Discussion about this post

User's avatar
MLMinET's avatar

In Knoxville’s pending defamation case wherein the bishop is protecting a “seminarian” ejected from three seminaries and who went on to reportedly rape a church organist and in which the bishop has (1) told people it was actually the organist who raped the seminarian (untrue), (2) insisted to the court and been granted that the plaintiff use his real name and not John Doe, and (3) moved the court to keep secret the Vos Estis and other documents so the jury wouldn’t “prejudge” him, I wonder how these clarified regs affect these actions. But at least it appears those priests who made the Vos Estis allegations are now protected from retaliation, which has been rampant. Overt retaliation, anyway.

Expand full comment
Matthew K Michels, OblSB's avatar

Seems like laudable improvements across the board for the new version of Vos Estis.

But like +Scicluna mentioned in his quotation: "it could remain a dead letter."

I'll hold my judgement until I see how this new version is implemented, specifically concerning how the proceedings around Rupnik and Stika will be affected. So far, Vos Estis has generally been a wash when it comes to actually implementing it for the good.

Expand full comment
5 more comments...