Attending to the right of rectification or clarification of the published information that directly involves him, we reproduce the received letter in full:
Lima, October 27, 2025
Messrs. Infovaticana
Madrid-Spain
(Via email)
Dear Sirs:
I have followed with attention—and general acquiescence—the series of articles dedicated to unveiling what you generously call opacity—I would call it darkness—of the “Lute” case and the intervention of the then Bishop Robert Prevost. As is obvious, my participation as the former lawyer of the victims has fully included me in it.
However, today an article has been published titled: “The Church left the victims of the pedophile Lute without a lawyer, after disqualifying him with opaque methods”. In it, there is a statement that is not accurate and may give rise to greater suspicions. It states:
“…the testimony of an adult person, identified with the initials M.V.T., who recounted a personal encounter with Coronado in Lima of an intimate nature although without ‘full’ consummation, whose sexual nature Coronado denies, as well as obscene conversations on Facebook.”
An important detail that, until now, was unknown to me is that this person, according to the National Catholic Reporter in its article from September 29 of last year Exclusive: Pope Leo critic now says her lawyer might have had a secret agenda | National Catholic Reporter, was attended by the same Prevost:
“Prevost led that investigation into Coronado-Arrascue’s alleged offense during the future pope’s tenure as head of the Peruvian bishops’ commission for listening to abuse victims, a source directly involved with the investigation told NCR.”
Translated:
“Prevost led that investigation into the alleged offense of Coronado-Arrascue during the future pope’s tenure as head of the Peruvian bishops’ commission for listening to abuse victims, according to a source directly involved in the investigation who told NCR.”
These two paragraphs deserve the following nuances:
This person, who is now close to fifty years old, cannot be considered a victim in any way. In any case, I have been the victim both of her and of whoever advised her, instilling in her a resentment that she tried to mitigate in the case of Lute, whom Bishop Prevost undoubtedly covered up.
Prevost led the investigation against me, the lawyer who was investigating his own negligence; and it is the same Prevost who asks that I be disqualified.
The so-called intimate nature that you point out in your article seems absolutely hallucinatory to me. Of the three times I have seen this person, two were in public because she went to the masses I celebrated and harassed me at the exit of the Church.
The only time I wanted to dialogue with M.V.T., this person wanted to take advantage under the pretext of being an expert in therapies that I did need.
The postscript: “without full consummation” frankly only fits in the head of a person who has no contact with reality. I can affirm, with all truth, that I never touched that person in any way, other than shaking hands, or whatever is part of a public greeting.
Regarding the Facebook messages I must say that they are totally edited: the versions used by the Bishop Circumcision of Cajamarca and that were presumably used in Rome to satisfy Prevost’s interests, lack the sufficient formalities to be considered evidence in a trial: the parts that this person supposedly wrote are illegible while the comments supposedly mine, full of vulgarity, are perfectly legible. The messages used in the process lack all kinds of metadata. It is not known who the sender is, nor the day or time they were sent. They have of course been rejected by the judge in the Peruvian court and would be rejected in any civil law system; but they seem to be the basis for a penalty in the discredited canonical system!
For that reason, I ask you to publish this correspondence so that it is in no way consented that I had a permanent intimate, sexual, or romantic relationship with any person. Much less a concubinage or having lived in public sin.
I take this opportunity to point out the possible current and permanent public sin of the then Bishop Prevost and call him to conversion. My strong suspicion and fear is that who we now have as “pope” has used the following bishops and institutions in the following way:
- The Bishop of Cajamarca, Circumcision Martínez Chuquizana, who from the beginning of my reincorporation to the diocese actively harassed me and initiated an investigation using canon 277 as if it were a penal canon.
- Bishop Víctor Emiliano Villegas Suclupe of Chota, who has no authority over me, to intimidate and humiliate me in my hometown.
- Very possibly also Bishop James Golka of Colorado Springs, who penalized me with a decree without having authority over me and thus obscure my abundant and positive contribution in that diocese.
- The Peruvian episcopal conference, by whom at that time the superior was, “Prefect for the Dicastery of Bishops”, to whom the conferences were subject, to attack me illegally.
- The Dicastery for the Clergy, of which Prevost was a member during the “process” followed against me. Which accepted that Bishop Golka modify his decree without transferring it to my defense, then abused the right as reported below.
From all this, the only and real beneficiary is solely and only Robert Prevost, and the harmed ones are Ana María Quispe, the other victims, and I.
If so, Prevost’s public sin becomes ever greater due to his calumnies and above all for lying and using his power so treacherously in judgment to access an immoral position. (Cf. 2476 Catechism of the Catholic Church).
Finally, I cannot accept a resignation “instructed” by the Dicastery for the Clergy without the formalities of a trial, nor the guarantees proper to a civilized legal system: without respect for the right of defense, without knowledge of the charges and complainants, without respect for the principle of typicality and legality. None of this has been observed and, worse still, they ask me for an act of fiduciary faith to accept what is not proven: that Bergoglio signed the decree in question. Must I concede that this manifestly flawed process is valid?
Thank you very much for your attention.