We share the interview that, in the context of the Meeting on the protection of minors in the Church, Lo+RC from Spain conducted with Father Benjamin Clariond, LC, to address the topic of the “transparency that the Church needs and the criteria for effective communication when fostering a culture in which abuse is prevented, victims are given voice, and society as a whole can participate in building a culture of safe environments.”
Father Benjamin Clariond, LC, author of the book: “Communicate and participate: Institutional communication in the Church and its relation to safeguarding and promoting the common good,” was coordinator of the safe environments department of the Legion of Christ from 2012 to 2016 and director of the international communication office of Regnum Christi from 2012 to 2017. He is currently the director of the Cumbres Alpes Querétaro Institute and of the Preparatoria Anáhuac Querétaro.
What is the current need within the Church that this meeting between the Pope and bishops must address?
I believe it can become a greater commitment on the part of all episcopal conferences to be transparent about what they are doing, how they are doing it, and to establish real engagement with victims. It is not a legislative event per se, but it has a strong educational impact, and it will serve to share best practices and raise awareness, because the Church should act well not out of media pressure, but out of the deep conviction that every person is worthy of a happy life and that, if they have suffered, we must acknowledge that harm, repair it, and move forward.
Indeed, regarding abuse of minors in the Church, some media outlets have worked to denounce the facts, make them known to public opinion, and involve society in this fight. There are those within the Church who perceive it as an attack.
I would invite those people to read Pope Francis’s speech to the Curia last December, where he mentions that sometimes it is necessary for the prophet Nathan to come and show David his sin. The media have helped us become aware of a truly serious situation by bringing to light things that were unclear or not given the importance they deserve, and they have helped give voice to those who had none. I believe that a time should come when media pressure is no longer necessary to act, but sometimes the Church needs a good shake-up to wake from lethargy and focus on what is truly important.
Also, awakening public opinion is fundamental because, by discussing abuse objectively and truthfully, the media contribute to the common good, as it is a social problem that occurs in many areas of society.
And why is it perceived as an attack?
Because the truth is embarrassing, on one hand, and people react instinctively, feeling attacked by those who denounce. Sometimes sensationalist data that do not correspond to the truth or lack of professional rigor are involved, but that does not mean that the media that denounce are attacking the Church. I also think it is important that the media give the parties involved the opportunity to express their voice if they wish, that they do not act behind their backs, and that everyone can participate in the conversation, not just those who have the technology and means to disseminate certain information. As long as it is driven by the pursuit of truth, professional ethics, respect, and service to the common good, it is good for the media to investigate and denounce.
What information should an institution, in this case the Church, publicly provide regarding the prevention of abuse or about abuses that occur within its ranks?
The information it should provide includes what is being done, the scope of the phenomenon, with statistics, how many people have received training on this matter, how many courses have been given, how many reports have been received, how many reports have resulted in culpability, and how many have not… These are a series of data to periodically offer the current status of the issue. It is part of a report that also serves the Church itself as a self-assessment of its work in this area. And, since the Church is not only the diocesan office and we are all the Church, I believe it should be accessible to anyone with a certain interest in the topic. To participate and be responsible for something, it is necessary to be informed.
At the same time, I believe that if there is a particular situation, it should be communicated to the people who are somehow involved.
For example? What should be communicated or what should be reported, and to whom, if a priest from a parish is accused of abuse, let’s say?
Suppose an accusation is made against a priest who is in a parish. That parish has the right to know why this priest has been suspended provisionally, clearly stating that he is presumed innocent, but that while the investigation is ongoing, he will not hold this responsibility in order to facilitate matters and out of caution. But the community has the right to know. I would not put this in an international news agency, but I would inform the affected parish community.
If a member of a religious community is accused of something, I think it is minimally honest to inform the other members of the community about the accusation against this person, stating that he or she currently has certain precautionary measures. As a Christian community, they support him or her, help them live within the restrictions, assist them during the investigation, and once a sentence is issued, help them face whatever the sentence establishes.
It is very difficult to restore the reputation of a person accused if a sentence finally declares him or her innocent. Undertaking this communicative path also involves accepting a cost to the good reputation of someone who is proven innocent.
That is why we must do everything possible to restore this person’s good name. When an accusation is received, the institution must inform those entitled to know that an accusation has been made, the measures taken, and explicitly state that the guilt or innocence of the person is not known. It should also ask for prayers for all those affected. The accused person can claim innocence, but it is up to the relevant authority to recognize it or not.
Certainly, the cultural shift regarding past practices is that the victim becomes the primary good to be protected. How does proper institutional communication contribute to the well-being of abuse victims?
It contributes, but it does not do so alone. You cannot expect a declaration alone to achieve healing. A declaration, public acknowledgment of the harm caused, and a request for forgiveness are very important for the victim’s healing and reconciliation. It must be done, and not only in cases of sexual abuse, but whenever someone has suffered something. Recognizing evil and the pain endured greatly aids healing. But institutional communication is not just a simple declaration or a positioning strategy to build a good reputation: it involves words and actions, gestures and statements that express the identity itself.
If the identity of the Church is that of a Church on the move, a Church of communion, it needs to communicate and say “this is what happened and this is what we are doing, this is what we have learned, this is where we need help,” because we cannot always do everything ourselves. Good institutional communication is the opposite of silence that conceals evil, and in that sense, it can encourage more victims to come forward and begin a path of healing. That is the common experience. It is the opposite of silence that hides. The victim is as much a child of the bishop as the priest. Certainly, sometimes it can be complicated due to fear of criminal, legal, or financial accusations that could lead an institution to bankruptcy, especially when it also has the duty to preserve the good of the entire institution. But the priority must always be the care of victims above all else.
I believe communication has an important contribution. Certainly, it does not replace personal institutional encounters that can even happen away from the media spotlight. And of course, one must never instrumentalize a person, especially a victim, to say “look how well we are doing.” That would be re-victimization.
From a communication perspective, what would you say is the key to shifting from a culture focused on protecting one’s reputation at the expense of the victim to a culture of protecting minors and caring for victims?
To the extent that we are convinced that the best service to evangelization is that the Church be a safe home, that will bring about a series of values, such as transparency, which will become the norm and not the exception. But as long as the fundamental convictions do not change, we will be making superficial changes.
I believe one conviction that must change is the obsession with one’s own reputation above all else, which leads to withholding real information and treating others as incapable children of knowing the truth. Reputation above all should be replaced by the conviction that transparency is a good.
It is not about absolute transparency, not about revealing everything, but about transparency in what others have the right to know. If there is something that must be kept confidential, reasons must be given, but it will never be good or acceptable to keep secrets that seek to cover up or hide immoral actions affecting others or criminal acts that should be stopped. The right to confidentiality can never be invoked to conceal immoral or criminal conduct. Silence is unacceptable.
Change in culture generates fears, and fears generate resistance. What would you say are the main fears within the Church regarding this change? And how can it be made effective?
It must be recognized that all change always generates resistance. You feel you are losing a good, and you need to discover another good to replace it. That’s why I believe that for a cultural change to be effective, it is essential to invite people to participate in it, rather than impose it by decree. I think the Pope’s meeting with bishops aligns with this approach. You cannot have a single standard, a single code of conduct for everyone: the principles are the same, but cultural expressions are different. So, people need to be involved in this process. I believe that doing so greatly facilitates the process, reduces fears, and makes change possible.
Another important element of resistance to change is that the damage to the reputation of priests caused by the actions of a few who have committed serious scandals and crimes weighs heavily, causing pain and confusion, and sometimes doubts about their vocation. One carries the stigma of abuse when committed by others, even when trying to be exemplary in living out priestly commitments and caring for others. It is a fact not to be underestimated, and Pope Benedict XVI explicitly mentions it in his letter to the Irish people.
A third element of resistance is the fear of losing institutional prestige. No one likes to discover that their family is not perfect, that some of our brothers have committed heinous crimes. But the most mature response is to accept these facts as part of history and turn them into a path of learning and redemption, with greater commitment to ensure they do not happen again. Not hiding, not denying, not covering up: bringing them to light and allowing grace to heal those wounds. Hiding, covering up, silence… are unacceptable: they prevent healing, worsen the problem, and can cause more people to become victims. Silence that conceals evil destroys lives.
Talking about transparency. Some are afraid of it. What do you mean by transparency? Could you replace it with another word?
I haven’t found a single word that fully captures it, nor have I thought about it extensively, but transparency is about providing the information to which others have a right. That is truly the core concept of transparency. It is precisely why I titled my thesis “Communicate and participate”: it’s about communicating all information that allows each person to participate actively and correctly in the pursuit of the common good, and which, moreover, was what was requested by Lumen Gentium in n. 37 and the instruction Communio et Progression in nn. 119-120. Fifty years have passed since those documents, and we still need to work to internalize what they say and live by it. There has been progress, no doubt, but there is still a long way to go. We must understand that silence is unacceptable in the field of abuse.
Does the experience of the Legionaries of Christ and the entire Regnum Christi have anything to contribute to the Church and society in the prevention of abuse of minors?
I believe so. With much humility and without claiming to have the last word on this topic, I think we have learned a lot, and our learning can be useful to others. A few years ago, at a conference at the Gregorian University, the German ambassador to the Holy See said that, unfortunately, in the field of abuse prevention, many institutions do not react until it happens to them…
Perhaps the Legion of Christ was for a time a lamentable reference point for abuse of minors in the Church, but from that emerged a strong commitment to learn, repair, and above all, to ensure that this does not happen to anyone else. It is a firm determination that has become a reality especially since 2013 when we implemented the policies of safe environments that we continue to follow today. Asking for forgiveness requires working so that abuse can never happen again.
The serious institutional crisis related to the founder made us wake up, react, and undertake a serious process of self-criticism. Our experience, with its successes and failures, its lights and shadows, can serve other institutions because we have genuinely sought a path of conversion, of attention to victims, of closeness to them—whether or not it is media-covered—and knowing that no matter what we do, it will never be enough to heal their wounds. I believe we can learn a lot from victims, and they should always be part of the solution to this problem in the Church and society.
Does the Church have anything to contribute to society from this crisis of abuse within its ranks?
Although there is still a long way to go, it has become aware of the evil of this problem and of the zero-tolerance policy towards abuse, and also, in the zero-tolerance policy towards negligence in managing these cases, with actions such as Pope Francis’s motu proprio As a Mother Loving. It is true that much remains to be done, but prevention programs, response initiatives, victim care, etc., I believe are and will be contributions to society and to other institutions, offering this path we are walking. The meetings in the Vatican these days I believe can also contribute beyond the borders of the Church.
In the book recently published with your thesis, you focus on the common good as a key for discernment in institutional communication, which is one of the lessons you learned as Director of Communication. How can the common good help a government discern whether to inform about something that affects someone’s reputation?
The primary responsibility of all authority is to contribute to the common good, and to guide society or an institution toward the common good: creating an environment that allows it to be achieved. That’s why I believe the common good can serve as a kind of compass for discernment regarding institutional communication, especially because it helps us avoid false reasoning.
For example, defamation is certainly wrong, and damaging someone’s reputation is not something to seek. However, that which is a particular good is not an absolute good: it must be placed within the horizon of the common good. If
