English version of our post (HERE) by Diane Montagna (HERE).
Brand new news on the
wo trials and the excommunication confirmed.
you know, the Rupnik case continues to make headlines in the international
the last few hours, important statements have been made by several Jesuit figures
including the Superior General, Fr. Sosa, who clearly, inter alia,
might be making a false statement when he claims that Fr. Rupnik is
complying with the “precautionary measures” imposed on him.
this point it is necessary to provide some clarity, including chronological
clarity, on the reported events. Since something does not add up about the reports
concerning matters that are beyond the statute of limitations and the
precautionary measures imposed, let us ask some additional questions to those
in charge, as we have additional news from a very high-level source:
conducted by Fr. Francisco Javier Canseco S.M. and two other non-Jesuit
investigators, what was the canonical outcome of this trial?
1. If, as MiL
understands it, beginning in 2019 and concluding in 2020, there was a
canonical trial for the crime of absolving an accomplice in confession (Can.
this, what decision did the then-Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
make? We reiterate that, to our knowledge, it was excommunication latae
sententiae. What happened to it and why was it blocked?
3. If, as we
know, the crime of absolving an accomplice incurs excommunication latae
sententiae, the measures imposed on Father Rupnik, were therefore,
according to MiL sources, not precautionary but part of the sentencing.
Why does the Society of Jesus continue to omit and deny this circumstance?
4. By whom and when
was the excommunication referred to in point 3 remitted, given that the crime falls
within the exclusive competence of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith?
The trial for “absolving an accomplice” (points 1-4) did not concern
Slovenian religious sisters but an Italian “consecrated woman” (a novice) and
was not beyond the statute of limitations, as were the matters that Bishop
Daniele Libanori investigated in 2021 (the abuse).So, in
summary, there were two proceedings, A) one concerning the absolution of an accomplice
(an adult consecrated woman) held from 2019 to 2020 and B) one held from 2021
to 2022 concerning the abuse of Slovenian religious sisters and declared to be beyond
the statute of limitations.
5. With reference
to the second proceeding, we wonder: why did the Holy See not waive the
statute of limitations as stipulated in the Vademecum of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Vademecum, point 7).
6. Who decided—and
by what measure—to apply the statute of limitations?
the good of Holy Roman Church and the faithful, we would like the Authorities to
give a clear answer to these questions and drop the blanket of fog enshrouding
this case, which causes great suffering among the victims of these gruesome
abuses but also arouses great scandal among all the faithful and undermines the
authority of the Church.
Posta un commento
AVVISO AI LETTORI: Visto il continuo infiltrarsi di lettori "ostili" che si divertono solo a scrivere "insulti" e a fare polemiche inutili, AVVISIAMO CHE ORA NON SARANNO PIU' PUBBLICATI COMMENTI INFANTILI o PEDANTI. Continueremo certamente a pubblicare le critiche ma solo quelle serie, costruttive e rispettose.