Rupnik's Loyola community: a system set up to monitor, punish and abuse

The Loyola Community- second in the series of articles

The canonical existence of the Loyola Community was recognized in 1994, but at that time there had already been a journey of around ten troubled years in which the search for charisma (probably never found) combined, and the membership of women, some more enthusiastic than others , and a practice of spiritual and sexual abuse by the person who served as the Superior – the Slovenian Jesuit priest Marko Ivan Rupnik.

The Community settled in the town of Menges, on the outskirts of Ljubljana, in Slovenia. Father Rupnik was there as an oracle and interpreter of Ivanka Hosta and at the same time spiritual guide, confessor... and, in fact, director. In other words, in the words of Ester (not her real name), who published a statement about her case in the newspaper Domani, “he built a wall between Ivanka and the other sisters of the Community, who could not trust her”.

Rupnik insinuated himself into the sisters' intimacy and spiritual life, keeping a tight rein on them, including in their relationships with their families.

Crossing the testimonies published so far, apparently it was only after 1993 that the nuns began to find out from each other what was happening to some of them, in terms of abuse. Some decided to tell their superior and one of them decided to tell her ecclesiastical superiors.

The Archbishop of Ljubljana chose to remove Rupnik from the Community, while the Slovenian Superior of the Society of Jesus, also informed, refused to believe it.

It is worth mentioning here that, in a context such as that described, it would be highly unlikely that the four nuns who left the Loyola Community to follow Rupnik, including some from the initial founding nucleus, were not at least aware of the accusations regarding the serious crimes of which Rupnik then began to be targeted.

Faced with the situation created, the Superior gathered the nuns and gave them as an explanation for the Jesuit's desertion the fact that he had wanted to appropriate the charisma of the institution, pretending to be Superior – as if they did not know where the main problem resided. 

Fom then on, Ivanka Hosta established an operating regime that the nuns who spoke out in recent months do not hesitate to classify as control and repression; or, in the words of academic Luisella Scrosatti, from La Nuova Bussola, “compulsive surveillance”.

Total silence imposed on Rupnik

A disciplinary decree of June 21 issued a “formal reprimand” to Sister Ivanka Hosta for her behavior within the Loyola Community.

The problem is, however, deeper and more serious than the style of government. And this is where it is worth inviting readers to return to the text of the disciplinary decree of the commissioner appointed to analyze the state of the Loyola Community, the auxiliary bishop of the Diocese of Rome, Daniele Libanori.

Acting under the mandate of the Archbishop of Ljubljana, where the Community is canonically erected, and with knowledge of the Dicastery for Religious Life, Libanori begins by recognizing that, from 1993 onwards, there was a “watershed” between the government of Rupnik and Ivanka's government. This idea is unanimously shared by the sisters heard by Libanori.

In the report, the bishop says he learned, “with deep consternation, that there was an imposition of silence in the face of seriously inappropriate relationships maintained by Father Marko Rupnik, SJ with some sisters in the years when the first nucleus of the Loyola Community was developing.” . In fact, the commission created by the superiors of the Society of Jesus to examine the behavior of Fr. Marko Ivan Rupnik, after listening to and evaluating the testimonies, “considered these relationships to be true psychological, spiritual and sexual abuse”.

Libanori concluded, from several nuns, that the superior, as well as some counselors, knew everything, but “kept everything secret and imposed on the sisters to keep what had happened hidden”.

“Father Rupnik’s removal from the Community in 1993, instead of bringing the priest’s behaviour and the system that had allowed it to light, increased the system of control, domination and omertà” that the superior imposed on the sisters.

Forced to “open their conscience” only to the superior

Libanori devotes special attention to explaining how the doctrine of the Catholic Church requires us to distinguish, particularly in religious life, between “the internal forum” and the external forum. “It is – he explains – the distinction between the sphere of consciousness and spiritual direction, on the one hand, and that of the external government of people, on the other”.

Regarding what he says was a mixture between the two plans, the bishop, based on the information collected, addresses the superior directly: “I can affirm that this attitude of respect for the internal forum, for the sacredness of the conscience of each nun, not only was not respected (…), but was even contradicted on several occasions and sometimes denigrated in public”.

For example, the nuns were “forced to open their conscience exclusively to their local superior, and even more so in writing”. In this way, with the information transmitted to her, “the superior could use, and in fact used, what she learned to guide the community”.

Knowing everything that the nuns felt and experienced internally, she was able to “exercise de facto control over their consciences, deciding everything about their lives, even who they could be friends with, who they could be in contact with, isolating the most religious nuns. problematic.”

The “black holes” in the Constitutions

The list of problems does not end here. Censor and disqualify those who expressed criticism; obliging nuns to report to their superior the details of what was happening in small local communities, creating a climate of distrust instead of encouraging fraternal relationships; the confusion between lack of availability for the superior with the lack of availability for God – all of this made the superior the center of the Community and power a domination, to quote words from the decree.

It should be recognized that not everything is thrown at the one who was the superior of the Loyola Community, since, for the bishop commissioner, the constitutions of the institution “favored the formation of this style of government”, not guaranteeing “a balance of control and limitation of the top bodies”.

On the other hand, although this normative text ensures the freedom of choice of the confessor, it limits, on the other hand, the freedom of choice of spiritual direction, by limiting it to the institute itself, among the sisters, but not solely to the superior.

On the other hand, one would question why the commissioner criticizes Sister Ivanka Hosta so strongly and is practically silent regarding the responsibilities of counselors or superiors, many of whom, demonstrably, followed what happened from the inside. Does the requirement for total fidelity explain everything?

Finally, it should be noted that Bishop Libanori fulfilled all the requirements that the norms of the Catholic Church provide for guaranteeing the rights of those who are the object of inquiry and punishment. In this case, he informed the sister in question of the opening of the investigation against her, to which the target responded. He then sent her the draft decree, to which she also presented a statement of defense. The disciplinary decree with the reprimand and other penalties, published this Sunday by 7MARGENS, dated June 21st, although as far as we know, it was made known only much later. The target had, even here, the possibility of appealing to the Dicastery for Religious Life.

7MARGENS, which has known for many months where Ivanka Hosta is, has repeatedly tried to contact her, as well as her direct superior, before and after this decree came into being. The answer was, every time, silence.

Source

Read the other articles in the series here