New evidence suggests that Cardinal Anders Arborelius is not complying with key provisions of a Vatican decree that declared “invalid” his 2024 suspension of Father Tobias Unnerstål, a Swedish priest once considered by many as most likely to succeed the Cardinal as Bishop of Stockholm.
A letter signed by the Cardinal also undercuts the Chancery’s stated reason for not publicly informing clergy and faithful that Fr. Unnerstål’s suspension was ruled invalid, and that he may administer certain sacraments.
As previously reported, this case began when Fr. Unnerstål was interrogated by the Vicar General, Fr. Pascal-René Lung, OP, in April 2021 over a single complaint — not sexual in nature — filed by Joseph Rizk, then a seminarian who is now a priest of the diocese. Fr. Unnerstål was never shown the complaint.
A former parish assistant, Birgitta Gelotte, later wrote that she had spent years shaping Rizk’s view of the relationship, and that she also felt she had to stop a project Fr. Unnerstål was establishing.
He was removed without warning as parish priest of Christ the King Church in January 2022 and suspended by Cardinal Arborelius in November 2024.
Fr. Unnerstål contested the suspension, both in a Swedish civil court — where the diocese conceded his claims rather than contest them at trial — and before the Vatican’s Dicastery for Clergy, to which he formally lodged a recourse in September 2025.
The Dicastery’s review concluded on May 5, 2026, with a decree declaring that the 2024 suspension had been imposed without correct procedure and was therefore “invalid.”
That decree, however, did not fully restore Fr. Unnerstål to priestly ministry. It imposed separate restrictions for three years, based on undisclosed “documentation at hand” — including concerns raised by Cardinal Arborelius, a member of the Dicastery, about the priest’s “behavior with men.”
To date, neither the Dicastery nor the diocese has provided Fr. Unnerstål with this documentation.
The new restrictions thus rest on material Fr. Unnerstål has never seen and therefore cannot challenge — a fact that strikes sources familiar with the Dicastery for Clergy as the most fundamental violation of the equitable process the Church’s own law requires.
On the basis of the undisclosed “documentation at hand,” the Dicastery restricted Fr. Unnerstål to offering Mass publicly only when concelebrating with his local Ordinary, i.e. the Cardinal, and revoked his faculties to hear confessions and preach. It specifically permitted him, however, to continue to administer the sacraments of baptism, matrimony, and the anointing of the sick.
The May 5 decree also required that the diocese provide for Fr. Unnerstål’s livelihood from the date the diocese had ceased paying him — July 3, 2025 — and specified that the damages awarded by the civil court, equivalent to 32 months’ salary, did not satisfy that obligation.
This journalist has obtained a letter, dated Aug. 30, 2026, and signed by Cardinal Arborelius regarding the diocese’s implementation of the decree.
The Cardinal’s Letter
Dated Aug. 30, the letter came in reply to one Fr. Unnerstål had sent on Aug. 3 thanking the Cardinal for a May 30 meeting at which the two had discussed the Dicastery’s decree.
In his letter, Fr. Unnerstål also informed the Cardinal that he had filed a recourse to the Apostolic Signatura against the restrictions that the Dicastery had imposed on him.
Noting that nearly three months had passed since the decree was issued, and that no action had taken place with regard to the measures Rome required of the diocese, Fr. Unnerstål asked that his salary be paid retroactively from July 2025, and that the notice about his suspended status be removed from the diocesan website, with a corresponding notice in the diocesan bulletin.
If the Cardinal still considered it necessary to issue a public notice about the measures the Dicastery had taken in place of his own, Fr. Unnerstål asked that it state the suspension had been declared invalid; that he remained a priest of the Diocese of Stockholm with the right to housing and basic livelihood; that he was authorized to baptize, officiate at weddings, and administer the anointing of the sick; that he could give blessings and bless people, places and things; that he could be present at other priests’ Masses, i.e. sit in choir; and that he had appealed the three-year restrictions imposed on him by the Dicastery.
On Aug. 30, Cardinal Arborelius replied:
Dear confrere!
Thank you for your letter of the 3rd of August, I regret that it has taken so long before I was able to answer. In addition, I cannot yet answer all the questions, since we both must await the reply from the Apostolic Signatura on your appeal on the restrictions that the Dicastery has imposed on you.
But I would like to communicate what we can already now establish:
that you remain a priest in the Diocese of Stockholm and until further notice can keep your residence in […]
that the diocese is responsible for your livelihood, first by having paid out three annual salaries and thereafter in dialogue between you and the Vicar General
* that you can give blessings and bless individual people, places and things
* that you still have the possibility to undergo rehabilitation if you so wish
If you have further questions, please feel free to contact the Vicar General.
With my intercession and blessing
+Anders Cardinal Arborelius ocd
Measuring the Cardinal’s Letter Against the Dicastery’s Decree
The Cardinal’s letter confirms that Fr. Unnerstål remains a priest of the Diocese of Stockholm, but the confirmations are selective.
Introducing his four points as “what we can already now establish,” the Cardinal affirms that Fr. Unnerstål can give blessings but says nothing of the sacraments the decree specifically permits him to administer — baptism, matrimony, and the anointing of the sick — or of his permission to concelebrate Mass publicly with the Cardinal. The implication is that the Cardinal does not regard these as settled.
He says he cannot yet answer every question because both men must await the Apostolic Signatura’s reply, but by his own description the appeal concerns “the restrictions,” and an appeal against restrictions is no reason to withhold recognition of what the decree already permits.
On his residence: the May 5 decree established Fr. Unnerstål’s right to housing. The Cardinal’s letter states that he can keep his residence “until further notice.”
On provision for his livelihood: the decree, which by its own terms took effect May 5, required the diocese to resume financial support from the day it ceased paying Fr. Unnerstål’s salary — July 3, 2025.
According to the decree, the Cardinal maintained that the civil court case resulted in the cleric receiving the equivalent of 32 month’s salary in damages, but the Dicastery specified that this does not satisfy the obligation to provide for his livelihood from July 2025.
The Cardinal’s letter acknowledges that the diocese is responsible for Fr. Unnerstål’s livelihood, “first by having paid out three annual salaries” — the equivalent of 36 months, four more than the figure mentioned in the decree.
(Fr. Unnerstål made clear in his Aug. 3, 2026 letter to the Cardinal that he had not received any retroactive payment; therefore, it is unclear whether the reference to “three annual salaries” (36 months) is a typo or an oversight.)
The Cardinal’s letter cites no salary payment — apart from the court ordered damages payment — made since the decree; it says further support will be worked out “in dialogue” with the Vicar General.
As of Aug. 30, nearly four months after the decree, the letter’s conditioning of further support upon a future “dialogue” indicates that the diocese had not yet complied with this provision.
On his public standing: the decree declared the 2024 suspension invalid.
The Cardinal’s letter does not acknowledge the Dicastery’s finding and is silent on Fr. Unnerstål’s request that the diocese remove the notice about his suspended status from its website and publish a corresponding notice in the diocesan bulletin.
Finally, the letter says Fr. Unnerstål “still” has the possibility of undergoing rehabilitation, if he so wishes.
The word “rehabilitation” does not appear in the Dicastery’s May 5 decree, but the idea is not new: the Cardinal’s November 2024 suspension decree, which the Dicastery has since ruled invalid, cited a “Rehabilitation Plan” drawn up in January 2023 that had, in his words, “not been able to be completed as I wished.”
The letter does not say what such rehabilitation would address, and neither the Dicastery nor the Diocese has supplied Fr. Unnerstål with the “documentation” that, according to the decree, formed the basis of the new restrictions.
Contradicting the Chancery
The Cardinal wrote to Fr. Unnerstål at exactly the same time his own Chancery was under active questioning about the very case his letter addressed.
The questions, part of an exchange with this journalist that took place Aug. 27–Sept. 2, were sent to diocesan communications officer Kristina Hellner.
They were copied to two officials with direct knowledge of the case: the Vicar General, Fr. Pascal-René Lung, OP, who interrogated Fr. Unnerstål in 2021 and took part in subsequent meetings on his status, and the Episcopal Vicar for Judicial Affairs, Msgr. Jorge de Salas, who confirmed the substance of the Dicastery’s decree to this journalist by phone in June.
On Aug. 29, Hellner told this journalist that the diocese does not consider it “appropriate” to inform the clergy and faithful that Fr. Unnerstål is not suspended and that he may administer certain sacraments, because “we do not know which parts of the decree are or are not the subject of the appeal.”
However, one day later, the Cardinal acknowledged in his letter to Fr. Unnerstål that “the restrictions” imposed on him by the Dicastery were the subject of the appeal.
Pressed on whether it is also the diocese’s position that it is not obliged, or that it is not “appropriate, ”to act on the May 5 decree regarding financial support until the canonical process has concluded, Hellner replied on Aug. 30 — the date of the Cardinal’s letter: “our policy is not to comment on financial support to individual priests, including when such matters are addressed in decrees.” Fr. Lung and Msgr. de Salas were copied on her reply.
Hellner’s final email in the exchange came on Sept. 2., when she confirmed that the Diocese itself “has not filed an appeal or recourse against the decree, either to the Apostolic Signatura or to the Dicastery for the Clergy.”
She added: “We respect the decree of the Dicastery for the Clergy. We have, however, not seen the appeal submitted by the priest to the Apostolic Signatura and therefore do not know which parts of the decree are the subject of the appeal.”
By then, the Cardinal’s own letter naming “the restrictions” as the subject of the appeal was dated three days earlier.
The Role of the Vicar General
The Cardinal’s letter closes by directing Fr. Unnerstål elsewhere for anything further.
“If you have further questions, please feel free to contact the Vicar General,” the Cardinal writes — the same Vicar General with whom, the Cardinal also writes, any further support is to be discussed.
The Vicar General, Fr. Pascal-René Lung, was also copied on Hellner’s emails.
Fr. Lung has been a central figure at nearly every stage of this case. In April 2021 he summoned Fr. Unnerstål to Stockholm and, meeting with him one-on-one, with the Cardinal absent, read him the charges without ever showing him the complaint.
It was also Fr. Lung who, according to an account Birgitta Gelotte gave to Maxim Jaruta, reportedly telephoned her later in 2021 to warn her that Fr. Unnerstål had learned of her letter — after telling Fr. Unnerstål himself, on reading it, that something would need to be done to correct her.
In January 2022, Fr. Lung conveyed the details of Fr. Unnerstål’s reassignment to him without mentioning that his removal from Christ the King Church would take effect that same day. And it was Fr. Lung who publicly announced the 2024 suspension.
As reported in June, Swedish Catholics calling for an apostolic visitation of the Diocese of Stockholm describe a “power vacuum” at the top of its administration, created, they say, by Cardinal Arborelius’s own lack of leadership, and filled by an “axis of power” within the Chancery. Fr. Lung has been named as a key part of that axis — an identification several independent diocesan sources have since confirmed to this journalist.
The Vicar General is also among those who some diocesan sources expect would likely be on the list of candidates to succeed Cardinal Arborelius, or at least temporarily govern the diocese, once the Cardinal retires, perhaps as early as the end of this month.
More than four months after Rome ruled his suspension invalid, Fr. Unnerstål has been directed by Cardinal Arborelius to speak to the man who announced the suspension — the same Vicar General copied on the diocese’s statement that it would be “inappropriate” to make public that his suspension was invalid or that he may administer certain sacraments.