Msgr. Coronado-Arrascue Responds to National Catholic Reporter
'Robert Prevost...has misled the cardinals into believing that he did not cover-up for his priest-friend in Chiclayo, Eleuterio Vazquez.'
Editor’s note: In August, Kokx News released an exclusive copy of an email sent by Msgr. Ricardo Coronado-Arrascue to left-wing website Crux following an article published by journalist Elise Ann Allen. You can read that email here. Now, the dissident National Catholic Reporter has published an essay on him with the provocative title, “Exclusive: Pope Leo critic now says her lawyer might have had a secret agenda.” We present here the email Msgr. sent to Justin McLellan and Brian Fraga, co-authors of the report. Msgr. insists that his removal from the priesthood was wholly unjust and that what likely 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:
“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”
Here is Msgr.’s email in full to the National Catholic Reporter:
Lima, September 29, 2025
Mr. Brian Fraga
National Catholic Reporter (via email)
Dear Mr. Fraga,
After reading your article with its misleading title, “Exclusive: Pope Leo critic now says her lawyer might have had a secret agenda,” I demand, in lieu of any further action being taken on my part, that you publish the following corrections to the article on your website. On each point I quote what your article states and below it the actual facts of the matter:
“While Quispe had aired some complaints about Prevost on social media, it wasn’t until Coronado-Arrascue volunteered to represent the sisters for free...”
That is not true. The first time that Ana Maria Quispe aired her complaints against the Diocese was when Bishop Guillermo Cornejo was the apostolic administrator. That happened in 2023. At that time, I was not involved with the case. Moreover, I was unaware of it.
At that time Bishop Cornejo opened for the first time a preliminary investigation and Fr. Oswaldo Clavo conducted the investigation.
“He didn’t really want to help us, we concluded that,” she told NCR. “He ended up helping us, but not because he wanted to help us.”
This is speculation. How do they know what was my intention? I helped them because they asked me to. It was Ana Maria who contacted me and begged me to defend them. I fully reject what they say, it was rather they who were manipulated by the Diocese of Chiclayo: the Diocese made them believe that only people with ulterior motives would defend them.
“There has been a lot of manipulation of the case,” Leo said. The sisters “have been victimized and revictimized.”
Robert Prevost’s cynicism makes him blame me for what he did. He, in fact, was eager to have the district attorney (the civil legal authority) declare that the statute of limitations on the allegations had expired and to twist that and then inform Rome that there was no evidence of the victims’ claims. Using that subterfuge Prevost obtained a stop to the case from the Roman authorities.
“The allegations date back to the 1990s and to his tenure as a priest in the Augustinian order, a month’s long NCR investigation has found.”
As matter of fact, Prevost himself allowed me to leave the order with no pending investigation or canonical process. Did he cover up also for me? You could have cited his decree of exclaustration allowing me to leave the order that I sent to you prior.
What allegations date back to the 1990s? What penal canon did I supposedly violate? Because there was not any crime, delict, or even a sin they could not prosecute me in the past or in the present. Now with your article, it makes it clearer that Prevost was looking for some reason to fabricate a case against me. The fact that he called his minions to testify against me makes my case even more conclusive than it already was. You are telling the public that Prevost as self-proclaimed antagonist oversaw the investigation of me. Why wasn’t he honest and so recuse himself? That indeed proves that animosity toward me on his part.
“Coronado-Arrascue has long harbored animosity for other, non-Peruvian Augustinian friars ministering in Peru. Prevost one of them.”
That is preposterous and contradictory. How then did the Spaniard Augustinians force me to accept the vocations director role and prior offices all against my will if they had known that I was against them because they were not born in Peru? The misleading character of your article is evident when you neglect to say that most of the then members of the Peruvian province were in fact from Spain, and that they distrusted the intentions of the other Augustinians in Peru. I was the youngest amongst them and the Spaniard Augustinians used me to voice concerns that they were not prepared to speak for themselves.
“Coronado-Arrascue had crossed paths with Prevost before he became pope.”
That is a boldface lie. The last time and the only time that I met Robert Prevost was before 1998. I have not seen him since.
“Vatican guidelines for handling allegations of abuse do not mandate that a bishop must appoint a canon lawyer to a person who brings claims of abuse to them. Canon law states that the accuser and the accused alike “can freely appoint an advocate and procurator.”
The Vademecum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on cases of sexual abuse against minors (2020) recommends providing the victim with appropriate accompaniment and assistance in the same vein. This requirement is consistent with canon 1725 CIC, which recognizes the right of the accused to have a canonical lawyer in their defense. This implies, for the sake of the principle of procedural equity and effective protection, that the reporting victim must also have access to legal counsel. Consequently, the failure to offer this remedy to remind them of their right constitutes a procedural deficiency and a violation of the duty of enhanced protection towards victims of abuse.
After the press release from the conference of bishops against me, the three girls could not find any canonist to defend them.
Also, the guidelines of the conference of Bishops of Peru, which Prevost had a very big role in authoring, indicates the opposite of what Prevost did. (see footnote)
“Prevost led that investigation into Coronado-Arrascue’s alleged offense during the future pope’s tenure as head of the Peruvian Bishop commission for listening to abuse victims, a source directly involved with the investigation told NCR.”
Who is my victim? What was the crime he was investigating?
How can someone who claims harbored a grudge against him be neutral?
“Prevost had reached out to Augustinians who had known Coronado-Arrascue during his time as a formator at the order’s formation house in Lima, and their statements were included in a report submitted to the Vatican’s Dicastery for Clergy.”
If he did, that would have been illegal and wrong. These are clear signs of persecution against me. I know that amongst the ones who falsely testified against me was a friar by the name Elias Neira, against whom I have filed a defamation lawsuit. He is a close friend of Bishop Farfan and Prevost. He very well might have to respond for his own wrongdoings.
Also, if Prevost did that, it shows his lack of right canonical praxis. An investigator cannot be looking for people to prove his preconceived thesis. That is totally wrong. In the alleged case that I did commit a crime in 1999 why did he not prosecute me as general superior at that time? Why did he wait until the statute of limitations expired? Why has he acted so bitterly against me and sought to cover up for his friend Eleuterio Vasquez?
“A former seminarian under Coronado-Arrascue, who asked to remain anonymous, said that Coronado-Arrascue would often take seminarians to talks given by Luis Fernando Figari.”
This is absolutely false. I never took any seminarian to any event led by Sodalitium. I have never attended myself any event led by Luis Fernando Figasri. Could this liar have been and have where this nonexistent visit took place?
Also, you traffic in anonymous reports and sources. What would Prevost say if I do the same thing against him — it would in the very least be considered unprofessional. However, you seem to use this method to reach a predetermined verdict and one might suspect to flatter one who seems to be your client.
“Coronado-Arrascue’s relationship with Sodalits extended into his 17-year tenure as a diocesan official in Colorado Springs, where his mother lived at the time.”
False. Sodalitum never had any house in Colorado Springs. The only house I visited was Saint Malo in the Archdiocese of Denver where the Diocese of Colorado Springs held some diocesan meetings. Perhaps that was 4 times in 17 years; and it must be noted that I was there for diocesan meetings/retreats, not because of Sodalitium.
My mother lived in Iowa not in Colorado Springs up to 2019. She came to Colorado Springs in 2020. That is another inaccurate statement of your report.
“He socialized in the Sodalitium’s community house in Denver. Photos shown to NCR show him in 2023 standing alongside several Sodalitium members.”
In 2023 I was not in Denver or Colorado for any reason. That picture was taken by Renzo Orbegozo, a former Sodalit, who asked the two other Sodalits to pose with me for that picture. There were several others who were not connected with Sodalitium at all. Orbegozo had ulterior motives for arranging that photo.
“Coronado-Arrascue’s connections to the Sodalitium, along with the timing of the sisters’ accusations against Prevost, have led some in Peru to accuse Coronado-Arrascue of engaging in a campaign of retribution against the pope for his stance against the Sodalitium.”
What connection? When I was representing the sisters, the conclave was not even on the horizon. I had no interest in helping the Sodalitium in any way. This false narrative is the only way to hide Prevost’s responsibility not only from the reckless way he conducted the case of the victims, but also for the clear protection he provided to the abuser.
Also, it seems that you and others made every effort to say that because (a) I was friends with some members of the Sodalitium when we were students and (b) the Sodalitium founder was abusive, that Prevost did an exemplary job investigating Eleuterio Vasquez. This is absurd. You have yet to prove that Sodalitium directed or hired me to conspire against Prevost. Where is your evidence? A picture taken by an adversarial person — is that your evidence?
Also, you use a suggestive language to confuse your readership; you said that I was, “[…] engaging in a campaign of retribution against the pope for his stance against the Sodalitium.” You twist the facts: Prevost was not pope at the time; the conclave had not happened when I brought the case of the victims to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Was I not obliged to so present it?
“A June 1999 handwritten report, signed by five Augustinian friars, details instances where seminarians were said to be completely naked while in Coronado-Arrascue’s room.”
You mistranslated the handwritten report, which I had never seen before you sent it to me. It actually says that I was naked while I was in my room and someone was present. Yes, one must at times be nude in one’s room. But the suggestion that I was parading myself naked in front of others or that seminarians were doing so in front of me is completely preposterous and with no foundation in fact. That is slander.
“Coronado-Arrascue became the sisters’ canon lawyer in May 2024, a month after Pope Francis accepted the resignation of Peruvian Archbishop José Antonio Eguren, a member of the Sodalitium.”
This is a malicious suggestion. I had no communication with Archbishop Eguren. Do you have any way to prove that?
Did you know that I defended at least two persons against Sodalitium, and one was a bishop who wanted to be disaffiliated from it? Why did you not publish that. Is that because it would not benefit your errant theory and would be against flattery to the powerful?
I do believe that the canonical system of the Church is currently a “sham,” especially during the tenure of Bergoglio and now Prevost, because many cases that have come to light are the results of past cover ups. These include bishops and priests whose cases are notorious and scandalous, and they have been protected because the highest Church authorities exist in some kind of accomplice relationship with them. Such are the cases of Bishop Gustavo Oscar Zanchetta, Bishop Carlos Maria Dominguez, O.A.R., both from Argentina, Fr. Rupnik, Fr. Eleuterio Vasquez, and a host of others.
In my case an independent canonist and I have identified the following flaws in the ecclesiastical investigation conducted against me. I provide you with a timeline of my case that lists the various flaws and breaches of canonical norms:
There is enough evidence to infer that the canonical persecution against Ricardo
Coronado-Arrascue began while he was still Judicial Vicar and Chancellor of Colorado Springs.
With no real reason the new Bishop of Colorado, James Golka, (installed 29 June 2021) was hostile to Coronado. He preceded to ask the newly installed Bishop of Cajamarca, Isaac Circumcision Martinez, to recall him.
Coronado knows that Bishop Golka wrote a letter to Bishop Circumcision. However, access to that letter has been denied to him.
Upon Coronado’s return to Cajamarca in late 2021, Bishop Circumcision refused to grant an audience to him. Eventually, one was granted only after the involvement of the Apostolic Nuncio to Peru, Archbishop Nicola Girasoli.
Once Manuel Vargas Trujillo presented his made-up complaint to the Bishop
Circumcision and Bishop Victor Villegas Suclupe (Prelature of Chota), both bishops started to search for some canonical way to inflict a punishment against Coronado.
The first canonical error occurred when Bishop Circumcision used canon 277 (CIC) as if it were a penal canon in his March 2022 decree that opened a preliminary investigation into Coronado. Canon 277 treats clerical celibacy in general and its obligations. Within the CIC, it is non-penal canon, i.e., it is an inadequate basis upon which to open a criminal or penal investigation. Basic justice (as outlined in the CIC) dictates that any accused person must be informed of what he is accused of in a criminal investigation. For this reason, a penal canon should have been identified from the outset, but Bishop Circumcision failed to do this.
Bishop Circumcision reprimanded Coronado for using the ordinary civil judicial system of Peru to defend himself against Vargas (e.g., through filing a defamation suit against Vargas in early 2022). The bishop infringed of Coronado’s civil rights as a Peruvian citizen.
Bishop Villegas of the Prelature of Chota never had any jurisdiction over Coronado. Nevertheless, Villegas requested Vargas to address his writings to him, as well. Villegas’s involvement is not permitted in canon law, and his insistence on being informed directly by Coronado’s accuser in writing throughout the investigation (which was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Diocese of Cajamarca) seriously biased the investigation.
Violating canon 1717 § 2 (CIC), Bishop Circumcision disclosed Vargas’s version of
events to the bishops, vicar generals, and chancellors of the two dioceses: Cajamarca & Chachapoyas, as well as the Prelature of Chota. Circumcision made the false accusation against Coronado known to as many as possible.
In April 2022, the canonical investigator, Rev. David Lopez CSsR, conducted an
interrogation of Coronado under Canon 277, a non-penal canon, as noted above. During the interrogation, Lopez committed several abuses. He pressured Coronado to confess that he was guilty. Also, he never responded to the objections and requests for clarification that Coronado’s canon lawyer made.
The same objections and requests for clarification were presented to Bishop
Circumcision, but he never responded.
Bishop Circumcision (and perhaps Prevost) informed Bishop Golka in Colorado Springs of Vargas’s accusation in 2023.
Msgr. Robert Jaeger, the then-vicar general of Colorado Springs, issued a penal decree in 2023 against Coronado without having any grounds or jurisdiction to do this. In doing this, his actions also violated a pre-existing civil settlement that Coronado had made with the Diocese of Colorado Springs upon his departure in 2022.
Jaeger also communicated the “news” that Coronado was under investigation to all the clergy of Colorado Springs, including priest, deacons and their wives, and seminarians.
From early 2023 until Bishop Circumcision’s final notification of August 2024—where he decided to forward criminal proceedings to the Dicastery for the Clergy via the unusual path of an administrative penal process (as opposed to a normal judicial trial) — Coronado’s canon lawyer wrote at least 10 letters to his bishop. However, he never responded.
The canonical investigation conducted by the Diocese of Cajamarca was left open for almost two years. This amount of time is excessive and constitutes an abuse.
Bishop Circumcision never informed Coronado’s canon lawyer of the end of the
preliminary investigation.
Coronado’s right of defense was denied: his canon lawyer was unable to defend him without knowing the results of the preliminary investigation.
During that time Bishop Circumcision never offered Coronado any kind of support. As a matter of fact, the Diocese of Cajamarca refused to pay Coronado’s salary for the 21 years he had served there as judicial vicar and on the inter-diocesan tribunal. When he requested his wages (guaranteed in canon law and Peruvian civil law), Circumcision denied Coronado his right.
When Bishop Circumcision notified Coronado that he would conduct an administrative penal process, several canonical rules were violated:
a. Bishop Circumcision cited canon 1395 § 1 in his decree.
b. That canon requires a) that the cleric had to be living in public concubinage, b)
or that the cleric had been living in a public sin against the sixth commandment;
c) That the bishop has warned the cleric at least twice to cease his sinful way of
life; d) That the cleric, after formal warnings, has refused to change his ways.
c. Coronado had never lived in a concubinage, nor did he live in a public sexual sin. That is why he never received any warning whatsoever.
In August 2024 under the tacit consent of the then Cardinal Robert Prevost, the Bishops Conference of Peru attempted to impose penalties [on] Coronado, i.e., on an individual cleric. However, bishops conferences do not enjoy any such power or authority within the Catholic Church to censure individual clerics or impose penalties. Moreover, the Bishops Conference of Peru overstepped its authority in the following ways:
a. It effectively declared Coronado guilty of a crime which the other Peruvian bishops should have never been informed about—as the preliminary investigation (under the Bishop of Cajamarca) was still open.b. At this point, not even Coronado’s own bishop had judged him.
c. The Bishops Conference of Peru was informed directly by Cardinal Prevost (no one else would have been able to know about this or have the ability to do this) about condemnation before the actual judgment took place in Rome.
d. The Bishops Conference never replied to any of the multiple letters sent by Coronado’s lawyers.
e. The Bishops Conference even ignored an official request for clarification from the Peruvian civil authorities regarding its jurisdiction.
f. Coronado’s canon lawyer wrote to the Vatican’s highest court, the Apostolic Signatura, about this abuse. Its officials never replied.
In the Diocese of Colorado Springs, Coronado’s dismissal from the clerical state was already known before the official process began (This is known because a priest of the diocese, witnessed it being discussed).
Upon learning in late August 2024 that Coronado would be subject to an administrative process, his canon lawyer filed a motion for Bishop Circumcision to be recused as judge of the case before the Dicastery for Clergy (DFC).
a. Moreover, the DFC was already biased against Coronado. In 2024, it allowed Bishop Golka to renew penal decree which was never presented to Coronado or his canon lawyer.
b. The DFC approved this illicit action by Bishop Golka.
In October 2024, the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Paolo Rocco Gualtieri, summoned Coronado to the Apostolic Nunciature in Lima. During his meeting with the Nuncio, the following abuses occurred:
a. Prior to his case being decided in Rome, the Apostolic Nuncio handed Coronado a letter in which the Dicastery for Clergy pressured him to request a voluntary dispensation from the clerical state.
b. The Nuncio tried to convince Coronado that the Bishops Conference did not do anything illegal.
c. Coronado told the Nuncio that he was aware that the Nuncio was the author of the Bishops Conference’s press release that attempted to censure Coronado. The Spanish phrasing of the press release was odd, as if it was written by a native Italian speaker, i.e., by Archbishop Gualtieri himself.
d. The Secretary of the nunciature abruptly entered the meeting and began to insist on acting as an official notary. At that point, Coronado got up and left the nunciature without saying anything more.
At the Dicastery for Clergy, Coronado was told that he only could defend himself through a special canon lawyer, i.e., a lawyer approved by the Roman Rota. In doing this, the DOC ensured:
a. Coronado would never fully know what exact evidence there was against him.
b. He would never know if there were one or more accusers or their identity. He would never be able to face his accuser(s) in a fair trial.
c. He would have had to pay high fees for a specially approved lawyer in Rome. If he had no money, he would have had no defense.
As it happened, Coronado hired a canon lawyer in Rome.
a. She testified that after reviewing Coronado’s file at the DOC, she could not find anything criminal whatsoever.
b. Based on the accuser’s own testimony which she directly reviewed, she described Vargas (Coronado’s accuser in Lima) as a mentally imbalanced person.
In late December 2024 Coronado was informed that a penal decree had allegedly been approved by Bergoglio against him. It dismissed him from the clerical state and barred him from ever practicing as a canon lawyer anywhere in the world. He was denied right of appeal. This decree itself had several problems:
a. The decree lacked a signature and date as recorded by Bergoglio. Canonically, this renders the decree invalid.
b. The decree resulted from a summary administrative process with no guarantee of impartiality.
c. It had been the practice of the Dicastery for the Clergy in other comparable cases to allow accused clerics the right of a full judicial trial. Why was Coronado denied this right to defend himself?
d. By denying Coronado the right to appeal the decision, the decree (allegedly approved by Bergoglio) was tacitly saying “We want you to be guilty, and we do want you to defend yourself.”
In closing, after reading your article again, I now feel more certain than ever that Robert Prevost was behind this “sham” of so-called canonical justice. He has misled the cardinals into believing that he did not cover-up for his priest-friend in Chiclayo, Eleuterio Vazquez. I remain convinced that Prevost did. I am also convinced that you neglect to investigate Eleuterio Vazquez, his whereabouts, and canonical status because it is not flattery to Prevost.
Yours in the Lord,
Msgr. Ricardo Coronado-Arrascue
Just as Francis covered for particularly despicable characters in the prelature, so too did Prevost. How many more independent sources of information do we need to say with one voice that Leo is the direct product and most willing continuator of the Bergoglian bastardization of the Faith?
Can we now stop calling Leo Francis 2.0, and start calling Francis Leo beta version?