Pope Francis and the change of era

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, resigned last week over his role—mainly of inaction or insufficient action after the fact—in the cover-up of sexual abuse.

Welby’s resignation came mere days after a major independent inquiry concluded he had not sufficiently reported, investigated, or contained John Smythe, a man described as “the most prolific serial abuser to be associated with the Church of England,” believed to have abused more than one hundred boys in at least three countries—England, Zimbabwe, and South Africa—over several decades, beginning in the 1970s.

It appears Welby only came to know of Smythe’s predations between 2013 and 2014, and then let himself believe the matter was largely handled. “When I was informed in 2013 and told that police had been notified,” Welby said in a statement last week, “I believed wrongly that an appropriate resolution would follow.”

“It is very clear that I must take personal and institutional responsibility for the long and retraumatising period between 2013 and 2024,” Welby said in the statement. “I hope this decision makes clear how seriously the Church of England understands the need for change and our profound commitment to creating a safer church,” Welby said.

“As I step down,” Welby said, “I do so in sorrow with all victims and survivors of abuse.”

Welby’s resignation sends a signal to Church leaders across communions, including to leaders of the Catholic Church, which should not be underestimated.

Welby is the first primate of a sister Church to decide to resign after his inaction towards a serial abuser, transferred to Africa, had become evident and the subject of a press campaign. And this opens up entirely new scenarios.

Justin Welby is the primate of the Anglican Communion, but the head of the Anglican Church is the King of England. The primate, among other things, remains in office until 70 and then must retire. In this sense, the office of the primate is not comparable to that of the Pope, patriarchs, or major archbishops, whose office is for life.

However, Welby is effectively the face of the Church of England, even if he is not constitutionally the head of it. Welby is the Anglican Communion’s most prominent personality, as well as a sort of moral and religious authority recognized throughout the world. His resignation comes a year and a half before turning 70. Unlike the premature resignation of his predecessor—Rowan Williams wanted to return to his academic career—it is a resignation destined to shake things up.

Will there be more cases of sister church leaders being forced to resign over allegations of covering up abuse or inaction regarding possible abuse?

It cannot be ruled out because now that the possibility has been explored, the pressure against religions will only increase.

How long will it take for this pressure to be applied to a Pope?

Not long, judging by what has happened in recent years.

Since the Boston pedophilia scandal in the early 2000s, revelations of abuse and coverup have continued to come from every continent. Attacks on the Catholic Church over its handling of abuse have followed, as well. On the one hand, there is the need to take responsibility for undeniable and horrible facts that had occurred. On the other hand, it is necessary to define where there has been an authentic cover-up and where the situations were artfully fabricated but not accurate.

The Church’s response was institutional and could not have been otherwise. It was decided to centralize controls, not hide, but force everyone to report any cases to Rome. However, the accusations continued, the cases came to light, and in some situations, there was also the impression of a hidden direction behind the publication of the cases and the accusations. This happened in 2010, the Year of the Priest, an annus horribilis for the Church.

Benedict XVI and Pope Francis then took the initiative and tried to stem the phenomenon by providing certain procedures and reforming the legislation. Pope Francis even called a summit of all the presidents of the episcopal conferences on the topic of abuse and its contrast.

In all this debate, however, there has been a profound swing from a total denial of the phenomenon of the cover-up of abuse to the need always to concede something about the world. The Church apologizes no matter what happened or what responsibilities there were. In the apologies, there is often the implication of a systematic nature of the abuses – but does the systematic nature refer to a single person or the entire institution? – and there is a global assumption of responsibility even in the face of individual crimes.

The Pope, then, has always been preserved, as has the institution. When an attempt was made to bring Benedict XVI to trial in the United States, the illegitimacy of the request could be opposed by underlining that the Pope was a head of state. Not only does he not have direct responsibility, but he cannot even be prosecuted.

But what can happen now?

Pope Francis has admitted that he has previously accepted the resignation of the Archbishop of Paris Michel Aupetit “on the altar of hypocrisy.”

The charges, which were later ultimately shelved, did not mention, among other things, the abuse of minors. Another trial for cover-up was conducted against Cardinal Barbarin, Archbishop Emeritus of Lyon. In that case, the cardinal was cleared of all charges, too. The Pope, however, accepted his renunciation at the end of the trial. Another trial for abuse was against Cardinal George Pell, who even spent time in prison before being completely cleared of the charges.

In short, there are cases of decisions that seem to be more media-related than anything else. Pope Francis, however, has also acted differently. In the case of Chile, he first did not listen to the accusations and then decided to put the entire Church of Chile in penance. The Pope brought Archbishop Zanchetta, later convicted of abuse, to the Vatican in an ad hoc assignment. The Pope overturned the judgment on Fr. Mario Inzoli.

There are others, even without mentioning the notorious case of disgraced artist-priest Marko Rupnik (though his case was not of child abuse), that of self-confessed child molester Jean-Pierre Cardinal Ricard perhaps most glaring. Ricard remained in the clerical state and kept his red hat, despite his confession of “appalling behavior” that French authorities ruled statute-barred.

The risk, however, is that the Pope could be impugned precisely to create pressure on the Church. The even greater risk is that the Pope, to avoid further pressure (and also to save his public image), decides to renounce the pontificate.

It is a sign of the change of era that Pope Francis speaks of, that there are no longer institutions that must be protected to the end. There are no longer heads of institutions who consider the institution the most important factor. Resigning can mean wanting to protect an institution. However, a divinely formed institution that identifies with its head—the Pope and the Holy See—cannot be exempt from resignations that arise due to pressure from public opinion.

Perhaps the sign of the change of era is given precisely by our perception of the institutions. More and more, we are distancing ourselves from their traditional languages and deciding on a more informal approach, if not even careless of the languages and the present tradition.

In his operation to change the Church’s mentality, Pope Francis has contributed to dismantling some of the old certainties. For example, the Diocese of Rome is gradually giving up auxiliary bishops, replacing them with episcopal vicars. The Pope remains a bishop, and his vicar manages and administers the diocese.

On the other hand, however, Pope Francis chooses cardinals suddenly, outside of any scheme, taking them suddenly and revealing, perhaps, the idea that for him, the cardinalate is more of an honor than actual participation in the government of the Church, and more a question of geopolitical representation than of actual involvement in the government. It is a college of cardinals that looks to the peripheries but also distances the cardinals from the center of power.

These choices risk emptying the meaning of both bishops and cardinals. They become functions, not ministries or vocations.

If they become secondary, the institution they serve will also become secondary. Then, every possible scandal must lead to resignations, and pressure from public opinion can actually influence decisions.

Today, balance is necessary.

In this era of change, however, balance is the most challenging thing to seek, find, and achieve. The world, and Welby’s resignation demonstrates this, is going in one direction. The Church, in the world but not of the world, has often gone in an obstinate and contrary direction. Now, it seems to need more strength to do so.