Given the number of women he is alledged to have attacked, I presume he is guilty even if he gets off in court. Here in the US it used to be virtually impossible to convict a man of rape. DNA helped fix that.
The deeper problem is what to do about all the churches he desecrated with his artwork. I certainly don't need a reminder of how the Church has covered up abuse and supported abusers. As far as I am concerned, that puts most of the Church's major shrines on my never go there list. The garbage needs to be removed.
Thanks very much for the explanations of the Vatican processes. The possible verdict looks like the old Scottish verdict of "Not Proven". Or the classic Irish verdict: "It was an accidental death under very suspicious circumstances".
I am reminded of the mass crackdown in the 1970s on the industrial scale corruption within the London police.
8 prosecuted, none convicted. 250 forced to resign. And there have long been other stories of probably bent cops taking medical retirement under very suspicious circumstances, to the rage of one senior honest cop.
All very unsatisfactory, even if loads of corrupt officers were no longer in power on the streets.
But life is unsatisfactory. Rupnik is 71, so retirement and firm exclusion from any position of spiritual power is about the best we can hope for.
And the Internet has eyes everywhere. So if he volunteers as spiritual director at any convent he will never have a moment's peace.
If he's a priest in good standing, he can hear confessions and interact with the faithful in other ways from a position of priestly authority, whether he's assigned to any role or not.
Is the church supporting him financially? If so, it's problematic that donations by the laity are used for this purpose. (Apparently he's an accomplished artist, so he should have no difficulty keeping himself out of the poorhouse if left to his own devices.)
If he is actually acquitted, how likely is it that he'll be given a role, perhaps after a discreet period of institutional silence?
Laicization is really the only option that makes sense.
Given the numerous witnesses of his abuse, even if the offenses now cannot be prosecuted due to the statute of limitations, and especially given his conviction of absolving an accomplice in a sin against the 6th Commandment (which is basically high treason against the sacrament of Reconciliation) he should never be allowed to perform any public ministry again. Such would certainly be the result for any regular parish priest if he were not simply laicized. If Fr. Rupnick is allowed to do any public ministry, there is a clear double standard at work.
This is why I think that whatever happens with his trial, the Apostolic See will need to be prepared to explain what will next happen with him personally.
"questions about whether procedural failures could eventually impede the...prosecution."
-WHAT? Procedural failures in a trial at the Vatican?
Good thing that hasn't happened recently, or in a large public case, or people might start losing faith that our shepherds are anything but corrupt screwups.
...I don't know what I'll do, if he is cleared. There is so much pressure as a standard Catholic person on the ground level to uphold some variant of moral perfectionism (at least in my diocese), and meanwhile, at high levels, this?
Rupnik will be part of Leo's legacy, and Francis's. The early procedural legerdemain raises all sorts of suspicion having nothing to do with the use of his art by Vatican officials. If these "rumors" are trial balloons deployed to get a sense of the ambient atmosphere they have served their purpose.
If Rome is committed to transparency, they could have released a statement on the heels of these rumors, ie they could have responded with the urgency of, say, Taylor Farms. Good will on the behalf of the faithful has been stretched to the breaking point. This looks like a hammer for the SSPX but a velvet glove for Fr Rupnik. Thank you for reporting on this.
Leo hasn’t had his say on Rupnik yet. Let’s allow a) a more credible report of the outcome to emerge and b) see what the Vatican does before we despair. I agree with JD that this is a moment where, regardless of outcome, clarity is critically important, but, if this leak is genuine (and that’s a significant if), it could well be that the outcome isn’t being reported officially yet because they’re trying to formulate a response. It wasn’t until Leo that his art was removed from Vatican websites, now is not the moment to despair.
If the judicial process ends in an acquittal or some version of 'not proven', then my opinion is that the Sovereign Pontiff ought to exercise his supreme authority and at least reduce the Rupnik fellow to the lay state. But I haven't made any wagers about the earthly outcome of this nasty affair.
“ It is possible to believe both that the evidence available to the public indicates Rupnik’s likely commission of serious abuse, and to believe that a trial might not convict him.”
Question: in seminary we were taught in our Canon Law class that removal of the excommunication for absolving an accomplice against the sixth commandment would also be the end of one's priestly ministry.
Is this not true? What is the usual outcome of those cases?
I saw this rumor last night and waited to see if the Pillar would pick it up. Did not disappoint. Thanks.
Didn't Pope Leo already pull Rupnik's "art" from the Vatican website? Whether or not he is convicted, it's time for him and his "art" to ride off into the sunset and not be seen again. If he is somehow not convicted, I'm reminded of Rep. Fish during Watergate saying the investigation couldn't find the smoking gun against Nixon because the room was too full of smoke.
This is distressing news. Unfortunately, we may not see justice here on Earth, but I do hope the Vatican takes steps to minimize his potential to reoffend and encourages him to live a life of cloistered repentance. I hear Ketchikan, Alaska is ideal for that.
My first thought is why is Rupnik protected by the Vatican . What is he using as blackmail. I am sorry but in this day and age, I wonder. He is a Jesuit priest and a very disturbed individual. This alone should be a reason for the Vatican to act to punish this priest. OF course there is never any consideration or help for the victims. God help our Catholic church. We really are not a Christian ministry helping those afflicted by our own pastors.
Thanks JD for the best explainer so far I've seen on these latest developments. Reminded of how justice in this world is one of the vexed questions.
Given the number of women he is alledged to have attacked, I presume he is guilty even if he gets off in court. Here in the US it used to be virtually impossible to convict a man of rape. DNA helped fix that.
The deeper problem is what to do about all the churches he desecrated with his artwork. I certainly don't need a reminder of how the Church has covered up abuse and supported abusers. As far as I am concerned, that puts most of the Church's major shrines on my never go there list. The garbage needs to be removed.
The generation that supported and promoted his works will need to die off before any sledgehammers can be swung.
It doesn't require them to be dead -- just that they get supplanted from various positions.
(I did look up Rupnik's age -- only 71.)
I would rather they be alive to see all this crap removed.
Thanks very much for the explanations of the Vatican processes. The possible verdict looks like the old Scottish verdict of "Not Proven". Or the classic Irish verdict: "It was an accidental death under very suspicious circumstances".
I am reminded of the mass crackdown in the 1970s on the industrial scale corruption within the London police.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Countryman
8 prosecuted, none convicted. 250 forced to resign. And there have long been other stories of probably bent cops taking medical retirement under very suspicious circumstances, to the rage of one senior honest cop.
All very unsatisfactory, even if loads of corrupt officers were no longer in power on the streets.
But life is unsatisfactory. Rupnik is 71, so retirement and firm exclusion from any position of spiritual power is about the best we can hope for.
And the Internet has eyes everywhere. So if he volunteers as spiritual director at any convent he will never have a moment's peace.
As I recall, he is actually working as a valid priest in a parish, I think in Slovenia.
He is incardinated in a Slovenian diocese, but not assigned to a parish or otherwise given an assignment.
This is unsatisfactory, for several reasons:
If he's a priest in good standing, he can hear confessions and interact with the faithful in other ways from a position of priestly authority, whether he's assigned to any role or not.
Is the church supporting him financially? If so, it's problematic that donations by the laity are used for this purpose. (Apparently he's an accomplished artist, so he should have no difficulty keeping himself out of the poorhouse if left to his own devices.)
If he is actually acquitted, how likely is it that he'll be given a role, perhaps after a discreet period of institutional silence?
Laicization is really the only option that makes sense.
(to be clear, I'm not suggesting it is satisfactory, I just wanted to to explain the status quo.)
also fishy
Given the numerous witnesses of his abuse, even if the offenses now cannot be prosecuted due to the statute of limitations, and especially given his conviction of absolving an accomplice in a sin against the 6th Commandment (which is basically high treason against the sacrament of Reconciliation) he should never be allowed to perform any public ministry again. Such would certainly be the result for any regular parish priest if he were not simply laicized. If Fr. Rupnick is allowed to do any public ministry, there is a clear double standard at work.
This is why I think that whatever happens with his trial, the Apostolic See will need to be prepared to explain what will next happen with him personally.
"questions about whether procedural failures could eventually impede the...prosecution."
-WHAT? Procedural failures in a trial at the Vatican?
Good thing that hasn't happened recently, or in a large public case, or people might start losing faith that our shepherds are anything but corrupt screwups.
...I don't know what I'll do, if he is cleared. There is so much pressure as a standard Catholic person on the ground level to uphold some variant of moral perfectionism (at least in my diocese), and meanwhile, at high levels, this?
Yes. Seminarians who aren’t even ordained are held to an infinitely higher standard, for example.
Rupnik will be part of Leo's legacy, and Francis's. The early procedural legerdemain raises all sorts of suspicion having nothing to do with the use of his art by Vatican officials. If these "rumors" are trial balloons deployed to get a sense of the ambient atmosphere they have served their purpose.
If Rome is committed to transparency, they could have released a statement on the heels of these rumors, ie they could have responded with the urgency of, say, Taylor Farms. Good will on the behalf of the faithful has been stretched to the breaking point. This looks like a hammer for the SSPX but a velvet glove for Fr Rupnik. Thank you for reporting on this.
Leo hasn’t had his say on Rupnik yet. Let’s allow a) a more credible report of the outcome to emerge and b) see what the Vatican does before we despair. I agree with JD that this is a moment where, regardless of outcome, clarity is critically important, but, if this leak is genuine (and that’s a significant if), it could well be that the outcome isn’t being reported officially yet because they’re trying to formulate a response. It wasn’t until Leo that his art was removed from Vatican websites, now is not the moment to despair.
If the judicial process ends in an acquittal or some version of 'not proven', then my opinion is that the Sovereign Pontiff ought to exercise his supreme authority and at least reduce the Rupnik fellow to the lay state. But I haven't made any wagers about the earthly outcome of this nasty affair.
“ It is possible to believe both that the evidence available to the public indicates Rupnik’s likely commission of serious abuse, and to believe that a trial might not convict him.”
As we say in the South, “Do what??”
OJ Simpson all over again, except at the Vatican
Question: in seminary we were taught in our Canon Law class that removal of the excommunication for absolving an accomplice against the sixth commandment would also be the end of one's priestly ministry.
Is this not true? What is the usual outcome of those cases?
I saw this rumor last night and waited to see if the Pillar would pick it up. Did not disappoint. Thanks.
Didn't Pope Leo already pull Rupnik's "art" from the Vatican website? Whether or not he is convicted, it's time for him and his "art" to ride off into the sunset and not be seen again. If he is somehow not convicted, I'm reminded of Rep. Fish during Watergate saying the investigation couldn't find the smoking gun against Nixon because the room was too full of smoke.
"Justice delayed is justice denied" is a saying for a reason. And "justice must be seen to be done."
Of course, nothing could be more obvious than the diabolical contempt the Vandal pope had for justice.
Millstones.
This is distressing news. Unfortunately, we may not see justice here on Earth, but I do hope the Vatican takes steps to minimize his potential to reoffend and encourages him to live a life of cloistered repentance. I hear Ketchikan, Alaska is ideal for that.
My first thought is why is Rupnik protected by the Vatican . What is he using as blackmail. I am sorry but in this day and age, I wonder. He is a Jesuit priest and a very disturbed individual. This alone should be a reason for the Vatican to act to punish this priest. OF course there is never any consideration or help for the victims. God help our Catholic church. We really are not a Christian ministry helping those afflicted by our own pastors.