can’t forget that one.
Really. You just can’t.
Thank you, Amy. This whole disgusting saga is very hard on the soul. Rupnik should be in jail. He’s a predator & a pervert. His “art” warrants forceful contact with a sledgehammer.(But I’m not following this: “His response centers the perpetrator – not Ruffini himself, but the institution of the Church, which bears responsibility here, not for the work itself – that’s all Rupnik – but its continued use.”)