Francis’ trip to Chile in mid-January was overshadowed by his brusque remarks to a Chilean reporter that the claims against Bishop Barros amounted to “slander.” The pope said he would weigh in on the matter if there were “proof” against the bishop.

Cardinal Sean O’Malley, the archbishop of Boston and the leader of the pope’s commission on the protection of minors, called the pope’s remarks “a source of great pain for survivors” that relegated them “to discredited exile.”

In a clumsy attempt at damage control, the pope made a contradictory statement on the flight back to Rome. He apologized for demanding proof from alleged victims, saying that the word was insensitive, but then reiterated that there was no “evidence” against the bishop, who he again said was the victim of slander.

Some victims of Father Karadima, a powerful priest convicted by the Vatican in 2011 for sexually abusing minors, have accused Bishop Barros of standing by as the priest kissed and abused them in the El Bosque Catholic parish.

On the plane, Francis said he had twice refused to accept the resignation of Bishop Barros, and in January 2015 he moved the bishop from leading Chile’s military ordinariate to the diocese of Osorno. The installation fractured the faithful and clergy of the city, with many opposing a bishop they considered complicit in sexual abuse.

The pope’s response mystified observers and vexed his supporters. Possible explanations tumbled out. Was he getting bad advice from his cardinal advisers? Was he protecting a friend? Was he a member of a Vatican faction that believes in “zero tolerance” or one that considers the abuse issue finished business? Was the pope, someone who faced accusations of supporting a violent regime as a cardinal in Argentina, loath to give into public pressure?

Tuesday’s statement suggested that public pressure had forced the pope to act and that far from infallible, Francis had perhaps spoken in Chile without knowing what he was talking about.