The Pennsylvania grand jury report on sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, released on Tuesday, Aug. 14, recounts abuse by 301 priests across six dioceses, with more than 1,000 victims. While the vast majority of the cases described by the grand jury predate the first tidal wave of the U.S. church’s sexual abuse crisis in 2002, the visceral reaction to this report and the wave of reports it is triggering are stark evidence that the crisis is far from over.

This is not to say that there is an ongoing epidemic of priests committing sexual abuse of children. Though vigilance is still required and even one case of abuse is unacceptable, there is reason to believe that the practices and policies adopted in the Dallas Charter, along with greater public awareness of the problem, have drastically reduced the incidence of abuse.

The visceral reaction to this report and the wave of reports it is triggering are stark evidence that the crisis is far from over.

But while the reforms adopted in 2002 have helped prevent further abuse, they have not repaired the devastating breach of trust caused by years of obstruction, denial and negligence on the part of leaders of the institutional church, especially bishops and superiors of religious communities, who returned abusers to ministry repeatedly, while doing little or nothing to care for their victims or protect those who were vulnerable. This crisis in the church continues—most painfully for the survivors of abuse whose stories have not been heard and whose wounds have not been sufficiently cared for. They have even seen some of the bishops who failed to protect them promoted through the ecclesial ranks.

It is part of the church’s great shame that we will not willingly and fully hear the Gospel’s call to repentance for these crimes and sins until it is delivered to us by a grand jury. Yet as the church finally begins to hear the call for repentance, here are a few key steps its leaders, especially bishops, should take in the months ahead:

Focus first on the survivors of abuse, not on the effects of this crisis on the church as an institution, its reputation or financial standing.

Do not be reflexively defensive or dismissive in response to accusations against the church and revelations of past or ongoing failures. Some of the responses of bishops to the grand jury report have demonstrated a remarkable tone deafness to the horror that the faithful are currently experiencing and to the trauma survivors still live with. Our primary response to this crisis must not be framed in legal, financial or practical terms, but in the language of true contrition, sorrow and, above all, action and reform.The example of Bishop Lawrence Persico of Erie, who chose to testify before the grand jury in person and replaced lawyers who resisted disclosure of records, is a model for other bishops to follow.

Do not wait for civil authorities to bring past scandals to light. The experience of the last 16 years shows that the worst will eventually come to light. Such disclosures should be anticipated and embraced, not resisted until they are imposed. All dioceses and religious communities should follow the example of those that have begun to make a comprehensive public accounting of their knowledge of abuse claims. One of the few remaining ways that the church can offer mercy to survivors of sexual abuse is to demonstrate through such voluntary disclosures that we value the sacred dignity of the victims more than the church’s reputation and security.

Focus first on the survivors of abuse, not on the effects of this crisis on the church as an institution, its reputation or financial standing.

Do not pretend that bishops alone can hold themselves and each other to account. Bishop Edward Scharfenberger of Albany has called for a commission of laypeople to investigate claims of abuse and misconduct against bishops. Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, the president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, has announced that the bishops will take up a comprehensive plan to address this “moral catastrophe” in their November meeting. Such a plan should be swiftly implemented, with a clear mandate for a commission to examine the culture, policies and practices that enabled bishops to continue assigning abusive priests and to recommend effective remedies. The bishops of the United States should both endorse such a commission themselves and also ask Pope Francis to give it his clear approval. As we first said several weeks ago, the bishops should not hesitate to call on those among them who have failed most grievously to acknowledge their faults and to resign.

Find ways to begin to make meaningful reparation to the survivors of sexual abuse in the church. This should include meaningful financial support, to help with counseling and to make some measure of restitution for the trauma they have lived with for years. The church may be concerned about the effect of expansions of civil liability for sexual abuse, which can financially bankrupt dioceses and limit ministry to people in grave need. But the church must demonstrate greater concern for the needs of victims, which have too long been neglected, a sin that has left the church morally bankrupt in the public mind. Compensation funds like the one established in the Archdiocese of New York may provide a good starting point, though we must ensure that such efforts prioritize care for survivors over the church’s avoidance of legal liability.

Beyond new safeguards and financial restitution, the church should also make a significant act of public repentance and reparation, especially within its liturgical life. Imagine a publicly declared day of fast and penance for bishops and priests, on which bishops and other ecclesial leaders humbly prostrate themselves and listen in silence to the testimony of the faithful. Imagine a simultaneous act of contrition by bishops and priests, in their own names and on behalf of their predecessors, in every cathedral in the country. The church should also consider ways for parishes to mark their solidarity with survivors of abuse beyond merely adding a petition to the prayer of the faithful.

We do not pretend that these recommendations are comprehensive or even minimally sufficient. They are merely a starting point. Above all, while we can acknowledge the great good done by most priests, no one should pretend that the moral failures by church leaders that accompanied the grievous crimes of some of their priests were merely isolated or accidental events. The pattern of sin is clear. Now we must confront the catastrophe that has befallen the church as a result and beg for the grace of conversion, however agonizing that process may be.

This article appears in September 3 2018.