JD and Ed detail the biggest ecclesiastical governance story of the year— the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith blocks the Vatican Secretariat of State’s “extraordinary procedure” to reinstate a laicized priest, who was convicted of child sexual abuse.
Ed plays a round of para ‘Yes or No.’
This episode of The Pillar Podcast is brought to you by Seton Home Study School. If you are a priest and you don’t have a Catholic school attached to your parish, consider Seton your Catholic school.
Seton offers a way for your parishioners to access thoroughly Catholic education anywhere, at a fraction of the cost of many Catholic schools.
Learn more at setonhome.org
This episode is why I subscribe to the Pillar!
The fictional chief of staff comparison was apt.
Really great episode! One question occurred to me as you both were outlining the sequence of events: is it typical for a diocese to be so prompt in announcing communication from the Vatican, in this case from the Secretariat of State? Would this have played out differently if the diocese had just sat on that announcement for a little while? I can imagine Archbishop Peña Parra being very frustrated with that diocese, thinking if they had just played it a little cooler, he may have gotten away with it (at whoever’s behest), but now he has to deal with Archbishop Kennedy. And thank God for Archbishop Kennedy, that he was willing to take such a public stand so quickly.
And I would love a bonus episode sometime about Ed’s experience working for an MP and the corollaries with House of Cards! I loved the discussion about Leo McGarry and Doug Stamper.
Good work guys, also happy Feast of Our Lady of the Pillar!
I'm extremely grateful for the Pillar's existence. Reporting like this is why I support your organization.
Hard to imagine Peña Parra doing this on his own volition. However, it is equally hard to think the curia will cop to Francis' involvement given the Pillar's publicity (if he is involved). We'll see who takes the fall for this one.
God bless Archbishop John Joseph Kennedy!
Two things
1) Since Parra has not resigned or been fired by the Pope as of 11 October 2024, it is clear that Pope Francis (his boss) supports him. This "one more time" incident reinforces my unhappy view that Pope Francis is a morally bad man and should resign and live out the rest of his life in penance.
2) For all of us in "parasocial" relationships with The Pillar, have you ever thought of a Zoom conference where people ask (appropriate) questions? Perhaps as a fundraiser? I think there is a need in American culture for converting parasocial relationships into social relationships.
As to your first point, I try to give the Pope the benefit of the doubt but when things like this keep happening it’s hard not to come to the same conclusion you have. His actions and inactions around sexual abuse are hard to explain in any way other than he is just not a good person.
An Argentine Insider Explains the Brisk Príncipi Case
The key question in the case of the Argentine priest Ariel Príncipi is the role of Francis and of Tucho Fernández.
Príncipi was twice condemned by ecclesiastical tribunals (June 2023, April 2024) for the abuse of minors and punished with relegation to lay status.
But in September, Archbishop Peña Parra of the Secretariat of State, without any authority, granted de facto absolution to the degenerate priest. Peña Parra reduced the punishment to minor restrictions, without even suspending him. It is inconceivable that Peña Parra acted without the approval of Francis.
On October 7, Archbishop John Joseph Kennedy of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith reversed the decision.
A probable interpretation of the case is given by Caminante-Wanderer.Blogspot.com who reported a key detail that all other Catholic media left out: Príncipi is a very close friend of Tucho, was his classmate in the seminary and assistant presbyter at Tucho's episcopal ordination in 2013.
For Caminante, the latest development is "a new setback for the chaotic Bergogliano pontificate and a new trick by Tucho".
Wanderer assumes that the following happened: "It is probable that Tucho ["bésame mucho"], with the cunning that characterises him, wanted to save his little friend and, thinking that it would be very rude for him to be the one to lift his sentence, he asked Peña Parra, who has an ambiguous [homosexual] background to say the least, to do this little favour."
But thanks to the Internet, the move didn't go unnoticed: "The pressure will have begun to reach the Vatican, and probably also Santa Marta."
Caminante believes that Francis called Tucho and "with the usual expletives and worse" asked him "to clean up the mess" he had made.
Therefore Tucho took the unprecedented action of having the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith annul a decision of the Secretariat of State, thus confirming the punishment of the ordinary process.
Caminante expects that Tucho, who began his Vatican career with dozens of interviews like "a glamorous diva" and who calmed down after the disaster of the homosexual manifesto 'Fiducia supplicans,' will be "even calmer" after the Principi case:
"He knows very well how costly it is to be the cause of His Holiness' anger."
This is the thing I was wondering - who does Principi know, and why did Peña Parra stick out his neck for him.
So your read is that Fernandez made a private request to Peña Parra to interfere with the case on his behalf, since he was personally unable to, given the bifurcation of the dicastery. He trusted that Peña Parra's clout was enough that this would go uncontested, but enough people noticed that Francis specifically instructed Kennedy to step in. Is that right? If so, interesting take for sure.
I don't have any opinion about wanderers proposed sequence of events, but the detail about Tucho's closeness with Príncipi is definitely interesting. He had to at least be aware of all of this .
Wanderer also makes it sound like Principi was quite influential within Argentina (referente espiritual de buena parte del monjerío argentino - I guess that means among religious sisters?), which is depressing.
The online Our Sunday Visitor now has an article about this. Not with the indepth why this is important but that it happened. I presume they have PullarCatholic readers among themselves.
Historically, a number of 14th and 15th century theologians believed that a Pope could be removed by a Church Council for heresy. Not that we have had any recent heretical popes, but there was a time when the issue was considered relevant.
"It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you." Enemy of the State
Para-social relationships.
I have a recurring nightmare where I am called to the parish rectory for a meeting, that I am not given the topic of, and Fr. leads me into the conference room were my bishop and JD are sat together at a table. "Come in Philip, we have some things you've said that we need to discuss..."
If I'm there, it'll be as your canonist.
I love your pastoral plug for catholic homeschooling!
The rest of this stuff…I just don’t even know what to say. Except this, I’ll say this: every time the church touches a new low, the Holy Spirit shows Himself as Lord and thank God for that.
Maybe the solution to the attitude about the law is that the next pontiff be a cannonist.
I agree with Ed that sympathy for the unrepentant is not required ("there but for the grace of God goes Sherlock Holmes" could be humility, and as written was humility, but could also be so easily steered into the Pharisee praying to himself that I generally avoid it). Pity in the sense of Frodo pitying Gollum is reasonable, if it moves us to pray for "Smeagol" (long buried but not dead) to surface, and to pray for the creature who so long bore a terrible burden ultimately to be saved, willingly casting aside his greatest attachment. But I think someone will instead have to bite off his finger.