As the Church’s College of Cardinals prepare to enter the papal conclave Wednesday, American Cardinal Robert Prevost is reportedly among the prelates most-discussed for election to the papal office.

While Prevost reportedly has high-profile advocates among the cardinals, the prospect of a Prevost papacy is also prompting pushback.

And as cardinals tell The Pillar they’re aiming for a pontiff unsullied by the prospect of scandal, it is not clear whether the allegations and reports about Prevost’s leadership will prove a deterrent to the prospect of his election, or whether cardinals will consider them a kind of weaponized smear campaign against a candidate in the mold of Pope Francis.

—
Prevost, 69, is the prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops, a high-profile position that’s made him known to cardinals from around the planet, and which has put him in fairly regular contact with many of them.

Moreover, as an American who spent the whole of his episcopal ministry in South America, sources have told The Pillar that Prevost is regarded by some electors as having a now-desired Western approach to management and governance, without the perceived limited ecclesial vision often attributed to American bishops.

As the prospect of electing the cardinal to the papacy has made headlines in recent days, Prevost has reportedly gained support from two-high profile advocates urging votes his way. The first, according to sources close to the process, is Cardinal Christophe Pierre, apostolic nuncio to the U.S.

The second, reported in Italian and Spanish-language media, is Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga, the 82-old-year Honduran cardinal who is widely credited with helping to see Francis elected in 2013, and who is also regarded as responsible for the meteoric 2014 rise of Cardinal Blase Cupich to become Archbishop of Chicago, and later a key member of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Bishops.

But as Maradiaga and Pierre seemingly urge votes toward Prevost, abuse advocates are raising concerns about the cardinal’s candidacy, suggesting that Prevost’s handling of abuse cases should disqualify him from office.

Among the cases flagged by advocates are charges that Prevost’s former Diocese of Chiclayo has been accused of mishandling clerical allegations made by three sisters, who say that in 2022, when they reported abuse in the diocese, Prevost failed to open an investigation into the claims.

They also charge that documentation sent to Rome on the case was purposely designed to look inadequate so as to prevent action on the case.

The Diocese of Chiclayo has maintained that the accusations had been handled according to canonical norms and in line with Church policy - that Cardinal Prevost had met with the young women in April 2022, and encouraged them to take their case to the civil authorities, while opening an initial canonical investigation.

The diocese further said that the results of their initial investigation were sent to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, along with notice that the civil investigation had been shelved for lack of evidence and because the statute of limitations had expired.

But in a statement published last September, the three alleged victims claim that there had been no investigation, or at least nothing substantial or serious. If anything was sent to Rome, they allege, it was tailored to be considered insufficient and not merit the opening of a full penal canonical investigation.

“We strenuously deny the existence of any ‘initial investigation’ during the tenure of Mons. Robert Francis Prevost Martínez OSA,” they said. “As proof of our statements, we point to the non-existence of any decree ordering the opening of an investigation, or of any decree issuing precautionary measures.”

“During this period, we were never called by any investigator to make any deposition,” they state, noting that they are referring specifically to the period between April 2022 and November 2023, when one alleged victim went public with her allegations.

The women also claim that they were never offered any psychological support, or assistance of any kind. They also point to what they say is a legal error in the diocesan statement, which claims that the civil case was thrown out for lack of evidence — the sisters say that the only reason given by the civil authorities was that the statute of limitations had expired, with no reference made to a supposed lack of evidence.

As the dispute unfolded, the victims claimed that an accused priest admitted guilt to Prevost directly, compounding the charges that Prevost had mishandled the case.

Leave a comment

Another case — first reported by The Pillar in 2021 — has also drawn attention amid Prevost’s candidacy.

In 2000, Prevost allowed a Chicago archdiocesan priest who sexually abused minors to live in an Augustinian rectory around the corner from a Catholic school — in a residence Cardinal Blase Cupich later said was not appropriate for priests accused of abuse.

in September 2000, Fr. James Ray was permitted to live at St. John Stone Friary, a house of the Chicago province of the Augustinian religious order. The friary is half a block from a parish elementary school.

According to diocesan records, the move required approval by Prevost, who was then an Augustinian provincial superior.

According to diocesan records reviewed by The Pillar, Ray had been restricted in ministry for nine years by 2000, and had been accused multiple times of sexually abusing boys, at least one of them for years. He had admitted to bringing at least one boy to sleep in his rectory bed, but said of one allegation that he “did not recall” having sexually assaulted a child with whom he admitted to having “cuddled.” Ray did admit to diocesan officials that in 1993 he engaged in sexual activity with a man while on a pilgrimage to Medjugorje, a supposed Marian apparition site in Croatia.

A July 2000 memo from a Chicago archdiocesan official indicates that the Augustinians at the friary said they would permit Ray to rent rooms in the building after they received permission from their provincial superior, Prevost. Ray actually moved in two months later.

The friary was the second choice of a residence for Ray, who was required to move in 2000 because of the pending sale of the diocesan property where he had been living under supervision. The first rectory proposed for his residence was rejected by the archdiocesan review board because it was on the same property as a parish school.

Archdiocesan records say the Augustinian residence was considered suitable for Ray because “there is no school in the immediate area.”

In fact, St. Thomas the Apostle Catholic elementary school is less than a block from the residence. But there is no record that archdiocesan officials who visited the site or Augustinian leaders raised that as a concern, even though a Catholic school principal had warned the archdiocese years earlier that Ray sometimes took children out of class, and that he was “touchytender” with some students.

When the Augustinians permitted Ray to live at the friary, records indicate they understood at least summarily what accusations the priest faced. Augustinian leaders met with diocesan officials to discuss Ray’s background, and an Augustinian in residence at the house agreed to monitor the priest’s compliance with the restrictions of his ministry set by the archdiocese, including that he not be alone with children.

But administrators at St. Thomas the Apostle School were not notified that a priest accused of serial sexually abusing children was living in proximity to the parish elementary school, that he should not be allowed to help out in the school or parish, or that he was not permitted to be alone with children.

—
To date, Prevost has declined comment on the Chicago situation, giving no indication of regret for the decision, or indicating how he might have handled it differently. On the Peruvian charges, the cardinal has pointed to a defense made by the diocese, suggesting that Prevost took the necessary canonical steps to address the allegations raised against him.

For their part, victims’ advocates have in recent days called attention to the cases in Rome, urging the College of Cardinals to choose someone as pope who is seemingly less connected to the prospect of negligence or cover-up with regard to abuse.

But it’s not clear whether those concerns are being heard by cardinals — and the complexity of the Peruvian situation has likely caused some cardinals to throw their hands up over the whole thing, suggesting that the truth can’t be furrowed out ahead of the conclave.

Some cardinals have also expressed their view that in 2025, no prelate who has been a diocesan bishop is exempt from criticism over his handling of abuse cases, and some have raised concern about the prospect that information about Prevost is being weaponized by his perceived ideological enemies.

Indeed, it is likely the case that in the run-up to the conclave, some media outlets are highlighting charges of negligence or cover-up connected to ideological opponents, and downplaying allegations of perceived allies.

But abuse advocates themselves say they have no party in inter-ecclesiastical spats, they want only confidence that the next pope will act with integrity — and without personal bias — in handling clerical abuse cases around the world. And some have said Prevost’s record should give the cardinals pause.

Advocates especially note that after Francis gained a reputation for protecting friends and allies from abuse charges, the perception of integrity should be a critical factor in assessing the next pontiff. That, they say, is the only way to see meaningful reform on clerical abuse and neglect across the Church.

Advocates will continue to make those points over the next days, before the cardinals go into the conclave and make decisions among themselves. But what that will mean for Prevost remains to be seen.