Instead of turf wars, Argentina trial could focus on difference between poor judgment and abuse

ROME – While many take the strange case of Ariel former priest Ariel Alberto Príncipi as a classic example of a turf war between rival Vatican departments, a close analysis suggests that the twists and turns may have more to do with notorious patients than bureaucratic squabbles. – Defining the boundary between abuse and direct abuse.

As part of this picture, the Príncipi case also shows that one of the main tests for detecting abuse in religious jurisprudence, namely whether a particular act was performed for “lascivious purposes”, can be extremely difficult to prove.

In 2021, Príncipi was accused of sexually abusing minors while performing “healing prayers” for homosexuality linked to a Catholic charismatic movement. Her case was referred to the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), which handles sexual abuse matters, which then authorized local courts to hold a hearing.

Príncipi was found guilty by an interdiocesan court in Córdoba, Argentina, in June 2023 and ordered repatriated to the ordinary province. He immediately appealed the decision, which was approved by the interdiocesan tribunal in Buenos Aires in April this year. The court also upheld the decision to dismiss him from the priesthood.

In September, Bishop Adolfo Uriona of Río Cuarto, Argentina, where Príncipi served, told local media that they were only awaiting final approval of the sentence from the DDF after the official appeal window closed to impose the sentence.

But just a few days later, on September 25, the Diocese of Río Cuarto announced that it had received a decree from the Vatican Secretariat of State, signed by the Holy See. sostitutoIt’s a position similar to chief of staff, currently occupied by Venezuelan Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra, who ordered Príncipi reinstated as a priest under restricted ministry.

The Vatican statement, part of which was published on the website of the Diocese of Río Cuarto, stated “As a result of additional evidence provided by some bishops and a few faithful in Argentina” in June and July, on July 5 “an extraordinary procedure was initiated with the suspension of the previous decision.”

The notification did not specify who presented the evidence or what it consisted of, nor did it explain what kind of “extraordinary procedure” was followed.

The statement said “several punitive measures” were ordered against Príncipi, who was “considered to have been very imprudent in performing the so-called ‘healing prayers’.” In the Catholic charismatic renewal, pastoral ministry and a church were prohibited from exercising full pastoral care and from celebrating or celebrating the sacraments in public.

Then, in another surprising development, just two weeks later this reversal was reversed. On October 7, Archbishop John Kennedy, head of the DDF’s disciplinary division, issued a new decree issued by Río Cuarto stating that Peña Parra’s previous edict was invalid and the deicing of Príncipi remained in effect.

In this statement, a portion of which was also published on the website of the Diocese of Río Cuarto, Kennedy said that the “extraordinary procedure” that resulted in the reversal of Príncipi’s secularization was “carried out outside the scope of this diocese” and “cancelled.”

“The case is again subject to the ordinary process in this dicastery, according to the rules prescribed by church law,” the statement said, adding that no legitimate objection was made to the DDF within the legal period against Príncipi’s purification from bribery. .

Kennedy said Príncipi’s earlier reprimand and sentence “should be considered in full force and effect” and that, as a result, “the case is closed.”

Considering the tit-for-tat between the Secretariat of State and the Dicastery of the Faith, which have been fighting each other for supremacy in the Vatican system for centuries, it is understandable why many observers have concluded that this is a new chapter in the long-running rivalry. .

However, as sources in Argentina show, the original sentence imposed by the Córdoba interdiocesan court was turning pointIt suggests that the back-and-forth may have more to do with the blurred line between imprudence or poor judgment and actual abuse.

Most of the allegations against Príncipi involved groping during so-called “healing prayers”. According to testimony, Príncipi would place his hands on various parts of the body, including the genitals, while praying for the individual to be cured of homosexual tendencies.

These prayers were often performed over adults and in the presence of others.

The allegations came from three people who said they were teenagers when Príncipi manipulated them into receiving prayers and groped them in the process.

Throughout the process, Príncipi maintained her innocence, emphasizing that she did not intend anything evil and that the prayers were for healing rather than sexual gratification, thus not for “sensual purposes” as is usually required to detect abuse.

The question of whether Príncipi enjoyed the imposition of hands on the genitals was one of the main topics of discussion; The first sentence found Príncipi guilty not only of sexual abuse but also of abuse of power and manipulation.

But some legal experts familiar with the case and speaking on the matter turning point He said that they saw that this sentence was subjective and based on allegations that were difficult to prove, leaving a great deal of room for doubt. On the whole, these experts expressed the belief that, although Príncipi was certainly imprudent and deserved some form of sanction, expulsion from the religious state may have been overdone, especially for what appeared to be a lack of good judgment rather than clear criminal intent.

Therefore, the conflicting messages from the Vatican Secretariat of State and the DDF may not be about church offices marking their territory, but rather about internal doubts about the accusations and the appropriate punishments to be imposed.

What is now clear is that Príncipi was indeed defrocked. But beyond his personal fate, the case is a reminder that a quarter-century after clergy abuse scandals first broke in Catholicism, the exact dividing line between imprudence and abuse remains unclear.