FULL TEXT: Msgr. Coronado-Arrascue's letter to Crux

'Am I supposed to remain silent about alleged abuse ... because it is not convenient to the Pope's narrative that he did nothing wrong?'

Msgr. Ricardo Coronado. Credit: Screenshot from YouTube here.

On August 1, Elise Ann Allen published an article titled “Coverup allegations against Leo spun by defrocked priest” for left-wing Catholic website Crux. Msgr. Ricardo Coronado-Arrascue, a canon lawyer who lives in Peru, is the subject of the article.

Coronado-Arrascue was previously stationed in Colorado Springs, where he served as diocesan judicial vicar and chancellor. He also taught seminarians Canon Law.

On December 19, 2024, Coronado-Arrascue was dismissed from the clerical state by the Vatican following an expedited 30-day process that he says is “reserved for the most heinous cases of abuse, namely, those involving children something of which I have never been accused.”

Coronado-Arrascue, who rejects such claims and maintains his innocence, replied to Allen’s essay with a 4-page letter (see below) dated August 6 asking her to “correct a number of errors and falsehoods stated in your article.”

Crux published an altered version of his response on August 7 under the title “Peruvian ex-priest responds to Crux coverage.”

In an editor’s note, Crux explained that it omitted certain “elements” of Coronado-Arrascue’s letter “that include personal insinuations against the author [Allen] as well as statements and accusations against third parties that Crux does not immediately have the ability to corroborate. For the record, Crux stands by the story.”

Coronado-Arrascue has provided Kokx News with his un-edited response. With his permission, we present it below in its entirety.

Editor’s note: Msgr. insists that his removal from the priesthood was wholly unjust. He also believes the final straw that lead to his dismissal was his decision to provide legal counsel to three women who approached then-Bishop Robert Prevost in 2022 about having been abused over a decade prior by priests of the Diocese of Chiclayo, Peru, which Prevost had overseen since 2015. Multiple mainstream media outlets have already reported on the women and their claims. See here:

• “Advocates say they filed complaint claiming Pope Leo XIV didn't address abuse weeks before election”

• “Survivors of clergy sexual abuse say Pope Leo XIV covered up reported abuse in Peru”

• “Survivors of clergy sexual abuse turn up calls for reforms from new pope’s American hometown”

• “Pope Leo Chiclayo abuse case proves tricky to translate outside Peru”

• “New pope under scrutiny for handling of abuse claims”

Below is Coronado-Arrascue’s letter. Kokx News will provide updates on this story as they develop. Bolded words are sections that were not published by Crux.

Elise Ann Allen, Crux Now

Dear Mrs. Allen,

Lima-Peru, 6th August 2025

I write to you in regard to the article you published on the Crux website this past Friday (August 1, 2025, with subsequent amended version August 5th, 2025) maliciously and provocatively entitled, Coverup allegations against Leo spun by defrocked priest. (I note that the unamended Aug. 1 version had also been reproduced in Spanish on the news website Religion Digital.) My name is Msgr. Ricardo Coronado Arrascue about whom you wrote in the article and whom you significantly disparage in it. Let it be noted that I have dedicated my life to the Catholic Church, entering the Augustinians when I was eighteen years old; later my family was left to flee Peru due to death threats and persecution. I served within the Augustinian order until 2001, holding posts as teacher, vice principle for pastoral affairs, and even rector of the order's seminary.

Upon my lawful departure from the order, with the approval of the then Prior General Robert Prevost (I can send you that letter affirming this if you like), I continued studies and proceeded to serve for sixteen years in the Diocese of Colorado Springs, all the while continuing to travel and serve in three dioceses in Peru as Judicial Vicar for the interdiocesan tribunal.

During all of those years of service to the church, I never had a canonical process opened against me. I was never given a monitum or warning from my superiors, including Fr. Prevost. I was never given any formal correction; I was never accused of wrongdoing. I operated in all of those contexts with full use of my priestly faculties and in good graces with the various ecclesiastical superiors for whom I worked.

Problems only began with the arrival of the new diocesan bishop in Colorado Springs, James Golka, in June of 2021. After months of tension, doctrinal disagreements and personality conflicts, Bp. Golka to removed me from my various offices. Ultimately, he violated a civil and canonical contract with me, and in order to avoid being taken to civil court by me, he agreed to a settlement.

When I returned full-time to Peru in January of 2022, I discovered that Bishop Golka had sent a communication to my new bishop in Cajamarca, Bishop Isaac Circunscisión Martínez Chuquizana. The content of that communication has never been made known to me or to my legal counsel despite years of inquiry and efforts on our behalf. It was indeed after that communication of Bishop Golka that relations with my bishop in Cajamarca and the diocese thereof turned sour. Since that time, the dramatic escalation of accusations against me has only grown worse and worse, especially when I took on the defense of the three women from Chiclayo, Peru. With the present letter, I want to correct a number of errors and falsehoods stated in your article, and I ask that you correct these:

1. You stated that I was defrocked for sexual misconduct and that I have a "history of sexually inappropriate behavior". The decree from the Dicastery for Clergy indicated canon 1395 §1 and § 3 as the reasons for my dismissal from the clerical state; this canon states:

*********

Can. 1395

§ 1. A cleric living in concubinage, other than in the case mentioned in can. 1394, and a cleric who continues in some other external sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue which causes scandal, is to be punished with suspension. To this, other penalties can progressively be added if after a warning he persists in the offense, until eventually he can be dismissed from the clerical state.

§ 3. A cleric who by force, threats or abuse of his authority commits an offense against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue or forces someone to perform or submit to sexual acts is to be punished with the same penalty as in § 2.

*****

Canon 1395 § 1 addresses the crime of living in concubinage. However, for the past six plus years I have lived exclusively with my mother and in my house or her apartment. I have had no "lover", live-in or otherwise. I have not violated the 6th commandment with anyone, male or female. Moreover, the canon mentioned above requires that the offending party receives a warning before any penal action be taken. Not only did I never commit a delict against the 6th commandment of the Decalog, I never have received a warning that I had done so as the law of the church above prescribes.

The Dicastery for Clergy in fact used an accelerated process to defrock me which is reserved for the most heinous cases of abuse, namely, those involving children something of which I have never been accused. During that charade of a process, no victims were named, no material of an actual crime was presented to me, and no evidence was gathered. The Dicastery gave me thirty days to make a defense and then handed down their decision, which I am convinced was determined before this deeply flawed in its conduct legal process was even begun. The decision was also handed down with no possibility of appeal.

2. As for the accusation that I have a longstanding track record of sexually inappropriate behavior, where is the evidence for this? Treating slander and gossip as fact is not worthy of any journalist who seeks to be a pursuer of truth. Suggesting with a clever play of words in your article that I am a homosexual preying on young men in priestly formation is revolting and without any historical proof. I have labored for many years to promote vocations to the priesthood; many of the men with whom I have worked now serve in Holy Mother Church as dedicated priests. If people have grievances against me, it is not for being sexually inappropriate in my conduct with others; it is for being a defender of orthodoxy and an upholder of the law, including the fundamental right to self-defense.

3. You reported that I was the one who first made known the alleged cover-up by then Bishop Prevost. This is in no way a factual portrayal of the situation. The victims had already made known their grievance. After getting nowhere with the Church hierarchy, they proceeded to look for legal counsel. After failed attempts on their part to get anyone to represent them, I was approached by a third party to take on their case and give them the legal representation which is their due. I did so simply out of a desire to help alleged victims tell their side of the story. Lawyers, including canon lawyers do this all the time, it is part of their profession. And I may add that I have never received any monetary remuneration from the three women or from any third party for the work I did for them. In the end, my effort to legally represent and give these plaintiffs voice resulted in my being canceled by the entire Peruvian Bishop's Conference. The very day after the Conference took the unprecedented step of prohibiting me from practicing canon law anywhere in Peru, I was informed of a juridical process launched against me by my bishop which ultimately resulted in my being removed from the clerical state.

4. You assert that I have close ties to Sodalitium Christianae Vitae (SCV). I have never been a member of the aforementioned group. Yes, I have known and had friendly relations with members over the years, including with the SCV founder, but I have never been associated with them in any official capacity. As a matter of fact, I had never had any one-on-one conversation with the Sodalitium founder Mr Figari. How can I be demonized for having acquittances with members of a group that was legally approved by the Church? My familiarity with members does not make me an accomplice in the abuse that certain members and leaders of the group are alleged to have committed. I have even helped a number of members leave the SCV who found that the organization was not suitable for them. Did I go to their formation house in the San Bartolo neighborhood? Yes, but how is hearing confessions of young men in priestly formation for a Church approved group a crime or offense? I have of course done the same for other institutions in the Church and groups of faithful and never had an official confessor for the SCV. It is strange that you seem to single out Sodalitium. Why is this?

5. The suggestion that I advocated for the three Peruvian women from Chiclayo as retaliation for the actions taken against Archbishop Jose Antonio Eguren by then Cardinal Robert Prevost as Prefect of the Dicastery of Bishops is preposterous. My relationship with Archbishop Eguren has been limited to a casual greeting on a few occasions and on one occasion to a actual conversation that I held with him in his office about the tribunal in his archdiocese. Such is the sum total of my interactions with him to date. Why would I exploit abuse victims to get back at then Cardinal Prevost for actions he took as Prefect for the Dicastery of Bishops against an archbishop who has never had any meaningful relationship with me? My advocating for the three Peruvian women was undertaken to give them a voice and to hold the Church hierarchy accountable for alleged misdeeds — something that canon lawyers are called to do ex professo.

6. I only reached out to SNAP because I was beginning to despair that the three Peruvian women from Chiclayo would obtain any fair hearing from the Church hierarchy — sadly this situation that not uncommon in recent decades, as you may well be aware. Where the Church hierarchy fails to provide justice and engages in appalling cover-ups the only recourse of victims typically is to turn to the civil authorities and to the court of public opinion.

7. You incorrectly state that the Cuarto Poder television program apologized for their report detailing the story of the alleged sexual abuse covered up by the diocese of Chiclayo. They did no such thing, what they did was, commenting after the election of Cardinal Prevost, state that in that program they had fulfilled their journalistic duty, and they clarified how they had proceeded in putting the documentary together.

To conclude, as a journalist and as a Catholic laywoman, I present this information to you with sincerity and love for the Church to which I have dedicated my life. Am I supposed to remain silent about alleged abuse within the Church because it is not convenient to the Pope's narrative that he did nothing wrong? If there was nothing to the womens' accusations, then why have the documents of the alleged preliminary investigation never been released to the public as transparency requires? Why was I gravely persecuted for taking on their case? Why did the whole Peruvian Bishops Conference cancel me? Why the very next day did my legal counsel, whom my bishop had refused to respond to for years, get notified of a canonical process initiated against me for crimes that are in no way substantiated or remotely plausible? Why, after I recused my bishop from judging my case, as I deemed him in no way to be impartial, did the Vatican move at an accelerated pace (unknown to those familiar with the Roman Curia) to have me tried by a mockery of a canonical process that gathers no evidence, provides for no real right of defense, and whose decision is without appeal?

My canonical counsel in Rome in fact went to the Dicastery for Clergy and examined the file for my fabricated laicization process. She reported to me that she had never seen such a dossier there was no evidence contained in it beyond hearsay and gossip. The dossier effectively concluded that as it was reported I had a messy room when in charge of the Augustinian formation house, I therefore must be a sexual abuser. The dossier included quotes from two priests in the Diocese of Colorado Springs who alleged that I had appeared to do wrong (no evidence of anything was provided), but their comments contradict what they had previously sworn under oath; one way or the other they both of these priests committed perjury. The dossier alleged that I had an ongoing romantic relationship with a person who is mentally unstable and who has committed crimes against me; I have brought suit against the individual in question and that case is ongoing in the civil courts in Peru.

In sum, within the dossier that the Vatican used to attempt to laicize and silence me thereby, there was no material crime detailed. There was no actual delict with evidence cited whatsoever. And yet this past December 2024 I received the decree of laicization that supposedly was signed with a letter "F", the apparent initial of Pope Francis. All of this happened at an extraordinarily and uncustomarily accelerated pace. It was some five months later that Cardinal Robert Prevost appeared in St. Peter's logia dressed in white.

Mrs. Allen, I am aware that you are a former Sodalitium member, and I ask you to correct your erroneous story as presented in the August 1st and 5th articles. I am not some malicious monster; I am a man who has given his life to the Church and who by an outrage against justice has been "cancelled" by some members of the Church's hierarchy. I have been deprived of all possibilities to support myself and my elderly mother economically; and, more significantly, my good name has been unjustly trashed by some, including you.

Sincerely,

Msgr. Ricardo Coronado Arrascue, JCD