The Jesuit Superior General reported that Father Rupnik was convicted in 2020 for absolving a woman with whom he had committed a sin against the sixth commandment.
“In praetoriis leones, in castris lepores”, said Sidonius Apollinaris in the 5th century. Lions when in the palace, hares when in the battlefield. Or simply: strong with the weak, weak with the strong. With these words one can describe the attitude of the Society of Jesus, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Pope Francis himself with the Slovenian Marko Ivan Rupnik.
Besides many roundabout expression and big lies, no one has clarified how many proceedings the Jesuit artist has been subjected to and for what reasons he is still under ‘precautionary measures’.
Rather, everything is being questioned today.
Rupnik and the protective ring
On 07 December 2022, Father Arturo Sosa reported that Ivan Rupnik had always respected the measures imposed on him. He said, among other things, that the measures were ‘precautionary’ and served to clarify matters.
Yet it only took a few days, in which everyone was very agitated at Borgo Santo Spirito, to fall down at the first public occasion with journalists. The only person who has not posed any problem, and has lived peacefully, is Marko Ivan Rupnik, who, in these days, has continued his activities also within the diocese of Rome.
“Rupnik feels invincible”, someone said inside the Gregorian University where he was seen in the days following our article.
Even in Slovenia, the clergy was shocked by the protective net that enveloped the Jesuit. A letter from a priest is currently circulating in the country denouncing this system that protects Rupnik.
Father Sosa is covering Rupnik
During today’s meeting inside the General Curia on the occasion of the exchange of Christmas greetings, Associated Press journalist Nicole Winfield asked Sosa if Father Rupnik had been convicted of absolving the accomplice in the sin against the sixth commandment, thus incurring excommunication (Can. 1378, § 1).
The Superior General answered in the affirmative, saying, moreover, that the “precautionary” measures are in force precisely with reference to that case.
The Jesuit Superior General, therefore, is blatantly lying. Let us recapitulate.
On 05 December 2022, the Provincial Superior of the Jesuits of Borgo Santo Spirito, in a backdated note, reported that: “During the course of the investigatio previa, various precautionary measures were taken against Fr. Rupnik”.
On 07 December, Father Sosa said that the precautionary measures were maintained because “we want to look into the matter, to see how we can help all those involved”.
Silere non possum has raised several concerns, especially in law [here].
Today, during the Christmas toast at Borgo Santo Spirito, the same place where the first communiqué in response to our article came out, Fr. Arturo Sosa reported that Marko Ivan Rupnik was condemned by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for absolving the accomplice with whom he had committed a sin against the sixth commandment.
Even, the religious man said, the ban on confessions and spiritual exercises that Rupnik now has is due to that first verdict.
The Congregation’s ruling, in fact, dates back to the year 2020.
Now, there are many questions that arise:
- why did the Dicastery, when it tried the second trial concerning the abuses, not waive the statute of limitations, given the precedent?
- Moreover, if Rupnik was convicted of acquitting the accomplice, he was ipso facto excommunicated [Canon 1378, § 1]. Did the Slovenian Jesuit exercise his ministry while excommunicated?
- Has the Apostolic See lifted the excommunication? When?
- Why are they called ‘precautionary measures’ if, in reality, they were applied as penalties?
Both the Society of Jesus, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pope himself must now respond to the requests of the scandalised People of God who have a right to know.
Cardinal Angelo De Donatis
Marko Rupnik was first condemned in 2020. Why did Cardinal Angelo De Donatis commission the Seminary Chapel from the Slovenian Jesuit?
De Donatis told all the priests that the Pontiff would consecrate the new chapel. In reality, the Pope didn’t go. Why? Why did the Cardinal tell the Pope that there was a benefactor who would finance the project but then asked the presbyters of the diocese for the money?
How come, despite knowing about the conviction, De Donatis invited Rupnik to address the Council of Parish Priests in January 2021?
How is it that Angelo De Donatis, despite knowing of the first condemnation and the decree of the Superior General with the restrictions imposed on Rupnik, invited him to hold a meeting on Eucharistic adoration in the Tiberias Hall of the Roman Seminary on 19 February 2022?
Finally, why does Father Arturo Sosa say that Rupnik complied with the measures imposed? These events prove that this was not the case.
Father Sosa’s interventions also show that the Jesuits are not transparent. If one really does not want to tell the Truth, one should make an agreement to lie well.
Silere non possum
Article published on 14 December 2022