Critics fault Church response after priests face child abuse allegations

Critics have questioned the Catholic Church’s response after prosecutors completed an investigation into alleged sexual offences against children over a 23-year period involving a priest, while another priest faces allegations of possessing child pornography, LRT reported.

Neither prosecutors nor the Church has published the priests’ names, saying the decision is intended to protect the victims. The cases have nevertheless raised questions about the Church’s response and the responsibility of its leaders.

Toma Bružaitė, a member of the “Svarbus reikalas” initiative group, said the Church was avoiding discussion of its leaders’ responsibility.

“We need to talk not only about the details of the case, but about the Church’s response in general. Why do such things still happen? Why do we not know about them, and if the leaders did know, why did they fail to deal with them?” she said.

Bružaitė said that if Church leaders had not known about the cases, that itself raised questions about how they would learn about similar incidents in the future.

Myth of the faultless priest

Ramūnas Aušrotas, a Christian social activist who lives in parishes where both priests served, said communities found it difficult to discuss such cases but needed to do so.

“The Church is making a mistake by not talking. I would not say that it is unwilling to talk, but it does not know how to discuss this subject,” he said.

Aušrotas knew both priests only minimally and said he had noticed nothing suspicious in their conduct. He said one of them, Tadas, had been a sociable person who was liked by the community, making the news a major surprise to him.

He said communities were also left to speculate when they were not told what had happened. In one case, a priest disappeared from a parish without explanation, prompting rumours.

“A priest disappears and nobody knows why he is no longer there. The community speculates about what happened. This work was not done. People should be told, otherwise various rumours arise,” Aušrotas said.

He also said that traditional Christian expectations could make such cases particularly difficult for communities to accept.

“There is an idea in traditional Christianity that a priest should be holy. This leads to the incorrect conclusion that he should not hurt anyone. But status does not make you a moral person,” he said.

Calls for clearer guidance

Juozas Ruzgys, director of Bernardinai.lt, said the case highlighted a broader problem in the Vilnius Archdiocese.

“Perhaps it is time to say openly and boldly what at least a considerable number of priests discuss privately: Vilnius does not have a true shepherd,” Ruzgys said.

He said the archbishop in charge had numerous duties and international commitments, leaving local believers with relatively little attention.

Ruzgys said he understood why the priests’ names had not been released, as the decision was intended to protect victims and prevent public persecution. However, he said withholding the names also cast suspicion over all 180 priests in the archdiocese.

He said the Church had failed to give communities clear guidance on how to respond and continue interacting with priests without viewing them as potential criminals.

“It would be a genuinely positive step if priests simply informed people from the pulpit that such cases exist, explained what they should do and where they should turn,” Ruzgys said.