The Archdiocese of Panama is in need of significant new procedures to both prevent and respond to incidents of abuse, said an international research group in a new assessment.
Among the recommendations contained in the assessment are improved procedures for listening to abuse victims, better record-keeping, reparation measures for victims, and clear codes of conduct.
The evaluation was a pilot project for the Transparency Commission, an international group of experts on clerical abuse, which hopes to carry out similar assessments in other dioceses.
The independent commission, which is funded by Notre Dame Law School and the Universidad Villanueva Foundation in Spain, consists of more than a dozen experts from eight countries, specializing in the areas of canon law, theology, accountability, communications, sociology, and other fields.
The Transparency Commission was tasked last year by Archbishop José Domingo Ulloa Mendieta of Panama to evaluate the local Church’s management of abuse complaints over the past 25 years.
The commission reviewed the archdiocesan archives, conducted interviews, collected testimonies, and examined local media reports. It released the findings of its evaluation on Tuesday.
The commission said there were 37 complaints of sexual abuse received by the Archdiocese of Panama from 2001-2025. The commission examined 24 of those complaints. The other complaints involved incidents outside of the archdiocese’s jurisdiction or the time period being considered, or did not involve the abuse of minors or vulnerable persons.
The commission noted that there were likely more instances of ecclesial abuse that took place in the archdiocese during this time, but were not reported. It observed that a number of obstacles to reporting abuse persist in Panama.
The archdiocese has made progress in its handling of abuse cases over the past 25 years, the commission said, including by introducing safeguarding guidelines in 2015 and developing a ministry office to respond to allegations in 2024.
However, the report determined, there are still significant areas in which the archdiocese is not taking sufficient action to prevent and respond to abuse allegations.
Records surrounding abuse complaints are “manifestly insufficient,” the commission found. It noted that there was no evidence to suggest that information had been intentionally hidden or destroyed, and that the insufficiencies are likely due to a lack of resources and procedures.
The commission emphasized that “a rigorous and complete record is needed, one that makes it possible to reconstruct what happened and to account for the Archdiocese’s actions.”
In particular, it said, the incomplete records make it impossible to determine what consequences, if any, were carried out for individuals found guilty of abuse, and there are no records of reparation measures offered to abuse victims.
The records that do exist suggest a need for changes in policies in how complaints are received and responded to, the commission said.
“In only 2 of the 24 cases do the files record that the victim was heard, compared with at least 8 in which the accused was heard,” it found.
It called for the archdiocese to build on the work of its new pastoral ministry and listening office in order to offer a more comprehensive response to victims.
“Procedures for receiving and accompanying victims are needed that are independent of the canonical-legal process, centered on victims’ rights, and designed to prevent re-victimization,” the report said.
Furthermore, the commission said, the archdiocese needs to enact additional preventative measures to avoid cases of abuse.
“Codes of conduct for interaction with minors and vulnerable persons, rules for the digital environment, and safeguarding clauses for third parties working with the Archdiocese must be put in place,” it said.
The commission applauded the Archdiocese of Panama’s initiative in calling for an independent review and publicizing the report.
“This initiative does not arise in response to an external complaint, but rather as a voluntary exercise of institutional responsibility,” the commission said.
“What we have today are committed individuals; what’s missing are systems that don’t depend on the goodwill of each individual.”
Among its recommendations, the commission said the archdiocese should “guarantee cooperation with civil justice in accordance with the current reporting obligation, establishing documentary confirmation of each communication.”
In addition, it called for enhanced efforts to offer pastoral care to victims and survivors, separate from the canonical investigation, “so that the person initiating and directing the proceedings is not the only person responsible for the care and support of the victim.”
It encouraged the archdiocese to strengthen the screening and formation of clergy members and other pastoral workers, and to adopt processes to avoid revictimization, for example by “reduc[ing] unnecessary repetitions of the incident.”
The commission also emphasized the need for due process for the accused and a commitment to “publicly restore the good name of the person found to be unjustly reported.”