The new mechanism was approved by Spain’s government and the country’s Catholic bishops before the visit of Pope Leo XIV, who is scheduled to begin a trip to Spain on Saturday. The program is designed to handle cases involving clergy members who have died or whose alleged offenses can no longer be prosecuted because of legal time limits.

The initiative represents a significant development in Spain’s long-running reckoning with abuse allegations within the Catholic Church, an issue that emerged into wider public debate later than in several other Western countries.

Victims Seek Recognition and Compensation

Among those considering applying is Paula Alonso-Pimentel, who says she was sexually abused by a Marist priest while attending a religious school in Valladolid during the 1970s.

Alonso-Pimentel has publicly spoken about her allegations and said she hopes the new framework will provide a fairer path to recognition and reparations than previous church-led efforts.

The new system gives victims one year to submit claims. According to the report, 420 applications have already been filed.

Under the process, Spain’s ombudsman will review cases through an independent team of experts and recommend forms of compensation that may include financial payments, psychological assistance or symbolic measures.

If disagreements arise, cases can be referred to a committee that includes representatives from the Church, the ombudsman’s office and victims’ groups. The ombudsman would have the final decision if consensus cannot be reached.

A Long Road to Institutional Response

Public attention to clergy abuse in Spain intensified after the newspaper El País began compiling a database of alleged abuse cases in 2018.

The growing number of reports prompted Spain’s Parliament to commission an investigation by the national ombudsman. In 2023, the ombudsman released an extensive report that estimated there could have been hundreds of thousands of victims of church-related sexual abuse over several decades, based on survey data and an examination of hundreds of documented cases.

Spain’s bishops disputed that estimate. The Spanish Bishops’ Conference said its own review had identified 728 sexual abusers within the Church since 1945 and reported that most alleged offenses occurred before 1990.

Church officials have also noted that many accused clergy members are now deceased.

Debate Over Church Responsibility Continues

The bishops launched their own compensation initiative in 2024, but critics argued that a church-administered process lacked sufficient independence and external oversight.

Many victims were reluctant to participate directly in a system managed by the institution accused of wrongdoing.

Josetxo Vera, communications director for the Spanish Bishops’ Conference, said the new arrangement creates an additional avenue for victims while building on efforts already undertaken by the Church.

Earlier this year, the bishops’ conference reported that approximately 2 million euros ($2.3 million) had been paid to victims through previous compensation efforts.

Church officials continue to reject descriptions of clergy abuse as a systemic problem within Catholic institutions, arguing that such crimes also occur elsewhere in society.

Pope Leo’s Visit Brings Additional Attention

The issue has gained renewed visibility because of Pope Leo XIV’s visit to Spain.

In his first encyclical, Pope Leo XIV wrote that listening to victims of sexual abuse requires acknowledging harm and providing what he described as just reparation.

Some survivors and advocacy groups have welcomed those remarks but remain cautious about how they will translate into practice.

Concerns Persist Over New Framework

Advocates for abuse survivors say several aspects of the new system remain unresolved.

Among the concerns raised are the absence of a standardized scale for compensation, the case-by-case nature of awards and the fact that the process is not legally binding.

Bishop Accountability, which researches clergy abuse cases and institutional responses, questioned whether the framework would deliver consistent outcomes for victims.

Spanish activist Miguel Hurtado, who has publicly alleged abuse by a monk associated with the historic Montserrat Abbey, has also expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the program.

Hurtado argues that many cases remain difficult to address because legal deadlines for criminal and civil proceedings have long expired. He fears the new process may still leave victims uncertain about whether meaningful compensation or accountability will follow.

As Spain moves forward with the program, the success of the initiative is likely to be measured not only by the number of claims filed but also by whether survivors view the process as transparent, independent and capable of delivering justice.

The post Spain’s Clergy Abuse Reparations Program Faces Scrutiny Ahead of Pope Leo’s Visit appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The European Union has agreed to immobilise indefinitely up to €210 billion in Russian central bank assets frozen since Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The move marks a shift from temporary sanctions renewal to a longer-term financial strategy that could underpin loans to Kyiv as the war approaches its fifth year.

The decision reflects mounting fiscal pressure on Ukraine and a recalibration of Europe’s approach to wartime financing. But it also raises complex legal, financial and geopolitical questions, particularly for Belgium, where most of the funds are held.

Why Russian assets are frozen in Europe

Within days of the invasion, the EU, alongside G7 partners, froze assets belonging to the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. The objective was to restrict Moscow’s ability to access foreign reserves and stabilise its currency.

Approximately €185 billion of those funds are held at Euroclear, a Brussels-based financial services firm that settles securities transactions globally. The assets were initially held in securities but have largely matured into cash over time. Legally, the funds remain Russian sovereign property; they are immobilised, not confiscated.

Until now, EU governments renewed the freeze every six months. That mechanism required unanimity, creating recurring political uncertainty. Under the new decision, EU ambassadors used an emergency provision in Article 122 of the EU treaties to immobilise the assets indefinitely, citing an “immediate threat to the economic interests of the Union.” This means the freeze would remain in place as long as that threat persists or until Russia pays reparations.

This procedural shift reduces the risk of a single member state blocking renewal. It also signals that Europe views the asset freeze as a structural feature of its Russia policy rather than a temporary sanction.

From windfall profits to loan guarantees

So far, the EU has avoided directly using the underlying assets. Instead, it has transferred “windfall profits” generated by those holdings to Ukraine. In 2024, that amounted to €3.7 billion. Because the interest income is not itself sovereign Russian property, EU officials argue its use carries fewer legal risks.

The new debate concerns the principal. Ukraine faces an estimated €135.7 billion funding gap over the next two years to sustain both its military effort and broader economy. European governments aim to cover roughly two-thirds of that need, or around €90 billion.

Two broad proposals are under discussion.

The first would see the EU borrow on capital markets, using the EU budget as a guarantee. This option resembles the bloc’s pandemic-era joint borrowing. However, it would require unanimous approval by member states. Governments such as Hungary and Slovakia have signalled opposition to funding Ukraine’s military, complicating that route.

The second proposal involves leveraging the immobilised Russian assets as collateral for a loan to Kyiv. In this model, the principal would not be confiscated outright but would serve as backing for EU-issued debt. If structured carefully, officials argue, the assets could secure a large loan without technically transferring ownership.

European Commission officials maintain that sufficient legal safeguards can be designed. They also argue that if Russia sought damages in Russian courts, any rulings would not be recognised within the EU legal order.

Belgium’s dilemma

Belgium finds itself at the centre of the issue because Euroclear is headquartered in Brussels and the bulk of the assets sit within its accounts.

Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has publicly supported Ukraine but requested “rational, reasonable and justified” conditions before endorsing a reparations-style loan plan. The concern is not geopolitical alignment but legal and financial exposure.

Euroclear’s chief executive has warned that forcing the clearing house to participate in a large-scale loan arrangement could destabilise aspects of the international financial system. Financial market infrastructure firms are subject to strict capital and liquidity rules. Concentrating risk around a single, politically charged asset pool raises regulatory questions.

Legal scholars in Belgium have pointed out that, in a worst-case scenario, if Euroclear faced losses on its own immobilised assets in Russia — estimated at €16–17 billion — and required state support, Belgium’s relatively small economy could be disproportionately exposed. Belgian GDP is roughly €565 billion. While such an outcome remains hypothetical, the scale of the frozen Russian funds relative to Belgium’s economy underscores the perceived risk.

The European Commission says it has addressed these concerns by proposing a comprehensive guarantee mechanism. If Euroclear suffered losses in Russia, those could be offset against assets belonging to Russia’s own clearing institutions that are held in the EU. Officials also argue that any Russian legal retaliation would have limited enforceability inside the bloc.

Whether those safeguards are sufficient remains under discussion ahead of a key EU summit.

Legal and systemic implications

At the heart of the debate lies a tension between political urgency and legal precedent.

Under international law, sovereign assets are typically protected from confiscation. Direct seizure could trigger legal challenges and set a precedent affecting how other countries hold reserves abroad. Some policymakers worry about implications for the euro’s role as a global reserve currency if foreign governments perceive their holdings as vulnerable.

By contrast, using assets as collateral for a loan, rather than transferring ownership, is presented as a narrower step. EU officials argue this approach maintains formal respect for property rights while recognising that Russia’s invasion created extraordinary circumstances.

Still, legal uncertainty persists. Russia’s central bank has initiated legal action in Moscow against Euroclear. While EU officials describe European institutions as legally protected, cross-border litigation could add complexity and prolong disputes.

Financial stability concerns also extend beyond Belgium. Clearing houses like Euroclear play a central role in global securities markets. Any perception that they are instruments of geopolitical policy could prompt market participants to reassess risk.

Broader geopolitical pressures

The EU’s move comes amid shifting transatlantic dynamics. Military and financial support from the United States has declined sharply in 2025 following policy changes under President Donald Trump. Europe has sought to fill the gap, but internal divisions and fiscal constraints limit its options.

Some EU officials also express concern that Washington could pursue its own approach to Russia’s frozen assets as part of potential peace negotiations. Early drafts of US proposals reportedly contemplated using a portion of Russian assets for reconstruction while allocating part of the proceeds to US interests. European policymakers argue that immobilising the assets indefinitely makes it harder for external actors to redirect them without EU consent.

Russia, for its part, describes the EU plan as theft and warns of retaliation. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has criticised what he calls a departure from strict legal norms, reflecting broader divisions within the bloc.

What happens next

The immediate objective for EU leaders is to finalise a structure capable of delivering up to €90 billion in support to Ukraine. The choice between unanimous borrowing and asset-backed lending remains politically sensitive.

The indefinite immobilisation of assets reduces procedural uncertainty. It does not, however, eliminate the legal and systemic questions that accompany any move from freezing to leveraging sovereign reserves.

The outcome will likely shape not only Ukraine’s short-term financing but also longer-term debates about sanctions policy, financial sovereignty and the architecture of the international monetary system. For Europe, the challenge lies in balancing legal caution, financial stability and geopolitical resolve.

As the war continues, the question is less whether the frozen assets will remain immobilised — that now appears settled — and more how far European governments are prepared to go in converting them into tangible support for Kyiv.

Source: BBC – EU backs indefinite freeze on Russia’s frozen cash ahead of loan plan for Ukraine

The post How the EU Plans to Use Frozen Russian Assets to Support Ukraine appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.