Priest responds critically to Archbishop's remarks on sexual abuse

Archbishop Gintaras Grušas acknowledged that the Catholic Church in Lithuania has areas needing improvement, offering an apology to victims of sexual abuse and to society. However, he indicated that he does not believe the current moment is suitable for a broad, independent investigation into past sexual abuse within the Church. Grušas suggested that the focus should be on current prevention efforts, with a wider investigation potentially following later.

Responding to the archbishop's remarks, priest G. Satkauskas voiced significant concerns and questions on Facebook. While thanking Grušas for speaking out and acknowledging the apology, Satkauskas stated he was left with more questions than answers. He specifically highlighted the need for a concrete mechanism to ensure aid to victims becomes a genuine financial and institutional priority, not just verbal.

Satkauskas reiterated his proposal to establish a national fund for supporting victims of sexual abuse, citing Poland's St. Joseph Fund as an example. He questioned why Lithuania's Church could not go further by using its own resources to assist all victims of sexual violence in the country. The priest also disagreed with the archbishop's stance on an independent investigation, arguing that prevention and the search for truth about the past are not mutually exclusive but complementary.

Furthermore, Satkauskas challenged the Church's definition of "zero tolerance." He questioned the archbishop's suggestion that a priest proven to have abused a minor could remain a priest with restricted duties, rather than being permanently removed from pastoral service. Satkauskas advocated for an unequivocal principle: proven sexual abuse of a minor must result in no return to active pastoral ministry, a principle proposed by Zollner.

“

Kokia mūsų „nulinė tolerancija“? Arkivyskupas interviu sako nemanantis, kad pašalinimas iš dvasininkų luomo savaime yra panacėja: kaltas dvasininkas galėtų likti kunigu, tačiau jo veikla būtų stipriai apribota – pavyzdžiui, be darbo su vaikais ir pažeidžiamais žmonėmis. Bet man vis tiek reikia labai aiškaus principo: įrodytas seksualinis nepilnamečio išnaudojimas = jokio grįžimo į aktyvią pastoracinę tarnystę. Be dviprasmybių. Tai Zollnerio siūlomas principas.