I'm left wondering why they didn't expel him for his stubborn refusal to observe the vow of chastity?
I have seen priests laicized for much less than what Rupnik is accused of. The constant kicking the can down the road to give this man more chances is abhorrent. I do not understand why his resignation (why is he "resigning" rather than an outright dismissal??) needs to be "final" in order for these issues to be explored further.
This is heartbreaking. Pray for him, pray for Sosa, pray for Christ's Jesuits.
(As a computer nerd, thinking about testing parts of a system) it is much easier to set up a really rock-solid test for "obedient" than for "chaste". It's like turning on the power, and seeing whether the computer is now on fire or not (the classic "smoke test"), Fr Rupnik was given an order and all of the magic smoke came out of his motherboard. I pray that he will repent before he dies.
Does the Vatican need to abide by any "statute of limitations" when faced with such evidence of abuse by a priest? Were these secular statutes or Cannon Law?
The canonical term equivalent to stature of limitations is prescription, and although it can be and has been dispensed, such dispensations are generally harmful to the stability of law. The primary practical reason for prescription, difficulty of gathering proofs for defense, does seem somewhat mitigated in this circumstance, however.
No, I guess I don't understand "primary practical reason for prescription, difficulty of gathering proofs of the defense, does seem somewhat mitigated in this circumstances."
Ah, great, I can explain that more fully, and I'll just say statute of limitations instead of prescription. So, someone (don't worry about who here) can say "let's ignore the statute of limitations in this case, because what person did was so bad." This leads to some issues. If you ask someone what happened 2 years ago, they might remember some bigger aspects, especially if something significant happened. But imagine asking an innocent person to recall where they were, with who, on a specific day, several years ago. Making a good defense can be very hard under such circumstances, so it can turn into "he said, she said." This is a practical reason for the statute of limitations.
I think this reason, difficulty of gathering adequate proof, should be ignored in Rupnik's case, because it seems like there is sufficient evidence despite the time that's passed.
To depart from the practical into the theoretical: ignoring the statute of limitations makes the law uncertain. The law is meant to help people, but a law that allowed someone to be accused of something 50 years past could lead to great distress and anxiety. So the law provides certainty that only accusations about the relatively recent past are allowed.
Of course, we can then ask: perhaps certain grave and scandalous crimes cause greater harm to society when excused by the statute of limitations than the harm caused by ignoring the statute of limitations?
Yes. I totally agree with all of that. But in this case it just seems like some pretty credible sisters (women) are disregarded while the priest(man) is left to process with his life almost flaunting his prominence and position. Or is that opening another can of the proverbial worms?
And, I surely hope that while it seems to have taken a good long time to correct him, there are actions going on that I don't know about or need to know about.
Rupnik was asked to change communities and accept a new mission? What community would take him and what mission would he be "sent" on? It seems he is given a few too many "choices" if this is all true. For all the talk that the Church is making changes in policies to end abuse, this situation seems to contradict it all. Everyone seems to be pointing fingers at everyone else to "do something" about Rupnik while he carries on publicly. We watch what you do, not just what you say.
If I were top level Jesuits rewriting the "Go to JAIL. Go directly to jail. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200" for a press release, it would definitely have the words community and mission and sent in it because I would be a big fan of understated euphemism. I am not, however. So I don't know.
Every Jesuit has a “mission” in the Society, even the old guys on their deathbed. (It was moving to hear one talk about his mission of preparing for a happy death.) I’m guessing Rupnik’s new mission was to live in an obscure Jesuit house, and essentially shut up and stay put. Obviously, he didn’t do so.
Rupnik has been treated gently with the statute of limitations strictly applied to exclude many charges and delicts from consideration. Rupnik remains a priest and his art can be seen (or was recently seen) on Vatican websites and in the Vatican itself. Justice in the Vatican in these days is very personalised.
Suppose you have a golf club. One of the members starts making unwanted sexual remarks to the barmaid. The club's committee, in view of the member's refusal to mend his ways, decides to expel the member.
Another club: a member rapes the barmaid. A committee member immediately calls the police and has him arrested.
Into which of these scenarios does Rupinik fall? Does the Church have the equivalent of that police force in some form or other? Earlier reports tell us that the Jesuits excommunicated Rupinik but someone high up in the 'police force' immediately rescinded the excommunication. What does that tell us?
Going back to the Golf club analogy the most the committee can do is to expel the member. They have no power to imprison the member for rape. They have to rely on the police and the justice system to do that. They are not responsible if the justice system is utterly corrupt and does nothing.
So perhaps the Jesuits have done all in their power and the sisters should look elsewhere to justice.
And then suppose the judge who has to deal with the rape turns out to be a member of the golf club and decides in the interests of justice being seen to be done decides to pass the case to a different judge who is not a member.
I suspect though that the background, culture and lack of education of some is such that they have no understanding of such proprieties.
Not to sound too cynical but throughout this process it appears that the Jesuits been bending over backwards to avoid punishing this demonic man and for what, art's sake? It is not even clear that the order he failed to obey was even a form of punishment or penance that is commensurate with his crimes. But having gotten away with so much for so long, I'm not surprised that his brazenness stems from the fact he knows he has a 30-day appeal window and the fact that the Jesuits are dismissing him based on disobedience leaves the door wide open for them to reach and "accommodation" once he negotiates a more "acceptable" order to obey. If only the Jesuits had a Superior General like the late Fr. Paul Mankowski, this might have been dealt with long ago and far more appropriately.
The way Rupnik has been handled is case and point as to why there is no trust in the Catholic Church’s handling of abuse. Vos Estis, Pontifical Commissions and all the rest mean NOTHING if this kind of stuff continues to be allowed to happen. I don’t see how we can trust the Church on the abuse matter. We can’t.
Now incardinated as a priest in Slovenia's Koper diocese 'able to freely exercise his ministry' and still able to rely on Papal and diocesan patronage for Centro Alleti that designs and produces his bug eyed murals. The sexual and spiritual abuse (with Rupnik the two were completely intertwined, as is quite common for many priestly abusers) of adults, in this case younger women, is patently treated as a minor failing. The Pope long knew and did very little, lifting the Penance related excommunication quickly, the Statute of Limitations was strictly invoked for older claims and so all Rupnik lost was the letters SJ after his name. Simcha Fisher wrote a good article in America Magazine around this time. It's sad. Anger is pointless now.
Good.
Amen
I'm left wondering why they didn't expel him for his stubborn refusal to observe the vow of chastity?
I have seen priests laicized for much less than what Rupnik is accused of. The constant kicking the can down the road to give this man more chances is abhorrent. I do not understand why his resignation (why is he "resigning" rather than an outright dismissal??) needs to be "final" in order for these issues to be explored further.
This is heartbreaking. Pray for him, pray for Sosa, pray for Christ's Jesuits.
(As a computer nerd, thinking about testing parts of a system) it is much easier to set up a really rock-solid test for "obedient" than for "chaste". It's like turning on the power, and seeing whether the computer is now on fire or not (the classic "smoke test"), Fr Rupnik was given an order and all of the magic smoke came out of his motherboard. I pray that he will repent before he dies.
Amen!
How does one spiritually abuse someone? I believe this is vague and open to many interpretations
I agree completely, this seems like a further insult to his victims; God help us all, the "soul sickness" runs very very deep.
Does the Vatican need to abide by any "statute of limitations" when faced with such evidence of abuse by a priest? Were these secular statutes or Cannon Law?
The canonical term equivalent to stature of limitations is prescription, and although it can be and has been dispensed, such dispensations are generally harmful to the stability of law. The primary practical reason for prescription, difficulty of gathering proofs for defense, does seem somewhat mitigated in this circumstance, however.
And I have no idea what that means in non canon law speak.
Sorry, you don't understand "the equivalent term, in canon law, for statute of limitations is prescription?"
No, I guess I don't understand "primary practical reason for prescription, difficulty of gathering proofs of the defense, does seem somewhat mitigated in this circumstances."
Ah, great, I can explain that more fully, and I'll just say statute of limitations instead of prescription. So, someone (don't worry about who here) can say "let's ignore the statute of limitations in this case, because what person did was so bad." This leads to some issues. If you ask someone what happened 2 years ago, they might remember some bigger aspects, especially if something significant happened. But imagine asking an innocent person to recall where they were, with who, on a specific day, several years ago. Making a good defense can be very hard under such circumstances, so it can turn into "he said, she said." This is a practical reason for the statute of limitations.
I think this reason, difficulty of gathering adequate proof, should be ignored in Rupnik's case, because it seems like there is sufficient evidence despite the time that's passed.
To depart from the practical into the theoretical: ignoring the statute of limitations makes the law uncertain. The law is meant to help people, but a law that allowed someone to be accused of something 50 years past could lead to great distress and anxiety. So the law provides certainty that only accusations about the relatively recent past are allowed.
Of course, we can then ask: perhaps certain grave and scandalous crimes cause greater harm to society when excused by the statute of limitations than the harm caused by ignoring the statute of limitations?
Yes. I totally agree with all of that. But in this case it just seems like some pretty credible sisters (women) are disregarded while the priest(man) is left to process with his life almost flaunting his prominence and position. Or is that opening another can of the proverbial worms?
And, I surely hope that while it seems to have taken a good long time to correct him, there are actions going on that I don't know about or need to know about.
Rupnik was asked to change communities and accept a new mission? What community would take him and what mission would he be "sent" on? It seems he is given a few too many "choices" if this is all true. For all the talk that the Church is making changes in policies to end abuse, this situation seems to contradict it all. Everyone seems to be pointing fingers at everyone else to "do something" about Rupnik while he carries on publicly. We watch what you do, not just what you say.
If I were top level Jesuits rewriting the "Go to JAIL. Go directly to jail. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200" for a press release, it would definitely have the words community and mission and sent in it because I would be a big fan of understated euphemism. I am not, however. So I don't know.
"He has been sent to a community of monks in the middle of the Italian countryside with the mission of repenting of his sins and errors."
He was sent but did he go? And evidently he did not stay. Is that the obedience issue that has finally brought his dismissal from the Jesuits?
Every Jesuit has a “mission” in the Society, even the old guys on their deathbed. (It was moving to hear one talk about his mission of preparing for a happy death.) I’m guessing Rupnik’s new mission was to live in an obscure Jesuit house, and essentially shut up and stay put. Obviously, he didn’t do so.
“Resigning” instead of the term “dismissal” could be a bad translation or simply more jesuitical confusion
Rupnik has been treated gently with the statute of limitations strictly applied to exclude many charges and delicts from consideration. Rupnik remains a priest and his art can be seen (or was recently seen) on Vatican websites and in the Vatican itself. Justice in the Vatican in these days is very personalised.
Damnatio memoriae seems to be more or less acceptable depending on whose memoriae is being damnatio’d.
Why is this matter left to the Jesuits?
Suppose you have a golf club. One of the members starts making unwanted sexual remarks to the barmaid. The club's committee, in view of the member's refusal to mend his ways, decides to expel the member.
Another club: a member rapes the barmaid. A committee member immediately calls the police and has him arrested.
Into which of these scenarios does Rupinik fall? Does the Church have the equivalent of that police force in some form or other? Earlier reports tell us that the Jesuits excommunicated Rupinik but someone high up in the 'police force' immediately rescinded the excommunication. What does that tell us?
Going back to the Golf club analogy the most the committee can do is to expel the member. They have no power to imprison the member for rape. They have to rely on the police and the justice system to do that. They are not responsible if the justice system is utterly corrupt and does nothing.
So perhaps the Jesuits have done all in their power and the sisters should look elsewhere to justice.
And then suppose the judge who has to deal with the rape turns out to be a member of the golf club and decides in the interests of justice being seen to be done decides to pass the case to a different judge who is not a member.
I suspect though that the background, culture and lack of education of some is such that they have no understanding of such proprieties.
Not to sound too cynical but throughout this process it appears that the Jesuits been bending over backwards to avoid punishing this demonic man and for what, art's sake? It is not even clear that the order he failed to obey was even a form of punishment or penance that is commensurate with his crimes. But having gotten away with so much for so long, I'm not surprised that his brazenness stems from the fact he knows he has a 30-day appeal window and the fact that the Jesuits are dismissing him based on disobedience leaves the door wide open for them to reach and "accommodation" once he negotiates a more "acceptable" order to obey. If only the Jesuits had a Superior General like the late Fr. Paul Mankowski, this might have been dealt with long ago and far more appropriately.
The way Rupnik has been handled is case and point as to why there is no trust in the Catholic Church’s handling of abuse. Vos Estis, Pontifical Commissions and all the rest mean NOTHING if this kind of stuff continues to be allowed to happen. I don’t see how we can trust the Church on the abuse matter. We can’t.
Instead of punishing him for his crimes, Jesuits decided to appeal to a technicality.
Disgusting
Now incardinated as a priest in Slovenia's Koper diocese 'able to freely exercise his ministry' and still able to rely on Papal and diocesan patronage for Centro Alleti that designs and produces his bug eyed murals. The sexual and spiritual abuse (with Rupnik the two were completely intertwined, as is quite common for many priestly abusers) of adults, in this case younger women, is patently treated as a minor failing. The Pope long knew and did very little, lifting the Penance related excommunication quickly, the Statute of Limitations was strictly invoked for older claims and so all Rupnik lost was the letters SJ after his name. Simcha Fisher wrote a good article in America Magazine around this time. It's sad. Anger is pointless now.