Pope Francis, Marko Rupnik, and the Crisis of Legitimacy in the Church
If Authority Falls and Nobody Hears it, Does it Make a Sound?
Today we arrive at the topic I have wanted to write about for the past 5 years, yet I have always struggled to write about. I find myself struggling to explain the concept using mostly esoteric theory, and arguing in a way that I feel would unnecessarily confuse my (admittedly small) audience. Yet sometimes, a real-life example comes up that makes the point you were trying to make better than anything else. That point is that the big crisis the Church faces is not of doctrine (as it was from the 1960’s through the pontificate of John Paul II), but of legitimacy.
Legal and Moral Legitimacy
When I say the Church (and especially the papacy of Pope Francis) suffers a crisis of legitimacy, there will instantly be calls that this denies Francis is the Pope, and that Kevin has become a sedevacantist. (Those who believe that the Pope has lost his office, or never had it to begin with, and thus is currently an anti-pope.) So, to get it clear: I am not, nor have I ever believed that a Pope has lost his office, nor do I believe (or have ever believed) that one of the Popes recognized as a historical pope was invalidly elected. This would be a case of legal legitimacy, of which Pope Francis (and all Popes) have in spades. Their right to rule comes with them being invested in an office.
What I’m talking about is something that could be called practical, functioning, or moral legitimacy. A Pope has a claim to rule on paper. On what basis is that claim to rule received throughout those he rules over? Here is when things get murky. Once again, on paper, the right to rule naturally begets the reception of that right to rule by those the Pope rules over. A Pope makes a decree, and the bishops enforce it. The Pope asks the laity not to associate with X, and they don’t associate with X.
Any student of history knows this is not so cut and dry. A pope might have a lawful ability to command, but does a bishop have an obligation to prioritize it over everything else? Can the Pope stop something getting slow walked in the office? When a Pope asks lay Catholics not to associate with X, what happens when a Catholic asks if the Pope has the right to say that? What happens when a Popes desire is interpreted in a hyper legalistic way, so as to weaken the clear desire of said Pope? (This was not an academic question, as many Bishops implemented Traditionis Custodes in a way that clearly undercut the Popes desire that as many Latin Masses be suppressed as possible.) At this point Canon law and practice throughout time have recourses to how people are to interpret the Pope’s desire, but the ugly reality is that there’s not really any mechanism that can enforce this. A leader is only as effective as is his ability for his commands to be followed.
Rupnik and the Demolition of Authority
With that in mind, let us now turn to the Marko Rupnik affair. (A brief refresher, including today’s news, via Pillar.) Whatever the interpretation, certain facts are not in dispute:
Marko Rupnik incurred an excommunication for crimes involving abuse of the power of the confessional. While still excommunicated, he appeared before Pope Francis, at his request to preach. Rupnik’s excommunication was then lifted, either by Pope Francis himself, or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, acting on his authority. This was done despite the Jesuits claiming that Rupnik was not cooperative with the proceedings, a clear prerequisite of repentance.
Marko Rupnik was accused of numerous acts of abuse, ranging from consensual sexual acts to sexual assault to rape. The Jesuits conducted their own investigation (as he was a Jesuit) and concluded that these acts occurred and warranted prosecution. As Rome has the final say in these cases, this evidence and the recommendation was forwarded to Rome. Pope Francis, or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (again acting on the Pope’s authority) declined to prosecute these cases, stating that the statute of limitations had passed canonically. Pope Francis or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (acting on the Pope’s authority) have the authority to wave those statute of limitations when the good of souls are at stake, and he (or they) declined to do so.
After this, new allegations arise, and the previous proceedings leaked. The Jesuits responded by placing restrictions upon Rupnik, restrictions he refused to obey. When he engaged in flagrant disobedience, he was then expelled from the order, and forbidden from exercising any public priestly ministry. (A priest without incardination cannot exercise that ministry save for certain circumstances.)
At this point, Fr. Rupnik sought incardination from another diocese. Incardination is normally a lengthy process, and canon law reserves to Pope Francis (or the “competent ecclesial authority”) the right to reject that request for incardination. (A rather famous instance of this was with “Fatima Priest” Nicholas Gruner, who was told he would be suspended if he could not find a diocese to incardinate him. When he found such a diocese, Rome rejected that request, and then promptly suspended Fr. Gruner for failing to find a diocese to incardinate him.) Cognizant of this fact, the Slovenian Bishop consulted with the Popes personal representative in his country (the Apostolic Nuncio), and at every step of the way, received word from the Nuncio (who received it from Rome) that his acceptance of the incardination would not be blocked.
A Monarch against the Monarchy
At several steps along the road to where we currently are, Fr. Rupnik faced serious canonical/legal exposure. At each of these points, that exposure was minimized/lessened/eliminated by either Pope Francis, or those close to him, despite no known facts on the ground changing. This is not the first time where the Pope has intervened in matters of abuse:
Mauro Inzoli was defrocked by Benedict XVI over sexually abusing 5 boys. Pope Francis reversed this defrocking, instead inviting the priest to a life of prayer and solitude as a priest (essentially forced retirement.). This reversal was then itself reversed once it leaked, and the Italian courts convicted Inzoli of additional abuse.
Bishop Juan Barros Madrid was appointed by Francis in Chile, despite warnings (some from his own CDF) that Barros was too connected to the disgraced serial abuser Fernando Karadima. His appointment led to a riot in his diocese, and a papal visit to Chile where the Pope attacked the protestors. These remarks were then walked back as Barros resigned his bishopric.
Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta was accused by those in his diocese of numerous financial improprieties, as well as sexual harassment of seminarians, and possession of pornography. (Naked photos of seminarians who could only be ordained if he assented) Called to Rome to explain himself, Zanchetta proclaimed his phone was hacked, and the Pope, satisfied with that explanation, stopped all investigations. Law enforcement in Argentina were not as easily satisfied, and opened up criminal proceedings against Zanchetta. At this point he fled the country, being reassigned by Pope Francis on first a retreat, and then a job (clearly a no-show job) created for him in Rome, overseeing financial management of the Vatican. The Argentine authorities, again not so easily dissuaded, demanded Zanchetta surrender and face justice. Not wanting to provoke a diplomatic incident, Zanchetta returned to Argentina, where he was convicted of sexual assault. During this time, Pope Francis ordered an investigation of the diocese, not on Zanchetta’s behavior, but on those who blew the whistle on Zanchetta’s behavior.
Like with Rupnik, we see the behavior of a man using his power to circumvent punishment of known abusers, or those who enabled and covered up for abusers. In short, we have the case of a monarch obstructing justice within the monarchy. What happens in such a case? In the world of secular politics, this is not unknown, and every monarchy eventually goes through it. Some of them survive, but their power and authority curtailed. Many of them do not, and we read about them in history under with the term Revolution affixed to the end. The Holy Spirit has limited the possibility (if not eliminated outright) of Revolution changing the head of the Church. Yet she must deal with that answer, and it is not a given referencing ancient laws and privileges will satisfy the masses. They are far likely to accept those ancient laws and privileges being decisive if it is believed that the monarch is using his authority to subvert the common good. A potential example might be using the authority of his office to protect sexual abusers.
Pray that the Church is spared dealing with this question. Pray for her if she has to.
Very good piece.
Could I put it to you that Francis is actually an "orthodox" Pope--in the Balthasarian sense and is prioritising Mercy over Justice. The whole logic behind the death penalty thing is the the prioritization of the conversion of the sinner over the rights of the victim. Francis has been quite clear about this especially when discussing the death penalty and life imprisonment. In no instance are these judicial punishments ever seen within the light of justice, they are only evaluated in regard to the criminals potential and opportunity to repent.
The revulsion which the laity feel in this matters is due a primal sensus fidelum which the Papacy and clergy dismiss because they are the laity and therefore not really involved in the decisions of the Church.
According to the information I can find, Rupnik preached before Pope Francis in March 2020 and his excommunication was both imposed and lifted in May 2020, so he didn't do the preaching while excommunicated. He was certainly already under investigation at that point, though.