Incompetence or Corruption?

 When I think about the case involving Fr. Marko Rupnik, a lot comes to mind.  But one thing that comes to mind more than any was an old speech by the Russian Revolutionary Pavel Milyukov.  In a speech criticizing the Tsar and his ministers, Milyukov asked something along the lines of "are they corrupt or incompetent?"  In other words, are they stupid, or is their malicious intent behind their actions?  Let's consider the facts of the Rupnik case, and go from there.  (The Pillar has published a lengthy explainer and a lengthy interview with one of his victims.  (I believe we can remove alleged as the Jesuits seems to) confirm this, and the Vatican asked this individual to testify during proceedings against Fr. Rupnik.

Fr. Rupnik is a Jesuit and a very famous (albeit terrible) liturgical artist, whose mosaics are prominently featured at some of the most well known churches and Catholic events.  Fr. Rupnik was ordained in 1985, and it appears that he was already engaged in grooming and abusing women.  (Also consuming copious amounts of pornography if Italian blogs are to be believed.)

In 2015, he absolved in the confessional one of his victims for engaging in sexual activity with him: a crime for which someone, if found guilty, is automatically excommunicated.  The Jesuits failed to disclose this when giving public statements about the Rupnik affair, instead only pointing out a 2021 investigation by the DDF where it was concluded that the statute of limitations had expired on one specific case brought before them.  Once this information leaked, the Jesuits admitted that this had indeed happened, but that Fr. Rupnik had repented, and as a result the excommunication was remitted.

This made the Vatican's decision to not pursue a canonical investigation against Fr. Rupnik curious.  If one is facing a canonical process for sexual abuse of some sort, that you were previously excommunicated for actions related to sexual abuse would be highly relevant information, and suggest a certain pathology by the priest as a predator.  In previous cases like this, the Vatican (through first the Congregation but now the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith) has waived the statute of limitations, under the very sensible principle that the protection of victims trumps an imaginary line that is suited more in this instance for civil penal law.

Even after that excommunication was lifted in 2019, Fr. Rupnik was still placed under restrictions by the Jesuits, albeit secret restrictions.  The exact extent of these restrictions has not been revealed, and did not stop Rupnik from engaging in a very public ministry, including being a guest of Pope Francis in public and presiding over preaching at his request.

The Jesuits

It is clear that the Jesuits were aware for a long time that Fr. Rupnik was a problem.  Victims had attempted to convince them to act against Rupnik for decades, all to no avail.  The mere profession that restrictions exist (even if they really don't) underscores that the Jesuits understand, at least in theory, that Rupnik is a danger to himself and others.  Yet as he continued to live a high profile, they said nothing?  Were they worried that his prestige taking a hit would mean they took a hit?  Were they worried about all the evidence coming out in their complicity in covering things up?  That implies the kind of corruption that requires a full scale cleaning of house.

Are we also to assume that as requests came in for Fr. Rupnik to speak at the Vatican and to continue his public ministry, there were no private protests, no CYA bureaucratic emails or discourse?  No further private interventions with Fr. Rupnik?  Why did they not enforce these supposed restrictions?

Rome

There will be an attempt to divorce Pope Francis from the DDF here, and I don't think that really holds.  This was a collective effort.  When an investigation was finally launched, one of the lead investigations had a clear conflict of interest, being a part of a foundation Rupnik was also a member of.  Given the high profile nature of Fr. Rupnik as a Jesuit, there could be legitimate questions about having a Jesuit head of the DDF responsible for that investigation also as a conflict.  Are there grounds for recusal within these processes?  How are they exercised?    Rome may find these questions uncomfortable, but they must be asked.

One must also ask if they were a bit selective in their prosecution of Rupnik.  Victims from other instances of abuse testified during the proceedings of Rupnik, but so far as we know, the only cases involved are the 2015 instance (which resulted in his excommunication and then repentance) and a case brought forth in 2021 where they had determined the crime was no longer justicable because the statute of limitations had expired.  Even if you are not willing to waive that, surely one could disclose what the crime was that was believed to have occurred?  The worry is that they were bringing cases they knew they could easily dismiss, and ignoring ones that would require a very embarrassing about face on Rupnik.  It would come out in future abuses cases that the DDF had confirmed an excommunication for previous abuse, and that would look like they let him off the hook to abuse again.  What starts as a conspiracy becomes a lot more plausible when one considers they have complete discretion over what cases they try, and that they made no mention of his previous excommunication during the most recent process.

As for Pope Francis, which is worse?  That he knew, but took an attitude of "he repented, lets move on" or that he was completely in the dark, and that he presided over a bureaucracy that knew to keep their mouths shut, lest they jeopardize their careers?  Bureaucrats aren't normally evil amoral people.  They are civil servants, for whom the boring task of governance tends to be supremely important.  It is often the non-bureaucratic people put in positions of governance that ignore this stuff.  I'm willing to bet in the future that the bureaucracy in both the Jesuits and the DDF protested, and it was the higher ups who managed the bureaucracy who chose to look the other way.

Is it really a surprise then that after Rupnik's excommunication was remitted, and he appeared at the Vatican as Pope Francis' behest, that the DDF decided in 2021 that it shouldn't do any new proceedings against Fr. Rupnik, and to just wave it away under "it isn't justiciable?"    The only other explanation is a Pope so clueless and aloof that the incompetence has become systemic.

Incompetence or evil might matter to God, who alone can judge souls.  For us, it makes no difference:  The Pope and his courtiers have visited shame and scandal upon the Catholic Church, and the day is likely coming soon where they will have to account for it.  All we can do is raise our voices about this scandal and shame, and make clear an expectation from our leaders that this is unacceptable.