Pope Leo and the Church’s cultural inertia on child sex abuse

Share

Copy Link Facebook WhatsApp Twitter Telegram LinkedIn Email

On Oct. 20, 2025, Pope Leo XIV met with representatives of End Child Abuse (ECA), a global advocacy group representing the victims of child sexual abuse. ECA put it to Pope Leo that he should make universal a provision of canon law promulgated in 2002 for the United States that the punishment for even a single case of child sexual abuse should be permanent deprivation of ministry.

The Pontifical Council for the Protection of Minors (PCPM), in its 2024 Universal Guidelines Framework, defined “zero tolerance” as the permanent deprivation of ministry and stated that it should be imposed. Those Guidelines are not canon law, and there is no obligation for bishops and canonical tribunals worldwide to impose them.

Pope Leo told the ECA representatives that there is resistance in the Church to a universal zero-tolerance law. ECA asked Pope Leo whether it could work to overcome that resistance. The Pope authorized the PCPM to meet with ECA to discuss the matter. A meeting is due to take place soon.

Pope Leo also told the ECA representatives that the days when a Pope could simply decree something and everyone obeys are over. Even if that were true, cultural leadership in a hierarchical society like the Church must come from the top, from the popes themselves, who are solely responsible for canon law. There is a very close connection between law and culture.

The cultural problem of child sexual abuse in the Church was starkly demonstrated in the testimony of clergy and superiors of religious orders given before the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The Commission was surprised by the number of them who stated that they did not regard child sexual abuse as a criminal act, but only a “moral failing.”

Cultural inertia blocks zero-tolerance

That cultural attitude derived from canon law’s pontifical secret, preventing reporting to the civil authorities in countries where there was no applicable civil reporting law, and listing the canonical crime of child sexual abuse in Book V of the Code, dealing with the “special obligation” of celibacy.

In other words, child sexual abuse was no more serious than masturbation. The 2021 French CIASE Final Report also concluded that canon law “trivialized” child sexual abuse.

The pontifical secret has now been abolished, and the canonical crime of child sexual abuse has been taken out of Book V of the 1983 Code of Canon Law and placed in the new Book VI dealing with offenses against “human life, freedom and dignity.” These are welcome changes, but they do not go far enough.

There is still cultural inertia in the way that the Holy See deals with child sexual abuse. The failure to impose permanent deprival of ministry to clergy outside the United States leaves the impression, particularly for the victim/survivors, that the Church still does not take child sexual abuse seriously.

Dismissal and permanent prohibition  

In an address in 2002, Pope John Paul II set out the appropriate penalty for child sexual abuse: “There is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young.”

The Australian Royal Commission, in its 2017 Final Report, quoted these words when it said that the appropriate punishment for child sexual abuse was dismissal from the priesthood and from a religious institute. This is the maximum penalty under canon law.

Permanent prohibition on ministry is not the same as dismissal from the priesthood. A priest who is not dismissed but is permanently prohibited from ministry can still say Mass privately and is entitled to receive financial support from the Church.

ECA is not asking for mandatory dismissal, the Church’s maximum punishment. But a permanent prohibition on the ministry should be mandatory worldwide, not just in the United States.

The Church has no problem with zero tolerance in punishing other kinds of crimes under the Code of Canon Law. For example, excommunication is automatic for assaulting the Pope (Canon 1370), procuring an abortion (Canon 1379), throwing away the Holy Eucharist (Canon 1382), absolving one’s accomplice for a sexual sin (Canon 1384), attempting to ordain a woman (Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela 2010 Art 5, 1°) and directly violating the seal of confession (Canon 1386).

It doesn’t matter how mild the assault on the pope is. A slap across the face or a gentle push is enough to earn automatic excommunication. Likewise, Canon 694 §1 provides that members of religious institutes “must be held as ipso facto dismissed” if they have attempted to marry.

Canonical ‘finding of guilt’  

These punishments are imposed without any hearing on the merits. ECA is not asking for that. It is simply asking that, after child sex abuse is established following a proper canonical process and hearing, the guilty priest be punished with permanent deprivation of ministry.

It should also be noted that canon law requires “moral certainty” before any finding of guilt is made. Canon lawyers generally regard this as the same as “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” in the Anglo/American legal system.

On the other hand, it has long been decided in the Anglo-American system that issues of whether an accused should retain their license to practice their profession are to be decided on the balance of probabilities, not on the criminal standard.

The Australian Royal Commission recommended that the balance of probabilities be adopted in canon law for the right to continue in ministry.

The Holy See, in its response, rejected that and insisted on the higher standard of proof. False allegations are not a realistic concern. Clergy convicted under canon law have been proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

If the Holy See is concerned about some cases where permanent removal from ministry seems to be harsh, it can always allow its appeal courts to substitute a lesser sentence. But these cases should be rare, and if the appeal courts do so, they have an obligation to explain to the victims and to the public why the usual sentence is not imposed.

The ECA and other survivor groups are doing no more than asking the Holy See to take the conclusions of respected civil inquiries seriously, and most importantly, the words of St. John Paul II that there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young.