What a disaster. Rome just finished a much hyped, multi-year endeavor that was supposed to change the way the church operates. No matter your feelings on the Synod, the Synod was supposed to be the news story of the day, week, month and year out of Rome.
Yet here we are. JD comes back from Rome and the only thing discussed on one of the more influential platforms in Catholic media is Marco Rupnik. Just unbelievable.
Also, when discussing whether or not Rupnik should be styled as “Father”, I was really hoping Ed would just do a n SNL era Norm MacDonald impression “because he’s a rapist.”
Obviously the disaster is the handling of Rupnik (a disaster that has been unfolding for years...). I’m just saying that Rome invested millions in this Synod, hyping it up for years. Finally they their big day, and their own incompetence destroys their moment, because no one’s talking about. Everyone’s just talking about Rupnik.
A temptation to talk about Rupnik is inevitable. So much of the texts coming out of the Synod are so vague that I honestly don't know what they mean. And, to judge from other comments on various sites, other people are equally clueless. So any rational debate on what the Synod might mean for your parish or diocese is impossible, though we can voice horrible speculation. The Rupnik case at least has understandable facts.
okay, this is a minor point- but Francis did not as you claim mention "lace cassocks" in his speech to the synod. he decried, and I quote, "el escándalo de sacerdotes jóvenes probándose sotanas y sombreros o albas y roquetes con encajes". literally, "the scandal of young priests trying on soutanes and hats or albs and rochets with lace". lace is clearly connected to albs and rochets in the sentence, not to soutanes. I think I saw mention of lace cassocks from some reporters on Twitter, but they were not directly quoting what he said, but attempting to roughly capture the meaning, and accidentally confusing some elements.
Hello Joseph. My first reaction to your comment was to highlight how your point was minor within the scope of the Rupnik case. But the fact that JD said something like not knowing what a "lace cassock" is, makes it no as minor as I initially thought. I does indeed surprise me that JD would say the Holy Father said something that he did not say, particularly about something such as "lace cassocks", which do not exist. However, given all of Rupnik has been credibly accused of and his prominence in Rome, it is so disarmingly discouraging and deflating that the Holy Father would find more scandal in cassock wearing priests than in Rupnik being incardinated in any diocese, albeit not wearing clerics.
From previous interaction we've had in this forum, I take it that you do not know any priests in soutanes that are pastorally oriented, available for all, enthusiastic, outgoing, loving the poor and marginalized who live Christ-centered lives. But I do. In fact, I know several.
I think the Rupnik case is horrible. it's not clear to me that Francis' speech is an indication that he finds more scandal in young priests trying on cassocks at clerical tailors in Rome than serial sexual abuse and cover-up by clerics. the way I see it, he was talking about a problem he has identified in the Church, clericalism, and using the story about priests buying expensive and/or "retrograde" clerical dress as an example of this problem, as he has done several times before. (it should be said that he has also quoted or said things to the effect of "it doesn't matter if a priest wears a cassock, what matters is if he rolls up the sleeves and gets his hands dirty".) I didn't take it the way that many others have, as a minimization of clerical sexual abuse, though I understand why people did and why they are frustrated or angry over the timing and tone of these remarks. I think if you asked Francis which is worse, the incardination of a serial sexual abuser like or a young priest buying albs with lace, he would be quite clear that the former is worse.
and to the other point, I have personally known several priests who wear or have sometimes worn cassocks. I don't have a low opinion of any of them, though neither would I say they were better men than the priests I know who dress in clerical suits or even plainclothes. there is a degree of correlation between attachment to older styles of vestments and clothing and a theological perspective which I view as harmful to the Church, though I wouldn't accuse everyone in a soutane of such a thing. Francis himself daily wears the same garment, after all.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. You are right that, if asked, the Pope would say the Rupnik is a bigger scandal than soutanes and lace. But he hasn’t said it, has he. What I find most disheartening is that the Holy Father would even suggest that purchasing priestly garments in Gammarelli is a sign of clericalism and, therfore, scandalous. The biggest and most scandalous sign of clericalism is sexual abuse, particluarly one as the Rupnik’s case, with the wide coverage it’s had. This, after Bishops Barros and Zanchetta, leaves my heart troubled.
This is the oblique point of reactions to Joseph. The horrendous part is that the Pope has lifted the statute of limitations apparently only because of the outrage publicly. Certainly he knows of the details of the affair Rupnik! If he can kick a bishop out of his bishopric in Puerto Rico, he can act against a (former) Jesuit in Rome. The fact that he has not is a clear indication of his his tacit acceptance of Rupnik. The statement about scandal and clothing just accentuates his active enabling of Rupnik by his silence and inaction previously.
If you don't call it acceptance, then what do you call his actions (refusal to lift the statute of limitations, refusal to condemn, refusal to laicize, etc.)? Is it tolerance of what appears monstrous evil? If so, that is complicity. In sexual abuse, enabling the abuser through lack of consequences for his action is moral complicity in the abuse, yes? I cannot suggest that it is acceptance. What other options do we have to describe the Popes willful actions regarding Rupnik?
I appreciate the clarification. This straightens out which articles were the notionally scandalous ones. It's not clear to me what specifically is scandalous to the Pope's eyes, though, because I could see it as either of two things: is it vanity (fancy clothes that will make people respect me more! also maybe a nice car!), or is it the modern expectation that large hats and lace belong to women and thus it's a sort of Monty Python Lumberjack Song situation (I cut down trees, I wear soutanes, I like my albs with lace; oh dear, now I have to find a rhyme for lace).
maybe a bit of both. I believe during his visit to Sicily, he made some rather cutting remarks about some priests dressing up in "grandma's lace". of course, we are all products of our culture and era. I personally view lace vestments less as feminine and more as "nostalgia" (though its defenders might rather say appreciation) for a certain period of the history of the Latin Church, and as not really "traditional" in the sense which people usually ascribe to that word.
The defenders of McCarrick/Rupnik (the defenders not necessarily being the same group for each disgraced priest, but it would be interesting if there was any overlap especially in higher-ups) will say they were “sacrificed at the altar of American Alarmism.” Pope Francis has an obvious bias against Americans as discussed in a previous podcast. How much does that play into the Vatican’s fumbling of this whole affair?
Be strong and steadfast; have no fear or dread of them, for it is the LORD, your God, who marches with you; he will never fail you or forsake you. — Deut 31.6
It may be wrong of me, but I greatly enjoy the image of a mob of Slovenian peasants, armed with torches and pitchforks, descending upon whatever rectory Rupnik might have the gall to move into.
The issue is moot now that a trial and laicisation of Rupnik look likely. But there was a suggestion that he might never be inflicted on an ordinary Slovenian parish. The incardination in Koper diocese would just be a legal convenience and he might spend all his time elsewhere doing his art work. I am not sure which would be worse. In either case he would be free to conduct abuse of the vulnerable while still being a priest. And, as long as he is a priest, he still has a right to financial support from his bishop.
Having listened to the podcast now, the feeling that I get is "Star Wars prequels", not in terms of any particular casting of characters (although Pope Francis can be Yoda if he wants, I suppose), nor of any similarity in its plotline or its openly-heretical worldview (Manichaeism if I recall correctly); but strictly in terms of theatrical ambiance. In general, the pervasive rot and the lust for power; in particular, the urbane gentility not only of Palpatine but also of Count Dooku in his earlier appearances, contrasted with his sudden beheading without benefit of trial when he became a liability: this is the atmosphere that I see in the apparent action of a network that protects collaborators up to a point and then discards them.
In the prequels it is merely the backdrop for the dramatic descent into hell of a single deeply-flawed character (at each step beckoned to descend, in a series of lousy choices, by a central mastermind running a huge conspiracy: this is not really the case in real life unless we want to bring satan into it, which I do not consider useful), whose redemption is the initially-unplanned story arc spanning the original trilogy (which was the only good one and it should not have been re-edited). But in real life firstly there is apparently a teeming sea of Counts Dooku engaged in mutual support-up-to-a-point, and secondly no one is a supporting character who is only there to be the occasion of someone else's lousy choices and who is entirely static himself. Maybe if we pray and do some penance on their behalf they will repent before they die. Repenting after they die (I say this at the risk of the usual subscriber asserting otherwise) is not possible, and none of these guys are getting any younger so it is to some extent an urgent matter.
Concern about the position of women in the hierarchy is, as far as I'm concerned, one of the greatest examples of clericalism on record. It's all about who's running things and the power and prestige they have due to their office. So now the powers that be want to include women among those with clerical power.
At the same time they aren't willing to protect average men, women, and children who are the victims of sexual abuse by themselves and their friends. I hope they don't wonder why people are dropping out of the Church or no longer funding them, since they obviously aren't concerned about anyone but themselves.
Sue, I believe you are spot on. The elephant in the room here is the concept that one cannot pursue love and power at the same time (pursuing power requires one to use other persons rather than love them). Clericalism is the practice of pursuing power by clergy and giving power by laity. The power belongs to God; the position of authority allows one to exercise God's power. Exercising power on one's own is called "original sin" ("You shall be like gods").
What a disaster. Rome just finished a much hyped, multi-year endeavor that was supposed to change the way the church operates. No matter your feelings on the Synod, the Synod was supposed to be the news story of the day, week, month and year out of Rome.
Yet here we are. JD comes back from Rome and the only thing discussed on one of the more influential platforms in Catholic media is Marco Rupnik. Just unbelievable.
Also, when discussing whether or not Rupnik should be styled as “Father”, I was really hoping Ed would just do a n SNL era Norm MacDonald impression “because he’s a rapist.”
Really? The topic of the podcast conversation is the disaster in this scenario?
Obviously the disaster is the handling of Rupnik (a disaster that has been unfolding for years...). I’m just saying that Rome invested millions in this Synod, hyping it up for years. Finally they their big day, and their own incompetence destroys their moment, because no one’s talking about. Everyone’s just talking about Rupnik.
A temptation to talk about Rupnik is inevitable. So much of the texts coming out of the Synod are so vague that I honestly don't know what they mean. And, to judge from other comments on various sites, other people are equally clueless. So any rational debate on what the Synod might mean for your parish or diocese is impossible, though we can voice horrible speculation. The Rupnik case at least has understandable facts.
okay, this is a minor point- but Francis did not as you claim mention "lace cassocks" in his speech to the synod. he decried, and I quote, "el escándalo de sacerdotes jóvenes probándose sotanas y sombreros o albas y roquetes con encajes". literally, "the scandal of young priests trying on soutanes and hats or albs and rochets with lace". lace is clearly connected to albs and rochets in the sentence, not to soutanes. I think I saw mention of lace cassocks from some reporters on Twitter, but they were not directly quoting what he said, but attempting to roughly capture the meaning, and accidentally confusing some elements.
Is this comment adding anything of substance to the discussion? Is it even seeking to add anything of substance?
I was seeking to correct a minor point raised in the podcast.
Hello Joseph. My first reaction to your comment was to highlight how your point was minor within the scope of the Rupnik case. But the fact that JD said something like not knowing what a "lace cassock" is, makes it no as minor as I initially thought. I does indeed surprise me that JD would say the Holy Father said something that he did not say, particularly about something such as "lace cassocks", which do not exist. However, given all of Rupnik has been credibly accused of and his prominence in Rome, it is so disarmingly discouraging and deflating that the Holy Father would find more scandal in cassock wearing priests than in Rupnik being incardinated in any diocese, albeit not wearing clerics.
From previous interaction we've had in this forum, I take it that you do not know any priests in soutanes that are pastorally oriented, available for all, enthusiastic, outgoing, loving the poor and marginalized who live Christ-centered lives. But I do. In fact, I know several.
I think the Rupnik case is horrible. it's not clear to me that Francis' speech is an indication that he finds more scandal in young priests trying on cassocks at clerical tailors in Rome than serial sexual abuse and cover-up by clerics. the way I see it, he was talking about a problem he has identified in the Church, clericalism, and using the story about priests buying expensive and/or "retrograde" clerical dress as an example of this problem, as he has done several times before. (it should be said that he has also quoted or said things to the effect of "it doesn't matter if a priest wears a cassock, what matters is if he rolls up the sleeves and gets his hands dirty".) I didn't take it the way that many others have, as a minimization of clerical sexual abuse, though I understand why people did and why they are frustrated or angry over the timing and tone of these remarks. I think if you asked Francis which is worse, the incardination of a serial sexual abuser like or a young priest buying albs with lace, he would be quite clear that the former is worse.
and to the other point, I have personally known several priests who wear or have sometimes worn cassocks. I don't have a low opinion of any of them, though neither would I say they were better men than the priests I know who dress in clerical suits or even plainclothes. there is a degree of correlation between attachment to older styles of vestments and clothing and a theological perspective which I view as harmful to the Church, though I wouldn't accuse everyone in a soutane of such a thing. Francis himself daily wears the same garment, after all.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. You are right that, if asked, the Pope would say the Rupnik is a bigger scandal than soutanes and lace. But he hasn’t said it, has he. What I find most disheartening is that the Holy Father would even suggest that purchasing priestly garments in Gammarelli is a sign of clericalism and, therfore, scandalous. The biggest and most scandalous sign of clericalism is sexual abuse, particluarly one as the Rupnik’s case, with the wide coverage it’s had. This, after Bishops Barros and Zanchetta, leaves my heart troubled.
"But he hasn’t said it, has he."
This is the oblique point of reactions to Joseph. The horrendous part is that the Pope has lifted the statute of limitations apparently only because of the outrage publicly. Certainly he knows of the details of the affair Rupnik! If he can kick a bishop out of his bishopric in Puerto Rico, he can act against a (former) Jesuit in Rome. The fact that he has not is a clear indication of his his tacit acceptance of Rupnik. The statement about scandal and clothing just accentuates his active enabling of Rupnik by his silence and inaction previously.
I wouldn’t call it acceptance but there’s definitely a desire to protect those closer to him. And say this with great sadness.
If you don't call it acceptance, then what do you call his actions (refusal to lift the statute of limitations, refusal to condemn, refusal to laicize, etc.)? Is it tolerance of what appears monstrous evil? If so, that is complicity. In sexual abuse, enabling the abuser through lack of consequences for his action is moral complicity in the abuse, yes? I cannot suggest that it is acceptance. What other options do we have to describe the Popes willful actions regarding Rupnik?
I appreciate the clarification. This straightens out which articles were the notionally scandalous ones. It's not clear to me what specifically is scandalous to the Pope's eyes, though, because I could see it as either of two things: is it vanity (fancy clothes that will make people respect me more! also maybe a nice car!), or is it the modern expectation that large hats and lace belong to women and thus it's a sort of Monty Python Lumberjack Song situation (I cut down trees, I wear soutanes, I like my albs with lace; oh dear, now I have to find a rhyme for lace).
maybe a bit of both. I believe during his visit to Sicily, he made some rather cutting remarks about some priests dressing up in "grandma's lace". of course, we are all products of our culture and era. I personally view lace vestments less as feminine and more as "nostalgia" (though its defenders might rather say appreciation) for a certain period of the history of the Latin Church, and as not really "traditional" in the sense which people usually ascribe to that word.
Trace, race, grace
The defenders of McCarrick/Rupnik (the defenders not necessarily being the same group for each disgraced priest, but it would be interesting if there was any overlap especially in higher-ups) will say they were “sacrificed at the altar of American Alarmism.” Pope Francis has an obvious bias against Americans as discussed in a previous podcast. How much does that play into the Vatican’s fumbling of this whole affair?
The pope’s apparent bias against us Americans is absolutely soul crushing to me. It makes me feel abandoned and voiceless, to be honest.
Be strong and steadfast; have no fear or dread of them, for it is the LORD, your God, who marches with you; he will never fail you or forsake you. — Deut 31.6
❤️
Sobruptious? Sobrituous? How is it spelled? I need to look this word up 😀
It may be wrong of me, but I greatly enjoy the image of a mob of Slovenian peasants, armed with torches and pitchforks, descending upon whatever rectory Rupnik might have the gall to move into.
The issue is moot now that a trial and laicisation of Rupnik look likely. But there was a suggestion that he might never be inflicted on an ordinary Slovenian parish. The incardination in Koper diocese would just be a legal convenience and he might spend all his time elsewhere doing his art work. I am not sure which would be worse. In either case he would be free to conduct abuse of the vulnerable while still being a priest. And, as long as he is a priest, he still has a right to financial support from his bishop.
....and you'll have things you'll want to talk about! I. Will. Too.
Having listened to the podcast now, the feeling that I get is "Star Wars prequels", not in terms of any particular casting of characters (although Pope Francis can be Yoda if he wants, I suppose), nor of any similarity in its plotline or its openly-heretical worldview (Manichaeism if I recall correctly); but strictly in terms of theatrical ambiance. In general, the pervasive rot and the lust for power; in particular, the urbane gentility not only of Palpatine but also of Count Dooku in his earlier appearances, contrasted with his sudden beheading without benefit of trial when he became a liability: this is the atmosphere that I see in the apparent action of a network that protects collaborators up to a point and then discards them.
In the prequels it is merely the backdrop for the dramatic descent into hell of a single deeply-flawed character (at each step beckoned to descend, in a series of lousy choices, by a central mastermind running a huge conspiracy: this is not really the case in real life unless we want to bring satan into it, which I do not consider useful), whose redemption is the initially-unplanned story arc spanning the original trilogy (which was the only good one and it should not have been re-edited). But in real life firstly there is apparently a teeming sea of Counts Dooku engaged in mutual support-up-to-a-point, and secondly no one is a supporting character who is only there to be the occasion of someone else's lousy choices and who is entirely static himself. Maybe if we pray and do some penance on their behalf they will repent before they die. Repenting after they die (I say this at the risk of the usual subscriber asserting otherwise) is not possible, and none of these guys are getting any younger so it is to some extent an urgent matter.
I think people have a last chance to repent at their death at their first judgment, but most won't take it.
Concern about the position of women in the hierarchy is, as far as I'm concerned, one of the greatest examples of clericalism on record. It's all about who's running things and the power and prestige they have due to their office. So now the powers that be want to include women among those with clerical power.
At the same time they aren't willing to protect average men, women, and children who are the victims of sexual abuse by themselves and their friends. I hope they don't wonder why people are dropping out of the Church or no longer funding them, since they obviously aren't concerned about anyone but themselves.
Sue, I believe you are spot on. The elephant in the room here is the concept that one cannot pursue love and power at the same time (pursuing power requires one to use other persons rather than love them). Clericalism is the practice of pursuing power by clergy and giving power by laity. The power belongs to God; the position of authority allows one to exercise God's power. Exercising power on one's own is called "original sin" ("You shall be like gods").