Vatican City, Sep 18, 2017 / 01:57 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Nearly four years after the Pope established his Council of Cardinal advisers to help him in the task of reforming the Roman Curia, one member of the group said their work is wrapping up, and that it could take only a few more meetings to finish what they set out to do.
The ongoing process of reform “is being done at various stages of development, and I hope we’ll come to an end in all of these matters soon,” Cardinal Oswald Gracias of Bombay told CNA Sept. 14.
“It will take two or three more meetings more,” he said, adding that “by June perhaps we’ll be seeing the end of the tunnel.”
Cardinal Gracias is also President of the Asian Bishops Conference and in 2013 was chosen by the Pope along with eight other prelates from around the world to advise him in matters of Church governance and reform.
He spoke to CNA in a lengthy, sit-down interview after the council – also called the “C9” – concluded their latest round of meetings last week.
As far as the reform goes, Cardinal Gracias said “there won’t be very major changes; it’s the governance of the Church, we can’t just turn everything upside down.” Rather, it will be “a gradual change, a change of mentality, a change of approach, restructuring a bit of the departments so that they are more logically suited to the needs of today.”
He said a key goal of the C9 is to implement the vision of the Second Vatican Council, specifically when it comes to the importance of the role of the laity and women, and incorporating greater synodality and collegiality into the Church’s structures.
From the beginning Pope Francis “had very clear what he wanted this group to do,” the cardinal said. “He had no hesitation, he’s a good leader. He had a clear vision.”
Cardinal Gracias admitted that in the beginning he had doubts as to whether or not they were going in the right direction, and had started to worry what people on the outside might say, since many fruits of the meetings weren’t and likely won’t be immediately visible. He said he also struggled with doubts about the pace at which they were moving, and believed that things were going “too slow.”
“I will confess that once at the beginning I was wondering, ‘are we going in the right direction?’ I asked myself. But now I can see it is,” he said, explaining that Pope Francis’ Christmas speech to the Roman Curia last year was a “tipping point” for him.
More than anything, there is a change in mentality that’s needed, which will take longer than simply reforming the Vatican’s structures, he said, but said the group is “rather confident that it will happen because the Pope is giving very effective leadership.”
In addition to the ongoing curial reform, Cardinal Gracias also spoke about the recent release of Indian priest Fr. Tom Uzhunnalil 18 months after he was abducted in Yemen. He also spoke about the Pope’s upcoming trip to Myanmar and Bangladesh, and when a possible papal trip to India might take place.
Below are excerpts from CNA’s interview with Cardinal Gracias:
You’ve seen Fr. Tom and you were at his meeting with Pope Francis. How is he doing?
I was pleasantly surprised with calmness with which he came out, because he did not know, to my knowledge, that he was being released. But he said I know people have prayed for me, I’m grateful for the people who were praying for me, but he kept on saying ‘Jesus is great, Jesus is great.’ And then he told the Holy Father. It was a very moving moment. As soon as the Holy Father came he prostrated in front of the Holy Father and kissed his feet, and he said, ‘thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you Holy Father, but just one message I want to give you: Jesus Christ is great. Jesus was with me right through, I could sense the presence of God with me’…And once I thought the Holy Father had tears in his eyes. When Tom kept on speaking about Jesus, this is what he told the Holy Father: please tell the people that Jesus is great! I would say that he’s come out of it with an experience of the presence of the Lord, and I think at that moment the Holy Father had tears in his eyes…I met the Holy Father later that afternoon, and he was telling me how impressed he was. He was also surprised with the calmness of the man, with Tom…He was a man who is perhaps strengthened in the faith after this experience, and not bitter about anything. Particularly about his captors, he was very understanding. It was a special experience, very edifying. He needs rest, certainly, he’ll have a medical exam and he’ll be with his superiors, but eventually he’ll go back (to India). So thank God really. It was an anxious moment for the whole Church in India. We didn’t know what was happening, but we understood that putting more pressure, in the perspective of the government, could make things more difficult for him. (But) he’s not really stressed in any way you can make out. Physically weak, but spiritually strong. When he met the Holy Father, he was weeping right through it. And the Holy Father was very touched, he kissed his hand and blessed him…He felt the comfort and strength of the entire Church. As he said, there was never a moment when he felt abandoned, either by the Church or by God. He kept saying, ‘Jesus is great.’ So he came out spiritually strengthened in that sense. It was a big relief, a big blessing, and the Holy Father was overjoyed. I think the government of Oman did a very splendid job of helping out…they even brought a Salesian to accompany him on the last plane. It was very human of them, so had the comfort of a spiritual companion.
What role did the Holy See play in working out his release?
They only offered help, they kept the issue open and kept sharing. The Holy See was told he was alive, and the Holy See communicated with the Indian government. In Yemen, the political situation is very fragile, and one doesn’t know who is in charge. There are bombardments and all sorts of groups are taking over, so there was always a risk I suppose, that if you tried to liberate him you could have harmed him. But they were always interested, they kept it alive. Every time I came to Rome somebody from the Secretariat of State updated me. The Vatican made sure there was interest. Any information the Holy See had, they shared it with the Indian government, the Omani government, so that was good.
It’s interesting that there is still no word on who is responsible…
It’s not a terrorist attack, it’s a kidnapping. They wouldn’t glory in taking him. That has not come out. I spent about half an hour with him before the Holy Father, and he was speaking continuously. I did not at any point attempt to ask him questions, because I think that would be a stress for him. He has got to share…he wants to share it and then I imagine you feel lighter. He’s probably just got to rest, and rest and rest, physically and then mentally too, he’s got to get it out of his mind. He’s not come out of it a broken man at all. I was afraid of that, that he would come out a broken man, but no…It’s a moment of grace, a moment of faith, a special experience. The high point was when he told the Holy Father, ‘just tell everybody that Jesus is great, Jesus is great.’ Just three simple words. That was like the sum of his whole experience, what he meant and why he meant it…he felt not abandoned, I suppose. I hope recovers. I imagine he needs a couple of months really, or maybe more than a couple of months, to really rest. He needs time with the family also, natural circumstances…I’m not sure about this, but I have a feeling that the Omani government decided to bring him to Rome, because they (wanted) to hand him over to the Vatican. I think it was better for him, because I think if he had gone to India he would have been mobbed by everybody. He just needs space to recover, and for doctors to examine him. Physically to see if he’s alright, and psychologically also, to be investigated. I think it was a wise decision, but I think it was a decision more of the Omani government.
I don’t want to exploit your time, but I wanted to ask a few questions about the process of reform and the C9. You just finished your latest round of meetings…
Yes, we just finished the latest round, the 21st meeting. I can’t imagine we’ve had 21. I didn’t realize it’s 21 already. I think we are working hard. What’s nice is that we’re a cohesive group now. In the beginning we were all (gestures). Now we know each other so well and we work together, and of course trying to implement the Holy Father’s vision of the Church. Also, one of the things we always say, and it’s very clear, before the conclave the cardinals had spoken a lot of their vision of the Church, and we have the texts of what all of the cardinals said, and all the cardinals gave their vision. We picked up from that, the Holy Father picked up from that, his own vision. We’ve focused so far … it’s for a dual purpose that the group was formed: one is to help him help him in the governance of the universal Church, and the second is to revise Pastor bonus, the papal document of St. John Paul II for establishing the Curia and giving the job descriptions and the vision of each dicastery. It’s to revitalize, I suppose that’s what Pope Francis wants us to do, and to have a new mentality which is applying Vatican II also; how to make the Roman Curia at the service of the Holy Father more effectively, but the Churches at the local level, the Churches in the dioceses, how to make the Roman Curia assist the local Churches to be more effective pastorally, so they can be more vibrant in that sense. So I think the holy Father is satisfied with what’s happening. I’m satisfied too with the way we are going ahead. We come for three days and work intensely, we work from 9:00 on the first day to 7:00 (pm) on the last day trying to wrap things up, but lots of work has been done. But it’s coming to the end. I think it will take maybe two or three more meetings until we wrap up our conclusions about the dicasteries. Then of course the Holy Father will study the thing and decide. So we’re going well. The feedback we receive is the Holy Father is happy, he is satisfied, and he has been using the Christmas messages sometimes to give an indication, a little progress report, so this year’s Christmas message (2016). I didn’t realize it, but when I read it I realized it’s practically giving a progress report of what this group has been doing. I hope that it will make an impact. There won’t be very major changes; it’s the governance of the Church, we can’t just turn everything upside down. But a gradual change, a change of mentality, a change of approach, restructuring a bit of the departments so that they are more logically suited to the needs of today, and also of answering the vision of the Second Vatican Council: the importance of lay people, synodality, collegiality, then concern about women, getting more women involved, then giving importance to the local Churches. Then reflecting on the role of episcopal conferences in all this, because that’s another big issue. So all of this is being done at various stages of development, and I hope we’ll come to an end in all of these matters soon. It will take two or three more meetings more, I foresee at least February, June…by June perhaps we’ll be seeing the end of the tunnel.
It’s been a long process…
It’s been a really long process, really, but it’s good. I’ve been in other committees of this sort, in which at the beginning we don’t what we’re doing, where to begin, and they you find your way and you find your vision. But here it was very clear, the Holy Father had very clear what he wanted this group to do…we were not clear in why we were called and what he wanted to do, but gradually we understood his mind. He had no hesitation, he’s a good leader. He had a clear vision and he had his people with him. He’s there with us, he genuinely doesn’t take any other appointments. He’s there except the general audience. There are emergencies of course, this time there were lots of things happening, but he participates and he listens to discussion, and every now and then he raises his hand when he wants to speak. It’s very odd, but now we’re accustomed to it, the Pope raising his hand (laughs) … it’s very valuable, he’s part of the discussion all the way through, completely inserted right in the thick of it. Certainly he doesn’t speak that much, because I think we would feel inhibited and want to go in his direction. So it’s just the right amount and at the right time.
Well he’s very much about the process, isn’t he? He doesn’t want to interrupt the process that’s happening…
Yes, absolutely. And he’s happy. And everybody speaks their mind. We know each other so well, and we know that the Holy Father wants us to speak our minds, so no one is at any stage (overly) conscious that the Pope is there with us, no…but it’s going well, I think it’s going well. I will confess that once at the beginning I was wondering, ‘are we going in the right direction?’ I asked myself. But now I can see it is. He’s a man of deep faith, the Pope. I remember having spoken to him once about the synod, I was sharing him my anxieties on whether the synods were going well, and he told me, ‘Cardinal, I am not worried.’ He told me that. I told him I was worried, I don’t know what direction we’re taking, whether we’ll be able in two synods to give your vision. (He said) ‘I’m not worried. It’ll work out.’ He knows what he wants, he’s a good Jesuit, and the Jesuits know exactly what they want.
At what point were you convinced that things were going in the right direction?
After about seven or eight or nine meetings, I was beginning to wonder. My worry was what will the world say? Everybody knows we’re meeting over here, but we are very limited in what we say are the fruits. What are these eight men – nine, we became nine after the Secretary (of State) joined – the nine cardinals are coming and discussing here, what’s happening? They’re not just coming here for debate. I was worried about the fruits not being seen, and the process being too slow. But then, especially after I heard the Holy Father’s speech (at Christmas 2016), for me that was it. I was like, wow, there has been a lot done. That was absolutely…this past Christmas, it was like a progress report of this group. I’m in the group, right, but I never realized the number of things we had really discussed. Besides modifying the document, the protection of minors, the economy, updates on these things, general principles of collegiality, synodality, we’re thinking about these things. Care of the Curia personnel. It’s everything that the Holy Father…he isn’t like us, who when we go back home we’re fully in the diocese, he has this in mind and he keeps working on this fully afterwards. We go back to our dioceses and are concerned about the local Church, but he certainly follows up with what we say. I’ve seen it several times. He takes the group very seriously. Every now and then he would ask us to take up some point on the agenda to discuss it a bit, which he wants advice on. I think it’s a new system he has started in which he gets feedback from all over the world, and he gets it from the grassroots. I think, anyway, I hope. We come from different continents and we bring in our own experiences. But it is going well. In fact I really, really think there has been a contribution to the Holy Father, and then the Holy Father takes decisions. I have a feeling this is shared by all now. I have no doubt, this would be the general feeling of all about it. The tipping point was really his speech, but already before that, say about six or seven months before that, we began to see really when we reflected that…perhaps the Holy Father knew that that was in our minds. It was in my mind, and maybe I expressed it indirectly. And the Holy Father once commented also, he said ‘we have done this much, so don’t get discouraged.’ So at one stage he sort of answered that doubt in my mind.
You mentioned that there’s also a change of mentality needed. Other than the structural shifts, it seems that the change of mentality will be the more challenging task…
That will take longer. But we hope it will percolate down, because once you have a certain mentality you generally don’t change unless the circumstances change, the ambiance changes. And in a certain sense not changing dramatically. That will I think take longer. But I’m positive that it will happen. We’re very, very hopeful. We’re rather confident that it will happen because the Pope is giving very effective leadership, and every now and then there is a clear message from him. But it will come about and suddenly we’ll realize, oh there has been a change! That’s how it will happen. It won’t come overnight, but at a certain point we’ll realize things have changed. He knows what he wants. And he’s happy. Certainly the indication I can see is this way; the relationship he has with the group and the joy he has in being with the group. He says he feels that it has helped him. Thank God. We do what we can. I don’t know how or why he chose us, but he’s happy. I was very surprised when I got a call from him. I said ‘why me? What have I done?’ I suppose he knows. I don’t know why. I did not know the Holy Father before, we’ve never been in any other committee before. Only at the conclave. I don’t even remember having chatted with him at the conclave, or before the conclave. After the conclave it was true that I was with him. It’s true that after I was with the Pope at Santa Marta for a few days. Then we were having meals together – breakfast, lunch and dinner for four or five days. That’s the time we came to know each other. So we were thrown together for about a week. It struck me that after his election I was at Santa Marta, because there were five or six cardinals. All the American cardinals were there, the European cardinals, all the ones from close by left and came back (for the installation). I stayed for the installation and then went back to India. And then you share, when you speak. He was very comfortable with us, very comfortable with me. But still, he had to make a choice.
Has he mentioned anything about when a visit to India might take place?
He’s very interested. We’re working it out, and I’m very hopeful. He would like to come and we would like to have him, and the government would like to have him. But now we must see his program, the government’s program, but I’m certain he will come. There are no details at all for the moment. I’m rather certainly positive that we will be able to get the Holy Father, he’s interested and I think he’s getting more interested. And the people will be excited…we are looking forward. In the beginning, as soon as he was elected, I asked him, ‘when are you coming to India?’ And he was sort of (disinterested), but gradually he began to like the idea. He’s never been to India before. As a Jesuit I think he was supposed to go to Japan, that’s what he was telling me. He’s going now to Bangladesh and Myanmar. It will be very sensitive. Bangladesh has it’s own problems, I believe they have elections next year, and Myanmar has problems to solve, also the refugee problem at the moment. Of late it is continuously on, I believe yesterday or this morning I saw it on CNN, and BBC is reporting on it. It’s an issue for the world. I’ve been there (Bangladesh) a few times. It’s a nice Church, concentrated mostly in Dhaka, a living faith. I’ve been to Myanmar also, I went as a papal legate there some years back, and I found the Church very vibrant. A simple faith, but I’m happy. I think it will mean a lot to the people. It will also strengthen the people. I think the Church is also very vibrant, it’s not have any specific difficulty, in my impression as a papal legate about two or three years back, but I was very impressed by the faith and the organization. It was vibrant. The Church was small, but strong and alive. It will make a difference for the Churches, and for the governments I expect.
Will you be there?
I plan to go to both places yes. In all of these trips in Asian I’ve come along: Sri Lanka, Korea, the Philippines. At the moment I’m president of the Asian Bishops Conference, so I suppose in that capacity I’ll have to go.
[…]
“As Christians,” Ruffini said, “we are asked not to judge.”
Oh, right, Vatican man. You Bergoglians never judge.
No, not ever.
Except, of course, for (…checks notes…) Raymond Cardinal Burke.
And Bishop James E. Strickland.
And Bishop Rogelio Livieres Plano.
And Gerhard Cardinal Müller.
And Bishop Daniel Fernandez Torres.
And Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle.
And Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.
And Bishop Martin Holley.
And a host of others.
You must think that all of us Catholics in the pews out here are absolute idiots.
You don’t move on the monster Rupnik and his empty-eyed, emptier-souled visuals simply because he’s a friend of your boss’.
Period.
Whenever you Vatican types speak, toads hop out of your mouths and scorpions dangle from your nostrils.
If you bristle at the uncharitable tone of my comment above, then I apologize.
But I am revolted by the kid-glove treatment that the monster Rupnik has received from his enablers in the Dark Vatican.
I’m afraid I am not as skilled at courteous, straightfaced — but absolutely deadly — witticism as I would like to be.
Brineyman, no need to apologize, given that you speak the truth. I replied to Steve Dawson elsewhere about the dirt on the outfit worn by the Church being a huge barrier to evangelization. After reading about the Church defending Rupnik I decided I will donate zero to the Church untill they apologize and throw Rupnik’s work in the trashcan. Let us all write to Ruffini and say that we will all donate nothing every Sunday until that happens. I bet the talk of money will get his attention.
Sure, it’s a great idea to stop giving to the Church! And since you are (presumably), a part of the Church, you should stop spending any money on yourself. No money for food, no money for clothes, no money for shelter. That’ll teach a distant Dicastery in Italy! At least as much as taking it out on your parish will, at any rate. The Church is the Body of Christ, and you propose to cut off the nose of Christ to spite the face of Christ. You might want to rethink that.
It’s one thing to say, “I will give to EWTN or” (here’s a crazy idea) “Catholic World Report rather than to Peter’s Pence.” Throwing your own parish under the bus is something else entirely.
There is a clear distinction to giving money to an anti-Catholic organization and the evil work they do, like today’s Vatican, and Catholic organizations. Not everyone desires to aid and abet evil.
You might want to rethink your tendency to justify the church hierarchy sins repeatedly in your posts. Francis, your hero, has a moral and spiritual responsibility to address this issue firmly and decisively, and he has failed once again. It’s not rocket science.
Outis, how many beers have you had today? I see no logic in your statement. What I do know is that I am not going to keep doing what I have been doing before, and let the admins in Rome continue the cover ups. Money talks, and the message will reach Rome if enough people say enough is enough.
Brineyman, you have nothing to apoligize for. You spoke the truth. The pope says “Who am I to judge”, let us all say “who am I to donate” and give nothing every Sunday until they drop Rupnik.
I find your admonition is a spiritual work of mercy, but in this case perhaps administered too kindly. Ruffini’s remarks are scandalous, and I would say of a magnitude that is repugnant. This is the caliber of the “Prefect of the Dicastery for Communication of the Holy See”? Personnel is policy. Along with the Prefect for the Doctrine of the Faith and a couple of others the profile of the current pontificate is cast in stone.
But there is one way we can change Ruffini’s mind. Let him go and spend some time with Rupnik. Maybe Rupnik will do to him what he did to the nuns. Then Ruffini will know what it is like, and will sue Rupnik himself.
Right on target. Depending on whose boss goes first, Ruffini can find a job in the “cheap fakes” Biden press office or KJP in the Dicastery for (Orwellian) Communications.
Right on target. Depending on who goes first, Ruffini can find a job in the “cheap fakes” Biden press office or KJP in the Dicastery for (Orwellian) Communications.
In a Gospel context Ruffini and his crowd remind one of Matthew 3:7. Ruffini would have made a good spokesman for the Pharisees in that context. Matthew 3:7 says it: But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
We now know insanity is the first job requirement to work in this pontificate. One either has to be insanely dumb to not be capable of distinguishing between judging souls, which Our Lord condemned, and judging right and wrong behavior, which Our Lord commands us to do, and which everybody does all the time but where the phony among us, lacking self-awareness, call upon their reserves of insanity to pretend that they do not.
Fully agree. Depravity is now apparently tolerated and cannot be “judged”. This guy needs to go away for good and any reference to him removed, in much the same way bishops and priests accused of such behavior are canceled, often without due process. He is a known criminal. We should not be splitting hairs here between adults and minors. Depravity is what it is, regardless of the victims’ ages.
I am quite comfortable judging a work of art separately from the personal sins or works of an artist. However, there is a significant difference between a work of art that one might hang in a home or a museum and the hanging of a piece of artwork in a sacred space.
Jesus instructed his disciples to be both “wise as serpents” and “innocent as doves”. We should judge wisely, yet that judgement should always be done with charity. It seems prudent to stop using this artist’s work given the gravity of the accusations from reputable accusers. Until the review is complete and facts are revealed, cease promoting his work.
One other significant difference: contemporaneity. Maybe, in 500 years, if Rupnik’s works survive the test of time, we can use them, just as we value Caravaggio’s sacred art even though he was a murderer and most likely a sodomist. But the story behind Rupnik is not his overwhelmingly new, unusual, and compelling art but his perverted sexcapades with sisters in the guise of “discerning” spirituality. A Vatican now entering year VI of the Uncle Teddy scandals should not be so tone deaf, esp. a so-called “Communications” expert. I wrote a three year series for the National Catholic Register on “the Gospels and Art,” identifying a piece of religious art to match every Sunday Gospel in order to show how religion has inspired our culture. Most of it was classical religious art, but I did include several pieces by contemporary, living Catholic artists that I found interesting modern interpretations. Why not try some of them, Signor Ruffini? Do you really want me to believe that, among modern sacred artists, Marko Rupnik stands in a category SOOOO unique that he is the repeated “go-to_guy” for contemporary religious art? That the Holy See’s office can find NO other such artists, even with Eastern inspiration? (Hint: try the students at the Catholic University of Lublin, where they’ve blended Western art and Eastern iconography — visit the Academic Church — WITHOUT, unlike Marko, borrowing ET’s eyes). If you believe that he’s the sole source, I’ve got a great deal on Tiber Bridges for you this week …. because with this kind of Vatican, non-Catholics won’t be swimming the Tiber as much as jumping into it.
Exactly. The swastika is likewise a geometric design that practically every culture stumbles across, not long after the circle and the square. It has been used to mean many things as well as nothing at all. We are, however, much too close to a certain context to use it without connotation.
With that in mind, check out the logo of the Frankfurt Galaxy, and consider what it would look like — and how well it would go over — if the galaxy depicted had 4 arms.
Rupnik! Always with Rupnik! A few little sins below the belt. Whatever! How dare you question me!
What about the grave evil of environmental sins? What about integral human development? (?) What about immigrants (except those Rupnik abused). What about our pact with China? How dare you reporters question the almighty pontificate, our eco-hero! Time is greater than space. Space time is a continuum.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! I am Dr. PR — the Great and Powerful. Who are you?
Who are we collectively? The little boy who says the Emperor has no clothes, having stripped his mind naked to usurp the power of God in judging the infinite consequences of evil and will of God in how to curb our vanity. After all, the Emperor hasn’t even the wit to figure out that sins “below the belt” have a connection to the sins “below the reach of the abortionist’s suction machine.”
Well, there is that…
Brineyman, no need to apologize, given that you speak the truth. I replied to Steve Dawson elsewhere about the dirt on the outfit worn by the Church being a huge barrier to evangelization. After reading about the Church defending Rupnik I decided I will donate zero to the Church untill they apologize and throw Rupnik’s work in the trashcan. Let us all write to Ruffini and say that we will all donate nothing every Sunday until that happens. I bet the talk of money will get his attention.
Brineyman, no need to apologize at all, given that you speak the truth. I replied to Steve Dawson elsewhere about the dirt on the outfit worn by the Church being a huge barrier to evangelization. After reading about the Church defending Rupnik I decided I will donate zero to the Church untill they apologize and throw Rupnik’s work in the trashcan. Let us all write to Ruffini and say that we will all donate nothing every Sunday until that happens. I bet the talk of money will get his attention.
Look, the art the Rupnick and his studio produced is JUNK art – unworthy of any place devoted to the worship of God. Put it in MOMA if you insist on displaying it iñ public. This is not only a morally, fraternally,ecclesially and politically bankrupt pontificate but it is also a culturally bankrupt one as well.
How long, Lord? How long?
“We’re not talking about abuse of minors,” said Dr. Paolo Ruffini, Prefect of the Dicastery for Communication of the Holy See,”
This one statement has upset me more than I expected. I had to pray before I could start sorting it through. What Paolo Ruffini said is such an insult to the women who came forward to testify about Marko Rupnik, as well as to everyone else who has been deeply troubled by this long-running story. It is as though NOTHING has been learned about the abuse crisis. The reported victims of Rupnik’s abuse aren’t minors, so they are what? Adults, and therefore considered to be “consenting” to some degree? Is that a sign of how Rupnik will be exonerated, or if not exonerated, how any penalty will be mitigated?
Then, the OSV article gives Ruffini’s next remark, ““We are talking (about) a story that we don’t know.” There have been so many reports, so much news, about the Rupnik situation unfolding over recent years, including testimony that was deemed “credible,” that this is a complete cop-out. And it came from the head of the Vatican dicastery responsible for official communications for the Holy See. Shocking and shameful.
In an even adequately functioning organization, these remarks at a press conference by a top-level official would lead to a resignation or an announcement that he would soon be leaving to pursue “other opportunities.” Someone like Natasa Govekar of the Aletti Center, who appears to have a substantial conflict of interest in regards to Rupnik, would also be announcing an exit from the Dicastery of Communications where she has direct oversight over what is published. But Vatican operations do not even seem to reach the level of “barely adequate” these days.
I have said a prayer of reparation for these remarks, and if you feel moved, I hope you will consider doing so too..
“We’re not talking about abuse of minors. ”
******
Which implies that nuns are expendable?
The more you think about the gist of that comment the more it disturbs you.
So use them for your purposes then throw them to the wolves, or in the woods like happens to other rape victims?
As a woman I feel like he’s thrown me under the bus. What a ghastly thing for anyone associated with the Vatican to say.
Enough is enough. I wish I was in the room. It is time for an international incident of another sort. I don’t care about what jail time that might have ensued. There are different ways to apply Christian charity. If I was there after a remark like that, I would have approached his podium, grabbed him by his lapels, and told him he had three seconds to apologize to Rupnik’s victims and to the entire world victimized by the destruction of Catholic witness by this coldblooded pontificate to avoid having his face permanently reconfigured. I’m a senior, but I still bench press more than double that of the average 25 year old, so I can handle the job.
As a church, we are very discerning on what we put on the walls or near the altar, or should be.
Doctor of Vatican Communications asks: “No we are not removing Rupnik’s art. Why shouldn’t we continue using Rupnik’s art?”
Artist Daniel Mitsui answers: “First of all, because his victims are still alive, and using Rupnik’s art anywhere excludes his victims from Lourdes, or anywhere else it is used, without being traumatized.”
Child, 7 years old: “Mom, I think that man Mr. Mitsui is right, why doesn’t that man in charge of Vatican Communication know that?”
Mom: “Well darling, some grownups just don’t think deeply about what the important things are.”
Mitsui’s interview, and his answer, in link, at minute 43:00, here:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tWuixihypm8&t=497s
“We’re not talking about abuse of minors” (Dr Paolo Ruffini). I guess desecrating nuns doesn’t meet a sufficient level of gravity.
Well, it does fit the pontiff’s envisioned plan for the Church as a field hospital. As evident at the Vatican, now a care facility for the morally disturbed.
Touché Fr. M.
Jesus on using Judgment: “Be wise as a serpent, yet gentle as a dove.”
Vatican on Judgment: “Be wise as a pidgeon, and act like a serpent.”
Ruffini says “We’re not talking about abuse of minors…” No, sir, we are observing a perverted priest given to the desecration of the Most Holy Eucharist — the Body and Blood of Our Lord, Jesus Christ as well as the bodies of tens of women religious, their souls, their psyches…their vocations, their lives. I wonder how many other victims of this dangerous individual there are. How many wounded by his words?
How clueless is the Prefect of the Dicastery for Communication of the Holy See? What is going on in this pontificate? With each passing day it asserts its disorientation while applying the lash to faithful laity and clergy. Silence is complicity.
Any professional in the arts, whether of a representational or abstract school, when honest will say Rupnik’s product is pedestrian, derivative and — for lack of a better word — gimmicky. It is a ripoff by a ripoff artist. Undoubtedly he received his commissions due to a dearth of artists given to any sort of religious imagery which might be intelligible to the faithful and also because he is a priest. His character and grotesque behavior are evident in the fraudulence he produces.
Ruffini just explained why we lack vocations. If the Bergoglio Ted Mack Amateur Hour in the Vatican pardons itself by claiming “these are not minors,” then I can understand why people are not answering the Lord’s call. The Holy See should be protecting religious, esp. religious women, not exposing them to predatory wolves because they happen to be papal Jesuit pets. Ruffini’s remarks tell you everything you need to know about Bergoglio “no tolerance” gaslighting. “Thou shalt obey!” (or we’ll schedule an expedited canonical process at 4:45 pm on a Friday — after we wake up from sancta Siesta — to eliminate you) but WE’LL do nothing to protect you. Would I urge a girl to consider a vocation to a female religious order? I’m divided, but probably not until the current Vatican crowd is gone. As if Ruffini lacked other sacred art to replace caro Marko!
NuChurch is neo modernist. A power cult which detests beauty, refinement, the aesthetic, the numinous, the sacred and is bent on destruction.
It befouls everything it detests. The coterie surrounding the Bergoglio pontificate has the scent of the augean stable.
“ Do you think so?” Ruffini asked
“I think you’re wrong,” God’s Fool said.
“I think you’re wrong,” God’s Fool repeated.
“I really think you’re wrong”, God’s Fool said again. 💋
Ruffini’s comment is shocking because it is totally devoid of empathy. However, there is something else there worthy of consideration. I call that “an oddity” i.e. something that is sticking out, at odds with a normal humanity. His “it is not children who were abused but women” as an excuse is absurd because if one cares about the abused children one will also care about the abused women.
One can say then “I do not care about the abuse of women just as I do not care about the abuse of children”
or:
“I care about the abuse of women just as I care about the abuse of children”. Both statements are logical and represent the opposite of human capacity for empathy.
But one cannot say “I do not care about the abuse of women because I care about the abuse of children” that is the essence of Ruffini’s “it is not children who were abused but women”.
It is the logic of an automaton which simply glues together “useful” words to excuse itself. I propose that this automatism is the scariest and most revealing phenomenon in this situation.
Sorry, there was a mistake in my earlier comment which made it difficult to understand. Here is the edited comment:
Ruffini’s comment is shocking because it is totally devoid of empathy. However, there is something else there worthy of consideration. I call that “an oddity” i.e. something that is sticking out, at odds with a normal humanity. His “it is not children who were abused but women” as an excuse is absurd because if one cares about the abused children one will also care about the abused women.
One can say then “I do not care about the abuse of women just as I do not care about the abuse of children”
or:
“I care about the abuse of women just as I care about the abuse of children”. Both statements are logical and represent either 1) no empathy or 2) normal empathy. They are opposing each other.
But one cannot say “I do not care about the abuse of women because I care about the abuse of children” that is the essence of Ruffini’s “it is not children who were abused but women”.
It is the logic of an automaton which simply glues together “useful” words to excuse itself. I propose that this automatism is the scariest and most revealing phenomenon in this situation.
Anna, this has been thought-provoking. We could extend this to include sexual abuse of men as well, because someone who does not care about the abuse of children and women will not care about the abuse of men either. Right now, we are thinking about the sisters of the Loyola Community founded by Marko Rupnik. But I immediately remembered that Theodore McCarrick abused young men who were seminarians, in addition to adolescent boys, and more recently there is the case of Gustavo Zanchetta who was finally convicted in an Argentinian court of sexually harrassing seminarians, but before that, was being moved back and forth between Rome and Argentina in a way that seemed designed to protect him.
Reading the accounts of the remarks by Paolo Ruffini, who is an official spokesman for the Vatican, my impression was that the effects of the abuse don’t really matter, the impact on victims doesn’t matter, nor does it matter how committing acts of abuse affects the abuser (because committing abuse is also an act of self-damage). All that appears to matter is determining the question of legal liability, whether enough of an offense occurred to incur a penalty that some kind of action must be taken. So that if the sisters of the Loyola Community were legal minors, then that might be taken seriously but if they were legal adults, not so much.
But for a Christian, being primarily concerned about the consequences of abuse from a legal perspective, whether that involves criminal, civil or canonical law, is not enough. Or it should not be enough. What has been disturbing me, on top of the absence of basic human empathy, is also the apparent absence of awareness of the consequences of Sin – how sinful acts of abuse can affect one’s immortal soul and damage the relationship to God, for both the abused and the abuser. That perspective was not reflected anywhere in Ruffini’s remarks, when it should be uppermost in the mind of the Church. No expressed concern at all for the wounds that may have been inflicted on the Body of Christ by all of this.
Mary, we can extend this to everyone abused – women and men – including adults in the parishes. I witnessed such abuse (emotional) and harassment; the bishop siding with an abuser and prosecuting a victim. I was told by a sympathetic priest that bishops are very likely to side with priests because most of them think themselves far above the laity. I do not mean above by a position; it is given that a bishop is the guarantor of faith and the head of the local church. However, any parishioner is equal to a bishop or priest in his/her dignity and must not be abused; if abused then protected and an abuser punished.
Ruffini’s remarks betray not just a lack of empathy, they show contempt for anyone below including those women. To me Ruffini exhibits symptoms of narcissism, such as entitlement, lack of empathy, zero moral principles and so on. However, I argue that the Church’s system in which clergy is above all meanings of those words is the real root of abuse. This system attracts a certain kind of people, with an unhealthy psyche (personality disorders).
“What has been disturbing me, on top of the absence of basic human empathy, is also the apparent absence of awareness of the consequences of Sin – how sinful acts of abuse can affect one’s immortal soul and damage the relationship to God, for both the abused and the abuser.”
I think empathy animates the theoretical knowledge of what sin is and of its consequences. Without empathy the knowledge is either dead or easily twisted to excuse oneself. A narcissist may have an idea of a sin but he sees everything through a prism of his enormous fake self (his true self being undeveloped). He is a centre of the world and above others hence he sees a sin only when he thinks someone hurts HIM, someone else’s sin, not his. For example, being confronted by a victim of his abuse he may respond “how can you hurt me like that”. This is the essence of so-called narcissistic defense “[victim] you hurt me” – “[narcissist] no, it is you who hurt me, how could you think of me that way!”
Such a person is very well defended against a perception of his own sin. I speculate that Ruffini identifies himself with a “brother-priest”, Rupnik and feels contempt for the victims who “dare” to speak up. A narcissist cares only about those who are close to him, one way or another. This fact may explain why the Church is in crisis – we have too many people with a fake self at the top and as priests and too many enablers among the laity.
To know how the mind of such people works is very useful for self-preservation. What to do with the Church full of such people is another matter.
We understood what you were driving at the first time. And, yes, Ruffini gives the appearance of a sociopath. What is disturbing is that there is no evidence that this is disturbing to Francis anymore than his having Fernandez, a man who wrote about Jesus raping a girl with His mother looking on approvingly, the second highest position in the Church.
It is disturbing yet it is entirely logical. Those people belong to the same narcissistic spectrum and have a similar modus operandi. They do not know what true love is.
I have just commented on another article on this website saying that those people have an adolescent understanding of human sexuality. Because of their emotional underdevelopment, they think it is all about sexual acts. They do not understand that a grown sexuality of a normal person includes attachment, care, affection (love of a man and a woman which is typified in a marriage).
And so, St John of the Cross used the figures of the Bride and the Bridegroom to convey a fiery love between Christ and soul. His poetry thus is erotic but is pure, it is about love and erotic desire but not about sex.
Fernandez takes a book of St John of the Cross and sees only “sex” there because he has no understanding of what a true love is. So, he writes his “mystical” treatise which pulls Christ down into… sex. You mentioned “Virgin Mary” overlooking it – it is a typical dream of a person with an unresolved Oedipus complex = a sexual desire for his mother. This is how a perverse psyche perverts the mystical theology of the Church.
Rupnik did mosaics of the Holy Trinity; the love between the Three divine Persons becomes in Rupnik’s interpretation sex which he uses to force Sisters to engage in threesomes with him. There is nothing sacred for that man yet some say his mosaics must remain.
Ruffini honestly cannot understand why it is a problem that Rupnik raped Sisters. They are not children, they had sex, it is all that counts. Sex is love, that is it.
From there follows that we have an anti-church with its peculiar understanding of love and union with God. It is all about sex and those who are above get more of it via raping those who are below. In a word, it is a perfect diabolical mockery of the Church of Our Lord Who is Love.
I commend this to all concerned by the cult of «modernism» and its coven of global influencers in all spheres of human culture.
Everything sacred and beautiful must be dragged through the mud…
https://thecritic.co.uk/modernism-at-the-opera-house/
Relieving Ruffini and Rupnik of their ‘work’ is to recognize their rejection of VCII’s pastoral precept.
Sacrosanctum Concilium, paragraph 122:
~”Very rightly the fine arts are considered to rank among the noblest activities of man’s genius, and this applies especially to religious art and to its highest achievement, which is sacred art.
~”These arts, by their very nature, are oriented toward the infinite beauty of God which they attempt in some way to portray by the work of human hands;
~”they achieve their purpose of redounding to God’s praise and glory in proportion as they are directed the more exclusively to the single aim of turning men’s minds devoutly toward God.”
Does Rupnik’s ‘art’ or Ruffini’s ‘communication’ redound to the greater glory and praise of God?? Just asking…
I often think that if a group of Scientology recruiters were to enter the hallways of today’s Vatican, with free vouchers to lifetime accomodations to their Gold Base, all of our problems would be over.
On second thought, not much conversion to Scientology would be necessary. The synodal Church is virtually there already.
Rupnik’s paintings remind me of this artist & there are some similarities in the back stories:
The big-eyed children: the extraordinary story of an epic art fraud
This article is more than 9 years old
In the 1960s, Walter Keane was feted for his sentimental portraits that sold by the million. But in fact, his wife Margaret was the artist, working in virtual slavery to maintain his success…”
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/oct/26/art-fraud-margaret-walter-keane-tim-burton-biopic
Very interesting! The paintings made me feel sick. Children are painted as dolls, “sad” but soulless objects – I mean those works with totally black eyes.
I for one never liked the “neo-icon” style of modern art which seems to be mostly the favorite of publishers etc. these days. I hate it when I see it in liturgical books especially as the chiseled forms with big fish eyes just don’t do anything for me. Rupnik’s black eyes are even worse. Eyes are white, not black. Now the artwork of Daniel Mitsui is fantastic and I wish that was the sort of thing found in liturgical books and in mosaics. Enough with the abstract modern “art”.