There needs to be full transparency about allegations of sexual abuse, the steps of due process for the accused, the findings of that process, and any punishment assigned. What is the point of imposing restrictions on ministry in secret? If the Vatican isn’t willing to enforce punishment or let competent authorities know that there are restrictions imposed, why bother with the whole process? Likewise, if in fact a pope can lift restrictions on ministry on a whim, why do we even have procedures?
Yeah. It's rather odd to both discipline a person for doing something that is a total repudiation of the religion he is a cleric in, and the solemn promises he made, AND assume that he will have sufficient honesty and self-control to abide by secret punishments that cannot be enforced except by himself.
Possibly there are reasons for that beyond naivete and wishful thinking, but I can't think of them right now.
I think it's important to stress that Cardinal Cipriani has vehemently denied these accusations. Just as Cardinal Pell did, who was subsequently vindicated. Given that, I don't think the truth is well served by mentioning the laicized Theodore McCarrick and the French Archbishop who admitted guilt, in the same article. It seems to assume guilt where there may in fact be none.
Here I am replying to my own comment...I don't think the writer of the article was implying guilt, but the reader may be lead to assume likely guilt by the writer mentioning all three individuals in the same article.
Possibly part of the reason Cardinal Pell could be vindicated, is because his case was public and was therefore handled (eventually) by people competent in investigations.
Yes, it certainly does help if the people competent in investigations (and not corrupt) come earlier in the process, rather than later.
Cardinal Cipriani might not be prison, but he has had this accusation for over 5 years, and no process that could actually determine guilt or innocence has even started. Cardinal Pell was exonerated 3 years after his charge.
I don’t know, Cardinal Cipriani does not necessarily seem like a reliable reporter of events here. I would like to see clarification from the appropriate Vatican authorities. (Note: I had never heard of Cardinal Cipriani before today and know nothing about him, but if everything reported here is true, his story seems confused at best.)
I would be very wary about comparing this case to Cardinal Pell’s.
First and foremost, the Victorian Police did need any prompting from Pell’s clerical nemeses to target him. They had their own reasons for pursuing any skerrick of a story, and at the time we’re in BIG trouble for another incident that resulted in a miscarriage of justice for dozens of people. Pell was the right kind of distraction. They moved to arrest without approval by the Prosecution’s office. As for Pell’s clerical status he did the right thing in resigning his public roles until the matter was resolved. The Dicastrey also held off imposing canonical proceedings until after Pell had exhausted all legal recourse. They clearly had enough confidence that their services would not be needed.
I know little to nothing about this particular case, but I’d bet there’s more differences than similarities. Just because a cleric protests their innocence, doesnt make them so, and is a claim best tested in a court of law, or civil.
Regarding the particulars, certainly one could not compare the two cases. But the Cardinal Pell situation was a set up. It is possible that something analogous could be happening here.
That would be ascribing intelligence to his persecutors, whoever you think ‘they’ might be. I don’t ascribe intelligence or malice when stupidity, pride and bureaucracy are sufficient.
1.) This would stop happening if they just simply announced the penalties publicily, and the lifting of any publicly.
2.) This tells me he is likely guitly as sin:
" following the indications of John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and the special leadership of Pope Francis"
He's trying to play to the pope's ego. Flatter him as a way of getting saved by him when things get worse. Its done because.... there's plenty of cases of sexual abusers flattering Francis and then receiving favors/preferential treatment.
Pope Francis despises Cardinal Cipriani, who was his most ardent opponent in the Conference of Latin American Bishops. Pope Francis is infamous for holding a grudge while acting benevolent. I would like to know what happened as this smells too much of another Cardinal Pell set up which was orchestrated by Vatican digniteries close to Pope Francis.
and how do we determine guilt? It's is folly to abandon the presumption of innocence before the completion of a rigorous legal process. This is the situation the cardinal faces. what proper and fairly conducted trial is in the offing, one that can prove his guilt?
Or trying to act "merciful" like when Pope Francis visited Cardinal Becciu's apartment when he was convicted of defrauding the Vatican. The Church has to have an open and transparent procedure that any canon lawyer or even any Catholic can clearly see the allegations and reasons for conviction. Like in Cardinal Pell's case where it was physically impossible for him to abuse the altar boys after Mass and run to greet people in the Cathedral vestibule in 5 minutes because a journalist showed walking the distance himself that it was simply impossible.
I also think that the Cardinal is telling the truth that Pope Francis waived restrictions, and that this is an attempt post-facto to limit it to certain circumstances. How many occasions?
"“although specific permissions have been granted on certain occasions to accommodate requests related to the cardinal’s age and family circumstances.”"
"The disagreement is likely to spur debate about the Vatican’s current and historical approach to sexual abuse allegations made against prominent bishops in the Church."
I would be careful about this one: Cardinal Cipriani was Pope Francis' biggest archenemy in Latin America because he defended Catholic orthodoxy, while Bergoglio promoted heterodox views. In fact if there was a Latin American Cardinal who would have been a great pope, it would have been Cipriani.
When Cardinal Cipriani retired, Pope Francis purposely named as his successor in Lima a priest who had been banned from being professor at the Pontifical University of Lima by Cipriani for publishing and teaching heretical ideas. It was an obvious insult to Cipriani by Pope Francis telling him he would dismantle everything the Cardinal did so well in Peru.
This smells of personal vendetta from a Pope who has routinely let documented perverts like Father Rupnik off the hook.
Was the the Vatican penal process equally opaque and inconsistent under Benedict and John Paul and we are only finding out about it now because of the Pillar's dogged reporting or is this pontificate particularly bad in this regard?
The information here is very confusing. That is not The Pillar's fault, I am just not sure how to make sense of these different facts (or lack of facts) that are available right now:
1. Cipriani was asked to refrain from public ministry and live outside of Peru by the Vatican. Why is the Vatican still doing such "punishments" and I did not see the Vatican dispute Cipriani's claim that he had NOT been informed of an investigation or case being made about his case. If that is true, how did the Vatican come to a decision about his guilt (or possible guilt)? Also, why does Cipriani claim that Francis lifted sanctions on him, when the Vatican says that the sanctions are in force? Does Cipriani have receipts to prove that Pope Francis lifted sanctions? As I think if Cipriani does not have evidence to back up that claim his claims of innocence should be looked on with even greater suspicion.
2. I don't see any sort of detail on details of these allegations. When did the abuse take place? What was the relationship between Cipriani and the victim? What were the abuse allegations and how do they hold up to a healthy appraisal? While I agree that abuse should be dealt with in direct and effective punishments for abusers and that victims need to be heard and respected. Yet, I do not think the accused should be without all rights of recourse. The fact that I did not see the Vatican come forward with the evidence against Cipriani only adds to the suspicion that some have about the Pope/Vatican's motivations in this case. I am not saying they do not have evidence but if they want people to not make everything out to be an ideological war and trust that they want to root out abuse no matter the theological jib of the accused, they really need to increase transparency so that the evidence can speak for itself.
I think it best that, when there is an allegation of grave misconduct against a cleric or high church official in general, there should be a public trial. Lower level issues can be dealt with confidentially. But when truly serious ones arise, the public not only has a right to know the evidence, but also has a role in evaluating the evidence. Along there lines, I would also propose that, in such cases, a jury be drawn from a pool of faithful and intelligent Catholics to give a decision and proposed result. A judge or appeals court of church authorities could reverse the sentence of a jury if it is unreasonable, as we have in other courts. But in general, I would trust the judgement of the faithful, practicing Catholics in open court much more than the secretive process we have now. It may seem radical to move Church disciplinary proceedings to the realm of juries. But, as is the case in other criminal trials, while the technicalities of law may be the province of experts, the common sense and experience of the people at large is likely a better way of judging the guilt or innocence of the accused. As G.K. Chesterton pointed out over a century ago, experts in law are overly accustomed to handing out judgements as a matter of course and often do not recognize the overwhelming responsibility of weighing guilt or innocence. As he put, it the experts "do not see the prisoner in dock; all they see is the usual man in the usual place. They do not see the awful court of judgment; they only see their own workshop. Therefore the instinct of Christian civilization has most wisely declared that into their judgment there shall upon every occasion be infused fresh blood and fresh thoughts from the street." Juries, even of faithful and intelligent people, are certainly imperfect. But, given the failures of the old, and even current, methods the Church uses, I would like to give them a chance.
I kinda like this idea. I may be wrong on details here, but I believe S. Korea recently instituted a system by which the accused could request a jury trial, and the jury's opinion on guilt or innocence will generally be respected, but in extreme cases can be overruled by the judge (or panel of judges maybe). I think the jury can also make sentencing recommendations. When I heard about it I thought it was an interesting system. Apparently they'd never had jury trials before.
But, I think there's good reason to have the approximate rank of the person determine the approximate rank of the jurors, e.g., lay for a layman, priests for a priest, bishops for a bishop. That still leaves room for collecting jurors for Curial officials, for example, from diocesan bishops, while maintaining a rather old tradition regarding who judges whom. You don't want a good 'ol boys network, and you also don't want to risk deference for clerics overriding respect for justice.
And assuming a public trial, the court of public opinion can try the jurors afterwards.
There needs to be full transparency about allegations of sexual abuse, the steps of due process for the accused, the findings of that process, and any punishment assigned. What is the point of imposing restrictions on ministry in secret? If the Vatican isn’t willing to enforce punishment or let competent authorities know that there are restrictions imposed, why bother with the whole process? Likewise, if in fact a pope can lift restrictions on ministry on a whim, why do we even have procedures?
Yeah. It's rather odd to both discipline a person for doing something that is a total repudiation of the religion he is a cleric in, and the solemn promises he made, AND assume that he will have sufficient honesty and self-control to abide by secret punishments that cannot be enforced except by himself.
Possibly there are reasons for that beyond naivete and wishful thinking, but I can't think of them right now.
I think it's important to stress that Cardinal Cipriani has vehemently denied these accusations. Just as Cardinal Pell did, who was subsequently vindicated. Given that, I don't think the truth is well served by mentioning the laicized Theodore McCarrick and the French Archbishop who admitted guilt, in the same article. It seems to assume guilt where there may in fact be none.
Here I am replying to my own comment...I don't think the writer of the article was implying guilt, but the reader may be lead to assume likely guilt by the writer mentioning all three individuals in the same article.
Possibly part of the reason Cardinal Pell could be vindicated, is because his case was public and was therefore handled (eventually) by people competent in investigations.
Yes, but I don't it should cost 400 days in a maximum security prison to clear your name of bogus abuse allegations.
Yes, it certainly does help if the people competent in investigations (and not corrupt) come earlier in the process, rather than later.
Cardinal Cipriani might not be prison, but he has had this accusation for over 5 years, and no process that could actually determine guilt or innocence has even started. Cardinal Pell was exonerated 3 years after his charge.
I don’t know, Cardinal Cipriani does not necessarily seem like a reliable reporter of events here. I would like to see clarification from the appropriate Vatican authorities. (Note: I had never heard of Cardinal Cipriani before today and know nothing about him, but if everything reported here is true, his story seems confused at best.)
I wouldn't consider him reliable. I don't consider the Vatican authorities to be reliable either.
There are millennia of good reasons for public trials, in favor of some accused, and against others.
I would be very wary about comparing this case to Cardinal Pell’s.
First and foremost, the Victorian Police did need any prompting from Pell’s clerical nemeses to target him. They had their own reasons for pursuing any skerrick of a story, and at the time we’re in BIG trouble for another incident that resulted in a miscarriage of justice for dozens of people. Pell was the right kind of distraction. They moved to arrest without approval by the Prosecution’s office. As for Pell’s clerical status he did the right thing in resigning his public roles until the matter was resolved. The Dicastrey also held off imposing canonical proceedings until after Pell had exhausted all legal recourse. They clearly had enough confidence that their services would not be needed.
I know little to nothing about this particular case, but I’d bet there’s more differences than similarities. Just because a cleric protests their innocence, doesnt make them so, and is a claim best tested in a court of law, or civil.
Regarding the particulars, certainly one could not compare the two cases. But the Cardinal Pell situation was a set up. It is possible that something analogous could be happening here.
That would be ascribing intelligence to his persecutors, whoever you think ‘they’ might be. I don’t ascribe intelligence or malice when stupidity, pride and bureaucracy are sufficient.
1.) This would stop happening if they just simply announced the penalties publicily, and the lifting of any publicly.
2.) This tells me he is likely guitly as sin:
" following the indications of John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and the special leadership of Pope Francis"
He's trying to play to the pope's ego. Flatter him as a way of getting saved by him when things get worse. Its done because.... there's plenty of cases of sexual abusers flattering Francis and then receiving favors/preferential treatment.
Pope Francis despises Cardinal Cipriani, who was his most ardent opponent in the Conference of Latin American Bishops. Pope Francis is infamous for holding a grudge while acting benevolent. I would like to know what happened as this smells too much of another Cardinal Pell set up which was orchestrated by Vatican digniteries close to Pope Francis.
We know Francis granted him a lifting of restrictions, even if "limited." Could be he just views him innocent.
Question is: is he? That statement set off flags
and how do we determine guilt? It's is folly to abandon the presumption of innocence before the completion of a rigorous legal process. This is the situation the cardinal faces. what proper and fairly conducted trial is in the offing, one that can prove his guilt?
Or trying to act "merciful" like when Pope Francis visited Cardinal Becciu's apartment when he was convicted of defrauding the Vatican. The Church has to have an open and transparent procedure that any canon lawyer or even any Catholic can clearly see the allegations and reasons for conviction. Like in Cardinal Pell's case where it was physically impossible for him to abuse the altar boys after Mass and run to greet people in the Cathedral vestibule in 5 minutes because a journalist showed walking the distance himself that it was simply impossible.
I also think that the Cardinal is telling the truth that Pope Francis waived restrictions, and that this is an attempt post-facto to limit it to certain circumstances. How many occasions?
"“although specific permissions have been granted on certain occasions to accommodate requests related to the cardinal’s age and family circumstances.”"
"The disagreement is likely to spur debate about the Vatican’s current and historical approach to sexual abuse allegations made against prominent bishops in the Church."
Well, hello!
Let's all pray for the church in Peru right now.
St rose and st Martin de Porres pray for us 🙏🏽🙏🏽
I would be careful about this one: Cardinal Cipriani was Pope Francis' biggest archenemy in Latin America because he defended Catholic orthodoxy, while Bergoglio promoted heterodox views. In fact if there was a Latin American Cardinal who would have been a great pope, it would have been Cipriani.
When Cardinal Cipriani retired, Pope Francis purposely named as his successor in Lima a priest who had been banned from being professor at the Pontifical University of Lima by Cipriani for publishing and teaching heretical ideas. It was an obvious insult to Cipriani by Pope Francis telling him he would dismantle everything the Cardinal did so well in Peru.
This smells of personal vendetta from a Pope who has routinely let documented perverts like Father Rupnik off the hook.
I think you meant “heterodox views” not “heterosexual views” which is indeed true…
Yes, sorry, the AI spell checker changed it and I did not notice it.
Was the the Vatican penal process equally opaque and inconsistent under Benedict and John Paul and we are only finding out about it now because of the Pillar's dogged reporting or is this pontificate particularly bad in this regard?
I both want to know the same thing and honestly don’t want to know at all 🥺
The information here is very confusing. That is not The Pillar's fault, I am just not sure how to make sense of these different facts (or lack of facts) that are available right now:
1. Cipriani was asked to refrain from public ministry and live outside of Peru by the Vatican. Why is the Vatican still doing such "punishments" and I did not see the Vatican dispute Cipriani's claim that he had NOT been informed of an investigation or case being made about his case. If that is true, how did the Vatican come to a decision about his guilt (or possible guilt)? Also, why does Cipriani claim that Francis lifted sanctions on him, when the Vatican says that the sanctions are in force? Does Cipriani have receipts to prove that Pope Francis lifted sanctions? As I think if Cipriani does not have evidence to back up that claim his claims of innocence should be looked on with even greater suspicion.
2. I don't see any sort of detail on details of these allegations. When did the abuse take place? What was the relationship between Cipriani and the victim? What were the abuse allegations and how do they hold up to a healthy appraisal? While I agree that abuse should be dealt with in direct and effective punishments for abusers and that victims need to be heard and respected. Yet, I do not think the accused should be without all rights of recourse. The fact that I did not see the Vatican come forward with the evidence against Cipriani only adds to the suspicion that some have about the Pope/Vatican's motivations in this case. I am not saying they do not have evidence but if they want people to not make everything out to be an ideological war and trust that they want to root out abuse no matter the theological jib of the accused, they really need to increase transparency so that the evidence can speak for itself.
I think it best that, when there is an allegation of grave misconduct against a cleric or high church official in general, there should be a public trial. Lower level issues can be dealt with confidentially. But when truly serious ones arise, the public not only has a right to know the evidence, but also has a role in evaluating the evidence. Along there lines, I would also propose that, in such cases, a jury be drawn from a pool of faithful and intelligent Catholics to give a decision and proposed result. A judge or appeals court of church authorities could reverse the sentence of a jury if it is unreasonable, as we have in other courts. But in general, I would trust the judgement of the faithful, practicing Catholics in open court much more than the secretive process we have now. It may seem radical to move Church disciplinary proceedings to the realm of juries. But, as is the case in other criminal trials, while the technicalities of law may be the province of experts, the common sense and experience of the people at large is likely a better way of judging the guilt or innocence of the accused. As G.K. Chesterton pointed out over a century ago, experts in law are overly accustomed to handing out judgements as a matter of course and often do not recognize the overwhelming responsibility of weighing guilt or innocence. As he put, it the experts "do not see the prisoner in dock; all they see is the usual man in the usual place. They do not see the awful court of judgment; they only see their own workshop. Therefore the instinct of Christian civilization has most wisely declared that into their judgment there shall upon every occasion be infused fresh blood and fresh thoughts from the street." Juries, even of faithful and intelligent people, are certainly imperfect. But, given the failures of the old, and even current, methods the Church uses, I would like to give them a chance.
I kinda like this idea. I may be wrong on details here, but I believe S. Korea recently instituted a system by which the accused could request a jury trial, and the jury's opinion on guilt or innocence will generally be respected, but in extreme cases can be overruled by the judge (or panel of judges maybe). I think the jury can also make sentencing recommendations. When I heard about it I thought it was an interesting system. Apparently they'd never had jury trials before.
I agree on the public trial.
But, I think there's good reason to have the approximate rank of the person determine the approximate rank of the jurors, e.g., lay for a layman, priests for a priest, bishops for a bishop. That still leaves room for collecting jurors for Curial officials, for example, from diocesan bishops, while maintaining a rather old tradition regarding who judges whom. You don't want a good 'ol boys network, and you also don't want to risk deference for clerics overriding respect for justice.
And assuming a public trial, the court of public opinion can try the jurors afterwards.
It's hard to know what's true in this case. Is this another Pell situation or is he guilty?
Where can we scream our outrage and be heard? Why this story over and over again??
Before the Blessed Sacrament (after a thorough examination of conscience)