This has little to do with the Church. If the people of Rwanda listened to the Pope, they would have made peace between ethnic tribes. As it stands, a preist who happened to be a Hutu, cooperated with Hutu militia groups that killed 2,000 Tutsis.Link: telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/14/wrwanda14.xml
I don’t get it. Can someone please clear up this whole Rwanda thing for me? Who was killing who? What does it have to do with the Church?
The Hutu tribe was a minority in Rwanda; the majority of the population belonged to the Tutsi tribe, which held power in the country. In the early to mid 90s the Hutu staged a coup and began a genocide against the Tutsi. There’re plenty of articles on the subject you should be able to find online.I don’t get it. Can someone please clear up this whole Rwanda thing for me? Who was killing who? What does it have to do with the Church?
Actually, its the other way around. The Hutus were about 85% of the population and the Tutsis were about 15% of the population.The Hutu tribe was a minority in Rwanda; the majority of the population belonged to the Tutsi tribe, which held power in the country.
I think the Vatican has good cause for action, but past prosecution of nuns for the Rwandan genocide left Rome feeling that the Church was being singled out.Just the one should be enough for the Church to take action against him; sacrilege and the desecration of a consecrated building are even more reason.
nytimes.com/2006/12/14/world/africa/14rwanda.html“The Holy See cannot but express a certain surprise at seeing the grave responsibility of so many people and groups involved in this tremendous genocide had been heaped on so few people,” a Vatican spokesman said in a statement in 2001, after two Catholic nuns were convicted in Belgium.
augh, you’re right… this is what I get for going from memory :xActually, its the other way around. The Hutus were about 85% of the population and the Tutsis were about 15% of the population.
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/interviews/gourevitch.html
(there are other good links to explore at that website)
I don’t see how that’s an excuse for them not to take ecclesial action against him for sacrilege – after doing something like that, how can he remain a priest in good faith and standing?I think the Vatican has good cause for action, but past prosecution of nuns for the Rwandan genocide left Rome feeling that the Church was being singled out.
I’m not sure if the Vatican is acting hypersensitivity or if they are presuming the priests are innocent until proven guilty.The Vatican often seems tone deaf (and that’s a charitable characterization) when Catholic clergy are involved in serious scandal or crime. That others might share guilt is irrelevant.
The comments from Vatican officials remind me of their equivocating when the American Church was rocked by the sex abuse scandal. I still don’t understand that. When I see how the Vatican so often reacts hyper-defensively to such things, its not hard to see why so many non-Catholics are hiughly suspicious of Rome’s influence.
One can show institutional sympathy while regretting that some individuals may have succumbed to deeply-rooted tribal pressures. The Vatican representative quoted did a very poor job of differentiating between the Church’s sympathy, limits of authority, and personal responsibility of its clergy. “Innocent until proven guilty” does not mean sticking one’s head in the sand.I’m not sure if the Vatican is acting hypersensitivity or if they are presuming the priests are innocent until proven guilty.