(INDONESIA)
Union of Catholic Asian News (UCA News) [Hong Kong]
January 23, 2026
By Ryan Dagur
The resignation of an Indonesian bishop has exposed a familiar pattern of secrecy, clericalism and unanswered questions
When announcing his resignation on Jan. 19, Franciscan Bishop Paskalis Bruno Syukur of Bogor addressed a range of accusations levelled against him.
The 62-year-old bishop denied allegations of abuse of authority, embezzlement of Church funds, and condoning cases of clerical sexual abuse — claims he said had driven his decision to step down after 11 years as bishop.
Syukur also described the pressure that led him to decline his appointment as a cardinal by Pope Francis in October 2024. The elevation would have made him the fourth cardinal from Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority country, and the first to come from the predominantly Catholic island of Flores.
At the time, the Vatican said Syukur declined the red hat because he wished to deepen his service to the Church and the People of God. In his latest statement, however, Syukur revealed that he was accused of mishandling sexual abuse cases and was asked to refuse the appointment — allegations he described as baseless.
He declined to become a cardinal and resigned from the bishop’s office under intense pressure and amid difficulties in pursuing a quiet pastoral path from those around him, primarily his clergy. He said he stepped down to preserve unity in the Church.
The bishop’s remarks have triggered a fierce battle of narratives among Indonesian Catholics.
Supporters see him as the victim of a conspiracy by priests opposed to his reform efforts. Senior figures within the Indonesian Catholic hierarchy, they argue, were uncomfortable with his leadership — including his selection as cardinal.
They point to several recent disputes, including opposition from diocesan priests to his decision to transfer management of a Catholic hospital to a lay group, ending the role of nuns, whose contract expired in 2023.
They also cite resistance from members of the diocesan curia council — mostly senior clergy — who reportedly refused to be replaced by younger people late last year.
Others, however, accuse Syukur of wrongdoing. They refer to allegations made by two of his senior priests in an article circulated last month. It accused the bishop of abusing his authority and allowing certain individuals to exert undue influence over diocesan policy.
The competing camps have taken to social media, offering sharply different interpretations, largely based on assumptions rather than verifiable facts.
Amid the information war, Church authorities have, unfortunately, chosen silence. And, that silence raises questions.
If Syukur is innocent, why was he asked to resign? Was there a flaw in the assessment and investigation conducted by the Vatican-appointed apostolic visitator, Bishop Antonius Subianto Bunjamin of Bandung?
Conversely, if Syukur was guilty of serious misconduct, how did Pope Francis appoint him cardinal and name him a member of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life — a body to which he was reappointed last year for a second term?
Syukur’s statement can be read as a challenge not only to the Indonesian hierarchy. It also challenges the Vatican to disclose what its investigation actually found.
A central question arises: what did the apostolic visitator uncover that ultimately led to his resignation?
The hierarchy’s silence shows a pattern.
When Bishop Hubertus Leteng resigned in 2017 as bishop of Ruteng, amid allegations of financial misconduct and an affair with a woman, Church authorities offered no public explanation.
The Vatican’s findings were never disclosed to the Catholics in his diocese on the predominantly Catholic island of Flores. They were told only that he had resigned. Speculation flourished, and rumors persisted even after Leteng’s death on June 31, 2022.
The Church’s preference for secrecy on such matters, witnessed across the region, reflects the enduring influence of clericalism — a culture Pope Francis repeatedly condemned.
Clericalism places the clergy in a privileged position, concentrating authority and information in their hands. One of its most dangerous expressions is the monopoly on truth — in this case, control over information about the outcome of a Vatican investigation with profound implications for the faithful.
Only clergy, it seems, are entitled to know. The laity are expected to accept decisions without explanation, even when those decisions affect the credibility of the Church and the faith of its members.
Such an approach is increasingly untenable in the digital age. In the absence of transparent, authoritative information, narratives — true or false — are constructed and shared anonymously, and amplified through social media.
How long can the Church dismiss this reality as unimportant, allowing speculation to spread unchecked while vigorous debate is fueled by a lack of transparency?
If Syukur was found guilty, the truth should be made known. An individual’s good name cannot be protected by concealing the truth. However, revealing facts and clearly explaining them without prejudice could help protect reputation.
By withholding information, the Church risks creating the impression that it is attempting to conceal its poor handling of the case, and also its own failures that it does not wish the world to see.
Besides, it also undermines the local Catholics’ right to know the developments in the Church — a community of all the baptized, not just the clerics. Synodality demands basic information sharing.
*The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official editorial position of UCA News.