UPDATE

“Holy See Press Office Communiqué, 27.10.2023

“In September the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors brought to the Pope’s attention that there were serious problems in the handling of the Fr. Marko Rupnik case and lack of outreach to victims. Consequently the Holy Father asked the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith to review the case, and decided to lift the statute of limitations to allow a process to take place.

“The Pope is firmly convinced that if there is one thing the Church must learn from the Synod it is to listen attentively and compassionately to those who are suffering, especially those who feel marginalized from the Church.”

Original Article Follows

Jesuit Father Marko Ivan Rupnik is a Slovenian priest who is internationally known for his mosaics and other artwork. He has been credibly accused of many instances of sexual abuse and grave sins against the vow of chastity. See this article at National Catholic Register: The Father Rupnik Case: A Timeline.

I can’t be judge over particular cases, as I do not have the experience or expertise of a judge, nor the full information on any particular case. However, when a priest is accused by many different persons of the same type of grave sin, across many years, I think that an investigation is essential, followed by a Church judgment and penalty and also referral to the secular courts, where possible.

I also think that a priest who is so accused, by many accusers across many years, should ordinarily be removed from ministry indefinitely, at least due to the grave scandal if he should remain in ministry, even if there is insufficient evidence or the problem of a statue of limitations for a Church or secular court conviction. This would apply to the case of Fr. Rupnik. At most, he should be confined to a small community and only allowed to say Mass privately for that community; he should be required to withdraw from public life. He should also be forbidden from absolving sins in the Confessional, except in danger of death as Canon law states.

Now Fr. Rupnik was put on trial in the Church, and convicted:

NCRegister Timeline:
2019-2020: A canonical trial is carried out into the allegation, led by Marianist Father Francisco Javier Canseco and two other non-Jesuit investigators, “high-level” Vatican sources told Messa in Latino. This is confirmed by the Jesuits on Dec. 18, 2022.

January 2020: The outcome of the trial results in a unanimous conviction; the investigators say that there was indeed absolution of an accomplice.

May 2020: Father Rupnik is officially excommunicated and the Jesuits say the decree was lifted later that month.
[…]
Jan. 3, 2022: Pope Francis receives Father Rupnik in private audience.

So Fr. Rupnik has been found guilty of some of the accusations against him. Later accusations were not given a trial due to the statute of limitations. Currently, Fr. Rupnik is permitted to say Mass, give sermons, and to participate in overseeing artwork for the Church. I disagree with this judgment permitting him to continue a priestly ministry. But I cannot substitute my judgment for that of the Roman Pontiff or other authorities in the Church, such as the Superior General of the Jesuit Order. Some restrictions have been place on Fr. Rupnik.

NCRegister Timeline:
Dec. 2, 2022: In response to these press articles, the Society of Jesus issues a statement in Italian confirming that it received a complaint in 2021 concerning Father Rupnik’s “manner of ministry,” noting that “no minors were involved” but that investigations had taken place. It also says that in 2021 Father Rupnik had been “forbidden to engage in public activities without the permission of his local Superior,” including being prohibited from “exercising the sacrament of confession, spiritual direction, and giving the Spiritual Exercises,” and that “these measures are still in force today, as administrative measures, even after the response of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.”

Apparently, there are still restrictions on Fr. Rupnik in force today. I would say these measures are insufficient, but again I cannot put myself forward as judge; it is merely my opinion based on what has been made public.

Accusing Pope Francis

The main point I would like to make in this article is that Pope Francis cannot be judged and condemned based on the handling of Fr. Rupnik’s case by the Holy See and the Jesuit Order. Many articles of opposition to Pope Francis cite his alleged poor handling of cases of abuse as reasons for claiming that he might not be a valid Pope, or that he is a valid Pope who has departed from the true Faith by heresy and by malicious support for abusers. They not only cite the case of Fr. Rupnik, but other cases and their handling by the dioceses, Holy See, and any involvement (sometimes only presumed) by Pope Francis.

I have to point out here that, when an accused member of the clergy is well-known as a conservative or traditionalist, the papal opponents defend and exonerate the accused. This was the case for Cardinal Pell, who was accused many times across every decade of his ministry, from the time he was a Seminarian to the time of his role as Bishop and Cardinal. If Pell had been a liberal Bishop who supported Pope Francis enthusiastically, he undoubtedly would have been treated as guilty by the far right in the Church.

This has been a clear pattern by far right conservatives and traditionalists toward any clergy accused of abuse. The conservative accused is defended and said to be innocent; the liberal or moderate clergy are presumed to be guilty, AND Pope Francis is charged as if he were a co-conspirator in any alleged abuse. This pattern reaches quite an extreme in the accusations by archbishop Carlo Vigano against Pope Francis. But it is seen in other sources as well.

Popes can err in their judgment of particular cases. They can incorrectly judge an accused to be either innocent, or to be repentant and reformed to such an extent that the cleric should be returned to ministry. They can fail to act with sufficient speed or severity; they can be too lenient or too harsh. They can incorrectly judge an innocent accused to be guilty, and thereby issue penalties that are incorrect. Such errors by a Pope do not harm the indefectibility of the Church, and do not gravely harm the path of salvation of the faithful, and so the papal charisms do not prevent these types of errors.

It is gravely wrong to accuse a Roman Pontiff either of being an invalid Pope or of having malice toward the Church or the faithful as a result of a perceived grave error in the judgment of particular cases. The scourge of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy and religious has been a problem from the earliest days of the Church (e.g. Nicolaitans). The Church has many members and many clergy and religious, and so grave sins are unfortunately always found among them. No Pope has the ability to judge every case perfectly and to issue the precise correct judgment at all times. Infallibility does not apply to particular cases in the temporal order (except for dogmatic facts, such as the judgment that Anglican Orders are null). For such cases are not matters of doctrine, but of prudential judgment.

The accusers of Pope Francis do not even propose judgments in every case that would protect victims of abuse. Instead, they propose that conservatives are innocent and all others are guilty; they treat Cardinal Pell as a Saint, despite credible accusations against him for many years. They treat Pope Francis as if he were guilty to a severe extent for any perceived misjudgment in abuse cases. So they are not proposing a better system for the Church, but rather a severely biased system that would do grave harm to victims of abuse.

Pope Francis is the valid Roman Pontiff and successor of Peter. He cannot possibly be guilty of apostasy, heresy, schism, or idolatry, as he has the charism of truth and never-failing faith promised by Christ in Luke 22:32. Never can the Church go astray or lead astray, as Her indefectibility is promised by Christ in Matthew 16:18. Those who hold the contrary are heretics. Those who refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff or the body of Bishops led by him are schismatics. They exalt their own faulty understanding of the Catholic Faith above the teachings of the successors to the Apostles, above Popes and Councils.

[Romans]
{2:16} unto the day when God shall judge the hidden things of men, through Jesus Christ, according to my Gospel.

Ronald L Conte Jr