There's always an undercurrent of the Vatican not believing that their "friends" are actually guilty. But if it's somebody they don't like then they're happy to give him the boot
I think that a reasonable conclusion might be that a lot of them don't think that the types of behaviors we now call "sexual abuse" are that big a deal. In the 90's there were all kinds of jokes on TV where a guy would be woken up and immediately say "She told me she was 18!" because ha ha, statutory rape. Or the comment from Dazed and Confused "I keep getting older and they stay the same age." The idea that men in power using that power to attain sexual gratification is a more serious vice than, say, a drinking or gambling habit, is a very, very new idea. There are just lots and lots of people in the "sexual experimentation and contact is good for people, including kids" camp in the academy (where it was pervasive in the 1970's) and the academy is where many clergy are formed and take their cues from.
The cardinals running around saying that "science" has "disproved" Christian sexual demands aren't getting the information because they've closely re-red the Church doctors, it's from PhDs that they read back in the 1970's and 1980's.
And so, for lots of them, they honestly believe they are correct in thinking that A) Child abusers can be rehabilitated and trusted not to offend again, B) that victims don't suffer long term consequences, and may even be benefitting from the relationship.
To make an analogy, when you repair rotted wood, the lazy thing to do is just apply wood filler over the top. The right thing to do is to cut out all of the wood that's affected, especially the places where only the inner part is rotted away and the outside looks "okay" and replace as much as you can with real wood.
Any honest observer can see that the Church has made zero serious attempts to actually cut out the bad wood, possibly because so few clergy would be left to fill the administrative roles in the Church.
Luckily, nothing is hidden from God, who loves us, and gives us the comforts of Lazarus if we die in friendship with him.
After Rupnik pretty much got a free pass, it's not surprising that the Vatican would try to excuse this fellow countryman of the Pope and classmate of Fernandez. I don't think all countries are taking abuse allegations as seriously as the US was forced to take them due to litigation and McCarrick.
If this was a classmate of Fernandez, that may be a big part of the answer. People have skeletons in their closets, and Fernandez seems like the kind of guy who would have more than average.
While I have to believe there are very holy clergy working in the Curia, I can't help believing from what we have seen with respect to the Curia's intractability to rooting out this cancer within the Church, that a great number, and potentially a majority of the Curia, are compromised. I think that who gets selected to certain roles within the Curia is probably related less to competency than it is to "trustworthiness" and there is nobody more trustworthy than someone who can be blackmailed. There are certainly good and competent people at work because it is necessary to maintain the facade (I'm hoping the Archbishop Kennedy is one of them, he seems to be) but my guess is that the real power lies within the "Circle of Trust" and you have to be dirty to get inside that Circle. I've got a concept for a remake of a classic movie in which Cardinal Alonzo Harris introduces Msgr. Jake Hoyt to how things really work in the Vatican. Can you guess the movie?
" I think that who gets selected to certain roles within the Curia is probably related less to competency than it is to "trustworthiness" and there is nobody more trustworthy than someone who can be blackmailed."
Here’s my 2 cents. As to McCarrick, do you think we will ever have access to the full report from the Vatican? I don’t. Which then “answers” the questions on this matter. As long as the requests to the Vatican for information continue, and the Vatican continues to “ignore” the requests (i.e. McCarrick), we will never have the full report. I sleep at night knowing that Our Lord is in charge and not anyone here in this earthly realm.
If investigative journalists continue to shine a spotlight on a matter eventually someone will have to say something but whether it will be other than a gormless "allow me, an official, to imply that the Pope is responsible because he is not in the habit of denying absurd claims about his person" I don't know and we already had that.
Those involved will be required to give an answer on Judgement Day, but I'd like to have some clear answers now. Keep up the good work, Pillar team! And may St. Thomas More pray for you.
The Argentina/SJ mafia conducting business as usual, getting others to do their dirty work while seemingly keeping their hands clean. Perhaps things have finally caught up with them.
Thanks for keeping this story alive. This story deserves answers and the higher ups at the Vatican need to know this won’t just be forgotten if they stall long enough.
Thanks for keeping this important story alive, and also for keeping one's head about it and not getting alarmist and clickbaity. This is why The Pillar is the only outlet of any stripe that I currently actually pay to read.
A minor editorial suggestion. The phrase "it is highly, if not vanishingly unlikely", while syntaxtually and conceptually correct, was hard to parse due to the near opposite meanings of 'highly' and 'vanishingly'. I eventually got it of course, but that is not a construction I would recommend in the future.
But just remember, free advice is worth what you pay for it. 🙂 Keep up the good work.
I am so grateful for this reporting, and keeping this issue before the faithful. All things continue to point to Santa Marta and Pope Francis. While the pope is often confusing, the confusion flows from one of his consistencies - to say whatever he thinks the person in front of him wants to hear. US bishops meet with the pope and ask, "Is abortion the preimminent issue?" The pope responds, "Of course it is!" The pope tells Fr. James Martin, "Keep working with homosexuals, don't try to get them to repent of their sexual sins." The pope meets with the priests of Rome, "There is too much fa**otry in the Church." It is the one consistent in a decade plus of confusion, and this is the reason why so much confusion exists.
There was probably a phone call/meeting with the pope and bishops friendly with the priest. They convinced the pope to use his power to change the verdict. Peña Parra then does what he is supposed to do - carry out the directives of the pope. While the smoke will never clear after this event, if it did, Archbishop Kennedy will look completely like the hero.
Is it fair to say that Abp Kennedy (presumably) doesn’t have access to the file of the “extraordinary process”? Like does he know and is just enough of a good guy to not reveal the truth? Couldn’t this all be figured out pretty quickly if he did have access?
I would be very interested to know what Cardinal O'Malley has to say. He intervened during the Chilean crisis, after all. I assume he's been contacted for comment? This is the moment to see "O'Malley Unleashed" as you and J.D. discussed on the podcast upon his retirement.
Still asking the question: Where are the Argentine civil authorities in all this? Do they not prosecute sexual abuse of minors, or did they look at the case and pan it?
This is important. This was the first time I realized that he was convicted in a canonical court, rather than having the case investigated by the civil authorities and prosecuted depending on whether that's indicated by the investigation's findings. If there was a civil investigation it'd be nice to know its conclusions.
This is my take having worked for a number of US Military Flag/General officers:
This was back in the early 90's, when the Department of Defense was rolling out the Tricare program. The local Air Force Association chapter asked the Major General I worked for if he would come and speak to them about the changes. These changes were highly unpopular with retirees. So he said, "Yeah, but you had probably better provide some bullet proof glass ..." (As a joke.) A couple of weeks later one of the civil engineering guys calls and said, "About that bullet proof glass you wanted, would 1/2" be good enough?" He just threw up his hands.
It didn't directly involve me, but a four-star was getting a new assignment. One of the rules is, 3/4 stars can't physically move until they are confirmed by the Senate. Now, a one-way, one-day advance purchase ticket from Rome to Denver is pretty expensive. So he asked one of his aides to see if he could grab a "space-available" military flight. Well, junior officers try to me nice, so they end up generating a C-17 mission to fly him direct at an incredible cost. Something the General didn't know anything about. It turned out to be a big scandal.
My General said one of the biggest threats to a senior leader is that people do what you say and try to be nice to you. And that usually gets you in trouble.
My guess applying military bureaucracy to the Vatican is Pope Francis got the letter from the unnamed Argentinian Bishops. He passed it on to his "chief of staff" Archbishop Parra and said to look into it. The Archbishop like all bureaucrats tries to divine his bosses wishes and "be nice to him" so exceeds his mandate. It happens a lot.
This is plausible and assumes the best of the pope. Given the Rupnik, Zanchetta, Inzoli, Grassi, Ricci, Barros, and Gisana scandals, I'm not sure that is warranted. However, it is a possibility.
Well, given all the major scandals that happened under St John Paul II and Benedict, I think there is a pretty good chance of it being an enduring institutional problem.
Benedict cleaned things up as best he could. Francis has repeatedly taken men who are proven pedophiles/fraudsters and given them prominent positions overseeing things like Vatican finances (e.g., Zanchetta after raping laity and bankrupting his own diocese). Francis' protection of Rupnik is scandalous in the extreme. Benedict never did anything like that.
Why is Príncipi being protected? Is he just “one of the boys”? Part of the Argentinian gang? Príncipi being a classmate of Tucho is glaringly suspicious. It ought to cause him to be fully transparent or else lose all trust (with what little he had in the first place).
Given that they haven't learned the lesson from Rupnik, who "merely" abused adults, why not try to do the same with someone who abused children?
It makes one wonder what level of escalation is required before somebody within the Vatican learns -something-
Speaking of Rupnik, hasn't it been one year since his case was reopened? When are we going to hear an update on that front?
I don’t understand why anyone in the Church hierarchy would think a disgraced and criminal priest should remain a priest.
There's always an undercurrent of the Vatican not believing that their "friends" are actually guilty. But if it's somebody they don't like then they're happy to give him the boot
I think that a reasonable conclusion might be that a lot of them don't think that the types of behaviors we now call "sexual abuse" are that big a deal. In the 90's there were all kinds of jokes on TV where a guy would be woken up and immediately say "She told me she was 18!" because ha ha, statutory rape. Or the comment from Dazed and Confused "I keep getting older and they stay the same age." The idea that men in power using that power to attain sexual gratification is a more serious vice than, say, a drinking or gambling habit, is a very, very new idea. There are just lots and lots of people in the "sexual experimentation and contact is good for people, including kids" camp in the academy (where it was pervasive in the 1970's) and the academy is where many clergy are formed and take their cues from.
The cardinals running around saying that "science" has "disproved" Christian sexual demands aren't getting the information because they've closely re-red the Church doctors, it's from PhDs that they read back in the 1970's and 1980's.
And so, for lots of them, they honestly believe they are correct in thinking that A) Child abusers can be rehabilitated and trusted not to offend again, B) that victims don't suffer long term consequences, and may even be benefitting from the relationship.
To make an analogy, when you repair rotted wood, the lazy thing to do is just apply wood filler over the top. The right thing to do is to cut out all of the wood that's affected, especially the places where only the inner part is rotted away and the outside looks "okay" and replace as much as you can with real wood.
Any honest observer can see that the Church has made zero serious attempts to actually cut out the bad wood, possibly because so few clergy would be left to fill the administrative roles in the Church.
Luckily, nothing is hidden from God, who loves us, and gives us the comforts of Lazarus if we die in friendship with him.
Unfortunately, the Church is increasingly uncertain who or what God actually is. And they call this progress.
The "buddy system" at work.
After Rupnik pretty much got a free pass, it's not surprising that the Vatican would try to excuse this fellow countryman of the Pope and classmate of Fernandez. I don't think all countries are taking abuse allegations as seriously as the US was forced to take them due to litigation and McCarrick.
If this was a classmate of Fernandez, that may be a big part of the answer. People have skeletons in their closets, and Fernandez seems like the kind of guy who would have more than average.
While I have to believe there are very holy clergy working in the Curia, I can't help believing from what we have seen with respect to the Curia's intractability to rooting out this cancer within the Church, that a great number, and potentially a majority of the Curia, are compromised. I think that who gets selected to certain roles within the Curia is probably related less to competency than it is to "trustworthiness" and there is nobody more trustworthy than someone who can be blackmailed. There are certainly good and competent people at work because it is necessary to maintain the facade (I'm hoping the Archbishop Kennedy is one of them, he seems to be) but my guess is that the real power lies within the "Circle of Trust" and you have to be dirty to get inside that Circle. I've got a concept for a remake of a classic movie in which Cardinal Alonzo Harris introduces Msgr. Jake Hoyt to how things really work in the Vatican. Can you guess the movie?
"Forget it Jake, it's the Secretariat of State"
" I think that who gets selected to certain roles within the Curia is probably related less to competency than it is to "trustworthiness" and there is nobody more trustworthy than someone who can be blackmailed."
Well said.
Here’s my 2 cents. As to McCarrick, do you think we will ever have access to the full report from the Vatican? I don’t. Which then “answers” the questions on this matter. As long as the requests to the Vatican for information continue, and the Vatican continues to “ignore” the requests (i.e. McCarrick), we will never have the full report. I sleep at night knowing that Our Lord is in charge and not anyone here in this earthly realm.
If investigative journalists continue to shine a spotlight on a matter eventually someone will have to say something but whether it will be other than a gormless "allow me, an official, to imply that the Pope is responsible because he is not in the habit of denying absurd claims about his person" I don't know and we already had that.
This type of reporting and analysis is why I subscribe to the Pillar. I feel like I get to the truth. Thank you Ed and JD.
+1
Those involved will be required to give an answer on Judgement Day, but I'd like to have some clear answers now. Keep up the good work, Pillar team! And may St. Thomas More pray for you.
The Argentina/SJ mafia conducting business as usual, getting others to do their dirty work while seemingly keeping their hands clean. Perhaps things have finally caught up with them.
Thanks for keeping this story alive. This story deserves answers and the higher ups at the Vatican need to know this won’t just be forgotten if they stall long enough.
Thanks for keeping this important story alive, and also for keeping one's head about it and not getting alarmist and clickbaity. This is why The Pillar is the only outlet of any stripe that I currently actually pay to read.
A minor editorial suggestion. The phrase "it is highly, if not vanishingly unlikely", while syntaxtually and conceptually correct, was hard to parse due to the near opposite meanings of 'highly' and 'vanishingly'. I eventually got it of course, but that is not a construction I would recommend in the future.
But just remember, free advice is worth what you pay for it. 🙂 Keep up the good work.
I thought it was an excellent turn of phrase! Idiosyncratic but clear.
I think it’s missing a comma: “highly, if not vanishingly, unlikely”
I also had to read it a few times to parse it.
I am so grateful for this reporting, and keeping this issue before the faithful. All things continue to point to Santa Marta and Pope Francis. While the pope is often confusing, the confusion flows from one of his consistencies - to say whatever he thinks the person in front of him wants to hear. US bishops meet with the pope and ask, "Is abortion the preimminent issue?" The pope responds, "Of course it is!" The pope tells Fr. James Martin, "Keep working with homosexuals, don't try to get them to repent of their sexual sins." The pope meets with the priests of Rome, "There is too much fa**otry in the Church." It is the one consistent in a decade plus of confusion, and this is the reason why so much confusion exists.
There was probably a phone call/meeting with the pope and bishops friendly with the priest. They convinced the pope to use his power to change the verdict. Peña Parra then does what he is supposed to do - carry out the directives of the pope. While the smoke will never clear after this event, if it did, Archbishop Kennedy will look completely like the hero.
Is it fair to say that Abp Kennedy (presumably) doesn’t have access to the file of the “extraordinary process”? Like does he know and is just enough of a good guy to not reveal the truth? Couldn’t this all be figured out pretty quickly if he did have access?
How about “Fernandez pushes for a rash action” followed by “Fernandez furiously backpedals from his original action”? We’ve seen it before
I would be very interested to know what Cardinal O'Malley has to say. He intervened during the Chilean crisis, after all. I assume he's been contacted for comment? This is the moment to see "O'Malley Unleashed" as you and J.D. discussed on the podcast upon his retirement.
Still asking the question: Where are the Argentine civil authorities in all this? Do they not prosecute sexual abuse of minors, or did they look at the case and pan it?
This is important. This was the first time I realized that he was convicted in a canonical court, rather than having the case investigated by the civil authorities and prosecuted depending on whether that's indicated by the investigation's findings. If there was a civil investigation it'd be nice to know its conclusions.
This is my take having worked for a number of US Military Flag/General officers:
This was back in the early 90's, when the Department of Defense was rolling out the Tricare program. The local Air Force Association chapter asked the Major General I worked for if he would come and speak to them about the changes. These changes were highly unpopular with retirees. So he said, "Yeah, but you had probably better provide some bullet proof glass ..." (As a joke.) A couple of weeks later one of the civil engineering guys calls and said, "About that bullet proof glass you wanted, would 1/2" be good enough?" He just threw up his hands.
It didn't directly involve me, but a four-star was getting a new assignment. One of the rules is, 3/4 stars can't physically move until they are confirmed by the Senate. Now, a one-way, one-day advance purchase ticket from Rome to Denver is pretty expensive. So he asked one of his aides to see if he could grab a "space-available" military flight. Well, junior officers try to me nice, so they end up generating a C-17 mission to fly him direct at an incredible cost. Something the General didn't know anything about. It turned out to be a big scandal.
My General said one of the biggest threats to a senior leader is that people do what you say and try to be nice to you. And that usually gets you in trouble.
My guess applying military bureaucracy to the Vatican is Pope Francis got the letter from the unnamed Argentinian Bishops. He passed it on to his "chief of staff" Archbishop Parra and said to look into it. The Archbishop like all bureaucrats tries to divine his bosses wishes and "be nice to him" so exceeds his mandate. It happens a lot.
This is plausible and assumes the best of the pope. Given the Rupnik, Zanchetta, Inzoli, Grassi, Ricci, Barros, and Gisana scandals, I'm not sure that is warranted. However, it is a possibility.
Well, given all the major scandals that happened under St John Paul II and Benedict, I think there is a pretty good chance of it being an enduring institutional problem.
Benedict cleaned things up as best he could. Francis has repeatedly taken men who are proven pedophiles/fraudsters and given them prominent positions overseeing things like Vatican finances (e.g., Zanchetta after raping laity and bankrupting his own diocese). Francis' protection of Rupnik is scandalous in the extreme. Benedict never did anything like that.
Why is Príncipi being protected? Is he just “one of the boys”? Part of the Argentinian gang? Príncipi being a classmate of Tucho is glaringly suspicious. It ought to cause him to be fully transparent or else lose all trust (with what little he had in the first place).