The Second Annual Report of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors – Implications for Central Europe
- Márta Benyusz
- 45 minutes ago
- 17 min read
1. Introduction
On 16 October 2025, the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors (hereinafter referred to as PCPM) released its Second Annual Report on Church Policies and Procedures for Safeguarding.[1] As the Chair of the Annual Report Team, Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, observed, the document represents “another decisive step forward in the Church’s journey towards transparency and accountability.”[2] Covering the 2024 reporting period, this report is more than a procedural overview. It is a theological and pastoral milestone – an invitation to the Church to continue its conversion of heart through what the Commission calls Conversional Justice:[3] a framework that unites spiritual transformation with concrete institutional action.[4] The Commission envisions a cycle of seven reports, each dedicated to one of the key dimensions of safeguarding and accountability within the Church. The present Second Annual Report focuses on reparations — a concrete expression of Conversional Justice that translates contrition into tangible acts of healing and institutional reform. The forthcoming Third Annual Report will turn to the pillar of justice, with particular attention to safeguarding within religious life. Applying the same participatory and evidence-based methodology, it will examine how communities of consecrated life can embody accountability and renewal in distinctive ways. Taken together, these seven reports represent a coherent and progressive roadmap toward a Church ever more transparent, responsible, and compassionate in its care for minors and vulnerable adults.
For those engaged in child protection research and practice across Central Europe, the Report carries particular resonance. The region’s historical experience – shaped by decades of state atheism, the erosion and later renewal of Church authority, and lingering social mistrust of institutions – creates a distinctive landscape for implementing safeguarding standards. At the same time, Central Europe offers remarkable promise: universities with established human rights centres, a growing cadre of safeguarding professionals, and increasing awareness of how children’s rights intersect with pastoral care.
The 2024 Report concentrates on the reparations pillar of Conversional Justice,[5] expanding the Church’s understanding of repair beyond financial compensation. It presents a holistic vision of healing rooted in listening, accompaniment, and institutional reform.[6] Drawing on focus groups with victims and survivors across Africa, the Americas, Asia-Oceania, and Europe, the Commission identifies six key elements of comprehensive reparations: welcoming and listening; public and private communication; spiritual and psychotherapeutic support; financial assistance; institutional and disciplinary reform; and community-wide safeguarding initiatives.[7] As one participant poignantly remarked, “They offered me €20,000, but all I wanted was anapology.”[8] Such words remind us that authentic reparation cannot be reduced to transactions; it must embody recognition, accountability, and hope.
This post examines the Second Annual Report through the lens of Central-European academic discourse. It considers its theological underpinnings, methodological innovations, and practical implications for episcopal conferences, Catholic universities, and research centres in the region. By situating the Commission’s work within the lived realities of countries such as Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary – all explicitly referenced in the Report – we aim to illuminate possible pathways towards what Archbishop Thibault Verny, the Commission’s President, describes as the transformation of “jurisdictional boundaries into bridges of trust."[9]
Ultimately, this reflection emerges from within a Catholic intellectual tradition that seeks truth not in opposition to the Church but for the renewal of her witness. For many in Central Europe, where faith remains intertwined with national identity and collective memory, safeguarding is not merely a legal or bureaucratic necessity but a test of moral credibility. The Church’s response to abuse will determine whether it can continue to serve as a trusted moral voice in societies still healing from other forms of institutional betrayal. In this sense, Conversional Justice is not only a theological concept but a call to integrity – a challenge to embody the Gospel’s promise of truth and mercy within the very structures of ecclesial life.
2. The Conversional Justice Framework: A Theological–Pastoral Paradigm
Building on the Pilot Annual Report, the Second Annual Report continues to develop Conversional Justice as the guiding theological and pastoral framework for the Church’s ongoing conversion.[10] This concept represents one of the most original contributions of the PCPM, offering a synthesis that bridges theology, canon law, social ethics, and the lived experience of victims and survivors. Rather than mirroring conventional justice models, it redefines the Church’s response to abuse in terms of a renewed ecclesiology – one that understands justice as a path of metanoia, or conversion of heart, expressed through tangible acts of truth, accountability, and repair.
At the structural core of Conversional Justice stand four interrelated pillars: Truth, Justice, Reparations, and Institutional Reform.[11] These are not conceived as sequential steps but as mutually reinforcing dimensions of a single process. The Commission insists that authentic ecclesial transformation must address conscience, structures, and relationships simultaneously; only such an integrated approach can heal what Pope Francis has called the wounds of the Body of Christ.[12]
Truth entails both the acknowledgement of individual cases of abuse and the recognition of systemic failures that allowed them to occur. The Report stresses that concealing wrongdoing to preserve institutional reputation is, in the Commission’s words, “an affront to God.”[13] In this sense, truth is not merely forensic or factual but deeply theological: it calls the Church to humility, transparency, and the courage to see herself as she truly is. Initiatives such as investigatory commissions, public acknowledgements, and transparent communication of case outcomes are all manifestations of this pillar in practice.
Justice concerns accountability – not only for perpetrators but also for those who enabled or ignored abuse through negligence or silence. The Commission emphasises that accountability is integral to the Church’s credibility: bringing wrongdoers to account upholds the dignity of victims and witnesses to the moral seriousness of the Church’s own teaching. Yet this justice must also be pastoral; it aims not at retribution alone but at the restoration of trust and the safeguarding of future generations. It therefore includes ensuring victims’ access to canonical and civil remedies, protection from retaliation, and timely resolution of cases.[14]
Reparations, the specific focus of the 2024 Report, broaden the Church’s understanding of restoration beyond financial compensation. The Commission presents a comprehensive framework that recognises the spiritual, psychological, and communal dimensions of harm. Its operational vademecum[15] identifies six essential elements: welcome and listening; public and private communications (including apologies); spiritual and psychotherapeutic support; financial assistance; institutional and disciplinary reforms; and community-wide safeguarding initiatives. In doing so, it frames reparation as both justice and mercy in action – an expression of healing that addresses the whole person and the entire community wounded by abuse.
Institutional reform, finally, addresses the structural and cultural factors that enabled abuse to occur. Scholarly analysis has demonstrated that abuse within the Church was enabled not merely by individual failures but by systemic organizational dynamics – including cultures of clericalism, secrecy, and institutional self-protection – necessitating comprehensive structural transformation.[16] This pillar calls for the transformation of governance, the professionalisation of safeguarding systems, and the cultivation of what the Report terms “a culture of safeguarding”[17]– one in which the protection of children and vulnerable adults becomes an instinctive part of ecclesial life. It also involves new approaches to formation, supervision, and leadership accountability that transcend mere compliance.
The theological foundations of Conversional Justice are unmistakably rooted in Catholic social teaching – particularly the principles of human dignity, solidarity, and subsidiarity. The Commission’s insistence on a victim- and survivor-centred approach[18] reflects the conviction that every person bears the imago Dei and that institutions exist to serve, not overshadow, the human person. This anthropological grounding ensures that safeguarding is not viewed as an external imposition but as a manifestation of the Church’s own moral and theological identity.
While the framework shares common ground with both retributive and restorative justice, it is distinctive in its synthesis. The Commission cautions against practices that might re-traumatise victims,[19] such as direct confrontation with perpetrators, while nonetheless preserving the principles of accountability and sanction. What emerges is a model of justice that is at once realistic and deeply Christian: one that unites the pursuit of truth and responsibility with compassion and the hope of renewal. This is, as Pope Francis has repeatedly affirmed, the only path by which the Church can reclaim moral credibility.[20]
Importantly, the Commission situates its work within the broader context of international human rights law, notably the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.[21] By cross-referencing Church data with reports submitted to UN bodies, the PCPM demonstrates a mature willingness to engage with external accountability mechanisms. This approach acknowledges that safeguarding obligations belong not only to ecclesial conscience but also to the global community’s shared commitment to children’s rights.
For scholars in theology, law, and the social sciences, the Conversional Justice framework offers a fruitful methodological model. It integrates theological reflection with empirical research, victims’ testimonies, and international standards of accountability. For Central Europe, where post-communist legacies have sometimes left institutions hesitant to expose internal weaknesses, this paradigm is particularly relevant. It challenges Church leaders, educators, and researchers alike to move beyond defensive attitudes toward a culture of co-responsibility grounded in the Gospel and sustained by professional competence.
3. Reparations: Beyond Financial Compensation
The 2024 Annual Report devotes particular attention to the theme of reparations, interpreting it as a central pillar of Conversional Justice.[22] The Commission’s analysis builds upon extensive consultation with victims and survivors,[23] episcopal conferences, and safeguarding professionals across all continents. Its findings reveal both progress and persistent limitations: while some local Churches have engaged meaningfully with reparative processes, an overreliance on monetary settlements continues to obscure the deeper dimensions of healing.
From these global consultations, the Commission distils six interrelated components of comprehensive reparation: welcoming and listening; communication and apology; spiritual and psychotherapeutic support; financial assistance; institutional and disciplinary reform; and community-wide safeguarding initiatives.[24] Together, these elements form a practical framework for transforming contrition into action.
Welcoming and listening constitute the starting point of any reparative process. Victims and survivors consistently emphasised the importance of safe, accessible spaces where they could speak without fear of retaliation or disbelief. The PCPM notes that effective listening requires permanence, professionalism, and empathy — not ad hoc arrangements or voluntary goodwill. Such structures signal that the Church values victims’ voices not merely as testimony, but as a foundation for renewal.
Communication and apology form the second dimension. Here the Report underscores the importance of acknowledging institutional responsibility through both public and private gestures.[25] A sincere apology — delivered with dignity and transparency — can communicate respect and remorse more powerfully than any legal formula or financial settlement. To this end, the PCPM recommends that episcopal conferences develop standard communication protocols that uphold privacy and due process while ensuring that victims are directly informed of actions taken. Closely connected to this is the Commission’s ongoing reflection on access to information as a key element of fairness. Both the first and second Annual Reports recognise that existing canonical and legislative structures require improvement to facilitate victims’ and survivors’ access to relevant information about their cases and safeguarding procedures. Enhancing such access is not only a matter of administrative efficiency but a vital expression of justice and transparency — one that strengthens trust and ensures that communication serves the deeper purposes of accountability and healing.
A third dimension, spiritual and psychotherapeutic support, recognises the long-term and often intertwined nature of psychological and spiritual trauma. Victims’ testimonies reveal that abuse committed within relationships of sacred trust inflicts wounds distinct from those encountered in secular contexts. For this reason, support must be professional, long-term, and easily accessible, enabling victims to choose the kind of help that best fits their circumstances — whether through pastoral accompaniment, psychological counselling, or a combination of both.
Financial assistance remains an important, though not exclusive, expression of reparation. The Commission acknowledges that compensation has a legitimate place within restorative processes, particularly as a concrete acknowledgement of harm. Yet when it becomes the primary or sole response, the meaning of justice risks reduction to a transaction. “They offered me 20,000 dollars, but all I wanted was an apology,” one participant reflected — a reminder that no amount of money can substitute for recognition, accountability, and compassion.
Institutional and disciplinary reform extends reparations into the structural realm. This includes transparent procedures for investigating negligence, the removal of officials who conceal abuse, and consistent public communication about such decisions. Reform, in this sense, is not punitive but purgative: it cleanses the Church of patterns of complicity and secrecy, allowing new forms of leadership and accountability to take root.
Finally, community safeguarding initiatives transform repair into prevention. The Commission calls for safeguarding to become a shared cultural commitment, woven into formation, catechesis, and pastoral life. It also urges that victims and survivors participate actively in shaping policies — a sign that the Church not only listens to their pain but entrusts them with a role in reform.
Across the four global regions consulted, recurring concerns emerged: the invisibility of victims within parish life; the lack of confidentiality in reporting processes; retaliation and victim-blaming; resistance to reform; and the slow pace of canonical and civil procedures. Many participants articulated a simple yet radical principle: “Taking victims at their word should be the default position.” This assertion challenges a long-standing institutional instinct toward caution and defensiveness — one that has too often compounded suffering.
By aligning its six-dimensional approach with international human rights standards, the PCPM situates the Church’s efforts within a wider global conversation. The model echoes the United Nations’ understanding of reparation as encompassing restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition. Yet it also goes beyond secular frameworks by recognising the unique spiritual dimension of abuse within the Church — the violation of faith and trust that strikes at the heart of Christian identity.
Ultimately, the PCPM’s vision of reparation is not administrative but theological. It understands healing as a form of grace made visible through justice, community, and truth-telling. In this way, reparations become an expression of the Church’s conversion: a turning from denial toward transparency, from isolation toward solidarity, and from institutional defensiveness toward the humility of service.
4. Central and Eastern Europe: Findings, Challenges, and Pathways Forward
Within its comprehensive treatment of Europe, the Second Annual Report of the PCPM offers valuable insights into safeguarding developments across the continent.[26] The Commission’s engagement with European episcopal conferences during their ad limina visits to Rome provides a structured overview of progress and challenges at both continental and national levels. While the Report examines diverse European contexts, this reflection draws particular attention to the experiences of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), where historical legacies and contemporary realities combine to shape a distinctive safeguarding landscape. Among the region’s examples, Slovakia features prominently, illustrating both encouraging progress and ongoing difficulties shared more broadly across neighbouring Churches.
a. Slovakia: A Model of Contextual Progress
The Report identifies Slovakia as one of the region’s most advanced examples of structured safeguarding reform.[27] The Slovak Bishops’ Conference, through its Commission for the Protection of Minors, has established clear statutes, transparent leadership under Auxiliary Bishop Marek Forgáč, and regular public communication. Its Evaluation Report(March 2024) provided statistical data on abuse cases from 1990 onwards — a notable act of transparency in the region. The Conference President’s public apology to victims, issued the same month, is described by the PCPM as “deeply consistent with the principles of Conversional Justice.”[28]
One feature of the Slovak approach merits particular attention: the decision to staff eleven of twelve diocesan reporting offices with lay personnel — nine women and two men — rather than clergy. This practice, sensitive to cultural dynamics in which clerical deference may inhibit disclosure, demonstrates the contextual flexibility the Commission encourages. It embodies subsidiarity in action: safeguarding adapted to local realities while upholding universal principles.
Institutional collaboration has also advanced. The Centre for the Protection of Minors at the Faculty of Theology in Košice, established in 2019, now partners with the Pontifical Gregorian University to translate and deliver safeguarding training materials in Slovak. Diocesan circulars, standardised guidelines, and annual case questionnaires contribute to a culture of reflection and accountability. These developments collectively illustrate that progress is possible when leadership, transparency, and professional competence converge.
Yet challenges remain. The Report notes the absence of stable diocesan budgets for safeguarding, limited independent support services for victims, and a lack of formal audit mechanisms. Cooperation with civil authorities can be inconsistent, especially in cases where victims hesitate to engage the state system. Social pressures and enduring taboos continue to discourage reporting, revealing that institutional reform must be accompanied by deeper cultural change.
b. Regional Patterns and Persistent Challenges
Across CEE, similar patterns recur. Post-communist legacies continue to shape institutional behaviour. Decades of surveillance, ideological control, and moral compromise under totalitarian regimes fostered habits of silence and mistrust. Many Catholics learned to protect the Church by withholding information from authorities; today, this instinct sometimes persists, manifesting as reluctance to expose internal failings.
Traditional hierarchies further complicate reform. In societies where clerical authority remains closely linked to national and cultural identity, acknowledging misconduct can feel like betraying the Church itself. Victims may internalise guilt or fear social ostracism, particularly in small communities. These cultural dynamics underline the need for pastoral sensitivity and education that separates fidelity to the faith from loyalty to institutional structures.
Resource limitations also weigh heavily. Many dioceses lack the financial capacity to employ full-time safeguarding professionals or to maintain comprehensive victim support services. Some Church leaders express concern that Western safeguarding models may not fully account for local theological and cultural contexts — a perception that underscores the importance of dialogue rather than simple imitation.
Despite these constraints, the Commission discerns growing momentum. Lay professionals, religious institutes, and academic centres increasingly assume leadership in building safeguarding infrastructures. Univesities, in particular, are emerging as pivotal agents of change, bridging the ecclesial, academic, and civil spheres.
c. Pathways Forward: Collaboration and Credibility
The Annual Report identifies clear avenues for strengthening safeguarding capacity across the region. Chief among them is the strategic development of institutional expertise through universities. These institutions combine theological depth with academic rigour, making them ideal settings for research, professional formation, and policy development. They can train clergy and lay practitioners alike, evaluate existing practices, and contribute to international academic discourse on child protection, trauma, and ethics.
A second pathway lies in regional collaboration. Building on initiatives such as the 2021 Warsaw Conference on Safeguarding,[29] episcopal conferences are encouraged to exchange good practices, share resources, and develop joint responses to cross-border challenges — for instance, the movement of clergy or religious between jurisdictions. This approach reflects Archbishop Verny’s call to transform “jurisdictional boundaries into bridges of trust,”[30] ensuring that no diocese or congregation faces these issues in isolation.
The Commission also draws attention to the Memorare Initiative,[31] a capacity-building programme designed for resource-constrained contexts. Adopted in Slovakia through a Memorandum of Understanding with bishops, religious superiors, and secular institutes, it represents a model of shared responsibility across all states of life in the Church. Such frameworks illustrate how safeguarding can become not merely an episcopal duty but a collective ecclesial vocation.
Finally, integration with European and international human rights frameworks remains a vital opportunity. By aligning safeguarding practices with instruments such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and relevant Council of Europe conventions, CEE Churches can reinforce credibility and benefit from established mechanisms of oversight and expertise. This engagement signals maturity: a recognition that safeguarding is not only a pastoral task but a civic and moral responsibility shared with the wider human community.
Taken together, these developments point toward a hopeful horizon. Central and Eastern Europe stands at a crossroads — between inherited habits of institutional defensiveness and a new culture of transparency rooted in faith, professionalism, and compassion. Progress will require patience, humility, and the courage to confront uncomfortable truths. But as the Slovak experience demonstrates, genuine conversion is not beyond reach. When reform is grounded in both Gospel conviction and cultural realism, regions burdened by history can become laboratories of renewal for the universal Church.
5. Conclusion: From Compliance to Transformation in Central and Eastern Europe
The Second Annual Report of the PCPM offers a sophisticated and pastoral roadmap for strengthening safeguarding within the Church. Its value lies not only in its technical recommendations but in its insistence that the renewal of structures must accompany the conversion of hearts.[32] For the Churches of Central and Eastern Europe, this insight carries particular resonance. The region’s complex history – shaped by totalitarian oppression, institutional fragility, and the rediscovery of religious freedom – has left deep traces in both civil and ecclesial life. The challenge now is to move from cautious compliance with external expectations to an interiorised culture of accountability that reflects the Gospel’s own call to truth and mercy.
The Slovak example demonstrates that authentic progress is possible, even within resource-constrained and tradition-sensitive contexts. When episcopal leadership is transparent, when lay professionals are empowered, and when collaboration with civil society is pursued in good faith, safeguarding can become an instrument of ecclesial credibility rather than suspicion. These developments suggest that reform need not threaten the Church’s identity; rather, it can reveal her truest vocation – to be a community where the vulnerable are protected and the wounded find healing.
Yet this transformation cannot be achieved by policies alone. The testimonies of victims and survivors, which form the heart of the Commission’s methodology, remind us that healing requires patience, accompaniment, and humility. Structures and guidelines are necessary, but they must be animated by empathy and moral conviction, as what truly restores trust is not procedure but sincerity.
For the Catholic intellectual and academic community in Central Europe, the Report poses both a challenge and an opportunity. Universities and research centres have a decisive role to play in shaping a mature safeguarding culture – one grounded in rigorous scholarship, open dialogue, and faithful engagement with the Church’s moral and theological heritage. These institutions can serve as mediators between the Church and civil society, between faith and professional expertise, and between historical memory and future responsibility. In this regard, particular attention might be given to the Commission’s Main Finding and Observation, [33] which proposes the establishment of a Global Observatory on Research in Safeguarding and the Promotion of the Human Rights of Minors and Vulnerable Adults. Building on the Pilot Annual Report’s earlier recommendation[34] to involve Pontifical Universities in Rome and other academic institutions in creating dedicated courses of study, such an observatory could provide a unifying platform for research, collaboration, and academic formation in the region. By engaging with this vision, Central-European Catholic academia can help bring to life a global framework that links safeguarding, human rights, and the Church’s mission of renewal.
The broader lesson for the region is clear: safeguarding must evolve from an exercise in compliance to a shared spiritual and cultural transformation. It must move beyond crisis management towards the steady cultivation of a Church that embodies what she proclaims – a Church whose credibility rests not on perfection but on honesty, compassion, and the willingness to learn from failure.
Ultimately, the Annual Report calls every member of the Church – bishops, priests, religious, and laity alike – to participate in this process of conversional justice. It invites us to see safeguarding not merely as a response to scandal but as an integral part of the Church’s mission to bear witness to Christ’s love in a wounded world. In the words of Archbishop Thibault Verny, the goal is nothing less than to transform “jurisdictional boundaries into bridges of trust.” For the Churches of Central and Eastern Europe, this means embracing both their historical wounds and their spiritual resources, allowing grace to work through honest reckoning and renewed commitment.
If this transformation continues, the region may yet become not only a recipient of reform but a source of inspiration. In the patient work of listening, reforming, and rebuilding trust, Central and Eastern Europe can decidet to offer a witness that unites faith with responsibility – a sign that even from the shadows of historical wounds, the light of conversion and renewal can emerge.
[2] De Boer-Buquicchio, M.
[3] Pilot Annual Report., p. 14-22.
[4] Annual Report, p. 7.
[5] Annual Report, p. 19.
[6] Annual Report, p. 15.
[7] Annual Report, p. 16.
[8] Annual Report, p. 36.
[9] Archbishop Verny, T.
[10] Annual Report, p. 7.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Pope Francis, Letter to the People of God, Vatican, 20 August 2018.
[13] Annual Report, p. 25.
[14] Building upon the canonical framework established by Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela (2001), which reserved the gravest offences to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, subsequent papal legislation has progressively strengthened procedural safeguardsThe promulgation of Vos Estis Lux Mundi in 2019, revised in 2023, established universal procedural norms for reporting abuse and holding Church leaders accountable, creating binding mechanisms that operationalize the justice pillar across all levels of Church governance. (Francis, Pope, Vos Estis Lux Mundi, Apostolic Letter issued motu proprio, 7 May 2019 (rev. ed. 25 March 2023).
[15] Annual Report, p. 15.
[16] Keenan, M.
[17] Annual Report, p. 46.
[18] Annual Report, p. 8.
[19] Annual Report, p. 33.
[20] Pope Francis, Letter to the People of God, Vatican, 20 August 2018.
[21] Annual Report, p. 45.
[22] Annual Report, p. 19-30.
[23] Annual Report, p. 32-35.
[24] Annual Report, p. 9.
[25] Annual Report, p. 15.
[26] Annual Report, p. 172.
[27] Annual Report, p. 100-105.
[28] Annual Report, p. 100.
[29] Żak, A.
[30] Archbishop Verny, T.
[32] Annual Report, p. 5.
[33] Annual Report, p. 17.
[34] Pilot Annual Report, p. 13.
References
De Boer-Buquicchio, Maud. “Press Conference Address at the Launch of the Second Annual Report.” (Press Conference, Vatican City, 16 October 2025).
Francis, Pope. “Letter to the People of God” (20 August 2018). Available at Vatican News:https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2018-08/pope-francis-letter-people-of-god-sexual-abuse.html (accessed 30 October 2025).
Francis, Pope. Vos Estis Lux Mundi. Apostolic Letter issued motu proprio, 7 May 2019 (rev. ed. 25 March 2023). English text available at Vatican.va: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/papa-francesco-motu-proprio-20190507_vos-estis-lux-mundi.html (accessed 30 October 2025).
John Paul II. Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela. Apostolic Letter given motu proprio, 30 April 2001. English translation available at Vatican.va (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith): http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_20020110_sacramentorum-sanctitatis-tutela.html (accessed 30 October 2025).
Keenan, Marie. Child Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church: Gender, Power, and Organizational Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Ludwin King, Elizabeth B. “Transitional Justice and the Legacy of Child Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church.” Albany Law Review 81, no. 1 (2018): 121–143.
Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, Pilot Annual Report, Vatican City, 2024.
Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. Annual Report on Church Policies and Procedures for Safeguarding: Reporting Year 2024. Vatican City: Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, 2025.
Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. “Executive Summary: Second Annual Report.” Vatican City, 2025.
Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. “Fact Sheet: Measuring Strategic Impact (Annual Report 2025).” Vatican City, 2025.
Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. “Speakers – Second Annual Report 2024 (Press Conference Biographies).” Vatican City, 2025.
Pope Francis, Letter to the People of God, Vatican, 20 August 2018.
Archbishop Verny, Thibault. “Speech at the Press Conference for the Second Annual Report.” (Press Conference, Vatican City, 16 October 2025).
Żak, Adam. “Protection of Minors in the Church in Central & Eastern Europe.” Vatican News, 21 September 2021. Available at: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2021-09/warsaw-safeguarding-conference-central-eastern-europe-adam-zak.html (accessed 30 October 2025).