How bad is this Rupnik business? It is very, very bad. The Rupnik business is worse—by orders of magnitude—than l’Affaire Barros, l’Affaire Inzoli, worse even than l’Affaire Zanchetta. The disgraceful rehabilitation of Danneels is mere tasteless imprudence by comparison. The Rupnik business will stain Pope Francis’s legacy, and possibly define it.
Over the past several days, hard-boiled newsman Ed Condon reluctantly conceded that “there is a motivating force for the protection of Rupnik,” and Robert Mickens—a veteran Vatican hand generally well disposed to Francis—openly asked whether Pope Francis isn’t the one protecting him.
The cardinal vicar of Rome, Angelo De Donatis, said as much in words back in December of last year, but he may have been firing a parting shot before Francis effectively neutered him just over a week into 2023.
In case you need help placing the name, Rupnik is Fr. Marko Ivan Rupnik, olim Jesuit expelled from the order earlier this year after several somehow stymied attempts to bring him to justice on charges of serial sexual, psychological, and spiritual abuse against more than a dozen victims—the vast majority women religious—over three decades, much of which Rupnik spent in Rome at an art institute he founded, called the Centro Aletti.
Rupnik is still a cleric, though he is a sort of Ronin, without a bishop or other religious order willing to take him—as far as we know—though there are claims that several other Jesuits once attached to the Centro Aletti have asked to be released from their order and may be forming something of a circle around him.
Last week, De Donatis issued a statement giving Rupnik’s Centro Aletti a clean bill of health after an in-house investigation. There was a collective eye roll at that. De Donatis’s investigator, Giacomo Incitti, also cast aspersions on the work of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith—the Vatican office responsible for investigating and prosecuting sex crimes—and that raised hackles, as well as eyebrows.
The DDF some years ago declared that Rupnik had incurred an excommunication for absolving an “accomplice” in a “sin against the sixth commandment”—technical legal jargon for giving sacramental absolution to someone for the sin of a sex act the confessor and the penitent committed together—which is a very serious crime according to Church law. DDF almost immediately lifted the penalty.
After reviewing “copious documentary material” he really ought not have seen, given the cardinal vicar’s vehement insistence that Rupnik was beyond his reach, Incitti claimed to have examined the material as part of his investigative mandate from the cardinal vicar himself and to have discovered “gravely anomalous procedures” surrounding Rupnik’s excommunication. The statement from the vicariate said that Incitti passed his findings up the ladder.
That also raised hackles, as well as eyebrows, not least because the only higher rung on the ladder is the one on which Pope Francis sits. The thing that sparked outrage, however, was Incitti’s praise for the remaining Centro Aletti members, who, “[T]hough they were saddened by the accusations that came down, and the ways in which they were handled, chose to maintain silence—despite the vehemence of the media—to guard their hearts and not claim any irreproachability with which to stand as judges of others.”
Yes, you read that right.
Incitti praised Rupnik’s acolytes for keeping mum and for taking the high road in the face of what the current head of the Centro Aletti, Maria Campatelli—who had a special private audience with Pope Francis mere days before the Rome vicariate put out its statement about Incitti’s investigation—described in an earlier letter as “a media campaign based on unproven and defamatory accusations” that “have exposed the person of Fr. Rupnik and the whole Centro Aletti to a form of lynching.”
That led several of Rupnik’s accusers to publish an open letter saying that the report from the Rome vicariate, coupled with the private audience that Pope Francis had granted Campatelli just days before the release of the vicariate’s report, “leave us speechless, with no voice to cry out our dismay, our scandal.”
“In these two events,” the women wrote, “we recognize that the Church cares nothing for the victims and for those seeking justice.” Nor were those two events “accidental, [not] even in their succession in time.” Together, they demonstrate “that the ‘zero tolerance on abuse in the Church’ was just a publicity campaign, which was instead only followed by often covert actions, which instead supported and covered up the abusers.”
Another reason level-headed, judicious, and circumspect observers are growing suspicious is that the DDF would eventually rule that all the abuse charges against Rupnik were statute-barred. They closed the case on Rupnik.
That Pope Francis did not waive the statute of limitations is baffling.
Statutes of limitations exist in order to ensure that accused persons get fair trials. In Rupnik’s case, there was mountainous evidence and ample opportunity for defense counsel to confront witnesses. So, Pope Francis’s refusal to waive the statute in Rupnik’s case just doesn’t make sense. It is especially baffling, given Francis’s confessed closeness to Rupnik and admiration for him.
Couple it with Francis’s praise of Rupnik’s art in suspect times, i.e., in June, when he lauded a mosaic depiction of the Madonna and Child for the benefit of participants in a Marian Congress in Aparecida, Brazil, and you have more than enough to justify at least perplexity. There’s lots more, besides. Mere rehearsal of it all would fill a book at this point.
That, by the way, is why—in one important sense, at least—it doesn’t matter whether Pope Francis is the one *protecting Rupnik or even trying to rehabilitate him.
The Rupnik business dramatizes the appalling dysfunction of the Church’s legal system these days, especially her criminal justice system. Said simply, she has none worth the name. Investigations and prosecutions nominally depend on one office that is itself wholly dependent on one man, an all-powerful ruler.
This would be a problem, were that man a living saint and the very avatar of judgment. Pope Francis has already given incontrovertible proof of his willingness to protect his friends and put his hand on the scales.
So far, Pope Francis hasn’t lifted a finger to see that Rupnik does face justice. For a guy who has more than earned his reputation for hands-on leadership—indeed he has cultivated it—his very public refusal to touch the Rupnik business can’t fail to suggest a desire to keep his prints off it, and that’s just as bad if not worse.
Al amigo todo, runs the (in)famous maxim Juan Peron claimed for his own, al enemigo, ni justicia.
Whether by action or inaction, Pope Francis has thus far seen to it that Rupnik should receive everything but justice.
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.
The question is asked, “What is the Rupnick business?”. The answer is: pride and egoism. So it’s no surprise that the Vatican has “rehabilitated” Rupnick.
How could a weirdo artist ( the one eyed monster is a sexual reference which no one admits) seduce so many women for so many years? Did these nuns take a vow of chastity?
So we see our church is infected with weirdo art, weirdo sexual hijinks, weirdo theology ala de Chardin, weirdo novo liturgies, weirdo homo globalism, weirdo capitalization on international sex trafficking and weirdo suppression of the Holy Latin Mass of centuries.
Does anyone wonder why the flood of parishioners is out the large doors of the Church to which all are welcome?
Christopher, you tempt coprophagia! What an alarmist you have become. Tucho has finally arrived at the DDF to “bless love” like this.💋
Say three more Our Mothers.
“Pope Francis’s refusal to waive the statute in Rupnik’s case just doesn’t make sense.”
Really, Mr. Altieri? Really?
Then maybe you haven’t been paying attention.
Because it seems quite sensible to me. Even predictable.
Again and again — and yet again! — Bergoglio has shown himself to be an unprincipled autocrat who mistakes God’s will for his own whims.
That his papacy would discount the suffering of those poor nuns who were victimized by his friend, the pervert and hack, Rupnik, is par for the ugly Bergoglian course.
Rupnik’s disturbing “art” — as shown above — are an indication of the nature of the man.
Ugliness.
Emptiness.
Misery.
I suggest that Rupnik’s “art” will define the Bergoglian papacy.
. . . more than just the current papacy, but the Euro hierarchy. i remember an American priest who was stationed in Rome for several years. He quipped that having Rupnik art visible was apparently necessary for liceity in Italy – at that was during the papacy of Benedict XVI!
The handling of the Rupnik case will be the defining moment of this pontificate along with the threatened repudiation of Pope John Paul’s unambiguous rejection of the legitimacy of women’s ordination.
Bedlam on the Tiber.
So be it. Let it be boldly. It is the unmasking of nefarious in their effort to deconstruct the Roman Catholic Church. The blindness sprung from hubris will allow history to judge this pontificate with the justice it deserves.
Have seen this sort of thing play out too many times in the secular political arena. When the crows come home to roost, this: “we have gone this far, we just can’t go back now (backwardist!).”
Versus the wisdom: “when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”
Or, maybe it’s all about equity toward the peripheries…if you come down on Rupnik who quaintly violated mostly women, then would you have to change your tune (Hollerich’s “attitude”) about the progressive LGBTQ smorgasbord?
A legacy can be easily said to exist. Motivation will be judged when all is done. His Holiness’ legacy whether for good or no, is already cast. That, to replace what is with what is not.
Is it then for sake of love or for distaste? As briefly discussed elsewhere, indications seem more for distaste rather than love. Distaste for all this culture from the advent of Christ to its remorseful abandon has become; or is it for what it portends? Rupniks of lesser notoriety abound during Francis’ reign as Chris Altieri laments. Is it then for their charm, or as effigies of hatred? Perhaps both.
Legacies are like the estate (of material property) one leaves behind upon death. Everyone has one, despite popular misconceptions to the contrary. The distinction is that some estates have no value. Francis’ legacy is already set. The Church is worse for the decade of his caprice.
After he ran his mouth post Benedict’s Regensburg address, he should have been recalled to Rome and buried in some mundane job, preferably in some dark archive, never to be heard from again.
Benedict didn’t do that, and worse, abandoned us to this Jesuit so now we have the embodiment of the late comedian Flip Wilson’s “Church of What’s Happening Now”.
1) In many of Rupnik’s Annunciation mosaics, the Virgin Mary cups or holds something red in her hand. Any ideas what that thing could represent?
2) Has anyone ever seen any Rupnik mosaic or canvas which contains a figure who appears to be joyful?
3) Copies of Rupnik’s artwork appeared on sale at one website. I wonder where the money goes?
4) Many of Rupnik’s representations consist of two people sharing one eye between the two. Any ideas why?
There arises (?from St. Thomas Aquinas and others) that our body reveals our soul. There are ‘daughters’ or ways of behaving which follow from certain virtues and vices. Unrepented or unconfessed guilt will out in one shape, way, form or another.
Yom Kippur day of Atonement in Jewish faith and how the Divine Mercy Sunday is what parallels same in The Church –
https://www.divinemercysunday.com/pdf/Yom%20Kippur%20and%20Mercy%20Sunday.pdf
The Vilnius image depicts the compassionate gaze of The Lord – those who find annoyance or worse with the images done by the subject of the article can take steps to atone , by making these avaialable in places , for the Blood and Water , to pour forth with enough graces to shake away all that needs to be into the ocean depths ..
and in so doing , asking for graces of same to pervade through the Family lines to all the children of the New Eve , to help bring forth New Life of being set free to be in the true image into all…
Interesting news about plans for the rebuilding of the Temple , search for the red heifer whose ashes are to be used in purification ..the precious tears of Our Lady of Sorrows to cleanse and heal the inner wounds , who would have had the sorrow of the episode of The Son who was taken to the cliffs to be thrown down ,for wrong charges ..in our times too , the process of discerning the right and wrong of many allegations may be not so easy – incidents in enough places when high ranking Church persons have been wrongly accused by those with other sinister agendas etc: who planned and propagated much ..
Aticle below on the good relationship of the Holy Father with the Jewish people , which would also be in line with his friendship with those in the periphery such as in the slums of Argentina where too he was holding’synods’as in style of S.Francis ..
May such be the legacy that the Holy Father would continue to build – including in the many more years of a blessed life that brings the ‘knowledge ‘ in Love from The Spirit – the embrace of the Father , such as experienced by the woman during WYD in seeing the Holy Father as narrated in the N C Register recently .
//www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2023-03/pope-francis-10th-anniversary-jewish-rabbi-abraham-skorka.html
Most Precious Blood of Jesus Christ , save us and the whole world!
Re title – maybe, maybe not.
Make that likely not.
See Phil Lawler, Catholic Culture, Sept. 25.
Years ago, Protestant conspiracy theorist Jack Chick was claiming the Jesuits were a malevolent force in the world. Now a lot of Catholics are claiming the same.
Dear ‘Cbalducc’.
Yes, there are many dud Jesuits; it’s probably a hazard of an ambition to rationalize beyond what is possible for even the best human minds. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a classic example of that syndrome.
Yet, there are good & apostolically faithful Jesuits, too.
For example, decades ago some of the Jesuit colleagues of Jorge Bergoglio SJ recognized his hubristic tendency to replace God’s commands with his socio-political apostacies. Other learned Jesuits recognized the basic flaws in Teilhard’s novelties.
Good Jesuits tend to be very good; bad ones tend to be atrocious.
Ever following The Lamb of God; love & blessings from marty
The Rupnik matter appears to be an example of the “clericalism” that Pope Francis likes to talk about. To me “clericalism” is getting to look like shorthand for Apostolic Succession, or shall I say the responsibilities that come along with Apostolic Succession. St. Paul didn’t shrink from his Apostolic duties when he corrected the Church at Corinth in First Corinthians. First Corinthians is pure Apostolic duties being fulfilled faithfully. By modern standards it could be tarred with the charge of “clericalism.” The charge of “clericalism” can be a way for the Church hierarchy to repudiate their responsibilities under Apostolic Succession. The Church hierarchy in far too many cases models lukewarm, fair weather Catholicism. The Church teaching about Donatism is really getting a workout, hitting redline status. Sadly, it’s getting to be about the only thing maintaining the legitimacy of Apostolic Succession in the Church.
A searing insight, dear ‘GregB’.
The incredibly sad part about it is that the Frankish stirrers seem ignorant and/or non-caring of the truth that Jesus’ yoke is easy and His burden is lite. His Way gives a peace to our souls that passes all human understanding (see Matthew 11:28-30 and Philippians 4:7).
What is it they don’t understand about: “If you love Me, obey My commands.” (see John 14:21)
By disobeying the clear commands of King Jesus Christ, the Frankish mafia are building on shifting sands (see Matthew 7:26); their constructions will have a catastrophic fall. Let every wise Catholic stand well clear!
Brothers & sisters: keep praying & following Jesus; love & blessings from marty
Thank you, Dr. Rice, for your always perceptive, faith-filled and spot-on comments and analysis.
I’m afraid it’s not just the Frankish crowd but also the Pope and his favored clerical insiders who literally would substitute their own personal and political views for the clear and timeless teaching of Sacred Scripture and the Church’s Magisterium. The Rupnick affair is just another episode in this sad—for those trying to be faithful Catholics—historical catastrophe.
The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.
If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.
(Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago; underlining added.)
See « Fall of Father Dr. Wolfgang Rothe » :
https://gloria.tv/post/LUpCzi9KybgA23DjcZtZGjKNw
and
http://www.eszwajcaria.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8877
Thank you
Xaw Ma
Has anyone considered the following possibility: could it be that Rupnik knew some very dark secret about Bergoglio, such that by protecting Rupnick (a fellow Jesuit), Berglglio would be protecting himself?
I have asked that myself of all the perverts and deviants he has shielded and put in power
There is an article in the National Catholic Register titled “Cardinals Send ‘Dubia’ to Pope Francis Ahead of Synod on Synodality”:
*
https://www.ncregister.com/news/cardinals-send-dubia-to-pope-ahead-of-synod-on-synodality
*
At the end of the article the Pope is quoted as insisting on mandatory forgiveness in the confessional. The Pope has also made statements that at the minimum verge on universalism on the topic of salvation and the eternal nature of hell. Forgiveness without repentance fueled the clerical abuse scandal. It created more victims. If these are Pope Francis’ views on mercy and forgiveness, then he owns the clerical abuse scandal.
Accurate discernment (but also distressingly sad), dear ‘GregB’.