The highest appellate tribunal of the Catholic Church, the Roman Rota, has issued a significant ruling that could reshape how religious orders handle public disclosures involving members accused of abuse. According to reporting from La Repubblica and The Pillar, the Rota ruled in favor of an American priest who filed a canonical defamation claim after his name was published on a list of priests deemed “credibly accused” of sexual abuse. While the Vatican has not yet confirmed the details of the case, the reported decision carries potentially far-reaching implications both within Church law and at the intersection of canonical and civil liability.
The Legal Backbone: Canon 220 and the Right to Reputational Integrity
At the heart of the Rota’s reported decision is Canon 220 of the Code of Canon Law, which prohibits the “illegitimate harm” of any person’s good reputation. The Rota’s reasoning echoes recent guidance from the Dicastery for Legislative Texts, emphasizing that publishing such lists cannot be justified solely on grounds of “transparency” or “reputational management,” unless necessary to prevent a danger or threat to persons or the community. These directives, issued in 2024 and reaffirmed under Pope Leo XIV, underscore the principle that clerics, even when accused, retain the canonical presumption of innocence until a legal determination is reached.
Implications for U.S. Religious Institutions
For more than two decades, American dioceses and religious orders have published “credibly accused” lists as part of their commitment to transparency following the early 2000s clergy sexual abuse crisis, particularly after the Boston Globe Spotlight investigation (2002) exposed widespread abuse and cover-ups. In response, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) adopted the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, commonly known as the Dallas Charter, and many dioceses established processes to publicly identify priests deemed credibly accused of sexual abuse, reflecting an effort to promote accountability and protect the faithful.
However, the Rota’s reported decision suggests that these same lists could now be interpreted as violating canonical rights to reputation and due process. While such a ruling would not automatically bind dioceses beyond the instant case, it raises serious questions about legal exposure for the Church worldwide, and for any institution that relies on reputational disclosures absent full legal adjudication.
From a civil-law standpoint, the effects of this ruling could be significant. U.S. religious institutes already navigate complex compliance demands balancing ecclesiastical norms, civil law, and public expectations. A formal Vatican condemnation of “credibly accused” lists could disrupt that balance, potentially challenging diocesan communication practices and policies under the Dallas Charter framework.
Toward a More Legally Sound Policy Framework
The broader question is not simply whether to publish such lists, but how to reconcile transparency with the procedural and reputational rights of the accused. The USCCB is already considering revisions to its Essential Norms on the handling of abuse allegations, including proposals from Archbishop Shawn McKnight of the Archdiocese of Kansas City, calling for clearer guidelines on due process and harm repair when accusations are dismissed.
For Church-affiliated institutions, the Rota decision underscores that labeling someone as “credibly accused” is a “prudential judgment,” not a finding of guilt, and that publishing such information can have serious legal and canonical consequences for those publishing the names.
Navigating the Path Ahead
For religious orders navigating these new legal waters, it is essential to review current disclosure policies with counsel experienced in both civil liability and canon law. Balancing “pastoral transparency” with the rights of the accused is not only a moral obligation, but also a matter of material legal compliance.
As the Church continues to refine its legal frameworks, institutions should prepare for a new era of scrutiny, where canonical rulings may directly inform civil litigation strategy, governance practices, public relations policy, and insurance exposure.
At Airdo Werwas, we are dedicated to advising religious institutions nationwide on a wide range of legal, regulatory, and compliance matters, helping them align internal processes with both civil and canonical norms, manage risk, and uphold their pastoral and moral commitments. If you have questions about how these developments intersect with transparency, disclosure policies, or broader institutional compliance, please contact Michael A. Airdo at mairdo@airdowerwas.com or Yuri A. Klinkenbergh at yklinkenbergh@airdowerwas.com.