I think a big part of it is the issue of time itself. Italian time, and in particular Roman time, and most definitely Vatican time is a completely different thing than American time.
Ed references a lack of "urgency", but I am sure if you asked a Vatican official in the future they would say, "We held the trial within 20 years. That is incredibly fast."
There are a few components such as the Penitentiary that rightly work with great speed, but as one official told me describing "Vatican time", "After 500 years we have barely had enough time to start really thinking about the Council of Trent."
I hear things like this often, but my hope is that we don't make incompetence some racial caricature. If it takes 20 years to hold a trial, we should be upset - and not because we're Americans.
There have been many great Italian (though that is anachronistic at best) reformers and saints throughout Church history. Pre-modern people certainly had a "looser" experience of time than even the most laid-back modern Mediterranean. Yet, they didn't wait years to enact justice.
The Church has always believed in doing things correctly the first time and, often, but not always, beautifully. The saying "Europeans think 100 miles is a long distance, and Americans think 100 years is a long time" is certainly true.
That is most certainly true. I just don't think it's a relevant concept for something of this sort.
We're talking about a trial of a heinous abuser, not the slow development of culture over centuries. A "beautiful" trial would surely be one in which any of the relevant parties are still alive to see justice administered.
If Italians think 20 years is a reasonable amount of time to wait for a trial, I can see why the mafia took over. I'd probably support them too at that rate.
“Italian time” doesn’t seem to be an issue when suppressing trads. Nor when issuing oblique rebukes of American officials. They are more than capable of swiftness when they so choose.
Bringing this up because I genuinely don’t know: I wonder how much of this is perhaps because the Apostolic Nuncio to the US is more efficient than those at the Vatican or in Rome’s Diocese.
Nah. They've suppressed trad religious orders and bishops who are not trad, but merely liberal towards trads, in other countries too.
I also doubt there is any way to interpret the Pope's statements opposing maintaining laws against homosexual acts, immediately before and after a trip to Africa, as being subject to "Italian time".
They are internationally efficient about the things they care about.
I've heard a fair number of the Eastern Catholics looking at the way trads are treated and wondering if they're next. Most Eastern Churches are numerically smaller than trads, and also being separate sui juris grants some safety. But it's the safety of there being bigger fish to fry. I don't know how widespread that wondering is, but Eastern Churches also have a history of undesired Latinization due to Rome wanting everyone to do as they do, which could make anyone jumpy. Homogeneity makes governance easier, and bias is a thing.
To reassure our eastern brethren I don’t think they were ever on the radar. That’s to misunderstand the mindset Most liturgical/theological progressives either don’t even realise eastern churches actually exist, or if they do get an oriental exotic special treatment.
In Australia I’m FAR less worried about trad communities being suppressed and more concerned with the fact that a number of my generation who were con/reverted and proudly adopted the ‘rad trad’ identity are now completely deconstructing as they enter into real adulthood. Usually after they have kids and usually the Dads.
Unless my math is off, a little over 8 years. That is certainly not moving at the speed of light.
QED.
As for "persecuting priests who say the Latin Mass" it is interesting that the supposedly "ultra liberal" University of Notre Dame offers both the Latin Novus Ordo and the TLM weekly in the student dorms.
Usually, but not always, when someone claims "persecution" it is for reasons other than the self-stated persecution. See, for example, Rupnik's claims that he is being "persecuted" for this art. I think it might just be for something else.
"liberal" also means "permissive", not strictly "opposed to Tradition" or "progressive". It's always fun to try to keep straight which sense that particular word is being used in, at what times. It has become all things to all men, and not in a good way.
I don't think most of the TLM shutdowns in America were due to the bishop wanting to shut them down, including those under quite progressive bishops, who are also rather permissive, but not particularly opposed to Tradition. There are a few notable exceptions. (e.g. Cupich) As a general rule, I think American bishops see parishes with lots of baptisms, lots of confirmations, lots of marriages, and a healthy amount of tithing, and would much prefer to keep a good thing going even if they don't understand it. (could be the same outside America)
Traditionis Custodes was a reversal of Summorum Pontificum. It is entirely conceivable that its release was delayed to try to get it released after Pope Benedict's death. He lived rather longer than he was expected to when he abdicated. I think a number of health problems cleared up with the relief from stress. TC was released about 6 months before his death, and even after 8 years, was definitely seen as unusual and (by some) disrespectful to be moving the church so flatly contrary to his predecessor's express efforts, while he was still alive.
I'm not sure how it isn't persecution to shut down peoples' longstanding Mass, internationally, on the sole grounds that it is Tridentine. Unless there's 4D chess going on?
See I don't think it was delayed because of Benedict. I think it was issued because Francis almost died, and a cadre of Bishops and intellectuals n(mostly Italian, but with a few American progressives) realized that the grounds were shifting, and a future pope, even a liberal one, would be less inclined to ban it. This was their last chance, and Francis would be uniquely susceptible to being told he needed a legacy before he died: the man who finally implemented Vatican II on the liturgy, who had the courage and boldness to do what nobody else could: end the TLM.
That's a compelling argument for a man in power, especially one as desperate for such a legacy as Francis has been. That probably explains more than anything why he changed his position from the beginning of his pontificate. he isn't some scheming evil man, he's human, with typical human weaknesses, egos, and desire to be remembered. So once that was achieved, they invented a rationale for it.
I can see that too, although I'm not sure I'd count surgery for diverticulitis that went well to be life-threatening, at least not particularly more than anything else is for an 84-year-old. And it seems from more recent events that he is not keen on continuing to try to end the TLM.
Honestly, I have a lot more respect for someone trying to respect his predecessor by not reversing things until after his death, then someone who sets policy according to a desire for a legacy.
That the rationale in TC came after the decision to partly suppress the TLM, and not before, seems pretty clear based on the poor quality of the rationale in TC.
I think you were a little too eager to join the fray, and you don't actually understand what you are talking about as a result.
My friends got their parish closed that was thriving, and had none of the radicalism. They were then told by rome they couldn't have coffee socials after mass, and the prefect of the DDW instructed priests to remind them, regularly, that they were not actually part of that Church community.
Now everyone (including many liberals) ignored Francis and Roche on this, rightly. Yet do not try to gaslight either through your ignorance or malice: what was intended was a persecution.
That Francis was pope for 8 years before TC doesn't mean anything about once TC was issued, or the obvious disparity that they move faster to ban a TLM than they do to persecute a rapist who the pope likes.
Your attempt to move the discussion elsewhere is noted, but doesn't help you, because you can't explain away that disparity, and you didn't even try.
Bergoglio's protection, coverup, injection of scheming Arturo Sosa, use off slow roll Tucho has swamped his credibility and honor. A receding tide will only reveal the sad detritus of lies and prevarications.
Thanks for the excellent update. Your re-running of this scandal's timeline reminds me why I am so cranky towards the Vatican and its hierarchy. Over the years we certainly have had some tough scandals to push through, but this scandal seems to punch every button, plus no-one in the Vatican seems willing to resolve it. I will just need to continue to rely on God's Grace and protection of His Church, plus the good people in our Church who are doing the right things. Thanks Pillar for writing this article, it needed to be published.
Remember, this is the Jesuit who assaulted over two dozen women since at least 1995 (that's thirty years) and also incurred LS excommunication for a time after he absolved one of his rape victims. After his conviction, this guy actually delivered the Lenten meditations in Rome for curial priests! Because he is old personal SJ friend of the SJ pope, nothing really has happened to him other than his (clearly reluctant) removal from the Jesuits. He still has faculties in his home diocese in Slovenia. Rupnik still has his art studio and still has his big website with his bizarre Japanese anime-eyed sacred figures.
Contrast this with the speed and ferocity of the canonical process and removal/excommunication of some bishops (Strickland and Vigano), and various priests and nuns who have run afoul of Pope Francis. Not arguing here that these folks should not have been removed or excommunicated for their actions, but its pretty clear to me if you are a Jesuit friend of the Pope, you will be treated much more kindly.
Is there a list anywhere of these so called icons/installations? the Irish college in Rome has quite a large one and given the sensitivities amongst the Irish bishops around abuse am surprised there hasn't been more push for it to be removed.
Aparecida in Brazil; San Giovanni Rotondo in Italy; St John Paul II Shrine in Washington, DC; the Apostolic Palace, Vatican City; Lourdes, France; Fatima, Portugal, and on and on and on....
Or everyone understands the next pope won't protect Rupnik, especially if he's a liberal. It's the easiest political play possible for a liberal pope to do what Francis wouldn't: act decisively on an obvious sexual predator.
That puts context in everyone acting more boldly now that Francis is no longer in control of the Church. Even should he heal and return to being in active control, might be tough to stop what had started by that point.
Also don't think its a false assumption the Pope favors Rupnik. He clearly does. The question is if he abused his authority on his behalf, or merely made imprudent moves regarding his case.
That is the editors being extra cautious out of a deference due to the August See. Of course, they would not have any such concerns were it any other person.
The horrific lapse in judgment in allowing this man to not have his faculties suspended at the very least while the penal process plays out is an affront to the dignity of victims. it demonstrates that the Church is unserious about protecting victims of abuse. There is no justification for this. And the responsibility for any additional victims from this man lay at the feet of all the powers that be who have failed to take action.
It is also an affront to all priests (here in the US, at least), who have had their faculties suspended or have been relieved of their duties when “credible” accusations of abuse are received.
It’s not art. To make images that are the product of sexual abuse, and then to purposely subvert the traditions of iconography is to make images that praise Satan. Burn it all down.
The fact that the Holy Father still has Rupnik’s art in his flat that was allowed to make it into a publicized video, leaves little doubt that Francis is at the very least giving many people the impressions that he supports Rupnik.
Even art as unpleasant as Rupniks becomes unnoticed furniture eventually. The dicastry for communications is not exactly on board with Rupnik’s disgrace (separation of artist from the art or something...) and wouldn’t have picked it up as a problem. TV crews are usually very cognisant on what’s in the background of shots especially when copyright is an issue.
I can see it being unnoticed furniture the first few times this showed up in the news, and people objected. I can even see it being unnoticed furniture well after, if the curial officials and bureaucrats simply don't read that news.
At this point, I think enough reporters have asked direct questions on the subject, including to the dicastery for communications, and enough laity, priests, bishops, and at least one cardinal have commented on it publicly, to say nothing of privately, that either Pope Francis knows it's a problem for a lot of people in and out of the Church and this is a deliberate choice, or some curial officials are putting out a fair amount of effort to keep it from him, successfully. Which begs other questions.
We just returned from a Fátima pilgrimage and had Mass in that very Basilica. That mural is massive as it is the backdrop behind the altar. Given that his abuse took place during phases of creating mosaics, it is indeed a disgusting visual reminder of the blasphemous sacrilege of this man. As for me, I felt called to pray fervently for his conversion as we were in that space. May he, like all other horrible abusers, see the true depth of their hideous actions and repent. Deep and full repentance, as well as profound atonement. Lord, have mercy on repentant sinners.
Always damning and infuriating will be any phraseology expressing Pope Francis "finally lifting" the statute of limitations. This just seems to be good ol' boy protectionism gone way too far and for much too long. Crimes of sexual depravity still seem to be taken lightly in the Curia and until that changes the Church will always suffer not only in the realm of moral credibility but in courtrooms and public opinion all over the world. I don't expect or want a draconian response but something that approaches the topic with the seriousness it deserves would be nice. Cardinal Fernandez can't even oversee the DDF disciplinary section, how well can that possibly work out for the Dicastery as the promoter of justice?
Any continued use of the mosaics though reprehensible will always seem secondary to me because of the planning and artistic and architectural work involved in removing and replacing them. I can kind of sort of understand the foot dragging. Something that took years to approve and install and now justice and moral fortitude demands its removal in days and weeks. The art is bad and represents the corruption of a fallen priest but the real issue at hand seems to be the mentality of those in the Curia that have the teeth for trial and enforcement. Until they start taking matters seriously nothing will change except the level of public outrage and their ability to withstand it.
We have gotten to years of waiting for them to remove the art, at this point. I think it's more about the politics of not wanting to act while Rome is dragging its feet, or whatever may or may not be going on behind the scenes.
How about in addition to all of the regular reparations made to victims (including hopefully swift justice of their abuser) we let them take a sledgehammer to his art around the world. Destroys the art and I’m sure cathartic for them. Win win
Excellent as always. Thank you. Here's two errors I think I caught.
"want shield Rupnik "
"following Francis is too ill after his lengthy stay"
I think a big part of it is the issue of time itself. Italian time, and in particular Roman time, and most definitely Vatican time is a completely different thing than American time.
Ed references a lack of "urgency", but I am sure if you asked a Vatican official in the future they would say, "We held the trial within 20 years. That is incredibly fast."
There are a few components such as the Penitentiary that rightly work with great speed, but as one official told me describing "Vatican time", "After 500 years we have barely had enough time to start really thinking about the Council of Trent."
I hear things like this often, but my hope is that we don't make incompetence some racial caricature. If it takes 20 years to hold a trial, we should be upset - and not because we're Americans.
There have been many great Italian (though that is anachronistic at best) reformers and saints throughout Church history. Pre-modern people certainly had a "looser" experience of time than even the most laid-back modern Mediterranean. Yet, they didn't wait years to enact justice.
The Church has always believed in doing things correctly the first time and, often, but not always, beautifully. The saying "Europeans think 100 miles is a long distance, and Americans think 100 years is a long time" is certainly true.
That is most certainly true. I just don't think it's a relevant concept for something of this sort.
We're talking about a trial of a heinous abuser, not the slow development of culture over centuries. A "beautiful" trial would surely be one in which any of the relevant parties are still alive to see justice administered.
If Italians think 20 years is a reasonable amount of time to wait for a trial, I can see why the mafia took over. I'd probably support them too at that rate.
Excuse, excuses.
Its more than time that Rome/Vatican moves into the 20th century.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Care for these victims has been put off way too long, sinfully so.
I know this is a serious subject but the 20th century line made me laugh.
“Italian time” doesn’t seem to be an issue when suppressing trads. Nor when issuing oblique rebukes of American officials. They are more than capable of swiftness when they so choose.
Bringing this up because I genuinely don’t know: I wonder how much of this is perhaps because the Apostolic Nuncio to the US is more efficient than those at the Vatican or in Rome’s Diocese.
Nah. They've suppressed trad religious orders and bishops who are not trad, but merely liberal towards trads, in other countries too.
I also doubt there is any way to interpret the Pope's statements opposing maintaining laws against homosexual acts, immediately before and after a trip to Africa, as being subject to "Italian time".
They are internationally efficient about the things they care about.
They haven’t touched our pro-trad bishops here for what it’s worth. Mind you, the Australian Church is tiny, numerically speaking.
Yeah. There are some advantages in small numbers.
I've heard a fair number of the Eastern Catholics looking at the way trads are treated and wondering if they're next. Most Eastern Churches are numerically smaller than trads, and also being separate sui juris grants some safety. But it's the safety of there being bigger fish to fry. I don't know how widespread that wondering is, but Eastern Churches also have a history of undesired Latinization due to Rome wanting everyone to do as they do, which could make anyone jumpy. Homogeneity makes governance easier, and bias is a thing.
To reassure our eastern brethren I don’t think they were ever on the radar. That’s to misunderstand the mindset Most liturgical/theological progressives either don’t even realise eastern churches actually exist, or if they do get an oriental exotic special treatment.
In Australia I’m FAR less worried about trad communities being suppressed and more concerned with the fact that a number of my generation who were con/reverted and proudly adopted the ‘rad trad’ identity are now completely deconstructing as they enter into real adulthood. Usually after they have kids and usually the Dads.
And yet they respond at the speed of light if there's a chance to persecute a priest who says the Latin Mass.
That argument was, is, and always will be, bulls**t.
When was Francis elected Pope?
When was "Traditionis custodes" issued?
Unless my math is off, a little over 8 years. That is certainly not moving at the speed of light.
QED.
As for "persecuting priests who say the Latin Mass" it is interesting that the supposedly "ultra liberal" University of Notre Dame offers both the Latin Novus Ordo and the TLM weekly in the student dorms.
https://www.latinmassdir.org/venue/alumni-hall-notre-dame-united-states/
(Latin ordinary form Saturday's at 10 AM.)
Usually, but not always, when someone claims "persecution" it is for reasons other than the self-stated persecution. See, for example, Rupnik's claims that he is being "persecuted" for this art. I think it might just be for something else.
"liberal" also means "permissive", not strictly "opposed to Tradition" or "progressive". It's always fun to try to keep straight which sense that particular word is being used in, at what times. It has become all things to all men, and not in a good way.
I don't think most of the TLM shutdowns in America were due to the bishop wanting to shut them down, including those under quite progressive bishops, who are also rather permissive, but not particularly opposed to Tradition. There are a few notable exceptions. (e.g. Cupich) As a general rule, I think American bishops see parishes with lots of baptisms, lots of confirmations, lots of marriages, and a healthy amount of tithing, and would much prefer to keep a good thing going even if they don't understand it. (could be the same outside America)
Traditionis Custodes was a reversal of Summorum Pontificum. It is entirely conceivable that its release was delayed to try to get it released after Pope Benedict's death. He lived rather longer than he was expected to when he abdicated. I think a number of health problems cleared up with the relief from stress. TC was released about 6 months before his death, and even after 8 years, was definitely seen as unusual and (by some) disrespectful to be moving the church so flatly contrary to his predecessor's express efforts, while he was still alive.
I'm not sure how it isn't persecution to shut down peoples' longstanding Mass, internationally, on the sole grounds that it is Tridentine. Unless there's 4D chess going on?
See I don't think it was delayed because of Benedict. I think it was issued because Francis almost died, and a cadre of Bishops and intellectuals n(mostly Italian, but with a few American progressives) realized that the grounds were shifting, and a future pope, even a liberal one, would be less inclined to ban it. This was their last chance, and Francis would be uniquely susceptible to being told he needed a legacy before he died: the man who finally implemented Vatican II on the liturgy, who had the courage and boldness to do what nobody else could: end the TLM.
That's a compelling argument for a man in power, especially one as desperate for such a legacy as Francis has been. That probably explains more than anything why he changed his position from the beginning of his pontificate. he isn't some scheming evil man, he's human, with typical human weaknesses, egos, and desire to be remembered. So once that was achieved, they invented a rationale for it.
I can see that too, although I'm not sure I'd count surgery for diverticulitis that went well to be life-threatening, at least not particularly more than anything else is for an 84-year-old. And it seems from more recent events that he is not keen on continuing to try to end the TLM.
Honestly, I have a lot more respect for someone trying to respect his predecessor by not reversing things until after his death, then someone who sets policy according to a desire for a legacy.
That the rationale in TC came after the decision to partly suppress the TLM, and not before, seems pretty clear based on the poor quality of the rationale in TC.
I think you were a little too eager to join the fray, and you don't actually understand what you are talking about as a result.
My friends got their parish closed that was thriving, and had none of the radicalism. They were then told by rome they couldn't have coffee socials after mass, and the prefect of the DDW instructed priests to remind them, regularly, that they were not actually part of that Church community.
Now everyone (including many liberals) ignored Francis and Roche on this, rightly. Yet do not try to gaslight either through your ignorance or malice: what was intended was a persecution.
That Francis was pope for 8 years before TC doesn't mean anything about once TC was issued, or the obvious disparity that they move faster to ban a TLM than they do to persecute a rapist who the pope likes.
Your attempt to move the discussion elsewhere is noted, but doesn't help you, because you can't explain away that disparity, and you didn't even try.
Bergoglio's protection, coverup, injection of scheming Arturo Sosa, use off slow roll Tucho has swamped his credibility and honor. A receding tide will only reveal the sad detritus of lies and prevarications.
The "artwork" was ugly in the first place
Yes, to me the images look like 80% traditional icons and 20% Precious Moments.
Great anology!
They all look the same to me with those awful hollow eyes. The big red circle which is his signature is out of place and glaring. It's just plain odd.
You can always tell the crazy from the eyes. In Rupnik’s case, the eyes were hollow and soulless, fitting for “art” created from such depravity.
There is an interesting take on the artistic merits or otherwise from the Sisters of the Little Way
https://open.substack.com/pub/sistersofthelittleway/p/the-case-of-marko-rupnik-an-artists?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=e7fps
Not just ugly but a satanic parody of authentic Byzantine sacred art.
His "artwork" looks like it was created by a guy who...did the things he did
Thanks for the excellent update. Your re-running of this scandal's timeline reminds me why I am so cranky towards the Vatican and its hierarchy. Over the years we certainly have had some tough scandals to push through, but this scandal seems to punch every button, plus no-one in the Vatican seems willing to resolve it. I will just need to continue to rely on God's Grace and protection of His Church, plus the good people in our Church who are doing the right things. Thanks Pillar for writing this article, it needed to be published.
Remember, this is the Jesuit who assaulted over two dozen women since at least 1995 (that's thirty years) and also incurred LS excommunication for a time after he absolved one of his rape victims. After his conviction, this guy actually delivered the Lenten meditations in Rome for curial priests! Because he is old personal SJ friend of the SJ pope, nothing really has happened to him other than his (clearly reluctant) removal from the Jesuits. He still has faculties in his home diocese in Slovenia. Rupnik still has his art studio and still has his big website with his bizarre Japanese anime-eyed sacred figures.
https://apnews.com/article/jesuit-vatican-marko-rupnik-women-abuse-reparations-c0ed8b3ba48807df8ef65134f30cca3b
Contrast this with the speed and ferocity of the canonical process and removal/excommunication of some bishops (Strickland and Vigano), and various priests and nuns who have run afoul of Pope Francis. Not arguing here that these folks should not have been removed or excommunicated for their actions, but its pretty clear to me if you are a Jesuit friend of the Pope, you will be treated much more kindly.
Is there a list anywhere of these so called icons/installations? the Irish college in Rome has quite a large one and given the sensitivities amongst the Irish bishops around abuse am surprised there hasn't been more push for it to be removed.
Aparecida in Brazil; San Giovanni Rotondo in Italy; St John Paul II Shrine in Washington, DC; the Apostolic Palace, Vatican City; Lourdes, France; Fatima, Portugal, and on and on and on....
Or everyone understands the next pope won't protect Rupnik, especially if he's a liberal. It's the easiest political play possible for a liberal pope to do what Francis wouldn't: act decisively on an obvious sexual predator.
That puts context in everyone acting more boldly now that Francis is no longer in control of the Church. Even should he heal and return to being in active control, might be tough to stop what had started by that point.
Also don't think its a false assumption the Pope favors Rupnik. He clearly does. The question is if he abused his authority on his behalf, or merely made imprudent moves regarding his case.
That is the editors being extra cautious out of a deference due to the August See. Of course, they would not have any such concerns were it any other person.
The horrific lapse in judgment in allowing this man to not have his faculties suspended at the very least while the penal process plays out is an affront to the dignity of victims. it demonstrates that the Church is unserious about protecting victims of abuse. There is no justification for this. And the responsibility for any additional victims from this man lay at the feet of all the powers that be who have failed to take action.
It is also an affront to all priests (here in the US, at least), who have had their faculties suspended or have been relieved of their duties when “credible” accusations of abuse are received.
It’s not art. To make images that are the product of sexual abuse, and then to purposely subvert the traditions of iconography is to make images that praise Satan. Burn it all down.
The fact that the Holy Father still has Rupnik’s art in his flat that was allowed to make it into a publicized video, leaves little doubt that Francis is at the very least giving many people the impressions that he supports Rupnik.
https://english.katholisch.de/artikel/59062-francis-continues-to-have-art-by-ex-jesuit-rupnik-in-his-flat
Even if it is not the case, it seems wildly imprudent and deserving of an explanation.
Even art as unpleasant as Rupniks becomes unnoticed furniture eventually. The dicastry for communications is not exactly on board with Rupnik’s disgrace (separation of artist from the art or something...) and wouldn’t have picked it up as a problem. TV crews are usually very cognisant on what’s in the background of shots especially when copyright is an issue.
I can see it being unnoticed furniture the first few times this showed up in the news, and people objected. I can even see it being unnoticed furniture well after, if the curial officials and bureaucrats simply don't read that news.
At this point, I think enough reporters have asked direct questions on the subject, including to the dicastery for communications, and enough laity, priests, bishops, and at least one cardinal have commented on it publicly, to say nothing of privately, that either Pope Francis knows it's a problem for a lot of people in and out of the Church and this is a deliberate choice, or some curial officials are putting out a fair amount of effort to keep it from him, successfully. Which begs other questions.
I just don’t want to credit malice or intent when stupidity and incompetence is sufficient. There’s plenty to go around in the Holy See.
I don't think my comment says whether it's stupidity, incompetence, weakness, or malice. It isn't ignorance, and they've had time to deliberate.
We just returned from a Fátima pilgrimage and had Mass in that very Basilica. That mural is massive as it is the backdrop behind the altar. Given that his abuse took place during phases of creating mosaics, it is indeed a disgusting visual reminder of the blasphemous sacrilege of this man. As for me, I felt called to pray fervently for his conversion as we were in that space. May he, like all other horrible abusers, see the true depth of their hideous actions and repent. Deep and full repentance, as well as profound atonement. Lord, have mercy on repentant sinners.
Amen! Amen!
Always damning and infuriating will be any phraseology expressing Pope Francis "finally lifting" the statute of limitations. This just seems to be good ol' boy protectionism gone way too far and for much too long. Crimes of sexual depravity still seem to be taken lightly in the Curia and until that changes the Church will always suffer not only in the realm of moral credibility but in courtrooms and public opinion all over the world. I don't expect or want a draconian response but something that approaches the topic with the seriousness it deserves would be nice. Cardinal Fernandez can't even oversee the DDF disciplinary section, how well can that possibly work out for the Dicastery as the promoter of justice?
Any continued use of the mosaics though reprehensible will always seem secondary to me because of the planning and artistic and architectural work involved in removing and replacing them. I can kind of sort of understand the foot dragging. Something that took years to approve and install and now justice and moral fortitude demands its removal in days and weeks. The art is bad and represents the corruption of a fallen priest but the real issue at hand seems to be the mentality of those in the Curia that have the teeth for trial and enforcement. Until they start taking matters seriously nothing will change except the level of public outrage and their ability to withstand it.
We have gotten to years of waiting for them to remove the art, at this point. I think it's more about the politics of not wanting to act while Rome is dragging its feet, or whatever may or may not be going on behind the scenes.
How about in addition to all of the regular reparations made to victims (including hopefully swift justice of their abuser) we let them take a sledgehammer to his art around the world. Destroys the art and I’m sure cathartic for them. Win win