The priest who heard my confession at school had no face. He had a hoarse voice that came through the grille with a breath of black tobacco and eucalyptus candy, a cough that announced penance and the patience of a man who had spent forty years listening to the same four childish sins, but he had no face, because the grille and the chapel’s dim light swallowed it whole, and one left lighter without having seen anyone. Once, with the boldness of nine years, I asked him his name. He laughed, coughed, and answered with what then seemed to me a polite way of stepping aside: “That doesn’t matter, son. I’m not here.” For years I thought he was shy.
I remembered him the other day while reading the letter that Jordi Bertomeu, pontifical commissioner for the Sodalicio, sent to the victims of that house—people who spent years inside an institution built around a single man and who left knowing better than anyone what happens when someone places himself at the center of everything. The letter began with “Dear victims” and ended by talking about him. The longest section did not deal with reparation but with the means that, according to the commissioner, were trying to discredit him, and the only confession it contained, with its “I confess to you” and all, was that he did not share what was being said about “my person or work.” It was signed with the title, not the name. And it came from a Gmail account that carried the title as the username, the same one the commissioner leaves open for the victims to write to him.
But if the name was missing at the bottom, the face was missing nowhere. In May, in the middle of a listening round with the victims, he complained in an interview about getting grayer, more tired, and having darker circles under his eyes, and joked: “They have to give me liftings and Botox here because there’s no way to endure all this.” In June, while presenting one of his books, he explained that it was high-flying because he had written it in airports and on planes. And someone close to the production company of the documentary HBO is preparing about the Sodalicio told El Español that the protagonist would not be the victims, as is customary in these stories, but him. We have all seen at some point, in the window of a night flight, how the reading light turns it into a mirror, our own face floating over the lights of an unknown city, a little older than we expected. The normal thing is to turn off the light.
The story was told by Ovid, long before psychiatry took the name of the boy who fell in love with the face the water of a fountain returned to him and who, when he finally recognized himself in it and said iste ego sum, could not get up either, and wasted away right there without stopping looking at himself. The terrible thing about the myth is not the boy’s beauty; it is that the rest of the world disappears from the landscape. In the letter, those who attribute leaks to him are the same ones who dare to touch the Pope, so whoever touches the commissioner touches Leo XIV. In June he publicly complained of judicial, media, and lobbying harassment that, he said, he had been suffering for more than two years. And if the victims manage to see the Pope in Peru, they already know who started the arrangements.
A man like that can be harmless in almost any office in Rome. Not in this one. Among people who left broken from a house built around a man and a Church that owes them reparation—the only place in the world where an “I” truly has no room—the Holy See has placed someone who signs with the title and writes in the first person, who speaks of his dark circles in the middle of listening sessions and who, when he confesses, confesses grievances. The priest at my school died years ago without appearing in any newspaper, and I never knew his name. As a child I thought the grille was there to hide him. Now I know it was there so he wouldn’t get in the way.
———- Forwarded message ———
From: Jordi Bertomeu <comisario.pontificio.scv@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2026, 8:44 a.m.
Subject: Internal communiqué from the Pontifical Commissioner to the victims of the Sodalicio’s “Spiritual Family”
Dear victims:
In light of recent events such as the announced visit of Pope Leo XIV to Peru and information recently published in newspapers linked to the Spanish far right, I consider it necessary to share with you some clarifications regarding the responsibilities that correspond to each of the persons and institutions involved in the process of your integral reparation and the reasons that, in my view, require great institutional prudence.
1. On the meeting between the Pope and the victims of the Sodalicio
As the Holy See announced, “During the days of the Holy Father’s upcoming Apostolic Journey to Latin America, some meetings are planned with persons who have been victims of abuse by members of the clergy and of the Church.”
As Pontifical Commissioner, I wish to inform you that as soon as it was confirmed that the Pope would go to Peru, I initiated all the necessary arrangements so that, to the extent possible, he might meet with victims of the Sodalicio, given the magnitude of the tragedy you have suffered and the elements that make this case a unique precedent for the entire Church.
As you know, this is a meeting that does not fall within my competencies and therefore does not depend on me. Nevertheless, it is to be expected that the relevant bodies of the Holy See will welcome this request of mine and the one recently made by two of your associations.
2. On the reparation process
As I informed you in the previous communication, the First Listening Channel opened in May 2026 concluded on 31 August of this year. Simultaneously, together with the Assistant Commissioners, we are maintaining a very delicate phase of negotiation to ensure that the corresponding responsibilities are assumed and that the victims are compensated through the ecclesiastical assets that were privatized before the effective suppression of the so-called “Spiritual Family” of the Sodalicio on 14 April 2026.
Three months earlier, on 14 January 2025, when decreeing the suppression, Pope Francis ordered that not only the moral reparation of the victims of the four entities founded by Luis Fernando Figari be sought, but also, to the extent possible, financial compensation in accordance with criteria of proportionality, equity, and existing possibilities, to be charged against the assets of the Sodalicio’s “spiritual family” resulting from its liquidation.
This guideline did not make compensation conditional on the existence of a condemnatory judicial sentence—which there is not—but it did have to be addressed according to the criteria and possibilities established in the mandate.
3. On information to the victims
I am fully aware of your legitimate right to know the progress of the actions that affect you. Therefore, I am endeavoring to keep you informed of what is being done as soon as there is news that requires it and to the extent that circumstances allow. I did so when the First Listening Channel concluded.
Furthermore, I am aware that the great majority of you understand that certain aspects of the negotiation, by their very nature, require confidentiality while the process is ongoing. This confidentiality should not be confused with a desire to conceal or with a lack of consideration for your concerns. Its purpose is to prevent the premature disclosure of certain details from compromising the possibility of achieving an effective and most advantageous financial compensation for you, the victims.
4. On the concerns expressed regarding the conditions of the negotiation
I understand that there may be concerns, disagreements, and demands for more information. I fully recognize your right to express your concerns, demand justice, and request the clarifications you deem necessary. To that end, the email address through which I am sending you this internal communication remains open.
However, certain negotiation actions, within the framework of canon law and without ruling out civil law, require a particular framework of prudence and confidentiality that does not compromise their chances of success.
My duty is to protect that working space and to ensure that the actions undertaken lead to concrete results, without limiting anyone’s right to speak out, report possible irregularities, or demand accountability.
5. On the participation of lawyer Manel Riera
Regarding the information about Mr. Manel Riera, a prestigious lawyer and canonist who advised the Archdiocese of Lima for a time when the Servants of God’s Plan were a public association of the faithful of diocesan right, I wish to clarify that he has never participated in the investigative or reparation proceedings carried out under my responsibility, particularly since I assumed the position of Pontifical Commissioner for the liquidation of the Sodalicio’s “spiritual family” on 14 April 2025.
6. On the intervention of Eshmá
Eshmá had intervened in a stage prior to 14 April 2025, particularly in relation to the care of the victims who are Servants of God’s Plan.
It is important to distinguish that historical intervention, and even a possible future intervention, from the actions currently being carried out under my responsibility. This clarification does not intend to diminish the value of the work previously done, but to clarify the different stages and responsibilities of the process.
7. On the intervention of the Archbishop of Lima
Since my appointment as Pontifical Commissioner on the date indicated above, Cardinal Carlos Castillo Mattasoglio, Archbishop of Lima, has ceased to intervene in this process in the terms in which he did so previously, that is, when the Servants of God’s Plan were an association of diocesan right erected in Lima.
This distinction responds to the change in the framework of competencies and responsibilities resulting from my appointment. I consider it important to explain it so that there is an adequate understanding of the functions that correspond to each authority in the different stages of the process.
8. On the gravity of the practices that led to the suppression
I wish to reiterate, without any ambiguity, that the abusive and sectarian practices that motivated the suppression of the Sodalicio’s “Spiritual Family,” based on a false original charism, were, in my view, absolutely reprehensible and cannot be justified under any circumstances.
Among the reported facts are acts of extreme gravity, including medical or psychiatric interventions which, according to the testimonies received during the First Listening Channel and which we previously did not know about, would have profoundly affected many members of this “spiritual family,” especially some Servants of God’s Plan.
No abusive practice can be justified merely by alleging the consent of an adult person. It is necessary to take into account situations of vulnerability, possible dynamics of dependence, manipulation, and subjection, and the real conditions under which the decisions were made.
9. On some media attempts to discredit my actions as Pontifical Commissioner
You will have noticed that certain media outlets linked to the Spanish and Peruvian far right insist again and again on attributing to me ideas that I do not share or facts that I have not carried out.
Among the former, a journalist who does not give much value to professional ethics has attributed to me some decontextualized words that I certainly pronounced in a long conference on the canonical institute of dispensation and that could suggest a contradictory message on my part. They would refer to the position of victims in the crisis of ecclesiastical abuse. Allow me to insist that in Catholic doctrine the Church has a supernatural mission that transcends individual interests, but that mission, in view of the common good, must always be carried out while respecting, above all, the dignity of persons. I will never tire of repeating that the victim must be at the center of every process of justice, integral reparation, and prevention.
Regarding the latter, it is absolutely false and malicious to claim that I have leaked to the press information about a famous Peruvian priest whose complaint, moreover, never reached the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith because the complainant retracted. As far as I understand, that complaint was filed with the Lima Listening Commission and the alleged victim would be a vulnerable adult, a matter for which my Dicastery is not competent. The same people who attribute this to me are the ones who even dare, once again manipulating the facts, to accuse Pope Leo over and over again of being an alleged cover-up artist.
For all these reasons and in conclusion, I am aware that trust is not based on words but on facts. I understand your need for answers and recognition, as well as your legitimate demand that the truth about what happened be known.
I confess to you, however, that I do not share certain statements about my person or work that I consider at the very least unfair and that, moreover, I believe do not help the ongoing process in any way.
My responsibility as Pontifical Commissioner obliges me to act with firmness, transparency, and prudence, ensuring that the actions we are engaged in can soon translate into real results.
It also requires me to respond with serenity and at the appropriate time to public information, to clarify the facts when necessary, and to preserve the confidentiality legitimately required by the process, without ever neglecting your concerns.
I will continue to inform you of progress to the extent that it is possible to do so without compromising the indicated negotiations or the possibilities of reparation.
With respect and consideration,
The Pontifical Commissioner of the Sodalicio’s “Spiritual Family”
Read also