Previously unpublished letters add to Rupnik abuse case allegations
22 previously undisclosed letters from women of the Slovenian Loyola Community describe alleged spiritual, psychological, and sexual abuse by Father Marko Rupnik, the famed mosaic artist, and are now part of the case records. The letters were written in 2000 at the request of the community’s superior, Sister Ivanka Hosta, addressed to Rupnik, and are held in the Loyola Community archives now under the Archdiocese of Ljubljana. The Vatican has ordered the dissolution of the Loyola Community within a year, and the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life is aware of the letters while the canonical criminal trial of Rupnik is ongoing. Rupnik, a former Jesuit removed from the community in 1993, denies wrongdoing; the Vatican’s panel of judges is still reviewing documentation from dioceses, Jesuits, and the press.
about 2 months ago
Previously unpublished letters from women of the Slovenian Loyola Community have been added to the Vatican’s ongoing canonical trial of Father Marko Rupnik, expanding the documented allegations of spiritual, psychological and sexual abuse against the Jesuit priest‑artist. The letters, written in 2000 at the request of community superior Sister Ivanka Hosta, describe forced confessions and forgiveness rituals and are now part of the case file held by the Archdiocese of Ljubljana. 1
The 22 letters, addressed directly to Rupnik, were produced during Easter 2000 and detail alleged manipulation, pressure, and abuse of authority by the priest‑artist. They were discovered two weeks after lawyer Laura Sgrò reported that her clients had received little information about the proceedings. 1
Early complaints about Rupnik reached Jesuit superiors and the late Archbishop Alojzij Šuštar in the early 1990s, leading to his removal from the Loyola Community in 1993 and relocation to Rome. By 2000 he had gained prominence for mosaic commissions in the Vatican’s Redemptoris Mater Chapel and other major shrines worldwide. 1
In 2018 the Jesuits received an allegation that Rupnik absolved a woman after sexual activity, a violation known as “absolution of an accomplice.” The preliminary investigation found the claim credible, and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) later convicted him, resulting in a brief excommunication in May 2020 and restrictions on his ministry. The DDF notified the Jesuits of further abuse claims in 2021, prompting the current canonical trial, which began after Pope Francis lifted the statute of limitations in 2023. 1
Former community member Fabrizia Raguso, now a psychology professor, identified herself as a victim of spiritual abuse and confirmed the authenticity of the letters. She and other alleged victims have publicly expressed outrage and a sense of abandonment by Church authorities. The trial, whose panel of judges was appointed in July 2025, continues without a public release of the full evidence file. 1
Following the 2022 media revelations, the Vatican ordered the dissolution of the Sisters of the Community of Loyola within a year. The Jesuit order expelled Rupnik in 2023 after he refused to comply with imposed restrictions. As of August 2026, Rupnik remains listed as dean of the atelier of theology at the Aletti Center, despite the ongoing judicial process. 1
Examine Catholic abuse protocols in light of unpublished abuse letters
Unpublished abuse letters must be evaluated in two distinct ways: as possible reports of abuse and as evidence about how Church authorities handled those reports. Their nonpublication does not, by itself, establish a canonical violation. The decisive questions are whether the letters were received, preserved, assessed, reported to the proper authority, communicated to civil authorities where required, and followed by appropriate protective and investigative measures.
The governing framework is chiefly the 2023 Vos estis lux mundi, which treats abuse not merely as an individual moral failure but also as a failure of ecclesial responsibility when authorities obstruct or evade investigations.
The norms apply to allegations involving clerics, members of institutes of consecrated life or societies of apostolic life, and moderators of certain international associations of the faithful. Covered conduct includes:
The inclusion of abuse of authority is significant when examining letters that may not describe physical force. A letter alleging manipulation, coercion, exploitation of a dependency relationship, or sexual conduct facilitated by ecclesiastical power may fall within the norms even where the alleged victim was an adult.
A cleric or member of consecrated life who learns of an alleged covered offense, or has well-founded reasons to believe one occurred, must report it promptly to the local Ordinary or another competent Ordinary. The exception concerns information received in the internal forum of ministry, principally sacramental confession.
Lay persons may also submit reports through diocesan or other accessible ecclesial offices. Reports should contain as many particulars as possible, including dates, locations, persons involved, witnesses, and other information useful for assessing the facts. Authorities may also acquire information ex officio, meaning on their own initiative rather than only through a formal complaint.
Accordingly, an unpublished letter should not be dismissed merely because it was informal, unsigned, sent to the wrong office, or not presented in the language of a canonical complaint. The content and circumstances determine whether it supplied enough information to trigger a duty of further action.
Church procedure protects the privacy and good name of everyone involved. Vos estis requires the confidentiality, integrity, and security of information submitted through reporting channels. It also requires respect for the good name and privacy of the persons involved, including the person accused.
Therefore, a letter need not be publicly released merely because it contains an allegation. Publication could:
The protocol distinguishes confidential handling from institutional secrecy designed to prevent action. A letter may properly remain unpublished while still being transmitted to the competent authority and, where required, to civil authorities.
Nonpublication becomes seriously concerning if it forms part of conduct intended to avoid or interfere with an investigation. Vos estis expressly includes actions or omissions intended to interfere with or avoid civil or canonical investigations concerning covered abuse.
Indicators of improper suppression could include:
The available sources do not establish that any particular unpublished letter was suppressed improperly. They do establish that interference with an investigation is itself within the scope of the Church’s abuse-accountability norms, not merely an administrative defect.
A central feature of the protocol is that reporting is not to produce retaliation. Making a report under Vos estis is not itself a violation of office confidentiality. Prejudice, retaliation, or discrimination because someone submitted a report is prohibited, subject to the canonical provisions concerning knowingly false accusations.
The norms further state that an obligation of silence may not be imposed on a person claiming to have suffered harm or on witnesses concerning the contents of their reports, subject to legitimate legal protections.
This creates an important distinction:
Confidentiality of ecclesial records does not authorize silencing victims or witnesses.
A diocese may protect personal data and the integrity of a process, but it may not use confidentiality as a general-purpose device to intimidate complainants, prevent them from seeking civil assistance, or conceal institutional failures.
The Church’s responsibility is not exhausted by opening a file. Ecclesiastical authorities must ensure that those who state that they were harmed, and their families, are treated with dignity and respect. The norms specifically identify welcoming, listening, support services, spiritual assistance, and medical, therapeutic, and psychological assistance.
In examining unpublished correspondence, relevant questions therefore include:
The Church’s acknowledgment that abuse causes physical, psychological, spiritual, and communal harm also means that an institutional response should be judged by more than whether a formal canonical process technically began.
The protocol is especially structured when the allegation concerns a cardinal, bishop, papal legate, former or current diocesan leader, supreme moderator, or moderator of an international association of the faithful. Such cases are governed by the special provisions of Title II, rather than being left solely to the ordinary discretion of the person who may have a conflict of interest.
A letter addressed to a bishop about another bishop, or a letter alleging that a bishop mishandled abuse, therefore requires careful attention to routing. Vos estis provides that reports concerning the persons covered by Article 6 are to be sent to the authority identified by the relevant procedures and may be sent directly to the competent Dicastery or through the papal representative.
The practical issue is not simply whether a bishop “received” a letter. It is whether the letter reached the authority competent to act and whether any conflict of interest was addressed.
Ecclesiastical procedures do not replace civil reporting duties. Vos estis states expressly that its norms apply without prejudice to the rights and obligations established by state law, especially obligations to report to competent civil authorities.
Thus, an unpublished letter should be examined against the law in force at the relevant time and place. A Church official cannot justify nonreporting merely by invoking:
The sources supplied do not identify the applicable law of a particular jurisdiction, so they cannot determine whether a specific letter should have been reported to civil authorities. They do establish the governing principle that canonical handling is subordinate to, and must coexist with, applicable civil obligations.
An unpublished letter may be important evidence, but it is not necessarily proof that the alleged abuse occurred. Its evidentiary value depends on factors such as:
The accused retains protection of reputation and the presumption applicable within the process, while the complainant deserves respect and meaningful consideration. The Church’s responsibility is to avoid both extremes: credulous public accusation without due process and skeptical dismissal without investigation.
The 2021 reform of Book VI of the Code of Canon Law reflects the broader principle that ecclesiastical penal discipline must be adapted to contemporary needs and that bishops are accountable for observing the law. The supplied excerpt, however, does not provide the specific current canon numbers needed to resolve a particular penal case.
A responsible examination would reconstruct a documentary chain:
An audit should distinguish between failure to publish and failure to act. The first may be justified by privacy and due process; the second may constitute a serious breach of ecclesial responsibility.
Catholic abuse protocols do not require every abuse letter to be made public. They require allegations to be received seriously, reported through proper channels, protected against retaliation, handled with confidentiality but not weaponized secrecy, investigated without obstruction, and coordinated with civil law. The decisive moral and canonical question concerning unpublished letters is therefore not simply, “Why were they unpublished?” but rather:
Were they responsibly processed, or was their nonpublication part of an effort to prevent accountability?
The supplied sources establish this framework but do not contain the letters, the relevant diocesan records, or the applicable civil-law facts necessary to determine whether any particular case involved negligence, concealment, or lawful confidentiality.