Cardinal Prevost never investigated abuse claims, alleged victims say

The head of the Dicastery of Bishops has been accused of failing in 2022 to open an investigation into the accusations of abuse.

The prefect for the Dicastery of Bishops, Cardinal Robert Prevost, has been publicly accused of never having opened a canonical case into alleged sexual abuse carried out by two priests in the Diocese of Chiclayo, Peru, which he led from 2014 until 2023, when he was called to Rome. 

Cardinal Robert Prevost.

As previously reported by The Pillar, the Diocese of Chiclayo has been accused of mishandling allegations made by Ana Maria Quispe and two other women, who say they were abused by Fr Eleuterio Vásquez Gonzáles. Allegations were also made against Fr Ricardo Yesquen. 

It has since emerged that the other two alleged victims are Ana Maria Quispe’s younger sisters, Aura Teresa and Juana Mercedes.

In a new statement, the alleged victims claim that Prevost failed in 2022 to open an investigation into the accusations of sexual abuse dating back to 2007. They say that any documentation that may have been sent to Rome was purposely designed to look inadequate so as to prevent action on the case. 

The allegations that Prevost engaged in covering up abuse reports are particularly significant, since Prevost’s current post as head of the Dicastery for Bishops oversees complaints and investigations of episcopal negligence in abuse cases around the world.

For several months, the Diocese of Chiclayo has maintained that the accusations had been handled according to canonical norms and in line with Church policy - that Cardinal Prevost had met with the young women in April 2022, and encouraged them to take their case to the civil authorities, while opening an initial canonical investigation. 

The diocese further said that the results of their initial investigation were sent to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), along with notice that the civil investigation had been shelved for lack of evidence and because the statute of limitations had expired. 

According to the diocese, the DDF sent its reply on August 10, 2023, nine months after Cardinal Prevost had been moved to Rome, and four months after his official installation as prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops. 

During this time, according to the Diocese of Chiclayo, Fr. Gonzáles had been asked to refrain from public ministry. Fr. Yesquen, the diocese said, suffers from a serious degenerative disease and is not capable of responding to his accusations.

In December 2023, Ana Maria Quispe went public with her allegations, saying that she had identified other victims. With media attention focused on the issue, the diocese, then led by Bishop Guillermo Cornejo on an interim basis, reopened the case and called for a new investigation. 

Cornejo, auxiliary bishop of Lima, Peru, was apostolic administrator of Chiclayo between April 2023 and March 2024, when Bishop Edinson Farfán was installed as the new leader of the diocese. Notably, Farfán is a member of the Augustinian order, as is Cardinal Prevost who, as the prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops, would have been instrumental in his nomination. 

Father Eleuterio Vásquez Gonzáles is a popular priest in the Diocese of Chiclayo and the allegations about him have proved controversial, dividing opinions in the local Church. 

The Pillar obtained access to digital copies of several letters of support for Fr. Gonzáles, sent by individual parishioners, or by representatives of Catholic organizations, to the Diocese of Chiclayo. 

The documents were provided to The Pillar by Peruvian organization Milagro Eucaristico Peru 1649 but were all stamped and dated by the diocese itself, indicating that they originated from within the diocesan archives.  

With the case making headlines around the world, and accusations in Peru that Cardinal Prevost had mishandled the situation during his tenure, the diocese has continued to insist that an initial investigation had been carried out, and that the decision to drop the charges had been taken by the DDF — not the diocese, before or after prevost’s departure. 

However, in a statement published September 12, the three Quispe sisters claim that there had been no investigation, or at least nothing substantial or serious. If anything was sent to Rome, they allege, it was tailored to be considered insufficient and not merit the opening of a full penal canonical investigation.

Their statement is part of a running dispute involving an investigative report by a Peruvian television channel about the case, which accused Cardinal Prevost of being part of a cover-up. In response to the report, the diocese issued a statement on September 10, essentially repeating the points made previously, about how all the required canonical steps were taken at the right time, including the removal of the priest from active duty, and highlighting the fact that Bishop Cornejo reopened the case, and that the diocese offered the victims support. 

It was in response to this statement that the sisters published their own, denying key elements of the diocese’s defense. 

“We strenuously deny the existence of any ‘initial investigation’ during the tenure of Mons. Robert Francis Prevost Martínez OSA,” they said. “As proof of our statements, we point to the non-existence of any decree ordering the opening of an investigation, or of any decree issuing precautionary measures.” 

“During this period, we were never called by any investigator to make any deposition,” they state, noting that they are referring specifically to the period between April 2022 and November 2023, when Ana Maria Quispe went public with her allegations.

The sisters have insisted that there is no documentary evidence that an investigation ever took place, and have challenged the diocese to show proof of any that might exist, setting a deadline of 48 hours, which went unmet. 

Besides these accusations, the Quispe sisters stated that they were never offered any psychological support, or assistance of any kind. They also point to what they say is a legal error in the diocesan statement, which claims that the civil case was thrown out for lack of evidence — the sisters say that the only reason given by the civil authorities was that the statute of limitations had expired, with no reference made to a supposed lack of evidence. 

They also questioned the diocesan statement that Fr. Gonzáles was ever removed from active ministry, saying that he was actually sent to a different parish, invoking health problems. They have released what they say is photographic evidence of the priest participating in public Masses, including some high-profile celebrations during the period in which he was supposedly out of ministry. 

The photographs presented by the sisters were taken from parish social media accounts.

“The level of reasoning in the [diocesan] press release, aimed at defending the indefensible, is regrettable. There can be no doubt that the Diocese of Chiclayo has decided to act in defense of one of the parties, against the victims. It has taken the side of the most powerful. This press release is no more than an effort to continue to cover up for the aggressor priest,” said the Quispe sisters. 

One of the most bizarre twists in the recent diocesan statement has to do with a possible admission of guilt on the part of Fr. Gonzáles. 

Until September 10, it had been widely circulated that when the case was reopened by Bishop Cornejo, the accused priest had admitted the abuse. This seemed to have been confirmed by the spokesman of the diocese of Chiclayo and the head of the diocesan “listening center” opened by then-Bishop Prevost. 

However, in its latest statement, the diocese says that this was a “misunderstanding,” and that the priest’s admission of guilt related only to having celebrated Mass publicly when he had been barred from doing so, adding that he has since ceased. The priest has always denied the accusations of sexual abuse, the diocese said. 

The sisters dispute this claim, and say that an admission of guilt was actually made even earlier, to Prevost directly, which would significantly increase the pressure on the cardinal who, as head of the Dicastery for Bishops, oversees cases of episcopal negligence worldwide under the norms of Vos estis lux mundi. 

“We confirm, in honor of the truth and our Holy Church, what Bishop Robert Prevost said about the admission, in his presence, of the facts of sexual abuse by the accused priest, and later conveyed to Fr Julio Ramírez Cabrera, of the Listening Centre, who passed on the information given by Bishop Prevost to us,” the sisters said. 

“This same information was confirmed later by Bishop Guillermo Cornejo Monzón, publicly before the press, confirming that the accused priest had admitted to the facts. This can be proved by the testimony of the spokesman of the then bishop of Chiclayo, Robert Prevost, and later confirmed also by the public statements made by Bishop Guillermo Cornejo and the testimonies of the victims, who were given the information by the director of the Listening Centre.”

Finally, the statement of the alleged victims accuses Peruvian Church authorities of harassing and humiliating their canon lawyer, Fr Ricardo Coronado Arrascue. 

According to the Italian website Bussola Quotidiana, the canon lawyer took charge of the Quispe sisters’ defense in May 2024. Since this time, Bishop Farfán is said to have refused to meet with Coronado, and to have issued a statement denying the legitimacy of his nomination, and therefore any access to relevant documents.

In August 2024, the Peruvian Bishops’ Conference issued a public statement to the effect that Fr. Coronado could not practice as a canon lawyer, citing article 111 of the Vatican instruction Dignitas Connubii, which treats cases of canonists “found to be unequal to their duty because of incompetence, a loss of good reputation, negligence or abuses.”

Five days later, the priest was informed by his Diocese of Cajamarca that an initial investigation over a canonical crime of a sexual nature had determined that the allegations were credible. The diocese had, therefore, had opened a penal case against him and informed the Vatican’s Dicastery for Clergy, which had offered the priest the possibility of voluntary dismissal from the clerical state. 

Bussola reported that the allegations pertain to a sexual relationship with a consenting adult, adding that the priest denies any wrongdoing. 

“We have no doubt that, with this type of ‘chastisement’, no canonist in Peru will want to defend us,” the sisters said in response to the news. 

As it stands, there is no direct evidence pointing to mishandling of the case by Cardinal Prevost. However, the allegations that no proper initial investigation was carried out under his watch present a serious challenge to his credibility — especially given his Vatican role. 

The allegations also point to a wider concern, that local dioceses can skew initial investigations in ways that lead Vatican departments like the DDF to conclude there is no evidence, ending the process and insulating the local diocese from responsibility for the decision. 

At this point, many in Peru are waiting to see if the diocese will produce the documentary evidence solicited by the Quispe sisters, thereby backing up its statements that the initial investigation was carried out thoroughly, and, especially, that everything was done to secure official depositions by the victims.

If the diocese can not or will not do so, the fog surrounding Cardinal Prevost’s handling of the case, and by extension the fittingness of his nomination to a very important curial position, will remain.