Is Pope Francis protecting Marko Rupnik? “High-ranking clergy close to Francis have strongly suggested that Francis had virtually everything to do with the handling of this matter”
Slovenian priest and artist Marko Rupnik was recently expelled from the Jesuit order over accusations of sexual abuse of adult women. But certain aspects of the affair, including the absence of sanction from the Vatican, have led observers to consider that the mosaicist benefited from the protection of Pope Francis himself.
“The Rupnik affair cruelly reveals the extent to which ecclesiastical hierarchies have difficulty understanding the problem of sexual abuse against nuns,” noted Vaticanist Lucetta Scaraffia in an editorial in La Stampa, in December 2022. An opinion expressed just after the press broadcast of the testimonies of several nuns claiming to have suffered sexual assault from Marko Rupnik.
The number of alleged victims of the famous priest and mosaicist was estimated at around forty. Most of the cases date back to the 1980s and 1990s, largely committed in the Loyola Community, based in Ljubljana (Slovenia). At the time, Marko Rupnik was its spiritual director. Certain abuses were also allegedly committed at the Aletti Center in Rome, an institute founded in 1993 by John Paul II, of which the former Jesuit was artistic director.
“The Argentine pontiff has so far been rather discreet about the role he played in this affair”
Because of the statute of limitations, the artist has never been prosecuted by civil justice. But the matter was handled within the Church, notably by the Society of Jesus. After investigating for several years, the latter estimated that the accusations against Father Rupnik were “very likely”. Following his refusal to comply with the requirements and restrictions imposed by his order, the Slovenian was finally fired in June 2023.
Did the Pope “dis-excommunicate” Father Rupnik?
“The Rupnik affair” could have ended there if it had not developed disturbing ramifications. First of all, if the case was handled to its conclusion by the Jesuits, it was not the same for Rome, which took no sanction concerning Marko Rupnik following the nuns' accusations.
However, Marko Rupnik has in the past been in the crosshairs of the Vatican. We learned, on December 15, 2022, that the priest had been “temporarily” excommunicated in 2020 for the reason of “absolution of the accomplice”, a crime of the highest gravity according to canon law. In 2015, Marko Rupnik allegedly gave absolution to a woman with whom he had had sexual relations.
Following an accusation made in 2019, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) pronounced his excommunication. The measure was lifted in 2020, on the grounds that the artist had “repented”, in circumstances which remain mysterious. An uncertainty which led some to consider that the Jesuit pope himself had interceded on behalf of the artist, to whom he may have been close in the past.
The Pontiff's involvement was, however, denied by Cardinal Luis Ladaria, who was prefect of the CDF at the time of the lifting of the excommunication. The Venezuelan assured that the Pope had not intervened in this matter and that he had not even spoken to him about it.
Claims corroborated by the Spanish-speaking media Vida Nueva Digital. Citing Vatican sources, he assures that “the Holy Father remained outside the investigation into the two allegations of abuse of the Jesuit artist in order to respect the judicial process and the principle of non-interference”. François would therefore not have had access to the Rupnik file and would not know the details of the accusations. The lifting of the excommunication could have been, as canon law allows, recorded by the prefect of the CDF or by the superior of the Society of Jesus at the time, Arturo Sosa.
Maintaining the prescription
These explanations, however, did not prevent the idea that Pope Francis would protect his “friend” Rupnik from gaining ground. One of the “foods” of this thesis is the fact that the pontiff did not exercise his power to lift the canonical limitation period, which would have allowed the CDF to take up the matter. Instead, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF-formerly CDF) closed the file in October 2020.
“High-ranking clergy close to Francis have strongly suggested that Francis had virtually everything to do with the handling of this matter”
Christopher Altieri
The Argentine pontiff has so far been rather discreet about the role he played in this affair. He addressed the subject only once to the media in response to a question from the Associated Press in January 2023. He then assured that he had only carried out “a small procedural thing that happened to the CDF” concerning Marko Rupnik, but that he had “nothing to do with this affair”. The pontiff said he had given instructions for a second series of accusations to be handled by the same court that examined the first.
Also asked why he had not lifted the statute of limitations in Marko Rupnik's case, he said it was "always" right to waive the statute of limitations in cases involving minors and "vulnerable adults." ", but that it was important to maintain traditional legal guarantees in cases involving other adults, as was the case with the mosaicist.
What involvement does Francis have?
Explanations which did not convince everyone and which even aroused certain doubts. Vatican expert Christopher Altieri of Catholic World Report noted that “high-ranking ecclesiastics close to Francis have strongly suggested that Francis had virtually everything to do with the handling of this affair.”
The journalist was referring to a statement published at the end of December 2022 by the vicar general of the diocese of Rome, Cardinal Angelo de Donatis. The diocese, of which Pope Francis is bishop, is affected by the scandal because the Aletti Center is under its jurisdiction. The institution thus launched its own investigation in the form of a canonical visitation.
Before last Christmas, Cardinal de Donatis would have said several things “having a whiff of truth”, according to Christopher Altieri. The prelate notably affirmed that the diocese of Rome was “comforted by the discernment of its Supreme Pastor”. For the journalist, this sentence clearly indicates, “for anyone who masters the curial language”, that Pope Francis, far from being distant from this affair, on the contrary “leads the dance” and “supports” Marko Rupnik.
The cardinal also affirmed that he relied as much on the mercy of the Lord as on the “prudent discernment of those who are called to make decisions concerning the people involved”. Another indicator, for the Vaticanist, that Father Rupnik would be “under the protection of the pope”, the latter being directly involved in “making decisions”.
A “conciliatory” Roman vicariate
The diocesan canonical visit, ordered on January 16, 2023, was led by Father Giacomo Incitti, professor of canon law at the Pontifical Urbanian University. The resulting report was submitted to diocesan authorities on June 23. Angelo de Donatis commented on its content on September 18. The vicar of Rome stated in particular: “It is clear that within the Aletti Center there is a healthy community life devoid of particular critical problems.”
“The victims of Father Rupnik deplore that the promises of ‘zero tolerance’ are only a ‘public relations campaign’”
The canonical visitator, the note reads, “conscientiously examined the main accusations against Father Rupnik, in particular that which led to the request for excommunication.” And “on the basis of the abundant documentary material studied, the visitor was able to observe and therefore report seriously abnormal procedures, the examination of which generated well-founded doubts, also about the request for excommunication itself”. The vicariate's report, however, does not mention the testimonies of the nuns.
Attempted “rehabilitation”?
The report from the diocese of Rome was greeted with strong indignation, notably by editorialists and by the alleged victims of Father Rupnik themselves. Five of them wrote an open letter a few days after Angelo de Donatis’ note. They affirm that the declaration of the vicariate “does not only ridicule the pain of the victims, but also that of the entire Church, which is mortally wounded by such obstinate arrogance.” They deplore that promises of “zero tolerance” regarding sexual abuse from Church officials are nothing more than a “public relations campaign.”
Many observers in any case speak of the approach of the Vicariate of Rome as an “attempt at rehabilitation” of Marko Rupnik. And some are surprised that the conclusions of the diocesan investigation are so different from those of the Jesuits, also casting doubt on the DDF's decision to excommunicate Marko Rupnik.
The investigators having reached this last result after years of research declared themselves “perplexed” by the report of de Donatis. Questioned on this subject by Vida Nueva Digital, they regret that the document does not take into account the testimonies of the alleged victims.
According to Maria Campatelli, Marko Rupnik is undergoing “a media campaign based on unproven and defamatory accusations”
They also deplore that Giacomo Incitti did not contact them for verification purposes. The Spanish-speaking media recalls that Mgr Daniele Libanori, auxiliary bishop of Rome, dissociated himself, in December 2022, from the approach of Cardinal de Donatis. Vida Nueva Digital also gives the floor to experts in abuse of power and conscience, explaining how easily perpetrators of abuse or their accomplices manage to hide the slightest indication of licentious behavior.
The Pope meets a “defender” of Marko Rupnik
Investigators from the diocese of Rome could thus have been abused by people still supporting Marko Rupnik. Or is it, as some think, that Cardinal de Donatis was Francis’ “agent” in the former Jesuit’s rehabilitation mission?
The American journalist Ed Condon, in the Catholic media The Pillar, questions the “abundant documentary material” consulted by Giacomo Incitti. He notes that the DDF's type of file regarding Rupnik's excommunication is characterized by "the highest degree of confidentiality." If indeed the visitor had access to these documents, the journalist wonders about a “concerted action” at the highest level of the Vatican to establish a “particular” version of the affair.
In the wake of de Donatis' statements, Pope Francis also received, on September 15, 2023, Maria Campatelli. This 61-year-old nun, director of the Aletti Center, fiercely defends Marko Rupnik. Last June, she wrote an open letter denouncing “a media campaign based on unproven and defamatory accusations.” Maria Campatelli also claimed that the Jesuits withheld documents “that would demonstrate a different truth from that which has been published.”
This visit “in such a familiar atmosphere” was “thrown in the faces of the victims”, say the five nuns accusing Marko Rupnik in their open letter published on September 19, 2023 on the Italy Church Too website. They recall that the Pope refused them an interview and that he did not respond to four letters sent in July 2021 denouncing the actions of the former artistic director of the Aletti Center.
A naive, hypocritical, or well-informed pope?
The situation is therefore particularly complex and confusing. The suspicions weighing on Francis are leading some media outlets to present hard-hitting headlines such as “Can the Pope Survive the Rupnik Scandal?” (Unherd), “Will the Rupnik Scandal Overwhelm the Synod?” (ilgiornale.it), or even “Rupnik, the protégé” (Setemargens).
“A third hypothesis would be that the Pontiff is really maneuvering behind the scenes to preserve Marko Rupnik”
At this stage, several hypotheses must be considered. The first is that Pope Francis is not at all involved in this affair, as he claimed, and that all of the things he is accused of only come from erroneous interpretations. A second possibility is that the pope is effectively blocking the proceedings against Father Rupnik, because of doubts about his guilt, either because he is especially naive, because he is deceived by people with bad intentions, but also perhaps because that he has information that we don't have.
A third hypothesis would be that the pontiff is really maneuvering behind the scenes to preserve Marko Rupnik, given his attachment to him, and in a reflex to protect the institution. Such a possibility would then place on him the accusation of hypocrisy in the face of his insistence on “zero tolerance” towards abuse, coupled with that of lying, having assured that he was not involved in this affair.
Whatever the truth, the fact that the information given by the Roman authorities is, as usual, particularly incomplete, hermetic and imprecise certainly does nothing to appease the rumors, the speculations, nor the journalistic appetite for suspicion, intrigues and plots.
.jpeg)
Comments