Will Pope Leo XIV Break the Cycle?

The unresolved scandal of clerical abuse demands more than gestures—it demands truth

The revelations surrounding the late Abbé Pierre—France’s once-idolised “saint of the poor” now exposed as a serial abuser of women and girls—have reopened an old wound in the Catholic conscience. But what is worse than the scandal itself is the predictable, repeated pattern of the Church’s response: delay, euphemism, deflection, and silence. Despite four successive pontificates pledging “zero tolerance,” the abuse crisis has not been resolved. And so the question is begged once more—will Pope Leo XIV be any different?

Leo’s rise was heralded by some as a reset. His reputation for confronting the cult-like Sodalitium Christianae Vitae in Peru gained him admirers¹. And yet, a deeper look at his tenure in Chiclayo reveals the same pattern of failure that has haunted his predecessors: delayed action, inconsistent discipline, victims left unheard, and public trust eroded.

Three women from his former diocese came forward with accounts of clerical abuse. While Leo—then Bishop Prevost—reportedly encouraged them to report the crimes, photographs and video later confirmed that one of the accused, Fr. Eleuterio Vásquez, continued celebrating Mass publicly, even with the bishop himself². Another, Fr. Alfonso Obando, retained ministry for years despite prior restrictions, and was later laicized—too late³.

The women were offered a diocesan counsellor who told them, in a recorded conversation, that their suffering likely would not result in meaningful justice because there had been “no penetration”⁴. It is precisely this kind of bureaucratic minimisation—this moral parsing of abuse into legalistic degrees—that has corroded the Church’s moral authority.

What makes this all the more alarming is Pope Leo’s much-vaunted knowledge as a canon lawyer, and his recent leadership as Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops. He is no naïf when it comes to the structures and rules of episcopal governance. Yet it was during his time overseeing global episcopal appointments that questions continued to mount regarding his association with certain compromised figures—among them prominent American prelates with ties to the disgraced Theodore McCarrick. One such figure, Cardinal Robert McElroy, was promoted despite public allegations of negligence involving accused clergy, while another, Archbishop George Lucas, continues to face unresolved accusations of cover-up⁵.

Supporters of Leo cite his boldness in confronting Sodalitium’s founder, Luis Fernando Figari, whose acts of cruelty and abuse were well-documented: from burning, flogging, and humiliating members to sexually violating boys⁶. But critics argue that even this courage coexisted with a habitual deference to canon-law formalism, and a failure to act in cases that lacked political visibility. If Leo could confront Figari, why could he not ensure that a parish priest credibly accused of sharing a bed with an 11‑year‑old girl was removed immediately⁷?

This is not a matter of optics or isolated failings. It is about credibility. For decades, victims have testified to the trauma of being ignored, disbelieved, or silenced by men they were taught to revere. The evidence has mounted: over 80% of recorded clerical abuse victims were male⁸; the abuse peaked in eras of lax seminary formation and tolerated moral compromise⁹; episcopal cover-ups have been widespread; and only eight bishops credibly accused of abuse have been laicized¹⁰.

Frédéric Martel’s In the Closet of the Vatican, though controversial, pointed to a homosexual clerical subculture in Rome that, whatever its ideological complexion, helped perpetuate silence and self-protection¹¹. Gene Thomas Gomulka has pressed this thesis further, contending that many of the Church’s moral failures—on abuse, family, and doctrinal integrity—stem from a hierarchy compromised by hidden sin and bound by mutual complicity¹². One need not agree with all of Gomulka’s conclusions to see the danger in a clerical culture that prizes discretion over justice, and fraternity over forthrightness.

Above all, the Abbé Pierre scandal underscores the Church’s enduring failure to police its own—even when its own identity is built on moral leadership. As The Washington Post recently observed, “the case of Abbé Pierre…” serves as a stark reminder that when exposés come from outside the Church and not through internal channels, the institution is still failing¹³.

So again: will Leo XIV break the cycle?

He must. The Church cannot afford another pontificate of gesture without substance. We do not need more commissions, statements, or photo opportunities. We need:

• Transparent protocols for dealing with abuse, published in full and enacted universally.
• Independent oversight of bishops, with lay involvement in investigations.
• Zero tolerance applied not just to priests, but to bishops and cardinals.
• Canonical reform that prioritises victims and accelerates justice.
• Public penance, not private paperwork, for a hierarchy that has scandalised the innocent.

Until these things occur, Leo’s pontificate will be judged not by the courage he showed in Peru, but by the silence he maintains in Rome.

The Church’s witness is not in its reputation—it is in the Cross. There is no redemption without exposure, no healing without confession, and no restoration without justice. The wounds inflicted on Christ’s little ones are not healed by committees. They are healed when bishops fall to their knees in repentance, when predators are removed without delay, and when the people of God can finally say: the darkness has been brought into the light.

Footnotes

1. New York Times, July 2025. Prevost’s decisive actions against Sodalitium’s founder earned him credit among survivors and journalists.
2. Ibid. Photographs and video posted on Facebook showed Fr. Vásquez concelebrating with Prevost during the investigation.
3. Ibid. Fr. Obando, despite being under restriction, was shown in over a dozen Facebook posts performing priestly duties.
4. Ibid. Fr. Julio Ramírez, appointed to counsel the women, was recorded saying their abuse would not merit Vatican priority due to lack of “penetration.”
5. Gomulka, Why Priests Abuse and Popes and Bishops Cover Up, July 12, 2025. Gomulka accuses Leo of promoting McElroy and failing to act on accusations involving Lucas, while alleging ties to former McCarrick allies.
6. New York Times, investigators confirmed Figari used metal whips, dogs, electric belts, and other forms of coercion.
7. New York Times, Ana María Quispe’s detailed account included sharing a bed with Fr. Vásquez at age 11.
8. Gomulka, Why Priests Abuse and Popes and Bishops Cover Up, July 12, 2025.
9. Ibid. Gomulka connects abuse to grooming in seminary environments.
10. Gomulka, Does the Sexual Orientation of the Pope and Bishops Matter?, July 6, 2025.
11. Ibid. Citing Frédéric Martel’s In the Closet of the Vatican.
12. Gomulka, both essays.
13. Washington Post, July 18, 2025. “The paragon has become a posthumous pariah… A symbol of what should be Pope Leo XIV’s most critical priority.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/07/18/abbe-pierre-sexual-abuse-case/