Pope Leo XIV Meets with Abuse Survivors During Argentina Visit
During his recent visit to Argentina, Pope Leo XIV held private meetings with five survivors of clergy and institutional abuse to hear their personal accounts and proposals for healing. The pontiff expressed a firm commitment to enhancing protection and support mechanisms within the Church for those who have suffered. Despite these efforts, some advocates pointed to the lack of a comprehensive national accounting of abuse cases in the country. Other groups, including women alleging trafficking within Opus Dei, expressed disappointment at not being able to secure a meeting with the Pope. Survivors continue to demand greater transparency regarding the canonical proceedings of high-profile cases involving convicted clergy members.
12 hours ago
Pope Leo XIV met privately in Buenos Aires with five people abused by clergy or Church institutions, hearing their accounts and proposals for healing. The meeting took place amid calls from survivors and advocates for greater transparency and stronger action on abuse cases in Argentina, where there has been no comprehensive national accounting of the crisis. 1 2
The Vatican said the meeting lasted about an hour or more than an hour. Leo spoke with each survivor individually and then met with the group; the local Church selected the five participants. He listened to their experiences and suggestions for strengthening paths to healing, then thanked them, blessed them and conveyed his closeness to other victims he could not meet. 1 2
The encounter was held during Leo’s visit to Argentina. Earlier that day, he celebrated Mass in Buenos Aires; local authorities estimated the crowd at about 2.5 million. 2
Other groups of survivors had sought meetings with Leo but were not included. Among them were 43 women who allege they were subjected to human trafficking and forced labor at centers run by Opus Dei in Argentina; the allegations are under criminal investigation, and Opus Dei has denied wrongdoing. 1
Survivors and advocates have also called for clearer information about the Church’s internal proceedings against clergy accused or convicted in criminal courts. Argentina has not conducted a nationwide investigation or accounting comparable to those in several other countries, and advocates criticize the limited information available about canonical proceedings. 1 2
The Argentine bishops have established a national safeguarding council and issued guidelines for handling allegations. BishopAccountability.org lists nearly 100 priests, religious brothers and women religious publicly accused of abusing minors or vulnerable adults in Argentina. 2
Two cases cited by survivors involve Julio César Grassi and former Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta. Grassi, who ran homes for children, was convicted of sexually abusing a minor and sentenced to 15 years in prison; while archbishop of Buenos Aires, the future Pope Francis commissioned a study that challenged the criminal case against him. Grassi remains imprisoned, is still a priest, and is barred from public ministry pending a definitive Vatican decision. 1 2
Zanchetta was convicted in 2022 of sexually abusing two seminarians and sentenced to four years and six months in prison. He was conditionally released in September 2025, but the Vatican has not announced the outcome of its canonical proceeding; Francis had initially accepted Zanchetta’s defense and later authorized a Church criminal proceeding. 1 2
Another major case involved abuse of deaf and hearing-impaired children at the Antonio Próvolo Institute in Mendoza from 2005 to 2016. Two priests received prison sentences in 2019, and former nun Kumiko Kosaka was sentenced to 20 years in September. 2
Ecclesial accountability is essential to justice for abuse survivors
Ecclesial accountability is essential to justice for abuse survivors because abuse does not end with the original act: failures to hear reports, acknowledge harm, or prevent further abuse can compound survivors’ suffering and expose others to danger. Catholic teaching therefore presents justice not as an optional response after pastoral care, but as part of the Church’s responsibility to listen, establish truth, make reparation, hold authority to account, and prevent abuse from happening again.
Pope Leo XIV describes ecclesial justice as requiring the purification of Church relationships and structures where inequality, secrecy, and abuse of power take root. He identifies listening to victims, acknowledging harm, making just reparation, and preventing recurrence as parts of one journey toward justice. That means an expression of sorrow, though important, cannot by itself fulfill the Church’s responsibility. Justice must also address what happened and what is needed to protect people from its happening again.
This is especially clear when Church leaders have failed to respond adequately to reports. Pope Francis acknowledged that such omissions caused further suffering and endangered other minors. He also said that bishops must exercise pastoral care with the utmost care and “will be held accountable.” Accountability, then, is not an attack on the Church’s mission. It is a requirement of responsible service within it.
Listening to survivors matters because it recognizes them as persons whose experience deserves serious attention—not as reputational problems to manage or obstacles to institutional stability. The Synod’s final document calls listening a fundamental element in the path to healing, repentance, justice, and reconciliation. It also says the Church must acknowledge its shortcomings, ask forgiveness, care for victims, take preventive measures, and work to rebuild trust.
Listening is not, however, a substitute for accountability. A survivor should not be left with an empathetic conversation while relevant facts remain unexamined or necessary protective action is neglected. Pope Leo says the Church must pursue truth transparently and must not wait for journalists or others to force it to confront uncomfortable facts. His point is that vigilance and transparency are first and foremost the Church’s own responsibility.
Accountability concerns more than the conduct of an individual perpetrator. The Synod warns that clericalism is sustained by the assumption that Church leaders are above scrutiny. It says transparency and accountability apply not only to abuse but also to the exercise of authority and the Church’s respect for human dignity more broadly.
Pope Leo likewise connects justice with examining ecclesial structures and encouraging regular assessments of ministerial responsibilities—not as a way to prejudge individuals, but as a means of learning, correction, and service to the Church’s mission. The implication is that accountability should be both personal and institutional: it should address wrongdoing by individuals while also examining the decisions, practices, or failures that allowed harm to occur or remain hidden.
Justice for survivors includes recognizing the harm done and seeking just reparation; it also includes taking steps to prevent abuse from recurring. The Church’s own teaching therefore resists a purely backward-looking response focused only on expressing regret. It requires attention to survivors’ present needs, meaningful paths toward healing, and safeguards for the future. Pope Leo XIV summarizes the Church’s response as one of listening, truth, justice, reparation, prevention, and a culture of care.
Prevention also includes resisting concealment. Pope Francis wrote that efforts to repair past harm must be accompanied by efforts to create a culture that prevents abuse and prevents it from being covered up or perpetuated. These responsibilities are connected: an institution that does not face what went wrong cannot credibly claim to have learned how to protect people better.
Accountability does not mean treating every allegation as already proven, nor do the supplied Church texts specify the procedures or standards for every case. They do, however, rule out the idea that authority exempts anyone from answerability. The sources support a clear principle: survivors must be heard with care, wrongdoing and institutional failures must be faced truthfully, appropriate reparation and corrective action must follow, and prevention must be real rather than rhetorical. Without those elements, appeals to forgiveness or reconciliation risk asking survivors to bear the burden of restoring trust while the Church has not yet done its part.