Prayer Against Tyranny In Ireland

Almighty and eternal God, whose name is peace and justice. 

Enter, if possible, into the (alleged) hearts of those intent on war and conflict...namely Micheal Martin, Simon Harris, Jim O Callaghan and every member of An Garda Síochána.

Direct their thoughts and minds (if they have any), towards the paths of peace....and follow the example of those peaceful protestors defending the rights of all right-minded Irish people, especially the right to peaceful protest.

Comfort the potential victims of the war that Micheal Martin, Simon Harris, Jim O Callaghan and every member of An Garda Síochána seem hell-bent on inflicting on the peaceful protestors.

Draw those who may potentially be fatally hurt by the unlawful and deliberately-agitated actions of Micheal Martin, Simon Harris, Jim O Callaghan and every member of An Garda Síochána, into your presence. 

Hear the prayers of a broken nation and people who call out to you in their need, and we ask you to watch over and protect all who are protesting against the oppressive tyranny of Micheal Martin, Simon Harris, Jim O Callaghan and every member of An Garda Síochána.

Give us the strength to continue in our support of these protestors, which will never fail....come the tyranny that may....courtesy of Micheal Martin, Simon Harris, Jim O Callaghan and every member of An Garda Síochána.

And may we never forget that the power in people is greater than the (corrupt, tyrannical) people in power!!

Amen

Statement from Bishop of Waterford & Lismore on the ongoing fuel crisis and protests:

“The current protests concerning fuel costs reflect a deep frustration felt by many individuals, families, and businesses across Ireland. Rising costs of living—particularly in essential areas such as fuel—place a real and heavy burden on ordinary people, especially those in rural communities who depend on transport for work, family life, and basic daily needs.

Catholic social teaching reminds us that economic policy must always serve the dignity of the human person and the common good. 

When taxation becomes excessive in essential areas of life, it can place undue strain on families, hinder small businesses, and weaken the fabric of local communities. 

Public authorities have a responsibility to ensure that fiscal policies are just, proportionate, and attentive to the lived reality of the people.

At the same time, the Church upholds the importance of social order and the common good. 

The blocking of major roads, ports, and essential infrastructure risks significant disruption to society, including access to emergency services, employment, and vital supplies. 

Protest must always be exercised in a manner that respects the rights and needs of others.

Of particular concern is any escalation in response that risks deepening division. The visible deployment of military forces in a domestic context is a serious step and may be perceived by many as disproportionate. 

In times of tension, restraint, dialogue, and measured leadership are essential. 

Escalation—whether through confrontation on the ground or rhetoric—serves only to harden positions and prolong conflict.

This situation demands that we value the virtue of trust — trusting one another that, together, we are seeking the best possible solution given the circumstances and what is at stake. Without such trust, dialogue becomes impossible and divisions deepen.

I appeal to all involved—protesters and public authorities alike—to choose the path of dialogue. Listening sincerely to grievances, engaging respectfully, and seeking reasonable compromise are the marks of a mature and just society. We must resist the temptation toward polarisation and instead become, each of us, builders of peace.

Ireland has a long tradition of resolving even the most difficult issues through conversation and mutual respect. Now is the time to draw upon that tradition.

I encourage all people of goodwill to act with patience, charity, and responsibility in the days ahead. 

Let us pray for wisdom for our leaders, for calm among all parties, and for a just resolution that upholds both the common good and the dignity of every person.”

The Real Issue at Stake in the Consecrations, according to Cardinal Müller

The cardinal criticizes the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) for adopting the attitude of those who believe they can resolve crises "by retreating into the sullen corner of a Church of the pure, the last bastion of orthodoxy that would impose its complete reintegration into the Catholic Church by converting the latter to its own inner circle." 

Isn't it rather the opposite? 

Isn't the Church of the pure of Vatican II in reality the last entrenched bastion of neo-modernism that would impose a pseudo-unity of the Church, a "full ecclesial communion," by converting all Catholics to the new liturgy and the new theology of the Council?

Cardinal Müller: The Prototype of the Conservative in the Church?

Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, born in Mainz in 1947, was a man after Benedict XVI's own heart. Indeed, it was Benedict XVI who, on July 2, 2012, appointed him Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and, by the same token, entrusted him with the Presidency of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. Two years later, on January 12, 2014 – Pope Benedict having resigned in the interim – Pope Francis elevated him to be a cardinal.

And it was this new Cardinal Müller who, in the autumn of 2014, five years after the first doctrinal discussions of 2009-2011 with the Society of Saint Pius X resumed – in his capacity as President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission – received in Rome Bishop Bernard Fellay, then Superior General of the said Society. 

The dialogue reached a point of no return on June 6, 2017, when Cardinal Müller, on behalf of the Holy See, sent Bishop Fellay a letter demanding that, in the event of a canonical normalization of the Society, or a restoration of "full communion," the members of the SSPX "declare, explicitly, their acceptance of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and those of the post-conciliar period, granting to said doctrinal affirmations the degree of adherence due to them" and that they recognize "not only the validity, but also the legitimacy of the Rite of Holy Mass and of the Sacraments, according to the liturgical books promulgated after the Second Vatican Council" 1 .

The rest is history: unable to accept these conditions, Bishop Fellay once again expressed his regrets to Rome, offering yet another explanation regarding the deep-seated causes of the crisis that has plagued the Church since the Second Vatican Council. The year 2018 saw the election of Fr. Davide Pagliarani as head of the Society. 

But before that, barely a month after the letter was sent to Bishop Fellay, on July 1, 2017, Pope Francis dismissed Cardinal Müller from his position as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. His successor, Prefect of what has now become a Dicastery, was the Jesuit Luis Ladaria Ferrer. Gerhard Müller had already been critical of Pope Francis's doctrinal and pastoral orientations.

On December 20, 2023, the Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith denounced, in a statement the Declaration Fiducia Suplicans by which the Vatican authorized the blessing of couples in irregular situations, cohabiting couples, divorced and remarried individuals, and even same-sex couples. 

According to him, this document should be seen as a "doctrinal leap" and a "risk of blasphemy." 

In addition, during a question-and-answer session at the Call to Holiness Conference 2025 , held in Michigan, Cardinal Müller was critical of the implementation of the motu proprio Traditionis custodes , describing as "problematic" and "unpastoral" the fact that some bishops are limiting the celebration of the traditional Roman Rite according to the 1962 Missal. 

Previously, on May 20, 2024, Gerhard Müller had celebrated, according to the rite of 1962, the pontifical Mass of Whit Monday at the closing of the Chartres pilgrimage organized by the Association Notre-Dame de Chrétienté, which earned him the label "Friend of the traditionalists and enemy of Pope Francis" on the front page of the Libération newspaper website .

The Consecrations of July 1st: The Consequence of a Doctrinal Battle

There is, however, "many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip," and it would have been quite wrong to expect that Cardinal Müller would also take a stand, alongside Bishop Schneider and Bishop Strickland, to justify and defend the consecrations of July 1, 2026. Unfortunately, exactly the opposite has happened. 

In an interview published on the German website of the international magazine Communio , and which took place on March 19, the cardinal answers Jan-Heiner Tück's questions at length in a way that is not at all in favor of the decision taken by Don Davide Pagliarani, denouncing instead "a schismatic attitude" and a "false appeal to a state of necessity."

Beyond the reproaches and accusations of "schism," this statement by Cardinal Müller has the great merit of posing the problem which pits Rome against the Society of Saint Pius X on its true level. Far from the impoverished declarations of a Cardinal Sarah 4  or a Monsignor Eleganti 5 , this kind of discourse has the great advantage of clarity.

The cardinal indicates from the outset precisely where the point of contention lies: “The real problem does not reside in the liturgy—that is, in the classical (post-Tridentine) and renewed (post-Vatican II) ritual forms—but in the doctrine of the faith, which they [the members of the Society of Saint Pius X] consider compromised by the renewed liturgy. Certain formulations of the Second Vatican Council lend themselves to dubious interpretations, such as the idea that Muslims, like Christians and Jews in the Abrahamic tradition, recognize the Creator and worship the one God with us.” 

The cardinal then indicates the points in the teaching of the Second Vatican Council where the Society denounces a contradiction that renders this teaching incompatible with the constant teachings of the Magisterium of the Church: the doctrine on the value of non-Christian religions in Nostra Aetate ; the doctrine of ecumenism in Unitatis Redintegratio ; the doctrine of religious freedom in Dignitatis Humanae .

The Cardinal understood this well: the Society of Saint Pius X sees the profound reason for the state of necessity in the Church in these faulty points, which are the poisoned source of doctrinal and moral relativism within the Church. 

The decision to proceed with episcopal consecrations is simply the means taken to remedy this relativism by ensuring the continuity of truly Catholic preaching, free from these errors. “That is why,” the Cardinal concluded, “I insisted, during conversations with the SSPX, that their criticism of certain declarations of the Second Vatican Council would only be justified if the Council had actually taught what they attributed to it.” 

However, according to him, the teachings of Vatican II are not the poisoned source of relativism, because they do not contain the errors that the Society believes it sees in them. “Rather,” he said, “those who attribute serious errors of faith to the legitimate Second Vatican Council are mistaken, contrary to proven Catholic hermeneutics.”

The Issue of Doctrine

But clearly, it is the cardinal who is mistaken when he attempts to exonerate the Council's texts from the accusations issued by the Society. "The idea," he says, "that Muslims, like Christians and Jews in the Abrahamic tradition, recognize the Creator and worship the one God with us" should be understood in the text of Nostra Aetate in accordance with "classical Catholic teaching according to which human reason is, in principle, capable of recognizing the existence and unity of God, while the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation are revealed only through supernatural faith." 

It is undoubtedly true that natural reason remains capable, in every person and regardless of their religion, of attaining knowledge of a Creator God.

However, it must be noted that the text of the declaration Nostra Aetate goes further than that, for according to it, it is not only human reason but also the very "rules and doctrines" of these false religions which, "although they differ in many respects from what [the Church] itself holds and proposes, nevertheless often reflect a ray of the truth that enlightens all people" (§ 2). There is a difference between saying that the ray of truth that enlightens all people is the light of natural reason, present in every person, and saying that this same ray finds its reflection in the rules and doctrines of false religions. Nostra Aetate speaks not of natural reason but of religious rules and doctrines. § 3 speaks specifically of the "Islamic faith." 

Section 4 establishes confusion at the level of the Jewish people, without making a distinction between the chosen people of the Old Testament and the people fallen from this election and unfaithful to God in the New Testament, confusion which appears when it is said that "the Jews still remain, because of their fathers, very dear to God, whose gifts and call are irrevocable" and when the text evokes the "so great spiritual heritage, common to Christians and Jews", while contemporary Jews continue to refuse to recognize Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah announced in the Scriptures and as the very Son of God.

“Regarding ecumenism with non-Catholic Christians, Christian communities, and Orthodox Churches,” the cardinal claims that “the Council in no way called into question the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation or its full identity with the Church of the Apostles.” 

Undoubtedly, and this is not what the Society criticizes in the decree Unitatis Redintegratio for. What it criticizes is that it has obscured, even to the point of denying, the idea that the Catholic Church is necessary as the sole means of salvation, to the exclusion of all non-Catholic Christian communities. And what the Society also criticizes in this decree as well as in the constitution Lumen Gentium , and in the subsequent documents of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is that it affirms that, if the Catholic Church is fully identical with the Church of the Apostles, non-Catholic Christian communities are partially identical to it insofar as there are "elements of sanctification and of truth" ( Lumen Gentium no. 8) and insofar as this Church of Christ is still "present and active" there (Declaration Dominus Jesus of August 6, 2000, no. 17).

“And as regards religious freedom,” the cardinal continued, “the declaration Dignitatis Humanae teaches nothing less than ‘the right of every human being—naturally rooted in the spirit and freedom of the person—to defend themselves against interference by the State in their conscience,’ that is to say, ‘the right of every person to choose and practice their religion free from all external constraint or internal manipulation, according to their conscience.’” 

Cardinal Müller is missing some fundamental distinctions here. It is one thing to use coercion in the public forum to lead people to profess the true religion, and quite another to use coercion in the public forum to prevent people from professing a false religion. The social doctrine of the Church requires that the State exercise its authority in favor of the true religion, by using coercion in the public forum to prevent or dissuade the profession of error. The Church has condemned only the use of coercion to impose the true religion.

What the Society objects to in paragraph 2 of Dignitatis Humanae is not that it states “every human being has the right to defend themselves against state interference in their conscience,” nor that it states “a person has the right to choose their religion, free from all external constraint or internal manipulation.” 

The Church has always taught this, in the sense that it has always said that no authority can exert coercion to lead people to embrace and profess the true religion. But the Church has also taught (this is the meaning of the doctrine set forth by Pius IX in Quanta Cura ) that the authorities have a duty to prevent, in the public forum, the practice of a false religion. It is therefore necessary to distinguish here between “the right to choose” and “the right to practice” one’s religion, free from all external constraint. 

According to Church doctrine, choice should be free from all constraints, but practice, if it is a false religion, should not be free but rather should be prevented by some constraint, and it is on the negation of this second point that Dignitatis Humanae poses a real problem.

As we shall now show, these difficulties posed by the texts of the Council are so serious as to create a real state of necessity in the Church, because they jeopardize the salvation of souls.

Where Is the Schism?

Contrary to Cardinal Müller's assertion, the arguments put forward by the Society are not "fallacious arguments intended to avoid fully submitting to the Pope's authority." For there is indeed a contradiction, a rupture if you will, between the teachings of Vatican II on the points raised and the constant Tradition of the Magisterium of the Church. To this evidence imposed upon us by the principle of non-contradiction, what is the response of the Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? "To admit this would not only be fundamentally erroneous, but would also constitute the hermeneutical self-destruction of the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)."

Should we then admit that the Tradition of the Church is reduced to the Second Vatican Council alone, and that the Church itself is reduced to the post-Conciliar Popes? Should we admit that the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, practices correct hermeneutics by preaching sometimes yes and sometimes no? 

The Cardinal criticizes the Society for adopting the attitude of those who believe they can remedy crises "by retreating into the sullen corner of a Church of the pure, the last bastion of orthodoxy that would impose its complete reintegration into the Catholic Church by converting the latter to its own inner circle." 

Wouldn't it be rather the opposite? Is not the Church of the pure of Vatican II in reality the last entrenched bastion of neo-modernism which would like to impose a pseudo-unity of the Church, a "full ecclesial communion" by converting all Catholics to the new liturgy and the new theology of the Council?

We could thus endlessly hurl the accusation of autocephaly—or schism—at each other. But the criterion of true communion, that of the unity and apostolicity of the Church, is not that of the majority: the smallest group is not necessarily the schismatic stronghold. This criterion was given to us by Saint Vincent of Lérins: it is the criterion of the constancy and universality of the profession of faith throughout time. 

And this positive criterion is itself coupled with a negative one: that which currently contradicts the explicit profession of faith of the Church cannot represent the principle of unity and apostolicity. Now, on all the points raised, the documents of the Council cited by the Cardinal represent and express this contradiction. 

It is therefore not the Fraternity that is moving away from the unity of the Church by refusing to admit these points of doctrine, but rather all those who want to impose them against the constant Tradition of the Catholic Magisterium.

What Dialogue?

Moreover, Cardinal Müller presents all these points of doctrine, clearly opposed to the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church, as having an absolutely binding force, albeit to varying degrees. Therefore, one cannot use the words of John XXIII, who presented the supposed “Magisterium” of the Council as “a pastoral type of Magisterium,” to diminish or even deny the binding force of the teachings of Vatican II. 

“The idea of ​​a so-called pastoral council,” he says, “is more a matter of media hype and has no dogmatic significance. An ecumenical council is the highest authority in the Catholic Church on matters of faith and discipline.” […] “There is, of course,” he clarifies, “a hierarchy of truths, ranging from faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation—necessary for salvation—to the legitimacy of the veneration of images, which, while not necessary for salvation, fosters piety.” What the Church proposes to be believed must be determined, in its graduated authority, by the doctrinal context and by the intention of the bishops and the Pope.

But it remains true that the context always imposes a certain degree of authority. “Although Nostra Aetate,” the cardinal adds by way of example, “is, from a literary point of view, a simple declaration, its affirmations are binding like dogma, for example, when it affirms that all people form one community and have their origin and their end in God (NA 1). That Christians and Jews worship the same God is a binding doctrine of the faith.” And he concludes very categorically: “The Council must be accepted in its entirety by every Catholic, each according to the intention of the affirmations: doctrinal explanation, moral instruction, or indication of measures necessary today, such as interreligious dialogue or engagement with modernity.”

The state of necessity is all the more apparent. On the one hand, because these grave errors, which represent the major obstacle to the salvation of souls, are undeniably presented as the subject of a teaching whose value is binding. On the other hand, and above all, because there can be no question of correcting anything: Cardinal Müller wrote this in his letter of June 6, 2017, to Bishop Fellay, where he demanded from the Society unconditional adherence to the texts of the Council and the post-Conciliar period.

The meaning of the "theological dialogue" recently proposed to Fr. Davide Pagliarani by Cardinal Fernandez during their meeting on February 12th also becomes clear. This dialogue was intended to establish "the different degrees of adherence required by the various texts of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and their interpretation." 

Cardinal Fernandez made it clear that while dialogue about the Council was possible, its texts could not be corrected. This aligns perfectly with Cardinal Müller's remarks. The Holy See's intention is to continue this same dialogue with us, a dialogue already undertaken between 2009 and 2011 at the request of Pope Benedict XVI. 

This dialogue aimed to have the Society accept the well-known hermeneutic of "renewal in continuity," according to which the break in the Council's texts with Church Tradition is only apparent, while the continuity is real.

A pointless and futile dialogue. 

Its only purpose, if any, would be to confirm the urgency of the state of necessity and to justify the initiative of the consecrations of July 1, 2026.

Portuguese bishops confirm cuts to payment for abuse victims

The president of the Portuguese bishops’ conference confirmed Tuesday that “significant cuts” were made to the recommendations from an independent commission for financial compensation packages to victims of clerical sexual abuse.

On Tuesday The Pillar broke the news that the Portuguese bishops’ conference voted in a February closed-door meeting to make cuts to the amounts proposed by an independent Compensation Determination Commission, which had been formed in 2024 by the bishops’ conference.

But until news reporting was published April 7 on the subject, the bishops’ conference had declined to confirm the cuts, telling The Pillar earlier this month only that “the final amounts attributed were defined in accordance with the procedural regulation, which allowed for a distinction between the technical report and the final decision” and “taking into consideration” the work of the CDC.

The independent commission was composed of seven legal experts,including two judges, along with several lawyers and university law professors.

The Pillar has confirmed that the cuts applied by the bishops slashed tens of thousands of euros from the compensations packages recommended for victims by the commission. According to the Portuguese bishops’ conference, the amounts finally awarded to the victims range from between 9,000 and 45,000 euros — around $10,500 to $52,000.

In a Tuesday afternoon interview with Ecclesia, the official news agency of the Catholic Church in Portugal, bishops’ conference president Bishop José Ornelas confirmed the cuts.

“There was a significant reduction of the value presented by the Compensation Determination Commission. It was considered that, taking into account the reality of the Church in Portugal, Portuguese jurisprudence and the response of other European Churches, we should lower the amount,” the bishop explained.

In a separate interview with Portuguese news agency Lusa, Ornelas stressed that “the Church in Portugal is not rich”, and said that victims in Germany and France received maximum compensations of 50,000 and 60,000 euros [around $57,000 thousand and $69,000 dollars], respectively.”

“I can accept that some might find [the Portuguese compensation packages] too low,” the bishop said, adding that “if anyone prefers to take the issue to court, they can.”

Sources close to the bishops’ conference have told The Pillar that the decision to cut the compensation packages proposed by the CDC caused significant discomfort among its members and other people connected to the process, with some lamenting that a closed-door vote to reduce recommended amounts undercut the bishops’ commitment to transparency.

On Tuesday, Bishop Ornelas, who is bishop of Leiria-Fátima, said he informed the members of the commission personally about the cuts, adding that “they accepted that we were doing our duty. Some agreed more, others less, of course, as with all processes. But we were very open about it.”

The Catholic Church in Portugal will expend a more than 1.6 million euros on compensation for 57 people whose requests have already been validated. Nine cases are still awaiting evaluation.

But The Pillar has confirmed that compensation commission will not be tasked evaluating remaining cases. The bishops’ conference has said that “the outstanding cases will be assessed using the same criteria as those applied to cases that have already been concluded. The [bishops’ conference] will announce in due course who will carry out this assessment, should it be deemed appropriate.”

Asked how deeply compensation recommendations were cut by the bishops’ February vote on the subject, a spokesperson for the conference said the bishops did not consider it appropriate to make that information public.

The compensation recommendations were made for alleged victims of clerical sexual abuse whose cases could not be litigated in court because of the civil statute of limitation in Portugal.

According to the bishops’ conference, 95 people applied for financial compensation, of whom 78 were considered initially eligible. Eleven of those claims were later rejected, and 66 cases approved for compensation. 

Fifty-seven have had compensation already awarded, and nine others are pending analysis. One case was still awaiting a judicial decision by the Holy See when the bishops issued their statement.

Peruvian Episcopal Conference removes Santarsiero following the complaints

The Peruvian Episcopal Conference has reacted to the information published by Infovaticana just two days ago with an official statement that introduces a significant shift regarding the line followed so far from the diocesan sphere. 

In contrast to the defensive and closed messages disseminated in Huacho, the Peruvian episcopate acknowledges the existence of the reported facts, states that actions are being taken to clarify them, and announces the departure of Mons. Antonio Santarsiero Rosa himself from one of his key positions.

The statement, dated April 9, 2026 and signed by the president of the Episcopal Conference, Mons. Carlos Enrique García Camader, indicates that «all necessary efforts are being made to clarify the reported facts,» emphasizing that these actions are being carried out in accordance with established protocols and current legislation, both canonical and civil. 

The assertion implies that the case has entered, at least formally, an institutional treatment phase.

The most significant point is the decision by Mons. Santarsiero to step aside from the position of secretary general of the Peruvian Episcopal Conference. 

The text presents it as an «act of responsibility toward the institutional mission,» aimed at facilitating the clarification of the truth. It is a measure of a political-ecclesial nature, but it introduces an element that had been absent until now: the assumption that the situation requires distancing and not shielding.

The statement also insists on confidence in the canonical penal system and its proper application, in an attempt to convey the idea that the process will be channeled through the formal channels provided by the Church. 

But the most relevant element is not there, but rather in the explicit openness to possible new victims. 

The Episcopal Conference reminds affected persons that they can resort to the reporting channels provided in accordance with the motu proprio Vos estis lux mundi. 

This point marks a substantial difference from other recent crises: in contrast to the tendency to discredit or point fingers at those who report, here a clear institutional message of availability to listen is launched. It is an important gesture, because it shifts the focus from corporate defense to welcoming possible victims.

A partial resignation that does not resolve the underlying problem

The decision to abandon the general secretariat, however, introduces an evident contradiction. Santarsiero leaves an institutional representation position, but keeps the core of his real power intact: he remains bishop of Huacho, continues to lead seminary formation, and retains control over the economic and patrimonial structure of the diocese. 

In practical terms, the measure does not alter his governing capacity or his hierarchical position.

The result is an artificial split between the representative and the effective. Visibility in the Episcopal Conference is sacrificed, but authority in the diocese is preserved. If the situation is serious enough to justify a withdrawal at the national level, it is difficult to argue that no measures are required in the sphere where the bishop directly exercises his authority.

The CEP acts within its competencies

It is worth clarifying the competency framework. The Peruvian Episcopal Conference has acted correctly within its limits. It does not have the authority to suspend a bishop in the exercise of his ministry or to impose precautionary measures on his diocesan governance. 

Its capacity is limited to internal positions within the conference itself, and in that sphere the action is the only possible one: removing Santarsiero from the general secretariat.

Moreover, the fact that the statement reminds possible victims that institutional listening and reporting channels exist is no small detail. 

In a context where the first ecclesial reaction has so often consisted of closing ranks or casting suspicion on the accuser, here the Peruvian bishops have wanted to convey something different: that there is an institution willing to listen. That openness deserves to be recognized.

Now the responsibility passes to Rome

But precisely because the Episcopal Conference cannot go further, the ball is now in Rome’s court. 

 If there are serious complaints, if the need for clarification is acknowledged, and if an institutional withdrawal has already occurred, the absence of additional measures from the Holy See would make the entire movement difficult to understand.

The situation is thus defined with considerable clarity. 

The Episcopal Conference has done what it could. But if no measures are adopted from Rome regarding the pastoral governance of the diocese, Santarsiero’s relationship with seminarians, or his continuity at the helm of the administration and entities linked to the diocese, the resignation from the general secretariat risks remaining an incomplete gesture. 

It would make no sense to remove him from a representation position and leave everything else intact.

Beatification proceedings stopped by German bishop

The Vatican has stopped the beatification of the German-born Argentinean Bishop Jorge Novak (1928–2001). 

As the diocese of Quilmes announced on Wednesday, the Vatican Socialist and Canonization Dicastery already revoked the "Nihil obstat" for the further proceedings in October. 

The decision was made because Novak may have mistreated a case of a priest's misconduct.

At the same time, the diocese held that this process was not a "moral judgment on the life, virtues and pastoral work" of Novak. 

He will also retain his title of “Venerable Servant of God.” 

The beatification procedure was opened in 2017 by the Diocese of Quilmes and the Order of the Steyler Missionaries (SVD), to which he belonged.

Volga German roots

Novak, whose parents were Volga-Germans and had emigrated from the Russian Empire, was born in Argentina. In addition to Spanish, he also learned German in his childhood. 

In 1947 he joined the Steyler Missionaries, in 1972 he became provincial of the Order for Central and Southern Argentina. 

In 1976 he was appointed by Pope Paul VI as the first bishop of the newly established diocese of Quilmes in eastern Argentina, which he headed until his death.

Novak was particularly strong in his term of office for measures in favour of the poor and disadvantaged. 

He became aware during the military dictatorship in Argentina (1976–1983), whose crimes he denounced as one of a few bishops. 

He was co-founder of the "Ecumenical Human Rights Movement", which advocates an explanation of the fate of the 30,000 disappeared during the military dictatorship.

The scenario awaiting León XIV in Spain: Sánchez advances with his plan to enshrine abortion in the Constitution

The Government has approved this Tuesday the constitutional reform to enshrine abortion, elevating the death of the innocent to constitutional status, which now begins its processing in the Cortes. 

At the same time, the Spanish Episcopal Conference (CEE) presents the details of Pope Leo XIV’s trip to Spain, outlining with greater clarity the scenario that the Pope will encounter next June.

One more step in consolidating abortion as a right

The Council of Ministers has given the green light to the text that introduces into the Constitution the obligation to guarantee the «voluntary interruption of pregnancy.» With this move, the Executive not only maintains the current legislation but reinforces it structurally, making any future review more difficult.

The Minister of Equality, Ana Redondo, has defended the measure by appealing to territorial equality, but the scope of the reform goes much further: it means legally consolidating a practice that involves the elimination of human lives in their most vulnerable phase.

In this context, the president of the Spanish Episcopal Conference, Mons. Luis Argüello, has criticized the measure by stating that, “the right to life and support for women in promoting motherhood could be enshrined in this demographic winter. But no, the Government prefers to entrench itself, proposing a constitutional change in favor of death, using women as an ideological excuse”.

Against that backdrop, the reform now enters its parliamentary phase and will need a three-fifths majority in Congress and the Senate, a scenario that looks unfavorable for the Government. But beyond its viability, the initiative aims to establish abortion as the axis of public debate.

The coincidence with the papal visit

The approval of this reform coincides with the official presentation of Leo XIV’s visit—planned by the Church in a pastoral key under the motto “Lift up your eyes”—and contributes to intensifying the polarization of the scenario that the Pope will encounter in Spain next June.

This is not merely a matter of calendar, but of context: the Pope’s trip will inevitably insert itself into an active political agenda, increasingly marked by decisions that affect central issues of moral and social life.

A scenario that had already been pointed out

Infovaticana had already warned months ago: Spain is today, without exaggeration, a true institutional time bomb. And its detonation coinciding with the Pope’s presence on Spanish soil is not an exaggerated hypothesis, but a real possibility.

The Holy See’s diplomatic tradition has historically been prudent in contexts of high political tension, avoiding trips that could be interpreted in partisan terms or instrumentalized by governments in power. The previous pontificate was particularly aware of this risk, even renouncing a trip to Argentina itself to avoid conditioning, either for or against, deeply polarized successive governments.

In this context, the possibility—still unconfirmed—of Leo XIV addressing the Cortes Generales, for example, highlights the thin line on which his visit is situated.

Naivety is no excuse

Meanwhile, the Government continues to deepen an agenda that, far from protecting life, normalizes its elimination in the name of supposed social advances. The message is clear: where life should be defended, death is legislated; where the family should be supported, its reduction is promoted.

In such a scenario, naivety is no excuse. If Leo XIV’s visit does not serve to introduce that clarity—if it is not proclaimed with true apostolic zeal—the risk will not only be that of a missed opportunity. It will be that of having been present… without having said the essential.

Rome archives the Zornoza case after months of canonical investigation

The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has decided to archive the complaint for alleged sexual abuses against the emeritus bishop of Cádiz and Ceuta, Rafael Zornoza, according to El País. 

The decision, adopted weeks ago, became known this Friday to the alleged victim.

The case, which caused a strong commotion by affecting for the first time an active Spanish bishop at the time of its revelation, had led to Zornoza’s resignation in November 2025 in the midst of the ongoing canonical investigation.

Case archived after a previous phase that pointed to trial

According to the published information, the Vatican’s decision is based on legal criteria related to the difficulty of determining the exact age of the complainant at the time of the events, as well as the possible statute of limitations for the offense.

This outcome contrasts with the previous phase of the procedure, in which the Tribunal of the Rota had concluded the preliminary investigation and recommended the opening of a canonical penal process after finding indications of plausibility in the complaint.

A process that advanced quickly in its early phases

The instruction of the case developed in a few months, from the complaint filed in 2025 to the elevation of the file to Rome, which was interpreted as a relatively agile processing within canon law.

That initial speed placed the case in a decisive phase at the beginning of 2026, when the final decision was left in the hands of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Contrast with other cases without resolution

This pace contrasts with other recent canonical procedures that have remained for years without visible resolution or clear communication to the victims.

In some cases, the investigations have been stalled for long periods without a public conclusion, which has generated criticism about the lack of uniformity in the management of these processes within the Church.

Reaction of the alleged victim

The complainant has expressed his disappointment after learning of the decision. According to El País, he claims not to have received official notification and considers that the Church has lost an opportunity to act.

In his testimony, he states that the abuses began when he was 14 years old and continued for years in the environment of the Getafe seminary, where Zornoza held training responsibilities.

A case that reached Rome after being considered plausible

The complaint was sent directly to the Vatican, which in a first phase considered it plausible and ordered the opening of a preliminary investigation.

The procedure was instructed by the Tribunal of the Rota, which collected statements from the accused, the alleged victim, and witnesses before sending its conclusions to Rome for the final decision.

A resignation marked by the investigation

During the development of the process, the Pope accepted Zornoza’s resignation, presented due to age, in a context marked by the ongoing investigation.

The prelate has defended his innocence at all times, describing the complaint as false.

The archiving of the procedure, after an investigation that advanced quickly in its early phases, thus closes the case of the emeritus bishop of Cádiz and Ceuta.

Vatican officially denies the media version about the meeting with the Pentagon

The Vatican has officially denied the reports pointing to alleged pressures or threats from the United States in the meeting held between Cardinal Christophe Pierre and Elbridge Colby, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, thus putting an end to the controversy generated in recent days.

According to journalist Diane Montagna, the Holy See has issued a statement assuring that “the account offered by some media does not correspond at all to the truth,” in reference to the versions that spoke of a tense meeting at the Pentagon.

The Holy See confirms the version already advanced by the US

This pronouncement reinforces the line that had already been defended by the United States Ambassador to the Holy See, Brian Burch, who assured—after speaking with Cardinal Pierre himself—that the disseminated information was “fabrications” and that there were no threats of any kind.

Now it is the Vatican itself that takes a further step and directly disauthorizes those versions, emphasizing that the meeting was framed within the usual functions of the apostolic nuncio and consisted of an exchange of views on matters of common interest.

An ordinary meeting, according to the official version

The Vatican statement insists that the meeting with Colby was part of the normal diplomatic activity of the pontifical representative, without any type of pressure or warning occurring.

In this way, the Holy See dismantles the narrative that had arisen from a report published by The Free Press, which was subsequently amplified by other analyses and bulletins, and which described the meeting in terms of confrontation.

The controversy is defused

With this official statement, the Vatican closes the door on interpretations that suggested a diplomatic clash between Washington and León XIV in an international context marked by geopolitical tensions.

Until now, the debate was based on opposing versions between journalistic leaks and indirect denials from the diplomatic sphere. The direct intervention of the Holy See modifies that scenario and gives decisive weight to the version that denies any type of threat.

No details on the content of the meeting

The statement does not go into the specific content of the conversation held at the Pentagon, limiting itself to clarifying its nature and rejecting the disseminated interpretations.

With this, the Vatican makes clear the essential: the meeting took place, but the account that presented it as an episode of pressure or intimidation does not fit the reality.

The heartbreaking testimony of one of the victims of sexual abuses by the General Secretary of the Peruvian Episcopal Conference: «I wanted to scream»

InfoVaticana published the existence of a formal complaint against Mons. Antonio Santarsiero Rosa, bishop of Huacho and general secretary of the Peruvian Episcopal Conference, in which he is attributed alleged sexual abuses and psychological maltreatment over years.

Consulted by this medium, Bishop Santarsiero assures that he has not received official notification of said complaint and claims to have learned of its existence only through the journalistic inquiry. 

In his response, he categorically denies the accusations of abuse and psychological maltreatment, emphasizing that these contradict his priestly and episcopal trajectory.

The file, sent to both the apostolic nuncio and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, includes two consistent testimonies that describe serious and repeated behaviors, some of them initiated—according to the complainants—when one of the alleged victims was a minor.

A heart-wrenching account

The complainant, identified as D., describes to the authorities the sexual abuses he claims to have suffered at the hands of Bishop Santarsiero within the seminary of the diocese of Huacho. 

The testimony, of extreme crudeness, recounts how the prelate separated him from his companions to be alone with him, how the touches escalated in severity over the years, and how the victim was psychologically trapped by the religious authority of the aggressor, unable to scream or escape. D. describes a situation of submission, disgust, and shame that lasted for years and, according to his account, continued even after leaving the seminary.

The reader should be warned that the statement reproduced below is part of the victim’s testimony, identified by the initial D., and contains explicit descriptions of sexual abuse.

“The abuses consisted of the following: When I was 15 years old, I went to a seminary in December 2010. Before that, my older brother, [nombre omitido], had gone. He invited me to go. My experience there was positive, and I studied the fourth year of high school in [ciudad omitida] in 2011. When my brother left the seminary, I also left. A month later, a priest named [nombre omitido] came and invited me to go to the seminary of the diocese of Huacho. I was about to turn 17 and I completed the last year of high school in 2012.

When I was with my companions in the seminary, Bishop Santarsiero would call me aside or find me in the passageways. When we were alone, he would give me tight and prolonged hugs, while saying to me: ‘I am like a father to you.’ This was at the beginning, when I was a student in the minor seminary in 2012. But when I went to the major seminary in 2013, he would go to my room, and the hugs became more intense, and at the same time, he tried to kiss me on the face while repeating: ‘I am like a father to you and I have the right to hug you, and you can hug me too.’ When he did this, I felt very uncomfortable. He would hold me by my waist and touch my buttocks and try to press me against his genitals. In those moments, I would say to him: ‘Monsignor, why do you do that? I don’t think this is right.’ To which he would respond: ‘Don’t worry, this is not bad. I am a dad to you. Don’t be afraid.’ This behavior repeated many times. I estimate twice a month during that year of 2013.

Then the actions of Bishop Santarsiero became more aggressive: He was determined and started touching my testicles and penis and would say: ‘Press yourself well against me.’ I tried to flee and many times I managed to escape. At that moment, it was traumatic for me. I couldn’t understand how a person who was admired and venerated by so many people could do these things to me. I felt dirty, it disgusted me, and I started to feel resentment and anger toward that person who claimed to be my father and yet abused me. I couldn’t understand how a bishop could like men, which is why I left the seminary in March 2014. When I left the seminary, the bishop prevented me from going home. He offered me a job on a tangerine farm that they say belongs to the diocese.

But unfortunately, the events did not end there. The situation got much worse. Later, he pulled down my pants and groped my testicles and penis. He would say to me: ‘Don’t be afraid. I’m going to teach you how to clean yourself.’ At the same time, forcing me, he kissed me on the mouth. I tried to avoid a situation that caused me disgust and shame. Inside, I wanted to hit him; but at the same time, I thought he was the bishop and that I had to respect him. That’s how we had been taught: that the bishop deserves the utmost respect. So, although I rejected him by pushing him away from my body, at the same time he would insist again, and I felt overwhelmed and with no way out. This also repeated many times. Additionally, he tried to perform fellatio on me. He would sit in front of me, pull down my pants, and try to put my penis in his mouth. I again tried to avoid it and wanted to scream. Then he would stand up and say to me: ‘That’s enough, it’s okay. Hug me tightly. Hug me.’ This was a terrible situation for me. Difficult to describe with words.”

Testimony included in the formal complaint presented to the authorities in December 2025. The victim’s name has been omitted to protect their identity.

Vicar General of Huacho imposes a statement in the name of the entire presbytery without consulting the priests

The dissemination of a statement on behalf of an entire presbytery without effective support from its members is not a minor detail or a formal issue. 

It is a symptom. 

In the Diocese of Huacho, the vicar general, Alejandro Alvites, has promoted and distributed a text presented as the unanimous expression of the diocesan clergy in defense of the bishop, Mons. Antonio Santarsiero Rosa. 

The problem is that this unanimity does not exist.

Infovaticana has had access to the internal messages from the presbytery’s WhatsApp group, the channel through which the statement was conceived and disseminated. 

What is observed is not a process of consultation, deliberation, or voting, but the imposition of a already finalized text, presented to the priests as a done deal. 

Alvites himself introduces it as the “statement and pronouncement of the presbytery,” attributing to it “full support of solidarity,” without any mechanism recorded to justify that claim.

Full transcription of the message sent by Alejandro Alvites:

“Dear brothers in the priesthood, a cordial greeting after having dialogued with the deans about the slanders in the media against our Bishop, we send you the statement and pronouncement of the presbytery with our full support of solidarity that it may also be an expression of the people of our parishes, blessings”

The scene is revealing. There is no trace of contrast, nuance, or discrepancy. There is no individual or collective signature. There is no procedure. Only a will to project outward an image of cohesion that has not been built internally.

The content of the statement aggravates the situation. It does not limit itself to expressing closeness or asking for prudence, but fully enters into qualifying the accusations as “unjust and defamatory.” That is, it prejudges and points to alleged victims that include a minor. And it does so in the name of all the priests of the diocese. In canonical terms, this is not a minor imprudence, but a direct interference in any present or future investigation. The Church has clearly established that in the face of denunciations of this nature, the response must be articulated around processes: preliminary investigation, adoption of precautionary measures, formal instruction. Here there is none of that.

The recourse to an alleged support from the presbytery is not only inaccurate, but it introduces an element of environmental pressure. Whoever disagrees is implicitly placed outside of communion. An artificial consensus is thus built that protects authority, not the truth. It is a primary power scheme: first the innocence is affirmed, then the denunciation is discredited, and finally unity is invoked to close any debate.

It is not a matter of style, but of substance. This way of proceeding reveals insecurity. When an institution trusts its own legal mechanisms, it does not need to shield itself through dubious collective statements. It lets the facts be investigated, the evidence be assessed, and the decisions be made in accordance with the law. Here the opposite occurs: the verdict is anticipated and the presbytery is instrumentalized to sustain it.

The result is doubly damaging. Outwardly, it compromises the credibility of the Church in a particularly sensitive area like abuse denunciations. Inwardly, it erodes trust among the priests themselves, who see how their name can be used without their consent to endorse positions they have not subscribed to and that may mark them for life.

There is no possible justification for this type of practices. Neither pastoral nor legal. The Church cannot afford to function through forced adhesions via the most relevant institutional positions in the diocese. In situations like this, there is only one serious path: processes, investigation, measures. Everything else is noise, and in this case, moreover, a scandal.

U.S. denies having threatened the Vatican following the controversy over a meeting at the Pentagon

The United States Ambassador to the Holy See, Brian Burch, has categorically denied that the Pentagon threatened the Vatican during a meeting with Cardinal Christophe Pierre, amid the controversy generated by various reports about that encounter.

According to statements disseminated by Catholic Vote, Burch stated that he spoke directly with the Apostolic Nuncio in the United States, who described as “fabrications” the versions that portrayed tensions or pressures from Washington. The cardinal, according to that testimony, was clear: there were no threats and the meeting was “frank and cordial.”

The denial: “no threats”

According to the U.S. ambassador, Cardinal Pierre flatly rejected the information disseminated in some media about the content of the meeting with the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Elbridge Colby.

“He confirmed that those characterizations were ‘invented’ and that there were no threats of any kind,” Burch stated. Even the references to the so-called “Avignon Papacy,” which some interpreted as a warning, were dismissed: “None.”

The meeting, he added, took place approximately two months ago and developed within the usual channels of institutional dialogue.

A confirmed meeting with conflicting versions

Beyond the denial, various reports agree that the meeting did take place at the Pentagon, a fact that has also been indirectly acknowledged by U.S. spokespersons.

However, the content of the meeting remains subject to divergent interpretations. While the official version insists on its normal nature, other sources have described a harsher tone in the conversations.

Previous reports pointed to tensions

Some reports, originating from a The Free Press, piece, claimed that the meeting was marked by disagreements on international policy matters, especially after Pope Leo XIV’s criticisms of diplomacy based on the use of force.

According to those versions, during the meeting, reference would have been made to the historical precedent of the Avignon Papacy, which was interpreted by some as a gesture of symbolic pressure.

However, these elements have been denied by the version conveyed by the U.S. ambassador after his conversation with Cardinal Pierre.

White House reaction

In the same vein, a White House spokesperson described the meeting as “respectful and reasonable,” while Vice President JD Vance avoided commenting on the reports, stating that he had not seen those reports and preferred to verify the facts.

A context of international disagreements

The controversy arises at a time marked by underlying differences between the Holy See and U.S. foreign policy, particularly in relation to the conflict with Iran.

In recent weeks, Pope Leo XIV has warned about the risk of a “spiral of violence” and has criticized the resort to force in international relations, insisting on the need for diplomacy based on dialogue.

Secretary General of the Episcopal Conference of Peru, denounced for sexual abuse of a minor and a deacon

InfoVaticana has had exclusive access to a notarial letter dated March 26, 2026, duly certified and delivered in hand in the Apostolic Nunciature of Lima on March 31, which collects a formal complaint against Mons. Antonio Santarsiero Rosa, OSJ, secretary general of the Episcopal Conference of Peru and bishop of the diocese of Huacho, for alleged systematic sexual abuse and psychological abuse of people under his authority.

According to the documentation consulted by this means, the file has been sent simultaneously to the apostolic nuncio in Peru, Paolo Rocco Gualtieri, and Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Part of these same facts, always according to the dossier and the testimonies incorporated into it, had already been brought to the attention of Vatican authorities in 2024 and 2025. Until the date of publication of this information, there is no public response from Rome or pronouncement of the denounced bishop.

The case affects one of the most relevant charges of the Peruvian episcopal structure and raises questions not only about the conduct attributed to the prelate, but also about the reaction — or the absence of it — by the competent ecclesiastical authorities.

A formal complaint with two main testimonies

The main complaint corresponds to a young layman – whom we will identify as D. to preserve his privacy – today, today, about thirty years old, originally from a rural area of the northeastern mountain range of Peru and from a humble and large family. His testimony describes an alleged escalation of abuse that, according to his account, began when he was a minor, shortly after entering the minor seminary of the diocese of Huacho, and lasted for several years.

According to the complaint, the facts reported include forced hugs, genital touching and pressure mechanisms linked to scholarship and employment promises in diocesan companies. The legal representation of the victims maintains that, if these facts are confirmed, they could fit into some of the most serious crimes contemplated by the canonical criminal law in force in the field of abuses committed by clergy against minors.

The profile described in the documentation is that of a particularly vulnerable person: young, poor, moved away from their family environment and in a situation of economic, emotional and institutional dependence on the bishop. According to the account provided, this position of authority would have been used to access it repeatedly.

“I felt very uncomfortable. I was holding my waist, I was playing (...) I was traumatizing. He could not understand how a person admired and revered by so many people could do those things.”

— Testimony of D., declaring victim

The dossier also includes the testimony of a priest—whom we will call P. B.-, currently resident outside Peru, who lived with Santarsiero Rosa for several months as a personal assistant in the early years of his episcopate. In his statement, the priest describes a pattern of alleged psychological manipulation, non-consensual caresses, sexually explicit conduct, internal defamation, and progressive reprisals when he resisted the bishop’s progress.

According to his testimony, the prelate himself would have repeatedly described him as homosexual as an instrument of pressure and control, going so far as to use that attribution to hinder or delay his priestly ordination.

Media anonymity, but not legal

The decision of both people to maintain public anonymity in this phase does not respond, according to their representatives, to a lack of willingness to denounce, but to the fear of reprisals in an ecclesial environment that they consider hostile towards those who accuse members of the hierarchy.

One of the victims maintains that in Peru there are hardly any independent canonists willing to represent whistleblowers in cases against members of the clergy and that those who try to suffer pressure or reprisals.

Denouncing a bishop in a context of strong institutional, economic and pastoral dependence has a personal and professional cost that very few are willing to assume openly, especially in small or peripheral dioceses.

Communications sent to Rome

One of the most sensitive elements of the case is that, according to the file and the testimonies incorporated, the Vatican authorities would have been informed previously.

El P. B. afirma haber remitido un informe personal en noviembre de 2024 al entonces prefecto del Dicasterio para los Obispos, el cardenal Robert Prevost, hoy Papa León XIV. Meses después, siempre según su testimonio, se desplazó personalmente a Roma y entregó el mismo informe en la oficina del Santo Padre en diciembre de 2025. Asegura que hasta la fecha no recibió respuesta alguna. Santarsiero sí fue recibido en junio junto a los obispos de Perú por León XIV.

“Our Pope Leo XIV claims that it is important to listen to victims of sexual abuse. I, humbly, ask His Holiness: when will the day will come when He will have to listen to me? How many more years should I wait?”

— P. B., priest, 2026

La relevancia de este punto no radica solo en la eventual recepción de los documentos, sino en la ausencia de una respuesta conocida o de una actuación que haya trascendido. InfoVaticana no ha obtenido confirmación de la apertura de una investigación canónica formal relacionada con estos hechos.

Internal coherence and likelihood of the dossier

The anonymity of the priest and the other victim does not by himself detract from his or her statement. The two testimonies present a detailed narrative in time, space and form, and include concrete references to people, places and institutions of the diocese of Huacho. This media has not been able to independently verify the totality of the allegations, but it has been able to speak with some of those involved and contrast that the dossier contains extensive accounts, signed and accompanied by documentation sent to ecclesiastical authorities.

Uno de los elementos que más peso otorgan al expediente, es la existencia de dos relatos procedentes de personas distintas, en roles y puestos diferentes, que describen de manera independiente patrones de conducta similares atribuidos al mismo prelado en contextos distintos.

It is not, therefore, an isolated accusation based solely on rumors or indirect references, but on a set of concordant testimonies whose truthfulness must be investigated and determined by the competent bodies.

A small diocese, a concentrated power

Huacho is a diocese of poor media visibility, with limited external oversight mechanisms and an internal structure in which the bishop exercises very broad power. This context, according to various analyses on institutional abuse in closed environments, can favor dynamics of silence, dependence and lack of effective control.

Santarsiero Rosa, of Italian origin, has run this ecclesiastical jurisdiction for years and also holds a position of maximum relevance within the Peruvian episcopate. That dual status — local power and national institutional weight — adds seriousness to the accusations and the need for rapid and credible clarification.

In addition, according to the victims and their representatives, the existence of a parallel civil court in the joint court of Oyón that would investigate a priest of the same diocese for alleged sexual violence against a minor. The same sources argue that Bishop Santarsiero would be exercising an active cover-up in that case.

Questions that Rome must answer

InfoVaticana has contacted the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith to collect its version of the facts, without obtaining a response until the close of this edition. Mons. Santarsiero Rosa has also been contacted by this media and has not sent any statement.

The case raises questions that go beyond the individual responsibility of the denounced bishop. If the Vatican authorities received documented communications in 2024 and 2025, what follow-up was given to those complaints? Was any previous investigation opened? Were the alleged victims heard? Were the mechanisms provided for by the canonical regulations in force activated?

The responses are particularly relevant at a time when the Holy See repeatedly insists on the need to listen to the victims and act diligently in the face of allegations of abuse.

In the absence of official explanations, people who claim to have reported these events claim to continue waiting, in some cases for years, for a response that never came.

RESPONSE RECEIVED BY BISHOP SANTARSIERO

1.- I have received through your communication the news of the existence of a notary letter, delivered on March 31, 2026, in which I am accused of alleged perpetrator of serious conduct. I would like to record that, up to this point, I have not received such a letter or been officially notified of such an accusation. It is through you that I become aware of this document and the allegations against me.

2.- In the face of this circumstance, I am unable to offer a response on the aforementioned accusations since without specific information, I cannot exercise a precise discharge or respond to the accusations referred.

3.- However, I strongly deny the conduct attributed to me, the accusations of sexual abuse and psychological abuse that you indicate in your communication, since they totally contradict my trajectory and principles as a priest and bishop, in which I have always acted with righteousness, respect and pastoral commitment.

4.- I believe that any attack on a person, must be made known at the moment, and in this regard I have not had any claim, less for an inconduct that I do not know.

5.- I request with all kindness, if possible to send me a copy of the documentation of said notary letter, to take knowledge and take legal action, if applicable.