By: Gašper Blažič
Recently, I read in the media that everything is now in place for the trial of former Jesuit Marko Ivan Rupnik over allegations of sexual abuse. This means that we might learn, possibly within this calendar year, what sanctions, if any, will be imposed on one of the most renowned sacred artists of the modern era. Rupnik is expected to be judged by a five-member panel composed of women and clerics who hold no official positions within the Holy See.
The case is sensitive for Slovenia, as Catholics in our country are deeply divided on the matter. However, according to my sources, insiders who know Rupnik well, the future does not look promising for the artist, professor, and once-prominent columnist who regularly published in Slovenian church media. At least not based on what they themselves observed, unlike the rest of us who only knew Rupnik “from afar.”
Twenty years ago, Marko Rupnik and his team from the Aletti Center came to create a mosaic at the St. Stanislav Institute. It was meant as a tribute to the institute’s centenary, culminating in a celebratory event at Cankar Hall in the Gallus Hall, alongside the appointment of Dr Anton Jamnik as the new auxiliary bishop of Ljubljana. At that time, I was attending weekend lectures as part of a special educational programme by the Social Academy, held in the institute’s classrooms, spaces I knew well from my high school years. One Saturday, after our lectures ended, we visited the institute’s central chapel, where Rupnik and his team were working on the mosaic. That was the only occasion I ever saw Rupnik in person. Dressed in his work overalls, he looked somewhat comical, but he still took time to explain the artwork and the process to our group. He mentioned that anyone who “falls out” of the spiritual rhythm could be temporarily excluded from the work. Of course, none of us understood what that really meant or how such a mosaic project was actually carried out.
Looking back on that event from a two-decade distance, it feels like a strange dream. I often wonder how many more “sacred cows” of Slovenian society will be exposed. At that time, Rupnik was virtually untouchable. His mosaics were spreading across the globe, leaving a mark even in major pilgrimage sites, and, of course, in Slovenia. His “success story” was never questioned. Despite the controversy surrounding his 2000 Prešeren Award, it was clear that Rupnik had become a darling of both church and secular media, and we must admit, there are quite a few such “dual darlings.” Perhaps we were scandalised when we saw the glaring golden mosaics in the crypt of San Giovanni Rotondo, where the body of St. Padre Pio rests – but who would fuss over such details? And I truly believe that after the shocking revelation of Rupnik’s “dark side,” many people’s worlds collapsed. Some to the extent that they try to cope with the shock through denial: “No, this cannot be true.”
As I mentioned, I was attending the Social Academy’s weekend programme at the time. It was both content-based and practical training for public engagement (rhetoric, public speaking, radio, TV). We were visited by many lecturers in history (Dr Stane Granda), Catholic social teaching (Dr Andrej M. Poznič), economics, and law. That was also the first time I heard Dr Miro Cerar speak in person, who would become Slovenia’s Prime Minister about a decade later. I must admit, he did not seem objectionable to me at the time, even though I knew he came from a regime-aligned family. Of course, Dr Cerar was not the only law lecturer. One guest also gave us a more detailed presentation on European Union law, as Slovenia had only recently joined. He was a lecturer with a master’s degree from Harvard and a doctorate from Ljubljana.
That was Dr Matej Accetto. And I must admit, he left a positive impression on me. It seemed that other attendees also got along well with the team of law lecturers. We did not really ask who belonged to which political camp. European law, or the legal system of the European Union, was a somewhat distant topic for me, so it was especially important how an expert would present it to a completely lay audience. Unfortunately, I no longer remember exactly what Dr Accetto spoke about, but I assume he introduced the institutional and legal framework of the EU. At the time, we still viewed institutions like the European Parliament, the European Commission, and European courts somewhat idealistically. As if, since we were already facing problems with democracy at home, perhaps they would help us, because the level of democracy in the West was still seen as higher than among the “old guard” who emerged from the diapers of the old red comradeship.
Only years later did it become clear that such a view was very naïve. Equally naïve was my personal belief that the European People’s Party (EPP) would act as a kind of “Deus ex machina” to bring order to our country, taking our political problems more seriously than liberals or socialists. After the dizzying Brussels leadership of whiskey enthusiast Jean-Claude Juncker, whom I believed had somehow mistakenly ended up in the EPP, we got the “first lady” of the European central government in the form of Ursula von der Leyen, even though the EPP’s lead candidate was Manfred Weber. But Weber was unacceptable to other political groups, so the EPP had to seek a compromise. Mrs. von der Leyen seemed close enough to former German Chancellor Angela Merkel that a broader circle of MEPs was willing to support her. The confirmation of the European Commission’s composition follows the principle of broad consensus, which unfortunately brings rotten compromises and poor personnel choices, evident in this term with the example of Slovenian Commissioner Marta Kos, who, although practically written off, returned to the embrace of the ruling Freedom Movement. And as we are used to, in Slovenia, unlike in Brussels, no one seeks consensus with the opposition. The majority decides, and there is no debate about whether the Slovenian member of the Commission has opposition support or not.
Věra Jourová, in the previous Commission led by the current president, held a high position. She was Vice President of the Commission and had full support from her direct superior. A former secretary of the Czech municipality of Třebíč, who was even suspected of misusing EU funds (though bribery was never proven), now serves as an advisor to Czech President Petr Pavel (a former member of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia until 1989). Early in her career, she was even a member of the ANO party, with which businessman and former Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš won elections again. Whether she is still a member of that party, often described as “right-wing populist”, is unclear. In the European Parliament, the party was part of the liberal Renew group (formerly ALDE), but later moved to a bloc “further right” than the EPP, namely Patriots for Europe. This may explain the behaviour of the now-former Commissioner, who consistently served the interests of Slovenian left-wing lobbyists in Brussels and constantly obstructed the previous Slovenian government, while then-MEP Tanja Fajon, now Foreign Minister, lectured the Slovenian and European public about the “rule of law” and “core Europe.” These two areas were precisely Jourová’s portfolio in the previous Commission.
And worst of all: such European bureaucrats prefer to operate in their typical occult, meaning hidden, manner. We would not have learned anything concrete about the (political) Commissioner’s visit to Slovenia’s Constitutional Court if the EU Court had not demanded it under pressure from MEP Dr Milan Zver. And now that everything has been revealed, they claim it was nothing special, just a routine visit that Commissioners make to various member states. But why did they feel the need to conceal it? And surely it is no coincidence that Dr Matej Accetto, an expert in European law, was promoted to President of the Constitutional Court after questionable decisions in certain cases. He was clearly a suitable interlocutor for the Commissioner, who was supposedly concerned with the “rule of law” in member states. In other words: she was tasked with disciplining disobedient national governments, similar to the final years of Yugoslavia, when Belgrade officials repeatedly warned Slovenia not to play with fire and not to undermine “Titoland.” And who knows how much information from these secret meetings the participants took with them to the grave.
The question arises: how would Ursula von der Leyen comment on the actions of her close associate? And how can she even look herself in the mirror or in the eyes of EPP members? Could this perhaps reek of deliberately stirring up Euroscepticism? It seems that many of the quiet allies of Putin’s regime are precisely within European structures, whose actions actually weaken European cohesion, despite pretending to strengthen it.
Yet this whole affair may be useful in revealing that there are many sacred cows around us. Who hide much behind their untouchability, things we have a right to know. That is occultism, and it is destroying our future. It is time to break with it, whether it concerns artists, EU Commissioners, or Constitutional Court judges.