Far be it from me to comment on public relations strategies, but it seems to me that "Oh, you think this is bad? Boy, there's a whole bunch of even worse cases you *don't* know about!" might not be the strongest response to press scrutiny.
If true, I'd say it's a good response. Essentially, 'it hasn't taken 2 years because we're dragging our feet, but because there are a lot of other cases that we've been working on.'
Although I am now concerned how many of those other, worse abusers have advisory status in a Vatican office, or were invited to preach for Lent, or were given the opportunity to move to a different diocese and pastor a parish.
Considering how horrific the Rupnik case is, it's hard to imagine how awful worse cases would be. The Rupnik case and whichever others ones are worse should be dealt with swiftly regardless.
Seems like the ‘there are worse cases’ thing is excusing Rupnik and allowing his awful art to persist. Are the sexual deviants actually in charge, preventing any and all housecleaning by the Vatican? That’s what it looks like.
I think Pope Francis asked him “to dedicate [his] personal commitment more directly to the main purpose of the Dicastery, which is ‘keeping the faith’.”
That certainly doesn’t sound like some sort of prohibition on his working with the disciplinary section.
Lord, please heal all victims of abuse. Help them to recognize their wounds, and strengthen them in their pursuit of justice.
Please guide your Church. Help her to discern the truth and to bring all abusive shepherds to account --- whether they are clergy, leaders of religious communities, parents, or others You have entrusted with the care of your faithful.
And please bring all abusers to repentance. Help them to recognize the suffering they have caused, to seek forgiveness, and to begin to make reparations for the harm to their victims and to the Faith.
Glad to hear that this important work continues to move forward. Preparing a case is a difficult thing—it’s so important to get it right the first time. Justice can’t be rushed.
As a counterpoint, I'm not sure it is fair in this case to refer to this as "the first time". There is also the phrase "justice delayed is justice denied".
I think the DDF will investigate a sacristan who put the hymn books back on the wrong shelf after the 11am mass before a case that gets as close to Francis as this one does.
This headline is clickbaity which is a shame to see from the Pillar. The fuller context of his quote doesn’t suggest a brushing off because it’s not that bad which seems to be what the headline suggests. He is simply saying, as I understand it, there is a lot of cases that are also serious and public awareness of one doesn’t explicate the process.
Other cases have been decided quickly. Why not move some judges around? Do canonists specialize in spiritual/sexual abuse cases? I would think they'd have very short careers if they do. (due to burnout)
As a survivor I can only say I don't think Pope Francis has ever taken sexual abuse seriously unless pushed extremely hard. One notes that persons in charge of dealing with the issue have resigned over their inability to make any headway in Rome on the issue. One notes the Dept. Of Communications refusing to remove the artwork of this noted abuser. One notes the Vatican moving to close the convent where the victims had resided and maybe still did. Only the Knights of Columbus have reacted in an appropriate manner.
I remember when they announced the 400 priests that Pope Benedict had defrocked, thinking, wow that is an enormous number of people for only two years. And then to find out that what is now the DDF had reviewed 3,420 cases in the decade before. It leads one to believe they are both devoting enormous resources to this, and at the same time it feels like they are only devoting *just enough* resources to this.
Worse is a subjective term. *Surely* Fernandez knows why Rupnik's case has been more publicized, so that just seems like a dodgy response at best. Surely there were "worse" cases than McCarrick's too...ie. number and kind. But the reason those guys are of interest is their high profile and the special favor they seem to incur in the highest levels of the church. To many people all that combined is "worse." Everyone's heard of "it's not the crime, it's the coverup." This is something more like, it's not the crime, it's the delay, or it's not the crime, it's the display (of Rupnik's art).
Remember that this is the same Cardinal Fernandez who, in his 30’s, published an erotic conversation he claimed to have had with a 16-year-old girl in the context of his pastoral ministry. This is at the least astoundingly bad judgement. It flags him as a likely abuser. The fact that he is in a position of authority is a direct reflection on this pontificate.
I think the characterization of the narrative in that book as “erotic” is a bit overwrought. It’s a narrative where she describes meeting Jesus, admiring his strange beauty, and embracing his body. The most that happens is that a chaste kiss is shared. It’s difficult to see that as arousing sexual desire.
I find it hard to believe that you know this, seeing as there are very few copies of said book. The fact that it was removed from his CV and buried suggests that he at least thought it was inappropriate.
Well, what can I say except that I've read the chapter where this narrative is located. It's online, and you can easily read it if you can read Spanish.
Further, it's not a work of academic theology, so it's not surprising that it's not on his CV.
Far be it from me to comment on public relations strategies, but it seems to me that "Oh, you think this is bad? Boy, there's a whole bunch of even worse cases you *don't* know about!" might not be the strongest response to press scrutiny.
If true, I'd say it's a good response. Essentially, 'it hasn't taken 2 years because we're dragging our feet, but because there are a lot of other cases that we've been working on.'
Although I am now concerned how many of those other, worse abusers have advisory status in a Vatican office, or were invited to preach for Lent, or were given the opportunity to move to a different diocese and pastor a parish.
Considering how horrific the Rupnik case is, it's hard to imagine how awful worse cases would be. The Rupnik case and whichever others ones are worse should be dealt with swiftly regardless.
Seems like the ‘there are worse cases’ thing is excusing Rupnik and allowing his awful art to persist. Are the sexual deviants actually in charge, preventing any and all housecleaning by the Vatican? That’s what it looks like.
"Fernández responded that the dicastery he heads has finished “gathering information” about the case and is now working to create a tribunal."
-The process is rapidly approaching a middle of the beginning...
Climbing out of bed, texting “yep I’m on my way!”
I thought Francis made clear Fernandez was not to work on anything related to abuse cases?
I think Pope Francis asked him “to dedicate [his] personal commitment more directly to the main purpose of the Dicastery, which is ‘keeping the faith’.”
That certainly doesn’t sound like some sort of prohibition on his working with the disciplinary section.
I think you have to practice your faith and live it, before you can profess KEEPING THE FAITH.
Lord, please heal all victims of abuse. Help them to recognize their wounds, and strengthen them in their pursuit of justice.
Please guide your Church. Help her to discern the truth and to bring all abusive shepherds to account --- whether they are clergy, leaders of religious communities, parents, or others You have entrusted with the care of your faithful.
And please bring all abusers to repentance. Help them to recognize the suffering they have caused, to seek forgiveness, and to begin to make reparations for the harm to their victims and to the Faith.
Glad to hear that this important work continues to move forward. Preparing a case is a difficult thing—it’s so important to get it right the first time. Justice can’t be rushed.
As a counterpoint, I'm not sure it is fair in this case to refer to this as "the first time". There is also the phrase "justice delayed is justice denied".
Noted. But the intention was for it to be presented well the first time at trial/the tribunal.
Still crickets on the Principi case?
I think the DDF will investigate a sacristan who put the hymn books back on the wrong shelf after the 11am mass before a case that gets as close to Francis as this one does.
This headline is clickbaity which is a shame to see from the Pillar. The fuller context of his quote doesn’t suggest a brushing off because it’s not that bad which seems to be what the headline suggests. He is simply saying, as I understand it, there is a lot of cases that are also serious and public awareness of one doesn’t explicate the process.
expedite The process. Darn autocorrect
It doesn't explicate the process either...
Other cases have been decided quickly. Why not move some judges around? Do canonists specialize in spiritual/sexual abuse cases? I would think they'd have very short careers if they do. (due to burnout)
> said this week that there are “worse but less publicized” abuse cases
If he doesn't leak any of them to the Pillar then I don't believe him [insert "I don't believe you" gif from some movie I have never seen].
As a survivor I can only say I don't think Pope Francis has ever taken sexual abuse seriously unless pushed extremely hard. One notes that persons in charge of dealing with the issue have resigned over their inability to make any headway in Rome on the issue. One notes the Dept. Of Communications refusing to remove the artwork of this noted abuser. One notes the Vatican moving to close the convent where the victims had resided and maybe still did. Only the Knights of Columbus have reacted in an appropriate manner.
I remember when they announced the 400 priests that Pope Benedict had defrocked, thinking, wow that is an enormous number of people for only two years. And then to find out that what is now the DDF had reviewed 3,420 cases in the decade before. It leads one to believe they are both devoting enormous resources to this, and at the same time it feels like they are only devoting *just enough* resources to this.
Sorry. Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/05/the-vatican-defrocked-848-priests-for-child-abuse-in-the-past-10-years/361821/
Worse is a subjective term. *Surely* Fernandez knows why Rupnik's case has been more publicized, so that just seems like a dodgy response at best. Surely there were "worse" cases than McCarrick's too...ie. number and kind. But the reason those guys are of interest is their high profile and the special favor they seem to incur in the highest levels of the church. To many people all that combined is "worse." Everyone's heard of "it's not the crime, it's the coverup." This is something more like, it's not the crime, it's the delay, or it's not the crime, it's the display (of Rupnik's art).
I'd like to make a more intelligent comment but all that comes to mind is
🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
Remember that this is the same Cardinal Fernandez who, in his 30’s, published an erotic conversation he claimed to have had with a 16-year-old girl in the context of his pastoral ministry. This is at the least astoundingly bad judgement. It flags him as a likely abuser. The fact that he is in a position of authority is a direct reflection on this pontificate.
I think the characterization of the narrative in that book as “erotic” is a bit overwrought. It’s a narrative where she describes meeting Jesus, admiring his strange beauty, and embracing his body. The most that happens is that a chaste kiss is shared. It’s difficult to see that as arousing sexual desire.
I find it hard to believe that you know this, seeing as there are very few copies of said book. The fact that it was removed from his CV and buried suggests that he at least thought it was inappropriate.
Well, what can I say except that I've read the chapter where this narrative is located. It's online, and you can easily read it if you can read Spanish.
Further, it's not a work of academic theology, so it's not surprising that it's not on his CV.
Not “likely” abuser; the conversation itself is abusive.
I’m not certain exactly how you reached your conclusion. What about it makes it per se abusive?
"We cannot think of a new law for just one case, because that would limit the vision and harm the work's objectivity.”
Well his bunch must be pretty ineffective.