Leo XIV, the Shrine of Lourdes, and Rupnik’s mosaics: a papal visit as new evidence emerges against the former Jesuit
Pope Leo XIV will visit Lourdes on September 27, entering a sanctuary focused on healing. The Basilica of Our Lady of the Rosary will cover mosaics by former Jesuit Father Marko Rupnik during the visit. The decision by the Diocese of Tarbes and Lourdes reflects the Church’s dilemma over how to handle art by artists accused of sexual and psychological misconduct. The move underscores ongoing tensions between preserving artistic heritage and protecting victims of abuse within the Catholic Church.
about 2 months ago
Pope Leo XIV’s upcoming pilgrimage to the Shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes will take place on September 27 2026, but the basilica’s prominent mosaics by former Jesuit artist Marko Rupnik will remain hidden as the diocese seeks to protect survivors of abuse who visit the sanctuary for healing. 1
The bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes, Jean‑Marc Micas, explained that the decision to conceal Rupnik’s mosaics—rather than remove them permanently—aims to keep the grotto and sanctuary fully accessible to those seeking consolation after sexual‑abuse trauma. 1
Marko Rupnik’s mosaics have become a hallmark of contemporary Catholic sacred art, appearing in major churches across Europe, the United States, and Vatican sites. Since the early 1990s, however, women from the Community of Loyola in Slovenia have reported spiritual, psychological, and sexual abuse by Rupnik, submitting 22 letters in 2000 that detail these experiences. 1
The basilica began reducing the visibility of the mosaics in 2024 by turning off nighttime illumination. In March 2025 panels were placed over the side‑door mosaics, followed by the central doors. For the September 2026 papal pilgrimage the mosaics will be covered more extensively, a step described by Bishop Micas as symbolic and temporary. 1
Canonical criminal proceedings against Rupnik are still pending. The Vatican has rejected reports of his acquittal, emphasizing that the case is not subject to a statute of limitations and that the judicial process remains confidential, leaving many victims frustrated by the lack of information. 1
Lourdes’ approach highlights a broader dilemma: whether artworks created by accused clergy should stay in places of worship. While some institutions have removed or covered Rupnik’s pieces, no universal policy exists. The bishop’s current stance prioritises pastoral care and the sanctuary’s healing mission over artistic continuity, leaving the long‑term fate of the mosaics unresolved. 1*
Evaluate Catholic doctrine on art preservation versus abuse protection
Catholic doctrine does not treat art preservation and protection from abuse as competing goods of equal weight. Cultural and sacred patrimony deserves serious preservation, but it is subordinate to the dignity, safety, justice, and healing of persons—especially minors and vulnerable adults. Preservation may therefore require relocation, restricted access, contextualization, or removal from public worship when continued display causes harm, scandal, or an appearance of honoring an abuser.
The Church considers sacred art more than decoration. Its purpose is to serve divine worship, edify the faithful, foster piety, and contribute to religious formation. The artist engaged in sacred art participates analogically in the creative work of God.
The Church also recognizes the historical value of artistic patrimony. Vatican II teaches that the Church has welcomed artistic styles from different peoples and periods and has built up “a treasury of art which must be very carefully preserved.” Clergy are specifically to be educated so that they can appreciate and preserve venerable monuments.
This establishes a serious presumption in favor of responsible conservation: works should not be casually destroyed, discarded, or dispersed. Local ordinaries are instructed to consult experts and to take care that valuable sacred furnishings and works are not disposed of or scattered.
But this is not an absolute rule.
The Church’s teaching contains an important qualification: sacred art must be compatible with faith, morals, Christian piety, and the religious sense of the faithful. Bishops are instructed to remove from churches and sacred places works that are repugnant to faith and morals or that offend genuine religious sensibility.
This principle applies not only to the visual content of an artwork but also to its ecclesial context. A work connected to a person credibly accused or found responsible for grave abuse can communicate several potentially harmful messages:
A distinction is therefore necessary:
Preserving an artwork as historical evidence is not identical to displaying it as an ornament of the Church, nor to treating its creator as worthy of ecclesial honor.
The work may be conserved in an archive, museum, or controlled setting while being removed from liturgical or devotional use. Such a decision can preserve cultural patrimony without presenting the artist or his legacy as spiritually exemplary.
The Church’s safeguarding documents are unequivocal that the protection of minors and vulnerable persons belongs to the Church’s evangelical mission. The Holy See states that the Church must create safe environments, prioritize the interests of minors and vulnerable people, report abuse to competent authorities, prosecute abuse according to law, and offer victims and their families pastoral, medical, psychological, and legal assistance.
The bishop’s responsibility is consequently not limited to maintaining buildings or artworks. It includes ensuring the common good and protecting children and young people, responding appropriately to abuse, assisting victims, educating the ecclesial community, applying canon law, and observing civil law.
Pope Francis stated the governing priority directly: concern for avoiding scandal or protecting institutional interests must not take precedence over safeguarding, because “there is absolutely no place in ministry for those who abuse minors.” Although that statement concerns abusive ministers rather than artworks, its moral logic is directly relevant: neither the prestige of a ministry nor the value of an associated cultural object may be used to displace the protection of persons.
Pope Leo XIV similarly identifies the proper ecclesial response as “listening, truth, justice, reparation and an ever more determined commitment to prevention and a culture of care,” insisting that every wounded person must find welcome, protection, and genuine paths to healing.
A church is not merely an art gallery. Its architecture and art are ordered toward the celebration of the mysteries of faith. Sacred art should serve sacramental mystagogy—that is, it should lead the faithful more deeply into the mystery celebrated—and everything connected with the Eucharist should manifest beauty, reverence, unity, and devotion.
If the presence of an artwork predictably causes victims or parishioners to experience distress, distrust, or the sense that the Church is honoring an abuser, the artwork may no longer be fulfilling that liturgical purpose in that location. The issue is not whether the object is aesthetically beautiful, but whether its continued ecclesial placement contributes to the Church’s mission.
Pope Francis emphasizes that listening to victims must place those who are fragile and vulnerable “at the centre of any action.” He connects listening with prevention, renewed procedures, vigilance, and the rebuilding of trust. In this context, preserving an artwork without listening to those harmed would be contrary to the Church’s stated safeguarding approach.
The same point appears in the Church’s pastoral guidance: victims should be heard and accompanied with spiritual and psychological assistance, and their dignity and trust—violated by abuse—must be taken seriously. A decision about an artwork associated with abuse should therefore not be made solely by curators, administrators, or financial officers. It should include meaningful consultation with safeguarding professionals and, where appropriate and safe, victims or their representatives.
Protection of victims does not abolish justice for the accused. The Church requires caution before guilt has been established. Public statements should be brief, avoid sensationalism, respect victims’ privacy, and refrain from premature judgments about guilt or innocence. The preliminary investigation must likewise avoid statements that anticipate judgment on the merits of the case.
The Holy See also affirms the accused’s right to a fair and impartial process, presumption of innocence, legality, and proportionality between crime and penalty.
Accordingly, an artwork should not necessarily be removed merely because its creator has been the subject of an unsubstantiated rumor or an unresolved allegation. A temporary precaution may nevertheless be justified when there is a credible safeguarding risk, significant public distress, or a reasonable concern that continued display could expose victims or vulnerable persons to harm. Such a precaution should be described accurately as a protective or pastoral measure, not as a definitive declaration of criminal guilt.
Once responsibility is established through a competent process, the moral case for removing the work from prominent ecclesial display becomes substantially stronger—particularly when the work was commissioned, promoted, or personally identified with the offender’s ministry.
Catholic principles favor a graduated response rather than an automatic choice between total preservation and total destruction.
Continued display may be morally defensible when:
Even then, the Church should avoid presenting the artist as a model of holiness or clerical integrity.
A work may remain accessible with clear historical context, especially in a museum or educational setting. The context should distinguish the artwork’s artistic or historical significance from the moral character of its creator and should acknowledge established abuse without sensationalizing or suppressing the truth.
Relocation to a museum, archive, or non-liturgical setting may be the most balanced response. It preserves the Church’s patrimony while removing the work from a place where it functions as devotional or institutional honor. This approach respects Vatican II’s call for careful preservation while recognizing that sacred places must also protect religious sensibility and the common good.
Removal from a church is justified when the work is repugnant to Christian piety in its context, seriously undermines trust, causes foreseeable harm to victims, or creates a grave risk of scandal.
Destruction, however, should ordinarily be a last resort, especially where conservation or relocation can protect people without irreversibly destroying cultural evidence. The Church’s preservation principle and its safeguarding principle can often be reconciled by separating conservation of the object from public ecclesial honor for the artist.
The Church’s hierarchy of goods is decisive:
Art is valuable because it can glorify God, serve worship, and edify people. It is never valuable in a way that permits the Church to neglect those who have been harmed. Vatican II calls for careful preservation, but it also requires sacred art to serve faith, morals, piety, and the liturgy. The safeguarding teaching of the Holy See makes clear that institutional reputation, avoidance of scandal, or cultural prestige cannot outrank the safety and healing of victims.
The most Catholic solution will often be neither uncritical preservation nor iconoclastic destruction, but truthful, victim-sensitive preservation without continued honor or exposure where that would cause harm.