The Rupnik case is riddled with glaring lapses in judgment

In Advent and Lent, the preacher of the papal household — for more than 40 years Capuchin Father (now Cardinal) Raniero Cantalamessa — gives a series of preached sermons to the Holy Father and the senior cardinals and bishops of the Roman Curia. In March 2020, Father Rupnik was invited to step in for Father Cantalamessa, who was ill.

Advertisement

Astonishingly, Father Rupnik accepted the assignment, even though he knew that had incurred an automatic excommunication at the time. It is impossible that his Jesuit superiors did not know; it is unimaginable that Father Sosa was not fully informed about one of the most prominent Jesuits in the world. Nevertheless, Father Rupnik was permitted to preach.

If Fathers Rupnik and Sosa withheld this information from Pope Francis, it was a great betrayal. If they did tell the Holy Father and he permitted Father Rupnik to preach to Roman Curia when he was in an excommunicated state, it would be a perplexing decision.

The second glaring lapse is that the 2018 allegation apparently gave rise to an exceedingly narrow investigation. It is hardly uncommon that those guilty of such grave misconduct might have other victims. It appears that the Jesuits, even knowing Father Rupnik’s great influence and authority in the Centro Aletti, did not conduct a thorough investigation.

Advertisement

Given that the Jesuits maintained restrictions on Father Rupnik even after the excommunication was lifted, they had to at least suspect that he was — and therefore could have been in the past — a danger. Why then did they not act on those reasonable suspicions?

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement