four convictions four years after the Sauvé report

On October 5, 2021, after two years and eight months of intensive and grueling work, the Independent Commission on Sexual Abuse in the Church (CIASE) released its report. The findings were overwhelming, both in terms of the estimated scale of the number of victims over the last 70 years and the way in which many cases of sexual assault had been handled. It was necessary to react and the Church did so.

Reception and listening cells for victims have been created in dioceses and in several religious congregations; the concern for prevention has led to the implementation of training; a special canonical tribunal – taking charge of internal justice within the Church – works at the national level.

The most significant and boldest decision of the Church was to take the means to collect the words of the victims to recognize the harm done to them and to find forms of reparation with them, including financial ones. For this, two independent bodies were created: the Reconnaissance and Reparation Commission (CRR) and the Independent National Reconnaissance and Reparation Authority (INIRR). The latter’s mandate ends on June 30, 2026.

1. This is not the end

“I often hear: when is this going to stop? But, as a bishop once told me: we must resolve, once and for all, to the fact that this cannot stop.” This conviction of Marie Derain de Vaucresson is based on the INIRR report in March 2025: each new case increases the number of people who come forward as victims. New fact also observed at the CRR: young adults denounce recent facts. The uncovering of sexual violence within the Church does not stop.

We could be tempted to put this observation into perspective by contrasting the number of victims of abuse estimated by the Sauvé report – between 216,000 and 330,000 from 1950 to 2020 – to the number of people who have contacted the INIRR and the CRR since 2021 – around 3,200. This discrepancy is characteristic of sexual violence. We must therefore understand behind these figures how difficult it is to declare oneself a victim of sexual abuse, especially when it took place during childhood or youth.

The religious context very often adds manipulation to justify the aggression, which requires the victim to do inner work in order to rediscover the reality of what they experienced by freeing themselves from the consequences of the influence suffered. Maylis Kappelhof-Lançon adds a hypothesis: we forget the victims who have already died, sometimes prematurely, as well as the victims who are not in a position to speak out because of health problems or social difficulties which could be linked to the trauma suffered.

After years of a culture of silence and the experience for some victims of having tried to speak without being heard, it is fundamental to make it widely known that it is now possible for a victim of sexual abuse in the Church to speak out, to be listened to and accompanied in recognizing what they have endured.

2. We need to keep talking about it

“It’s dangerous to stop talking about it, for sexual violence in the past as well as for that of today,” says Marie Derain de Vaucresson. In thirty years of professional experience in the service of justice, I have experienced every moment of very strong mobilizations to fight against violence against children, and in particular sexual violence. Then the mobilization was muted, and it started again. If we let our guard down in the Church, it will be the same thing.”

Media coverage of cases and victims’ testimonies is very important. Maylis Kappelhoff-Lançon gives examples: “We meet people who say: what made me switch was this testimony I heard in a program or even the film “Grâce à Dieu” or the documentary broadcast by Arte on abused nuns. The victims talk to each other, touch each other, through the media.”

For what ? The words and facts publicized can resonate in the memory of victims or even reactivate the trauma experienced. The anger felt on this occasion can also decide a person to denounce what they have suffered. Certainly, the reputation of the Church is once again damaged. But Marie Derain de Vaucresson concludes: “Tackling these subjects is fulfilling the mission of freeing speech.”

3. A benefit for the Church

Faced with revelations of sexual violence, the Church has chosen to no longer manage matters internally, but to open up to civil society. The creation of the CIASE, then of the INIRR and CRR bodies, marks a desire for transparency and independence, hailed as major progress for victims.

This process, although painful, strengthens the credibility of the Church. It is based on the courage of the victims, who testify to raise awareness, and on the moral responsibility of the faithful and religious leaders, who are committed to a more just future.

Recognize suffering, repair, and reform: this is the chosen path. This movement, driven by the demands of the victims, is a good thing for the Church, which is moving from fear of scandal to deep and necessary recognition.

4. A benefit for society

The INIRR and the CRR had to invent a framework for listening, support and reparation, in close collaboration with the victims. These instances embody a mature form of restorative justice, seeking less to punish than to recognize and rebuild.

According to INIRR, for 80% of people supported, financial compensation is not the primary motivation. However, money is not secondary: it makes the words credible and gives concrete value to the recognition of the facts. It also helps support the reconstruction process or compensate for the costs linked to the after-effects suffered. As Jérôme Guillement points out, even partial, this reparation has a tangible impact on the lives of the victims.

Working with victims is essential, both to understand the mechanisms that made this violence possible and to help people regain their freedom: freedom of speech, action and, sometimes, spiritual freedom from the Church. By coming together, victims transform individual pain into collective action, discovering that they can share not only a past, but also a future.

Finally, these experiences illustrate a change in relationship to History: the words of victims become a necessary counterpoint to institutional stories. As with the memory of colonization, this movement invites us to revisit collective memory in the light of experiences and long-silenced truths.

“Show consideration for victims”

“We are at work and we continue,” says Maylis Kappelhof-Lançon. What will be next? Marie Derain de Vaucresson shares her intuition: “The INIRR and the CRR were imagined in a crisis context, as a response to a crisis situation. I had the opportunity to tell the presidency of the Conference of Bishops that we needed to think about a gentle transformation.” This challenge for the Church in its ways of acting and reacting must be taken in all senses of the term because, she specifies, “gentleness comes through our capacity to show consideration for victims, at all levels of the institution.”