The editorial team of InfoVaticana received last Friday a burofax sent by the legal representation of D. Francisco de Borja Escrivá Muñoz, in which the right of rectification provided for in Organic Law 2/1984 is exercised and, additionally, various demands are made regarding the withdrawal of information published in this medium. It is appropriate to respond publicly to said document to avoid an interested interpretation of the facts being established and to place the debate in the terrain that truly corresponds.
First, the burofax seeks to convey to the reader the idea that the information published by InfoVaticana deliberately concealed the existence of an acquittal sentence. This statement is simply false. The absence of a criminal conviction is a central part of the article’s own informational approach. Precisely because there was no criminal conviction is why a question that is fully legitimate in the informational and ecclesial sphere was raised: what moral and disciplinary evaluation should the Church make when, even though the criminal offense of child pornography is not present, a judicial proceeding accredits the existence of files with images of nude minors stored by a priest and some p2p downloads with aberrant file names.
That is the core of the issue. Criminal law establishes very specific thresholds for criminal classification. Ecclesial morality, pastoral prudence, and the institutional responsibility of the Church operate on a different plane. Claiming that criminal acquittal closes any moral or disciplinary debate within the Church constitutes an interested confusion that InfoVaticana is not willing to accept.
The document itself sent by D. Borja Escrivá’s lawyer also contains a particularly relevant acknowledgment: no canonical procedure was ever initiated regarding the facts. This data is extraordinarily significant and precisely confirms one of the concerns that motivated the original publication. When a judicial proceeding includes references to material with images of nude minors—even though the court considers that they do not fit the specific criminal offense of child pornography—and downloads of content with extremely aberrant titles, what would be expected in an institution like the Church would be the opening of a canonical file aimed at clarifying the moral and disciplinary dimension of what happened and taking proportional and appropriate measures. As the interested party himself acknowledges, that never occurred.
The total absence of canonical investigation does not strengthen the position of the affected priest; on the contrary, it highlights a way of managing potentially scandalous situations that is difficult for many faithful to understand. Institutional silence and inaction are not equivalent to a declaration of moral suitability.
The burofax also seeks to introduce the idea that the published information would have presented as current a pastoral assignment that he no longer holds. However, the underlying issue is not the exact date on which he ceased in a particular hospital chaplaincy, but the fact that the archdiocese assigned him exactly those pastoral responsibilities after the facts investigated judicially. That is the relevant element from the informational and ecclesial point of view, and the affected party himself confirms it.
Similarly, it states that no complaint was ever received from any person, but obviously that fact does not alter the essence of the matter nor has it ever been stated by InfoVaticana. When the material referred to in the judicial proceeding consists of photographs of nude minors «from 6 to 12 years old» who probably do not even know that their images have been stored, the absence of an individual complaint does not eliminate the potential gravity of the facts nor the need for an institutional evaluation.
The additional requirement accompanying the exercise of the right of rectification—regarding the withdrawal of information, images, or published references—also does not alter this medium’s position. InfoVaticana has reported on matters of public relevance related to the actions of a priest and the management of those facts by ecclesiastical authorities. The informational interest of these facts is evident in an institution that, by its very nature, has special responsibilities in the protection of minors and in the moral integrity of the clergy.
If D. Borja Escrivá’s defense considers it appropriate to go to the courts, this medium has no objection to the matter being analyzed in a judicial setting. A judicial proceeding would allow for a deeper examination of the content of the criminal process, the specific circumstances of the mentioned files, and the decisions subsequently adopted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
It is appropriate to recall an elementary principle that the burofax seems to overlook: freedom of information protects the right of the media to inform and to raise legitimate questions about matters of evident public interest. And few issues are more sensitive today within the Church than the way cases related to minors are managed.
InfoVaticana has not stated the existence of any criminal conviction. What it has done—and will continue to do—is to raise an uncomfortable but necessary question: whether the Church considers it morally acceptable for a priest regarding whom, in a judicial proceeding, files with images of nude minors and aberrant download titles appeared to continue performing certain pastoral functions without even a canonical investigation having been opened.
That question is not defamation. It is a matter of moral and institutional responsibility that many faithful raise and that no legal strategy based on burofaxes will succeed in silencing.
RECTIFICATION TEXT. In relation to the article published on February 26, 2026, under the headline «The Archdiocese of Valencia appointed a hospital chaplain to a priest knowing that he stored images of nude minors», D. Francisco de Borja Escrivá Muñoz states:
- That the headline omits that he was acquitted by a final judgment of the Provincial Court of Valencia due to the absence of the objective element of the charged offense, so there is no conviction in relation to the facts that the news headline falsely attributes to him.
- That the position of hospital chaplain was held between the years 2019 and 2022, having ceased in said assignment in the latter date, not currently exercising such function. During the time he held it, he was not assigned functions in the pediatric wing nor specific responsibilities with minors, although there was no judicial, ecclesiastical, or other impediment that limited the exercise of his functions in that regard.
- That no canonical procedure was ever initiated against him.
- That the seized computer equipment was returned in its entirety in 2018, without any material constituting a child pornography offense being recorded on it.
- That he has never received a complaint or grievance from any person for improper conduct.
Consequently, he requests the rectification of the inaccurate statements contained in the publication and requires them to proceed with their publication within the legal period of three days from the receipt of this document, warning them that, if they do not comply with the requirement within the indicated period, my represented party will exercise the actions provided for in Organic Law 2/1984, of March 26, regulating the right of rectification.