Vatican condemns publication of ‘credibly accused’ clergy lists — again

The Vatican weighs in on diocesan lists of accused clergy.

The Dicastery for Legislative Texts issued guidance to bishops last year, which said that canon law prohibits published lists denoting clerics “credibly accused” of sexual abuse crimes.

In a letter likely to spark backlash from some victims’ advocates, the dicastery said that such lists can violate fundamental legal rights when published.

The Dicastery for Legislative Texts, formerly the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Rome.

The Vatican department, which responsible for issuing authoritative legal interpretations for the universal Church, issued its directives in a September 2024 letter published online by the dicastery on Feb. 22.

The Dicastery for Legislative Texts is the most recent Vatican department to criticize or prohibit the practice of dioceses releasing lists of “credibly accused” clergy. Both the Dicasteries for the Doctrine of the Faith and for Clergy — and Pope Francis personally — have previously warned against the practice.

Many dioceses in the United States adopted the practice of publishing lists in the wake of the clerical abuse scandals of the last 25 years, especially amid state-level investigations into clerical sexual abuse, and the passage of “look back” laws allowing for civil lawsuits related to abuse to be filed well after the standing statute of limitations.

In its September letter, the dicastery responed to a request for clarification from an unnamed bishop wrote seeking guidance in July 2024.

In the guidance, the dicastery’s prefect and secretary, Archbishops Filippo Iannone and Juan Ignation Arrieta, wrote that Vatican guidance came after “a careful examination of the delicate question” of published lists, and said the dicastery had consulted “two esteemed canonists who are experts in the matter.”

Noting the general canonical protection of a person’s good reputation from “illegitimate” harm, the dicastery explained that while “in some cases the harm of good reputation can be legitimized, for example to avoid any danger or threat to individuals or to the community,”, it would “not at all be legitimate when such a risk is reasonably to be excluded, as in the case of presumed deceased criminals, where there can be neither a legitimate nor proportionate reason for the damage to their reputation.”

The dicastery added that it is not permissible to publish lists of accused clerics “for alleged reasons of transparency or reparation (unless the subject consents and therefore once again excluding deceased persons).”

The letter stressed that Vatican objection to the practice of publishing lists of accused clerics goes beyond the practical inability of deceased clergy to defend themselves.

According to the dicastery, the core issues are instead fundamental legal principles: the presumption of innocence and the illegitimacy of charging anyone with a crime which was not codified at the time it was allegedly committed: “For example, with regard to the so-called omissions of the general duties of vigilance,” the letter said.

“Such principles,” the dicastery said, “cannot reasonably be overridden by a generic ‘right to information’ that makes any kind of news public domain, however credibly, to the concrete detriment and existential damage of those personally involved, especially if inaccurate, or even unfounded or false, or completely useless as in what concerns deceased persons.”

The letter also noted that diocesan determinations about whether an accusation is credible or “founded” are often made without regard for established legal standards, and “require a relatively low standard of proof,” and “without the benefit of any exercise of the right to defense,” for the accused.

The Dicastery for Legislative Texts’ letter is the latest in a series of Vatican condemnations of the practice of publishing lists of names of clerics, living and dead, against whom “credible” or “substantiated” accusations have been made.

During his 2019 global summit on clerical sexual abuse and episcopal accountability, Pope Francis specifically ruled out such practices in his own published “Points for Reflection,” which stated that “the right to defense, the principle of natural and canonical law of the presumption of innocence until the proof of the guilt of the accused must also be safeguarded.”

“Therefore, it is necessary to avoid publication of the lists of the accused, even by the dioceses, before the prior investigation and the final condemnation,” the pope wrote.

In 2022, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, which has jurisdiction over cases of clerical sexual abuse of minors, issued updates to its legal handbook on the procedures for handling such accusations.

Initially, according to canon law, the DDF explained, the bishop is only supposed to determine if the allegation is “manifestly false or frivolous” — that it doesn’t allege a person committing a crime in a place at a time that would be clearly impossible. If it’s not obviously impossible, the bishop is to open a canonical preliminary investigation to determine if the allegation has a minimum “semblance of truth.”

“It must always be kept in mind that the preliminary investigation is not a trial, nor does it seek to attain moral certitude as to whether the alleged events occurred,” the DDF said.

While bishops can, when they consider it prudent, remove an accused priest form ministry before or during the preliminary phase, both canon law and the DDF stress the need to avoid the impression that a verdict has been reached before an actual legal process has begun.

In its 2022 guidelines, the DDF specifically warned against any public statements which “could prejudice successive investigations or give the impression that the facts or the guilt of the cleric in question have already been determined with certainty.”

“Statements should be brief and concise, avoiding clamorous announcements, refraining completely from any premature judgment about the guilt or innocence of the person accused,” it says.

Nevertheless, many U.S. dioceses have continued for years with the publication and maintenance of public lists of “credible” or “substantiated” accusations against clerics who have not been subject to any legal process, canonical or civil.

—
In 2002, in the wake of the year’s emerging sexual abuse scandals, the U.S. bishops adopted the Dallas Charter and the Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or Deacons, the latter of which became particular law in the United States.

In line with those norms, bishops were required to set up diocesan review boards — lay-led independent consultative bodies, which included experts from fields like law enforcement, the psychiatric and therapeutic professions, and victims-survivors’ advocates — to act as a “confidential consultative body to the bishop” on policy as well as on the assessment of individual allegations of abuse of minors.

While review boards have been crucial to the Church’s efforts in the U.S. to rebuild trust following the scandals of recent decades, it is often unclear how exactly they fit into the canonical process.

But review boards are tasked with giving recommendations to bishops about whether allegations have a “semblance of truth” — the low threshold which is supposed to trigger a formal canonical trial.

In communicating their findings, review boards sometimes issue public statements which could seem to cut against the DDF’s canonical process, or even appear to arrive at settled conclusions about allegations before a formal canonical process has begun.

Most notably, review boards in the U.S. have standardized the use of terms like “credible” and “substantiated” to describe allegations, which have been criticized by defense advocates as giving the impression that allegations are proven, even before any formal canonical legal process has begun.

Diocesan-published lists of accused clerics, especially when using language about credibility, have been used by U.S. courts as proof of wrongdoing, despite no legal process or determination of guilt having been made.

In New Orleans, a bankruptcy judge ordered the archdiocese to cease paying stipends to clerics on the public “credibly accused” list in 2020, and last year extended the order further to include even to those whose accusations were not deemed “credible” — even if those priests hadn’t undergone any kind of legal process at all.

Critics have also warned that when an accusation isn’t proven, the fact that a priest’s name has been on a list at all can make it difficult — sometimes impossible — for the bishop to return him to pastoral ministry, creating a class of “unassignable” priests who haven’t been found guilty, but cannot be practically engaged in pastoral ministry.

But others argue that naming names of accused clergy is an essential part of recognizing the suffering of survivors. While publishing the name of a deceased cleric might seem unfair, they argue, it’s often the closest to justice their victims can get.

Further, some survivors’ advocates also argue that a list of “credibly accused” clergy from the diocese can help victims come forward — seeing the name of their abuser on a diocesan list can give them confidence that they will be taken seriously, they say, and assure them that they are not alone.

—
While many U.S. dioceses and bishops have adopted the publication of such lists as a matter of policy — Vatican instructions to the contrary notwithstanding — a minority of U.S. bishops have refused to do so, and come under considerable criticism.

In 2023, Bishop Robert McManus of Worcester, Mass., released an updated report on clerical sexual abuse in his diocese, going back to the 1950s.

The report did not include the names of clergy accused of historical acts of abuse, and the diocese does not maintain a public list of “credibly accused” clergy.

“I have been asked over the years why our diocese does not publish a list of accused priests as do some other dioceses in the country,” McManus said. “I am convinced a single list will not accurately reflect the various concerns and outcomes.”

“There is no other precedent for the publishing of lists of the accused in society - even of those accused in other positions of trust such as medicine, education or law enforcement,” the bishop said at the time.

“Such lists can be a cause for deep division among many members of our Church who see this as publicly branding as guilty those who never have been charged by law enforcement or had a chance to defend themselves in a court of law,” said McManus.

Instead, the Worcester diocese publicizes the names of accused clergy on an individual basis, when a cleric is removed from ministry after an allegation of misconduct.