The scandal shaking the Archdiocese of Lima over the complaints against priest Marco Agüero Vidal continues to worsen after new details of the case came to light. While the Archdiocese of Lima published a statement explaining its actions, Peruvian media have reported that the priest was already detained by the police following an order from the prosecutor’s office for alleged sexual abuses against several young women.
The case has also generated strong controversy due to the explanation offered by the archdiocese regarding the actions of Cardinal Carlos Castillo, who—according to the official statement—did not intervene directly in the process at first because the complaint arrived during the full administrative closure period of the Curia due to the Christmas holidays and later had to travel to Rome to participate in a cardinal consistory.
Complaints of touching during confession
Priest Marco Agüero Vidal was reported by five young women, including three minors, for alleged improper touching during the sacrament of confession.
The events allegedly occurred at the Parish of Our Lady of Joy, located in the Limatambo towers, in the San Borja district of Lima.
The lawyer for the complainants, Valeria Cabrera Merino, confirmed to Perú 21 that the priest was detained on the night of Thursday, March 5, and transferred to the Criminal Investigation Department (Depincri) of San Borja.
The specialized prosecutor’s office for Violence against Women requested a preliminary detention of seven days to prevent flight risk and ensure investigative proceedings for the alleged crime against sexual freedom in the form of touching or libidinous acts.
First arrest and new detention
According to the facts already known, on Tuesday, March 3, the parents of some of the minor complainants went to the parish to demand explanations from the priest. That same day, the cleric was taken by the police for preliminary investigations, although he was released a few hours later.
Subsequently, the prosecutor’s office requested the preliminary detention for seven days, which was finally carried out on March 5.
The five complainants will have to go through a Gesell chamber and psychological evaluations, while the prosecutor’s office has also requested an advance proof before the First Preparatory Investigation Court to secure the testimonies before a possible trial.
The Archdiocese’s statement
On March 6, the Archdiocese of Lima published a statement explaining its actions in the case. One day earlier, Infovaticana had exclusively published the letter sent in December to the Lima curia, in which several faithful denounced problematic behaviors by the priest and included accusations of “non-consensual touching” during confession. In its response, the archdiocese states:
«In the body of the letter, reference was made to various problematic behaviors and, among them, an accusation of “non-consensual touching” in the context of confession against three people, of whom only one was a minor«
According to the archdiocese’s statement, the complaint arrived at the Curia on December 11, 2025, and was forwarded to the Archdiocese’s Listening Commission for evaluation in accordance with the established protocols for abuse cases, but it was not sent to the other three recipients (archdiocese, chancellery, and nunciature).
The text also states that on December 26, Cardinal Castillo decided to impose a formal penal remedy on the priest, a preliminary disciplinary measure provided for by canon law.
The archdiocese adds that, before traveling to Rome on January 4, 2026, to participate in the extraordinary consistory of cardinals, the archbishop arranged for a delegate to initiate the preliminary investigation provided for in canons 1717 and 1718 of the Code of Canon Law.
The victims’ lawyer questions the archdiocese’s version
The lawyer for the complainants has strongly questioned the content of the statement.
In statements to Perú21, Valeria Cabrera Merino assured that: “The information that the Archdiocese has provided is inaccurate. The act that completely refutes their statement is that the father only left the parish as a result of this scandal, when they had knowledge since last year,” affirmed the lawyer.
These statements contradict the version offered by the archdiocese, which maintains that the appendices with the testimonies were not sent to all the recipients of the initial complaint.
Doubts about the measures taken
The statement mentions the administrative closure of the Curia due to the Christmas holidays and the subsequent trip of Cardinal Castillo to Rome to participate in the consistory. However, given serious accusations that included complaints against minors, these justifications are simply not sufficient.
While the civil investigations continue and the canonical process follows its course, the case once again puts under scrutiny the management of abuse complaints in the Archdiocese of Lima, as well as the recurrent ecclesial administrative silence that victims so often denounce.
The evasive excuses and lack of clarity only refer to the old legal principle: excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta (unrequested excuse, manifest guilt).