Victims’ voices at heart of report on combating Church abuse

“Protection is the sine qua non for the Gospel to be heard and believed,” writes Archbishop Thibault Verny of Chambéry. He is the new president of this commission, which was created in 2014 by Pope Francis and long chaired by Cardinal Seán Patrick O'Malley, who retired earlier this year.

In this second report, the commission gives ample space to the voices of those who have been abused, here systematically referred to as “victims/survivors.” For the French bishop, this decision responds to “the call not to simply march for the victims and survivors of abuse, but with them in the demanding work of institutional conversion.”

Thus, “dozens” of abused persons, all anonymized, were consulted. The commission explains that they represent a panel that was “sought from diverse ages, genders, and ethnic and cultural backgrounds to capture a broad range of perspectives.”

They were able to read certain parts of the report in advance and share “their reactions and perspectives on the accuracy and relevance of the Commission’s findings.” This feedback was used in the revision of the text.

The commission has compiled more than 20 sensitive points raised by the victims. The first concerns “a lack of accountability for Church leaders.”

“I sent two letters to the bishop telling him what happened, that was five years ago, and I still have not received an answer,” lamented one victim. The commission, for its part, called for “a clearer canonical process of resignation or removal in these cases of negligence and cover-up.”

The victims also express the “fundamental need [...] to have access to information” related to their cases handled by the ecclesiastical justice system. “You want to know and they don't tell you anything. It's like being sent to purgatory,” says one of them.

Further on, the report notes the “slow administration of justice” and the Roman Curia's lack of “openness” and “sensitivity” towards victims.

On the difficult issue of financial reparations, victims emphasize that money can “significantly impact” their lives by enabling them, for example, to access psychological care. Others point out that such compensation is “often viewed with suspicion, as if it places a price on suffering.”

“They offered me $20,000, but all I wanted was an apology,” says one abuse victim.

A “constant” concern is the handling of abusers and the practice of transferring them to other dioceses.

“The Commission notes that this practice can be a source of obstruction of justice and something that victims/survivors rightly highlight as a significant concern and ongoing risk for further abuse.”

Victims also “underlined the need for rigorous vetting of all Church personnel” through “psychiatric evaluations before ordination” and “recurring assessments” thereafter. These screenings should also apply to non-ordained individuals working within the Church who come into contact with minors and vulnerable persons. These checks must “minimize the risk of abuse.”

The victims also lament the lack of clear structures for reporting abuse, and even a “strong resistance to safeguarding reforms.”

“The Church has successfully standardized dogma and liturgical practice worldwide; why has it failed to standardize abuse response policies?” asks one of them.

Calling for effective collaboration with civil authorities, victims also denounce the culture of silence and the pressure exerted on them by certain officials.

“My brother was a seminarian. The bishop told my family that my complaint could affect his ordination,” the report states.

This pressure is also felt among lay people in parishes. “Victims/survivors consistently explained that they are accused of tempting priests rather than being recognised as victims/survivors of a crime,” reports the commission, which acknowledges the “severe isolation” experienced by victims.

Another issue highlighted was the lack of response to ongoing abuse. One of the victims who participated in these workshops said they were aware of priests having sexual relations with young girls and nuns. Another explained, “Cases of forced abortions among religious sisters are ignored by Church authorities.”

In response to these reports, the commission expressed “deep concern.” It reminded those responsible of their legal and moral duty to deal with these cases in accordance with canonical and civil standards. The commission explained that a study group on vulnerability had begun its work with the aim of developing the Church's understanding of vulnerable adults.

One victim also points to the “patriarchal culture” that “prevents women and girls from speaking out.” Another reports, “The seminary authorities only cared about my sexual preference and not about the abuse I had received from my formator and other seminarians.”

The commission writes that “the politicization and polarization of gender-based issues has threatened important dialogue and progress around urgent safeguarding concerns.”

Other criticisms raised by victims include a lack of respect for confidentiality. One victim expressed his distress at priests and members of the Church who “discussed his case openly.” The commission is clear: “Confidentiality is essential to compliance with moral and civil law.”