Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mr. Karamazov's avatar

Ed - With regards to Rupnik, I don't understand why you seem to discount the possibility that there was in fact no real investigation at all into his crimes. After all, he was charged with investigating the Center, not Rupnik himself. It could very well have just been the Archbishop talking to a few people about Rupnik and throwing out there that he finds reason to doubt it. This checks a lot of boxes for me:

- it answers why he's doing something so controversial - in his mind he isn't because it's just him giving his opinion

- it removes the knotty issue of figuring out where he's getting his info and whether it was legit. The simplest answer is more often than not the correct one.

- the guy just spent a good amount of time talking to people at the Centre who are undoubtedly very fond of Rupnik. Is it surprising that they would be filling his ears with their own partially informed theories?

- it's full of wiggle room. If it hits the fans he just opines that it wasn't a formal investigation and it wasn't meant to challenge the CDF or the Pope. If it doesn't hit the fan, he's helped his friend rehabilitate his image a bit.

I think you're thinking about this like a canon lawyer instead of like a bishop who wants to make himself, his diocese and his friend look better. The fact that it may blow up in his face is simply further proof that our leaders aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.

Expand full comment
Lance's avatar

The Pillar does great reporting and, to its credit, always gives the benefit of the doubt to people but sometimes I read something and just have to shake my head.

Regarding the Rupnik situation and allegations that the Pope was involved in the attempted rehabilitation of Rupnik, Ed wrote, "That would be, I think, utterly and rightly catastrophic for the pope’s credibility on abuse reform, and a legacy-defining scandal."

Maybe I am the minority but I don't think Pope Francis has much credibility on abuse reform as he has consistently personally supported clerics who have been credibly accused/convicted of abuses. Zanchetta, Daneels, McCarrick are just a few of the names that come to mind.

Sometimes the benefit of the doubt should not be given. This is one of those times.

Expand full comment
26 more comments...
Latest

No posts