Thousands of diocesan documents stolen in Diocee of Las Cruces; head of Voice of the Laity allegedly involved
Bishop Peter Baldacchino reports that over sixty thousand diocesan records were stolen in September 2025. The theft prompted civil authorities to be notified and an internal investigation by the Diocese of Las Cruces. Bishop accuses the leader of Voice of the Laity of involvement and explains the suspension of Father Christopher Williams, a supporter of the group. The incident has intensified the conflict between the diocese and Voice of the Laity.
5 months ago
Thousands of diocesan records were reported stolen from the Diocese of Las Cruces, and Bishop Peter Baldacchino has implicated the leader of the lay‑faith group Voice of the Laity in the theft. The bishop’s May 8 letter also explained the suspension of Father Christopher Williams, a priest backed by the organization, while noting that civil authorities have been notified and an internal investigation is underway1.
The Diocese of Las Cruces discovered that more than 60,000 private diocesan documents were missing.
The loss was first identified in September 2025 and promptly reported to law‑enforcement agencies.
Bishop Peter Baldacchino sent a letter to the Basilica of San Albino in Mesilla outlining the situation.
He clarified that Father Christopher Williams was suspended because of the alleged involvement of the Voice of the Laity’s leader in the theft.
The diocese has launched an internal inquiry alongside the civil investigation.
Details of the investigation’s findings have not yet been released.
The dispute between the Diocese of Las Cruces and the organization Voice of the Laity has intensified following these allegations.
Father Williams remains a prominent figure supported by the lay group, despite his suspension.*
Investigate the Church’s internal protocols for safeguarding diocesan archives
The Church’s internal safeguarding protocols for diocesan archives are principally articulated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, especially in canons governing the diocesan curia, together with older legislation on archival discipline. These norms focus on (1) secure custody, (2) controlled access, (3) proper cataloging, (4) preservation of an archive with historical value, and (5) special protection and restricted handling of especially sensitive (“secret”) materials.
Canon law begins with a general rule: “All documents which regard the diocese or parishes must be protected with the greatest care.”
This establishes that safeguarding is not merely administrative good practice; it is a juridical duty oriented toward the integrity of spiritual and temporal governance (because canon law treats these archives as operational memory of the Church’s life).
Canon 486 requires that “in every curia there is to be erected in a safe place a diocesan archive, or record storage area” where documents concerning the diocese’s spiritual and temporal affairs are safeguarded after being properly filed and diligently secured.
Key features embedded in this protocol:
Canon 486 further requires that an inventory (catalog) of the documents in the archive must be kept, including a brief synopsis of each written document.
In safeguarding terms, the inventory functions as:
Canon 487 provides a strong access-control protocol:
This is a classic Church-internal safeguarding pattern: reduce risk by limiting physical access and require explicit authorization paths.
Canon 487 also recognizes a rights-based exception:
So safeguarding is not absolute secrecy; it is segmented:
Canon 489 requires either:
It adds that documents kept secret must be protected most securely.
This indicates the Church distinguishes between:
Canon 490 is explicit:
When the diocese is without its bishop (“see is vacant”), Canon 490 limits opening:
This is an internal continuity-and-safeguarding protocol: reduce discretion and protect sensitive materials during governance transition.
Canon 490 also states:
Safeguarding here is not only “locked storage”; it is also no physical transfer/removal from the secure space—preventing unauthorized handling and loss.
Canon 491 places a clear episcopal responsibility:
This matters because safeguarding is not only about one curial archive room; it also encompasses local church archives within the diocese.
Canon 491 further requires inventories/catalogs be made in duplicate, with:
This duplication functions as a risk-mitigation and continuity mechanism: if one custody point is damaged, misplaced, or restricted, another catalog record remains available for oversight and reconstruction.
Canon 491 requires the existence of:
“Systematically ordered” points to more than storage—it implies classification and arrangement to preserve the archive’s research value and integrity over time.
Canon 491 §3 adds a procedural governance layer:
So the Church’s universal norms require diocesan implementation through the bishop’s specific directives for inspection/removal.
Canon 489 §2 contains a targeted retention protocol:
This shows the safeguarding framework includes not only long-term preservation but also controlled disposal to protect persons’ rights and prevent indefinite retention of sensitive materials beyond specified time frames.
The Catholic Encyclopedia’s “Ecclesiastical Archives” article notes that the “most detailed legislation” on archival erection, arrangement, and safe custody was embodied in the Constitution “Maxima Vigilantia” of Benedict XIII (1727).
While this is not itself the 1983 canon text, it indicates that the Church’s concern for archival safeguarding—including safe custody and proper arrangement—has long been treated as a matter of Church discipline rather than optional administration.
Putting the canons together, the Church’s internal protocols for diocesan archives can be summarized as layered requirements:
Together, these constitute a coherent Church model of archival safeguarding: secure custody + controlled access + documented inventory + confidentiality tiers + retention/destruction boundaries + episcopal oversight and diocesan implementation through norms.