Silence is unacceptable

Pope Francis must address the Rupnik scandal

On September 27, in the week preceding the opening of the Synodal Assembly in Rome, the members of the Pontifical Commission on the Protection of Minors issued a public letter in anticipation of the September 30 consistory of Cardinals and the upcoming synod. In it, they said that “the creation of new Cardinals is an opportune moment for reflection, repentance, and renewal of our unwavering commitment to safeguard and advocate for the most vulnerable, using all means possible.”

The commission, which is part of the curia but has institutional independence from it, also asked that the participants of the Synod prioritize the scourge of sexual abuse in the discussions of the synodal assembly:

“We ask that sexual abuse in the Church permeate your discussions as they address teaching, ministry, formation, and governance. … While at times it may seem like a daunting set of questions to face, please rise to the challenge so that you may address, in a comprehensive way, the threat posed by sexual abuse to Church’s credibility in announcing the Gospel.”

Although the public has not been privy to the specifics of the discussions among the synod participants, during Wednesday’s synodal press briefing one of those new Cardinals responded to a question by Carol Glatz of Catholic News Service (CNS) regarding whether the synod assembly had taken the commission’s letter seriously. Cardinal Robert Prevost, saying that he was going to respond “harshly” to her question, stated,

The synod is a Synod on Synodality, and the primary energies, time, and topics were all related to, “How do we promote a synodal Church?”

Protection of minors was discussed at some tables I understand — more than at others, perhaps. It was an issue in the sense of saying, “What are some of the problems that may arise and how can we better address them?” But that was not meant to be the central topic of the synod. And so I’m not prepared to say that became the focus of the synod because that was not the synod’s purpose.

It’s an ongoing topic obviously in many countries around the world, many parts of the Church, and it will have to continue to be that. But I think it’s important also that it be kept in a proper perspective, because the whole life of the Church does not revolve around that specific issue as important as it is.

His response might not have been more poorly timed because shortly after the press briefing, the German Catholic news site katholische.de confirmed that Fr. Marko Rupnik had been incardinated into the diocese of Koper in his native Slovenia. Rupnik, a world-renowned artist, had been expelled from the Jesuit order in June following allegations of sexual, spiritual, and psychological abuse against approximately two dozen adult women and at least one man.

Many Catholics are shocked and stunned at this news. Over the summer, some Vatican insiders responded to questions about why Rupnik hadn’t been suspended or defrocked with the argument that since the Jesuits kicked him out, he was “effectively” suspended. Having no superior or bishop, he was incardinated nowhere and therefore couldn’t exercise priestly ministry. The latest, inexplicable news means that is no longer the case.

The Rupnik Case

The timeline of Rupnik’s career has been sketched out multiple times. Ricardo da Silva, SJ, pieced it together for America magazine in June of this year.

According to this timeline, Rupnik became involved with the “Loyola Community” of sisters in Ljubljana, Slovenia, in 1987. He seems to have been a cofounder, and for roughly the first four years of its existence, he was an active and present figure in the community’s life as a confessor and spiritual director, despite having no clearly defined role. It is during this time that the bulk of the known abuse allegations against him took place.

In 1991, according to da Silva, Rupnik apparently ceased involvement with the Loyola Community, apparently due to internal conflict, and moved to Rome. His artistic institute, Centro Aletti, was formally inaugurated in December 1993. He was named director of Centro Aletti in 1995. In his timeline, da Silva links to a translation in the Pillar of a December 2022 interview of one of Rupnik’s alleged victims that originally appeared in the Italian newspaper Domani.

This woman, using the pseudonym Anna, describes Rupnik as having groomed and abused her beginning in 1985 in his art studio in Rome, and continuing to do so after she entered the Loyola community. Her testimony paints the portrait of Rupnik as a narcissist and master manipulator who continued to gain public prestige in the Church while committing spiritual and sexual abuse against multiple women in private. Despite making several attempts to report Rupnik in the 1990s and early 2000s, Anna’s allegations were not taken seriously by Church leaders at the time.

It seems Rupnik’s behavior finally started catching up to him in 2018, when the Jesuits investigated a case from a year or two prior where he had engaged in sexual activity with a woman and then heard her confession and absolved her. This is a violation of Canon Law, carrying with it an automatic excommunication. He was found guilty of the canonical violation, and da Silva explains that in May 2020, “After Father Rupnik repents of the canonical crime of the absolution of an accomplice, the excommunication is lifted, as allowed by the church’s law.”

Without rehashing the entire timeline, it is important to point out that around this time various Church entities began to grow concerned about Rupnik, which led to a canonical visitation of the Loyola community in Slovenia in early 2021. The Jesuits undertook an internal investigation on Rupnik. Around that time, the CDF began its own investigation against Rupnik as well.

Bishop Daniele Libanori, auxiliary bishop of Rome, conducted the investigation of the Loyola community. Multiple women came forward with accounts of abuse and manipulation committed by Rupnik, causing great trauma and spiritual and emotional harm. He had them write their testimonies down and passed them on to the priest who was conducting the Jesuit investigation.

Ultimately, it seems that Libanori, the Jesuits, and the DDF all concluded that there was convincing evidence and a strong case against Rupnik, but only one thing prevented them from pursuing it further. There was a statute of limitations, and it had elapsed. Pope Francis would have to waive it, which he has done in many other cases. He chose not to in this case.

The Public Scandal

It wasn’t until December 2022 that the Rupnik abuse allegations began to leak to the public. When the sequence of events became known, a baffling, incomprehensible picture of Rupnik’s actions in recent years emerged, with his public actions providing little indication that he was excommunicated, under investigation, and ministerial restrictions at various points. For example, at times he was supposedly placed on restricted ministry, but this didn’t prevent him from concelebrating public Masses, giving talks and video presentations, or even having his art incorporated into Vatican promotional materials.

Nicole Winfield of the Associated Press provides a summary of the developments that have let many to speculate that Pope Francis himself is directly involved in efforts to rehabilitate Rupnik:

The Jesuits said they had kicked Rupnik out not because of the abuse claims, but because of his "stubborn refusal to observe the vow of obedience." The Jesuits had exhorted Rupnik to atone for his misconduct and enter into a process of reparation with his victims, but he refused.

While Francis' role in the Rupnik scandal has come into question, the pontiff insisted in a Jan. 24 interview with The Associated Press that he had only intervened procedurally in the case, though he also said he opposed waiving the statute of limitations for old abuse cases involving adults.

More recently, Francis was seen as being part of an apparent attempt by Rupnik's supporters to rehabilitate the priest's image. In a widely publicized audience, Francis received a close collaborator and strong defender of Rupnik's who has denounced what she called a media "lynching" of him.

In a statement last month, the Vicariate of Rome, which Francis heads, cast doubt on the Vatican's lone punishment of Rupnik – a 2020 declaration of excommunication that was removed two weeks later. Women who alleged they were abused by Rupnik said the statement revictimized them.

Usually, when a priest moves from one diocese to another, or joins a diocese after leaving a religious order, the process takes years. According to canon law, it also requires "appropriate testimonials … concerning the cleric's life, morals, and studies," from the priest’s previous superior.

Neither the Vatican, nor the Jesuits nor the Vicariate of Rome responded to requests for comment Oct. 26 about Rupnik's transfer to Koper, or whether any documentation about his case had been sent to Slovenia from Rome.

We need answers

I am publishing this article on my personal substack and not on Where Peter Is because frankly I don’t know where Peter is on this scandal.

Anyone who knows my work knows that I have been more than happy to provide a defense or clarification of Pope Francis when there is a reasonable explanation for his words or actions. But in the case of Marko Rupnik, he’s given us nothing.

Pope Francis’s decision not to waive the statute of limitations in order to begin a canonical process against Rupnik was baffling, as were Rupnik’s occasional appearances at public events, but one might chalk them up to negligence or a lack of vigilance. Some advanced the idea that Rupnik’s clerical career was effectively over with his dismissal from the Jesuits. It seems, however, that his incardination into the Diocese of Koper means he will be able to continue his work in Rome as a priest in good standing.

As I wrote on X when I first heard about this, this isn't even a "cover-up," this is the public promotion of a known abuser, to the horror of the people. If there's a reasonable explanation for this, it is neither being offered nor advanced.

In response to the latest developments, Christopher Altieri wrote in Catholic World Report:

There is mountainous evidence against Rupnik, much of it collected by the Jesuits themselves, who made a belated but apparently sincere and diligent attempt to bring him to justice between 2019 and 2022. There would be ample opportunity for the accused to confront the numerous witnesses who have come forward – “highly credible” witnesses, to hear the Jesuits tell it – but Rome nevertheless decided not to do justice upon him.

Note that Altieri is no fan of Pope Francis or his teaching. I am sure he would love to see Amoris Laetitia repudiated by a future pope and see the Synod go up in flames. This is not the first scandal he has milked in order to undermine Pope Francis’s authority or credibility. But in this case, it’s impossible to argue that he isn’t telling the truth.

From a moral standpoint, there is no justification for keeping Marko Rupnik in the active priesthood. From a public relations standpoint, given the crisis of credibility in the Church, it’s insane. It undermines any progress in combating abuse the Church has made. It tells the world, “The leaders of the Catholic Church are hypocrites, abusers, and enablers.”

This isn’t going away.

Of course, it was the opening topic on this week’s episode of EWTN’s The World Over. It’s dominated conservative Catholic news, but it’s scandalized English-speaking Catholics across the spectrum and around the world. It’s beginning to seep into secular news as well.

From a theological point of view, we are taught that the pope’s teachings are free from error on faith and morals, but we have no such assurances regarding his character, behavior, or prudence. And Pope Francis, by apparently feeding this scandal and allowing it to fester — while at the same time providing no explanation of why he’s allowing this to happen — may well wind up with this as a permanent mark on his legacy.

The Vatican must offer a clear, comprehensive, and public explanation immediately. Additionally, the pope or his delegates must open themselves up to questions from the press on this serious matter. Finally, the pope must use his authority to right any wrongs. Even if the situation isn’t entirely his fault, he has the ability to fix this and offer an apology.

The Survivors

Following the troubling news of Rupnik’s incardination, CNS confirmed that the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors has reached out to Rupnik’s known victims, “to examine and study how the victims were treated by the church,” namely the Vatican and the Jesuits.

The invitation letter from the Commission states, “We do not have the power to change the current ruling or intervene in the decisions made," but in light of how “harshly” Cardinal Prevost responded to their concerns, it appears they might be trying to exert their “independence” to the best of their ability.

With its president, Cardinal Sean O’Malley, approaching 80, and following a year of media scrutiny and the widely-publicized departure of one of its most prominent members, there are rumors that Francis has been planning to overhaul or sideline the Commission in the near future. It may be that issuing these invitations is a significant risk. But right now they seem to be just about the only office in the Vatican that is willing to give Rupnik’s survivors the hearing they deserve.  

Let’s pray that Pope Francis listens and responds.

UPDATE OCTOBER 27, 8:00 AM EDT:

The Vatican released the following several hours after this post:

“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.”

This is a step in the right direction, but it never should have reached this point.

UPDATE 2, OCTOBER 27, 3:00 PM EDT:

In the closing minutes of today’s press briefing on the synod, two journalists asked Paolo Ruffini, the Prefect of the Vatican's Dicastery for Communication, about the Rupnik case.

The first journalist, speaking in Italian, first framed his question by saying (based on the live translation), “Today before the vigil of the end of the synod, we received a piece of news that the pope has decided to reopen the case of Fr. Rupnik and has opened the way for a process, a trial. We see in this decision the influence of Cardinal O’Malley and the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, but in the same press [release], it is highlighted how we must learn from this synod that we must listen to those who suffer the most, and those who are marginalized from the Church.”

The live translation of the actual question he asked Ruffini wasn’t entirely clear, but here’s a portion: “Is it excessive to think that the first concrete result of the Synod is represented precisely by this new attitude towards the victims of abuses, and therefore also the reopening of a case?”

Ruffini replied (Vatican News translation), "I don't think there is a connection with what the Synod has repeatedly emphasized and what the Church has been doing for years to address the issue of abuse and to undertake a journey of penance, which did not begin today, and work on the new rules that have been approved." He continued by saying (returning to the live translation) that to connect the Synod to specific cases and “the press release that concerns a decision made by the Holy Father, I have no comments to make. It seems to me that it is self-explanatory. But it doesn’t mean that the synod has addressed individual cases. It does not mean that the topic of abuse was addressed for the first time at the Synod. I think you all remember the meeting on the protection of minors [in 2019] and the journey of the Church for many years before the Synod started.”

The next question was from Diane Montagna of, the Catholic Herald, who said,

“Two questions for Doctor Ruffini to pick up on our colleague’s question. Pope Francis and today in our the message from the Holy See. We heard this. Pope Francis has said it is “synodal” to listen attentively and compassionately to those who are suffering. Yet it's been reported that he will not meet with the victims of Father Rupnik, nor has he answered their letter. How is that synodal according to Pope Francis's own definition of synodality? And when did the Pope decide to lift the statute of limitations?”

Ruffini responded in Italian (DeepL translation — no live translation was provided):

“I have already said that I have nothing to add. A statement regarding the Holy Father, I think what Pope Francis has done to address the scourge of abuse is known to everyone, so there is really nothing more to add.”