The Vatican communications chief, Dr. Paolo Ruffini, faces mounting criticism from voices across the spectrum of opinion in the Church after he defended—on Friday, at the premier Catholic media event of the year in the United States—the use of digital and other reproductions of artwork by the accused serial rapist, Fr. Marko Ivan Rupnik.
A worldwide public scandal
You may not have heard Rupnik’s name, but if you are a Catholic who has darkened the door of a church in the past decade, you’ve seen his work. He designed the logo for the Year of Mercy. Rupnik’s Centro Aletti studio has an interactive catalog showing where Rupnik pieces and installations are in the world.
Rupnik is accused of sexually, psychologically, and spiritually abusing dozens of victims—mostly women religious—over a period of thirty years.
Rupnik lived and worked right under the noses of his erstwhile Jesuit superiors and enjoyed the favor of three popes, starting with St. John Paul II. Rupnik became a celebrated mosaic artist. His works adorn hundreds of shrines and chapels around the world.
Reports of Rupnik’s depravity—and of its improbable management by senior Jesuits and the Vatican—began to come before the public in December 2022, but the Vatican’s official media have continued to use digital and other reproductions of his works even in the face of intense outcry from victims, their advocates, and the general public within and without the Church.
The Vatican had also been dodging journalists’ questions about their continued use of them, which is one reason journalists were eager to speak with Ruffini.
When asked to explain his dicastery’s policy, Ruffini said, “We’re not talking about abuse of minors.”
“We are talking [about] a story that we don’t know,” Ruffini also said. “Who am I to judge the Rupnik stories?” Ruffini said.
The Jesuits believe the victims. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith believed there was a case to answer, but declined to prosecute because the charges were statute-barred (even though there was mountainous evidence and ample opportunity to confront witnesses).
Rupnik’s Jesuit superiors reportedly knew of allegations against him in the 1990s, but either turned a blind eye or else attempted to discredit his accusers. Eventually, another Jesuit got Rome to pay attention, but the competent authority declined—on a flimsy technicality—to prosecute.
The Jesuits expelled Rupnik—for disobedience, not for raping people—and a diocese in his native Slovenia picked him up, saying in essence that he’d never been convicted of any crime and therefore deserved a chance.
The Rupnik affair had been a worldwide public scandal for nine months when that part happened. News of it triggered incandescent global outrage and intense pressure from senior churchmen, after which Pope Francis reversed course and ordered a review of the whole business.
A disastrous performance
By any objective standard, and even allowing for Ruffini’s imperfect command of English, the performance was a disaster. I wasn’t there, but I listened to an audio recording of Ruffini’s speech and the Q&A that followed it. I can say it was not an edifying experience in the usual sense of the term.
That two journalists seized the opportunity Ruffini offered—Colleen Dulle of America Magazine and Paulina Guzik of OSV News—was indeed a relief. They asked the right questions. They did the job.
From my conversations with folks who were there and in the know, it appears that Ruffini’s decision to open the floor after his set piece was something of a surprise. From a comms perspective, it certainly was a big risk. Even if he believed he was in friendly company, a room full of scribblers is never a safe place. At least it shouldn’t be a safe space for anyone with anything like Ruffini’s brief.
In any case, folks are calling for Ruffini’s resignation.
That’s what happens to a fellow who makes himself an apologist for rape art, even when he isn’t the head flak for a fellow who leads an organization with the kinds of troubles the Catholic Church has—most of them self-inflicted—to the degree the Church has them.
Friday was a very bad day for Ruffini, in other words, but Ruffini ought not to be the sole or even the primary focus of attention.
Ruffini is the mouthpiece of a man whose modus gubernandi is aptly illustrated by names like Inzoli, Ricca, Danneels, Barros, Errazuriz, Ezzati and Barbarin, Zanchetta, Vangheluwe, Ricard, even if its epitome is Rupnik.
Ruffini reminds me of the exchange between Cardinal Wolsey and Sir Thomas More, in which Wolsey presents More with the brief they’ve drawn up to petition Rome for a declaration of nullity.
Wolsey invites More to inspect the document before he sends it. More notes that the document is addressed not to England’s ambassador to the papal court, but to Lorenzo Cardinal Campeggio.
“It’s addressed to Cardinal Campeggio,” More notices, “not our ambassador.”
“Our ambassador’s a ninny,” Wolsey says. “Your Grace appointed him,” More replies. “Yes,” returns Wolsey, “I need a ninny in Rome! So that I can write to Cardinal Campeggio!”
What now?
Ruffini is in his job because he is the sort as will be an apologist for rape art, not despite his being such a fellow.
Now that the heat is really on, Pope Francis can fire Ruffini, if he wants to. Basically, there are four possibilities:
- Ruffini keeps his job and the Rupniks come down;
- Ruffini keeps his job and the Rupniks stay up;
- Ruffini loses his job and the Rupniks come down;
- Ruffini loses his job and the Rupniks stay up.
None of those is a perfect or really any sort of solution. This is a communications disaster unlike any I can recall in twenty years on the beat, but it is not only—or even primarily—a communications disaster.
This is a crisis of government, which in turn is exacerbating a crisis of credibility that jeopardizes the whole Church’s ability to serve her core mission.
The Rupnik Affair encapsulates the crisis of the Church’s inability to deliver justice. The Rupnik affair demonstrates very precisely the Church’s care for victims—especially adult victims—of abuse. The Rupnik Affair is emblematic of a clerical and hierarchical leadership culture that is too often rotten and putrescent.
I can’t guess what Pope Francis will do, but there’s no need to guess what he has done.
Francis used a Rupnik icon as a prop in a video message he sent to participants in a Marian congress meeting in Aparecida, Brazil. That was a year ago this month. Francis has never apologized or even attempted to explain it. I don’t think any of the journalists who have interviewed him in the meantime have asked.
Last year, one could still just cling to the faint hope that Francis really didn’t know—at least not in any significant detail—what Rupnik is accused of doing. The only other possibility was that he just doesn’t care.
He may have forgotten that the piece he used in the video message was a Rupnik, but he has people whose job it is to tell him things like that. Francis, however, is not a man to be told. He also prefers not to work within traditional communications structures.
Then, some folks in his comms dicastery apparently like Rupnik very much, and some of them are high in the ranks.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
