More charitably, if option one, it's been said, at least once on the Podcast, that Pope Francis tends to agree with whoever talked to him last, usually to explain how his financial reforms seem to come and go.
"According to canon law, Ariel Alberto Príncipi’s case was clear — convicted on multiple counts of abuse of minors by two local courts and laicized, his line of appeal was to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, and ultimately to the pope personally, but through the same department."
Thank you for continuing your analysis on this story as it really is vital to Christianity that we combat the enabling of abuse, especially by clergy. As Bishop Vaarden says: "To be a Catholic today is, I’d say, to live within a huge, unclean, ulcerating wound that cries out for healing. Who is claiming this wound, to hold it before God so that, eventually, health may be restored?" (https://coramfratribus.com/life-illumined/repairing-the-wound/).
"reinstate a guilty priest as a favor to friends, it would be a scandal of cataclysmic proportions for Francis."
This is more or less what happened in the Rupnik affair. As was made clear a thousand times in the Fr. Gruner affair, the "competent ecclesiastical authority" can block attempts by other bishops to incadinate a priest. This is how the Secretariat of State at the time demanded Fr. Gruner find a bishop to incardinate him or face suspension. Shockingly, Fr. Gruner found a bishop to incardinate him. The Secertariat of State responded that "the competent ecclessiastical authority" had in fact blocked the incardination request, and as a result, he was hereby suspended. By "competent ecclesiastical authority", it was not meant the Secretariat of State, who had no authority on that.
Francis would have been made known of Rupnik's incardination, and could have very easily blocked it. He chose not to, mostly out of a favor to friends. While this scandal did indeed cripple his legitimacy, he also is still pope, so may have thought "eh, why not?"
Or an underling thought he could just freelance, and when the pope finds out, eh, you survived worse, just let this one go.
Dear God, please bring healing to the victims of this grave sin and may you guide those responsible for this out of your Church.
I have to be honest: This kind of evil is part of why I didn't return to the Church and went to other denominations and it seriously and profoundly makes me question whether I erred in returning.
There is no justification of this and leaving those who did it in power, when combined with Rupnik remaining honored, really speaks volumes.
> and may you guide those responsible for this out of your Church.
Do you mean out of power in the Church hierarchy (e.g. living a life of prayer and physical penance and chaste obedience to proper authority), or are you praying for them to apostatize? I would be hesitant to desire the latter.
You did not err in returning. But it is also not wrong to spend time in prayer complaining to Jesus that you have been scandalized: that a stumbling block has been placed in your path again and again by the very people who should have been setting a public example of the imitation of Christ, "and what are You going to do about it?" - but we ought to ask, *not* "what are You going to do to these people" but "how are You going to make it up to *me* - whom will You give me to look to, since I cannot look to these?" - maybe I will ask since I am now curious what the answer would be (well, he is going to point out that I have a picture of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel hanging in my dining room... the story of me shopping for art when I moved in is very silly but I know who it is *now*.)
I had to look up primary sources (I wrote and printed out a couple of letters to Fr. Gordon MacRae around then to report on how "33 Days to Merciful Love" had gone for me, when he had promoted it on his blog. So those are still on my drive.) I had forgotten how tightly timed it all was.
May 22, 2017 "After I moved in, I went to the local Catholic bookstore and said I wanted to buy stuff to hang on the wall and she said she didn't have much and that it is scattered all over the store and started by showing me an Our Lady of Mt Carmel (which, inevitably, I bought and hung in the dining room, after looking around some more to make sure, because I like St John of the Cross.) I do not know one Our Lady from another unless someone tells me but evidently O.L. of Mt Carmel wears brown. She is holding a baby Jesus. So it is not lonely here when the kids are not here." [I rented a place starting May 1 and furnished it before separating on May 13 2017; I think the purchase was May 10.]
June 11, 2017 "A couple months ago [i.e. April] my parish priest had suggested that I should get closer to Mary, and lent me a book on the rosary which (he said) had a chapter on Fatima, which he picked because the anniversary was coming up; although when he looked in the table of contents it wasn't immediately obvious from the titles which one it was, so he said not to bother with reading the entire book but just make another appointment with him whenever something struck me. But, I did not get around to reading much of it for a while because I was moving out and was busy with mundane things. Last week I had time to get back to it and eventually I did find the chapter on Fatima. It also mentioned the brown scapular (which I have seen people mention on the internet, always asking each other something about some kind of guarantee associated with it, which I was deeply uninterested in, although I did at least look up what the heck a scapular even is), and this part of the chapter listed a few people who had said stuff about it, and (this will sound stupid but there is no getting around it) suddenly I really wanted one. I guess I blame St. Therese (who was on the list, although so was St. Pope JP2.) So I went out to the local Catholic bookstore again, on Monday [June 5], ostensibly to finally buy a crucifix for the place I have moved into, but definitely to also buy a brown scapular. I had no idea what to do with it (but suspected I was probably supposed to get a priest to do something with it), so I left it in my car in the shopping bag and have been driving around with it." TL;DR: the rest of the letter (Sunday June 11) is explaining that on Wednesday I saw a post online about Secular Carmelites in another city and was struck by the idea that I should see if there are some in my city, found them after some detective work on the internet, phoned the president, and went to their monthly meeting which was that Sunday. "Meanwhile, I still have no idea what to do with the scapular (when I phoned the president, she did ask me if I had one, and I thought "well! now I know why I bought one!")"
We might say "THAT escalated quickly" except that I had been aware for months that I was called to something but did not know what (I do not know how to describe how that feels. It is not, however, like the horn when C.S. Lewis pulls the four children from a railway station to Narnia. It is something adjacent to frustrating/puzzled/waiting for the other shoe to drop.) I wrote another comment recently at the Pillar about Ignatian discernment, but did not go into the "three times". This one was an example of "the first time" https://sacred-texts.com/chr/seil/seil29.htm and I described it in the letter "I am sometimes nervous about meeting new people but every time last week that I even tried to worry about it, it was just absolutely smothered by peace, like an over-generous serving of gravy (I like gravy on the entire Thanksgiving dinner, if it is homemade; perhaps this image would not be very appealing for other people)." PEACE GRAVY hahaha. I was asked at the meeting how I found them and why I was interested (stock questions), and I had said something normal and coherent (though in hindsight it is not normal to have read St. John of the Cross before showing up), but what I wrote was: "I mean what do you say to a question like that? I am interested because this is where I am supposed to be. I am very happy (it's evening now, so I have been extraordinarily happy for all the rest of today since the meeting this morning) to have found what I am supposed to be doing."
Evidently I wrote notes to myself in email after meeting the formation director at the second meeting 7/9/2017 ... "If I do not miss any meetings [as a visitor], I will have *exactly* the number of meetings needed to get on board the next discernment train in October. Also was instructed to pray a lot to ask if I have a vocation to this. [...] Then I went to afternoon Mass at the Oratory and we have another Gospel reading with a yoke in it (we also had one on the weekday that I got my parish priest to invest me in the brown scapular.)" I might have a note somewhere on what day that was (one of my subsequent journals has a timeline that I pieced together in hindsight) but it would be tedious to find which journal and I am lazy.
Aw, God love ya, Bridget! I was expecting a funny ha-ha story, and here you go breaking out a deeply personal and beautiful tale of what happens when someone follows the subtle nudges of the Holy Spirit. Isn’t it wonderful to look back and suddenly see how the pieces fall into place?!
I have a family member who was directly involved with an (eventually laicized) priest in the 1970s. Through the 90s and early 2000s, he was close to the priest and even served as the head of his parish council. When the accusations were made, people asked him to "defend Father!" He went to the papers and told his story.
My point? This was just before I chose to enter the seminary and become a priest myself. I have been ordained for 12 years, and I have certainly had my ups and downs within the Church and with the hierarchy. But I remember something very important: Jesus (Jesus, you know, the Son of God and Second Person of the Trinity) in his human nature hand-picked 12 men to be his closest collaborators. One betrayed Him, one denied Him and 9 ran away.
I don't expect the men in the hierarchy to perform any better. I hope they will, but I don't expect them to. However, the DDF is not the head of the Church. The Pope is not the head of the Church. Jesus is the Head of the Church, and He will never abandon or discard her, even if the men he allows to run it do.
Yves Congar, when asked by Hans Kung, "After all they have done to you, why do you stay?" replied, "She is my mother, where am I to go?"
"Lord, you have the words of eternal life and we have come to believe that you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."
Personalities, politics and peccadilloes can't destroy the Church. Stay close to Christ in his Sacraments and devoutly pray for everyone with office in the Church. We are, after all, just as human as you. (If not moreso)
Thank you very much for continuing to draw attention to this story. If my Google searches are correct, AP, Reuters, the National Catholic Reporter, and America have not yet seen fit to cover it -- but you have, and blessings on you and others who have covered it for doing so.
The story very much does matter, not only to the faithful of today but also to the historians of the future who will grapple with the legacy of this pontificate, with all its lights and shadows. Archbishop Peña Parra's role in the Principi case is reminiscent, in some ways, of his role in the Zanchetta affair (https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=56450). In a Vatican culture in which a Dr. Ruffini can display such public callousness to the sensibilities of abuse victims without suffering a public reprimand, let alone dismissal (https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/vatican-communications-prefect-removing), I pray that a Vatican official will be moved by his conscience to become a Deep Throat so that you and other journalists can help bring an end to the horrific scandal of the downplaying and cover-up of sexual abuse.
Interesting timing, smack in synod on synodality month...
The Rome side of the story does not stand alone, the Argentina side of the story is also very interesting. Obviously this Principi character is somebody's pal over there. Would be interesting to know who the Argentina Bishops are who pulled this stunt to keep their guy in the clergy (if they exist of course). Would be interesting to know if these Argentina Bishops live in Argentina or if they live in Rome.
That's what I'd really like to know. Why would someone in Rome, Peña Parra no less, put all their chips on the table for some rando cleric? What makes this guy so significant that he warranted such special treatment?
Perhaps either Edgar or Felipe could give us some background or context on the matter.
The Pillar's analysis of this case is excellent. It is a major story.
But here's another way of assessing Archbishop Kennedy's prompt effort to block the reversal of Principi's laicization: Consider how often a modern church leader's legacy has been tarnished or even destroyed by his alleged or documented failure to remove an abusive priest from ministry.
At present, Francis's reported interference in high-profile abuse cases has been shrugged off. But after the end of his pontificate, those who facilitated or tolerated this interference could find themselves in a very different position. This is not to say that Archbishop Kennedy acted to protect his own legacy (though surely his moral credibility), but only to observe that there will be the inevitable reckoning.
Ed, I am so grateful for everything the Pillar is doing. Coming from people with credentials and experience in Canon Law, this kind of analysis can’t be beat. Thank you for serving the Church by your honest & even-handed reporting.
Once again grateful for the many, many normal men who are great priests and bishops who actually want to love and serve the Lord and strive T generously to bring many souls to Jesus and the Church. They don’t do terrible things to children or women or seminarians and they don’t cover up for those who do.
Thank you, Fathers out there, for keeping the hand to the plough.
The arrogance and lack of compassion and respect for the victims in this situation is unbelievable. It’s a new low.
Option One all day long.
Francis has a long history of invalidating the suffering of the victims.
“Who will rid me of this turbulent child abuse investigation?”
Touché!
I was just about to make the same reference.
More charitably, if option one, it's been said, at least once on the Podcast, that Pope Francis tends to agree with whoever talked to him last, usually to explain how his financial reforms seem to come and go.
"According to canon law, Ariel Alberto Príncipi’s case was clear — convicted on multiple counts of abuse of minors by two local courts and laicized, his line of appeal was to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, and ultimately to the pope personally, but through the same department."
Thank you for continuing your analysis on this story as it really is vital to Christianity that we combat the enabling of abuse, especially by clergy. As Bishop Vaarden says: "To be a Catholic today is, I’d say, to live within a huge, unclean, ulcerating wound that cries out for healing. Who is claiming this wound, to hold it before God so that, eventually, health may be restored?" (https://coramfratribus.com/life-illumined/repairing-the-wound/).
Who indeed?
So not really any good options here. Especially if Francis just tries to let this disappear and doesn't do anything about Parra.
The theory of Fernandez interceding seems to make the most sense. I hadn't thought of that previously.
"Reflexive critics of the pope," would be better written as "Reflective critics of the pope."
"reinstate a guilty priest as a favor to friends, it would be a scandal of cataclysmic proportions for Francis."
This is more or less what happened in the Rupnik affair. As was made clear a thousand times in the Fr. Gruner affair, the "competent ecclesiastical authority" can block attempts by other bishops to incadinate a priest. This is how the Secretariat of State at the time demanded Fr. Gruner find a bishop to incardinate him or face suspension. Shockingly, Fr. Gruner found a bishop to incardinate him. The Secertariat of State responded that "the competent ecclessiastical authority" had in fact blocked the incardination request, and as a result, he was hereby suspended. By "competent ecclesiastical authority", it was not meant the Secretariat of State, who had no authority on that.
Francis would have been made known of Rupnik's incardination, and could have very easily blocked it. He chose not to, mostly out of a favor to friends. While this scandal did indeed cripple his legitimacy, he also is still pope, so may have thought "eh, why not?"
Or an underling thought he could just freelance, and when the pope finds out, eh, you survived worse, just let this one go.
Dear God, please bring healing to the victims of this grave sin and may you guide those responsible for this out of your Church.
I have to be honest: This kind of evil is part of why I didn't return to the Church and went to other denominations and it seriously and profoundly makes me question whether I erred in returning.
There is no justification of this and leaving those who did it in power, when combined with Rupnik remaining honored, really speaks volumes.
> and may you guide those responsible for this out of your Church.
Do you mean out of power in the Church hierarchy (e.g. living a life of prayer and physical penance and chaste obedience to proper authority), or are you praying for them to apostatize? I would be hesitant to desire the latter.
You did not err in returning. But it is also not wrong to spend time in prayer complaining to Jesus that you have been scandalized: that a stumbling block has been placed in your path again and again by the very people who should have been setting a public example of the imitation of Christ, "and what are You going to do about it?" - but we ought to ask, *not* "what are You going to do to these people" but "how are You going to make it up to *me* - whom will You give me to look to, since I cannot look to these?" - maybe I will ask since I am now curious what the answer would be (well, he is going to point out that I have a picture of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel hanging in my dining room... the story of me shopping for art when I moved in is very silly but I know who it is *now*.)
Not to derail the thread, but I would like to request the Our Lady of Mt. Carmel story, please.
I had to look up primary sources (I wrote and printed out a couple of letters to Fr. Gordon MacRae around then to report on how "33 Days to Merciful Love" had gone for me, when he had promoted it on his blog. So those are still on my drive.) I had forgotten how tightly timed it all was.
May 22, 2017 "After I moved in, I went to the local Catholic bookstore and said I wanted to buy stuff to hang on the wall and she said she didn't have much and that it is scattered all over the store and started by showing me an Our Lady of Mt Carmel (which, inevitably, I bought and hung in the dining room, after looking around some more to make sure, because I like St John of the Cross.) I do not know one Our Lady from another unless someone tells me but evidently O.L. of Mt Carmel wears brown. She is holding a baby Jesus. So it is not lonely here when the kids are not here." [I rented a place starting May 1 and furnished it before separating on May 13 2017; I think the purchase was May 10.]
June 11, 2017 "A couple months ago [i.e. April] my parish priest had suggested that I should get closer to Mary, and lent me a book on the rosary which (he said) had a chapter on Fatima, which he picked because the anniversary was coming up; although when he looked in the table of contents it wasn't immediately obvious from the titles which one it was, so he said not to bother with reading the entire book but just make another appointment with him whenever something struck me. But, I did not get around to reading much of it for a while because I was moving out and was busy with mundane things. Last week I had time to get back to it and eventually I did find the chapter on Fatima. It also mentioned the brown scapular (which I have seen people mention on the internet, always asking each other something about some kind of guarantee associated with it, which I was deeply uninterested in, although I did at least look up what the heck a scapular even is), and this part of the chapter listed a few people who had said stuff about it, and (this will sound stupid but there is no getting around it) suddenly I really wanted one. I guess I blame St. Therese (who was on the list, although so was St. Pope JP2.) So I went out to the local Catholic bookstore again, on Monday [June 5], ostensibly to finally buy a crucifix for the place I have moved into, but definitely to also buy a brown scapular. I had no idea what to do with it (but suspected I was probably supposed to get a priest to do something with it), so I left it in my car in the shopping bag and have been driving around with it." TL;DR: the rest of the letter (Sunday June 11) is explaining that on Wednesday I saw a post online about Secular Carmelites in another city and was struck by the idea that I should see if there are some in my city, found them after some detective work on the internet, phoned the president, and went to their monthly meeting which was that Sunday. "Meanwhile, I still have no idea what to do with the scapular (when I phoned the president, she did ask me if I had one, and I thought "well! now I know why I bought one!")"
We might say "THAT escalated quickly" except that I had been aware for months that I was called to something but did not know what (I do not know how to describe how that feels. It is not, however, like the horn when C.S. Lewis pulls the four children from a railway station to Narnia. It is something adjacent to frustrating/puzzled/waiting for the other shoe to drop.) I wrote another comment recently at the Pillar about Ignatian discernment, but did not go into the "three times". This one was an example of "the first time" https://sacred-texts.com/chr/seil/seil29.htm and I described it in the letter "I am sometimes nervous about meeting new people but every time last week that I even tried to worry about it, it was just absolutely smothered by peace, like an over-generous serving of gravy (I like gravy on the entire Thanksgiving dinner, if it is homemade; perhaps this image would not be very appealing for other people)." PEACE GRAVY hahaha. I was asked at the meeting how I found them and why I was interested (stock questions), and I had said something normal and coherent (though in hindsight it is not normal to have read St. John of the Cross before showing up), but what I wrote was: "I mean what do you say to a question like that? I am interested because this is where I am supposed to be. I am very happy (it's evening now, so I have been extraordinarily happy for all the rest of today since the meeting this morning) to have found what I am supposed to be doing."
Evidently I wrote notes to myself in email after meeting the formation director at the second meeting 7/9/2017 ... "If I do not miss any meetings [as a visitor], I will have *exactly* the number of meetings needed to get on board the next discernment train in October. Also was instructed to pray a lot to ask if I have a vocation to this. [...] Then I went to afternoon Mass at the Oratory and we have another Gospel reading with a yoke in it (we also had one on the weekday that I got my parish priest to invest me in the brown scapular.)" I might have a note somewhere on what day that was (one of my subsequent journals has a timeline that I pieced together in hindsight) but it would be tedious to find which journal and I am lazy.
Aw, God love ya, Bridget! I was expecting a funny ha-ha story, and here you go breaking out a deeply personal and beautiful tale of what happens when someone follows the subtle nudges of the Holy Spirit. Isn’t it wonderful to look back and suddenly see how the pieces fall into place?!
My then-pastor(and spiritual director) invested me in the brown scapular on June 23 2017, Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. My goodness these readings. https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/062317.cfm
Rob,
I have a family member who was directly involved with an (eventually laicized) priest in the 1970s. Through the 90s and early 2000s, he was close to the priest and even served as the head of his parish council. When the accusations were made, people asked him to "defend Father!" He went to the papers and told his story.
My point? This was just before I chose to enter the seminary and become a priest myself. I have been ordained for 12 years, and I have certainly had my ups and downs within the Church and with the hierarchy. But I remember something very important: Jesus (Jesus, you know, the Son of God and Second Person of the Trinity) in his human nature hand-picked 12 men to be his closest collaborators. One betrayed Him, one denied Him and 9 ran away.
I don't expect the men in the hierarchy to perform any better. I hope they will, but I don't expect them to. However, the DDF is not the head of the Church. The Pope is not the head of the Church. Jesus is the Head of the Church, and He will never abandon or discard her, even if the men he allows to run it do.
Yves Congar, when asked by Hans Kung, "After all they have done to you, why do you stay?" replied, "She is my mother, where am I to go?"
"Lord, you have the words of eternal life and we have come to believe that you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."
Personalities, politics and peccadilloes can't destroy the Church. Stay close to Christ in his Sacraments and devoutly pray for everyone with office in the Church. We are, after all, just as human as you. (If not moreso)
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5097.htm#article1
Thank you very much for continuing to draw attention to this story. If my Google searches are correct, AP, Reuters, the National Catholic Reporter, and America have not yet seen fit to cover it -- but you have, and blessings on you and others who have covered it for doing so.
The story very much does matter, not only to the faithful of today but also to the historians of the future who will grapple with the legacy of this pontificate, with all its lights and shadows. Archbishop Peña Parra's role in the Principi case is reminiscent, in some ways, of his role in the Zanchetta affair (https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=56450). In a Vatican culture in which a Dr. Ruffini can display such public callousness to the sensibilities of abuse victims without suffering a public reprimand, let alone dismissal (https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/vatican-communications-prefect-removing), I pray that a Vatican official will be moved by his conscience to become a Deep Throat so that you and other journalists can help bring an end to the horrific scandal of the downplaying and cover-up of sexual abuse.
Interesting timing, smack in synod on synodality month...
The Rome side of the story does not stand alone, the Argentina side of the story is also very interesting. Obviously this Principi character is somebody's pal over there. Would be interesting to know who the Argentina Bishops are who pulled this stunt to keep their guy in the clergy (if they exist of course). Would be interesting to know if these Argentina Bishops live in Argentina or if they live in Rome.
That's what I'd really like to know. Why would someone in Rome, Peña Parra no less, put all their chips on the table for some rando cleric? What makes this guy so significant that he warranted such special treatment?
Perhaps either Edgar or Felipe could give us some background or context on the matter.
The Pillar's analysis of this case is excellent. It is a major story.
But here's another way of assessing Archbishop Kennedy's prompt effort to block the reversal of Principi's laicization: Consider how often a modern church leader's legacy has been tarnished or even destroyed by his alleged or documented failure to remove an abusive priest from ministry.
At present, Francis's reported interference in high-profile abuse cases has been shrugged off. But after the end of his pontificate, those who facilitated or tolerated this interference could find themselves in a very different position. This is not to say that Archbishop Kennedy acted to protect his own legacy (though surely his moral credibility), but only to observe that there will be the inevitable reckoning.
Ed, I am so grateful for everything the Pillar is doing. Coming from people with credentials and experience in Canon Law, this kind of analysis can’t be beat. Thank you for serving the Church by your honest & even-handed reporting.
Yeesh.
We've reached Vatican CYNCON (Cynicism Readiness Condition) Level 1.
I like CYNCON. I think I might even have to adopt it.
It's creepy how this Vatican is always trying to excuse blatant abusers, especially from Latin America.
Stop protecting these criminals.
Hear, hear!
Once again grateful for the many, many normal men who are great priests and bishops who actually want to love and serve the Lord and strive T generously to bring many souls to Jesus and the Church. They don’t do terrible things to children or women or seminarians and they don’t cover up for those who do.
Thank you, Fathers out there, for keeping the hand to the plough.
The arrogance and lack of compassion and respect for the victims in this situation is unbelievable. It’s a new low.