When deciding to publish a complaint like that of the alleged victims of Santarsiero, we have conducted a prior legal and moral analysis. We accept the cost of exposing very serious facts about one of the most relevant positions in the Peruvian episcopate, knowing that they are uncomfortable, that they challenge, and that, in many cases, they encounter resistance. But assuming silence, when there are sufficient indications, ceases to be prudence and becomes a form of omission that is hardly justifiable.
That is the point at which, honestly, I believe we find ourselves. Not before absolute certainties—which correspond to an investigation that must be carried out by the canonical instances—but before a set of elements that, analyzed with a minimum of legal and canonical rigor, clearly exceed the threshold of reasonable verisimilitude. And when that threshold is exceeded and the institutions do not take measures, remaining silent is no longer a responsible option.
We are not dealing with rumors or diffuse accounts. We are dealing with two very concrete testimonies from people who in two stages lived closely with the Italian-Peruvian prelate, coherent with each other, sustained over time, and accompanied by elements that allow for their verification.
There are three main reasons that make this case particularly solid.
1. Spontaneous testimony and at the very moment of the events
The first element is probably the most important from a probative point of view: the immediacy of the testimony.
The complainant seminarian, who was a minor, communicated the situation to at least two people at the very moment the events were occurring. To two specific, identifiable people with institutional responsibility: one in the academic sphere and another cleric within the Church itself who reprimanded Santarsiero for the abuses.
This is not a minor detail. It is not essential, and many victims remain silent for years. But in probative terms, the spontaneity and contemporaneity of the first account to third parties significantly reduce the risk of interested elaboration. There is no time to construct a version. There is simply a human reaction to a situation experienced as deeply unjust and painful.
The existence of direct witnesses to that first account, with names and surnames, introduces an element of external contrast that greatly reinforces credibility.
2. Two independent complainants with personal credibility
The second element is the independence of the testimonies. There is no prior relationship between the complainants. There is no shared context that would allow one to think of a joint construction. They have come to coincide later, precisely because they discover—through different channels—that what they have experienced has points in common.
From any probative logic, this independent convergence is significant. When two accounts arise separately and end up fitting together in the essentials, the hypothesis of coordinated invention loses all force.
To this is added something perhaps more subjective but to be valued: the personal credibility of the complainants. One of them is a priest, trained in Rome, with a recognized trajectory and no elements pointing to spurious motivations. The other is a layperson distant from Church life with no direct interests. There is no apparent benefit in denouncing. Rather, there is exposure, wear and tear, and an evident personal cost. Someone who takes such a step in that context usually does not do so out of calculation.
3. Facts that fit together and can be verified
The third element is the one that introduces the greatest objectivity: the facts that accompany the account.
We are not only before what someone says happened. We are before a sequence in which that account intersects with concrete decisions: scholarships, aid, jobs linked to diocesan companies that change at a very precise moment. That moment, according to the testimony, coincides with the breakdown of the relationship being denounced, around 2017.
This type of correlation does not prove the facts on its own, but it does contribute something fundamental: external coherence. And above all, it opens the possibility of verification. That is, it allows an investigation not to start solely from statements, but also from verifiable data.
A context that cannot be entirely ignored
There is, moreover, a context that would be naive to ignore completely. For years, comments, informal complaints, and references at very high ecclesial levels have circulated regarding immoral behaviors related to Santarsiero Rosa.
In those cases, we do not have sufficient documentation to sustain them publicly, and that is why we do not publish them. But they exist. And when direct, coherent, and verifiable testimonies appear, that context ceases to be irrelevant, even if it cannot be considered proof.
A silence that is beginning to be unsettling
And alongside all this, there is something that, personally, I find increasingly difficult to understand: the silence. The news has had repercussions. Not minor ones. It has been picked up by Infobae, the most read media outlet in Hispanoamérica.
And yet, the instances that should, at least, acknowledge receipt of the gravity of what is being raised have, for the moment, said nothing: The Peruvian Episcopal Conference remains silent; the Apostolic Nunciature remains silent; the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith remains silent.
It is worth not losing sight of one fact: we are not talking about a secondary figure. Monsignor Santarsiero holds one of the most relevant positions within the Church in Peru.
This silence contrasts, inevitably, with the speed with which communications have been issued on other occasions regarding matters of lesser entity or of a very different nature. It is not about demanding public condemnations or parallel trials. It is about showing that these facts matter, that they are taken seriously, and that they will be examined.
Why we publish
With all this—immediate testimony, independence of the complainants, facts that fit together and can be verified—from the editorial board of Infovaticana, we consider that the threshold of verisimilitude is clearly exceeded. We do not assert guilt. That is not our function. But we do assert something simpler and more demanding: that there is sufficient material here to investigate, and that not doing so is irresponsible.