“Who am I to judge the Rupnik stories?”
Pope Francis’s Communicator-in-Chief, Dr. Paolo Ruffini, asked that rhetorical question on Friday in an Atlanta, GA hotel ballroom, in front of journalists, one of whom—Colleen Dulle of America Magazine, it happens—had asked him to explain his dicastery’s rationale for continuing to use reproductions of artwork by a disgraced priest who is accused of serial sexual abuse.
Well, nobody is asking Ruffini to judge the case, which—just so we’re clear on the point from the outset—is very strong.
The Rupnik Affair has been before the public for the better part of two years. The Jesuits who investigated him believe he is guilty. The CDF believes there is a case to answer but declined to prosecute, citing the statute of limitations. Rupnik would never have faced the prospect of trial were it not for sustained press scrutiny and pressure from inside Francis’s own inner circle.
No one is asking Natasa Govekar to judge the business, either.
Govekar is the close associate of Rupnik and member of the Centro Aletti art house he founded at Rome under Pope St. John Paul II (whose favor he enjoyed) in the early 1990s. She is also the director of the theological-pastoral department in the Dicastery for Communication of the Holy See, responsible for the liturgical calendar on which several Rupniks are featured.
Govekar was in Atlanta all week, as part of the official Vatican delegation, but she wasn’t taking questions.
Another journalist—Paulina Guzik of OSV News—specifically asked Ruffini what message he thinks the Dicastery’s continued use of Rupnik images sends to victims.
“Do you think that if I put away a photo of an art (away) from my—from our—website, I will be more close to the victims?” Ruffini offered by way of reply. “I think you’re wrong,” Ruffini told her.
Victims of clerical sexual abuse have called repeatedly for the Vatican to stop using images, explaining that seeing the images compounds their trauma. Ruffini believes he knows better than they do, too.
I almost wrote “Ruffini’s Dicastery,” but before that I almost wrote “Rupnik’s Dicastery … etc.” Really, though, the Dicastery for Communication of the Holy See is the pope’s outfit and no one else’s.
Francis is the pope.
Qui tacet …
One word from him could have put a stop to this traffic almost before it started. One word from him would put a stop to it now.
With apologies to Robert Bolt’s fictionalized Thomas More (who quoted a version of it) and the real Pope Boniface VIII (in whose law books the maxim may be found): Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debet ac potuit. “He who keeps silent is to be taken as consenting, wheresoever he ought to have spoken and was able to speak.”
“We’re not talking about the abuse of minors,” Ruffini also said.
I can curse to make a sailor blush in several languages, but I want power of eloquence to heap sufficient execration upon such callousness.
In point of fact, we are talking about the abuse of vulnerable persons. At the very least, we are talking about persons investigators believe to have been in a condition of physical, moral, and spiritual disparity with their alleged abuser and somehow in his spiritual care.
If Rupnik’s victims are not “vulnerable adults” in the legally pertinent sense of the term, then the category is meaningless. No one ever could be vulnerable in the legally pertinent sense, whatever it is.
The changes to Church law that introduced the category of vulnerable adults were, it appears, mere paper reforms designed not to give ecclesiastical investigators and prosecutors greater power to discover crime and punish it, nor to help pastors police their clerical ranks and protect the faithful.
They were designed, it appears, for some other purpose.
Setting the tone
The miscarriage of justice in the case of Marko Rupnik—the appalling farce it has been from the start—is sadly not an aberration under Pope Francis. The Rupnik Affair has indelibly stained this pontificate. Every second this intolerable state of things persists, the Rupnik Affair comes closer to defining the Francis era.
Even if Pope Francis fires Ruffini for cause and orders the use of Rupnik’s depraved work to cease, he will only have taken cosmetic action.
Pope Francis personally set the tone and established de facto the policy Ruffini formally stated and defended for his comms dicastery last Friday. One year ago this month, Francis used one of Rupnik’s artworks as a prop in a video message for folks at a Marian congress in Aparecida, Brazil.
The Rupnik Affair had been a public scandal for seven months, at that point.
It is not only unrealistic to expect any expression of remorse or regret from the current administration, but maudlin to presume any such or similar expression will come with the action necessary to begin repair of the damage already done to lives and souls.
His name a by-word
When I was an undergrad, I played a computer game called Age of Empires. I was never much of a gamer, but I imagine my parents would not have been best pleased to know how much time that one got from me. They were paying for my education, after all.
I don’t remember much about the game, but I do recall its cheeky campaign scenario failure messages.
“Your reign will mark the end of your people’s history, but you will be remembered,” began one of them. “Your name,” the message continued, “will become the word for ‘worthless’.” Come to think of it, many of the fail messages were not only cheeky, but clever and even well informed. Anyway, the development of language is endlessly fascinating. Like history more generally, it is always messy and always happening.
The Solemnity of the Sacred Heart was on June 7th this year, but last year it was on June 16th. Vatican Media used the same Rupnik to illustrate the feast day this year as they did last year.
So, sometimes history repeats itself, or at least it rhymes.
Another piece of Rupnik art is scheduled to be used later this month, to mark the feast of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, illustrated with an image from a Rupnik studio mosaic in the chapel of the apostolic nunciature in Paris.
One wonders what will become of Rupnik—the name—whether it will become a by-word for diabolically depraved criminal abuse.
There’s more to the Rupnik Affair. There is culpable prosecutorial incompetence, irresponsible leadership, dereliction of duty, contempt of government and of the governed. Those things are better associated with the one who presides over this ghastly spectacle.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
“Every second this intolerable state of things persists, the Rupnik Affair comes closer to defining the Francis era.”
I would suggest that the epitaph for this pontificate has been written already. Too much water over the dam already. This pontificate will be characterized as it has been – worthy of the dustbin of history…a failure that was orchestrated by the McCarricks in the hierarchy…as the fruit of homosexual predation in the Church.
Perhaps we should start calling him “Emperor Francis.”
At the top of the article it is said “The Rupnik Affair has indelibly stained this pontificate.” I would go a step further — it is the defining moment, the clearest exhibition of the inherent substance of the Bergoglian pontificate. The cast of favored characters, Rupnik, Zanchetta, Barros, Maradiaga, Fernandez, Parolin, Zuppi, Paglia, …in contrast to to the likes of the marginalized and persecuted Burke, Pell, Brandmüller, Müller, Caffarra, Meisner, Viganò.
Immoral leftist secular materialist tyranny reigns in Rome dominated by the South American Jesuit. Did anyone really expect otherwise?
Are the so-called mainstream media on to this story (yet)?
Oh Chris, how I want to echo a thousand times this line:
“I can curse to make a sailor blush in several languages, but I want power of eloquence to heap sufficient execration upon such callousness”.
Having now, for 10 years, researched clergy sexual misconduct and general sexual activity (remember at least 50% of clergy do not think chastity is a requirement for their celibate lives – go figure) I have become so sick and so angry at the clericalist attitude of the clergy (and I’m not talking about the conservative ones). Ruffini (to name but one of the boys) is the embodiment of clericalist elitism combined with a totally out of touch and psychologically adolescent concept of sex and sexuality: “well, they weren’t children”, sums this up perfectly.
This whole horror story has now proven me write when I called out the so-called breakthrough of the New Book VI of canon law which was so pre-emptively, foolishly headlined by so many media outlets as, ‘New law outlaws clergy sexual abuse of adults’ and the like. What crap, what wordsmithing – seriously.
Now after 10 years of research, one of the main conclusions I have come up with is that our focus on the victim is obscene, anti-Christ, childish, and disgusting. The focus must be on the behaviours of the offending clergy (and those who protect them) who are totally bastardising their representation of Christ, totally destroying people’s lives adult or not, totally embedded in myopic fear of losing power, totally cover up and covered over by rampant sins of their own flesh to the point that one wonders whether the church has any legitimacy anymore, being as that it is founded on the celibate power of these boys who have no idea what abuse means nor its impact on the victims and the church and society as a whole.
Come Lord Jesus, please. Or as some one said – bring on the meteor. I for one cannot stomach this church anymore.
But thank you Chris, for being a voice for us.
I.E. in what world would it be dismissible for a priest and an artist to groom, seduce, dominate and sexually assault women/nuns?
Just the Catholic Church it seems. Why?
I read your paper and now am looking into your thesis. Your quote of the Council of Trent’s document provided me with the last piece of the puzzle. I happen to be in a diocese with a very rich abusive past; here a serial rapist and molester priest has been covered for thirty years. Furthermore, a couple of his superiors in college and seminary stated that he must not be ordained. However, he was ordained – his bishops chose to disregard those statements because “his mother was so pious”. I read an autobiography of that rapist and was stunned with the banality of his soul of an extreme narcissist or a psychopath. Very primitive bland thinking, zero empathy etc. He is in prison now.
While observing the reaction of the local laity and clergy to the Royal Commission I understood that it was the same schemata which I have observed in abusive (mostly narcissistic) families. It was a shocking discovery because the Church is supposed to be a place of healing. Later I had to deal with a very insidious abuse (emotional, non-sexual) of a priest with a clear psychopathology who targeted me.
No clergy helped me but they chose to prosecute me because I took some steps to protect myself from the abuser. Ironically, the priest was sent somewhere and currently is not serving.
Thank God for my knowledge of human psychology, otherwise I would be very damaged. It is clear to me that the schemata of abuse of laity is well-alive and acting. Noteworthy, the laity often plays a role of enable, just like in abusive families where enablers are necessary for an abuse to continue.
I got a bit diverted. The quote from Trent is a statement of a legalized entitlement. It says that clergy are like “gods”. Now put together that carte black and a person with a narcissistic personality disorder. He already feels entitled and above all but with that “theology” he will feel he is a god indeed. Add to this a palpable adoration of the laity who feel it is a sin to say “no” to a priest (that was essentially my crime, to say “no, I prohibit you to approach me” to an abuser). Add to that a myth about “angelic nature” of priests i.e. that they do not feel sexual temptations and desires (people who think so should read the life of St Anthony the Great (Hermit)) i.e. a total hypocrisy supported for the sake of a power as your paper shows very well. So, we have institutional entitlement, secrecy, a “privileged” class, hypocrisy, suppression of truth, scapegoats (those who try to find justice), silencing the victims and so on. This is a typical pathological family.
By the way, I have never thought that a priest is “safe” to be around because he is supposed to be chaste. I have always thought that a priest is supposed to be a decent human being because of his vocation, of a service to God and people.
Can you please provide the source for the statement that “The quote from Trent is a statement of a legalized entitlement. It says that clergy are like “gods”.”? Thanks.
Remember Judas! Jesus chose him. He chooses others too. Perhaps this is to help remind us to stay alert, to discern wolves in sheep disguise. This earth and our lives here are our testing, tempting, trial, and tribulation.
“They [the category of vulnerable adults] were designed, it appears, for some other purpose” (Altieri). The mind of Pope Francis on this issue was revealed back when he humiliatingly neutralized Cardinal DiNardo’s function as chair of the USCCB for daring to investigate adult abuse among the clergy. Altieri hits a dark truth in he who keeps silent. It’s time, I thought, to stop singing A Ring around a Rosie.
I may be going too far afield, but that thought reminded me, for one old enough to remember a children’s street song and dance, A Ring around a Rosie. Its etymology the death dealing smallpox from old England’s Rhymes of Death and Ruin. The Lyrics here written by James Fitzgerald.
A ring, a ring o’roses
A pocket full of posies
One for Jack and one for Jim and one for little Moses
A curchey [curtsy] in and a curchey out
And a curchey all together
And all fall down [added to the darker version]
For the baffled reader an explanation of A Ring around a Rosie, an English rhyme of death and ruin. It referred to a skin pattern that was an early sign of smallpox or any deadly rash. A rosy ring. Thus the children’s game. Analogously evil is a disease that spreads with deadly consequences. My friendly admonition was to stop playing children’s games regarding what’s occurring in the Church and call it as it is.
History is the patience of God…
Why are we reminded of Pope Honorius (A.D. 625-638) who remained too silent about the heresy of Monothelitism? It was only four decades after his death that he was anathematized—not so much for what he did, but for what he did not do (Constantinople III).
God also writes straight with crooked lines…
Might it be that the Rupnik affair (and much else) will embolden future conclaves that there must never be a Francis II? Why? The 7th-century Monothelitism denied the two natures—fully human and fully divine—of the one Person of Jesus Christ, while today isn’t the regnant ambiguity over the single nature of each human person and now the false separation of faith from morals?
The current silence scorns the very existence of the clarifying encyclical Veritatis Splendor (1993) which affirms the baked-in and universal natural law and moral absolutes, and defends these against subjectivist illusion and clericalist dissolution:
“A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid and general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision [replacing a ‘moral judgment’!] about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept [‘Thou shalt not…’]” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 56).” AND “The Church is no way the author or the arbiter of this [‘moral’] norm” (n. 95).
“Silence is the most perfect expression of scorn” (George Bernard Shaw).
This “ghastly spectacle” – ghastly indeed.
One reads this.
One rolls one’s eyes and wonders “what’s next?”
One prays.
I wonder what Rupnik has on Francis that keeps the pope from addressing and ending this issue. Conservative bishops are promptly, unceremoniously, and unjustly cast aside with no recourse, but a serial sexual predator gets an ongoing pass? What’s wrong with this picture, besides everything?
Undoubtedly, Rupnik knows all the homosexual capers of all the Vatican joy boys. They dare not do anything to him or he will tell all.
I hear people defending Rupnik by comparing him with Carravaggio. Caravaggio was an authentic genius, who, as far as we know, did not profane the Holy Eucharist or violate the seal of Confession, or lure into sin women religious. He knocked off a pimp for a gambling debt. He didn’t pretend to be what he was not.
Rupnik is not a genius by any stretch of the imagination, though he is a pretender and he was a Jesuit and would still be but for the bad publicity, but he sure is still a priest with faculties. He produces unimaginative [though his signature third eye is eye does catch a second glance] derivative contrivances with the big spooky orbs in the socket which substitute for spiritual depth. Vacuous imagery occupy walls [which could have been left white in austerity until a real artist came along] and provide some cheap zest to endless bulletins, missalettes and ecclesial websites.
An inhouse convenient illustrator with a resume but no real talent. He sure has provided for himself handsomely with the dime of the faithful. No artist, but a con artist to be sure.
The “Third Eye” art of Rupnik is telling.
“The Hindu people honor the inner guru by placing a dot of red sandalwood on the brow or Ajna (Aadnyaa) chakra. Their interpretation of this chakra means “command center.” When a person closes their eyes and the distraction of visual stimulation is removed, often their eyes automatically shift upward with their “vision” directed toward the area of the third eye.
The Ajna chakra is said to be the exit point for the kundalini, which is the coiled life force of energy that resides in the first and second chakras. It is traditionally called the “sleeping serpent” or the dormant sacred power because it is the life force that awakens during times of great enlightenment and spiritual bliss. At those times, it begins to uncurl and ascend upward through the other chakra points, lighting them up as it goes. Many say this accounts for the tingling feeling of true magic’s activation and movement through the body to exit out toward its intended purpose. When raising magical energy to direct toward a specific purpose, notice the increase in power that comes from starting the process in the lower two chakras and sending it upward to the third eye area to direct it toward its goal.”
This Third Eye is a profound part of Kundalini Yoga, which pretends to elevate the sexual experience “All yoga styles aim to raise Kundalini, but Kundalini yoga is the most direct style to accomplish that because it focuses on chakra alignment, says Takatani. And once your chakras are aligned, that coiled energy at the base of your spine is free to roam upward to the top of your head. Once this happens, you could experience what’s known as a “Kundalini awakening,” which, in itself, can feel like a full-body orgasm, says Polsinelli”
NO WONDER Rupnik always has the “third eye” in his demonic art.
I view Marko Rupnik as a huckster of the art world with a modest amount of talent that he has spun into a major career as a Church artist through his core talents as a businessman and “bullshit artist.” Kind of like the “Madonna” (the pop star) of the liturgical art world. Probably with help from influential, well-placed patrons, including the Vatican Communications office, along with other Jesuits and various Church officials. Also, the fact that Rupnik is not THE sole artist who creates the mosaic installations, but works as part of a studio with many other contributors, often gets overlooked, and as a result, he gets more credit in the public eye than he actually earns through his artistic output. Reportedly, the staff of the Aletti Studio does the actual mosaic work, not Rupnik. He probably creates the underlying plans and illustrations, and does other things like management, organizational and logistical work, fundraising and schmoozing. But as the owner and operator of the atelier, he gets to take credit for the final product.
The fact that many Catholics, including the bishops and Church officials who commission artwork, have little understanding of what liturgical art is or should be, other than it involves images and sculpture of Jesus, the angels and the saints, helps him too, because they will apply the same standards they use to gauge the regular, secular art they are familiar with. If the artwork matches their idea and and they like it, good enough. Another fact is the fact that many Catholics don’t know the Eastern iconography and Eastern art traditions that Rupnik cannibalizes. I remember read comments by someone who likened the Aletti Center mosaics to Coptic art.
As for the “bullshit artist” part, I remember these remarks by Rupnik quoted in a 2016 article by Chris Moore on Rupnik’s “Year of Mercy” logo, “Pope Francis’s “Year of Mercy” Logo Merges God and Man”
“When discussing an earlier work of art, a mosaic installed in the Spirituality Center of Suore Adoratrici in Lenno, Italy, the crafter of the logo, Rupnik was quoted by a fellow artist and Pope Francis biographer, Roberto Alborghetti, as saying:
“When matter exudes light, it tinges with color. The colors testify the world soul. Things are alive and the universe has its own heart. The color is the flesh of the world. The color is related to the universe matter. The universe is colorful. In a certain sense, it is the color. But is the light that makes us seeing it. The color and the light: they are an indivisible unity.”
I mean, what is that? Pseudo-mystical blather, that’s what it is.
“The color is the flesh of the world. The color is related to the universe matter.” “The universe is colorful. In a certain sense, it is the color.” Words to fill space that sound vaguely impressive but mean nothing. It sounds like the local aging-hippy guru speaking at a community art event. “In a certain sense” … whoa, deep! But unlike the local guru, people are willing to pay Rupnik for these type of spiritual, artistic insights.
Leaving aside the troubling references to a “world soul,” I don’t know what to say to anyone who reads that and believes those are the remarks of an outstanding priest-artist with deep insight into his spirituality, art and craft.
I can only hope that PF is given the divine grace of being able to hear the cacophony of all of humanity’s eyes roll each time does something he should not do and fails to do something when he should.
It is important to recall that at the moment Loserfer and his minions chose to reject God, the Almighty also kicked out of heaven all of the “undecided” fence-sitting angels together with the actively rebellious.
By avoiding and, at times, actively rejecting his responsibilities as pope to set the right and proper example for mankind as the Vicar of Christ, he should consider well his own preponderance for fence-sitting.
I sincerely doubt he will ever emerge from his narcissistic bubble. He is a wisdom figure in his own mind and has far too many enablers surrounding him. The papacy is the worst thing ever to happen to that soul.
Remember how the media was so intent on rooting out sex abuse in the Catholic church? They would hold up any example they could find of someone getting favorable treatment as proof the church was aiding and abetting abusers.
But something suddenly changed when Pope Francis became pope. Suddenly, all the abusers were going free and even being promoted. Inzoli, Barros, Zanchetta, and several more all were let go scot free. Or the Vatican covered for them and hid them from law enforcement as long as they could.
Yet the mainstream media, once so vocal about abuse is totally silent and says nothing at all about these horrific injustices.
It looks like they never cared about abuse in the church at all. It now looks like they only cared about it because it could be used to defame JP II and Benedict. Once homosexual friendly Pope Francis came to power, and filled the ranks of the Vatican with presumed homosexuals, suddenly the media was quite tolerant and even laudatory of the abusers. Now they turn a blind eye to rampant abuse in the Vatican. The media have proven themselves to be extraordinarily evil.
Bulls eye.
The media only exists to defame Christ and extoll perversion. When perversion can be used to bludgeon the faith its always big news. When it goes against media’s intent, not so much. Protestantism no longer a threat, the transgressions of its clergy have gone largely unreported. During the Bergoglian Caliphate, only reported with calculation.
What is the media supposed to do here? The sex abuse scandal — seemingly never-ending — and the Rupnik scandal are entirely of the church’s own making. Is the media supposed to put some favorable spin on yet another depressing story of church leaders’ indifference, incompetence, depravity, and cynicism? In a secular organization, people would have loudly resigned, withdrawn their money, and demanded reform, but church organizations run differently. People complain about cancel culture, but those artworks would be gone *now.* If the church cannot clean up its mess, it’s not the fault of the media.
Precisely
Btw, Age of Empires was a cool game. My little son and I spent good time together playing it
“He who keeps silent is to be taken as consenting…”
“It s a sin to accommodate an occasion of sin and cooperate with that which is evil.”
Please, everyone, rememember that according to Pope Bergoglio, Rupnik is a priest in “good”standing. That means he could hear confessions and, in Christ’s name, absolve mortal sin.
Suppose that a cleric enters the confessional and confesses that he has had sexual relationship with some religious Sisters under his authority in the context of spiritual direction. As this priest’s confessor, what might Rupnik’s response be to this penitent? Herein, lies yet another problem with the “leadership” of Pope Bergoglio.
(From a presentation at St Paul University, Ottawa)
Sex-based abuses by religious professionals are not just ‘a mere sin of the flesh’ as Francis has tried to portray them when adults are involved; they are serious abuses of power, of sex, of trust, of vulnerability, of people, and they are even an abuse of Christ Himself, insofar as ‘whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers and sisters, that you do unto me’. They are also in many cases, criminal. Furthermore, they cause deep harm, not just for the victims, but to the whole church and even broader society. Accordingly, all official church documents and responses to victims must fully reflect this truth if the church is to be a legitimate moral leader in this troubled world (For those seeking an example of a protection policy more akin to this definition, one of the best is the Maltese Ecclesiastical Policy (MEP 2014), so, look it up).
An Ordination/Final Profession Oath
Here’s a thought: to accompany this definition, perhaps, as well as swearing obedience to the church and their bishops or Superiors, and the bishops to the Pope, ordination/final profession should include that all clergy and Religious make a clerical version of the ‘Hippocratic’ Oath – a ‘Christic’ Oath, perhaps:
I promise to God and to His church and people, that,
in whatever context I am in, pastoral or social,
I will be there for their benefit alone,
and abstain from every act of mischief and corruption.
and refrain from acts of an amorous nature, or the seduction, or abuse,
of females or males, whether vulnerable or not,
on pain of being laicised should I do so.
If there comes a time when I can no longer maintain this oath,
then I will voluntarily leave the clerical life.
If this cannot be done, then, I believe, every Catholic Church and office needs to have a poster which says something like:
“To all those who enter and intend to interact with clergy, do not assume that they believe in chastity as necessary for their priesthood: Ask them first”.
I certainly would like to have known before seeking counselling from the priest I did when I was 20. He didn’t believe in chastity at all, especially, (as I found out later), for gay clergy. I don’t think he’s alone there. The vulnerability status of people and victims should never be part of any inquisitorial process discerning whether clergy abuse of adults has happened, or not.
Rupnik probably knew he, as many clergy think, was in ‘safe hands’ because he was abusing adults who by adolescent sexuality definitions are not victims or ‘vulnerable’. HE WAS/IS DEADLY WRONG as are those who ‘support’ him, and anyway. Finally:
ABUSE DOESN’T HAPPEN BECAUSE THERE IS A VULNERABLE PERSON BUT BECAUSE THERE IS A WICKED PERPETRATOR READY WILLING AND ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT PERSON’S VULNERABILITY.
Stephen, brilliantly said!
Sorry Stephen the original hypocritic oath once condemned medical abortion and has been watered down so much that abortion is now, quite erroneous labelled as “health care” who say that canon law couldn’t get to the same position under a future pontificate? Who am I to judge indeed!!
J Mcallion: Sure you meant Hippocratic oath, as in Hippocrates, that Greek guy…
Evil is having its day spreading like wildfire. The Church we know is the Prince of this world’s primary objective. It seems it is his [the Devil’s] hour as alluded to by Christ when he was about to be betrayed. And betrayed Christ is, by those with Apostolic commission. Although that evil hour during which he suffered his passion was the hour in which the infinite good of God triumphed over Satan and evil.
What we’re experiencing now is similar to Christ’s suffering and crucifixion then, realized now within his mystical body the Church. According to this parallel discernment it will appear that all is lost, that the impossible has occurred in the very institution meant to safeguard and spread the faith, now having become the purveyor of what Christ died to overcome. More of us are recognizing the signs, preparing ourselves in biblical terms girding our loins for whatever we will face ahead. Surely it’s not a moment to quiver. Even if so we will be strengthened by our Advocate. As the Apostle said, with Christ I can do all things.
Last comment (sorry, this issue makes my blood boil and call out to Heaven):
Here are the headlines following the ‘amazing’ (not) changes in canon law dealing with abuse of adults:
ABC/Wires, “The Pope changes canon law to explicitly criminalise ‘grooming’ and priests’ sexual abuse of adults,” ABC News, June 2 , 2021. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-02/pope-francis-church-law-priests-sexual-abuse-adults/100183472
CBS News, “Sexual abuse of adults outlawed by Vatican,” June 2, 2021. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vatican-outlaws-sex-abuse-adults-by-priests/
N. Winfield, “Vatican law criminalizes abuse of adults by priests, laity,” AP News, June 2, 2021. https://apnews.com/article/europe-sexual-abuse-by-clergy-laws-religion-6aa5ce9537419375091fdcf335c74f78
J. Harowitz, “Pope widens Church Law to Target Sexual Abuse of Adults by Priests and Laity,”
The New York Times, June 2, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/01/world/europe/vatican-priests-sexual-abuse.html.
Who was seducing who with these headlines. It was all crap. And now the Rupnik case fully confirms the impotence and psychological adolescence of the current church hierarchy led by Francis. And yes, as someone alluded above, ‘What does Rupnik know about Francis” that lets him get off the hook of molesting dozens of nuns ?(see Richard Sipe’s 11 point thesis here: http://www.awrsipe.com/click_and_learn/2008-10-preliminary_considerations.html.
It is always remarkable to me to read all he moral indignation and stoning of good Catholics who so clearly see the faults and flaws of someone else.
One clearly observes the perverse nature of Rupnik’s abuse of position over a score and more of sisters — and at least one man. No one is sending him to his eternal consequence, but an honest critique of his behavior is requisite in all justice.
You find such remarkable?
You find that worthy of mockery?
You find him worthy of moral license?
Your fraudulent moral high horse requires the paddock.
Unfortunately, Rupnik’s floor to ceiling mosaics line the long entrance to the new “shrine” and gold-lined crypt housing Padre Pio’s body in San Giovanni Rotundo. As of opening in 2010 the Capuchin Franciscans got all this money for a new church shrine while Pio’s original two churches and retirement house were neglected. Where did all that money come from?
The Francis Pontificate will be remembered for it’s tolerance, and protection, of vicious sexual predators like Rupnik, Zanchetta and McCarrick. Same would have compelled any other Pope with even a modicum of common decency to resign in disgrace and go into seclusion. This Pontificate is like a train that has derailed and exploded, but the burning wreck just keeps rolling down hill without stopping.
Please God, we have suffered enough.