VATICAN CITY (VATICAN CITY)
The Pillar [Washington DC]
October 28, 2025
By Ed. Condon
Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez met with Pope Leo this month, to update the pope on the progress of a working group on the criminalization of spiritual abuse.
Among other things, the cardinal told Pope Leo that the group’s work was proceeding “fruitfully,” and petitioned the pontiff to confirm Cardinal Filippo Iannone as its chair, especially after Iannone moved positions in the Vatican last month.
The continuation of the group’s work, and the continuity of leadership, suggests Leo — himself a canonist — is at least open to an eventual new crime of spiritual abuse. But what might it look like, and how might it work?
—
The issue of spiritual abuse has been present in the Church for millenia, in one form or another. So long as there has been authority in any human society there exists the possibility for abuse, and spiritual authority is no different.
To a degree, canon law already recognizes the reality of spiritual abuse, albeit as an aggravating factor to other specific crimes, often sexual.
The canonical delicts of solicitation of a sin against the sixth commandment within the context of sacramental confession — and the attempted absolution of an accomplice to such a sin — are both specific crimes in canon law which recognize and set out to safeguard the integrity of the spiritual context of particular crimes.
And the presence of spiritual abuse as an aggravating factor to other forms of abuse is something Fernandez has discussed repeatedly, including in the light of the case of Fr. Maro Rupnik, the former Jesuit and disgraced iconographer accused of sexually and spiritually abusing dozens of women religious over a period of decades in the course of producing his “art.”
Earlier this year, Cardinal Fernandez noted that spiritual abuse did appear to be a significant aggravating factor in the Rupnik case, but also noted that the DDF saw “many other [similar] cases, including others that are worse but less publicized.”
Asked about the relationship of the working group to the Rupnik case, the cardinal said in January that “We cannot think of a new law for just one case, because that would limit the vision and harm the work’s objectivity.”
But while the cardinal has been circumspect about an eventual outcome, there has been speculation among canonists.
And the creation of a specific delict of spiritual abuse in canon law has been a particular priority of Cardinal Fernandez since his appointment as prefect of the doctrinal dicastery in 2023, and he championed the creation of the working group by Pope Francis in November last year.
At that time, Iannone led the Dicastery for Legislative Texts, the curial department charged with legislative interpretation, and cooperation between the two cardinals on the issue is reported to be close.
So following the news this week that the working group is continuing, and appears set to continue under the same leadership, some news sites speculated that a new delict of spiritual abuse could be created with a view to prosecuting Rupnik.
The penal case against Rupnik has, in the eyes of many — especially his alleged victims — proceeded grindingly slowly, with judges only formally confirmed to the case last month, some two years after the process was formally opened. But without speculating on the authority of the sources cited by other news outlets, the application of a new delict of spiritual abuse to Rupnik’s case would appear impossible.
As a basic legal premise of justice, laws — especially criminal laws — cannot be applied retroactively. On the contrary, canon law requires that a person can only be prosecuted under the law in operation at the time of any offense, and when there is a difference between the law at that time and the current law, the law more favorable to the defendant must be used.
So even if Pope Leo were to eventually approve and promulgate a new canonical crime of spiritual abuse, it would be a canonical impossibility for that new delict to be used to prosecute Rupnik for his past (alleged) actions.
It is also worth noting that even if Leo, himself a canon lawyer, was somehow persuaded to take the legally unprecedented step of ordering a retrospective prosecution of a newly codified crime, it would in all likelihood derail the current criminal proceedings against Rupnik, since it would require new charges being added to the process and open the possibility of the case having to begin all over again.
Nevertheless, the lessons learned from the initial difficulties in getting the Rupnik prosecution underway, despite years of accusations, public and private, will almost certainly feed into the working group’s conclusions, whenever they come.
Added to this will likely be the experiences of other, lesser known cases which have also highlighted the link between spiritual and other kinds of abuse, and the legal issues complications can hamper their successful prosecution.
Several religious sisters told The Pillar last year that Fr. David Nicgorski, formerly the superior general of the Oblates of the Virgin Mary, groomed them in spiritual direction while they were members of the Daughters of St. Paul, leading in one case to an alleged sexual assault.
Also last year, the Vatican has faced questions over the case of Argentine priest Ariel Alberto Príncipi, who was laicized for the abuse of minors and whom the papal chief of staff Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra attempted to illegally overrule Fernandez’s dicastery and restore to ministry last September.
Principi was found guilty by two canonical tribunals of sexually abusing teenage boys under the guise of “healing prayers” in which he would grope their genitals under the pretext of “curing” them of homosexual urges.
Canon law requires the “strict” interpretation of penal law in prosecutions. But spiritual abuse is often, if not always, committed via patterns of escalating problematic behaviours, and usually in one-on-one settings in which subjective impressions are hard to establish legally.
Even if such a definition could be arrived at, and promulgated, it would require local competent authorities to receive and assess complaints, initiating preliminary investigations locally and deciding whether or not there were grounds to initiate a prosecution.
Given that this would be a new delict creating a new class of crime, required by canon law to be interpreted strictly, in practice this would likely mean nearly all complaints were forwarded to the DDF for clarification on if they met the standard of the new law.
Given the DDF already faces a tremendous backlog of cases on crimes reserved to its exclusive consideration, it is hard to see how this new stream of work could be effectively managed by the already overburdened disciplinary section.
Of course, it is possible that a different solution could be found. Cardinal Iannone’s original appointment as chair of the working group was due to his role as prefect of the Dicastery for Legislative Texts, the department which is meant to be responsible for clarifying the meaning and application of canon law, including penal laws.
In practice, many dioceses refer first to the Vatican departments responsible for handling various disciplinary matters or appeals, usually the dicasteries for clergy, bishops, and doctrine.
The DLT does still get asked to weigh in on some penal issues, but they are usually the most unusual cases — though it does get asked to reaffirm if Freemasonry is still prohibited every 18 months or so.
It’s possible that a new delict could be approved by the pope alongside a detailed vademecum from either the DDF or the DLT on its application, and specific notice that requests for further clarity be directed to the DLT.
In that case, it would be up to Iannone’s as-yet unnamed successor at that department to work out the details. How plausible or palatable he would find that remains an open question.