The Case of the Victims in Chiclayo Exposes a Real Lack of Will to Act
For years, victims of sexual abuse in the diocese of Chiclayo (Peru) have heard the same response: that the Church lacks the means to investigate and that they must wait for civil justice. That explanation—conveyed to the victims by Bishop Robert Prevost—contradicts Canon Law and leaves the victims without the reparation that the Church is obligated to provide.
The reality is that the Church does have the means, authority, and procedures to investigate. Denying it is not a technical limitation, but an unacceptable excuse that covers up a lack of will or fear of the truth.
The canonical process has its own autonomy: it does not depend on the slowness or inaction of civil justice. From Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela (2001) to Vos Estis Lux Mundi (2019), ecclesiastical norms order the internal investigation of every case of abuse, without waiting for the State, although collaborating with it when appropriate.
Subordinating the ecclesiastical investigation to the state one is a grave legal and pastoral distortion. It sends a devastating message to the victims: that the Church has no interest in knowing the truth. In addition to lacking legal foundation, it amounts to abandoning its moral duty to protect the faithful.
A Paralyzed Justice Does Not Justify Inaction
In the case of Chiclayo, the possible civil prescription does not exempt the Church from acting. In fact, when the crimes date back years, ecclesiastical structures often have greater capacity than civil justice to clarify the facts: they preserve archives, activity records, internal testimonies, and have a hierarchy that can order proceedings immediately.
That is why claiming that “if the prosecutor’s office finds nothing, the Church can do nothing” is renouncing the truth and the duty of justice. It is, in short, telling the victims that their pain does not matter if the State does not recognize it.
Five Reasons Why the Church Can—and Must—Investigate
A crime of abuse is analyzed in five dimensions: perpetrator, place, time, scope, and moral damage. In all of them, the Church’s structures have superior or, at least, more accessible means of investigation than those of the State.
1. Identifying the Perpetrator
The Church has exclusive information: reports prior to seminary, psychological evaluations, disciplinary records, and notes on pastoral conduct. That documentation allows reconstructing the accused’s trajectory and detecting ignored warnings.
In addition, the bishop or the process instructor can interrogate the priest, conduct confrontations, and order internal inspections without the procedural hurdles of civil justice. It is a hierarchical power of investigation that the Church possesses and must exercise.
2. Determining the Place of the Facts
In Chiclayo, the victims reported abuses committed within facilities under the direct control of the diocese. That means the Church could know—and should know—who had access to the place, who administered it, and what protocols governed its use.
Internal archives, keys, vehicles, cleaning staff, or pastoral activity records are documentary sources that could have provided solid evidence. No prosecutor’s office has that level of immediate access.
3. Specifying the Time
Parish archives and pastoral agendas preserve detailed activities, trips, and gatherings. With those records, the diocese could verify if the accused priest’s movements were authorized or if he acted on his own.
Those proofs are essential to locate the facts in a specific time, something that civil justice—after decades—rarely achieves.
4. Establishing the Scope of the Crime
In Chiclayo, the victims described a pattern of repeated abuses with the same method: isolation, emotional manipulation, and abuse of religious trust. Witnesses from the town confirmed that the priest frequently went to the place where the events occurred, accompanied by minors.
Even the person in charge of an ecclesiastical center for victim care acknowledged that the abuser wanted “to know who the victims were to ask for forgiveness,” which suggests the existence of more cases. It was therefore necessary to open a broad investigation to determine the real scope of the abuses.
5. Evaluating the Moral Damage
Due to its pastoral nature, the Church has a unique position to assess the spiritual and psychological impact of the abuses. Many victims continue to participate in parish life, which facilitates close accompaniment and moral reparation that civil justice cannot offer.
Recognizing that damage and acting on it is not optional: it is a pastoral and evangelical duty.
It Is Not a Lack of Means, It Is a Lack of Will
Canon Law not only allows, but obligates the Church to investigate abuses independently of the State. It possesses archives, hierarchies, direct access to witnesses, and knowledge of the places. It has, in short, all the instruments to reach the truth.
When those instruments are not used, it is not due to incapacity, but to omission. And every omission aggravates the victims’ wound, perpetuates impunity, and damages the moral credibility of the institution.
The Church cannot continue to shelter itself in the inaction of civil justice. The real question is not whether it can investigate, but why it does not want to do so.