EDIT: some commenters below showed that there are dozens of accusers, so at a minimum Rupnik is almost certainly guilty of a lot. My "defense" is that the Wikipedia article was not as clear.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but why are we all so sure that Rupnik is guilty of the most lurid of his crimes? It does seem likely he absolved his sexual partner, but most of the allegations seem to be based on one person's word 25 years after the events were alleged to have happened. I generally think that we should believe women, but at the same time when that much time has passed there is really no way for Rupnik to defend himself at all. I have also noticed that while people do horrible things, the more lurid the accusation the more likely it is to be a hoax. (For example, while rape certainly happens on college campuses and is certainly a huge problem, the infamous "Rape On Campus" story published in Rolling Stone included a lot of terrifying, over the top details that turned out to be completely fabricated). I'm sure that Rupnik has done plenty of things to answer for, but it does seem unfair to accuse him of demonic acts based on one person's recollection from decades ago and little (or no?) other evidence.
If it matters, I strongly dislike Rupnik's art and wish it wasn't used so widely.
Google advised Michelle that she needed to find a physician instead of saints for tummy trouble. That is a good example of how the results form AI needs to be tempered by human reason.
"If she does not appear to do justice, fewer people will be able to trust her claims about the meaning of our lives, and the salvation promised through Christ."
The integrity of Church leaders is taken as a proof for the veracity of the Gospel. There are 100 apologetic reasons why that shouldn't be so, and yet it is: If ecclesiastical leaders do not appear to act with righteousness, the idea that sanctification occurs through the sacramental economy rings for many hollow, at the very least. In other words, if grace does not bear fruit in our lives, it is hard to claim credibly that grace is mediated through the life of the Church.
EDIT: some commenters below showed that there are dozens of accusers, so at a minimum Rupnik is almost certainly guilty of a lot. My "defense" is that the Wikipedia article was not as clear.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but why are we all so sure that Rupnik is guilty of the most lurid of his crimes? It does seem likely he absolved his sexual partner, but most of the allegations seem to be based on one person's word 25 years after the events were alleged to have happened. I generally think that we should believe women, but at the same time when that much time has passed there is really no way for Rupnik to defend himself at all. I have also noticed that while people do horrible things, the more lurid the accusation the more likely it is to be a hoax. (For example, while rape certainly happens on college campuses and is certainly a huge problem, the infamous "Rape On Campus" story published in Rolling Stone included a lot of terrifying, over the top details that turned out to be completely fabricated). I'm sure that Rupnik has done plenty of things to answer for, but it does seem unfair to accuse him of demonic acts based on one person's recollection from decades ago and little (or no?) other evidence.
If it matters, I strongly dislike Rupnik's art and wish it wasn't used so widely.
There seem to be more than one: https://www.osvnews.com/500-days-after-statute-of-limitations-lifted-in-rupnik-case-priest-does-his-work-travels-world/,
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/vatican-and-victims-address-rupnik
You raise a good point about the accusations. I completely agree with your dislike of his art.
It's not one person, there are numerous accusers - at least 20 according to this AP article (which is one among many):
https://apnews.com/article/jesuit-vatican-marko-rupnik-women-abuse-reparations-c0ed8b3ba48807df8ef65134f30cca3b
If there were little or no evidence, it's very unlikely the Jesuit order would have expelled him or made compensation offers to 20 victims.
This article provides a timeline:
https://www.ncregister.com/news/the-father-rupnik-case-a-timeline
thanks...there are many more accusers than I realized.
Google advised Michelle that she needed to find a physician instead of saints for tummy trouble. That is a good example of how the results form AI needs to be tempered by human reason.
JD, was that a reference to "burger king foot lettuce" you snuck in? 🤮
JD, genuine inquiry.
How did you arrive at the following?
"If she does not appear to do justice, fewer people will be able to trust her claims about the meaning of our lives, and the salvation promised through Christ."
The integrity of Church leaders is taken as a proof for the veracity of the Gospel. There are 100 apologetic reasons why that shouldn't be so, and yet it is: If ecclesiastical leaders do not appear to act with righteousness, the idea that sanctification occurs through the sacramental economy rings for many hollow, at the very least. In other words, if grace does not bear fruit in our lives, it is hard to claim credibly that grace is mediated through the life of the Church.
Thank you for the response. I just don't know when I think this bar has been met historically.
here's paul vi saying the same thing:
"Modern man listens more willingly to witnesses than to teachers, and if he does listen to teachers, it is because they are witnesses."
"...and the chain will have to think outside the bun ..."
I think you meant 'outside the tortilla', to 'wrap' it up .....
"..if Rupnik is not convicted, justice will not be seen by most people to have been done."
Has the Pillar evidence for this?
It’s my informed analysis. This is a newsletter, a locus of analysis, not a news report.