The pope's comments seem to imply that he felt Aupetit wanted out, and he let him resign because gossips had made his job so difficult. If Aupetit did indeed want out, then all the rest of the pope's comments make perfect sense and are consistent with all his previous responses. If Aupetit didn't want to be relieved, however, then these comments are truly baffling.
"I ask myself what he did that was so serious that he had to resign. Someone answer me, what did he do?"
—The guy who accepted his resignation
As JD points out, it would mark a change if the pope were now accepting resignations based on reputational damage, considering how tenaciously he defended figures like Cardinal Wuerl.
The oddest thing about these remarks is how the tone of speculation, which almost makes it sound like the pope was not totally sure why Aupetit had had to resign ("Someone answer me, what did he do? If we do not know the charge we cannot convict") is contradicted immediately by the revelation of specifics of the alleged relationship ("small caresses and massages that he did to the secretary; this is the accusation") that I have not seen in any English-language media. It just doesn't really fit together.
There's also a potential blind spot here about "vulnerable adults."—"A failing against the sixth commandment, but not total, of small caresses and massages that he did to the secretary; this is the accusation. This is sin but it is not of the most serious sins, because the sins of the flesh are not the most serious." Without venturing a judgment on what was going on in Aupetit's case, I can think of a number of situations in which this framing can be dangerous.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t a part of gossip talking about another’s situation when you don’t know all the details clearly and then helping to confuse others about that person’s situation? It seems to me the Pope is guilty of the very thing he was trying to condemn in the interview, gossip.
And maybe this is a way out there theory, but perhaps the interpretive key to Pope Francis’ pontificate are some of the first words he said from the balcony…”I’m a sinner.” He seems to not want to just say that with words, but to prove it through his actions from time to time. Why else would he accept this bishop’s resignation, but not the resignations of all the German bishops who turned one in?
This is surely one of Pope Francis's most cryptic, if not incoherent, in-flight comments ever, and his mention of lurid details must be truly humiliating for Msgr. Aupetit. How is this not an example the gossip which Francis so frequently condemns? Since Cardinal Vingt-Trois will no longer be eligible to participate in a conclave after November 2022, His Holiness now has an opportunity to designate an archbishop and future Cardinal more committed to the issues of climate change and immigration, which are the Pope's primary concerns. I hope The Pillar will delve more deeply into the real reasons for the "conflict" within the Archdiocese of Paris, arguably the most important in Europe (sorry, Milan) for historic, cultural, symbolic and current political reasons. Aupetit seems to have alienated "progressive" and traditionalists groups alike---shouldn't that actually be a point in his favor? Or are we talking about good, old-fashioned clerical resentment of a leader who is eloquent, imposing and not afraid to speak the truth loudly and clearly?
I'm curious... What language was the question posed in and is it one the Pope speaks? The statements are so awkward from a purely grammatical point I genuinely wonder if there was something lost in translation.
"carresses","massage" but "not total". I find it quite extraordinary that a Pope should comment at all on this matter in terms that only give rise to further speculation. He obviously has no idea as to how to behave and is totally unsuited for his position as Pope. What are the Cardinals going to do about it?
In any case can he not see the difference between a Bishop indulging in sexual activity and an ordinary lay sinner doing so?
Excellent analysis.
The pope's comments seem to imply that he felt Aupetit wanted out, and he let him resign because gossips had made his job so difficult. If Aupetit did indeed want out, then all the rest of the pope's comments make perfect sense and are consistent with all his previous responses. If Aupetit didn't want to be relieved, however, then these comments are truly baffling.
"I ask myself what he did that was so serious that he had to resign. Someone answer me, what did he do?"
—The guy who accepted his resignation
As JD points out, it would mark a change if the pope were now accepting resignations based on reputational damage, considering how tenaciously he defended figures like Cardinal Wuerl.
The oddest thing about these remarks is how the tone of speculation, which almost makes it sound like the pope was not totally sure why Aupetit had had to resign ("Someone answer me, what did he do? If we do not know the charge we cannot convict") is contradicted immediately by the revelation of specifics of the alleged relationship ("small caresses and massages that he did to the secretary; this is the accusation") that I have not seen in any English-language media. It just doesn't really fit together.
There's also a potential blind spot here about "vulnerable adults."—"A failing against the sixth commandment, but not total, of small caresses and massages that he did to the secretary; this is the accusation. This is sin but it is not of the most serious sins, because the sins of the flesh are not the most serious." Without venturing a judgment on what was going on in Aupetit's case, I can think of a number of situations in which this framing can be dangerous.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t a part of gossip talking about another’s situation when you don’t know all the details clearly and then helping to confuse others about that person’s situation? It seems to me the Pope is guilty of the very thing he was trying to condemn in the interview, gossip.
And maybe this is a way out there theory, but perhaps the interpretive key to Pope Francis’ pontificate are some of the first words he said from the balcony…”I’m a sinner.” He seems to not want to just say that with words, but to prove it through his actions from time to time. Why else would he accept this bishop’s resignation, but not the resignations of all the German bishops who turned one in?
This is surely one of Pope Francis's most cryptic, if not incoherent, in-flight comments ever, and his mention of lurid details must be truly humiliating for Msgr. Aupetit. How is this not an example the gossip which Francis so frequently condemns? Since Cardinal Vingt-Trois will no longer be eligible to participate in a conclave after November 2022, His Holiness now has an opportunity to designate an archbishop and future Cardinal more committed to the issues of climate change and immigration, which are the Pope's primary concerns. I hope The Pillar will delve more deeply into the real reasons for the "conflict" within the Archdiocese of Paris, arguably the most important in Europe (sorry, Milan) for historic, cultural, symbolic and current political reasons. Aupetit seems to have alienated "progressive" and traditionalists groups alike---shouldn't that actually be a point in his favor? Or are we talking about good, old-fashioned clerical resentment of a leader who is eloquent, imposing and not afraid to speak the truth loudly and clearly?
I'm curious... What language was the question posed in and is it one the Pope speaks? The statements are so awkward from a purely grammatical point I genuinely wonder if there was something lost in translation.
"carresses","massage" but "not total". I find it quite extraordinary that a Pope should comment at all on this matter in terms that only give rise to further speculation. He obviously has no idea as to how to behave and is totally unsuited for his position as Pope. What are the Cardinals going to do about it?
In any case can he not see the difference between a Bishop indulging in sexual activity and an ordinary lay sinner doing so?