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.