Pope Francis told clergy that their honorable status “should not make you feel superior to the people or lead you into the temptation of being prideful or feeling powerful. It should not make you think of your ministry as bestowing social prestige, acting as leaders who crush others”. “Let us remember that with perfume we anoint the feet of Christ, which are the feet of our brothers and sisters in the faith, starting with the poorest,” he said, adding that a priest is always “an instrument of blessing”. “Never take advantage of this role. You should always bless and console; always be a minister of compassion and a sign of God’s mercy,” the Pope said.

Consent is when both people can say “Yes” or “No.” Both people absolutely, categorically want to be sexual with one another. From my perspective on this, it is so secretive and hidden, the pastor is trying to keep it unknown. So, the capacity for an open, honest conversation in this relationship is almost impossible. Consent is not possible. Outside of ministry, all the other helping professions understand the complications of the ethics around this. That is why sexual relationships with people you are supporting and helping are prohibited.

I want to take a moment to update you on a disturbing allegation made against me. The allegation against me by an anonymous person is a complete fabrication. It never happened. I have never had sexual contact with another person. I am considering the canonical and legal options available to me in response to this unfounded accusation.

The priest is claiming that Grindr falsely claimed his personal information would be safe, and then sold it to third parties without alerting him that it could be used to identify him. In July 2021, a Catholic news site published a story about the priest's alleged use of Grindr based on what it described as information obtained from commercially available data from Grindr. "At the very least, the article could have included assessments from independent experts on child sexual abuse regarding whether sexual orientation, in itself, plays a role, and whether the use of dating apps is a true red flag. The choice not to do so can suggest either recklessness, or, more alarming, a deliberate desire to raise doubts about all gay clergy, even those (presumably the majority) faithful to their vows who’ve never abused anyone."

A former associate priest lost his appeal to the State Supreme Court. He sued for more than $2 million claiming he did nothing wrong and was denied due process. The priest's attorney said, “When the archdiocese placed his name on a list of priests who were credibly accused of sexual criminal misconduct, they in effect convicted him without the benefit of a trial, without the benefit of him being able to present evidence, without him being able to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him, and in effect, he’s been convicted without a trial.”

The Apostolic Signatura reasoned that a credible accusation of sexual abuse of a minor was not a sufficient cause, by itself, to remove a priest from the office of pastor. The Bishop erred in removing Father from the office of Pastor due to the credible accusation without an intervening procedural process to further determine the truth of the accusation.

A County judge has rejected a request by state investigators to compel the Catholic Archdiocese to release decades of records on priests who may have abused children. The Judge ruled that the Attorney General lacks the authority to demand the documents and that the Catholic Church has a religious exemption.

A Catholic priest under investigation since 2018 has been cleared of accusations of sexual abuse. An independent review board found no sufficient evidence to proceed with criminal action in the matter of accusations against the priest. The board rendered a verdict in the priest's favor on the claims for civil assault, civil battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The investigation is now closed and the priest is no longer on administrative leave.

A Cape Cod priest who was accused of two counts of rape between 2005 and 2008 has been found not guilty by a Superior Court jury. The jury deliberated for five days in total. The priest did not testify during the trial. He has been on leave from the Church since 2019.

Father waged an eight-year long battle to defend his reputation after a man in 2016 accused him of sexually abusing him as a teenager in the 1970s. From the start, the priest denied the allegation and passed a lie detector test. Civil authorities never brought criminal charges. The priest then sued his accuser in County District Court, and in 2018, a jury awarded him $13,500, finding that his accuser had interfered with his contractual duties and ability to earn a living as a priest. In 2019, the State Court of Appeals upheld the verdict.

“What I allowed was not to bless the union. That cannot be done because that is not a sacrament. I cannot. The Lord made it that way. But to bless each person, yes. The blessing is for everyone. For everyone. To bless a homosexual-type union, however, goes against the law; the natural law, the law of the Church. But to bless each person, why not? The blessing is for all. Some people were scandalized by this. But why? For everyone! Everyone!” Pope Francis

I was falsely accused and denied both justice and mercy by our local Church. I have found the path to justice exhausting and worrisome and, let me say, very, very, very expensive. I am grateful for the Church’s laws and courts. I received no justice, no comfort and no word of mercy from the Diocese during my long ordeal, and often told the bishop, and the previous bishop, that Psalm 31 speaks to my pain: ‘I am like a dead man, forgotten, like a thing thrown away.’ Without justice, we have no future or no hope. I am grateful to the Vatican, my legal team, my family and friends, and many of the members of this parish, and many former members, who insisted that justice be done.

Chubb Insurers have countered that the archdiocese is making an argument akin to an arsonist burning down their house and then demanding to be paid out on their insurance policy. In court filings, they have asserted that their companies “have no duty to provide insurance coverage” in many of the sex abuse cases and that the Archdiocese of New York “alone must bear the full financial consequences of its criminal behavior.” The archdiocese hid those crimes, the insurer said, and “protected the perpetrators, and in many cases, punished and stigmatized those victims brave enough to come forward.” When you have an insurer that’s unwilling to come to the table to make good on these claims, the result is the diocese and the institutions go into bankruptcy.

The settlement requires the Diocese of Brooklyn to overhaul its approach to managing sexual abuse complaints, including the implementation of a new system underpinned by an independent, secular monitor. This monitor will oversee the diocese’s compliance with enhanced policies and procedures and will issue an annual report assessing the diocese’s handling of sexual abuse cases. The creation of new offices and committees dedicated to safeguarding minors and other vulnerable populations. The appointment of a clergy monitor with expertise in law enforcement or counseling to develop and oversee abuse prevention plans.

The nuns had accused the Archbishop, who has governed the archdiocese since 1999, of harassment of a psychological, economic, and physical (though not sexual) nature. The Archbishop “presents indicators of rigid, structured thinking; therefore, when faced with situations and/or events that differ from his ideology or what he expects, he could react with anger or irritability, triggering intimidating behaviors,” according to a psychological report that was published with the court’s ruling. The Judge ordered the Archbishop to undergo psychological treatment, as well as training in gender violence.

The priest's attorneys are not only denying the allegation, but also alleging slander against him [by the bishop] because the news has so quickly been made public. They say that the priest was stripped of his priestly duties before he had an opportunity to learn of the allegations against him, or to prepare and present a defense, adding that “Priests are entitled to due process.” They say that the priest was confronted with an interrogation before he was told who was accusing him and what the claims were, and did not get a chance to discover the claimed facts against him.

The Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith decided that there was not sufficient evidence presented to arrive at moral certainty that Father was guilty of the accusation made against him, and therefore he was acquitted with a decree of absolution. As a result of this decree, the Bishop has been directed by the Dicastery of the Doctrine of Faith to take steps to restore Father's reputation and his ability to exercise his priestly ministry. “Now that a final decision and decree of absolution has been issued by the Dicastery of the Doctrine of Faith, I will do all that I can to attend to the pastoral needs of those impacted by this very long and difficult process,” the Bishop said.

Recent press coverage of a civil suit alleging defamation and fraud brought by a diocesan priest against his own diocese and vicar general has triggered a great deal of discussion about the prudential wisdom, legal strategy, and ecclesial consequences of American Catholic priests relying on civil litigation to seek redress against perceived wrongs. In this context, an explanation of some of the many legal issues involved—under both civil and canon law—might help better inform the debate. In addition, a brief survey of recent cases shows how perilous such a strategy might be, however sympathetic the underlying claims might appear.

No Catholic church, nor school, nor any institution of any kind, religious or not, is without fault and error, because each is comprised of humans, and we are all prey to temptations and wrongdoings which lead to errors in judgment and simple mistakes, as well as at times, egregious acts. But such are the acts of men, not “the Church".

The Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s temporary suspension of the statute of limitations for child sex abuse is unconstitutional. The three-year “lookback window” was opened in June 2021 and allowed individuals to file abuse lawsuits regardless of when the incidents are alleged to have occurred. The judges decided the Louisiana Legislature went above their constitutional power after they gave the opportunity for the lawsuits to be submitted, meaning any sex abuse case involving clergy filed under that lookback window is not to be heard in court. “We are constrained to find the statutory enactment is contrary to the due process protections enshrined in our [state] constitution and must yield to that supreme law,” reads the majority opinion released on Friday. “Accordingly, we reverse in part, and vacate in part, finding the trial court erred in overruling the exception of prescription."