Papal Commission wanted to meet with Rupnik victims, but they refused because of the conditions laid down

“The people approached understood that it was, above all, a matter of responding to an interest or need of the Pontifical Commission and not particularly the case of Father Rupnik’s victims.” 

The Vatican's Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors and Vulnerable Persons (CPPMPV) recently sent a letter to some former religious women who claim to be victims of Father Marko Rupnik, in which it expresses its desire to review with them the way in which they were treated by part of the Church. However, the content of the letter and the intended objectives led almost all of those contacted to refuse a meeting with the Commission.

The letter, which 7MARGENS was able to read, is dated October 8th, and was sent by email only to some of the victims who went public to denounce the abuse they had suffered and the behavior of lack of interest and abandonment on the part of the Catholic Church.

The Commission begins by expressing concern about the “treatment” that the victims “received throughout a process” that it says “has been extremely painful and frustrating” for them, their families and for “an important sector of the Church, in which concerns the listening, investigation, monitoring, support and communication provided to them”.

It is based on this concern that CPPMPV, through this contact initiative, intends to “review the processes and actions that were carried out in your particular case, to identify how all this may have affected the legitimacy of your complaint, your rights and the support and accompaniment that was not given to you”.

The purpose of approaching victims is not, therefore, to listen to them so that, depending on what their ordeal has been until now, they can take measures or initiate initiatives with other entities so that such initiatives can be taken. It is, rather, to “review the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of the care provided to victims (psychological, medical, spiritual, pastoral, legal), as well as the canonically established procedures throughout the process”. “We do not have the power to modify the existing verdict, nor to intervene in the decisions taken by the court and the corresponding bodies”, the letter sent by the Commission further explains.

According to contacts made by 7MARGENS, this approach left the people contacted uncomfortable. Firstly, because they were not the subject of any “actions carried out” by the Church, despite the complaints, letters and hearings held on the initiative of the victims. Then, because it appears that the Commission is using a standard letter that does not adapt to the specificity of your case. And, finally, because, the first time they are approached, the objective is not to listen, but to evaluate a non-existent listening.

This is visible when the letter received by the victims states:

“We know that, like your case – abuse of power, conscience and sexual abuse – there are many within the Church and, therefore, it is essential to review what is currently being done and compare it with the protocols and procedures that exist , in order to identify weaknesses and propose appropriate recommendations for future similar cases, seeking to improve the system as a whole”.

The people approached understood that it was, above all, a matter of responding to an interest or need of the Pontifical Commission and not particularly the case of Father Rupnik's victims.

Following an exchange of correspondence between the parties, the recipients of the Commission's messages decided not to accept a meeting within this framework. Especially because there is a lot of information in more than one Vatican department, including the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, which includes the Commission for the Protection of Minors and Vulnerable Persons.

In any case, the decision announced by the Holy See to reopen the process of Father Marko Rupnik at the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, following warnings sent to him by the CPPMPV (cf. News from 7MARGENS), could change this state of things on the victims' side.

Source