A New Pope: A New Chapter in Safeguarding?

The past 48 hours in the news cycle make life very hard for a blog writer trying to keep up.  A matter of hours ago the only Pope being discussed was the one who had died on Easter Monday, and whose funeral had created the powerful image of two leaders having an informal meeting in St Peter’s Rome.  For all its importance, that image of Trump and Zelensky seated facing one another in the Basilica has been swept away by many new images from Rome, cheering crowds and signs of enthusiasm from Catholics all over the world.  Many non-Catholics, including myself, have been delighted to see the juggernaut of extreme right-wing ideas, as embodied by the MAGA forces of Trump, brought to a halt momentarily.  This continues the trend shown in the welcome election results in Canada and Australia.  The democratic instincts of ordinary people, which include a body of conservative men voting in the conclave in Rome, have reassured us that a worldwide drift towards fascism is not after all the will of the mass of people.  We can after all look forward to a future where liberal humane values exist and democratic instincts, despite the way they create untidiness in society, still prevail.

Pope Leo has indicated that he will, in his choice of name and his past record, be likely to keep many of the emphases of his predecessor alive.  This will include care for the poor, refugees and those marginalised by unjust systems, whether political or economic.  As has come to be expected of the majority of senior church figures of every denomination, his record of care for survivors and the pursuit of justice on their behalf is not flawless.  There is an incident recorded in Wikipedia page for Leo which indicates a preference to preserve the reputation of the church institution over the imperatives of justice.  This ‘scandal’ will be mulled over by many people. I mention it, not as a way of suggesting that the appointment should not have been made, but rather to observe that every single Papal candidate in his past will likely have some safeguarding lapse buried, but not forgotten. 

It is with the expectation that, at best, every candidate will have had a mixed record over safeguarding, that we can look back over the reign of Pope Francis and forward to that of Pope Leo.  Many eulogies have been made over Francis but repeating them is not the task of this blog.  What I find interesting is in the way that the good in Francis could be combined with aspects of failure, even evil.  Seeing only the good in someone is always going to create a one-sided, even distorted picture.  This would be the same for any of our lives.  Failing to even comment on serious failings in a person’s life may create an unhealthy situation.  The process of grieving is unlikely to be completed if there is a family myth which members are desperate to preserve at all costs.   To take an imaginary situation which will reflect what most clergy have witnessed.  Grandpa’s cruel behaviour towards his wife over 40 years of marriage has to be hushed up.   The family are not just rallying round to protect the family from the taint of scandal.  They are also aware that any discussion of Grandpa’s unacceptable behaviour will show up a part of the family in their failure to do more to challenge this behaviour and protect Grandma.  Listening to eulogies that are effectively ‘fake news’ is painful and in some way corrupting in equal measure.

Those who will study and scrutinise the life and reputation of Francis have plenty of material to assimilate and discuss.  The question as to whether he struck the right balance in relating to the dictatorial regime of Argentina, when Archbishop of Buenos Aires, will be a topic for historians for many decades to come.  For the purpose of this reflection, the focus is not on his skill in managing to negotiate a path through the tortuous path of Argentinian politics, but whether he served the cause of the victims and survivors of clerical abuse – a situation of enormous shame and harm to the work of the Catholic Church in every part of the world.

I write about child abuse in the Catholic Church with absolutely no desire to sound triumphalist by comparing it with the record of other communions, like the Anglican Church.  No church of any denomination emerges particularly well from the hundreds of cases that have come to light over the past 25 years or so.  While one can argue about the extent of the problem in comparing Catholic and Anglicans, the important question is perhaps which Communion is further ahead in actually dealing with the problem more effectively.  The death of Pope Francis and the new arrival of Pope Leo has brought to the surface once more the cry of survivors and their demand to be heard.  These suggest that late Pope said many of the right things about abuse, spending time with victims and expressing sorrow over their suffering.   Somehow, he seldom seems to have followed up his words with decisive action.   The BBC website carried a story about a woman called Alexa MacPherson who suffered sexual abuse from a RC priest for as long as six years from the age of three.   The priest was eventually sentenced by a court to a period in jail.  What horrified Alexa when she examined the paperwork connected with the case as an adult, was the way that the Church had used its power and influence to obtain favours from the justice system to mitigate the sentence of the offending priest.  The case was one of many that involved the intervention of Cardinal Bernard Law.  Cardinal Law, always anxious to protect the reputation of the institution above checking the poison of clerical abuse, was allowed to find refuge in Rome, being put in charge of a prestigious parish.  He died in 2018, effectively exonerated from his gross failures of care.  Francis did not ever take any action against him but allowed him to remain in post despite his notoriety in the eyes of the public.

 In writing this reflection, I would not want to claim that the record of Catholic bishops and priests is either better or worse than that of Anglicans.  Both hierarchies are guilty of causing terrible suffering to children and vulnerable individuals by a combination of incompetence, sloth and wilful neglect.  To say that the powerful were in the business of preserving the less powerful and the institutions that they worked for is probably not far off the mark as a generalisation.  Where there is a contrast, and this applies to the Catholic Church under Pope Francis, is the attitude shown by senior UK Catholic leaders when faced with the appalling crimes of some of the priests under their oversight.  There were, it is true.,Anglican bishops, such as Eric Kemp of Chichester, who wrapped protective blankets around clergy clearly guilty of crimes.  Their capacity for creating a toxic dangerous culture for the young only stretched to the boundary of their dioceses.  The potential harm that a Pope can do, with a flawed sense of the importance of sticking up for potential victims, is enormous. Francis seems to have been successful at saying the pastorally sensitive words to the survivors, but he seems much less competent at confronting and disciplining those guilty of appalling crimes of abuse.

The UK government report on crimes of child abuse (ICSA) tried to bring into the open the record of Anglican and Catholic attempts to hide away the incidence of child abuse within their structures.  Both Churches had their stories of pain and cruelty committed against young innocent individuals, but the Catholic Church showed itself far less cooperative in releasing documents and generally sharing information which would assist an important Government body to have a full picture.  The Church hierarchy believed that such cooperation would contravene Canon Law and that such non-cooperation was permitted on the grounds that the instructions of the Vatican have the protection afforded to any foreign state.  This refusal to cooperate belied the words of Francis who, in May 2019 had said there needed to be “concrete and effective actions that in involve everyone in the Church” regarding its approach to child sexual abuse. 

It now remains to be seen whether the new Pope will deliver on the implied concern of his predecessor over the need to act in respect of child abuse.  Will he put the need for providing justice and healing for those in pain or will he continue to prioritise the glory and privileges of the Catholic Church?  History will eventually tell us which path is to be followed.

About Stephen Parsons

Stephen is a retired Anglican priest living at present in Cumbria. He has taken a special interest in the issues around health and healing in the Church but also when the Church is a place of harm and abuse. He has published books on both these issues and is at present particularly interested in understanding how power works at every level in the Church. He is always interested in making contact with others who are concerned with these issues.

13 thoughts on “A New Pope: A New Chapter in Safeguarding?

  1. The Times today quotes a Peruvian investigative journalist saying that Pope Leo was smeared over his supposed safeguarding failure in Peru. She says he did take action, though he possibly could have done more.

    The Times also has a photo of Leo’s childhood home – an extremely modest one in a working-class Chicago suburb.

  2. And of course not just Catholics and Anglicans, it has been shown that senior Methodists have covered up. Makes you wonder how many times abusers have got away with abuse because the Church hierarchy have interfered with the justice process. I was aware of one Minister who perhaps got away more lightly then he should because a senior clergyman claimed in court that the Minister was under stress. Personally, I have never felt tempted to commit sexual abuse when stressed and I doubt whether the average citizen ever has unless they already have a predatory nature or history.

  3. Watching the “reveal” on the news was quite a spectacle. The joy and huge sense of occasion in Vatican City was truly palpable. A secular news channel suddenly gets misty-eyed almost, with the coverage almost unremitting.

    The new Pope rather reminded me of someone I once knew. Unfortunately for my opinion of Leo, this didn’t help me. That said I should aim to give him the benefit of the doubt and recognise my counter transference for what it is. The majority present, self-selected of course, had no such reservations. The Hope side of my head wants to join in with their ecstatic countenances.

    Time will tell. These are different times now, and the transparency of information flow and internet archive access allows dramatically different and much quicker ways of evaluating people’s pasts and present actions.

    There will always be a substantial core of followers who ignore all the above data. At one time I would have been in their number, not as a Roman Catholic, but as an Anglican, and never one particularly overestimating bishops (originally being conevo) but rather hanging on every word of our now fallen charismatic evangelical preachers. That balloon burst for me a long time ago now, too.

    I don’t believe leaders were ever supposed to have this level of estimation. But we’re human and that’s what we do with them. Anyone taking up the mantle of leadership, I would suggest owning up immediately to mistakes and errors; removing the fancy finery at every opportunity and working without pretence with ordinary people; and debunking at every opportunity the myths surrounding your new role.

    Not that anyone’s listening, but hey!

  4. A quicker election than for Archbishop of Canterbury! Why should the State or PM have such a say in the Archbishop of Canterbury appointment? We must be at a point here King Charles should have zero role in Anglican Church affairs. It would make equivalent sense for the Bishops to order the affairs of the monarch.

    1. The state, in the person of the King, no longer has any say in the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury (or any other C of E bishop), nor does the prime minister. The appointment process by the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) which, in spite of its title, is a a wholly internal church procedure. It nominates a name which is presented to the King by the prime minister as the chosen candidate. The King’s approval of the appointment is a formality and the announcements is made from 10 Downing Street. There is nothing new in this! Formerly the CNC was required to make two nominations, the option of a first and second choice. That practice was ended by prime minister Gordon Brown and the single nomination has been followed ever since.

      The problem with delayed appointments arises if the CNC cannot agree on a single candidate, as has happened in some recent cases, and absolutely nothing to do with the King (or the late Queen) or prime minister.

      1. GOV.UK describes a process with State-PM-monarch intrusion into the affairs of the Church. Is “Established Church” an archaic or sectarian anomaly?

        1. Apologies for the minor typos! I tried to summarise a very complex subject as simply as possible. Janet’s link to ‘Thinking Anglicans’ below sets out the present position in great detail. As I understand, the hold up is on the part of the Canterbury Diocese representatives.

          I think there is a considerable irony in this new and convoluted procedure as instigated by Archbishop Justin Welby whose resignation has prevented his own participation.

  5. The membership of the committee which will appoint the new Archbishop of Canterbury has been announced: https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk. That is, apart from the Canterbury Diocese members, and that selection process is being rerun. So, it could be awhile yet before the full body meets.

    I’m no tone of those who envies the Roman Catholic Church its papal conclaves, but this does seem ponderous.

    1. Fascinating! The episcopal system of government underlies or is exposed in many abuse and bullying scandals. Yet the ABC job is not actually determined by the CoE, and certainly not in a transparent manner which members can easily understand. Many thanks to Roland W for laying out what actually happens. We surely need to redefine the relationship between bishops, laity and other clergy.

  6. The Church of England Newspaper 9 May 2025 has a sad report about the inquiry findings at Bangor Cathedral in North Wales. Maybe worth comment and an article here on this site?

    1. Potentially. There are also allegations of financial impropriety as well. See “Thinking Anglicans”.

  7. ‘Multiple serious referrals made about cathedral’ is a newer 13-5-25 BBC report. Will the Welsh Primate follow Justin Welby and resign?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.