AUTUN (FRANCE)
Los Ángeles Press [Ciudad de México, Mexico]
November 3, 2025
By Rodolfo Soriano-Núñez
Rome formally announced an apostolic visitation to the Community of the Emmanuel, a Catholic group known for its predatory practices.
Early this year, Pope Francis forced out of office French bishop Rey, a leading member of the Emmanuel Community.
While the visitation to the Emmanuel signals some interest in Rome to address sexual abuse in Europe, in Paraguay the Oblates keep protecting one of their priests accused of clergy sexual abuse.
October ended with official news from Rome about an “apostolic visitation” to the Community of the Emmanuel. It is hard to actually grasp the true reach of these activities. Formally, they are rendered as actions reflecting the communion between the Holy See and dioceses, religious orders, and movements.
However, when, Rome announced an “apostolic visitation” of the so-called Community of the Emmanuel, the French-speaking Catholic world got a jolt. If carried with some care, a major change should happen there but no “apostolic visitation” happens when things are going well in the diocese, order, or movement “visited.”
Quite the opposite. It is when things have gone wrong for quite some time, that Rome issues the briefs sending a superior of an order or a bishop, whether active or already emeritus, with broad powers to carry the visitation away. Moreover, even if visitations exist in the lose disciplinary framework of the Catholic Church, they are resisted.
Usually, it is after way too many letters or these days emails and other forms of communication have been populating several desks in Rome, that someone there suggests the need to do a visitation to figure out what is forcing otherwise passive faithful to nag the leaders of their Church.
At this point it is unclear what kind of actual changes the visitation will bring. More so after Pope Francis’s decision to suppress the Peruvian Sodalitium in the last days of his life.
It is clear that, up until now, there is no way to compare what we know about abuse at the Emmanuel, with the kind of abuse reported over 25 years at the Sodalitium. However, one must be aware that what we know about abuse at the Emmanuel is limited to France and other European countries and, sadly, one region where that movement expanded was Africa, and it is far harder to gather information about the scale of abuse there.
In any case, the expectation is already there: Emmanuel needs a major change, hence Leo XIV’s decision to sent out the first “apostolic visitation” of his pontificate. Will it be as definitive as what happened at the Sodalitium of Christian Life? It is hard to know at this point. What must be clear is that both the Sodalitium and Emmanuel belong to the kind of “modern” religious structure, neither an order nor an association of the faithful, but a rather odd combination of both.
New evangelization?
It was the kind of formula close to John Paul II’s notion of the so-called “new evangelization.” Sadly, more than engines for an actual “new evangelization,” groups such as the Peruvian Sodalitium, Emmanuel, and others turned into nightmares of sectarian practices, several types of abuse, turning them into some sort of perpetual motion machine paradoxically feeding off while outputting endless streams of scandals.
Unlike the Sodalitium, this Community of the Emmanuel, which is one of the names given to Jesus in the Gospels (Matthew 1:23), is not under the purview of the Dicastery for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, where most of the religious orders of the Catholic Church are “regulated.”
The Emmanuel, as sometimes is called for short, is under the shared jurisdiction of the Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life and the Dicastery of the Clergy, making it a much more complex entity.
In that regard, the Emmanuel is close to the Opus Dei, an entity that up until Pope Francis’s intervention in 2022 leading to the publication of Ad Charisms Tuendum was under the authority of the Dicastery of the Bishops, but that now is, as the Emmanuel is, at least partially, under the purview of the Dicastery of the Clergy.
Technically, the Emmanuel is a so called “public association of the faithful,” but as with many other entities in the Catholic Church, they do have activities, practices, ways to practice their understanding of the Catholic faith resembling the kind of things religious orders do, as they are allowed to integrate priests, male and female religious members, on top of the so-called celibates.
Such so-called celibates resemble in more than one way the sisters and brothers of traditional religious orders but, more importantly, also are rather close to the numerary and supernumerary of the Opus Dei, the so-called consecrated of the Regnum Christi, the “lay” branch of the Legion of Christ, and also the members of the Sodalitium who used to identify themselves as being “fully available” for the now suppressed entity.
The fact that some of their members are also priests and bishops, as bishop emeritus Dominique Marie Jean Rey is, enhances the notable murkiness of “movements” such as the Emmanuel, the need for a double jurisdiction, and the very difficulties to figure out who will be responsible for abuse when abuse happens.
Memories from other visitations
Also, even if the visitation signals the highest level of intervention from Rome, and it has the Pope’s support, it is by nature an opaque process, with no warranty that the “visited” party will accept the ruling from Rome.
When Francis launched a similar process in the diocese of Ciudad del Este, Paraguay, a territory then under the aegis of Rogelio Ricardo Livieres Plano, a bishop associated to the Opus Dei, the prelate accepted the early stages of the process.
However, as soon as Rome signaled major changes in the diocese, including Livieres Plano’s exit, the bishop called himself a victim. His now deleted diocese’s website featured a carousel of pictures of his clergy, seminarians, and lay persons, with the music of the 1986 movie The Mission, where a misguided Pope, misinformed by a Cardinal, ends up suppressing the missions in Paraguay, opening the door, later, for the suppression of the Jesuits in the 18th century.
Livieres Plano’s “installation” at the diocesan website depicted Pope Francis as the misguided Pontiff, misinformed by Spaniard Cardinal Santos Abril y Castelló, a former nuncio to Bolivia and Argentina in Latin America, on top of several other countries, unaware of what, according to Livieres Plano was actually moving him to act as he did in his diocese.
Although that website disappeared, there is a Facebook account still using Livieres Plano’s name to insist on defending the model that eventually forced him out of office. That account is available here.
Ultimately, Pope Francis removed Livieres Plano from office when he was only 69, the first of 52 bishops Francis forced out of office. That opened the door for Livieres Plano to play victim, calling himself betrayed by the Pope.
That is possible because there are no rules as to how the process happens. The “visitor” has full powers and the “visited” should be willing to accept the process and, more significantly, the outcomes. However, there lies the risk that when confronted with a potential major outcome the “visited” party could flip the board.
The fact that Livieres Plano died eleven months after his removal helped to ease what could have become the source of a bitter confrontation between Rome and the most radical wings of the Catholic far-right in the Spanish-speaking world, who rallied to support Livieres Plano.
And to be clear, Francis’s was hardly severe on Livieres Plano or his lieutenants in Ciudad del Este. The only actual “penalty” on the former bishop there was his removal, and losing control of what he expected would be his legacy for the diocese: a seminary who he entrusted to a Carlos Urrutigoity, an Argentine Traditionalist priest with a record of sexual and financial abuse in the diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania, in the United States, in the Aughts.
If there was a criticism on Francis and the prelates charged with carrying out the visitation is that they were unwilling to actually prove whether or not there was abuse at the seminary entrusted by Livieres Plano to Urrutigoity’s authority as a vicar general in the diocese.
Sectarian practices
When dealing with Emmanuel one must be aware that the community as such, as much as some leading members of it, have been marred for several years now with accusations of “sectarian practices,” financial malpractice, accusations of abuse, sexual and otherwise, that have led to trials of priests associated to this entity.
However, and this really important, it is extremely influential in French public life. A book recently published by Golias, a leading publishing house in the French-speaking world, goes under the title: La face cachée de L’Emmanuel. Enquête sur la plus influente communauté catholique de France, which roughly translated means “the hidden side of Emmanuel: an investigation into France’s most influential Catholic community,” and they are indeed.
The book, written by Olivier Perret, goes over the details of how deeply ingrained Emmanuel is in French private life. Thousands of families share the music, art, and other cultural products craftly used by this movement to convey their message, to gain influence and, in doing so, perhaps unwillingly, offer predators, sexual or otherwise, associated to this movement, impunity.
A measure of Emmanuel’s influence comes from the relative success bishop Rey enjoyed in his now former diocese of Fréjus-Toulon. He is a leading member of the Community and, as such, using many of the same cultural and symbolic devices Emmanuel is known for, he was able to revitalize his diocese. Sadly, he did so at the risk of ordaining males as priests with rather questionable pasts.
In doing so, he attracted Rome’s attention and, despite his apparent success, endorsed by influential French newspapers such as Le Figaro, Pope Francis forced him out of office. Rey was the last of 30 bishops the Argentine Pontiff forced out of office during his last two years in Rome, as the story linked after this paragraph explains.
Overall, Francis forced out of office a total of 52 bishops during his tenure, but there is no official count on why each of them was forced out.
The absence of an actual record of why some prelates are forced out of office, or why is a key component of the clergy sexual abuse crisis. The best example of it was what happened with Opus Dei and Peruvian Cardinal Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne and his “silent exit,” leaving no trace of any penalty. Only when trouble breaks the levies, there is vague “information” about the actual reason for the “silent” exit.
The predatory legacy of two Dominican brothers
But the roots of trouble run deeper, the Community of the Emmanuel, established in 1972 by French laypersons Pierre Goursat and Martine Lafitte-Catta, grew into a significant international movement known for its take on relatively novel practices in the fields of evangelization, praying, and the practice of compassion.
Over its history, it has faced serious allegations and complaints, followed by internal probes, criminal investigations, and more recently the announcement of the “apostolic visitation.” These processes, with variations have centered on claims of sexual and spiritual abuse, internal governance issues and financial practices.
The history of abuses at Emmanuel has its roots in abuses elsewhere in the French-speaking Catholic world, as Emmanuel was influenced by the writings and understanding of Catholic spirituality of Henri Anne Marie Joseph Philippe, who as a Dominican priest adopted the name of Marie-Dominique Philippe in 1930.
He was the spiritual mentor of some of the early members of Emmanuel and other movements in the French-speaking Catholic world, such as the Community of Saint John or Family of Saint John.
Saint John is now a conglomerate of sorts of religious groups founded originally by Philippe’s brother, Jean-Marie Joseph Philippe, known as Thomas Philippe after his profession in the Dominicans or Order of Preachers in the 1920s.
He died in 1993, but the reports on both brothers go all the way back to the late 1950s. Despite the accusations, and an early condemnation and restriction on the ministry of Thomas Philippe, both brothers enjoyed a degree of prestige and fame in Catholic circles in Postwar France and Europe.
Although none of the Philippe brothers were formal members of the Community of the Emmanuel, their influence on their early theological and spiritual formation was profound.
As profound at least the damage caused on numerous victims. The allegations of abuse perpetrated by both brothers and priests Philippe resurfaced in the second decade of this century as the clergy sexual abuse crisis worsened in France and elsewhere.
The allegations against the Philippes covered decades, primarily coming from adult consecrated women, and involved the abuse of their authority or power, depending on the case, and abuse of conscience, leading to sexual abuse.
Following a lengthy, protracted, and often dismissed probe, after several false starts with canonical proceedings, in 2023, the Holy See issued a final decree confirming the charges against the younger Philippe, the closest to Emmanuel, although it was merely symbolic as he had died in 2006.
In that regard, even if there is evidence of Rome being aware of how dangerous both Philippes were, neither the Roman curia nor the so-called Dominicans, officially the Order of Preachers, were actually willing to enforce the necessary restrictions.
The restrictions became part of their avatar, part of the allure of becoming, through proxies and their writings a disciple of the Philippe brothers. They remained an influential figure in Catholic French-language circles in Europe and elsewhere.
The secrecy of the alleged sanctions and their ability to turn them into part of their “charm,” allowed them to have some influence in the Community of St. John, in the Community of the Emmanuel, and on other Catholic-influenced organizations with global reach and appeal.
One of their proxies, surrogates, disciples, and promoters was French-speaking Canadian layperson Jean Vanier, the founder of the so-called L’Arche, an influential movement of its own, who was also named as a predator by victims who suffered his attacks from the late 1960s until the mid-2000s.
When the details of the abuses of the brothers Philippe and Vanier became public, the fallout was devastating for the Community of the Emmanuel, as it has been for the French Catholic Church at large over the last ten years or so.
Beyond the Marie-Dominique Philippe case, the Community of the Emmanuel has also faced recurring and broader claims of spiritual and psychological abuse within its own structures, particularly in its formation houses and among its consecrated branches.
“Spiritual contracts”
Survivors and former members have described an excessive emphasis on obedience and the so-called “spiritual contract” that made it difficult to dissent or leave without feeling profound guilt or religious condemnation. This atmosphere, critics argue, fostered an environment where the conscience of members was overly controlled by superiors or spiritual directors, a classic form of spiritual abuse.
They were not alone. One only needs to recall John Paul II message to the many new communities, the so-called “new ecclesial movements” or “new communities” on May 30, 1998, when the then Pontiff saw organizations such as the Sodalitium, the Opus Dei, or the Emmanuel as participating of a new Pentecost. He saw what those movements were doing as the reflection of the Holy Spirit will to make “the Church a stream of new life that flows through the history of mankind”
In any case, as far as the Emmanuel is concerned, nowadays, 27 years after John Paul II’s take on these movements, there are documented cases of misconduct, highlighting instances of inappropriate and intrusive questioning regarding private life, the pressure to conform, and a culture where the Community’s mission was prioritized above the mental health and vocational discernment of the individual.
In response to these concerns, and following the independent audits of other similar organizations, the Community of the Emmanuel initiated its own internal processes and called on external consultants to reform its governance. These efforts included establishing “listening and reconciliation cells” to receive and process testimonies from victims, but with little or no actual consequence.
A third area of controversy involves the Community’s opaque governance and financial practices during certain periods of rapid growth.
As with many other new “orders” affected by abuses and sectarian practices in the Catholic Church in recent years, the initial structure of the Community was highly centralized and personality-driven, which, according to some former members, allowed for poor decisions and a lack of accountability, particularly in the selection and oversight of spiritual leaders.
As a consequence, the Community has faced public scrutiny regarding its considerable real estate holdings (particularly at its core location in Paray-le-Monial) and the financial contributions expected of its members. Although no major, public criminal indictment for financial malfeasance defines the case, the pressure to financially support the Community’s projects was cited by some as a source of stress and coercion.
The canonical and civil pressure resulting from these combined allegations ultimately forced a significant and public wave of introspection and structural reform within the Community, often at the direct instruction of the Holy See.
Will they seize the opportunity to change?
The apostolic visitation offers a chance to address the governance, financial management, and spiritual health of the Community, but it is unclear how far will Leo XIV go if, as usual, there are no actual consequences for abuse and misconduct and if penalties, even symbolic types of penalties, remain secret.
The case against the Community of the Emmanuel does not rely on a single issue or case, although there are at least two instances of sexual abuse from priests associated to this organization.
It is the story of a protracted series of scandals, disclosures, and canonical investigations, primarily defined by the fallout from the pervasive influence of the style of leadership set first by Father Philippe and then allowed by Pierre Goursat and by Martine Laffitte-Catta (content in French).
While the official stance of the Community has been one of repentance and commitment to reform, it is unclear what will actually happen as the effects of this leadership style are not limited to the movement as such. They are evident also in the diocese of Fréjus-Toulon and how and why Pope Francis forced out bishop Rey from there, to the chagrin of the French conservative media.
Then, there is the issue of six prominent figures—four priests facing abuse or penal sanctions, and two consecutive moderator generals—whose cases define the Community’s crisis.
The crisis within Emmanuel (content in French) is defined by a breakdown in governance and its own identity, exposed by the public and canonical sanctions against at least six of its members in recent years. This roster demonstrates that the problems of abuse, authority, and secrecy were not isolated but structural, forcing Leo XIV to launch the first apostolic visitation of his pontificate.
These six cases can be grouped in two sets, the first one dealing with failures in management and leadership accountability. The second has to do with the actual cases of abuse. Some of them have been managed internally by the organization and the Catholic Church, but others are now the matter of judiciary processes.
On the first set, there are two resignations of the so-called general moderator, the equivalent to the general superior of a religious order. The now former moderators are Laurent Landete (in office from 2009 through 2018), and Michel-Bernard de Vregille, from 2018 until July of this year.
Despite their acknowledgement of the need to amend their ways and to prevent abuse, Landete leaving office actually achieved nothing, and the fact that Rome sent the apostolic visitation proves that problems remained.
Authority in religious contexts
Notably, as with many religious organizations the main one was the very use of authority: how much centralization can accept these relatively new religious movements without becoming just one more religious “order” in all but name? How many free riders are these communities able to accept? How many predators are they able to contain on their own without the need for the kind of more stable approach other institutions, religious or not, follow to prevent abuse?
It would be impossible to solve that riddle at this point, suffice it to say that by end of July of this year, Rome, had had enough with De Vregille’s tenure, so they “accepted” his resignation.
In Landete’s case the issue affected other religious entity in the French-speaking Catholic world, the so-called Foyers de Charité (content in French). It would be impossible to go over that other case of a predatory religious organization. What matters is that when Emmanuel’s former moderator general Laurent Landete had a chance to join a probe on abuse at the Foyers de Charité, he did his best to derail it.
Back in March 2024, the other members of the commission tasked with probing the abuse at the so-called Foyers, blamed Landete for obstructing their work. From carrying an “enquête,” an investigation, Landete was aiming for a mere hearing commission if at all.
Rome knew already then that the issues at Emmanuel were far more complex and difficult that the usual tale of the “bad apples” or the “abominable lone predator,” as Landete was doing his best to prevent any kind of transparency much less accountability at the Foyers de Charité.
The administrative and leadership failures emerging in De Vregille’s and Landete’s behavior are the perfect match for the abuse perpetrated by at least three priests whose cases have been devastating enough to become a public issue.
The first one is Benoît Moulay. Rome dismissed him from the clerical state (laicized or defrocked) by canonical sentence from July 2023. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith accepted that there was the sexual abuse of adult females. His case resulted in civil financial reparations paid by the Community over 2024.
The way he was able to abuse his power confirmed there were issues of governance and how the priests who are members of this organization had the kind of special status one finds in other more traditional Catholic groups.
Then, there is Bernard Peyrous. He is one of the former celebrities of Emmanuel. A historian, he was a member of the commission seeking to canonize the founder of the organization, Pierre Goursat, he also was in charge of presenting the case for the canonization of Marthe Robin, a lay female mystic and co-founder of the aforementioned Foyers de Charité, and he was also, from 2009 to 2014, the rector of the sanctuaries of Paray-le-Monial a major destination of religious tourism in France, the equivalent of Torreciudad for the Opus Dei.
Bernard Peyrous’s case illustrates a critical failure of internal discipline in the Catholic Church. No wonder, there was a need for the intervention of the civil justice system. The crisis began in 2017, when an adult female came forward to accuse him of “inappropriate gestures.” Ultimately, Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard, archbishop of Bordeaux set preventative measures on him, but with no actual canonical process.
The move allowed Peyrous to maintain pastoral duties through temporary transfers until his retirement in 2023. Once again his case proves how even religious organizations allegedly committed to renewal of the Catholic Church are unable to deal with priests who, for whatever reason, become public figures, “influencers” of sorts, since their superiors will be afraid of actually penalizing them for fear of the ensuing scandal.
The French Catholic Church’s inability to address this case, forced the intervention of the authorities: in January 2024, he was criminally charged for rape and sexual assault by abuse of authority, primarily for acts alleged to have occurred during his ministry at Paray-le-Monial between 2009 and 2017.
All the way from Kinshasa
A second case is that of Antoine Kitandja Lokavu, he is also a diocesan priest associated to the Emmanuel whose misconduct was deemed too severe and systematic to manage internally forcing observers of the French Catholic Church’s behavior to wonder if diocesan priests, French or foreign but holding positions in France, should be allowed to become members of Emmanuel and other similar organizations.
Originally Kitanja Lokavu is a priest incardinated in the archdiocese of Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo, he is accused of sexual aggression against children.
The first glimpse at the scale of abuse perpetrated by Kitanja Lokavu emerged in October 2023, when news of the sexual abuse of children from five different families in France emerged. The abuse happened during summer camps that he supervised.
Early this year, the Community of Emmanuel acknowledged the gravity of the situation, so they expelled him “definitively” from the community in May 2025 (opens content in French). The fact that his expulsion happened only a couple of months before the resignation of De Vregille, the moderator general, and before Leo XIV’s decision to approve the apostolic visitation simply confirms how severe the crisis is.
It also confirms that, despite, the endless prattle about being aware of the severity of the effects of sexual abuse to the credibility of the Catholic Church, even relatively new “movements” are unable to offer a swift response to these cases and, above all, to actually develop an effective, actionable, “culture of prevention.”
Also, even if the Community of the Emmanuel expelled Kitanja Lokavu, they have no authority over his licenses as priest. That is up to the archbishop of Kinshasa Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu.
A Franciscan, Cardinal Ambongo Besungu is a powerful man in Rome, he is a member of the Council of the Cardinals but, as most bishops in Sub-Saharan Africa his record on clergy sexual abuse is hardly an example to be followed. If there is some lesson to be learnt from him and other African bishops, is that, unless Rome intervenes directly, Kitanja Lokavu will remain a priest in “good standing” in Kinshasa.
Ambongo Besungu is a darling of the European Catholic far-right, who as recently as September of this year criticized once again Pope Francis’s decision to underwrite Fiducia Supplicans, the document allowing for the informal blessing of so-called “irregular couples,” including same-sex couples, calling it “a bad chapter” and a “wound.”
The Exorcist
Finally, as far as this trio of sexual aggressors is concerned, there is Emmanuel Dumont. Originally a priest incardinated in the archdiocese of Paris, he seized on the fashion of performing with little or no restraint as an exorcist in the Archdiocese of Lyon.
In doing so, the three entities with some authority over Dumont (Paris, Lyon, and the Emmanuel) sowed the seeds of abuse. Even if it is unclear what kind of training allowed Dumont to become an exorcist, an “office” he exerted there until 2020, but by now there is evidence from several Catholic and non-Catholic so-called exorcists with a knack for allegedly wrangling demons, who on top of fighting devils also enjoy abusing their faithful.
Back in 2023, in the archdiocese of Mobile, Alabama, there was the case of Alexander Crow. Archbishop Mark Steven Rivituso appointed Crow as exorcist despite being barely 30 and recently converted to Catholicism.
At some point, despite his alleged commitment as a demon wrangler, he pursued a relationship with a minor who attended a Catholic high school where he used to provide pastoral services. Ultimately, he left the priesthood and married her.
And even if it is impossible to know what will happen to that couple in the next few years, it is possible to know what happened with former Franciscan friar David Morrier.
Morrier abused a female student at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, a hotbed of anti-Francis “scholarship” and a favorite of Rad-Trads in the English-language Catholic world.
He used to disguise the sexual abuse of the student as the practice of exorcism, confirming that the very ritual framework can be weaponized as a tool for sexual assault.
As far as Dumont is concerned, there have been no accusations of sexual abuse against him. But now it is known that he conducted private, “intense” exorcism sessions between 2018 and 2020 that fostered severe psychological or spiritual control over at least one adult victim, leading her into deep depression under the belief she was possessed.
The case became public through media testimony from the victim. Back in January 2024, the aforementioned three entities with authority over Dumont, issued a joint statement about the sanctions imposed on the alleged exorcist, available here in French.
The statement announced that the “penalties” on Dumont, mostly keeping him away from the faithful, were set to end on April 26, 2025. So far, it is unclear whether he will be readmitted as priest. The key there is to figure out how Olivier de Germay de Cirfontaine, archbishop of Lyon, and Laurent Bernard Marie Ulrich want to deal with Dumont.
If they prioritize their need to have a priest available to celebrate masses and other sacraments, they will keep Dumont in service, regardless of the risk. The routine is known by now. They will claim he has learnt his lesson, and he is ready to go back to the trenches.
If the main driver of their decision is the safety of their faithful or the faithful of any other French or French-speaking diocese, they will find a way to keep him away from presiding sacraments and more so, from going back to wrangle demons.
A final issue to be considered when trying to seize the reasons behind Leo XIV’s decision to send an apostolic visitation to the Emmanuel is that the man charged to do so is Antoine Henry Pierre Marie Hérouard, the same archbishop of Dijon who was in charge of the apostolic visitation to the diocese of Fréjus-Toulon, the one headed up until January by bishop Rey.
In the institutional setting shaped by Pope Francis’s 2023 Vos Estis Lux Mundi, that was a task to be performed by the archbishop of Marseille, Cardinal Jean-Marc Noël Aveline. He actually had a role in a previous mission sent to Fréjus-Toulon by Pope Francis, Aveline was unwilling to actually probe what Rey was doing in that diocese.
And it was not the only case where Cardinal Aveline dropped the metaphorical ball of the will to actually exert his authority as the archbishop of Marseille, with authority over Fréjus-Toulon, but also over the diocese of Gap-Embrun, whose former bishop, Jean-Michel di Falco Léandri, was the subject of part of last week’s installment of this series, linked below.
In Gap-Embrun, Aveline also avoided setting any disciplinary measure on Di Falco who, as noted over last week’s piece, has a record that merits attention, although not from Aveline.,
In that regard one has to wonder if there is a need to actually send an apostolic visitation to Marseille itself, where there are also cases, mostly of mismanagement of accusations of clergy sexual abuse against Cardinal Aveline.
As recently as September 17, a group of Catholic faithful from Marseille sent a letter to Rome formally requesting the removal of Cardinal Aveline. It is hard to imagine that letter achieving its goal, but the very fact that local Catholics in Marseille are sending letters to Rome is a symptom one should not dismiss.
A brief notice of the letter is available over Facebook here or after this paragraph. Their demands are similar to what happens elsewhere in the Catholic world: opacity, unwillingness to enforce the Church’s own rules, and a certain sense of the anger shaping the relations inside the Catholic Church.
French-speaking media have been reporting several accusations of mismanagement, cover-up, and significant delays in reporting and acting on abuse cases in the archdiocese of Marseille.
The accusations against Aveline are more relevant as he is nowadays the president of the French Bishops’ Conference) so, if he is actually unwilling to perform his duties in Marseille it is hard to imagine he would be willing to lead any change in attitude at the conference.
In Marseille, there are accusations against three priests Aveline has been unwilling to address. First there is the case of Charles Sighieri a priest accused by a former seminarian, identified only as David, back in 2014. Aveline downplayed the allegations for at least five years. He kept Sighieri active in ministry until, after a process started in 2019. Ultimately, Sighieri was condemned in 2023 to a two-year prison sentence and ten years barred from public ministry.
The second case in Marseille is that of Jean-Pierre Ours. He has been accused of abusing a male minor in the 1990s. The case remains unresolved. As Sighieri’s and the next case in this section it was part of a detailed report by Paris-Match summarized in this video at the RTL account of Daily Motion (audio in French with English subtitles available here).
Finally, there is the case of Xavier Manzano, he is a very powerful figure in Marseille as he is Aveline’s vicar general, the second in command. He has been the source of concern for his very close relationship with a male adult who if the parent of young children, with whom Manzano shared vacations and confessions.
A canonical judge acknowledged the need to go deeper into Manzano’s close relationship with the male layperson, but Aveline has been able to dismiss the canonical judge’s request for an ecclesiastical trial.
Post Data
A victim’s relative in Paraguay reached out to us while finishing this week’s installment. As it happens in France, Mexico, and elsewhere, in Paraguay the Catholic hierarchy does its best to protect predator priests are the expense of their faithful.
Over the last two years here at Los Angeles Press we have followed the case of Rafael Fleitas López, a priest and member of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, an order with an awful record of sexual abuse in regions the Catholic Church sees as “mission territories.”
Fleitas case was the main subject of two installments of this series in 2024 when his order was about to send him from Paraguay to Oaxaca, in Mexico. The first installment dealing with his case is linked before this paragraph.
A second installment dealing with some other cases of predator priests associated to the Oblates of Mary Immaculate appears after this paragraph.
Also back in 2024, as we were about to publish a story on seven of the most notable cases of clergy sexual abuse in different countries worldwide, the relatives of the Paraguayan victim got in touch with us to offer details about Fleitas López’s return to public ministry.
That time he joined the emeritus bishop of the aforementioned diocese of Ciudad del Este, Heinz Wilhelm Steckling, OMI, when he went to the small town of San Carlos Borromeo, two hundred kilometers or 125 miles East of Asunción, the capital of Paraguay, to preside over the ordination of a member of that order.
You can find the details about Fleitas López’s return to public ministry in the section “Eight is a charm” of the story linked after this paragraph.
The new information provided by the relatives of the victim is Fleitas López’s return to public ministry. Although there is no official appointment of Fleitas López at the archdiocese of Asunción website, friends of the victim’s family have reported seeing the priest getting ready to go back to public ministry in the parish of San Blas de Loma Pyta in Paraguay.
The Oblates official website acknowledges that parish as one of their own, so it is not a far-fetched proposition to imagine Fleitas López there.
As many parishes in Latin America, their main medium to communicate its activities is a Facebook account (available here). There is no information as to the arrival of Fleitas López, but when he was about to take a position in one of the most marginalized regions of rural Mexico, in Oaxaca, there was no official information prior to his arrival to the country, and yet there was evidence of his activities in parishes and the seminary of the Oblates in Mexico.
Sadly, the unwillingness of the Catholic hierarchy to admit the mistakes made by the priests under their care, forces the relatives of victims and the victims themselves to be on a permanent state of alert to try to prevent more abuses from happening.
Cardinal Adalberto Martínez Flores, the archbishop of Asunción could heal Fleitas López’s damage, but instead, he seems to be intent on bringing him back to ministry at a parish.