conservatives keep saying that Francis is "confusing" or is sending "confusing signals" to Catholics. maybe I can clear that up for you- there is nothing to be confused about in the appointment of Fernandez to the DDF or the delegates he selected for the synod. the signal you should be getting from it is that while you might consider these people "suspect" or "questionable", and would not appoint them if you were the one doing the picking, Francis considers their contribution valuable in the case of the delegates, and considers Fernandez a trustworthy and good man suitable to be the head of an important dicastery.
it seems you misunderstood my comment- I was trying to explain that there is nothing confusing about the appointment of Fernandez or the synod delegates, because Francis does not regard your criticisms of them as disqualifying. you have taken this opportunity to repeat why you don't think the appointments are good. great, but that doesn't make them confusing. I would be very happy if conservatives stopped using "this is confusing" or "this is controversial" as euphemisms for "I don't like this" or "I disagree with this".
again, "confusing" is standing in for "I don't like this and I disagree with it". Francis is operating according to his own principles and thought, which he has made reasonably clear. you think he should be operating according to your conception of Catholicism.
Given that McElroy has publicly supported a change in the Church's position on homosexuality, which is biblical, that the Pope chose him to attend is indeed troubling.
What confuses me is that the Holy Father often says specific things (e.g., "I wouldn't dare to change the rules on celibacy;" "the synod is not a place to change doctrine"), and then elevates churchmen who rather stridently say the opposite into positions where they apparently will have the opportunity to act on those statements.
that's not confusing, because having a position on an issue does not mean saying "my way or the highway" and only appointing people who agree with you. Francis clearly thinks that a range of positions are permissible, and is willing to allow them space to make their case.
I would agree with that were the appointments not so one-sided politically. "Conservative" members of the curia--the ones who are most likely to defend the Holy Father's actual statements on a number of tipics--have gotten systematically kneecapped, sidelined, glass-ceilinged, or circumvented. (Just two U.S examples: Burke and Gonzales.) In other words: back up the Holy Father's statements about immigration and you get promoted. Back up his statements about celibacy or transgenderism and you get destroyed. If you don't think it's confusing, you're either way ahead of or way behind most observers on this side of the Atlantic.
two things here: first, you have mischaracterized Burke, who is certainly not aligned with Francis, and is far more likely to criticize him than back him up. second, Francis believing that a range of positions is permissible and to be encouraged does not mean that he does not want to exclude some positions which fall outside of that range. mostly he allows such positions to be expressed without censure, but he's unlikely to promote or give power to people who hold to such positions e.g. traditionalist prelates.
So some of the Holy Father's statements can be flouted and worked against without consequence, and some of them can't be gainsaid without the proverbial anvil coming down on your head. And he never says which is which. And that's not confusing?
Good for the pope...in reality, does the confusion and disorientation caused by the pope's appointees and favorites further the mission of the Church as she understands herself?
Or maybe In the essentials we have been completely wrong in almost every way about how the Church sees herself? Maybe Francis is here to redefine and correct all that old stuff.
Or maybe instead it goes back to "the pope is the pope and he can do whatever he wants?" Funny how ultramontanism is now touted as a way of exercising the Petrine ministry ala' Archbishop Fernandez. Now we have a "revisioned" way of using this mentality to further papal authority.
Ironic how this mentality was once condemned by the progressvists and authentic Traditionalists alike before during and after VC 1.
B16 and JPII chose men who did not necessarily hold all their views, especially in the choice of Bishops to lead local Churches.
Our current Holy Father simply appoints most times men who subscribe to his agendas and dumps local bishops who don't.
While there is a precedent for this in the history of the Church should it be the practice today?
I tend to ignore the push & pull (the self-promoting and partisan ye have with you always), but the pattern in this papacy is simply appalling in its lawless cronyism and outright Vandalism of the Church's patrimony.
I am happy to give Francis a good deal of latitude with regard to his appointments and the upcoming synod. I do not ascribe to the labels of progressive, liberal, or conservative as applied to the Catholic Church. There is either orthodoxy or a lack of it. There are more than a couple examples, so I won't belabor it. It does remain difficult to see priests and bishops who are orthodox, even those who might be extreme in their positions or confrontational with the Pope, removed or punished, while those who quite publicly take positions contrary to the Deposit of Faith are either ignored or promoted. No one seems to have a satisfactory answer to this concern.
I will answer with sincerity. Francis is the Holy Father, at the very least by God's permissive will. I want to trust the Pope as I trust the Church founded by Christ. It is a difficulty for some of us in the laity to see the Pope, dispense justice in a very heavy-handed way towards orthodox members of the church with whom he disagrees, and then either ignore or promote those who are very public in their dispute of matters long settled by Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. As a loyal son of the Church I do not question the Pope's authority. However, I do not believe that Francis has been a unifying presence for the Church and his tenure as Holy Father has not provided the clarity that the world needs right now. I want more truth and justice from everywhere, but especially Rome! As for the Synod on Synodality I believe we should follow where Peter leads and give the Pope the benefit of the doubt. As Bishop Barron says, take him at his word.
Francis simply doesn't think the people you think are orthodox are indeed orthodox, or the people you think are heretical are heretical. it's as simple as that. (I agree with him.)
I don't believe that you know me well enough to hold an opinion as to what I consider to be orthodox or heretical. But I will help you out. I find it quite scandalous that our understanding of Catholic sexual morality is now up for debate in the opinion of some clerics/prelates.
I think your opinion on what is orthodox and what is less so was clear from the moment you said that the pope is punishing orthodox clerics and promoting or ignoring those who "take positions contrary to the deposit of faith". I understand that you have a problem with sexual morality being debated. I don't take the same view myself. The point I am trying to make is that conservatives really shouldn't be confused by Francis. he appoints people who think this stuff is up for debate, because he thinks this stuff is up for debate.
Fair enough. I think that you do understand my position. I would simply make the point that I would not rush into labeling someone as heretical-I am not confident in my ability to make that judgement. And I absolutely agree with your assessment of Francis. It is a real possibility that he was speaking to me when he said "get over it." I am an old man and for me the primary authority for the Church rests with Jesus Christ. I will pray for Francis and give due respect to his teaching (the horrible commentary and very personal attacks on the Pope are also troubling). I will follow the Pope where I can but I am afraid he may go to places where I cannot. My eyes are wide open to the possibility that we will indeed have a much smaller Catholic Church in the future.
> conservatives really shouldn't be confused by Francis
Both the confusion of people who know they don't understand and the lack of confusion of people who don't know that they don't understand is due to projecting him onto a two-dimensional surface; he is (at minimum) three-dimensional. This is why he appears to be simultaneously a four-sided polygon and a six-sided polygon. In fact he is neither a four-sided polygon nor a six-sided polygon, nor both simultaneously, nor both in alternation, nor any sort of a polygon at all; everyone is wrong, which is boring.
My main question is, why would the Roman Chancery publish something that heavily conflicts with what the Vatican and the Jesuits have released? If there are certain officials in Rome who think silence is golden on all internal matters in the Church, especially dirty ones, why was this published?
The first thought that came to my [cynical] mind was blackmail. Cui bono? The more that the hierarchy looks inept, the better (for those already wedded to their sins).
"used his artistic process to groom and sexually abuse religious sisters over a period of decades."
Smells foul to me. Yet he hasn't only not been laicized, but half-heartedly dismissed from the Jesuit order with Rome trying to gaslight the laity that it was really the big, bad, medias fault. Le sigh.
And Rome did everything it could in November 2018 tto prevent the USCCB from acting to correct the problem here, with Cupich leading the effort. As a victim, all I can say is not another dime until there's real teeth in the efforts to weed these creeps out of the ministry.
These people in Rome make a mockery of canon law. If you are in the SJ club you get to do anything you like. If you’re not, you are banished. There will never be justice or even fairness with these people.
If there were any of Rupnik’s evil mosaics anywhere near me I would take a hammer to them.
How much Church art would survive if we cast out everything created by horrible artists? Carravaggio is an obvious candidate. As for the polysexual Eric Gill in England..... His Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral would probably the first to be hammered. Plus, ironically in the light of Rupnik, some of his work in the Jesuit house in Oxford.
I agree. I was merely observing that we seldom judge art purely by the goodness of its author. Eric Gill committed crimes arguably even viler than Rupnik's and his work survived vigorous attempts in the 1990s to evict it from Westminster Cathedral.
And Caravaggio is safely dead, with centuries of critical reflection on his deeply problematic career. Were he living now, he'd be in prison, and presumably less sought after by the Mammon-worship crowd.
Appealling to the era of Camillo and Scipione Borghese as a parallel does not really burnish the credentials of today's Vandals, people.
Cf. "Borghese appropriated Caravaggio's Madonna and Child with St. Anne, a large altarpiece commissioned in 1605 for a chapel in the Basilica of Saint Peter's, but rejected by the College of Cardinals because of its earthly realism and unconventional iconography. Recent archival research has established that Borghese intended from the early stages of the commission that the altarpiece would end up in his own collection."
> How much Church art would survive if we cast out everything created by horrible artists?
Sed contra: as t approaches infinity, no Church art will survive. The earth will wear out like a garment, etc., the sort that has gone threadbare and can't even hold a patch. But instead how many saints would we have if everyone reading the Pillar made a half hour of prayer before the blessed sacrament for the intention of 1. the conversion of artists and 2. the souls of artists suffering in purgatory; also pray for the Pope and his intentions, and go to confession within a couple of weeks (before or after), usual plenary indulgence requirements.
A half hour of prayerful reading of Scripture (if a person does not have ready access to the inside of a church) would also suffice for an indulgence.
Sure, I am willing to pivot back from "what ought we to do about Caravaggio". If anyone is reading Pillar articles about abuse and isn't stopping to earnestly pray for the people who have suffered abuse, we ought to understand "my prayer could make a real and important difference for someone and it is worth pausing for right now, and carrying in my ongoing intentions". It could save lives and souls; it could, by grace, alleviate very real suffering that endures long after a series of traumatic events and in which endurance a person (if they have recovered somewhat from the "why am I still alive when I don't want to be" black pit of despair and are not still immersed in it (which it's probably better if I do not describe the temptations of major depression, but we ought to want to help people to prevail against these)) seriously doubts that full healing will ever occur.
There's no justice. There's never any justice, just power and patronage. Thieves and perverts covering for other thieves and perverts.
No justice for McCarrick, for Mahoney, for Rupnik, for Zanchetta, for Bransfield, for Becciu, for Hubbard, for Hoeppner, or any of the many many others.
I think it's abundantly clear that over two decades after the revelation of "Spotlight," the Church does not take sexual abuse seriously and that lack of seriousness about the allegations rise to the very top. This whitewash of the Fr. Rupnik affair is galling and shockingly tone-deaf ... but, par for the course for what we've come to expect. And this latest leaves one with a truly uncomfortable choice, either +de Donatis went rogue here or he did so with the guidance of the Pope - I'm not sure which one is actually worse if true.
I think it is important to understand that the caricature of someone accused of what Fr. Rupnik is accused is that they are very "smooth" socially, usually very hidden in their abuse and usually very successfully at a superficial level socially.
Second, Father Rupnik apparently has achieved much success in getting his artwork praised and accepted internationally, which would make allying with him attractive to many, especially those seeking power socially.
For me, most troubling is that it appears that the investigation was completed and is definite in verifying the abuse. This supposedly thorough investigation (I was not there) is difficult to do and not a popular thing when the accused has much social status. Bravo to the investigators for their courage.
The bottom line appears to be that Father Rupnik has achieved great power socially. Holding him accountable will take much courage, which appears lacking.
As Abp Vigano said today, Rupnik illustrates the raison d'etre of this pontificate: "if you are a heretic, corrupt, pervert, thief, sacrilegious, and serial predator, but you are Bergoglio’s friend, you enjoy total impunity." In our heart, we all know that this accusation is true.
I saw one of the Italian blogs claim that Rupnik was a mentor and "spiritual father" to Donatis. Would be interested in some reporting on whether there is any reality behind that claim.
If I understand correctly, when the Vicariate refers to "seriously anomalous procedures" leading to the request for excommunication, it is talking about something that would have been part of the investigation by the CDF/DDF. Is that correct?
Felipe Perfetti (at the blog Silere non possum) also indulged in the satirical comment that the only thing left to do, after Cardinal De Donatis's nonsense, is for the Pope to make Fr Rupnik prefect of the Congregation for Relgious (or whatever it is called these days).
Hi. Canon law question. From prior reporting and from the podcast it seems clear that Ed and JD at least believe Rupnik had is excommunication lifted too quickly. From what I understand excommunication is considered a medicinal penalty: a person is excommunicated, then they repent, and then they are brought back into the Church.
So is the problem that Rupnik only received excommunication or that said excommunication was quickly lifted? If the latter, what is the usual course of action for someone excommunicated that immediately repents? Can the church refuse to lift the excommunication?
Don't get me wrong: I hate Rupnik's art and I don't like him as a person. Just curious as to how excommunication would work in a case like this.
I think part of the concern isn't just the speed and mechanism that was used to lift the excommunication (was the Pontiff directly involved or not, this was partially hinted at in the article), but if there was actual, sincere repentance from Rupnik. The facts are that he pretty much carried on as he liked during and after excommunication by continuing to promote/produce his art, travel, and hobnob in Roman social circles. He is still carrying on as he wishes after being (begrudgingly) dismissed from the Jesuits.
In all that we've seen of his words and actions since the allegations came to light there seems very scant evidence that he has any remorse. I don't know of any apologies that have been made, reparations, or a search for atonement by Rupnik. Instead it seems that Rome has decided to try and circle the wagons again in tight formation though flaming arrows have already caught the wagon covers ablaze. What conflagration will ignite across the diocese and Church at large from these unconscionable statements from Cardinal Angelo De Donatis and Msgr. Giacomo Incitti?
Yes, it would be nice to see public evidence of remorse. The problem I see, however, is that it is unlikely that this severely evil behavior can be addressed by public signs of remorse. Assuming the investigation's report is true, Rupnik is a dangerous predator who should be condemned by those with the social power to witness to his evil deeds. By denying the evil that he did (and that betrays his character), those in the church not only enable but collude with him.
I want each and every one of these Vatican officials who apparently have never met a normal, practicing, faithful Catholic, to listen to approximately one of us and to hear the absolute fury we have for how these abusers are coddled, mollified, and enabled. This is all so absolutely disgusting it's hard to know where to begin, but for them to have the gumption to state things like this publicly is such a sign that not one single thing has changed in the hierarchy from the abuse crisis. There may not be earthly justice, but the millstones will be astronomically large for these men.
This isn’t heartbreaking... it’s flat out demoralizing.
I believe with my whole heart that the Catholic Church is the true church founded by Christ himself. But jeez... it is run by some of the most terrible people on earth.
I was born a Catholic from an Irish and Italian family with Catholics going as far back as the family tree goes. I didn’t really have a choice in the matter. Thankfully, as an adult, I still believe and practice. But if I were thinking about converting... why would anyone join an organization as corrupt as this. Just makes me sick.
The mission of the Church is to save souls. Not counting the victims of abuse (of which there are countless), how many people have just turned away from the Church because of this never ending crap. I’m now 35 years old, married with kids. This scandal has been going on since I was freshman in high school! Every time the leadership of the church seems to get it together, another cover up happens.
Two steps forward, one step back. They just don’t get it... worse, at this point, they don’t even seem to care. They know we are pissed, but they also know there is nothing we can do. Disgusting.
> But if I were thinking about converting... why would anyone join an organization as corrupt as this.
1 Peter 3 says (among other (I cannot overstate this) *very* unpopular things, which would be a separate topic) that we ought always to be ready to give a reason for our hope. No one ever asks, except in rhetorical questions.
Someone would join an organization as corrupt as this for several possible reasons; one, which is not pragmatically interesting (because I think whether someone is caught by this hook has a lot to do with their personality, which I cannot influence) is that the truth is the truth even if circumstances make it taste very bitter in several ways.
Another reason, which is more pragmatically interesting, is because of *encountering* a person who earnestly wants to become a saint -- and who also wants everyone else with whom they come in contact to become a saint, because the ordinary progression of this disease is, from what I have read, to love God very very much and to really really want everyone to love Him as much as He deserves (which would seem to be impossible because we are finite beings. Does God give people impossible desires? St. Therese of Lisieux claims somewhere that He does not.) It makes sense to me that this contagion is sometimes passed on through face to face contact, as terrible life-altering infectious diseases sometimes are. The surprising thing to me (reading the lives of saints and how they had converted) was that this contagion is also sometimes passed on by reading a book of someone else's life, or hearing about them, etc., never having met the person at all because they died a while ago; but my astonishment was eventually cleared up when some podcast somewhere discussed "Wanting: The power of *mimetic desire* in everyday life" and I then had a noun phrase to hang my hat on. Anyway, this means that there is not nothing we can do; we can want, and what we want makes a difference in what other people want, and wanting God above all other things radically alters the world in ways that can be seen and that form a chain reaction (in addition to our hope that personal sanctity affects the entire mystical body in ways that are mystical, which is real but sometimes less motivating because we cannot *see* examples of it.)
"why would any one join an organization as corrupt as this?"
--> because no organization as poorly managed as the Catholic Church could possibly have survived 2000 years except by the hand of God. These stories can be a moment of scandal to us, or a reminder of who precisely our faith is in. The choice is ours.
The worst thing about this situation is that the members of Centro Aletti wouldn't talk about any problems they and their members have had with Rupnik with the Church officials sent to investigate. The situation has all the trappings of a cult where the leader is everything and the normal members are nothing. Given his history of abuse and refusal to obey those in authority over him, I can't imagine how this is going to end well.
conservatives keep saying that Francis is "confusing" or is sending "confusing signals" to Catholics. maybe I can clear that up for you- there is nothing to be confused about in the appointment of Fernandez to the DDF or the delegates he selected for the synod. the signal you should be getting from it is that while you might consider these people "suspect" or "questionable", and would not appoint them if you were the one doing the picking, Francis considers their contribution valuable in the case of the delegates, and considers Fernandez a trustworthy and good man suitable to be the head of an important dicastery.
Truth and justice are often talked about in the Church...but it is really the ones in power who define what these words mean.
it seems you misunderstood my comment- I was trying to explain that there is nothing confusing about the appointment of Fernandez or the synod delegates, because Francis does not regard your criticisms of them as disqualifying. you have taken this opportunity to repeat why you don't think the appointments are good. great, but that doesn't make them confusing. I would be very happy if conservatives stopped using "this is confusing" or "this is controversial" as euphemisms for "I don't like this" or "I disagree with this".
again, "confusing" is standing in for "I don't like this and I disagree with it". Francis is operating according to his own principles and thought, which he has made reasonably clear. you think he should be operating according to your conception of Catholicism.
Given that McElroy has publicly supported a change in the Church's position on homosexuality, which is biblical, that the Pope chose him to attend is indeed troubling.
troubling, for you. not confusing, because it's remarkably clear that Francis thinks that McElroy's position is a legitimate option.
What confuses me is that the Holy Father often says specific things (e.g., "I wouldn't dare to change the rules on celibacy;" "the synod is not a place to change doctrine"), and then elevates churchmen who rather stridently say the opposite into positions where they apparently will have the opportunity to act on those statements.
that's not confusing, because having a position on an issue does not mean saying "my way or the highway" and only appointing people who agree with you. Francis clearly thinks that a range of positions are permissible, and is willing to allow them space to make their case.
I would agree with that were the appointments not so one-sided politically. "Conservative" members of the curia--the ones who are most likely to defend the Holy Father's actual statements on a number of tipics--have gotten systematically kneecapped, sidelined, glass-ceilinged, or circumvented. (Just two U.S examples: Burke and Gonzales.) In other words: back up the Holy Father's statements about immigration and you get promoted. Back up his statements about celibacy or transgenderism and you get destroyed. If you don't think it's confusing, you're either way ahead of or way behind most observers on this side of the Atlantic.
two things here: first, you have mischaracterized Burke, who is certainly not aligned with Francis, and is far more likely to criticize him than back him up. second, Francis believing that a range of positions is permissible and to be encouraged does not mean that he does not want to exclude some positions which fall outside of that range. mostly he allows such positions to be expressed without censure, but he's unlikely to promote or give power to people who hold to such positions e.g. traditionalist prelates.
So some of the Holy Father's statements can be flouted and worked against without consequence, and some of them can't be gainsaid without the proverbial anvil coming down on your head. And he never says which is which. And that's not confusing?
Good for the pope...in reality, does the confusion and disorientation caused by the pope's appointees and favorites further the mission of the Church as she understands herself?
Or maybe In the essentials we have been completely wrong in almost every way about how the Church sees herself? Maybe Francis is here to redefine and correct all that old stuff.
Or maybe instead it goes back to "the pope is the pope and he can do whatever he wants?" Funny how ultramontanism is now touted as a way of exercising the Petrine ministry ala' Archbishop Fernandez. Now we have a "revisioned" way of using this mentality to further papal authority.
Ironic how this mentality was once condemned by the progressvists and authentic Traditionalists alike before during and after VC 1.
B16 and JPII chose men who did not necessarily hold all their views, especially in the choice of Bishops to lead local Churches.
Our current Holy Father simply appoints most times men who subscribe to his agendas and dumps local bishops who don't.
While there is a precedent for this in the history of the Church should it be the practice today?
nice screed of falsehoods, but it's irrelevant to my comment.
I tend to ignore the push & pull (the self-promoting and partisan ye have with you always), but the pattern in this papacy is simply appalling in its lawless cronyism and outright Vandalism of the Church's patrimony.
I am happy to give Francis a good deal of latitude with regard to his appointments and the upcoming synod. I do not ascribe to the labels of progressive, liberal, or conservative as applied to the Catholic Church. There is either orthodoxy or a lack of it. There are more than a couple examples, so I won't belabor it. It does remain difficult to see priests and bishops who are orthodox, even those who might be extreme in their positions or confrontational with the Pope, removed or punished, while those who quite publicly take positions contrary to the Deposit of Faith are either ignored or promoted. No one seems to have a satisfactory answer to this concern.
I will answer with sincerity. Francis is the Holy Father, at the very least by God's permissive will. I want to trust the Pope as I trust the Church founded by Christ. It is a difficulty for some of us in the laity to see the Pope, dispense justice in a very heavy-handed way towards orthodox members of the church with whom he disagrees, and then either ignore or promote those who are very public in their dispute of matters long settled by Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. As a loyal son of the Church I do not question the Pope's authority. However, I do not believe that Francis has been a unifying presence for the Church and his tenure as Holy Father has not provided the clarity that the world needs right now. I want more truth and justice from everywhere, but especially Rome! As for the Synod on Synodality I believe we should follow where Peter leads and give the Pope the benefit of the doubt. As Bishop Barron says, take him at his word.
Francis simply doesn't think the people you think are orthodox are indeed orthodox, or the people you think are heretical are heretical. it's as simple as that. (I agree with him.)
I don't believe that you know me well enough to hold an opinion as to what I consider to be orthodox or heretical. But I will help you out. I find it quite scandalous that our understanding of Catholic sexual morality is now up for debate in the opinion of some clerics/prelates.
I think your opinion on what is orthodox and what is less so was clear from the moment you said that the pope is punishing orthodox clerics and promoting or ignoring those who "take positions contrary to the deposit of faith". I understand that you have a problem with sexual morality being debated. I don't take the same view myself. The point I am trying to make is that conservatives really shouldn't be confused by Francis. he appoints people who think this stuff is up for debate, because he thinks this stuff is up for debate.
Fair enough. I think that you do understand my position. I would simply make the point that I would not rush into labeling someone as heretical-I am not confident in my ability to make that judgement. And I absolutely agree with your assessment of Francis. It is a real possibility that he was speaking to me when he said "get over it." I am an old man and for me the primary authority for the Church rests with Jesus Christ. I will pray for Francis and give due respect to his teaching (the horrible commentary and very personal attacks on the Pope are also troubling). I will follow the Pope where I can but I am afraid he may go to places where I cannot. My eyes are wide open to the possibility that we will indeed have a much smaller Catholic Church in the future.
> conservatives really shouldn't be confused by Francis
Both the confusion of people who know they don't understand and the lack of confusion of people who don't know that they don't understand is due to projecting him onto a two-dimensional surface; he is (at minimum) three-dimensional. This is why he appears to be simultaneously a four-sided polygon and a six-sided polygon. In fact he is neither a four-sided polygon nor a six-sided polygon, nor both simultaneously, nor both in alternation, nor any sort of a polygon at all; everyone is wrong, which is boring.
More than troubling. It's scandalous in the plainest sense.
My main question is, why would the Roman Chancery publish something that heavily conflicts with what the Vatican and the Jesuits have released? If there are certain officials in Rome who think silence is golden on all internal matters in the Church, especially dirty ones, why was this published?
Confusion, lack of mutual communication and coordination are hallmarks of the world and the Church today.
Hacer lio! Shake things up, challenge the status quo...but no explanation of what to put in the place of what is shaken and what is challenged.
The first thought that came to my [cynical] mind was blackmail. Cui bono? The more that the hierarchy looks inept, the better (for those already wedded to their sins).
To provide cover for Francis’ quick lifting of the excommunication.
"internationally feted religious artist"
More like fetid, amiright?
"used his artistic process to groom and sexually abuse religious sisters over a period of decades."
Smells foul to me. Yet he hasn't only not been laicized, but half-heartedly dismissed from the Jesuit order with Rome trying to gaslight the laity that it was really the big, bad, medias fault. Le sigh.
And Rome did everything it could in November 2018 tto prevent the USCCB from acting to correct the problem here, with Cupich leading the effort. As a victim, all I can say is not another dime until there's real teeth in the efforts to weed these creeps out of the ministry.
Fetid inDEED. "If I had a hammer, ..."
These people in Rome make a mockery of canon law. If you are in the SJ club you get to do anything you like. If you’re not, you are banished. There will never be justice or even fairness with these people.
If there were any of Rupnik’s evil mosaics anywhere near me I would take a hammer to them.
How much Church art would survive if we cast out everything created by horrible artists? Carravaggio is an obvious candidate. As for the polysexual Eric Gill in England..... His Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral would probably the first to be hammered. Plus, ironically in the light of Rupnik, some of his work in the Jesuit house in Oxford.
I agree. I was merely observing that we seldom judge art purely by the goodness of its author. Eric Gill committed crimes arguably even viler than Rupnik's and his work survived vigorous attempts in the 1990s to evict it from Westminster Cathedral.
And Caravaggio is safely dead, with centuries of critical reflection on his deeply problematic career. Were he living now, he'd be in prison, and presumably less sought after by the Mammon-worship crowd.
Appealling to the era of Camillo and Scipione Borghese as a parallel does not really burnish the credentials of today's Vandals, people.
Cf. "Borghese appropriated Caravaggio's Madonna and Child with St. Anne, a large altarpiece commissioned in 1605 for a chapel in the Basilica of Saint Peter's, but rejected by the College of Cardinals because of its earthly realism and unconventional iconography. Recent archival research has established that Borghese intended from the early stages of the commission that the altarpiece would end up in his own collection."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipione_Borghese
If Caravaggio was a horrible person, he was, nonetheless, a great artist. Rupnik is both a horrible person and a horrible artist.
I am making no judgement on the artist. I am making a judgement on the evil bug-eyed crap he created.
> How much Church art would survive if we cast out everything created by horrible artists?
Sed contra: as t approaches infinity, no Church art will survive. The earth will wear out like a garment, etc., the sort that has gone threadbare and can't even hold a patch. But instead how many saints would we have if everyone reading the Pillar made a half hour of prayer before the blessed sacrament for the intention of 1. the conversion of artists and 2. the souls of artists suffering in purgatory; also pray for the Pope and his intentions, and go to confession within a couple of weeks (before or after), usual plenary indulgence requirements.
A half hour of prayerful reading of Scripture (if a person does not have ready access to the inside of a church) would also suffice for an indulgence.
Sure, I am willing to pivot back from "what ought we to do about Caravaggio". If anyone is reading Pillar articles about abuse and isn't stopping to earnestly pray for the people who have suffered abuse, we ought to understand "my prayer could make a real and important difference for someone and it is worth pausing for right now, and carrying in my ongoing intentions". It could save lives and souls; it could, by grace, alleviate very real suffering that endures long after a series of traumatic events and in which endurance a person (if they have recovered somewhat from the "why am I still alive when I don't want to be" black pit of despair and are not still immersed in it (which it's probably better if I do not describe the temptations of major depression, but we ought to want to help people to prevail against these)) seriously doubts that full healing will ever occur.
So does praying the rosary with your family at home or with others at church.
I’m “disoriented” on this topic for sure, but not by media scrutiny.
There's no justice. There's never any justice, just power and patronage. Thieves and perverts covering for other thieves and perverts.
No justice for McCarrick, for Mahoney, for Rupnik, for Zanchetta, for Bransfield, for Becciu, for Hubbard, for Hoeppner, or any of the many many others.
No justice this side of the grave.
Hope, pray, speak, work for better. Thrasymachus is no Christian. :-)
I think it's abundantly clear that over two decades after the revelation of "Spotlight," the Church does not take sexual abuse seriously and that lack of seriousness about the allegations rise to the very top. This whitewash of the Fr. Rupnik affair is galling and shockingly tone-deaf ... but, par for the course for what we've come to expect. And this latest leaves one with a truly uncomfortable choice, either +de Donatis went rogue here or he did so with the guidance of the Pope - I'm not sure which one is actually worse if true.
I think it is important to understand that the caricature of someone accused of what Fr. Rupnik is accused is that they are very "smooth" socially, usually very hidden in their abuse and usually very successfully at a superficial level socially.
Second, Father Rupnik apparently has achieved much success in getting his artwork praised and accepted internationally, which would make allying with him attractive to many, especially those seeking power socially.
For me, most troubling is that it appears that the investigation was completed and is definite in verifying the abuse. This supposedly thorough investigation (I was not there) is difficult to do and not a popular thing when the accused has much social status. Bravo to the investigators for their courage.
The bottom line appears to be that Father Rupnik has achieved great power socially. Holding him accountable will take much courage, which appears lacking.
As Abp Vigano said today, Rupnik illustrates the raison d'etre of this pontificate: "if you are a heretic, corrupt, pervert, thief, sacrilegious, and serial predator, but you are Bergoglio’s friend, you enjoy total impunity." In our heart, we all know that this accusation is true.
I'm not sure who this Abp Vigano guy is (this week I know only Christ and him crucified)
I saw one of the Italian blogs claim that Rupnik was a mentor and "spiritual father" to Donatis. Would be interested in some reporting on whether there is any reality behind that claim.
If I understand correctly, when the Vicariate refers to "seriously anomalous procedures" leading to the request for excommunication, it is talking about something that would have been part of the investigation by the CDF/DDF. Is that correct?
Felipe Perfetti (at the blog Silere non possum) also indulged in the satirical comment that the only thing left to do, after Cardinal De Donatis's nonsense, is for the Pope to make Fr Rupnik prefect of the Congregation for Relgious (or whatever it is called these days).
Hi. Canon law question. From prior reporting and from the podcast it seems clear that Ed and JD at least believe Rupnik had is excommunication lifted too quickly. From what I understand excommunication is considered a medicinal penalty: a person is excommunicated, then they repent, and then they are brought back into the Church.
So is the problem that Rupnik only received excommunication or that said excommunication was quickly lifted? If the latter, what is the usual course of action for someone excommunicated that immediately repents? Can the church refuse to lift the excommunication?
Don't get me wrong: I hate Rupnik's art and I don't like him as a person. Just curious as to how excommunication would work in a case like this.
I think part of the concern isn't just the speed and mechanism that was used to lift the excommunication (was the Pontiff directly involved or not, this was partially hinted at in the article), but if there was actual, sincere repentance from Rupnik. The facts are that he pretty much carried on as he liked during and after excommunication by continuing to promote/produce his art, travel, and hobnob in Roman social circles. He is still carrying on as he wishes after being (begrudgingly) dismissed from the Jesuits.
In all that we've seen of his words and actions since the allegations came to light there seems very scant evidence that he has any remorse. I don't know of any apologies that have been made, reparations, or a search for atonement by Rupnik. Instead it seems that Rome has decided to try and circle the wagons again in tight formation though flaming arrows have already caught the wagon covers ablaze. What conflagration will ignite across the diocese and Church at large from these unconscionable statements from Cardinal Angelo De Donatis and Msgr. Giacomo Incitti?
Yes, it would be nice to see public evidence of remorse. The problem I see, however, is that it is unlikely that this severely evil behavior can be addressed by public signs of remorse. Assuming the investigation's report is true, Rupnik is a dangerous predator who should be condemned by those with the social power to witness to his evil deeds. By denying the evil that he did (and that betrays his character), those in the church not only enable but collude with him.
I want each and every one of these Vatican officials who apparently have never met a normal, practicing, faithful Catholic, to listen to approximately one of us and to hear the absolute fury we have for how these abusers are coddled, mollified, and enabled. This is all so absolutely disgusting it's hard to know where to begin, but for them to have the gumption to state things like this publicly is such a sign that not one single thing has changed in the hierarchy from the abuse crisis. There may not be earthly justice, but the millstones will be astronomically large for these men.
People do keep forgetting about those millstones....
This isn’t heartbreaking... it’s flat out demoralizing.
I believe with my whole heart that the Catholic Church is the true church founded by Christ himself. But jeez... it is run by some of the most terrible people on earth.
I was born a Catholic from an Irish and Italian family with Catholics going as far back as the family tree goes. I didn’t really have a choice in the matter. Thankfully, as an adult, I still believe and practice. But if I were thinking about converting... why would anyone join an organization as corrupt as this. Just makes me sick.
The mission of the Church is to save souls. Not counting the victims of abuse (of which there are countless), how many people have just turned away from the Church because of this never ending crap. I’m now 35 years old, married with kids. This scandal has been going on since I was freshman in high school! Every time the leadership of the church seems to get it together, another cover up happens.
Two steps forward, one step back. They just don’t get it... worse, at this point, they don’t even seem to care. They know we are pissed, but they also know there is nothing we can do. Disgusting.
Rant over.
> But if I were thinking about converting... why would anyone join an organization as corrupt as this.
1 Peter 3 says (among other (I cannot overstate this) *very* unpopular things, which would be a separate topic) that we ought always to be ready to give a reason for our hope. No one ever asks, except in rhetorical questions.
Someone would join an organization as corrupt as this for several possible reasons; one, which is not pragmatically interesting (because I think whether someone is caught by this hook has a lot to do with their personality, which I cannot influence) is that the truth is the truth even if circumstances make it taste very bitter in several ways.
Another reason, which is more pragmatically interesting, is because of *encountering* a person who earnestly wants to become a saint -- and who also wants everyone else with whom they come in contact to become a saint, because the ordinary progression of this disease is, from what I have read, to love God very very much and to really really want everyone to love Him as much as He deserves (which would seem to be impossible because we are finite beings. Does God give people impossible desires? St. Therese of Lisieux claims somewhere that He does not.) It makes sense to me that this contagion is sometimes passed on through face to face contact, as terrible life-altering infectious diseases sometimes are. The surprising thing to me (reading the lives of saints and how they had converted) was that this contagion is also sometimes passed on by reading a book of someone else's life, or hearing about them, etc., never having met the person at all because they died a while ago; but my astonishment was eventually cleared up when some podcast somewhere discussed "Wanting: The power of *mimetic desire* in everyday life" and I then had a noun phrase to hang my hat on. Anyway, this means that there is not nothing we can do; we can want, and what we want makes a difference in what other people want, and wanting God above all other things radically alters the world in ways that can be seen and that form a chain reaction (in addition to our hope that personal sanctity affects the entire mystical body in ways that are mystical, which is real but sometimes less motivating because we cannot *see* examples of it.)
"why would any one join an organization as corrupt as this?"
--> because no organization as poorly managed as the Catholic Church could possibly have survived 2000 years except by the hand of God. These stories can be a moment of scandal to us, or a reminder of who precisely our faith is in. The choice is ours.
Oh dear, did someone dare to question the mainstream narrative and its forgone conclusions? Whatever will we do...
The worst thing about this situation is that the members of Centro Aletti wouldn't talk about any problems they and their members have had with Rupnik with the Church officials sent to investigate. The situation has all the trappings of a cult where the leader is everything and the normal members are nothing. Given his history of abuse and refusal to obey those in authority over him, I can't imagine how this is going to end well.
The only thing that matters is that Rupnik has the pontiff's favor.