The Pope, meanwhile, gave an interview in January in which he simultaneously claimed that he made a procedural decision about the Rupnik allegations, but that “I had nothing to do with this” (ie, the Rupnik case). The respected Vatican correspondent Christopher Altieri pointed out in Catholic World Report that these statements couldn’t both be true. He said “senior churchmen close to Francis have strongly suggested that Francis had pretty much everything to do with the management of it”.
In the past few months, anxiety in Rome about what the Pope knew has been kept in check by liberal members of the Vatican press corps, who refuse to ask awkward questions lest the answers disrupt the synod. But last week their strategy fell apart when the Diocese of Rome issued a statement on its investigation into the Aletti Centre, the alleged scene of revolting abuse.
To quote Ed Condon, Editor of The Pillar, the statement congratulated the centre on “maintaining a ‘healthy community life without any particular critical issues’ and praised its members for ‘maintaining silence’ about the scores of accusations that Rupnik spiritually and sexually abused women, including through overtly sacrilegious sexual acts”. Bizarrely, it also suggested (but without explaining why) that Rupnik shouldn’t have been excommunicated for the offence of which he was found guilty, a diabolical abuse of the confessional.
This defies belief, and Condon — always loyal to the Pope — for the first time confronted the possibility that Francis was subverting the Church’s investigations “on behalf of a man accused of arguably more appalling crimes, by far more people, than some of the most notorious names in the canon of disgraced churchmen”. Five alleged victims of Rupnik responded furiously to the Diocese of Rome’s statement, saying it “ridiculed” their pain.
In addition, the Left-wing editor of La Croix, Robert Mickens, upbraided liberal hacks on the papal plane back from Marseilles on Friday for failing to ask Francis “THE most important question of his pontificate”, Given Mickens’s enthusiasm for the Pope’s most provocative moves against conservatives, that’s an extraordinary turn of phrase.
Are we finally witnessing a long-delayed joining of the dots? On at least two occasions in the past, Francis has inexplicably (and unsuccessfully) tried to shield abuser allies from justice. Before becoming Pope he commissioned a report whose aim was to keep the Argentine child abuser Fr Julio Grassi out of jail; he also tried to protect the Argentine predator Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta by parachuting him into a senior job in Vatican finances, and refused to supply documents demanded by the Argentine court that eventually sentenced Zanchetta to jail. There have been other disturbing episodes.
Four years ago, a senior figure in Rome told me he couldn’t explain why the Pope should take such insane risks on behalf of criminals — unless not doing so, for some reason, was an even bigger risk. But he had no evidence, of course, and such is the power of the supreme pontiff that crucial information will be locked away while Francis is alive. There’s very little chance that he’ll resign, and one of the quirks of Catholic canon law is that, if a pontiff announces his resignation in response to any pressure, including a scandal, then his resignation is automatically invalid. But a word I keep hearing now is the Cold War term Kompromat. It’s beginning to look as if, despite Francis’s attempts to distract everyone with the synod, Rupnik and his bug-eyed mosaics have already killed off this pontificate.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribePope Francis made promises about purging the sexual predators from the Church. But it seems his purge was limited to those who were not part of his political party (sorry, I meant theological school).
You were right the first time 🙂
There is a real sickness buried in the heart of the Roman church.
And there has been since Day ONE.
Original sin?
In the Closet of the Vatican published a few years back exposed the rot at the heart of the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church today. Four out of five priests are homosexual and 90% of the residents of Vatican City are the same. It was a NYT bestseller. Everything becomes more clear seen through this lens.
But hasn’t it always been this way?
Are you saying that gay people are more likely to be sexual predators than straight people? If so, that’s not what Frederic Martel said in his book, In the Closet of the Vatican. Nor does he oppose Catholicism per se. For him, the problem is not that many Catholic clerics are gay (although I’m not sure that he explains this phenomenon adequately) but that many of the church’s leaders are hypocritical self-haters: acting out gay identity in private but hiding and opposing it in public, a situation that is unlikely to endure now that the stigma has eroded.
In any case, how would anything about gay men explain the case of Rupnik, who molested nuns?
I don’t see why your comment makes anything clearer at all!. “Being homosexual” isn’t an offence in Church law, though acting upon it would be. Anyway, it seems a slightly odd thing to emphasise in this case of alleged aggressive and very heterosexual rape and abuse.
That’s an understatement.
He is a Kirchnerista; which says quite enough about him and his morals.
The Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on sexual abuse. Why else do we have to have numerous time wasting DBS checks that are not worth the paper they are written on? It’s just not such a juicy story when it’s found in Islam or Judaism, teachers, surgeons, police, musicians….people in power in every walk of life. Do any people think they will no longer go to hospital or call the police in emergency because of abuses that have been uncovered and not properly punished?
The Catholic Church, you are right, doesn’t have the monopoly of sexual abuse……however, and contrary to other religions you mention ( forget professions…..totally irrelevant ) these do not imply the infallibility of one wheelchair bound bloke you are commanded to believe against your better and critical judgment. Pope says it never happened……well then….your tough luck…..it never happened …..until maybe some 40 years later and a couple of suicides, à Boston Globe or similar, finally blows it wide open. Sure, there are dedicated priests who only wish to do good…….but in my view they too are prisoners of a sick institution. Button up and carry on…..that’s what is expected of them.
You have heard of Papal Infallibility, but need to look more closely at the meaning of it. It does not mean the Pope, whichever pope, is always right or perfect. Clearly not, It is intended to be used only on very rare occasions of a serious statement of Faith.
Referring to ‘one wheelchair bound bloke’ might be considered offensive to wheel chair users and has no bearling at all on someone’s other abilities.
Frankly, I do not give a hoot about sounding offensive to the pope who dares calling Marseille a heaven when only the day before yesterday 3 people were gunned down in a drug related shooting in a normally peaceful part of town. not even 10 days ago a girl studying in her room had her head ripped apart by a stray bullet, same thing gang related. This guy has willingly put his foot in it encouraging humanitarian…or so called….organisations to carry out the good work or rescuing these migrants and bring them to our shores. Italy and Greece are taking a brunt that the UK would never tolerate although the pressure is strong on these shores too. You want thousands of them in your home…. Your town….village .be my very guest but this is not what I understood from Brexit
. I was raised in this toxic institution and trust me, had I not been the stubborn 10 years old I was then, I too would have been the recipient of « priestly affection »
It was a doctrine invented in 1870 when the Catholic church was under increasing pressure from liberal and nationalist ideas. Since the Pope defines in what circumstances he is infallible, your (Jesuitical!) distinction is rather moot!
But they don’t have to carry on, they can leave, otherwise they’re enabling.
I don’t quite get the logic of the last point.
The Catholic Church covering up sexual abuse? I’m shocked!
This is the dilemma you face when you are dedicated to being completely forgiving, and you find those whom you oversee commit evil and illegal acts.
Same for the “defund the police” crowd.
They lose the balance between their concern for the perps and concern for the victims.
Most people, but certainly most ideological or strongly motivated believers, are not notably very consistent in the forgiveness thing. They are very ready to forgive people in their own “tribe” while seizing upon the transgressions of those of their opponents.
The current US political scene provides a fantastic example of this: Trump as a criminal or alternatively persecuted innocent being the most obvious example of this, but there are many others.
Mr Thompson has a long record of calling for the end of Pope Francis’ pontificate (with excellent reasons in my opinion) but lets his criticism run away with him. Does he seriously think that the resignation or ousting of the current Pope will fix the issues he describes? This is the question I think he is too afraid to ask because he knows the answer. The trouble is that he sees Pope Benedict’s term as one of revival and renewal when it clearly wasn’t, it just conformed more to what the author thought a Pope’s tenure should look like in it’s political/theological vision. A lot of the abuses happened under either his predecessor or under the now canonised John Paul and nothing was done about it then just as nothing is being done now. I urge readers to click on the first link as it gives the impression that this article – sad though it is – is just the tip of the iceberg.
Confining your criticism to specific individuals is not the way to truth. The internal structure and attitude of the clergy towards the laity is as unhealthy as it is unbiblical. The same attitude is present, to a greater or lesser extent, in all churches but the Roman church has a particular problem with hierarchy – perhaps appointing a monk to the pontificate would allow a proper clearing of the decks. Gregory the Great was a former monk and the Orthodox church has a great tradition of such leadership.
It isn’t my fight but it would be nice to have a positive article from Mr Thompson on Pope Francis. I admire his work but drawing from the same doom-mongering well does wear somewhat.
Mr Gibbon ascribes a few opinions to me that I don’t hold. The Benedictine revival, if we can speak of one (and I’m not sure I ever have) was limited to a handful of profound but largely unread papal documents and an improvement in liturgical standards that has had an uplifting effect on worship in many parishes, including my own, but can’t compensate for long-term demographic decline. The ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ between old and new rites opened up possibilities that were reviving Catholicism in small pockets of the Church, but of course that is now being viciously suppressed (with limited success) by this pope. The fact that the system that produced widespread sexual abuse dates back a long time – possibly it was at its worst 50 years ago – is not in doubt. What is distinctive and horrifying about Francis is an amoral cruelty that had led him into *far* deeper personal complicity in the crimes of abusers than any of his predecessors; perhaps, as many people believe in Rome, this is because he is being blackmailed. He’s familiar with the tactic. Bergoglio’s record before he became pope was one of manipulation and the gathering of gossip about ecclesiastical rivals. As it happens, I agree with some opinions he expresses – but I’m not convinced that any of them arise from conviction as opposed to a desire to goad his opponents and settle scores. You will never have a positive article about Jorge Bergoglio from me, Mr Gibbon; I think he’s loathsome.
When I saw the article and the author’s name I thought “That’s the guy who hates Pope Francis” and you confirm that you think him loathsome. Reading the article I thought the most likely reason for Francis’ action was something he would have in common with Benedict and JP2 (both detestable) which is: he thinks is protecting the Church. That the Church goes on is far more important to them than the sins of a few sinners, so there is silence, denial, things hushed up – the reputation of the Church is paramount, its an old story.
Why would he write a positive article when there is nothing positive to say? The abuses have been going on as long as there has been a Roman Catholic Church. But then all cults lend themselves to abuse of power and sex.
Jesus has eyes of fire and feet of brass. He has a sword coming out of his mouth and will punish these sins. Leaders are held to a stricter standard. Woe to these priests at the final judgement.
Oh pleeeeze!!
Are you for real ???
Why should he not be? He’s made a statement of his faith.
I am a non believer. But although I might argue with people, I try not to stoop to low ridicule.
As usual, posts have been removed because they offend people. What a waste of money!!
You can’t have freedom of speech without offending someone
Heaven be praised, you have risen from the dead!
So there must be something in religion after all.
In 1773 The Society of Jesus sometimes known as Jesuits was suppressed by Pope Clement XIV. In a brief entitled Dominus ac Redemptor Noster this is what he said:- .
“Having further considered that the said Company of Jesus can no longer produce those abundant fruits…in the present case, we are determining upon the fate of a society classed among the mendicant orders, both by its institute and by its privileges; after a mature deliberation, we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fullness of our apostolical power, suppress and abolish the said company: we deprive it of all activity whatever… And to this end a member of the regular clergy, recommendable for his prudence and sound morals, shall be chosen to preside over and govern the said houses; so that the name of the Company shall be, and is, for ever extinguished and suppressed”.
Pope Francis must act immediately and suppress the Order without delay if he is to retain ANY credibility whatsoever.
We ALL know what Jesus would have done.
To continue. The Jesuits lost sight of the aims of religion and concentrated more on government by stealth. This came to a head with Dreyfuss, the time when France decided to separate church from state.
There are conspiracy theories, which will never be resolved, which bracket Pope Pius XII with Hit**r before WW2. I think he was also a Jesuit (Pius XII, not Hit**r).
A while back I suggested that the Catholic church should concentrate on religion instead of public affairs, and I received many angry comments saying that religion ought to be involved in such things.
But which religion is correct? Should the Archbishop of Canterbury be advising his flock to approve of unlimited immigration?
In answer to your final question definitely NOT!
Concentrate on religion instead of political concerns? I think that has been made clear by Somebody before.
“My kingdom is not of this world.”
Are you not allowed to say Hitler?
Pope Francis is a Jesuit priest. I’m not sure if you know this and are being sarcastic or alternatively need to update your knowledge of the current situation.
There was no Christian Church in the time of Jesus, or in fact any concept of a separate Christian religion. He was not a forerunner of the Pope or head of any church, so any remotely similar situation with Jesus in a position of political or managerial authority could not have arisen. In addition what we do know is that Jesus did not in fact use his powers to overthrow any human secular, or even religious institution, during his lifetime.
As many have suggested, it seems all too likely that Jesus returning to Earth during the period of the domination of the Catholic Church would rather quickly have fallen victim to the vastly greater persecution that organisation presided over than the reluctant Romans ever managed. (They didn’t even attempt to suppress Christianity, or kill that many “martyrs” who were mostly fanatics intent on goading the authorities and given numerous opportunities to live).
The Church needs an energetic, reforming Pope and bishops. Goes through this every few centuries.
Preferably a strong woman.
…..Like that will ever happen.
Religion is the cause of all the evils in this world.
I agree….just have a look at all the horrible deeds committed in the name of God and only for political reasons throughout history. Have a look at the St Barthélémy massacre in France …..
See my comments above. Two wrongs don’t make a right but religion isn’t quite obviously responsible for ‘all” the evil in the world.
Monotheistic religion and in particular Christianity, with its utter intolerance of other beliefs, has certainly been responsible for a vast degree of the most brutal persecution over 1,500 years.
However, and I don’t wish to be rude, but I do wish people wouldn’t just trot out clichés or obviously silly statements rather than think about what they are writing. Religion is quite obviously NOT responsible for “all” the evils of the world. What about a certain Vladimir Lenin? Or Adolf Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? Or indeed lesser nationalist leaders leading wars of aggression against their neighbours? Or serial killers or sexual abusers?
But what worldly body has authority over the Roman Catholic church? It is an organisation that is convinced of its holy knowledge and virtue and there is no one else to hold it to account. It believes it has authority over peoples’ lives yet fails (in part) to live up to the values it espouses.
In the end it is up to people themselves to not give money to the RC Church or its charities and worship somewhere else. You can argue that this is already happening slowly and perhaps that is why the Pope prefers not to look too deeply into issues that might damage reputation and which might increase the outflow.
The authority over the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ. “I am with you always.”
The Vatican is mired in corruption and dissolute behavior at this time. Pope Francis will have much to answer for when he meets his Maker.
It is faithful priests and laity who do their best to practice the teachings of the Church, led by the promptings of the Holy Spirit, who carry forward the life of the Catholic Church. Pope Francis has caused them harm and they suffer from his actions and those in league with him.
Truth will prevail. God help those who thwart it.
Pope Francis won’t meet his Maker. He’ll be sent in the other direction.
Oh, he will. Although it may be a brief interview prior to his eternal judgement.
The great white throne judgment is described in Revelation 20:11-15 and is the final judgment prior to the lost being cast into the lake of fire.
The Catholic Church is about power and the enjoyment of wealth. The highest people in the Church consider themselves as do members of the Royal Family to be above the law.
Power corrupts….
I think it’s more a case of seeking positions of power, where it’s assumed that corruption can be carried out with impunity. The corrupt heart is in place before the power.
Maybe but surely the corruption is also kind of baked-in to the system? The Catholic church’s entire structure and culture revolves around never questioning authority.
If one’s authority is never questioned, even the most illegitimate desires can be rationalised as emanating from the authority of scripture – hence the perpetrator’s ridiculous assertion that a threesome is in some way an embodiment of the trinity.
Well, yes; i made that clear with “it’s assumed that corruption can be carried out with impunity”.
It’s fearful people who don’t question authority.
Such as the BBC for example?
Most institutions.
Indeed it does and it’s addictive.
Especially when your claws sink into people’s soul….
Exactly. It’s a dangerous cult that brainwashes kids through fear, the fear of god, as young as they can, so they will be too scared to ever leave. This is why otherwise intelligent people are life-long catholics, because they’re too scared to not believe. I’m so grateful there was never any religion in my house growing up.
This pope is amazing……in the very bizarre sick sense of the word. Here he is covering up deeds he most than surely knew about and at the same time lectures us European as being heartless ba….ds for not letting in 7000 Africans in Lampedusa and on to the rest of Europe. Not only that but even asking them to respect our values and integrate is condemned by the guy.
The Catholic Church, and I was raised in it, is just a totally decadent institution. Who in your daily life would you accept as infallible???? for your sake, I hope no one.
Of course he knew, just like he knew about Cardinal Pell back then. Thank God for the Australian justice system who nailed him.
Here in France, we had Cardinal Barbarin who for decades covered a sex offender priest, on and on again, shifting him from parish to parish until it was finally out of control……his control. Victims had the final say. But these things still keep happening over and over again.
Given all this, I am baffled that people still chose to be catholics. Alt his unfortunately trickles down into families. Hush hush, yes uncle Bob has hands everywhere, but it never happened and it will be our secret. How sick is this…..right from the top.
You’re wrong about Pell and he was rightly exonerated 7-0 by the high court of the fabricated case against him and freed from jail. He was also going after corruption in the Vatican and had earned the enmity of the current Pope.
I fear I am treading on Aussie toes here. Pell was clubbed the first time and this child abuse case dated back to the 70’s. I would say, hardly fabricated.
Secondly and that’s why I was referring to Cardinal Barbarin here, and I find easier to quote :
”Australia’s Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse found that he knew of clergy molesting children in the 1970s and did not take adequate action to address it.
These guys are all the same, regardless what end of the planet they live on.
As to the Pope, I really resent his visit and its results to Marseilles, when thousands of migrants are dumped on the shores of Italy by people smugglers with a huge helping from so called humanitarian organisations who just rescue them mid Mediterranean. The Aussie way is …..give them food and water and send them back to where they came from or Nauru.
Hear, hear, an appalling ‘stitch up’ that must have shortened his life. R.I.P.
Exactly! And he tells women they’re selfish if they don’t have children.
Come on, we all know what this leads to. This is nothing to do with a passion for forgiveness, it’s a big cabal of perverts & abusers all sat in positions of untouchable power.
It’s what you get for believing all this nonsense. Handing over responsibility for your own conduct to some clowns in gowns is beyond stupid.
The most unnatural lifestyle of all is celibacy. Small wonder that this particular branch of Christianity is so riddled with abusers.
That why the Chinese insisted on castration, as off course did the Papal Choir until fairly recently.
The funniest part is that priestly celibacy is a fairly recent (in church terms) innovation. For centuries it wasn’t much of a thing and there were still married Popes at the end of the first millenium.
The “Pope”.
I don’t understand how it was found out that he had “abused the confessional to absolve a woman from the sin of having sex with him”. Surely it was in both their interests to keep that a secret?
Pope Francis was the status quo choice, as the first choice was going to clean house. Pope Francis and the Corporate Cathoic bureaucracy are getting exactly what they deserve.
None of this will come as a surprise to those who have read Colm Tóibín’s excoriating essay on Bergoglio’s path to the papacy in the London Review of Books, 2021 – now republished alongside other examples of his brilliant writing in “A Guest at the Feast”.
Remove the restrictions to relationships and marriage or lose Catholicism all together. Even then, the abusive nature of the priesthood is unlikely to diminish. The damage has been done.
Carissa, unfortunately allowing catholic priests to marry will change nothing when sexual abuse is concerned in that institution. One often quotes child abuse, but what about nuns ? they too are victims to incredible behaviour.
This being said, of course priests should be allowed to marry without having to leave their calling. This is a very lonely life that the church wants them to live. In a small Bavarian parish I know, the priest addressed his flock informing them it was the last time he was preaching having fallen in love with a woman with whom he intended to live. The answer was « we don’t care, we still want you to be our priest »
People have more wisdom than this toxic institution…….
But the sexual abuse comes from pedaphiles not heterosexuals. It’s not about marriage.
My point precisely………if priest were to marry…..this would not stop the pedophile cases within the church.
It’s not so much “the damage had been done” as they got found out. The damage -abuse, has been going on forever.
Just to think that Diderot’s ‘scandalous ‘ novel ‘La Religieuse’ is understating the problems with religious vocations.
Maybe they should just finally give up the idea of male celibacy as a non-starter.
Jesus said feed my sheep but these priests appear to have heard “f**k my sheep”!
The no celabite rule. removes the best protection against resist immorality. That is a jealous wife. Protestant clergy are less likely to get away with rape because their wife would leave them and raise a scandal and loss of job.It also brings in gay priests who have pedofile tendency.
Recall the old joke:
What kind of sex does a priest have?
None.
i.e. nun
I don’t see any evidence of wrongdoing here. Pope Francis is a disgrace but not for the reasons given here.
The sickness is taking this ridiculous article at all seriously.
Rubbish.
Joining the priestly hierarchy of the catholic church has long been the most preferred career option for sadists and child abusers. I suspect the only reason they campaign against abortion is that it reduces the supply of kiddies for them to have their wicked ways with.
On the other hand, you could have written something sensible.
Exactly.
It is not very subtle, but the incidence of abuse in this institution points in a direction which is not far from your views. A closed, secretive society of like minded men who consider themselves above the masses bears this risk in it. Deny this, and ask yourself who is fooling whom?