Canadian media reported Tuesday that Cardinal Marc Ouellet has been accused in a class-action lawsuit of inappropriately touching an intern, allegedly kissing her at a 2010 ordination party, and then sliding his hand down her back and touching her posterior.
The cardinal has not yet made a statement about the allegations, nor has the Holy See officially indicated whether any canonical process will be undertaken.
The allegations are the kind unlikely to be prosecuted as crimes, and neither guilt nor innocence is especially likely to be proved. Ouellet will most likely remain for some time in a middle ground, neither exonerated nor condemned.
But the Vatican’s handling of the case already - in the 19 months since Pope Francis apparently learned of the allegations - is likely to draw criticism for the pontiff, renewing the frequent charge that Francis does not have a handle on addressing sexual misconduct allegations among bishops.
In 2010, the woman was reportedly a 25-year-old intern in the chancery of the Archdiocese of Quebec, which Ouellet led from 2003 until 2010, before he was appointed to head the Congregation for Bishops.
According to CTVNews, the woman alleged several incidents of unwanted touching by Ouellet, which apparently started shortly after she began her internship in 2008.
The woman alleges the cardinal gave her an unwanted massage and several unwanted hugs, kissed her cheek without her permission, touched her posterior, and, one occasion, “held her firmly against him, caressing her back with his hands.”
The lawsuit charges that Ouellet was apparently known among some in the Quebec chancery as “very friendly,” and it claims that other women had run into a “problem” with the cardinal’s apparent penchant for unwanted touching.
The alleged victim told Radio-Canada that the touching was “quite intrusive for, let's say for someone who is my superior, who is the archbishop of Quebec.”
She alleged one incident in which the cardinal talked about “treating himself” before giving her a kiss on the cheek.
“That made me very uncomfortable, especially the word ‘treating’ himself. As if I was his treat,” she alleged.
Eventually, according to the woman, “I felt chased after. It became more and more invasive, more and more intense to the point where I stopped attending events. I tried avoiding being in his presence as much as possible.”
The allegations seem to fit a familiar pattern, a story told frequently in the years since the #MeToo movement emerged: That Ouellet had a habit of boundary-crossing behavior at work, which did not respect the bodily integrity of a young female subordinate, and that his overtures made her uncomfortable - in a manner perhaps once common among powerful men, but no longer tolerated.
What’s the truth? It’s hard to say. But some Quebec priests active during Ouellet’s tenure in their archdiocese told Canadian media Tuesday that they believe the woman’s allegations.
Nevertheless, it does not seem likely those allegations will lead to criminal charges in Quebec.
The allegations could be understood as a canonical crime - a public “offense against the sixth commandment.” Given Ouellet’s position of authority over the intern, the alleged victim could be understood to fit the broad definition of a “vulnerable adult” used in Vos estis lux mundi - the 2019 policy promulgated by Pope Francis, whose implementation is largely overseen by Ouellet’s Vatican department.
The woman does not seem to fit the more narrow definition of “vulnerable adult” used by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in prosecuting canonical crimes; at the DDF, a vulnerable adult is defined as a person who “habitually lacks the use of reason.”
In either case, given the course of the allegation to date, it does not seem likely any canonical charges are forthcoming.
The suit explains that the woman wrote a letter to Pope Francis in January 2021 detailing her allegations, and was informed the next month that the pope had appointed a priest to investigate them. But the woman says that as of this summer, she has not heard whether the investigation has reached a conclusion.
The priest apparently appointed to investigate the charges is a 73-year-old Belgian theologian who is mostly retired, and who spent most of his career working in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and teaching at the Pontifical Gregorian University. Like Ouellet himself, the investigator - Fr. Jacques Servais, SJ - is a scholar of Hans Urs von Balthasar.
Notably, Servais is not a canon lawyer, and does not seem to have experience in disciplinary matters. More notably, Servais is director of Casa Balthasar, a house of formation run by the Lubac-Balthasar-Speyr Association, for which Ouellet sits on the board.
The choice of Servais is not likely to inspire confidence in the pope’s commitment to the investigation.
Further, since the Holy See has known about the allegations against Ouellet for more than 18 months, it would be surprising if the cardinal admitted on Wednesday morning a pattern of impropriety, or asked the pontiff to allow him to retire to a life of prayer and penance. If Ouellet had been planning to do that, he would have done it already.
Instead, Ouellet, 78, will likely issue a brief statement, perhaps a short denial, and say that he is awaiting more information. This autumn, when Ouellet was already expected to retire from the Congregation for Bishops, it seems likely he’ll quietly resign, and remain in Rome.
After a media fracas and a resolution of the lawsuit, the cardinal will probably remain in Rome, the final chapter of his ecclesiastical ministry shrouded in ambiguity — unless he takes it upon himself to express contrition, or to defend himself against the allegations.
But Pope Francis will not remain similarly shrouded.
The handling of Ouellet’s case is already being taken in some clerical circles as confirmation of a pontifical legacy of negligence on allegations of episcopal misconduct - and already compared to other cases for which the pope has faced criticism.
In Argentina, local Catholics are still protesting the Church’s apparent protection of Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta, who is now a convicted sex offender, and who was given a Vatican job even after he faced allegations of serious sexual impropriety. Zanchetta’s canonical trial took place in secrecy with no indication of the results.
And while Francis has promulgated several policies pertaining to the investigation and trial of bishops, the norms have gone mostly unused, or they’ve been used with almost no transparency, little indication of the results, and several processes dragging on for years. Some resignations have seemed unclear, while other situations have been left to fester.
Critics also point to the 2018 fracas over Chile’s Bishop Juan Barros, accused of covering up abuse, whom Francis vigorously defended, until the pope was publicly corrected by a cardinal, and eventually apologized to victims, accepting Barros’ resignation from his diocesan post.
The pope’s defenders point out that it was Francis who saw to it that former cardinal Theodore McCarrick was laicized, while Pope St. John Paul and Benedict XVI did not sufficiently handle allegations against the cardinal.
But it is also true that more than four years after the McCarrick scandal broke, there is still no clarity about his spending habits, and very little about his network of friends and protectors. The Holy See’s McCarrick Report is often seen as a step forward; but some argue that it assigns culpability mostly to McCarrick and to a cadre of churchmen who happen to be dead.
Of course, Pope Francis has not spoken yet about the allegations against Ouellet. But the pontiff did appoint an investigator with a conflict-of-interest. And more than 18 months of apparent inactivity, or at least no communication with the alleged victim, suggests to some that the pope has already decided what he will do — very little.
Amid allegations like these, the most probable outcome for any investigation is a finding that the misconduct could have happened, with either a high or low degree of probability, but without any resolution sufficient either to exonerate Ouellet, or to spur some canonical prosecution.
But in matters of justice, the process matters as much as the result. If a process can be trusted, an uncertain result can often be accepted. If the process is marred with irregularities, or the outcome seems pre-determined, an ambiguous result does very little good for anyone involved.
In this case, even an ambiguous result after a thorough investigation might provide occasion for the cardinal to express contrition for his unwanted behavior, and for that contrition to be received, or to spark a conversation.
It is also worth noting that because Ouellet's Vatican department is charged with overseeing Vos estis lux mundi investigations, there are more stakeholders than it might initially seem.
Ambiguity about the cardinals’ situation will have a ripple effect, with uncertainty compounding about the credibility of investigations already overseen his dicastery — especially those which have exonerated accused bishops.
If Vos estis is already viewed with skepticism, its reputation will suffer another serious blow when its implementation is seen to be handled by a person with his own unclear past - and even while he was facing an investigation.
If Francis faces a mandate to address seriously the Ouellet allegations - in a manner in which justice is seen to be done - it is not only for Ouellet’s sake, or for the woman alleging misconduct, but for the ongoing viability of the papal reform agenda’s showpiece legislation.
But will that happen?
It seems unlikely.
The steps already taken suggest that both Ouellet and his alleged victim might well be left with a sense they have not gotten justice from the Church.
And because of his position, if justice for Ouellet will be called into question, so will every reforming step the pontiff has entrusted to his office.
