The man who in 2018 accused the Peruvian cardinal, Juan Luis Cipriani, having abused him in his childhood in 1983, is outraged by and for seeing that the Holy See does not take measures. Pope Francis, last January, considered the accusations credible, separated him from his position as Archbishop of Lima in 2019 and imposed a criminal precept: he forced him to the exile of Peru, forbade him public appearances and statements, and carry cardinal symbols. However, last week, Cipriani appeared in Rome, visited the cardinal dressed in Cardinal, then went to his grave with the rest of the purpurated and has also participated in the general congregations. “The message is that the Pope died and the party returns,” laments this Peruvian citizen, who asks not to reveal his identity.
This case puts on the table one of the central issues of the conclave, since it has marked the mandate of the last three popes: what will be the attitude of the church with the next pontiff towards the scandal of pedophilia and with the victims of sexual aggressions. Because the controversy of a possible disobedience of Cipriani towards the late Pontiff has been growing for several days and both the cardinals and the Vatican are silent.
“It has been a surprise to see him appear in Rome, because he supposedly cannot appear in public events, and it is outrageous to see him a cardinal’s dress, as ignoring all sanction he has received, and that he himself has signed. He is making fun of the church,” says this person. “It seems incredible that with the death of the Pope a void is believed that this person does and undoes as if he were at home, when he is supposedly punished, and moves with an unusual prominence. It’s like now that there is no potato, it is anyone’s land and he does what he wants.” This newspaper contacted three days ago with Cardinal Cipriani, to know its version of what is happening, and has not yet obtained an answer.
Precisely, one of the reasons that promoted this Peruvian to write to the Pope in 2018, to tell him his story, was the anguish he felt in the 2013 conclave when he thought that Cipriani could be elected Pope. And now he has seen him appear again in which he is going to be held from May 7. Francisco, in fact, also prohibited Cipriani from attending the next conclave, but when the veto has arrived it has been surpassed because the Peruvian cardinal already is 81 years old, and the 80s have been lost that right.
The complainant wrote a letter to the Pope in 2018 with the story of the abuses he suffered in 1983. He did not want any compensation, only that he separated Cipriani. Francisco was personally involved, something that these years has been very often the only way for the Church to be taken seriously the complaints: he commissioned an investigation to a priest of his confidence in Lima and then gave credibility to the accusation. He took advantage of that Cipriani was going to turn 75 in January 2019, age in which bishops must present their resignation, to accept it immediately, and not let him follow a few years, as usual. In addition, he imposed sanctions on a document that the cardinal himself accepted and signed. Everything remained secret until it was revealed by this newspaper. But now this person reproaches the Vatican that the punishment looks like past water: “The cardinals who are in Rome do as they do not see it, and there are more than 100. It is incredible.”
The Vatican has eluded these days to clarify the case: the concrete details of the sanction of Cipriani, whether it is breaking it or not, if any cardinal has raised the problem, if the Cardinals College has discussed the issue, if any measure is going to be taken. There is no position about it.
Despite the questions of the journalists for three consecutive days in the daily meeting with the media, the director of the Vatican press room, Matteo Bruni, only said Wednesday that “the case is known” and that, according to the rules, all cardinals are invited to participate in the previous meetings of the conclave. About the rest, he said that he has no more information to add and refers, after the information of this newspaper. He then confirmed that Cipriani “has been imposed a criminal precept with some disciplinary measures regarding his public activity, the place of residence and the use of badges.” And said the precept was still in force.
However, Cipriani had already had public appearances and had returned to Peru. In January he traveled to Lima, where he attended a public tribute and received the gold medal of the city from the mayor, Rafael López Aliaga, also a member of Opus Dei. After the publication of the news of this newspaper, he defended his innocence, said the accusations were false and published several letters attacking the Pope ,. He entered even at a crossroads of public missives with the Episcopal Conference of Peru (CEP), which issued a hard statement in support of the victim and advised him “to leave the vain justifications, the stubbornness and rejection of the truth.” Cipriani’s last letter to the CEP is from March, where he insisted on his innocence and asked for a rectification. The presidency of the Peruvian bishops responded on April 7 reminding him that he did not forget that the Pope had treated him “with exquisite pastoral charity and has proceeded by joining justice and mercy”, and reaffirming his proximity to the victims of abuse. In Rome is also the Cardinal of Lima, Carlos Castillo, president of the CEP, who knows the matter well and can explain it to the rest of his companions.
All this is intolerable for the person who accuses him, who after writing to the Pope received numerous pressures and threats to write another letter in which he retracted. It has also recently been in insinuations to collaborate in cleaning the image of Cipriani. “By many media he has tried to get to me to apologize and be able to use it to the Holy Father at the time. As I refused, then he had attitudes totally against me. He said he was a boy with psychiatric problems.”
Now, after the death of the Pope, Cipriani’s refusal to abide by his punishment has clearly emerged. “It cannot be that in the Church there is that confusion. To say one thing on the one hand, and that on the other he does and tells what he wants, and give versions totally alien to the truth and contrary to what happened.” What expects the cardinals, he explains, is that they take action and clarify the situation: “I think the subject must be settled and you have to send a clear and direct message.” He believes that, since Cipriani does not accept the punishment of the Pope and defends his innocence – a criminal precept is a superior imposed order – the Vatican can process canonically and that thus finally assumes the consequences.
He, former member of the Pontifical Council of Guardianship of Children and Vatico in the Vatican in the fight against pedophilia in the clergy, has already criticized the silence of the Vatican: “I do not know the sanctions, but if they exist and are disobeying them they have to intervene the cardinals, because it means that there is a problem of application and credibility of the sanctions,” he said to the Argentine newspaper The nation.
The American De -Denunciation Organization Bishops Accountability, which has the largest database in the world on the scandal, has demanded to the Holy See to act: “It is disturbing what Cipriani’s participation reveals on the dysfunction of the Vatican, even when it acts correctly (…) the cardinals must demonstrate that they speak seriously, and that means that the presence of Cipriani “.
