Litigation

The Catholic Church’s Child Abuse Crisis: Scope and Impact

The struggles of the Catholic Church are well documented. For decades, it has grappled with the moral, legal and institutional consequences of countless child sexual abuse scandals – galvanising widespread media coverage, public outrage and scholarly inquiry. From country towns in Australia to metropolitan cities across Europe, the US and the Global South, high-profile cases and harrowing testimony continue to stoke tension and erode the Church’s veneers of righteousness.

In Australia alone, a recent summary noted that seven per cent of Catholic priests working in Australia between 1950 and 2010 were accused of child-sex crimes – though the figure alone cannot capture hidden, unreported claims, institutional cover-ups or the enduring harm to survivors.

Institutional Failures and the Royal Commission Findings

Following the work of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and subsequent reporting, it was found that child safety was systematically compromised by institutional Catholic practices: reliance on canonical rather than civil processes, internal transfers of alleged offenders, delayed reporting to police, shielding reputations, and insufficient support to victims.

All this elucidates an uncomfortable dichotomy – a religious institution bankrupt of integrity, instead characterised by moral depravity.

Pope Leo XIV’s Commitment to Healing and Justice

Given this dichotomy, a key prerogative of the newly elected Pope Leo XIV has been to confront the Church’s history of abuse and restore some semblance of goodwill.

In fact, just yesterday, Pope Leo met with a coalition of survivors of abuse and victims’ advocates for the first time at the Vatican.

Members of the board of Ending Clergy Abuse met with the Pope for about an hour in a closed-door session, later confirmed by the Vatican.

“This was a deeply meaningful conversation,” Gemma Hickey, ECA board president and survivor of clergy abuse in Canada, said in a press release. “It reflects a shared commitment to justice, healing and real change.”

The meeting is particularly pertinent, given that it comes in the wake of the 2025 Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors report.

Insights from the 2025 Pontifical Commission Report

Released last week, the report elucidates the enduring nature of the Catholic Church’s institutional shortcomings. Despite procedural reforms and new reporting structures, the Commission noted that many dioceses and religious orders remain reluctant—or ill-equipped—to comply with global safeguarding standards. In some cases, local bishops still prioritise canonical secrecy and hierarchical loyalty over transparent cooperation with civil authorities.

While the Vatican report praises certain advances, such as the introduction of safeguarding offices in every significant jurisdiction, it equally concedes that “the culture of silence and clerical privilege” remains “deeply embedded.” This admission is telling. It represents a shift from the Church’s earlier defensive posture toward something indicative of institutional introspection.

Broadly speaking, the report’s language is emblematic of a cultural shift within the Church under Pope Leo, one that embraces a more pragmatic stance toward institutional responsibility. His private meeting with survivors and advocates is evidence of this shift – elucidating a willingness to confront the Church’s own legal and moral liabilities – rather than minimise them through the perfunctory, largely symbolic rhetoric synonymous with previous papacies.

Balancing Spiritual Authority and Civil Accountability

However, converting this cultural change into meaningful systemic reform is a far more complicated remit, especially given the Vatican’s unique constitutional structure.

The Holy See is the central governing body of the Catholic Church and Vatican City, but as a sovereign entity governed by canon law, it traverses an uneasy boundary between spiritual authority and state responsibility. Canonical processes within the Vatican, such as those governed by the 2021 Book VI of the Code of Canon Law and the apostolic constitution Praedicate Evangelium, continue to vest disciplinary authority in ecclesiastical tribunals rather than independent civil bodies.

Critics argue that this creates a dual justice system —one that purports to address moral wrongdoing but shields the Church from civil liability. Survivors’ advocates have long maintained that genuine accountability requires not only moral contrition but also structural change—most notably, the automatic referral of abuse allegations to state authorities and the removal of papal diplomatic immunity where criminal negligence is alleged.

Global Challenges in Combating Clerical Abuse

One only has to look abroad to understand the difficulties associated with combating clerical abuse. In Ireland, Poland, and parts of Latin America, entrenched clerical influence continues to frustrate transparency and civil litigation. In the United States, several dioceses have filed for bankruptcy following waves of abuse claims, prompting survivors to criticise the process as a means of shielding assets rather than promoting justice.

The Vatican’s 2025 report highlights similar disparities: some regions have introduced comprehensive safeguarding frameworks, while others lack even basic protocols for reporting allegations. The Commission’s most striking finding was that fewer than 60 per cent of dioceses worldwide had fully implemented the Vos Estis Lux Mundi procedures—papal regulations designed to ensure that bishops accused of negligence face investigation.

Pope Leo’s emphasis on “zero tolerance” therefore requires the Church to reconsider how to enforce its own laws consistently across jurisdictions that differ vastly in legal culture, resources, and willingness to confront clerical misconduct.

Australia’s Leading Legal Framework for Institutional Liability

In this respect, Australia’s response remains one of the most robust worldwide. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse fundamentally transformed the legal and ethical expectations of religious institutions. Its findings led to a series of landmark reforms, including the Civil Liability Amendment (Organisational Child Abuse Liability) Act 2018 (NSW), the abolition of statutory limitation periods for civil claims, and the establishment of the National Redress Scheme.

Perhaps most significantly, Australian courts have embraced the concept of institutional liability—recognising that religious organisations can be held vicariously liable for the actions of clergy, even where traditional employment relationships do not exist. In Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC (2016) 258 CLR 134, the High Court clarified that institutions may bear liability where the relationship between the offender and institution provided the “occasion” for the abuse.

This principle has since underpinned numerous civil claims against the Catholic Church, effectively dismantling decades of legal insulation once afforded by the “Ellis defence”—the argument that the Church, as an unincorporated association, could not be sued. The Legal Identity of Defendants (Organisational Child Abuse) Act 2018 (NSW) closed that loophole, ensuring survivors could seek redress against the Church’s property trusts and diocesan entities.

However, in a step backwards for survivors, the Court affirmed a more formal understanding of vicarious liability in Bird v DP. It held that liability arises only where an employment or quasi-employment relationship exists – effectively insulating institutions from liability when abusers operate outside the technical confines of employment – even when their authority empowers the abuse.

Ongoing Cultural Shifts and Reform in the Australian Church

In Australia, where the Catholic Church remains the country’s largest religious institution, the cultural shift toward transparency is ongoing. While the Church has issued numerous apologies and participated in the National Redress Scheme, critics argue that true reform necessitates cultural transformation.

Recent state inquiries, such as the Inquiry into the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne’s Handling of Child Abuse Allegations (2024), found that certain diocesan practices continued to prioritise institutional reputation over survivor welfare. Some Church-run schools and parishes still rely on outdated safeguarding frameworks or lack adequate trauma-informed training for staff.

Moreover, survivors’ advocates emphasise that financial settlements, while essential, cannot substitute for pastoral accountability or psychological redress.

Future Directions: Transparency, Justice, and Survivor-Centred Reform

Australia’s response serves as a reminder of the complex interplay between faith, governance and accountability. It demonstrates that the Vatican’s renewed commitment to transparency under Pope Leo XIV must contend with the rigidity of centuries-old institutions. In legal terms, the Church’s ongoing transformation illustrates the evolving relationship between ecclesiastical authority and secular justice systems.

As we advance, the global Church’s efforts to “restore trust” will depend less on papal statements and more on national hierarchies’ willingness to submit to civil jurisdiction and to support survivor-led reform. For survivors, justice is not achieved through papal audiences or commissions; it is achieved through recognition, redress, and reform that endures beyond headlines.