Conscience Betrayed: The Lepori Case and the Unravelling of Cistercian Integrity

🇮🇹 Versione italiana

Vatican City - The Cistercian Order is currently undergoing one of the darkest periods in its millennial history. Founded in 1098 by Abbot Robert of Molesme with the establishment of the Abbey of Cîteaux, the Order was born from the desire of certain Cluniac monks to return to a stricter observance of the Rule of St Benedict. From its inception, austerity, prayer, and manual labour were its defining features. Today, however, that identity appears to be deeply compromised, and those communities striving to uphold it are increasingly targeted.

Since 2010, the Order has been led by Mauro Giuseppe Lepori, a Swiss monk from Lugano, known more for his ties to the Communion and Liberation movement than for a tangible witness to monastic life. His leadership has provoked—and continues to provoke—concern both within and beyond the Order, particularly due to his managerial approach and style of governance. Lepori resides permanently in Rome, at the General House on the Aventine Hill in Piazza del Tempio di Diana—a place that functions more like a student residence than a true monastery, where traditional monastic life is virtually absent. He is known for his frequent travels—funded by the Order—and for his evident difficulty in forging authentic relationships with monastic communities. “He claims that the community of Heiligenkreuz is not a real monastery,” reports one monk, pointing out that Lepori tends to mistrust larger communities, possibly because he struggles to exert control over them. This suspicion is no isolated matter; it reflects a broader trend among religious superiors inclined toward manipulative behaviour. This problem has been exacerbated by recent directives from the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. Following these guidelines, many superiors general have increasingly targeted smaller communities with ever more aggressive tactics. “There are actual threats made against monks and nuns who belong to small communities,” says one nun. “They come and tell you that closure is inevitable,” adds another.

Yet not all are treated equally. There is a clear logic of favouritism at play: those who conform to the personal demands of the superior of the day can even obtain appointment as abbot or abbess, even in communities that do not meet the canonical minimum required to have one. This practice undermines not only credibility but also the canonical legality of religious life. Over the years, the Abbot General of the Cistercian Order has targeted many communities, especially the more vibrant and numerous ones. According to several members of the Order, his leadership has led to the closure of many communities.

In some cases, Mauro Lepori has even taken on the role of spiritual director for certain members of the Order, dangerously conflating the internal and external fora—in open violation of the canonical and spiritual distinction the Church has upheld for centuries. His authoritarian style, combined with an intolerance of dissent, has created an oppressive atmosphere in many communities, where reports of abuses of conscience and authority have multiplied.

Among the monasteries affected by this approach are San Giacomo di Veglia (Vittorio Veneto), the Monastery of Zirc (Hungary), Santa Susanna in Rome, and the Monastery of Bornem (Belgium). In each of these cases, the Abbot General secured appointment as papal commissioner. This raises clear concerns about a serious conflict of interest: the role of commissioner, by nature and by law, should be exercised by individuals external to the Order, free from ties of friendship or subordination to the superior. Ecclesial practice, in fact, requires a separation between those who govern and those tasked with oversight and, if necessary, correction of abuses. Equally problematic is the concentration of power evident elsewhere: Lepori, for instance, has also been appointed pro-president of the Brazilian congregation, adding to his already numerous high-level roles. Such overlapping responsibilities risk violating the basic principles of balance and accountability safeguarded by canon law (see Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 127 et seq.).

A Divided Order: Lepori Re-Elected as Abbot General

Between 8 and 22 October 2022, the General Chapter of the Cistercian Order was held, an event that laid bare the profound dissatisfaction and internal division currently afflicting the Order. In this context, the words of Abbot Vinzenz Wohlwend of Wettingen-Mehrerau stood out for their courage in denouncing the failures of leadership under Abbot General Mauro Giuseppe Lepori. Wohlwend expressed, unequivocally, his concern about an authoritarian style of leadership, where loyalty to the superior seems to take precedence over fidelity to the Rule and to monastic life. Either one complies with his directives or is deemed unfit for Cistercian life: such was the assessment. But what claim to authentic monasticism can be made by one whose path has relied more on networking than asceticism? At Hauterive, the abbey he hails from, Lepori is not described as an exemplary monk. His rise through the ranks of the Order appears more the result of solid relationships in ecclesial and cultural circles—particularly those linked to Communion and Liberation—than of monastic virtue.

Far from being an occasion for communion and discernment, the General Chapter exposed the deep rifts within the Order. Abbot Johannes Szypulski of Zwettl Abbey requested a time for discussion among the capitular fathers before the election of the new Abbot General. However, the proposal was rejected by the Procurator General, Lluc Torcal—a loyal ally of Lepori—on the rather weak pretext that “the vote could not be interrupted.” In truth, many of those present did not even know each other. How can there be authentic discernment without mutual knowledge? The result was a divided assembly in which Lepori was re-elected only on the fourth ballot, by a single vote (44 to 43) against Abbot Peter Verhalen of Dallas. Verhalen is widely considered a more balanced figure, capable of listening and far removed from divisive dynamics. Thus, the choice was not between a strong and a weak candidate, but between two opposing ecclesial visions. Lepori’s re-election appears not to have arisen from mature consensus, but rather from a lack of familiarity with alternative candidates. This is where the heart of the issue becomes most evident: the will to power. Refusing to step aside in the face of such stark division is not an act of strength but of weakness masquerading as resolve. One who truly loves the community he serves, when faced with such a fractured vote, would pause for reflection, even withdraw. But for those who approach religious life more as a career than as a following of Christ, resignation is unthinkable. Here one hears echoes of Lord Acton’s timeless warning: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Mauro Giuseppe Lepori’s name may be well-regarded in certain powerful circles, but it is rejected by those who live the monastic life faithfully, by sincere priests, and by those truly committed to the Church and pastoral work. Thanks to his connections, Lepori managed to be considered among the potential successors to Bishop Vitus Huonder in Chur, but his candidacy provoked the ire of the cathedral chapter members, who categorically rejected him. “For us Cistercians, it would have been a relief,” a monk confides. His name was also proposed for the Diocese of Lugano—currently in a particularly difficult situation—but local priests immediately made their opposition clear.

Chaos in Piazza Pius XII

Meanwhile, the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, tasked with oversight and discernment, appears to have little understanding of the legal and spiritual autonomy of sui iuris monasteries. As St Benedict clearly teaches in his Rule, each monastery is headed by an abbot or abbess, and the community must live in stabilitas loci—not under the control of general abbots, external religious, or Roman officials. The article published yesterday by Silere non possum helped to shed light on a deep and systemic wound: the spiritual and psychological abuse exercised by ecclesiastical authorities over members of religious institutes. This denunciation forms part of a broader picture of scandals that in recent years have also involved the Dicastery itself.

Despite the media fanfare surrounding the appointment of Sister Simona Brambilla as Prefect of the Dicastery (6 January 2025), many religious expressed serious concerns from the outset. Criticism, in particular, came from those who know the work of the Consolata Missionary Sister, formerly the Dicastery’s Secretary. Some nuns—even those close to her—had raised alarms: “Here, problems will only increase.” The issue is not the Prefect’s gender, but her competence and capacity to listen. In such a delicate Dicastery, genuine discernment is needed—a non-judgemental ear and a direct understanding of monastic life. Instead, what is often observed is a management style shaped by pseudo-psychological models learned in places like the Pontifical Gregorian University, where authors such as Amedeo Cencini have promoted psychological theories that deviate markedly from the field’s original humanistic vocation. As many have already denounced, what should be a science of accompaniment and welcome is instead transformed into a tool of control, judgement, and intrusion into the inner lives of religious. This manipulative and abusive use of psychology has been observed frequently in formation houses and seminaries. Take, for example, those tasked by the Prefect, the Bishop, or the Seminary Rector to conduct interviews or evaluations of monks, nuns, priests, or seminarians. These appointments almost always go to individuals from the ecclesiastical world, often trained in academically questionable contexts, who use psychology and spirituality not as instruments of true discernment, but as means to “label,” “judge,” and “diagnose” according to subjective criteria influenced more by the expectations of those commissioning the evaluation than by truly scientific and objective standards. As a result, we witness painful situations that affect men and women who have given their lives to the Church but are treated without a trace of Christian charity, and judged without any objectivity. The issue, however, goes beyond the figure of the Prefect—who, it should be noted, insists on being addressed as “Prefetta”, a detail that reveals much about her priorities. The Dicastery has long been mired in a network of power relations, favouritism, and clerical nepotism, as Silere non possum revealed in the case of San Anselmo, with the serious abuses committed against the Polish abbot.

What prevails is a culture in which personal influence outweighs justice and law. The fundamental problem remains a lack of competence regarding monastic life: what can a missionary sister or a Salesian know about silence, enclosure, and monastic stability? Nothing. And this ignorance is reflected in the often-baffling decisions emerging from the offices in Piazza Pius XII, which we will soon address, and which are causing serious scandal even in the eyes of the People of God.

p. M. A.
Silere non possum