Witness in Vatican probe of controversial Peru group defends process

ROME – A former member of a scandal-ridden Peruvian lay group under Vatican investigation has called apparent attempts to discredit the inquiry false and defamatory, and asked those critical of the process to respect both the course of justice and the Vatican officials tasked with carrying it out.

Speaking to Crux, Martin Scheuch, a former member of the Sodalitium Christianae Vitae (SCV) who has testified as part of the Vatican’s ongoing investigation of the group, rejected assertions of recently expelled members who have claimed the process was unfair.

Such assertions, Scheuch said, are false, because “all the accused were able to defend themselves, and those of us who testified knew that what we said would be analyzed and then presented to the [accused parties] for their defense.”

“They could defend themselves and present their defense, which exposed us a lot,” he said, saying that “Despite this, and because of the trust that Archbishop [Charles] Scicluna and Monsignor [Jordi] Bertomeu inspired in us, we accepted.”

Scicluna, a Maltese prelate who also serves as an adjunct secretary of the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Bertomeu, a Spanish priest who’s an official of the dicastery, have been charged by Pope Francis with carrying out the SCV probe.

The SCV was founded in Lima in 1971 by Peruvian layman Luis Fernando Figari, who last month was expelled from the community after previously being sanctioned for psychological, spiritual, physical and sexual abuse.

Last week the Peruvian Episcopal Conference (CEP) announced that as part of the Vatican’s inquiry into the SCV, 10 top members had been expelled, including Scheuch’s brother, Erwin Scheuch.

Martin Scheuch also touched on the case of Peruvian laywoman Giuliana Caccia Arana and layman Sebastian Blanco, who last year asked to meet Scicluna and Bertomeu while they were in Peru. During their respective conversations, Caccia and Blanco reportedly said that two former members of the SCV who have gone on to be critical of the group – since identified as Scheuch and Jose Enrique Escardo – had harassed them online.

Caccia and Blanco have been threatened by the pope with excommunication after filing a criminal complaint against Bertomeu for breaking professional secrecy after he and Scicluna questioned other interviewees about aspects of their testimonies, which were then leaked to the press.

Scheuch told Crux he believes the accusation of breaking secrecy in that context is “absurd,” and constitutes an attempt to interfere with the Vatican’s investigation.

“Anyone understands that threatening to go to civil courts when the matter can be resolved by canonical means, is a clear attempt to obstruct ecclesiastical justice,” he said.

Crux reached out to Cacci and Blanco for a response. Both said that Scheuch’s account of the events “is false,” and referred to previous statements published by Crux explaining their version of events.

They also said they are “in conversations with the Holy Father” regarding their potential excommunication over their criminal suit against Bertomeu, and would not comment further on the matter.

Below is Crux’s interview with Martin Scheuch.

Crux: As someone who gave testimony as part of the Vatican investigation, what is your response to claims that the process was unfair?

Scheuch: On October 2, 2024, Archbishop José Antonio Eguren, archbishop emeritus of Piura and Tumbes and one of the ten expelled from the Sodalitium, wrote in a letter in which he said:

‘Many people in their communications in recent days have expressed their sorrow and mortification at the way in which our expulsion was communicated, where a group of ten brothers are all equally accused, and without any kind of clarification or precision, of very serious acts. To have done if this way, they say, is an insult and damages the reputation and good name of all those expelled, as well as the justice and truth that have always guided the Church, even more so when one is a bishop. In my case, I can assure you that I have not gone through a due process.’

Here I must make several clarifications in honor of the truth.

To begin with, the press release of the Apostolic Nunciature that announced the expulsion of 10 members is not a legal document but merely informative, where the serious faults that motivate the expulsions are listed generally without going into further details. The reasons for the decision would have been given in a personal way in each of the expulsion decrees that were sent to the superior general of the Sodalitium and to those affected, and which are not public documents.

It is false, then, that everything is attributed to everyone equally.

Furthermore, the Special Mission did not go to Peru with a judicial function, but rather an administrative one. As we were told if we asked, the Holy Father sent them above all, after 24 years, to listen to the victims. [They showed] correctness with everyone and empathy with the victims.

I myself asked why the Church did not act earlier. I was told, ‘Most of the behavior of the Sodalits questioned are not canonical offences and, if they are, they are already prescribed. The penal route is impracticable. The disciplinary route is not. Those behaviors against the evangelical counsels denounced by you and which cause such a serious scandal are intolerable in consecrated persons.’

What is your understanding of the purpose of the Special Mission?

The main task of the Special Mission was to collect testimonies and documents on alleged abuses of all kinds in the Sodalitium, whose veracity had to be verified. How? By contrasting various testimonies, collecting the different versions and analyzing the statements of both the alleged abusers and the victims.

This leads to the problem of the right to defense. The assertion of some of the accused that they were unable to defend themselves is completely false. I myself knew, because I asked at the time, that my personal testimony would be presented to the accused. They could defend themselves and present their defense, which exposed us a lot. Despite this, and because of the trust that Archbishop Scicluna and Monsignor Bertomeu inspired in us, we accepted.

All of the accused were able to defend themselves, and those of us who testified knew that what we said would be analyzed and then presented to the accused for their defense.

For this reason, I consider the claim that the contents of their testimonies should have been kept confidential and not shared with other protagonists on the case for reaction absurd.

It should also be clear that Monsignor Scicluna and Monsignor Bertomeu, even though they could have done so, never revealed their names to the other complainants. This conclusion emerges easily if one reads carefully everything published in recent days. All of the declarants were offered the normal confidentiality of any investigation. If any of them requested special confidentiality, as apparently did Mrs. X, one of those who testified against Alejandro Bermudez, that confidentiality was respected.

What, then, do you make of the criminal complaint against Bertomeu?

The one who asked the questions was Monsignor Scicluna. Monsignor Bertomeu, who was an actuary, already denied what was falsely charged against him, first in a WhatsApp message, and presented a coherent explanation of the events.

Anyone understands that threatening to go to civil courts when the matter can be resolved by canonical means, is a clear attempt to obstruct ecclesiastical justice. Those who do this know that the worse court is that of public opinion, in this case manipulated and stimulated with falsehoods that sooner or later will fall.

They also accuse the Special Mission of punishing unfairly. This is also false. Archbishop Scicluna and Monsignor Bertomeu only collected evidence without judging anyone, in order to later present it to the accused. The final decisions on expulsions were made by the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life by mandate of Pope Francis.

Pope Francis has not imposed canonical penalties, but rather has made purely administrative decisions, the result of a disciplinary process in which crimes are not punished, but rather – in this particular case – ‘the serious scandal caused by their culpable conduct’, one of the causes established by canon 696 of the Code of Canon Law for the expulsion of a member of an Institute of Consecrated Life. It is very similar to the disciplinary decisions made by a company.

The responsibility for dealing with these serious faults, which have been repeatedly denounced and well-known for years, actually fell to the Superior General of the institute (SCV). Instead, it had to be assumed by Pope Francis in the fact of the scandalous inaction shown by the authorities of the Sodalitium.

What would you say to those who claim the process has been unjust?

All those expelled were confronted with the testimonies that implicated them and had the opportunity to defend themselves. It seems that their arguments were not as convincing as they would have wished. But that does not authorize them to present themselves as docile doves who, in their innocence, ignore the reasons for their expulsion and consider themselves victims of injustice.

It is enough to have been part of the Sodalitium’s system of abuse, to have endorsed its practices that violate basic human rights and to have covered up the abusers with their silence, for the expulsions to be more than justified.

I would tell all of them to stop stirring up low passions with falsehoods, inconsistencies and vagueness. Do not interfere anymore with the action of the justice in progress and respect the Holy Father and his envoys, for the good of all!

The victims and survivors of the Sodalitium have respected the rules of the game and, at the risk of re-victimizing ourselves, we have reopened our wounds once again to tell what was well-known from the books and articles published. Our aggressors, on the other hand, only display arrogance, narrow-mindedness and pride. However, I think I can affirm that, finally, their game is over.