Chilean bishop deals with aftermath of abuse crisis in his diocese

SANTIAGO, Chile – When Bishop Sergio Pérez de Arce was appointed apostolic administrator of the Chilean diocese of Chillán, 250 miles south of Santiago, he had the difficult task of succeeding a bishop removed by Pope Francis in 2018 following allegations of sexual abuse.

Two years later, Pérez was confirmed as bishop, in a small ceremony held during a critical moment in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Since then, Pérez has been working closely with the laity and the priests to try to understand what went wrong, and identify possible solutions. In addition, he is the secretary general of the Chilean bishops’ conference.

Pérez spoke with Crux on Wednesday.

Crux: You were confirmed as bishop of Chillán in 2020, still in the midst of the pandemic, in a ceremony that was very small. Have you had the opportunity to go around the diocese, and to be a pastor both for the laity and the priests?

Pérez: I arrived here in the diocese in September 2018, so I’ve been here for almost four years now. It was first as apostolic administrator, before the pandemic. It is a diocese that is not very big. And it is a very welcoming diocese, with very loving people, and that has also allowed me to get to know the 20 communes and the 31 parishes.

The church of Chile has been carrying out a discernment process since 2018, which was combined with the synodal process requested by Pope Francis. How is this process going at the diocesan level?

With regard to the abuse crisis that broke out in 2018, we began a process of ecclesial discernment, with two fundamental issues under review: our relationships and our structures. These are two key issues also in the abuse crisis.

Starting in 2019, there was work in the communities with the different groups so that the people could talk about how they saw the structures and the relationships, and the people contributed their view, critical in general, but also very honest.

In Chillán, in general, the process was quite participative, with enough involvement of the people, and in general aligned with the rest of the church in Chile. Among the challenges identified are clericalism, lack of participation, [and]of course, abuse, and the difficulty to connect with young people.

But during this process we were also identifying possible solutions. For example, working better on the roles and functions within the communities so that not everything depends on the priest. The role of women, because there is a desire and a demand for greater involvement and participation of women in decision-making levels. 

Beyond the systematization of information and sending things to Rome for the Synod of Bishops on Synodality, at a personal level, how did this process impact the way you exercise leadership?

I would say that as a response to this but also the crisis, I’ve tried to be more synodal in my leadership, which is not easy. Therefore, more co-responsible, more communitarian, where one has to listen more and listen not only physically, but also observe, contemplate, take the time to be with the people, share very simple moments from a Eucharist, to a social gathering, to a civic event, because in those moments one gets to know the people.

In my experience, what people thank me for, or what they say to me, is, “I am glad that you are so simple. I am glad that you can be with us, that you can say a word that is understandable.” People expect the priest and the bishop to be close, simple, to be among the people and not to have pretensions of princes or authority.

In 2018, the abuse crisis broke out in Chile and Pope Francis got quite involved, inviting bishops and survivors to Rome, and sending several messages. How do you think the situation of the Chilean church changed in the last four years, what has been done well since then, and what still needs to be done?

I always like to go back a little further, to 2011, because in reality the process in Chile started strongly with the Fernando Karadima issue, and at that time the church in Chile began to work on the whole dimension of prevention and to forge in the local churches a basic structure to receive complaints, to accompany victims, and to undertake the path of prevention. 

Among other tasks, a broad training program was initiated. The guidelines came, which was a very forceful orientation to work on this dimension of prevention and then also other documents that have helped.

We have come a long way, which may not have borne all the fruit we would have liked and perhaps has not been valued in all its dimensions, but I believe that we must be faithful to the path we have taken.

But of course then came the crisis of 2018, because clearly, we did not have everything solved, much more truth was still missing and what fundamentally exploded, due to the pope’s visit, was a greater number of denunciations, people dared to speak out. And to some extent, the pope also asked us for this: instances in which people could speak.

The increase in the number of denunciations generated a great impact, a lot of distrust, a lot of criticism. But the important thing was that this gave rise to investigations and criminal proceedings that brought some truth and some justice, although not as much as we would have liked. 

In the case of Chillán, for example, when I arrived in 2018, I received six or seven complaints, stories that until then were not known. Criminal proceedings were made, and those responsible today are no longer there, they have left the priesthood, either because of a penalty, or because they asked for a dispensation, but we left a record that there were crimes behind.

That crisis of 2018, despite how painful it has been and how hard it has been of course first for the victims, but also for the whole of the faithful, has brought a little more truth and a little more justice, and this is an advance, which has meant a process of renewal and discernment in the church, with a series of commitments of the episcopate, such as having a series of guidelines for reparation. 

As for recovering credibility and reconciliation with society, these are two things for which we are going to need a long time.

President Gabriel Boric spoke of the possibility of creating a commission to study child abuse at the national level, with a section dedicated to the Catholic Church. This looking back is something that the church in Chile has not yet done. Is this because there are bishops who are still afraid of transparency, more concerned about the institution than the people?

We are now involved in a study being done by the Law School of the Catholic University of Chile at the request of the National Prevention Council on the relational dynamics underlying sexual abuse, and that study also has a quantitative dimension, with a very positive thing – a study based on the 250 cases that the church has received and that have also been presented in the civil justice system.

We are going to present it in August, and it will be a first-level information to discover the truth: what has happened, the number of victims, the number of aggressors.

Globally, I see the bishops interested in the issue of truth and transparency, although there can always be some exceptional cases.

And if the State finally decides to create a commission, we will see what it is about, but in principle we are open to join and collaborate, but I cannot pronounce on something that is not yet a specific proposal.

In the meantime, I believe that the idea that we have made no progress at all does not correspond to reality.

Anything else you would like to say?

Simply that, even if it has not been what everyone expects and hopes for, at the institutional level we have tried to make progress in the reception of allegations, as well as in prevention and reparation. We have made progress in criminal proceedings in the canonical field, and we have collaborated in the civil field. I must also say that Chilean justice, for different reasons that do not correspond to me to judge, has not advanced much, and if it has done so, it has been with recent cases, perhaps due to a question of prescription of crimes or other limitations of justice. But there is a vacuum of civil justice, and in it the responsibility is not only of the church.