Cardinal Matteo Zuppi has clearly expressed an idea that continues to weigh on sectors of the ecclesiastical hierarchy: resorting to civil justice in cases of sexual abuse committed by priests would imply recognizing that the Church’s internal system does not work. He stated this during the program «Francesco – Crónicas de un Papado» on La7, a report by journalist Ezio Mauro on the first anniversary of Francisco’s death.
When asked about the management of abuses during Francis’s pontificate, Zuppi firmly defended his actions but introduced a significant nuance when addressing collaboration with civil justice: “The problem of collaboration with the civil authorities is more complex, because if we are not capable of judging ourselves, of examining ourselves, it means that something is not working.” He then insisted that the Pope had been “extremely rigorous” and emphasized the importance of listening to the victims.
The approach is clear. Turning to civil authorities does not appear as a moral or legal requirement, but as the consequence of an internal failure. In practice, this amounts to maintaining that the Church must suffice for itself even in the face of crimes that also fall under criminal jurisdiction.
A stance in tension with current regulations
This view clashes with the framework established by the motu proprio Vos estis lux mundi, where Pope Francis insisted on the need to act with rigor and collaborate with civil authorities in accordance with each country’s legislation.
However, Zuppi’s words point to another logic: preserving the Church’s capacity to judge these cases internally, avoiding the perception that external intervention is necessary. This is not a minor nuance, but a way of understanding the scope of institutional responsibility.
Abuses treated as an internal matter
The core of the approach can be summarized in one idea: “we must be capable of judging ourselves.” With this statement, Zuppi places abuses within the Church’s internal sphere, as if its own disciplinary mechanisms were sufficient.
But canonical tribunals do not substitute for civil justice. They can impose ecclesiastical sanctions, but they do not address the criminal requirements of these offenses nor guarantee reparations for victims on their own. Reducing them to that sphere implies, in practice, treating them only as moral failings and not as crimes.
A logic that explains what happened
The statements by the Italian cardinal reflect a way of addressing abuses that does not fully break with the past. Despite the norms and official discourses, the idea persists that these cases must be resolved primarily within the Church itself.
The result is a model that prioritizes internal control and limits transparency, an approach that helps explain why for years many cases have not reached civil courts. If reporting is perceived as recognizing a structural failure, the natural tendency is then to avoid that step.