FAQ

The Transparency Commission (TC) is an international, transdisciplinary research group made up of experts on abuses in ecclesial settings. It is funded by the University of Notre Dame Law School (United States), and by Villanueva University (Spain).

The TC was created for the purpose of conducting an Assessment of Institutional Response (AIR)—in a transdisciplinary, professional, independent, and thorough manner—of cases of abuse of minors and persons in situations of vulnerability within the Church.

This group of experts focuses its work on places where crises related to ecclesial abuse have not yet occurred or have not yet come to public light. By examining the past, the TC makes recommendations for the future. The AIR is the primary tool through which the TC makes a contribution to the restoration and healing of those who have suffered abuse in the Church. It seeks to assist in the transformation of institutions into safer and more protective environments, especially for minors and persons in situations of vulnerability.

Its purpose is to contribute, through a report that includes a set of recommendations, to being an instrument that can help in the restoration and healing of those who have suffered abuse in the Church, and to be a factor that fosters the institution's transformation, with safer and more protective environments for minors and persons in situations of vulnerability, while assessing compliance with the standards necessary for the proper handling of abuse complaints.

The pilot Assessment of Institutional Response took place in the Archdiocese of Panama, where the context and management of abuse of minors and persons in situations of vulnerability was examined, covering the period from 2001 to 2025.

The general methodology was grounded in transitional and restorative justice, which places victims at the center. In turn, the transdisciplinary nature of the study was carried out using the methodologies of the various areas of specialization: clinical, forensic, theological-pastoral, sociological, compliance with protocols and standards, and analysis of public communication.

To date, most reports on abuse in the Church have focused on singular dimensions, without providing a comprehensive and coherent explanation of what has failed in prevention processes and the internal management of cases.

Without explanation there is no understanding, and without understanding there is no effective change. Bringing together a commission of experts from multiple disciplines allows for a fuller understanding of the problem in all its dimensions. Making use of all available information gathered from multiple disciplinary perspectives allows TC to generate proposals aimed at specific improvements, from a broader understanding of the past problems.

The work of the Commission's members includes: collection of data from the diocesan archive, a field listening process (based on individual interviews and written testimonies), the study of other thematic or territorial reports (in civil or ecclesiastical settings) published by other entities, and the mapping of how abuse in Panama has been represented in local media coverage.

The project had several phases: planning and preparation, documentary analysis, interviews and surveys, evaluation and comparison, drafting of a report and recommendations, and a public presentation of the Assessment of Institutional Response.

The principle of transparency is characterized by process management grounded in fundamental ethical values such as honesty, integrity, responsibility, and effectiveness. Accountability refers to the set of mechanisms that make it possible to justifiably explain an institution's objectives and results to its stakeholders and to contribute to its improvement. Finally, evaluation makes it possible to establish well-founded and systematic judgments about the value, merit, or quality of the process.

In line with the final document of the 2024 Synod, the TC's work embraces the guiding principles of transparency, accountability, and evaluation, and is based on the framework of transitional and restorative justice.

Transitional justice is a model that emerged in response to situations involving serious human rights violations. Within the Church, the crisis of child sexual abuse likewise calls for this type of justice. It has four central elements: truth, justice, reparation, and guarantees of non-repetition. Both the Church's magisterium and the work of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors have pointed to the complementarity between the categories of transitional justice and the principles of the Church's social doctrine on justice, reparation, and prevention.

As the term itself suggests, the aim is to create and mark a transition—a before and an after—between the period in which abuse was perpetrated, mismanaged, or covered up and a new period in which safeguarding, reporting, investigations, and care for victims result in a minimum of abuse and, should it occur, a swift and effective response.

It is also a transition in focus: from protecting the institution's reputation to being centered on the victim. Transition likewise means making room for memory and reconciliation, acknowledging past mistakes, in order to prevent future abuse and to foster the restoration and healing needed.

The Transparency Commission is made up of individuals from eight countries, with recognized expertise in their respective fields. Half of the team is Latin American and works in Latin America.

The TC's group of experts is made up of individuals external to the diocese and therefore independent and free of conflicts of interest. At the same time, they have a knowledge of the Church and the region that facilitates their analysis of the dynamics of ecclesiastical abuse in Panama.

The team is interdisciplinary and is divided into several subgroups according to the members' areas of specialization and the work they carry out: legal-canonical, clinical, accountability, theological-pastoral, socio-cultural, and communications.

The criteria has been a combination of practical experience and theoretical training. Most members of the Commission come from the university academic field and combine research work with consulting for Church institutions on the subject of abuse and its prevention, or with accompanying victims, survivors, and perpetrators.

Beyond recognized expertise, the members of the Commission are chosen based on linguistic and cultural reasons. For example, for the pilot project, some experts were members of CEPROME Latin America, the Interdisciplinary Research and Training Center for the Protection of Minors in Latin America. Others have worked in Church tribunals in Latin America and at the Vatican. Still others hold recognized standing in the development of protocols and standards, the accompaniment of victims, crisis communication, or the socio-cultural aspects of the phenomenon of abuse.

In addition to recognized professional experience in their area of specialization and practice, experts are required to demonstrate independence, knowledge of the Church, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

To carry out an assessment of institutional response of abuse cases in an ecclesial context, the choice has been made to form an external Commission composed of experts who, because of their membership in the Church, are familiar with its particular dynamics. This allows them to properly understand and evaluate the nuances of the ecclesial context, especially in light of the practices of the local Church. This also serves to reinforce their authority within the ecclesial context and maintain their autonomy, without conflicts of interest that might compromise their work.

The Commission's legitimacy and validity are based on the independence of each of the experts and the guarantee of excellence provided by their own institutions, most of which are universities with high standards of ethical and academic quality. Likewise, the Commission is financially autonomous from the archdiocese, since funding for the investigation comes from Villanueva University and the University of Notre Dame.

The work of the Transparency Commission coincides in time with the 25th anniversary of the publications in The Boston Globe that brought to public attention cases of sexual abuse of minors perpetrated by members of the hierarchy in that North American diocese.

Over the course of this quarter century, the Church has reflected on the absence of effective action for the prevention of abuse and the protection of victims, as well as on its responsibility in covering up perpetrators. As a result of this growing awareness, concrete actions have been implemented. Some of the most significant milestones are noted below:

• On 30 April 2001, Pope John Paul II issued the Apostolic Letter Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela, clarifying that more grave crimes, including the sexual abuse of a minor by a cleric, were reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This provided clarity regarding the responsibility for prosecuting these cases and specific procedural norms by which to do so.
• On 19 March 2010, Pope Benedict XVI published a Pastoral Letter addressed to the Catholics of Ireland, in which he expressed his dismay “at the abuse of children and vulnerable young people by members of the Church in Ireland, particularly priests and religious, [that] has come to light”;
• Benedict XVI made a decisive contribution to a significant shift in the Church's attitude toward the handling of sexual abuse. He promoted the reform of certain aspects of the canonical penal and procedural norms concerning the delicta graviora, on the basis of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith promulgated, on 20 July 2010, “Modifications to the Norms on the Most Serious Crimes”;
• On 3 May 2011, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a circular letter to the Episcopal Conferences on the preparation of Guidelines for dealing with cases of sexual abuse of minors by clergy;
• On 22 March 2014, Pope Francis established the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, chaired by Cardinal Seán Patrick O'Malley, OFM Cap., Archbishop of Boston;
• On 4 June 2016, the Argentine pontiff issued an Apostolic Letter motu proprio, “As a Loving Mother,” in which he further clarified the canons of the Code of Canon Law governing the “grave reasons” that may lead to the removal of diocesan bishops, eparchs, and those assimilated to them in law, specifically with regard to cases of abuse of minors;
• From 21 to 24 February 2019, Pope Francis convened an international summit at the Vatican, entitled “The Protection of Minors in the Church,” attended by the presidents of episcopal conferences, the heads of the Eastern Churches, representatives of the Union of Superiors General and the International Union of Superiors General, members of the Curia, and the Council of Cardinals;
• That same year, on 7 May 2019, the Apostolic Letter motu proprio “Vos estis lux mundi” was published (later updated in 2023), establishing mandatory procedures, expanding responsibilities (including for bishops), and strengthening protection for victims, marking a turning point for transparency and accountability;
• In 2021, the Apostolic Constitution Pascite Gregem Dei was promulgated, reforming Book VI of the Code of Canon Law and establishing clearer and more severe penalties for clergy who commit abuse against minors or vulnerable persons.

Following these actions, and also taking into account reports published by local churches, national parliaments, or other independent bodies, the present Transparency Commission seeks to be, proactively, one more instrument to help the Church implement or reinforce a determined stance in the fight against abuse and its prevention, grounded in transparency, accountability, and evaluation.

It is important to be clear about the scope of the assessments. The Transparency Commission cannot directly deliver justice to victims, but it can help in the healing process through the pursuit and acknowledgment of truth. The Transparency Commission's work sets the stage for Church, and possibly State, authorities to enact reparative justice for victims of abuse.

The goal of this assessment of institutional response is to bring the truth to light with transparency, through a holistic approach to the problem of abuse, and to make comprehensive recommendations for improvement.

There may be a prevailing feeling that a reparation process reopens wounds and revictimizes those who have already been harmed in the past. This can happen when a person who has suffered abuse is forced to repeat their story, when their word is doubted, when their privacy is not respected, exposed publicly, or when they are subjected to endless bureaucratic procedures.

That said, it is not true that every reparation process is inherently revictimizing. The real difference lies in how the process unfolds, the methodology used, and the attention given to victims, placing them at the center of the investigation and creating a safe space with the support of clinical specialists experienced in accompanying those who have suffered sexual abuse.

Claiming that there should be no reparation processes in order to avoid revictimization can lead to another form of harm: abandonment, institutional silence, and the avoidance of responsibility. The question is not whether to make reparation, but how to ensure that the process does not further harm the person who has suffered, and that the institution and its available resources are placed at the service of victims, with a guarantee of good practices to achieve this.

No member of any institution can guarantee that there will be no cases of abuse in the future. However, a growing body of good practices in safeguarding, developed both within the Church and in other institutions, has been demonstrated to reduce risks and build safer environments to prevent abuse of minors and persons in situations of vulnerability. These measures also help protect those who have already been abused.

The Transparency Commission aims not only to carry out an assessment of past institutional management, but also to propose to the institution a series of improvements regarding good practices for preventing abuse of minors and persons in situations of vulnerability.

This is a question the Commission asked itself from the beginning of the process. A report that ends in a binder on a shelf wouldn't fulfill the purpose it was written for.

What's different here is that follow-through isn't an afterthought bolted onto the report; it's built into the design from the start. Three things concretely:

First, the methodology itself recommends a formal follow-up phase, not just a publication phase. The mandate explicitly assigns responsibility for tracking the report's conclusions and recommendations to the Archdiocese's own leadership and Office for the Protection of Minors — so there's a named institutional owner, not a vague commitment to "do better."

Second, the AIR isn't just a narrative — it's built on a five-level maturity scale across five concrete dimensions: governance and structure, prevention and environments, formation and people, response and care for victims, and transparency and learning. That means we have an actual baseline, measured indicator by indicator. The same instrument can be applied again in a year or two to see, concretely, whether things moved — not just whether people say they moved.

Third, the report itself doesn't stop at "what happened." An entire pillar is dedicated to guarantees of non-repetition — evaluating whether protocols not only exist on paper, but are actually implemented, known, applied consistently, and part of a living institutional culture. That's the standard we're holding this to internally: not "is there a document," but "is this real."

What we can't do, What we cannot do is force implementation of the recommendations.

This is a moral and reputational commitment the institution is making, not something we as a commission can enforce from outside. That's precisely why publication matters: making the findings and the indicators public is itself a form of accountability, because it gives survivors, the community, and the wider Church something concrete to hold the institution to, rather than a private promise.

To ensure independence, the Archdiocese did not provide funding. It was responsible only for lodging and ground transportation within Panama so that the researchers could carry out their work. This did not give the Archdiocese the right to participate in the investigation: it had no involvement in the analysis, writing or editing of the report.

The costs associated with the report were funded by the University of Notre Dame Law School (United States) and the Villanueva University Foundation (Spain). The proposal to create a Transparency Commission was presented to both institutions, which decided to support it because they believed it aligned with their missions. Both are Catholic universities committed to the pursuit of truth and eager to assist the Catholic Church through the findings of the Commission’s investigation.

The costs included airfare, software, materials, report design and, above all, payments to the researchers. The experts received compensation for their professional work, although it is important to note that this is not their primary source of income. Each has a separate position outside the Commission.