(ITALY)
The Tablet [Market Harborough, England]
November 12, 2026
By Hans Zollner, Peter Beer
Pope Leo’s acknowledgement of the primacy of personal responsibility in abuse should not be used as a distraction from the need to address flaws in the structures and culture of the Church that allow sexual violence to breed.
INDIVIDUAL, stand-alone “keywords” can have an enormous impact, both intellectually and emotionally. They can open the door to a rational and reasonable understanding of complex realities, or subtle distinctions, nuances and shades of meaning can be closed down. The conversation over whether or not sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is “systemic” is a good example of how important distinctions could be lost when a keyword becomes conflated with emotion.
The 2021 report commissioned by France’s bishops and religious orders estimated that some 330,000 children had been sexually abused by priests and other church workers in France from 1950 to 2020. It argued that the abuse was “systemic”. After Pope Leo met seven French survivors of abuse in Lourdes during his four-day visit to France in September, one of them said that the Pope had acknowledged that abuse in the Church was “systemic”. During the press conference on his flight back to Rome, Leo tried to clarify his position. “Do you consider sexual abuse in the Church to be systemic?” he was asked. “Several of [the survivors] spoke about systemic abuse,” he explained. “Personally, I prefer to express it in a different way, although I did speak about some organisations within the Church who have, at times, if you will, as a system, been abusive. But I think it is important to make the distinction. Sexual abuse is first and foremost a human problem. When it happens within the Church, it actually has another whole dimension added to it because people’s lives of faith are deeply wounded and sometimes even destroyed.”
In many discussions within the Church, “systemic” is often either regarded as a taboo term that must be avoided because it seems to threaten the sacramental character of the Church, or as a panacea, as if all safeguarding issues could be resolved by making adjustments to church structures. Distinctions are important. The term “systemic” is often conflated with “systematic”. But they mean different things. “Systemic” refers to the fact that individual parts of an institution or organisation interact with one another, are interdependent and thus form a larger whole that is clearly distinguishable from its environment and is more than just the sum of its parts. “Systematic”, on the other hand, refers to a purposeful, planned and methodical approach to achieving a goal or reaching a target. “Systemic” abuse associated with the Church has not necessarily been intended or deliberately planned; “systematic” abusers associated with the Church have, often over long periods of time, surreptitiously planned to abuse children or have established groups or networks to refer and supply minors to one another for the purpose of abusing them. We should not be afraid of using the word “systemic”, but it is essential to make careful distinctions.
There are factors common to abuse which occur across very different institutions. These include the unequal distribution of power in highly hierarchical systems, and the vulnerability of individuals who are in a fragile state of health or are economically dependent on a manager or employer. For example, a doctor and a patient or a therapist and a client. In such situations, unless there is a clear code of conduct, transparency and accountability there is a high risk of abuse. The Church is no exception, for within it too there are power dynamics – the priest and the altar server or parish catechist, the abbot and the novice, the bishop and the priest or seminarian – in play alongside the vulnerabilities of individuals seeking meaning, guidance and support in life.
There is no evidence that the Catholic Church has greater systemic problems than similar large, complex institutions, but it has particular challenges. The relationship between bishops, priests and people can become one of unquestioning obedience and the misuse of authority can lead to coercive control. Naivety, clericalism, self-deception and excessive demands; a lack of leadership and direction, uncertainty over roles, selfdoubt and a laissez-faire attitude – all can facilitate abuse. Addressing the particular factors at play in dioceses, parishes, religious communities and schools case by case to ensure that they do not facilitate abuse does not mean undermining the Church or demanding its radical transformation.
ALL LARGE SYSTEMS have smaller subsystems within them. Within the Church, the formation of priests is a good example: the content of the training, the character of the trainers, the criteria for selecting candidates for the priesthood, the way in which daily life in a seminary is organised – each of these, taken individually, might be regarded as relatively insignificant, yet taken together they are important in building a culture of respect for vulnerable people and a Church in which abuse is rooted out rather than cultivated. The subsystem of priestly formation – and all the other subsystems within the institutional Church – should not be confused with the Church itself, but they are all vital elements in church life.
The Catholic Church is far from being a monolithic bloc. It is often misunderstood that each bishop is the head of the local church, directly subordinate to the Pope. This presents its own systemic challenges. Cooperation and communication among the bishops are characterised more by voluntary participation and goodwill than by clear, comprehensive and binding regulations. This can make agreeing and implementing effective safeguarding guidelines more difficult. To accept that there is a systemic dimension to abuse within the Church is not to agree with those who say that the very nature of the Church makes abuse inevitable – that abuse is, as these critics say, “part of the Church’s DNA”.
But systems which are not themselves abusive can be exploited by perpetrators for their own purposes. While the perpetrators are responsible for individual acts of abuse, it is incumbent on the Church – understood as the totality of its institutions and structures – to take measures to ensure it is not used by abusers. Pope Leo reminds us that when young and vulnerable people are abused by priests, the wounds go deep, and lives can be destroyed. As in any large organisation, creating a culture in the Church of safety for young people requires commitment, expertise, financial resources and patience. At the centre of good safeguarding are vulnerable people who will not be protected unless the causes and mechanisms of abuse – including those that are systemic – are identified and addressed.
Hans Zollner SJ is the director of the Institute of Anthropology (IADC) at the Gregorian University in Rome; Peter Beer is head of research and development at the IADC.