Scene 1

Independent Commission on Sexual Abuse in the

Members: 
Laetitia ATLANI-DUAULT, Nathalie BAJOS, 
Thierry BAUBET, Sadek BELOUCIF, 
Jean-Marie BURGUBURU, Alice CASAGRANDE, 
Alain CORDIER, Carole DAMIANI, Anne DEVREESE, 
Antoine GARAPON, Didier GUERIN, Astrid KAPTIJN, 
Christine LAZERGES, Laurence MARION, 
Joël MOLINARIO, Marion MULLER-COLARD, 
Stéphane de NAVACELLE, Philippe PORTIER, 
Jean-Pierre ROSENCZVEIG, Florence THIBAUT

General Secretariat: 
Sylvette TOCHE 
Camille CLAUSSE-PUJO

Scene 2

The Independent Commission on Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church (CIASE) was set up at the initiative 
of the Catholic Church in France with four guiding objectives:  1/ To shed light on the sexual violence 
committed in its institution since 1950; 2/ To examine the extent to which these cases were, or were 
not, dealt with; 3/To assess the measures taken by the Church to treat this scourge; and 4/ To make all 
useful recommendations.

The Commission was formed solely by its President, with no outside interference in his choice.  It is 
composed of men and women chosen for their competence and impartiality and who, between them, 
hold a broad range of opinions and beliefs. The Commission was free to decide on its own work 
programme  and there was no cap placed on the  budget. It had access, as and when it wished, to Church 
archives.

In the course of its mission, it consulted many specialists and established a number of research contacts 
with the aim of drawing as complete a picture as possible, on both a quantitative and qualitative level.

The Commission wanted to place the victims at the very heart of its work.  Its members listened to the 
testimonials of many who had suffered abuse, not as experts but rather as human beings accepting to 
expose themselves and confront, personally and together, a dark truth.  By plunging into the heart of 
the matter, the Commission wished to assume its part of common humanity - here wounded and painful 
- which we all share. How can we know and understand the reality of the situation, let alone hope to 
draw conclusions from it, if we are incapable of letting ourselves be touched by the suffering and 
isolation and, more often than not, the shame and guilt endured by the victims? These experiences 
formed the basis of the Commission’s work.

Over time the Commission became convinced that the victims held the key to a unique knowledge about 
the sexual violence suffered and that only they could grant us the access which could lead to restoration.  
Consequently, it is their words which serve as the guiding principle of the Commission’s report. These 
people were victims who became witnesses and, in this sense, active players in establishing the truth. It 
is thanks to these people that our report was conceived and written.  It is also for them that it was 
conceived and written and not solely for the mandators who commissioned it. It is on this strange and 
invisible exchange that the report has been built - and without any of this having been clearly thought 
out in advance.

And, when the lead weight of silence smothering the crimes began to crack and fracture and send shock 
waves through society leading to the support of public opinion, we owe it to the courage of the victims 
who, in overcoming their pain, took it upon themselves despite endless hurdles to talk about what had 
happed to them, first in small circles, then to those responsible and finally to the justice system and in 
public. Without their words, our society would still be living in ignorance, or denial, of what happened.

The Commission’s report, therefore, is impregnated with the often-overwhelming experience of 
individually meeting these people who have suffered, and recognizing that they have suffered, from 
sexual violence. The long path has been harrowing for many victims for whom it has opened deep 
wounds and the Commission is intensely conscious of this.  The experience has not left its members or, 
more broadly, all who have worked with the Commission, unaffected either. There has been an 
emotional cost and the people involved have frequently been shaken, hurt or downright appalled but 
they have come through this changed, and more determined than ever to show themselves worthy of 
the trust invested in them.

Scene 3

At the end of its work, the Commission drew up an inventory of sexual violence in the Church, which 
makes for particularly grim reading.  In the over-eighteens of the population of France, the number of 
child victims who suffered at the hands of clergy, monks or nuns is, in effect, estimated to be about 216 
000.  While, in absolute and relative terms, these acts of violence were in decline up until the early 
1990s, they have since stopped decreasing.  The Catholic Church is the place where the prevalence of 
sexual violence is at its highest, other than in family and friend circles.

Faced with this scourge, for a very long time the Catholic Church’s immediate reaction was to protect 
itself as an institution and it has shown complete, even cruel, indifference to those having suffered 
abuse.

Since 2000 and, even more since 2016, the Church has taken important steps to prevent sexual violence 
and to deal with cases effectively, yet these measures have often been very late coming and unequally 
applied once in place. Imposed in reaction to events, they appear to the Commission to be generally 
insufficient. During a close examination into what factors might have favoured sexual violence in the 
Catholic Church, while also creating obstacles to their effective treatment, the Commission presents 45 
recommendations which cover a very broad spectrum ranging from listening to victims, reforming 
canon law, recognizing crimes committed, whether or not these are statute- barred, and the essential 
reparation of harm inflicted. Without overreaching itself, the Commission proposes measures on 
questions of theology, of ecclesiology and of sexual morals because this is where, in its opinion, certain 
interpretations or corruptions of doctrine have encouraged abuse and excess.  It also makes suggestions 
regarding Church governance, the training of clergy, the prevention of sex abuse and dealing with the 
perpetrators.

Faced with so many historical or recent traumas, the Commission believes that there can be no question 
of “turning the page”. The future cannot be built on denial or on burying the harsh reality; recognition 
and responsibility are required in order to advance.  It is vital to really deliver justice to the men and 
women who have suffered, in body and soul, from sexual violence in the Catholic Church. Consequently, 
everything must be done to repair, in so far as is possible, the harm which has been done to them and 
to help them rebuild their lives. And to eradicate the breeding ground of abuse and the impunity of the 
perpetrators of these crimes.  Such a step forward cannot bypass the need for a humble 
acknowledgement of responsibility from the Church authorities for the mistakes and crimes committed 
under its auspices. This will involve taking a path of contrition – on a level with the scale of suffering – 
which cannot be conceived and covered in a matter of days or weeks.

After all that has happened, there can be no common future without work towards truth, forgiveness 
and reconciliation and this applies to the Church as much as to civil institutions.  The Commission has 
tried to contribute to this search for the truth. It is now up to the Church to seize on it, follow it up in 
and regain the trust of Christians and the respect of the French people in whose society it has a full role 
to play. It is imperative to reestablish an alliance, which has been severely tested.

This is my colleagues’ and my deepest hope.

President of the Independent Commission on Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church

Scene 4

This report charts the work undertaken by the Independent Commission on Sexual Abuse in the Catholic 
Church (CIASE), which was formed by Mr Jean-Marc Sauvé, honorary vice-president of the Conseil d’État 
(Council of State), further to a mission statement addressed to him on 20 November 2018 by 
Monseigneur Georges Pontier, then President of the Bishops’ Conference of France (CEF) and Sister 
Véronique Margron, President of the Conference of Monks and Nuns of France (CORREF).

A Commission comprised of twenty-one voluntary members, set up by Mr Jean-Marc Sauvé at the request 
of the CEF and the CORREF, operating with complete independence. Data collection organized by three 
research teams and hearings and interviews conducted by the members of the Commission themselves.

The joint decision of the two conferences indicates the salutary desire – comparable to that 
progressively taken over the last fifteen years by other countries such as the United-States, Chile, 
Australia, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and the United Kingdom – to shed light on the 
sexual violence perpetrated since the post-war era by Catholic priests, deacons, monks and nuns on 
children or vulnerable persons. In France, as elsewhere, the highlighting of various cases by the media 
may well have acted as a catalyst in the demand for transparency and this report is the first concrete 
outcome of just such a demand. The CIASE, therefore, is not blind to the fact that, even if 
representatives of the French Catholic Church wanted the Commission to be set up, it is mainly thanks 
to the determined action of victims of violence that it actually came to be created, and it is beholden to 
these people to study their cases.

The twenty-one members of the Commission (cf.  list in annex), which in the interest of impartiality does 
not include any members of the church or any victims, have been chosen for their competence in the 
broad range of social sciences involved in the study: law, medicine (psychiatry in particular), history, 
sociology, psychology, ethics, the politics of social and health care and theology.  It comprises an almost 
equal number of men and women of all ages and different religious beliefs as well as agnostics and 
atheists. All members worked on a voluntary basis, assisted by a small, almost entirely part-time team 
comprising, around the secretary general and the general rapporteur, six to seven rapporteurs, a project 
co-ordinator, one to two collaborators and three trainees over the thirty-two months of work that began 
with the constitutive meeting of 8 February 2019. Associated members, mainly retired legal 
professionals, gave their time freely to help with the many hearings of victims or to refer cases to the 
court in the correct legal manner (Article 434-3 of the Criminal Code).

CEF and CORREF, the two mandators, allocated the financial resources necessary for the 
accomplishment of the Commission’s mission, without any right of review as to the validity of their use, 
only as to their lawfulness and accuracy.  Most of the expenditure went on research and on the appeal 
for testimonials, which added up to an estimated cost - by late 2021 - of 2.6 million euros. It should be 
noted that staff expenses have been kept to a strict minimum since the President, the members – 
including researchers in their roles as directors of studies – the associated members, some of the 
rapporteurs and the general secretary were all volunteers.  Their commitment is estimated at 26 000

Scene 5

hours’ work in total, representing the equivalent of 1.2 million euros, based on the UADF1 hourly rate 
for its own volunteers. The total cost of the CIASE’s work, adding together the financial cost to the 
mandators plus the valorisation of the all the volunteers who have worked for the Commission, can 
therefore be valued at 3.8 million euros.

The report begins with a methodological preamble summarizing the work undertaken, placing it within 
the overall logic which underpins the CIASE’s approach, while at the same time pointing out the 
constraints against which the Commission came up against - the problem of making itself known to 
victims or witnesses and then of inciting these persons to talk, even under cover of anonymity; the slow 
process of identifying archival holdings and of fine-tuning the legal guarantees needed to access them; 
the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic health restrictions etc.

During the first three months of its existence, the CIASE’s activity consisted of determining the 
Commission’s approach, setting the exact perimeters of its investigations and implementing research 
and data-collection projects:

− An appeal for testimonials as the basis of a socio-demographic study led by a team from Inserm 
(French National Institute of Health and Medical Research) under the direction of Ms Nathalie Bajos, 
which included an online questionnaire and interviews as well as a vast general population survey2. The 
appeal for testimonials was launched on 3 June 2019, came to an end on 31 October 2020 and resulted 
in 6 471 contacts: 3 652 telephone calls, 2 459 emails et 360 letters dealt with by the team of France 
Victims. An anonymous online questionnaire, managed by the polling and market research firm, IFOP 
(Institut français d’opinion publique) was sent to these contacts with the aim of adding information to 
the Inserm analysis. 1 628 questionnaires were completed which, in turn, led to 69 research interviews. 
The general population survey took place online between 25 November 2020 and 28 January 2021 and 
was based on quota samples of 28 010 persons aged 18 and over; this was also managed by IFOP.

− An archival and socio-historical research project led by a team from the École pratique des hautes 
études (EPHE) under the direction of Mr Philippe Portier. This research was based on five types of source 
material:

o Firstly, the answers to a questionnaire sent to all bishops and major superiors of the

institutions affiliated to the CORREF concerning the content of their archives in relation 
to the CIASE’s study.

o Principally, the archives of the Church of France, including centralized archives and

those of 31 dioceses and 15 institutes including historical, current and “secret” archives.  
Only two refusals were to be deplored, one from a diocese and one from an institute.

o Additionally, access to public archives - thanks to the derogations obtained by the

researchers - mainly those of the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior (the 
legal branch of the police force) and the gendarmerie nationale.

o A questionnaire-led survey of forty-eight clergy and monks on subjects varying from the

evolution of training methods to chastity.

o Subsidiarily, all the testimonials, whether those addressed directly to the CIASE or the

o Even more subsidiarily, publicly available sources including public statistics and French

− A socio-anthropological study led by a team from the Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme 
(FMSH), under the direction of Ms Laëtitia Atlani-Duault (University of Paris, French Institute for

1 French Union of Diocesan Organisations. This union is the administrative provider of the French Bishops’

2 This system of survey (quantitative and qualitative) has been approved by the Inserm national ethics

Scene 6

Research on Development, IRD) The first section of the study is based on a close study of all the victims’ 
testimonies to the CIASE which is separated into two bodies of work: a) the 153 hearings of victims who 
bore witness during meetings with CIASE members and whose hearings have been transcribed and 
authorised by their authors and b) the 2819 letters and emails sent to the CIASE.  This work made it 
possible to select the most representative of victims’ verbatim accounts confided to the CIASE and to 
quote the victims’ words throughout the report citing them, in particular, as the headings of each 
chapter as well as in the literary memorial entitled “From Victims to Witnesses.” The second part of the 
study consisted of an analysis of the treatment of the CIASE’s subject of investigation and, more 
specifically, of the media coverage and treatment of sexual violence against children in the Church in 
France from the 1950s to the present day, based on two bodies of work: a) news programmes of the 
main French television channels between 1990 and 2020, b) articles from four major titles of the 
national daily press from 2016 to 2020.

− A series of eleven research interviews with members of the clergy having perpetrated acts of sexual 
assault. These interviews were conducted, under the direction of Mr Philippe Portier, with ten priests 
and one deacon who had contacted the CIASE directly in response to the appeal to bishops and major 
superiors launched by the Commission.  Additionally, Ms Florence Thibaut led the study of the 
personality analysis and psychiatric reports contained in 35 judicial files of ecclesiastics convicted for 
crimes falling within the scope of the Commission’s investigation.

− Finally, a series of twenty interviews with priests and seminarists, of differing profiles and from all over 
France, led by Ms Alice Casagrande, Mr Stéphane de Navacelle and Ms Laëtitia Atlani-Duault.  Scientific 
analysis of their words was provided by Ms Laëtitia Atlani-Duault.

In addition to these research projects and the interviews to which they gave rise, the Commission made 
use of two other types of interviews:

− 73 interviews during plenary sessions with specialists, experts, keynote speakers as well as victims - in 
individual and group contexts - and several interviews of representatives of the Commission’s two 
mandators.

− 174 victims heard by representatives of the Commission – members, associated members or the 
general secretary - either in pairs or one-to-one with the President of the Commission, depending on 
the preference of the person wishing to speak at length.  These interviews usually lasted between two 
and four hours. A protocol was drawn up for these purposes, including for when the hearings had to be 
organized remotely by video conference, in view of the restrictions on movement imposed from the 
spring of 2020 due to COVID-19.

- 48 interviews led by the Commission’s four working groups which made it possible to hear 67 qualified 
persons from all walks of life (experts, representatives of the Catholic Church and other denominations, 
jurists, theologians, legal authorities, government services, members of diocesan and religious 
institutes’ support centres etc.).  
 
Anxious not to appear too “Parisian” and keen to contribute to its own appeal for testimonials, the 
Commission organized interviews in all major metropolitan areas of France (other than PACA – 
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur – due pandemic-provoked cancellations), as well as Corsica and the 
Caribbean.

The abundant and weighty study and research material thus gathered allowed the Commission’s four 
working groups to make a diagnosis and formulate recommendations:

− A group responsible for theological, ecclesiastical and church governance questions co-presided by 
Mr Alain Cordier and Mr Joël Molinario.

Scene 7

− A group responsible for studying the articulation between canon and civil law and for reflecting on 
ways of reforming canon law, co-presided by Mr Didier Guérin and Ms Astrid Kaptijn.

− A group devoted to the situation of victims and issues of responsibility and reparation, in particular 
the notion of restorative justice, co-presided by Ms Alice Casagrande and Mr Antoine Garapon.  This 
group worked with a “mirror group” comprised of victims, either in their capacity as individuals or as 
members of an organisation, who were willing to let the CIASE benefit from their experience-based 
knowledge.

−  A group called the “Evaluation Group” responsible for analysing the way in which the Church dealt 
with, or did not deal with, cases brought to its awareness, and to evaluate the measures taken by the 
Church of France since 2000 – at the express request of the CEF and the CORREF, co-presided by 
Mr Sadek Beloucif and Ms Anne Devreese.

The above skills and data have all been used in the compilation of this report - plus in the equivalent of 
some 2000-odd pages of digital annexes - which is divided into three sections corresponding to the 
three themes of the mission statement:

− “Casting light” on the painful quantitative and qualitative observations drawn from the collected data.

− “Revealing the shadows” and establishing a severe diagnosis based on the observations and placed 
within the context of the eras concerned.

− “Dispelling the darkness” and finding appropriate ways of dealing with the issue of sexual violence in 
the Catholic Church, with regard to the past, since 1950, the present and the future - as these questions 
loom large ahead of us.

II. CASTING 
LIGHT: 
A 
QUALITATIVE 
AND 
QUANTITATIVE

ANALYSIS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 
BASED ON THE COLLECTED DATA

A massive phenomenon, long covered by a shroud of silence and difficult to ascertain the size of. The 
Catholic Church is much more concerned than any other place where children are socialized, with the 
exception of family and friends. Lives ravaged by the assaults.

In the first section of the report, the Commission presents an overview of the phenomenon of sexual 
violence committed against children and vulnerable persons in the Catholic Church in France from 1950 
to the present day. Marked by the victims’ traumatic experience of violence and silence, some of whom 
were speaking for the first time and many of whom were being listened to and recognized as victims for 
the first time, the CIASE wanted, first and foremost, to acknowledge their trauma and their stories, by 
both learning from their accounts and by recalling scientific opinion with regard to the long-term 
consequences of sexual abuse, in particular when suffered in childhood or adolescence.

Then, in a more traditional manner, the Commission puts the phenomenon in perspective by placing it 
in an historical, geographical and sociological context.  Based on analysis provided by the EPHE, it evokes 
the evolution of French society – and of the Catholic Church at its heart – during the period in question. 
This was a period of secularization, individualization, the evolution of the place of women and children 
and the transformation of social ideas of sexuality and sexual violence. Against this backdrop, the 
phenomenon of sexual violence in the Catholic Church falls broadly into three periods: 1950-1970 can 
be described as the height of the abuse; 1970-1990 was a period in which the abuse appeared to decline

Scene 8

and the early 1990s which marked an apparent resurgence, based on information available, without it 
being possible to conclude with any certainty that there was a definite increase during this period3.

Geographical analysis of the cases identified throughout the entire period would seem to indicate that, 
even if at first glance it would seem that more cases of abuse were committed in areas of high religious 
practice, if we look at the relative value, i.e. the number of cases per number of clergy in the area, it 
transpires that, in actual fact, more cases of abuse occurred in areas of low religious practice. This is 
probably a consequence of lower levels of supervision and support of priests in these areas as well as a 
lower tolerance of misconduct leading to a more systematic reporting of it over the past 70 years.

Sociological analysis, based principally on work undertaken by the Inserm, initially focuses on persons 
who suffered abuse as children. The main characteristics to emerge from the study show that most of 
the victims were pre-adolescent boys from all social backgrounds. The typology of abuse falls into six 
categories: “parochial abuse” committed by the local priest or vicar - the sort of person regarded as a 
village dignitary; “school abuse” committed by a priest, religious teacher or house master; “family 
abuse” committed by a family member or close family friend; “educational abuse” committed within 
the context of a patronage or scouts movement; “therapeutic abuse” committed by a priest acting, or 
claiming to act, as a psychotherapist; and “prophetic abuse” committed within the context of so-called 
new communities which were particularly popular in the 1970s. Superimposed on this typology in a 
transversal manner were three control mechanisms which aligned themselves along three powerful 
tenants of the Catholic Church: the sacraments, a sense of vocation and charity or helping others.

The cases of adult victims who responded to the Commission’s appeal for testimonials or who were 
heard are dealt with separately in order to highlight specific traits of violence to which these persons 
were subjected. Particular emphasis is placed on the cases of nuns or seminarists who were sexually 
assaulted. As far as these adults are concerned, despite the diversity of their situations, there emerges 
an overall sense of authority morphing into power and control becoming all-important, particularly in 
situations of vulnerability which are reinforced by the ecclesiastical context. It comes across even more 
clearly with adults in so far as relationships of power associated with an age gap do not come into play.

The way in which victims spoke out or broke their silence, as they told the Commission of their 
experiences, shows just how long and obstacle-strewn this process is and how it is all too rarely properly 
taken into account or followed up by the entourage or institution.

A study of the perpetrators of sexual abuse is based on the examination of two thousand cases found 
in the archives of dioceses or institutions and on interviews carried out in the spring of 2021 with eleven 
of the perpetrators who were born between 1933 and 1954. These interviews provide an insight into 
the way the abusers view their own behaviour, between (often) minimizing its importance, denial, and 
(rarely) with complete recognition and acknowledgement. Equally, these interviews shed light on the 
perpetrators’ reaction to decisions which directly concern them, whether church sanctions, state 
justice, the creation of the CIASE or the changes which should, in its opinion, be brought about in priests’ 
training, in particular about questions of sexuality.

The first section of the report ends with the presentation - and putting in perspective - of the 
quantitative results reached by the Commission. It affords equal importance to the qualitative analysis 
based on its work of listening to victims and experts but is aware that it is legitimately expected to 
deliver statistics reflecting the prevalence of sexual abuse and that these are useful both for reaching 
an accurate diagnosis and for suggesting appropriate recommendations in view of the magnitude of the 
trauma. However, such statistics must be treated with caution. The silence of the victims, of their 
entourage and of the Church inevitably limits our knowledge of the facts.  The Commission, therefore,

3 Cf. Inserm report p. 425. Confidence intervals for the last two periods overlap.

Scene 9

endeavored to cross-reference its sources – the general population survey, the quantitative and 
qualitative survey based on the appeal for testimonials and the analysis of archive material – and to 
double check the consistency of the results obtained. To verify their coherence different sources were 
compared to each other, to the results of foreign commissions working with similar mandates to the 
CIASE and to other data available in existing scientific literature.

Keeping these methodological precautions in mind, the Commission arrived at an estimate of the 
number of child victims to have suffered sexual assault at the hands of priests, deacons, monks or nuns 
to be 216 0004 over the period from 1950 to 2020, based on the general population survey of 28 010 
persons aged 18 and over and representative of the French population in accordance with the quota 
method. By broadening the analysis to include persons connected to the Church (staff of Catholic 
schools, laypersons providing catechism or chaplaincy services, organizers of scouts or other Catholic 
youth movements) the estimated number of child victims rises to 330 000 for the whole of the period. 
This study shows that more than a third of sexual assaults within the Catholic Church were committed, 
not by clergy or monks, but by lay people. Due to a lack of scientific certitude, the Commission 
renounced trying to estimate the number of adult victims of sexual assault in the Church.

The CIASE has made every effort to situate these cases of violence, which are extremely high in absolute 
terms, in the more general context of acts of sexual violence committed in our society as a whole.  Two 
conclusions may be drawn by looking at it from this perspective.

The first, as may be expected from previous studies, is that sexual violence on an equally massive scale 
occurred across French society: 14.5 % of women and 6.4% of men, i.e. approximately 5 500 00 people 
suffered sexual assault in their childhood. Acts of sexual violence committed by clerics, monks or nuns 
represents just under 4% of this total. Those committed by persons connected to the Catholic Church 
(including laypersons) represents 6% of the total. The second conclusion concerns the prevalence of 
sexual violence committed on children in different socialization environments surrounding or linked to 
the Catholic Church: family, friends, state school, holiday camps, sports clubs or cultural activity 
structures. It emerges that whilst the vast majority of sexual violence against children was perpetrated 
by family or friends (3.7% of persons aged 18 or over in mainland France suffered sexual abuse as 
children by a member of the family, 2% by a family friend and 1.8% by a friend or acquaintance) 
significantly more such acts were committed within the Catholic Church (1.16% by persons connected 
to the Catholic Church of whom 0.82% by clergy, monks or nuns) than any other sphere of socialization 
(0.36% in youth holiday camps,  0.34% in state school, 0.28% in sports clubs and 0.17% in the context 
of cultural and artistic activities). The Catholic Church is thus, with the exception of family and friendship 
circles, the environment in which the prevalence of sexual violence is by far the highest. 
 
That far fewer victims are individually counted in the appeal for testimonials or in archival investigations 
does not in any way negate these estimates. Partly because many of the testimonials collected mention 
other victims who have not come forth themselves and partly – mainly – because the massive 
underreporting of sexual assaults is well documented in scientific studies and is corroborated by this 
report. Furthermore, the only general population survey carried out for a similar commission to the 
CIASE, that working in the Netherlands under the direction of Mr Wim Deetman, has produced 
comparable quantified estimates to Inserm’s survey conducted on behalf of the CIASE. In fact, the 
proportion of the population socialized in the Catholic religion being doubtless higher in France than in 
the Netherlands where Protestantism is widespread, it is highly likely that acts of sexual violence were, 
in relative terms, fewer in our country.

4 Inserm-EHESS, Table 52, p. 428.  Upper and lower limits of the 95% confidence interval are 270 000 and

Scene 10

Still more sensitive a question is the estimated number of clergy and monks who perpetrated sexual 
assault over the period in question. Research, conducted with great rigor and thoroughness by the 
EPHE, into the archives of the Church, the justice system and the press, completed by data gathered 
from the appeal for testimonials, leads to an estimation of between 2900 and 3200 aggressors. This 
bracket constitutes a lower limit in so far as not all cases of abuse are known to the Church and not all 
cases which are known have led to a file being opened. It indicates a ratio of 2.5% and 2.8% of clergy 
and monks from 1950 to today (approximately 115 000 clergy and monks).  This ratio is lower than 
findings published by foreign commissions, which stand between 4,4% and 7,5% but is not incompatible 
with the even lower figure produced by the Deetman commission in the Netherlands. It is true that this 
would imply a very high number of victims per aggressor. However, such a result is not impossible as 
scientific research shows that a sexual predator can effectively assault a great number of victims, 
especially predators of male children - as is overwhelmingly the case in the Catholic Church.  In order to 
continue the discussion, and based on contradictory scientific conclusions, the Commission drew other 
hypotheses corresponding to aggressor rates of 5% and 7%.  However, it is conscious of the profound 
disparity between different types of aggressor: those who only act on impulse a handful of times and 
compulsive, repeat offenders. Ultimately, while conscious of the difficulty of ascertaining the real 
number of clergy and monk aggressors from a study reliant mainly on archives – a difficulty which, of 
course, applies to the studies of all the other countries too – the Commission came to the conclusion 
that a rate of approximately 3% of ecclesiastical perpetrators of sexual violence constitutes a minimum 
estimate and a pertinent basis of comparison with other countries.

The picture thus drawn reveals that the phenomenon of sexual violence in the Catholic Church from 
1950 to the present day is massive; that is has decreased over time but is still present; that it is based 
on numerous clearly identified traits of a systemic nature. The trauma suffered by the victims is 
compounded by the perpetrator’s standing.

III. REVEALING THE SHADOWS: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S

ATTITUDE HAS EVOLVED OVER TIME, BUT IT HAS REMAINED 
TOO FOCUSED ON THE PROTECTION OF THE INSTITUTION, 
FOR A LONG TIME WITH NO REGARD FOR THE VICTIMS

A Church institution which has not come to the defence of the victims. Canon law with serious failings. 
Legal obligations which are still not widely enough known or respected.

In its second section, the report establishes the Commission’s diagnosis regarding sexual violence in the 
Catholic Church. Once again, the various disciplines represented within the Commission, as well as the 
different sources of data used, are brought together to place the perpetrated acts and their media 
coverage, from 1950 to the present day “in the context of the era in question” to cite the terms of the 
mission statement.

The historical sequencing used in the first section is again employed here to help define the evolution 
of the Catholic Church’s attitude towards the acts of sexual violence committed within its confines. From 
1950 to 1970, the desire of the Catholic Church to protect itself from scandal and to “save” the 
aggressors dominated its policy, while it concealed the fate of the victims who were exhorted to remain 
silent. From 1970 to 1990, the question of sexual violence took a back seat to the priesthood crisis, 
which monopolized the internal support structures for “problem” clergy and this goes too for the clinical 
field which was a way of treating reported cases, abandoned by the end of this period. The Catholic 
Church’s attitude gradually began to change from the 1990s as it started to take onboard the existence

Scene 11

of victims - even if this could not yet be considered recognition. It was only from 2010 that the Church 
began to recognize victims when it started reporting cases to the judicial system, imposing canonical 
sanctions and accepted that dealing with aggressors should no longer be an internal affair.

Over the greater part of the period studied by the CIASE, its observations show that the Church’s 
attitude could be summarized as one of concealment, relativization or even denial, with only a very 
recent recognition, dating from 2015, and even then, unequally accepted by dioceses and religious 
institutions. If this analysis is combined with what has been said in the first section regarding the 
prevalence of sexual violence against children and vulnerable persons, the concept of a systemic 
phenomenon emerges.  It is not that the violence was organized or accepted by the institution (although 
this did happen in a very small number of communities or institutions), rather that the Church did not 
have any clear idea how to prevent such violence or indeed even see it, let alone deal with it in a fair 
and determined manner.

In analyzing factors specific to the Catholic Church which might, in addition to the socio-historical 
contextualization, help explain the sheer scale of the phenomenon and the Church’s inappropriate 
reaction to it, the Commission firstly looked into the specificities of canon law, as to a certain degree 
the inadequacy of the Church’s response to the phenomenon lies in the shortcomings of this law. Canon 
law was conceived, above all, to protect the sacraments and reform the sinner. The victim has no place 
in this law. Canon law, even its criminal aspect, is totally ill-adapted to the repression of sexual violence, 
which, incidentally, it never refers to by name. The Commission reached the conclusion that canon law 
is entirely inadequate with regard to fair trial standards and human rights in a matter as sensitive as the 
sexual abuse of children.

Secondly, and more fundamentally, the Commission studied the deviations, the distortions and the 
perversions which the doctrine and teachings of the Catholic Church have allowed to flourish, and which 
are likely to have encouraged the occurrence of sexual violence: the “clericalism”, so criticized by Pope 
Francis in his August 2018 Letter to the People of God, including the excessive sanctification of the 
person of the priest; the overvaluation of the state of celibacy and charism of the priest; a misguided 
adherence to obedience when exercised at the cost of conscience; and a false interpretation of the 
Scriptures. Based on the testimonials it received, the Commission also endeavored to identify what in 
the writings of the sacred tradition of the Catholic Church, such as the Catechism, could have maintained 
this fertile terrain: a lack of attention to the assaults, hiding behind “offences to chastity” or an 
excessively taboo view of sexuality.

In was in this context that the Commission made observations inviting the Church to ask itself some 
fundamental questions. A word of reassurance, however, at no point did the CIASE overreach itself or 
exceed its mandate, or even, it could be argued, take the high ground. On the contrary, it seems to the 
Commission that this was the only way of genuinely fulfilling its mandate, even if it was not how it 
originally envisaged doing so. It has, however, over the months, collectively come to the conviction that 
its creation as an independent body, exterior to the Church, at this precise moment in the history of the 
institution as it is hit by the acute sex abuse crisis, confers upon it the responsibility to dig right down to 
the roots of the problem, as deeply as the Church is itself doing, as is made clear by, among other 
publications, Pope Francis’ aforementioned Letter to the People of God or the specific work of the 
Bishops’ Conference of France’s doctrinal commission which has been submitted to the CIASE.

To close the second section of the report, as a transition towards the more concrete recommendations 
intended to put a stop to the tragedies of sexual violence and ensure that they do not recur, particular 
attention has been paid – as requested by the CEF and the CORREF – to the measures taken by these 
bodies, or under their leadership, since the turning point of 2000s which is when,  from the very top of 
its organization, the Catholic Church began speaking in public about what it has chosen to call the fight 
against pedophilia. These measures have been substantial on both a national and local level. But – with

Scene 12

huge differences between one diocese or religious institution to another - the response from the Church 
has been globally insufficient, has often come too late and only in reaction to events, or has been poorly 
applied. This is very much the case with the obligation to report to the justice system any behaviour 
from clergy or monks which could constitute a crime or misdemeanor. This measure was decided by the 
CEF as early as 2000, so no later than other public or private institutions for minors, but was applied 
slowly and unevenly over different dioceses. The Church also failed to take onboard criticism from, in 
particular, victim support groups which wanted it to go much further. The Church’s flagship measure of 
setting up, across dioceses, support centres for the victims of sexual violence, came in for much 
criticism.  The round tables organized by the CIASE with many of the laypersons responsible for these 
centres from all over France, made it clear that they had been set up without any solid foundations and 
in a highly dispersed manner.  The plan, according to announcements made by the CEF and the CORREFF 
in spring 2021, was to make them much more visible at a national level, however, it had failed to take 
the time to clarify the centres’ missions, competences or even their place in relation to the Church. And 
yet, the goodwill is there, and these questions are just waiting to be asked for rapid progress to be made. 
The Commission, therefore, has made precise recommendations to structure and consolidate the 
existing network of support centres by both combining local (preferably inter-diocesan) and national 
levels and by clearly positioning what is internal and what external to the Church. It is recommended 
that the centres are staffed only by specially trained laypersons, but who are not “disconnected” from 
the Church, and who are in contact with professionals trained to deal with victims of sexual violence.

It is with this in mind, based on the concrete evidence of testimonials, that the Commission proposes in 
the third section of its report, ambitiously and methodically, the measures which it believes correspond 
to the phenomenon of sexual violence against children and vulnerable persons in the Catholic Church, 
during the period studied.

IV. DISPELLING THE DARKNESS: TOWARDS A PROCESS OF

TRUTH AND REPARATION FOR THE PAST; TOWARDS A 
FOOLPROOF SYSTEM OF PREVENTION IN THE FUTURE

The Church must recognize the facts and take steps towards reparation, inspired by the work of the 
CORREF and the approach of Bishop of Luçon. It must take responsibility both individually and 
systemically. Restorative justice initiatives must complement the criminal procedure. The statute of 
limitations must not be extended. The Church must establish a procedure for the recognition of abuse, 
even in time-barred cases, and provide compensation for the harm suffered. The governance of the 
Church must be reorganized to be more pluralist and to regulate the risks of abuse of power. Training is a 
key preventive tool that should be widely implemented.

The recommendations made by the CIASE to try and overcome the trauma caused by sexual violence 
and the shroud of silence covering it, are not conceived in a spirit of “turning the page” because in all 
the testimonials – which the Commission very much hopes echo loudly through its report – the first cry 
is for justice.  In other words, before proclaiming “it must never happen again”, the “it” has to be 
recognized, acknowledged, and described, those responsible for “it” need to be designated and, in as 
far as is possible, reparation for “it’s” consequences need to be found. It is not enough for the Church 
to claim awareness, albeit too late in the day. Or to claim that the past is the past and that for today’s 
and tomorrow’s children and vulnerable persons the same mistakes will not be repeated. For such a 
discourse which is consistent with the logic of “helping” victims of historical abuse, more often than not 
time-barred by the [French] Criminal Code, perpetuates an attitude of non-recognition or denial of what

Scene 13

really happened, characteristic of the Church during the period analyzed, and is used as an escape from 
genuinely dealing with the phenomenon.

This is why the Commission insists on the Church’s need for a process of truth and reparation and that 
it has to begin with the acknowledgement of responsibility which has so far been avoided, with the 
notable exception of the recent initiative undertaken by the CORREF, or the individual initiative of the 
Bishop of Luçon. The Commission proposes a level of responsibility which would encompass firstly the 
legal level – in a criminal sense – but also civil and social levels. It must apply individually and to the 
particular role exercised by the individual, as well as to all legal entities comprising the Church.  It must 
apply to individuals who have committed acts of abuse as well as to those who have not but whom, 
through the legal relationship existing between the perpetrator and the bishop of the perpetrator’s 
diocese, are linked. Its responsibility is also of a systemic and civic nature because the Church’s social 
and spiritual role bestows on it a particular responsibility towards French society within which it is a 
major player. In other words, in the CIASE’s opinion, the Catholic Church would be wrong to believe that 
it is immune from any responsibility that it has not itself accepted, based on an absence, to date, of any 
judicial conviction other than for the individual criminal responsibility of the perpetrators or for its 
failure to report cases to the legal system. Indeed, other than the fact that the civil liability of dioceses 
(as well as religious institutes, but this point is not disputed) is all but excluded under the current state 
of the law, it is possible, even probable, that the legislator shall draw consequences from the trauma of 
sexual violence committed in society as a whole, in order to determine compensation mechanisms 
weighing, in particular, on the institutions and communities in which the harm occurred. It is highly 
doubtful that, outside of the Catholic Church, a social space could exist in which measures of reparation 
did not prevail. In fact, this is precisely how legislation has proceeded over the past thirty years faced 
with catastrophes causing major health effects. In the CIASE’s opinion, these considerations should be 
added to the moral argument for convincing the Church of the need to engage in an ambitious process 
of responsibility, recognition and compensation.

Such an approach should begin by recognising the violence committed, its scale - as uncovered by the 
Commission - the absolute illegitimacy of such acts, and the seriousness of the harm they have caused. 
Concrete recognition, through public ceremonies or memorials, as the CEF committed to in March 2021, 
is required. The Commission is insistent, however, on a humble recognition "at a human level" which 
must be utterly sincere: it is not simply a question of sins to be confessed but of crimes to be repaired, 
without any euphemisms, without any "we did not knows", without any excuses drawn from the social 
or institutional context. The prerequisite of such an unfeigned abasement is indispensable for the 
credibility of the restoration measures as proposed by the CIASE, adjusted to the specific situation of 
sexual abuse committed within the Catholic Church.

In response to the need for justice expressed by victims, who are frequently confronted with the 
limitations of criminal proceedings or the statute of limitations, despite the evolution of criminal law 
during the period studied, the Commission suggests that two main avenues should be explored: that of 
so-called restorative justice, and that of the introduction of provisions making it possible to establish 
the truth, irrespective of how long ago acts were committed. The principle of restorative justice is to 
attempt to repair the harm done to the very being of victims, over and above the physical harm. This 
necessitates carrying out investigations regardless of the length of time since the violence has been 
perpetrated, in order both to respond to the need for justice and recognition, as well as the need to 
prevent future violence. This approach seems preferable to further extending the statute of limitations 
by law, an option that CIASE examined in detail before rejecting, seeing it as a dead end. A prolongation 
of the statute of limitations would not help in the recognition of crimes and would not help victims in 
their reconstruction, indeed these latter would be confronted with the even more uncertain outcome 
of a criminal trial due to the long periods of time passed since the event.

At the end of the process described above, a system of compensation should be put in place, with some 
chance of it achieving what it set out to do. The Commission heard from many victims that money could 
not make up for the irreparable damage incurred, and worse, if badly executed, could feel like the price

Scene 14

of silence. But many also insisted on the symbolic dimension of such a scheme, or on the desire to use 
compensation money other than for purely personal purposes. The Commission also looked at systems 
put in place in other countries: Germany, Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United States and 
Australia.

The CIASE concluded that financial reparation - which, despite not being sufficient, is nonetheless 
indispensable as it completes the recognition process - must be individualized, without, however, it 
qualifying as “integral” in the legal sense.  It cannot, therefore, be a set, lump-sum payment; a method 
of calculation is needed to compensate the specific harm suffered by each direct victim - rather than a 
scale for each category of offence - and, in the event of the victim's death, the compensation should go 
to the indirect victim. The compensation mechanism should be entrusted to an independent body, 
exterior to the Church, which should be given the threefold mission of receiving victims; mediating 
between them, the perpetrators and the institutions to which they belonged; and arbitrating disputes 
which cannot be resolved amicably. An endowment fund which the CEF announced it would create in 
March 2021 would provide the financing. According to the Commission, this fund should be replenished 
from the assets of the perpetrators and from those of the institutions belonging to the Church in France. 
It should exclude any appeal for donations from the faithful, as this would not be consistent with the 
recognition of the Church's responsibility as an institution. Any form of socialization of funding for 
violence committed in the Catholic Church, or in any public or private institution, should also be 
excluded. In the same way as the CIASE was financed and based respectively on a distribution key yet 
to be determined, the majority of contributions should therefore come from the following:

- 
for the diocesan Church, from the Union of Diocesan Associations of France, a not-for-profit 
organization established under the terms of the law of 1st July 1901 and the administrative 
support of the CEF.

- 
for religious institutes, from the CORREF.

It would be as absurd as it would be unfair if different systems of reparation were put in place by the 
two Conferences. However, failing the creation of a single compensation system, the CIASE proposes 
that the same rules and principles be applied in the diocesan Church as in religious institutes.

Beyond this triple challenge of responsibility, recognition and reparation, the Commission proposes - 
from the outside point view it has been asked to take on issues specific to the Catholic Church - a robust 
plan of action in areas of governance, sanctions, training and prevention.

The CIASE does not wish to formulate any ready-made answers as it feels these need to come from the 
Church itself, but as far as governance is concerned, it invites the Church to reflect in depth on the 
palpable tension which exists between its hierarchical constitution and its desire for synodality, and on 
the consequences of concentrating the powers of order and government in the hands of the bishop. 
Put more simply, and avoiding all dogmas, thought should be given - as in any organization, and the 
Catholic Church is no exception - to the articulation between verticality and horizontality and to the 
separation of powers. Similarly, it could only be an advantage to develop assessment and internal 
control processes with tools as simple as risk mapping or annual interviews. This would improve the 
Church's governance without undermining any of its foundations. Increasing the number of laypersons 
in general, and women in particular, in the decision-making spheres of the Catholic Church, would 
appear to be, not only useful, but totally necessary with regard to the principle of equal dignity. 
Moreover, in a plenary session with the CIASE, the leaders all admitted to this fact, although it has to be 
said, with varying degrees of enthusiasm.

Despite taking into account the reform of the criminal section of the Code of Canon Law due to come 
into force on 8 December 2021, in the light of the bleak observations made in the second part of the 
report, the CIASE nonetheless pleads for a wide-ranging overhaul of canon law in criminal matters, and 
in dealing with and sanctioning offences. This should begin with a clear definition of the offences in the 
Code of Canon Law and their implementing legislation, specifying applicable reference standards by

Scene 15

establishing a scale of the gravity of offences and by distributing a collection of case law in the matter. 
Secondly, canonical criminal procedure needs to be reworked and aligned with basic fair trial rules, 
thereby giving victims a place in canonical procedure – which is not the case today. These reforms would 
allow the inter-diocesan canonical criminal court, whose creation was announced by the CEF in the 
spring of 2021, to operate efficiently. The said court shall present all the required guarantees of 
competence and impartiality which shall be principally achieved by integrating specially trained 
laypeople into its ranks. A better articulation with the State criminal justice system is also needed, 
namely the recognition of the State’s predominance in dealing with the criminal offences in question, 
which must include an absence of interference by the Church in its investigations and procedures. In 
this respect, the signing of protocols similar to the one concluded on 5 September 2019 between the 
Archbishop and the Public Prosecutor of Paris would improve the handling of reported cases.

Finally, the Church must issue precise directives to confessors regarding the seal of confession. 
Confessors must not be allowed to derogate, on the grounds of the sanctity of the seal of confession, 
from the obligations provided for by the [French] Criminal Code, which are compliant with those of 
natural and divine law which provides for the protection of a person’s life and dignity, to report to the 
competent authorities cases of sexual violence inflicted against a child or a vulnerable person. This is 
not to question the seal of confession generally; but within the scope of sexual violence inflicted against 
children, a reminder is issued that the letter and the spirit of the law of the French Republic (Articles 
223-6, 226-14, 434-1 and 434-3 of the Criminal Code) apply to every single person on French territory.

However, as regards training, before mentioning the setting up of specific sessions on child abuse and 
sexual violence against vulnerable persons - which are obviously necessary and would benefit from 
being co-organized with victim support groups - the Commission recommends really getting to the 
bottom of things. It suggests that a distinction be made between spiritual accompaniment and 
professional guidance for seminarians and novices; that the incentive contained in the Church's 
reference texts (the Ratio issued by the Holy See and implemented at national level) to carry out a 
psychological assessment of candidates for the priesthood or religious life be taken to heart, and that 
psychological follow-up be provided if desired. The content of the training itself should include more 
human sciences, be taught by specialists with more diverse profiles than is currently the case, and place 
greater emphasis on the development and affectivity of children and young people; law (canon law and 
state law - including the rights of the child); and the importance of critical thinking, particularly about 
issues of authority and obedience. The Commission also recommends a more formalized recruitment 
procedure of seminaries and novitiates which would be helped by an improved communication of 
negative responses given to unsuccessful candidates between dioceses, seminaries and congregations. 
Continuing education should include modules about sex abuse, including specifically for trainers and 
supervisors in seminaries and novitiates, as well as for fidei donum priests in their induction session. It 
should also be nourished by peer-to-peer exchanges and the experiential knowledge of victims, and 
indeed of the faithful in general.

Finally, in terms of prevention, the Commission encourages a very broad approach, which, it believes 
could, by its very generality, spontaneity and regularity, prevent failures of vigilance or a return to 
silence. Thus, over and above unprompted reactions and measures which have begun to be put in place 
such as re-organizing the living quarters of clergy and monks to avoid being alone with a child and 
separating private rooms from visiting areas, encouragement of parish-level preventative measures 
would also be welcome: initiatives and activities which teach children that they have rights and that 
they detain knowledge (and not only as receivers of doctrine), based on the model for thought and 
action organized by the City of Paris (with the Parisian Charter for the Rights of the Child drawn up in 
2020 by the children themselves). The Commission also advocates implementing measures, throughout 
France, to ensure that every priest or monk in regular contact with children or young people is aware 
of the obligation of reporting incidents to the justice system; is in a position to call on a referent with 
whom to be able to discuss ambiguous or risky situations; is able to reflect regularly and cool-headedly

Scene 16

on the vigilance needed around sensitive issues (physical contact, time and place for meeting with young 
people, procedures for making appointments etc.); reads pertinent articles on the subject on a regular 
basis and has others with whom to exchange on the lessons which may be personally drawn from them. 
The Commission also suggests regular meetings, for example an annual meeting per diocese or institute, 
which would provide clergy and monks with the opportunity of discussing methods of prevention, based 
on information received from local support centers. This project should not only be conducted by the 
heads of dioceses or institutes, but rather be deployed concretely in parishes - places of worship, 
exchange and sharing – with equal involvement from priests and laypersons.  These initiatives are 
intended to strengthen trust and should, under no circumstances, be interpreted as personal 
accusations.

While it is convinced of the merits of such policies of prevention and practical provisions, the CIASE is 
not blind to the risk entailed by undue rigidity and "protocolization", so little in keeping with the vocation 
of the Church - indeed with any healthy human relationship - and which could potentially asphyxiate 
relationships. Similarly, too much transparency can be detrimental to intimacy and lead to a paradoxical 
climate of surveillance and suspicion. The balance is fragile but necessary in order to clamp down on 
risk without distorting human relationships.

This balance needs to be found by those whose job will be to implement the recommendations of this 
report. Recommendations which the Commission is, of course, calling for, but which it cannot put into 
place itself. Its members are now destined to become humble, post-CIASE witnesses, whilst remaining 
the “witnesses of witnesses” who have been heard for the last two and half years and whom, we 
sincerely hope, shall never be silent again.

Scene 17

- 
Systematically check the criminal record of any person (clergy, monk, nun or layperson) 
mandated or assigned by the Church to be in regular contact with children or vulnerable 
persons.

- 
Ensure that persons convicted of sexual violence or sexual abuse against a child or vulnerable 
person be offered long-term care by health professionals.

- 
Ensure that any person who has been implicated in a case of sexual assault or sexual violence 
against a child or vulnerable person has no access to children, adolescents or vulnerable 
persons within the context of a Church assignment.

- 
These last two points shall apply without prejudice to any measures which may be imposed 
by a judicial authority.

-  In order to be able to measure more accurately the prevalence of sexual violence within the Catholic 
Church of France, create a joint CEF and CORREF department responsible for collecting, processing and 
analyzing data and ensure that the said department is equipped with a solid, lasting, statistical tool, used 
by all dioceses and congregations.

- Ensure that the said department is in contact the other services responsible for monitoring sexual 
violence in public and private institutions.

- Monitor and assess cases of violence in the Church; produce an annual report; ensure contact between 
victims, their organizations and religious authorities.

- Ensure that the said department has the help of an independent committee of experts.

- Investigate the possibility of setting up a hotline in the Church (or in conjunction with other institutions) 
for victims of sexual violence.  (cf. Recommendation N°15).

Scene 18

- 
With the use of a tool similar to risk-mapping, identify all forms of abuse of power, or of 
placing the priest in a position above the baptized. In this context, distinguish between 
practices the Church believes to be legitimate from others.

- 
Closely examine practices in the episcopal and priestly ministries and study the discourse on 
which they are based to see if this has encouraged a distorted interpretation.

- 
Publish a guide of ethics and good practices in spiritual accompaniment, highlighting the 
distinction between the responsibility of governance and spiritual accompaniment to avoid 
any divergence from the said ethics and good practices.

- 
In all types of training and catechism, underline the fact that the Gospels should be a source 
of inspiration for spiritual accompaniment where the challenge is to help the subject reach 
his own understanding in a face-to-face relationship, not to dominate him through 
manipulation.

- 
Identify the ethical requirements of consecrated celibacy, in particular with regard to the 
representation of the priest and the risk incurred of bestowing on him the status of hero, or 
of placing him in a position of dominance.

- 
Assess, for the Church in France, perspectives opened by the propositions of the Amazon 
Synod, in particular the suggestion that “ad experimentum, […] married men could be 
ordained as priests if they fulfill the conditions for pastors, as laid down by Saint Paul in the 
First Epistle to Timothy”5.

- 
Expand the doctrinal work already commenced by the Church so as to “better understand 
how good fruit may have come forth from bad trees” and ensure that all founding charism 
is, effectively, subordinated to charity.

- 
Identify all forms of distorted charism and over-involvement in pastoral practices (using risk-
mapping) and all possible cross-over between seduction and charism.

- 
Investigate the means of remedying the above.

- 
Ensure that there exist effective procedures for controlling the Catholic hierarchy in all 
religious communities, including the more recent ones which do not fall into the traditional 
scope of institutes of consecrated life or societies of apostolic life.

- 
Ensure that the distinction between the internal and the external forum is clearly made 
everywhere, in particular in the so-called new communities.

5 Cited in “Amazon Synod, to debate ordination of married men,” La Croix, 10 September 2019.

Scene 19

- 
Ensure that university theology departments, seminaries and diocesan training sessions 
teach the importance of listening to one’s conscience with discernment in consecrated life. 
Seek, in these teachings, to highlight ways of applying critical intelligence to issues of 
conscience.

- 
Closely examine how the rules of different religious orders and the rules of so-called new 
communities are taught to see if there is anything in these teachings which could lead to a 
warped interpretation of the obligations of obedience and silence.

- 
During all types of catechism, teach the faithful, particularly children and teenagers, the 
importance of listening to one’s conscience with critical intelligence under all circumstances.

- 
Teach, in all types of training and catechism, that the Gospels show us words being used in a 
dynamic, not as a means of exerting power over another but with the desire to help the other 
grow and learn, and point out that, just as in any healthy human relationship, words are only 
given in order to be received.

- 
Highlight biblical expressions which have been distorted and used manipulatively while 
encouraging both a critical and a spiritual reading of the Bible at all levels of training.

- 
The canonical provision known as the absolution of an accomplice in sin which is 
fundamentally inappropriate in cases of sexual assault.

- 
The language of certain magisterial documents which refer to sin and forgiveness in instances 
of crime and punishment; it is necessary to clearly distinguish a moral situation from a legal 
one. A crime always implies a sin but not all sins constitute crimes.

During all types of training and catechism and in pastoral care, teach:

Scene 20

- 
Of the prior need for sanctions and retribution for crimes and misdemeanours committed 
against civil law and against Church law.

- 
Of the risk of distorting forgiveness by granting easy absolution to torturers and, worse still, 
of requiring victims to forgive their persecutors.

- 
That sex abuse prevention practices must be put in place during the ritual of the Sacrament 
of Penance.

- 
That “I forgive you” must not be confused with a priest’s personal power over a penitent.

- 
That the seal of confession only applies during the period of the Sacrament of Penance.

Communicate a clear message, issued directly by the Church authorities, telling those confessing and 
the faithful that the seal of confession cannot derogate from the obligation laid down by law and the 
[French] Criminal Code - which is, in the Commission’s opinion,  compatible with the obligation of 
divine natural law to protect the life and dignity of the person - to report to the judicial and 
administrative authorities all cases of sexual violence inflicted on a child or a vulnerable person (cf. 
Recommendation  N°43).

- 
Teach that the profanation of a sacrament recalls the most fundamental profanation: that of 
people.

- 
Closely examine anything in the declaration of the Sacrament of Grace which may be painful 
or unacceptable to victims, who remain churchgoers, when faced with an abuser priest 
continuing to officiate.

- 
Teach in all types of training and catechism:

o That attention should not be focused on the “subject” of the moral act but

rather on assessing the responsibility of every individual towards another.

o That harm starts with an attack on a person, including a lack of respect of the

-        Closely examine the Catholic Church’s catechisms and make sure, before anything else,   
that the victim and his inalienable dignity have their rightful place.

- 
Embark upon a re-writing of teachings based on the sixth commandment in documents 
designed for children, adolescents and catechumens which are used for training 
purposes or in pastoral accompaniment.

Scene 21

o In what ways the paradoxical obsession of Catholic morality on issues of

sexuality could be counterproductive in the fight against sex abuse.

o The choice of lumping together the whole of human sexuality in just the sixth

- 
Encourage doctrinal thought about not separating doctrine on sexuality from the 
Church’s social doctrine and the equal dignity of all human beings.

Recommendation N° 12: Consolidate what has already been done

1/ Maintain existing awareness and information programmes within the Church, without excluding any 
of its members, by privileging - even indirectly - approaches to awareness inspired by human rights 
campaigns, children’s rights in particular. Even if it is difficult to assess their impact, such measures can 
only help develop a different mindset and preventative attitudes within the Church. It would, moreover, 
send a clear message that the ecclesiastical institution is taking a definite stand against sexual abuse 
and that it is open to listening to victims. The idea is to instigate a climate of confidence propitious to 
discussion, rather than one of general defiance.

2/ Publish, on a regular basis, better documented reports with a programme-based approach; envisage 
an annual publication. Publication by the CEF of a report every two years is a powerful measure which 
was adopted in 2016. However, the content of these reports could be more comprehensive, less factual 
and retrospective and it would be preferable to adopt an approach more geared towards objectives. 
The CEF, and possibly the CORREF, will announce ongoing and upcoming projects as well as the current 
state of advancement of the said work. They will specify their objectives and advise of any commitments 
made to third parties, in particular to victims and organizations representing them.  They will gather 
information in a more systematic way regarding good practices noted at a grass roots level, thanks to 
feedback from national bodies, who are, when appropriate, in contact with the victim support groups.

3/ Initiate debate about the support centre provisions set up for victims which must be maintained but 
the modalities of which require revision.

Recommendation N° 13: Provide training in internal and external control procedures for the main 
leaders in the organization of the Church in France, for instance each newly appointed bishop or newly 
elected major superior, and develop risk management strategies specific to the Church and adapted to 
its way of functioning. 
 
 
Recommendation N° 14:  Ensure that the adoption of measures taken to combat sexual abuse are based 
on a qualitative approach. Current and future provisions should be more based around the desired 
outcome and should be subject to an assessment of their effectiveness and results.

Encourage a process of appropriation of shared references within the dioceses with priests and 
laypersons instead of issuing orders which may lead to misunderstandings and exclusion.

Scene 22

Recommendation N° 15:  Reform the modalities of the support centres set up by the Church by moving 
towards a combined internal/external, local/national system.

The new system should include unique, highly visible, contact details (telephone, email and postal 
address) and be facilitated by professionals working in partnership with the Church. The professional 
listeners would be able to direct calls towards internal support systems (CEF services and centres 
managed at a diocesan, religious institution or new community level) or towards external services 
facilitated by victim support organizations.

At a national level, the system should be supervised by an inter-disciplinary team comprised of Church 
representatives, victim representatives and health professionals. Dioceses should keep local support 
services for people who address them directly, either through the centres set up along the existing 
model or directly via a bishop.

PROPOSITION OF THE ORGANISATION OF A NATIONAL SYSTEM

Recommendation N° 16: Encourage, when appropriate, merged centres at an inter-diocesan level or 
partnerships between diocesan centres in order to pool resources, create relevant areas of intervention 
and develop a network of members. It is important to maintain a dense local network in to be able to 
offer support solutions close by.

Church support 
centres 
(dioceses, 
orders and 
congregations)

National, 
independent 
inter-
disciplinary 
team: 
management of 
the support 
centres, 
processing of 
victims’ 
requests, advice 
to mandators

Scene 23

Insist upon the fact the support centres offer reception and listening services only and that their mission 
ends where care and legal advice begins. However, it is therefore essential that the centres build up 
directories of local professionals to be able to direct victims towards the appropriate structure (social 
services, medical professionals, legal counsel).

Emphasize the centres’ prioritization of victims. Their role is not to take care of the perpetrators of 
crimes - this should be subject to separate protocols at a diocesan level to ensure adequate care is 
provided, in particular with help of external partners (e.g. the CRIAVS: Resource centres for those helping 
perpetrators of sexual violence).

Formalize, in conjunction with the diocesan referents responsible for the fight against child abuse, the 
centres’ mission in terms of prevention. The centres are automatically involved in prevention in various 
ways (presentations to seminarians and priests; drafting protocols; the organization of 
seminars/conferences).

Clarification is needed with regard to the centres’ role in advising bishops: the centres do not always 
have the means to advise episcopal leaders, in particular on legal issues. In any case, its advisory role 
seems to be ill-defined and a source of ambiguity.

It would be preferable for centres to be composed entirely of laypersons in order to limit the risk of 
confusion for victims. This would also limit the risk of ethical tensions among the  centres’ volunteers.

Microsoft Word - CIASE - Summary of the Final Report, 5 october 2021

Page 1 (0s)

Page 2 (26s)

Page 3 (2m 8s)

Page 4 (3m 38s)

Page 5 (5m 4s)

Page 6 (6m 42s)

Page 7 (8m 24s)

Page 8 (9m 52s)

Page 9 (11m 35s)

Page 10 (13m 22s)

Page 11 (15m 2s)

Page 12 (16m 51s)

Page 13 (18m 29s)

Page 14 (20m 25s)

Page 15 (22m 14s)

Page 16 (24m 8s)

Page 17 (25m 0s)

Page 18 (25m 49s)

Page 19 (27m 0s)

Page 20 (27m 50s)

Page 21 (28m 52s)

Page 22 (30m 12s)

Page 23 (31m 1s)

Page 24 (32m 9s)

Page 25 (33m 18s)

Page 26 (34m 19s)

Page 27 (35m 26s)

Page 28 (36m 40s)

Page 29 (37m 54s)

Page 30 (39m 7s)

Page 31 (39m 47s)

Page 32 (41m 0s)