Crux

ROME – A victims’ advocacy group has made a complaint against a top-ranking cardinal based in part on a case packaged and brought forward by an ex-priest defrocked over charges of sexual misconduct.

The former priest in question, Ricardo Coronado, has been accused of holding a long-standing grudge against the cardinal, American Robert Prevost, currently the prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Bishops, and who also has ties to the Sodalitium Christiane Vitae (SCV), a Peruvian society of apostolic life recently suppressed by Pope Francis.

The advocacy group has said it stands by their claims, insisting that the interests of the victim should not be sidelined by whatever backstory there might be, however, in comments to Crux Prevost’s office disputed the assertions made in their complaint.

Coronado himself has denied the charges underlying his December 2024 laicization, saying through a lawyer there was “no crime.”

On March 25, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) delivered complaints against six cardinals to Vatican Secretary of State Italian Cardinal Pietro Parolin under Pope Francis’s 2023 norm Vos estis lux mundi, accusing the cardinals of coverup and mishandling abuse cases.

One of those cardinals is Prevost, whom SNAP accused on the basis of two cases. One involves claims of endangerment of children over the placing of a priest accused of abuse and removed from ministry by the Archdiocese of Chiclayo, at a friary located near a school, during the time when Prevost was the provincial superior.

Prevost served as Prior General of the Augustinian order from 2001-2013, before being appointed to Chicago in 2014. He was named prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops by Pope Francis in January 2023.

An Augustinian from Chicago told Crux on background that the archdiocese had asked the order for permission for Father James Ray to be placed in that house after being removed from ministry because its superior was a licensed counselor who served as supervisor of a safety plan imposed on Ray, and therefore Ray would be under a more watchful eye.

The Augustinian said the location of a school two blocks away was not considered a risk at the time, given that a safety plan was in place, and the criteria of not placing accused priests near schools was a product of the 2002 Dallas Charter, which had not yet been issued when the decision on Ray was made.

This decision, they said, was an agreement between the archdiocese and the superior of the friary, but which Prevost had to formally sign off on, since it was an Augustinian community house.

The second case involves allegations from three women claiming to have experienced sexually inappropriate conduct on the part of two priests in the Diocese of Chiclayo in Peru prior to Prevost’s arrival, but who made their complaint to the diocese in 2022, during his tenure.

Among other things, these women allege that after coming forward, Prevost failed to open a preliminary investigation and did not inform civil authorities about their complaints. They later filed a civil complaint.

The Diocese of Chiclayo has denied these accusations, issuing a 10-point statement Sept. 10, 2023, saying Prevost had launched an inquiry, had prohibited the priest from ministry, and had sent the results of the investigation to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) in Rome.

The DDF and civil authorities ultimately opted to close the case in 2023, with civil authorities citing a statute of limitations and DDF a lack of evidence, but it was later reopened by the apostolic administrator of Chiclayo, who took over leadership when Prevost left, when one of the victims went public with her complaint. The case is still pending in the DDF.

Last year a Vatican official told Crux on background that, “the matter was examined, and Prevost was not found to have covered up. He acted in accordance with the regulations in force at the time.”

The bulk of SNAP’s allegations against Prevost are based on the assertions of the Chiclayo victims, who were represented by Coronado, a former Augustinian, from May to August 2024, when he was barred by the Peruvian bishops from practicing canon law due to allegations of sexual misconduct.

Coronado publicized his defrocking himself on his Facebook page just before Christmas, stating that he had been forcibly expelled from the priesthood. Though he didn’t explain why, he was accused last year of an unspecified “crime against the sixth commandment” by his Diocese of Cajamarca in Peru.

In Catholic legal jargon, a “crime against the sixth commandment” implies some form of sexual misconduct.

Coronado, a former Augustinian, said he was also barred in the same decree from acting as a lawyer, asserting that the aim was to “shield some very eminent prelates.” In a subsequent Facebook post, Coronado said, “please, do not consider the dismissal promoted by a cardinal who covered up is a matter of disgrace. It is a distinction. I feel very honored.”

The references were taken by most observers as alluding to Prevost, with whom Coronado is said to have political and personal differences dating back to Coronado’s own time in the Augustinians.

Various observers familiar with both men say Coronado harbored resentment against Prevost in the past, in part over the growth of liberation theology in Peru and Coronado’s belief that the Augustinian order had become too progressive, accusing Prevost of being part of a progressive camp that needed to be reformed.

Three individuals with firsthand knowledge of Coronado dating back to the early 1990s, when he led the Augustinian formation house in Lurín, Peru, told Crux about his personal resentment of Prevost and his historic ties to the SCV, as well as what they said was rampant sexual misconduct on the part of Coronado.

Each of the men spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals from Coronado.

“He [Coronado] despised Prevost very, very strongly, because he said that Prevost embodied progressivism in the Church, and this is modernism and such. There was always a lot of attention against Prevost, [Coronado] openly despised him,” one of the men said.

Two of the individuals who were in formation under Coronado recounted an extremely competitive attitude with regard to the formation house in Trujillo, which at the time was led by Prevost.

Coronado, the men said, saw Prevost and the Trujillo house as overly progressive, calling the seminarians there “homosexuals.”

These two individuals described a formation house environment under Coronado as being dominated by strict rules, favoritism, and constant sexual innuendo, with Coronado doling out humiliating punishments and normalizing sexual connotations such as nudity and dirty jokes. They alleged a pattern of sexually inappropriate and aggressive behavior by Coronado, directed towards adult seminarians under his supervision.

A separate individual who was not in the formation house with Coronado, but who visited often and observed the same behaviors, said he had contact with Coronado some 20 years later, and that Coronado’s conduct had not changed.

One individual who was in formation under Coronado also underscored his links with the now-suppressed SCV, saying he was personal friends of many members, and that while he led the Lurín formation house, for at least a year he went monthly to serve as a confessor at the SCV formation house in San Bartolo, where various alleged physical abuses occurred, reportedly with the approval of the SCV’s founder, Luis Fernando Figari.

Coronado wanted to turn the Lurín house into “another San Bartolo,” he said.

The other individual who was in formation with Coronado voiced his belief that Coronado’s decision to accuse Prevost publicly of coverup is likely due to the presumption that Prevost had acted against a prominent SCV archbishop, who was ousted from leadership as part of the Vatican’s investigation of the group, which was conducted by a Special Mission assigned by the pope, and composed of two officials of the DDF.

No mention had been made of Prevost until Coronado stepped in as the women’s lawyer, he said, saying, “The victims are not accusing Prevost, they are asking for help. The way of smearing, dirtying Prevost,” is something that came from Coronado, he said.

Coronado has filed multiple lawsuits against individuals he has accused of defamation, including one for remarks made during a group sharing session as part of an internal healing process. He has also sued Bishop James Golka of Colorado Springs.

After leaving the Augustinians in 2001, following complaints to his superiors about his conduct, Coronado received permission from Bishop Michael Sheridan in Colorado Springs to come work as a canonist, serving there as judicial vicar for nearly 20 years.

He left this post in 2022, apparently over differences with Golka, but with the understanding that he was still a priest in good standing and could thus celebrate the sacraments while visiting.

However, last year Coronado filed a lawsuit against Golka and his former vicar general, Monsignor Robert Jaeger, for allegedly breaking a memorandum of understanding in which the parties had agreed not to go public, after Jaeger issued a June 2023 statement saying he had been made aware of “certain allegations” regarding Coronado’s conduct, and that Coronado was no longer a priest in good standing.

That lawsuit was subsequently dismissed by the District Court of El Paso County. Coronado has appealed that decision.

A spokesperson for the Diocese of Colorado Springs declined a Crux request for comment, citing ongoing litigation.

Coronado declined a Crux interview request for this article, however, his canonical lawyer, Lucia Musso, said they were both “surprised by the decision to remove him from the clerical state because there was no evidence of a crime.”

“The decision signed by the Holy Father cannot be modified and my client does not consider it appropriate to make any kind of statement,” Musso said, saying Coronado is preparing a book that will offer a “detailed account of the events in which he was involved, and until it is published there will be no further statements.”

In comments to Crux, SNAP stood by their complaint against Prevost, insisting on the claim that he never informed civil authorities about the women’s complaint, despite a provision in the Vatican’s Vademecum that this ought to be done “Even in cases where there is no explicit legal obligation to do so.”

They also take issue with the assertion from the women that they were not offered spiritual or psychological assistance, as required by the pope’s 2019 legislation, Vos estis lux mundi.

“Prevost is no ordinary bishop. He is now leading one of the Vatican’s most powerful dicasteries – a dicastery that is charged with overseeing investigations of bishops under Vos estis lux mundi,” and he therefore comes under greater scrutiny, they said, calling his actions into question.

Regarding the defrocking of Coronado and the assertion of a personal grudge against Prevost, SNAP said, “What matters are the underlying facts of the case, and the motivations of the canonist are irrelevant.”

“This changes the subject from Prevost’s conduct in response to the victims’ testimony…to allegations of internal conflict between clergy. It’s unthinkable that on top of everything else they have endured, victims are being placed in this position, all while needing to find a new canonist,” they said.

Crux contacted Prevost’s office in Rome for comment, and was told that SNAP’s assertion that he had not offered the women psychological assistance was false.

They said Prevost put the women in touch with the diocesan listening center, which offered them psychological assistance, and that one of the women “did take advantage of those services.”

Regarding the assertion that Prevost did not contact civil authorities, Prevost’s office said he spoke with the diocesan lawyer after the women came forward, and was advised that the case would not be investigated civilly “because of the statute of limitations.”

Prevost’s office said he advised the women to make a civil complaint if they believed it would help, “which two of them did, but in fact the cases were closed because so much time had passed since the time of the alleged offenses.”

This story has been updated with a response from Cardinal Robert Prevost’s office in Rome.

Follow Elise Ann Allen on X: @eliseannallen