Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne, the emeritus archbishop of Lima (Peru) and a cardinal created by Pope John Paul II in 2001, is currently at the center of a very confusing storm. On January 25, 2025, the well-known Spanish newspaper El País published an article denouncing the very sui generis way in which the Vatican has managed, since 2018, a case of pedophilia that allegedly involves the high-ranking prelate. As we will see, this case is not just another sad legal matter involving abuse of minors by priests, but also an opportunity (whether orchestrated or not, this is not clear as of today) to deliver a final blow to Opus Dei, which, as is well known, is strongly disliked by Pope Francis.
Let's proceed step by step. As already mentioned, on January 25, 2025, the alleged victim of abuse wrote to El País, thus breaking a silence imposed by the Vatican for more than thirty years. The article contains numerous references to information that appears to come from confidential documents that should be locked away in the Vatican. Promptly, Cardinal Cipriani sent a letter to the editorial staff of the Spanish newspaper on the same day, a letter that was duly published. In this letter, the Cardinal expresses his sorrow for the way the matter was made public, reiterates his innocence and respect for the victims of pedophilia, and recounts his version of the events.
In 1983, Cipriani was the spiritual director of the Seminary of Lima in Peru, and during that time he allegedly abused (the conditional is mandatory) a 16 or 17-year-old boy. In 2018, 35 years later, according to Cipriani's account, Francis received a letter from the victim, delivered by a journalist, Juan Carlos Cruz, who was then a member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. Incidentally, this journalist and "ecclesiastical sources in Lima" (not better specified) confirmed to El País the version of events reported by the victim.
According to the Peruvian press, in recent years Opus Dei has always supported the cardinal's innocence. It is no secret that a more or less latent war has been ongoing between the Prelature of Opus Dei and Bergoglio since the beginning of his pontificate.
Immediately, the Vatican would have informed the cardinal of the accusation against him at the time, without providing him with documents or details. Everything was placed under secrecy. About a year later, in December 2019, Monsignor Nicola Girasoli, nuncio in Peru, would have verbally notified Cardinal Cipriani of a series of sanctions imposed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, including the obligation to absolute silence on the matter and the prohibition of wearing cardinal symbols. The notification would have coincided with the end of the episcopal mandate, imposed by age limits according to canon law. In fact, the pope immediately accepted the formal resignation of the former archbishop. In his letter, however, the cardinal lamented that he had been sanctioned by Francis "without being heard, without knowing anything else, and without a formal process being initiated".
In February 2020, there would have been a key event in this whole affair: Pope Francis allegedly received Cipriani in a private audience, authorizing him to resume pastoral activities, but without subsequently notifying this decision officially. In fact, Cipriani immediately resumed activities, albeit without any explicit permission from the Holy See. To those aware of the matter, this must have appeared as a violation of the sanctions imposed by the Congregation, since no one knew what Cipriani and Francis had discussed, nor was there any official communication about it.
The day after the scandal broke out in El País, on January 26th, the Vatican officially confirmed that "a penal precept regarding public activity, place of residence, and use of insignia" had been imposed on the cardinal, and that this precept is still in force. Furthermore, the cardinal had even received, reviewed, and signed this precept. Therefore, it would not have been just verbal sanctions, contrary to what the cardinal stated in the letter sent to El País. Thus, there are two possibilities: either Francis lied to Cipriani, deceiving him and inducing him to act according to a resolution that was never actually made, or Cipriani lied and Francis never granted him any verbal authorization in a private audience.
There are many reasons to fear that this fortuitous "leak" against Cardinal Cipriani is something more than just the simple denunciation of a sexual abuse. It would not be the first time, after all: just think of the ordeal faced by Cardinal George Pell. As always, time will tell the truth.
On January 29, 2025, to further complicate matters, Cardinal Cipriani released a second statement. This is an official letter addressed to the president of the Peruvian Episcopal Conference, Monsignor Carlos Enrique García Camader. In it, the Peruvian cardinal admits to having received the so-called "penal precept," that is, the text with the sanctions, and to having signed it on December 19, 2019, thus confirming - at least in part - the official version of the Vatican. However, the cardinal also reiterated his innocence and stated that he had strictly observed the silence imposed on him for six long years.
Many analysts have questioned, noticed inconsistencies, and highlighted unanswered questions: why this change in version by Cipriani? Why did the cardinal initially remain silent about the existence of a penal precept? But above all, who provided El País with documents that should be kept and secreted in the Vatican dicasteries' palaces? "It is serious that partial information is published, which seems to come from confidential documentation of the Holy See, which I do not even possess," reads Cipriani's letter of January 25.
As commented by Luis Badilla on messainlatino.it, the well-known unofficial Italian Vatican news site, "if it finally proves true, as Cardinal Cipriani says, that after being informed of a pedophilia complaint against him (August 2018), for long 16 months no one ever listened to him at the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, it means that minimum human rights are not respected in the Vatican. Accusing someone verbally and then reappearing in front of the accused, 16 months later, with a list of punishments was not even seen in Soviet times." In short, this whole affair highlights the existence of strange dynamics within the Vatican and by Francis, who seems unscrupulous in using serious accusations, regardless of their truthfulness, to eliminate his opponents.
Frédéric Martel, the French homosexual sociologist, with the publication of his best-seller In the Closet of the Vatican (2019), claimed the existence of a gay lobby in the Vatican. This pressure group would aim to make homosexuality "acceptable" within the Catholic Church and would be composed of Francis himself and other prelates very close to him.
And indeed, we can consider Cardinal Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne as such. Let's not forget Frédéric Martel, the French homosexual sociologist, who with the publication of his best-seller In the Closet of the Vatican (2019), claimed the existence of a gay lobby in the Vatican. This pressure group would aim to make homosexuality "acceptable" within the Catholic Church and would be composed of Francis himself and other prelates very close to him. The statements made by Martel about Pope Francis are very serious from a doctrinal point of view and have so far never been officially denied. In that book, Martel also denounced the names of several "rigid cardinals" who would oppose Francis' “sexual liberalism” with their "conservative, misogynistic, and homophobic texts.” We also find the name of Cipriani among others (Burke, Caffarra, Müller, Brandmüller, Piacenza, Bertone, Pell, Bagnasco, etc.) Martel would see favorably the Church's openness to homosexuality, in his view the only possible remedy to overcome the hypocrisy of the "largest homosexual community in the world which is at the same time the most powerful homophobic institution."
More importantly, it should not be forgotten that Cardinal Cipriani is a distinguished member of Opus Dei. According to the Peruvian press, in recent years Opus Dei has always supported the cardinal's innocence. It is no secret that a more or less latent war has been ongoing between the Prelature of Opus Dei and Bergoglio since the beginning of his pontificate. One of the main causes of this tension is linked to differences in vision and approach to the management of the Church.
Opus Dei is known for its positions considered "ultra-conservative" and in recent years it has been the subject of numerous actions taken by Pope Francis to limit its influence and action: in 2015, Francis created Luigi De Magistris cardinal in his first consistory, the only prelate who opposed the beatification of the founder of Opus Dei, St. Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer; in July 2022, with the motu proprio Ad Charisma Tuendam, the Prelature was significantly modified and placed under the supervision of the Dicastery for the Clergy (no longer the Bishops), to which it must submit an annual report; finally, over the years, Opus Dei has been targeted by heavy and often undocumented accusations from major non-Catholic newspapers, such as the Financial Times, and this has been seen by many as an attempt to disfigure a reality of the Church that poorly aligns with the provisions of the new revolutionary and synodal Church desired by Francis and other neo-modernists. In short, there are many reasons to fear that this fortuitous "leak" against Cardinal Cipriani is something more than just the simple denunciation of a sexual abuse. It would not be the first time, after all: just think of the ordeal faced by Cardinal George Pell. As always, time will tell the truth. “For nothing is covered that shall not be revealed: nor hid, that shall not be known” (Matthew 10, 26).
Latest from RTV — Mass Restoration | Michael Matt interviewed by African Traditionalist
