At a recent conference on spiritual abuse—both contemporary and historical—the Christian Church was described as standing in a paradoxical position.

Called to be the Body of Christ yet composed of flawed human beings, it is both the source of healing and the perpetrator of sin.

This contradiction has become painfully visible in recent decades through scandals of abuse, cover-ups, and moral failure.

The central question arises repeatedly: Can a sinful Church be a credible source of forgiveness and healing?

Saints, sinners, and divine mercy

Theologically, Christian tradition affirms that the Church is the vessel through which God communicates grace, even as it bears the marks of human fallibility.

Augustine’s vision of the Corpus Mixtum—a Church made up of saints and sinners—reminds us that redemption is not about institutional purity but divine mercy working through imperfect people.

Systemic sin and loss of credibility

In practice, however, the paradox becomes deeply problematic when the Church’s sins are systemic, particularly in cases of abuse and institutional failure.

When those entrusted with safeguarding others become perpetrators or enablers, the question of credibility is no longer academic. Can such a Church still speak of forgiveness? Can it genuinely facilitate healing?

Lessons from history

History offers complex examples. From the medieval Church’s corruption and the Reformation’s protest to recent revelations in both Catholic and Protestant communities, moments of crisis can become catalysts for transformation.

The key lies in how institutions respond. Do they move toward transparency, accountability, and repentance? Or do they entrench themselves in self-preservation and clericalism?

More than apologies

The response of Church leadership often reveals their institutional thinking.

Liturgical apologies, symbolic gestures, and carefully worded letters frequently fall short when they are not matched by genuine structural reform and personal accountability.

Survivors of abuse are not only seeking apologies—they are calling for justice, restitution, and systemic change. Without these, the Church’s message of healing can ring hollow.

Who is the Church?

More profoundly, the crisis raises a spiritual and ecclesiological dilemma: who is the Church?

If it is only the hierarchy, then failure lies with them. But if it is the whole people of God, then all bear some responsibility to seek reform, even if they are not personally guilty.

Path to authentic healing

The path forward requires deeper engagement with the theological tools the Church already possesses.

Public sin must be acknowledged publicly. Forgiveness must be pursued through sacramental processes that involve both victims and the community.

Healing must go beyond management reforms; it must be pastoral, relational, and rooted in truth.

The question of will

Yet, the crucial issue remains: do those who hold responsibility in the Church have the will—or even the capacity—to make the necessary changes?

The abuse crisis has laid bare the dysfunctions of clericalism, distorted understandings of celibacy, and a tendency to protect the institution over people.

These are not incidental flaws but structural patterns.

Reform as spiritual necessity

As I write in my latest book Horizons, if the Church is to be a source of healing, it must model the humility it preaches.

This means creating space for survivors’ voices, accepting shared responsibility, and embracing reform not as a public relations strategy but as a spiritual necessity.

Only then can a sinful Church become, once again, a credible sign of God’s forgiveness and healing in the world.

• Dr Joe Grayland is an assistant lecturer in the Department of Liturgy at the University of Wuerzburg (Germany). He has also been a priest of the Catholic Diocese of Palmerston North (New Zealand) for more than 30 years.
• J.P Grayland’s new book Horizons: Essays on Synodality, Liturgy, and Global Catholicism is available as an ebook or print book.