As the conclave is approaching to elect a new pope, the question of the management of sexual abuse affairs within the Catholic Church is of crucial importance. Survivors organizations such as End Clergy Abuse (ECA) and Survivors Network of Those Abused by Prests (SNAP) made their voices heard by sending an open letter to cardinals, asking them to favor a candidate adopting a zero tolerance policy towards sexual abuse. This raises fundamental questions about the direction that the Church could take and the very process of selecting a new papal figure.
For decades, the Church would face scandals linked to sexual abuse of priests, accompanied by attempts to conceal in the hierarchy. This situation had significant repercussions on the credibility of the institution and its commitment to protect its followers. The words of Peter Isely, member of Snap and himself a victim, resonate with an increasingly emergency feeling. He claims that the expectations of Catholics and the public are clear: a new leader should not be an individual who has covered criminal acts. This request highlights the desire for deep reforms and increased transparency.
The zero tolerance policy, which was adopted by Catholic churches in the United States in 2002, states that a priest must be definitively withdrawn from his ministry after even an act of recognized or proven abuse. This principle is not universally applied in the world, however, highlighting the disparities between the different regions of the globe. While the United States has taken clear measures in response to this crisis, other countries have not always followed this path, which raises questions about the global efforts of the Church to deal with this problem.
The case of Peruvian Cardinal Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne, who was seen participating in pre-conclave discussions despite in progress ecclesiastical sanctions, accentuates this problem. His status exempts him from participation in the conclave proper, but his presence in these deliberations raises questions about the application of sanctions and on the true commitment of the Church to deal with cases of abuse.
The implementation of the “Conclave Watch” initiative by Snap is screwing a monitoring tool on the process of choosing cardinals, allowing survivors to contribute and assess the history of candidates. This approach has a double objective: to inform Catholics and encourage them to reflect on the challenges of leadership within the Church. The collection of information of an international scope stresses that concerns about abuses are not only local, but global and require collective attention.
At this stage, several questions remain unanswered: how can the Catholic Church restore the confidence of its faithful and the general public? What role will the cardinals and hierarchy play in this dynamic of change, if they are embarking on a more open and transparent path? What control mechanisms can be put in place to avoid future drifts?
These questions do not seek to assign responsibilities or to polarize the debate. They testify to a need for constructive dialogue and reform, with the aim of ensuring a better protected environment for the faithful and the potential victims. The choice of the next pope is not a simple case of succession, but an opportunity for the Church to engage in a process of transformation which could be decisive for its future.
It is fundamental to follow this evolution with an attentive and empathetic look, by supporting the voices of the survivors while recognizing the complexities and the challenges that the Church faces in its quest for renewal. The transition to truly responsible leadership may well depend not only on future decisions, but also on the collective will of each member of the Catholic community involved in this process.