[Editor’s Note: On Aug. 1, Crux published an article by Elise Ann Allen mentioning a former priest who was laicized in December 2024, which included witness testimony from several anonymous sources describing a history of sexual misconduct and personal differences with Pope Leo XIV on the part of the former priest in question. The former priest in question, Ricardo Coronado, has submitted the following letter, which we are publishing, but which has been edited to exclude elements that include personal insinuations against the author as well as statements and accusations against third parties that Crux does not immediately have the ability to corroborate. For the record, Crux stands by the story.]

Crux Now
Lima-Peru, 6th August 2025

Dear Mrs. Allen,

I write to you in regard to the article published on the Crux website this past Friday (August 1, 2025, with subsequent amended version August 5th, 2025) maliciously and provocatively entitled, Coverup allegations against Leo spun by defrocked priest. (I note that the unamended Aug. 1 version had also been reproduced in Spanish on the news website Religion Digital.) My name is Msgr. Ricardo Coronado Arrascue about whom you wrote in the article and whom you significantly disparage in it. With the present letter, I want to correct a number of errors and falsehoods stated in your article, and I ask that you correct these:

1. You stated that I was defrocked for sexual misconduct and that I have a “history of sexually inappropriate behavior”. The decree from the Dicastery for Clergy indicated canon 1395 51 and 3 as the reasons for my dismissal from the clerical state; this canon states:

Can. 1395— 1. A cleric living in concubinage, other than in the case mentioned in can. 1394, and a cleric who continues in some other external sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue which causes scandal, is to be punished with suspension. To this, other penalties can progressively be added if after a warning he persists in the offence, until eventually he can be dismissed from the clerical state.
3. A cleric who by force, threats or abuse of his authority commits an offence against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue or forces someone to perform or submit to sexual acts is to be punished with the same penalty as in 2.

Canon 1395 1 addresses the crime of living in concubinage. However, for the past six plus years I have lived exclusively with my mother and in my house or her apartment. I have had no “lover”, live-in or otherwise. I have not violated the 6th commandment with anyone, male or female. Moreover, the canon mentioned above requires that the offending party receives a warning before any penal action be taken. Not only did I never commit a delict against the 6th commandment of the Decalog, I never have received a warning that I had done so as the law of the church above prescribes.

The Dicastery for Clergy in fact used an accelerated process to defrock me which is reserved for the most heinous cases of abuse, namely, those involving children something of which I have never been accused. During that charade of a process, no victims were named, no material of an actual crime was presented to me, and no evidence was gathered. The Dicastery gave me thirty days to make a defense and then handed down their decision, which I am convinced was determined before this deeply flawed in its conduct legal process was even begun. The decision was also handed down with no possibility of appeal.

2. As for the accusation that I have a longstanding track record of sexually inappropriate behavior, where is the evidence for this? Suggesting with a clever play of words in your article that I am a homosexual preying on young men in priestly formation is revolting and without any historical proof. I have labored for many years to promote vocations to the priesthood; many of the men with whom I have worked now serve in Holy Mother Church as dedicated priests. If people have grievances against me, it is not for being sexually inappropriate in my conduct with others; it is for being a defender of orthodoxy and an upholder of the law, including the fundamental right to self-defense.

3. You reported that I was the one who first made known the alleged cover-up by then Bishop Prevost. This is in no way a factual portrayal of the situation. The victims had already made known their grievance. After getting nowhere with the Church hierarchy, they proceeded to look for legal counsel. After failed attempts on their part to get anyone to represent them, I was approached by a third party to take on their case and give them the legal representation which is their due. I did so simply out of a desire to help alleged victims tell their side of the story. Lawyers, including canon lawyers do this all the time, it is part of their profession. And I may add that I have never received any monetary remuneration from the three women or from any third party for the work I did for them. In the end, my effort to legally represent and give these plaintiffs voice resulted in my being canceled by the entire Peruvian Bishop’s Conference. The very day after the Conference took the unprecedented step of prohibiting me from practicing canon law anywhere in Peru, I was informed of a juridical process launched against me by my bishop which ultimately resulted in my being removed from the clerical state.

4. You assert that I have close ties to Sodalitium Christianae Vitae (SCV). I have never been a member of the aforementioned group. Yes, I have known and had friendly relations with members over the years, including with the SCV founder, but I have never been associated with them in any official capacity. As a matter of fact, I had never had any one-on-one conversation with the Sodalitium founder Mr Figari. How can I be demonized for having acquittances with members of a group that was legally approved by the Church? My familiarity with members does not make me an accomplice in the abuse that certain members and leaders of the group are alleged to have committed. I have even helped a number of members leave the SCV who found that the organization was not suitable for them. Did I go to their formation house in the San Bartolo neighborhood? Yes, but how is hearing confessions of young men in priestly formation for a Church approved group a crime or offense? I have of course done the same for other institutions in the Church and groups of faithful and never had an official confessor for the SCV.

5. The suggestion that I advocated for the three Peruvian women from Chiclayo as retaliation for the actions taken against Archbishop Jose Antonio Eguren by then Cardinal Robert Prevost as Prefect of the Dicastery of Bishops is preposterous. My relationship with Archbishop Eguren has been limited to a casual greeting on a few occasions and on one occasion to a actual conversation that I held with him in his office about the tribunal in his archdiocese. Such is the sum total of my interactions with him to date. Why would I exploit abuse victims to get back at then Cardinal Prevost for actions he took as Prefect for the Dicastery of Bishops against an archbishop who has never had any meaningful relationship with me? My advocating for the three Peruvian women was undertaken to give them a voice and to hold the Church hierarchy accountable for alleged misdeeds something that canon lawyers are called to do ex professo.

6. I only reached out to SNAP because I was beginning to despair that the three Peruvian women from Chiclayo would obtain any fair hearing from the Church hierarchy — sadly this is situation that not uncommon in recent decades, as you may well be aware. Where the Church hierarchy fails to provide justice and engages in appalling cover-ups the only recourse of victims typically is to turn to the civil authorities and to the court of public opinion.

7. You incorrectly state that the Cuarto Poder television program apologized for their report detailing the story of the alleged sexual abuse covered up by the diocese of Chiclayo. They did no such thing, what they did was, commenting after the election of Cardinal Prevost, state that in that program they had fulfilled their journalistic duty, and they clarified how they had proceeded in putting the documentary together.

To conclude, I present this information to you with sincerity and love for the Church to which I have dedicated my life. I ask you to correct your erroneous story as presented in the August 1 st and 5th articles. I am not some malicious monster; I am a man who has given his life to the Church and who by an outrage against justice has been “cancelled” by some members of the Church’s hierarchy. I have been deprived of all possibilities to support myself and my elderly mother economically; and, more significantly, my good name has been unjustly trashed by some, including you.

Sincerely,

Ricardo Coronado Arrascue