On sexual abuse cases, can Leo’s past say much about the future?
In the two weeks since Pope Leo XIV was elected, the pope has been celebrated among Catholics of all stripes and ecclesiastical tribes, with many hoping that the pontiff will bring some peace and stability to the Church after a tumultuous 12 years, and effect necessary reforms at the Roman Curia and in the Vatican City State Governorate.
Around the world, some Catholics hope that Leo will rescind Traditionis custodes, let the synod on synodality be consigned to the dustbin of history, or “answer the dubia,” as it were.
Others hope for the very opposite.
But in either case, it seems clear that most Catholics hope that Leo will prove adept at handling allegations of clerical sexual abuse and misconduct around the world, with many hoping the pontiff will bring the rule of law more consistently to an area of the Church’s life which has seemed in recent years to be governed by inconsistency or caprice.
But Leo’s track record on abuse has been consistently questioned, both before he became the Bishop of Rome and since, with some advocacy groups raising frequent concerns that Leo will not take sexual abuse and misconduct in the life of the Church seriously, or address it fairly.
Does his record indicate that? Without more information, it’s hard to know. In fact, there is little information to yet predict what kind of pope will be on addressing the profound ecclesiastical crisis of the 21st century.
—
Leo has been criticized for several issues in his own career related to clerical abuse and neglect.
In 2000, when he was provincial superior of the Augustinians, his province allowed a Chicago archdiocesan priest to live in a Augustinian residence, in very close proximity to a Catholic school, despite the fact that the priest was accused of serially sexually abusing school age children, and of grooming children at a parish school where he was in ministry.
The move was approved by then-Fr. Prevost, and the school near the rectory was not notified that the priest should not be admitted onto its property. At issue is whether Fr. Prevost ought to have permitted the arrangement in the first place, and whether he should have notified school administrators of the potential risk to their students.
The decision was made in the year 2000, before the Boston Globe scandals of 2002, and before the promulgation of norms that aimed to change the Church’s culture on creating safe environments for children. Those norms have changed a lot about ecclesiastical administration, and it’s not likely that the decision is predictive of Leo’s approach to such questions now.
If there is a broader question, it’s that Leo did not answer questions about the matter in recent years —discussing whether he regards it as a mistake, indicating whether he would make the same decision now. For some, that could be seen to raise questions about the pontiff’s commitment to transparency during his tenure as a religious superior, diocesan bishop, and curial official.
But the pope’s decision not to answer such questions does not convey much about how he will handle cases of clerical sexual abuse as pontiff — in fact, quite the opposite, it makes it all the more difficult to predict.
More recently in Peru, then-Bishop Prevost was accused of mishandling clerical allegations made by three sisters. The women claim that when they reported abuse in the diocese in 2022, Prevost failed to open an investigation into the claims.
The Diocese of Chiclayo claims otherwise, saying that the former bishop, now pontiff, handled the allegations correctly, and that Prevost himself urged the alleged victims to contact the police. In fact, priests in the diocese have said the bishop was decisive and attentive to the case — even while the alleged victims have a very different version of things.
It is unlikely that more clarity about the case will emerge.
It is also not clear what can be extrapolated from Leo’s record as prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops, where the pontiff served for two years as prefect — largely because it can’t be easily ascertained which decisions were Leo’s, and which belonged to Pope Francis.
Leo was, for example, prefect when disgraced U.S. Bishop Rick Stika resigned from leadership of the Knoxville, Tennessee diocese in June 2023.
On the one hand, Leo might be deserving of credit for resolving the situation, after years of relative inaction on the part of the Apostolic See. One the other hand, the decision has been widely criticized to allow Stika to resign, instead of seeing him face canonical charges or be removed — especially lamented by those who say the Vos estis lux mundi process has allowed bishops too soft a landing after they’re found to have been negligent in their duties.
Still, it is not clear which part of those decisions belong to Leo, and which belong to Francis.
Similarly, controversial Bishop Joseph Strickland was removed from office 11 months after then-Cardinal Prevost became prefect at the bishops’ dicastery, responsible for handling the Strickland situation. To some Catholics, Strickland’s removal was long overdue. To others, it was a travesty. There were few opinions in between those perspectives.
But whatever the case, there is no clarity about how much of the process regarding Strickland was directed by Prevost, and how much was directed by the pope or the apostolic nuncio, Cardinal Christophe Pierre. Like the case of Stika, it gives little indication, therefore, of what Prevost will do as the man in charge himself.
If his past does not indicate how the pope will handle controversy around clerical sexual abuse and other kinds of misconduct, Catholics wondering about it will not have to wait long.
Leo's decision on his replacement as the prefect in the Dicastery for Bishops could say volumes. If the cardinal appoints the current secretary of the dicastery, Archbishop Ilson de Jesus Montanari, some will expect business as usual in the dicastery, including ambiguities, vagaries, and little transparency in the application of Vos estis lux mundi around the world, and the discipline of bishops. If he appoints a canonist, however, it might suggest a sea change, with a more consistent approach to the mandates of the dicastery itself.
The pope’s handling of the Rupnik affair will also be carefully scrutinized, and revelatory of his approach to matters of ecclesiastical discipline.
At the same time, some canonists have expressed concern that Leo find ways to reemphasize the procedural rights of priests and bishops themselves. And on that front, many Catholics expect that a canonist pope will bring clarity to the Vatican’s competing definitions of “vulnerable adult,” and clarify whether the Francis’ established penal process for bishops — Come una madre — actually remains the Church’s effective law, and whether it will actually be used to effect episcopal discipline.
Those moves would be widely seen as efforts to ensure that the application of justice is fair both to those accused, and those who raise allegations of abuse and misconduct in the Church. Both groups had complaints during the Francis papacy, and both will look for reform from Pope Leo.
The pope’s past is not especially revealing about his leadership style on cases of clerical abuse and episcopal misconduct in the life of the Church. But his immediate future — the next few weeks — likely will be.
One small but positive sign was today's rinunce e nomine regarding an apostolic nuncio. It included the article of the policy regarding nuncio's to step down early.
One change under Pope Francis that seemed to drift toward a lack of transparency was announcing the renunciation of a bishop without including which article of the code it pertained to. People were not sure if this was because of age or some other reason.
Let's see how future renunciations are reported.
From what I have read online, the priest who was the go to person on this issue on the ground until he resigned in frustration said that Prevost was in his first class for bishops and religious superiors on the subject and went home and put the reforms into practice, in 2013 if I remember correctly. I also recently read an article online about a woman now living in Australia who was abused by members in leadership of Sodalitium Christianae Vitae that when she and some other members of the community complained publicly, Prevost was one of the few Peruvian bishops who supported the victims. There has also been the claim that the three women in Peru only started accusing Prevost of mishandling their case after getting an attorney connected with the organization.
And if he thought Cardinal George approved of the situation in Chicago his signing off may indeed have just been a formality. So I am not at all concerned about how he is going to deal with sex abuse cases.
You yourself suggested that one of the problems with trying Rupnik is needing to find a sufficient number of Canon lawyers who speak Slovenian. I recently read somewhere that Slovenia was in the process of creating a national tribunal for the whole country. I can't help but wonder whether they were encouraged to do so because of Rupnik.