Mercy, justice and the correct application of canonical norms in the face of abuseIt has been called the "trial of the century", or even the "trial of the century".Becciu trial". In reality, what is happening in the Vatican since last July can be neither one nor the other. It is not the trial of the century, because the charges, read in depth, only reveal - if proven - some embezzlement and fraud, certainly not memorable crimes. And it is not the trial of Becciu, because Cardinal Angelo Becciu, who answers for what he allegedly did as a substitute for the Secretary of State, is only referred to some of the charges, and not the most important ones.
The London apartment and the Diocese of Becciu
So how can one define this trial that began last July at the Vatican? At the heart of the trial is the issue of the Secretary of State's investment in a luxury London property. Initially, the investment was entrusted to the broker Italian Fabrizio Mincione. Then, dissatisfied with the return on the investment, the Secretary of State turned to the other broker Gianluigi Torzi, who had retained 1,000 shares of the property, which were, however, the only ones with voting rights, exercising de facto total control of the property. Finally, the Secretary of State took the decision to take over the building, putting an end to all relations with Torzi.
To this matter must be added others. Cardinal Becciu is accused of embezzlement, since as deputy to the Secretariat of State he allegedly sent funds from the latter to the Caritas of his diocese, Ozieri, whose president was his brother, and also to the SPES cooperative, also linked to the diocese. The Cardinal is also accused of having "hired" the consultant Cecilia Marogna for mediation operations (and, as it is known, for the payment of a ransom to free Sister Cecilia Narvaez, kidnapped in Sudan), and finally for "bribery", that is, for having pressured the former head of the administration of the Secretariat of State, Monsignor Alberto Perlasca, to change the tone of the statements against him.
Accusations, obviously, all to be proven, in a trial that is expected to be very long. The trial covers at least three lines of investigation: the one concerning the investment of the Secretariat of State in the London property; the one concerning the alleged embezzlement of Cardinal Becciu; the one concerning the relationship with the "intelligence" consultant Cecilia Marogna.
Three keys to understanding the trial
Similarly, there are three key readings to understand the Vatican's judgment, and the most important one is not even the financial one.
The first is procedural. The investigation arose from a report by the Vatican auditor general, following a complaint by the director of the Istituto delle Opere di Religione, the so-called "Vatican bank."
This fact has been repeatedly pointed to as a clear example that the financial reforms pushed by Pope Francis are working. However, these allegations rather attest to the weakness of the Vatican's judicial system.
The allegations led to investigations by the Financial Information Authority and the Secretariat of State. These are two independent bodies within the Holy See. The Authority exchanges intelligence data and maintains international cooperative relationships with similar authorities abroad that have been implicated by the investigations, as documents belonging to foreign and sovereign entities were also seized. Since the Authority could not supervise the operations of the Secretariat of State, but had to supervise financial transactions, the investigations not only created a small wound, but also may have blocked investigations that could have been decisive in the trial of the London building.
The Secretariat of State was completely autonomous from the financial point of view. It is not a dicastery like any other, nor could it be, because it is the Secretariat of the Pope, and represents the government. Can there be crimes if a sovereign body, with full financial availability, decides to make investments? And is a bad investment a crime?
The result of this handling of the investigations has ultimately weakened the Church's governing body, which has also been stripped of its financial autonomy by the Pope.
The Vatican legal system
The second line concerns the Vatican's legal system. Pope Francis intervened in the investigations with four rescripts (documents written in his own handwriting) that in some cases also suspended procedural rights. This created a problem for the Holy See. The Vatican City State is, in effect, a state with its own laws, an absolute monarchy where the Pope is the first judge and legislator. However, the Holy See adheres to treaties and upholds the principles of due process in international arenas. For this reason, the Popes have never intervened too much in judicial matters, in order to keep the authority of the Holy See unaltered. Moreover, the government of Vatican City State itself is delegated to a governor and a commission of cardinals.
With the rescripts, Pope Francis has carried out a "Vaticanization" of the Holy See, turning around the paradigm whereby the State serves the Holy See and not the other way around. This could have consequences at the international level, if the accused were then to go to European courts for human rights violations. This is a possible path.
The financial issue
Finally, there is the financial issue. Without going into details, it is enough to know that the Secretariat of State had judged the investment to be profitable, to the point of wanting to regain control. Until now it has come to light that everything had been done precisely so as not to lose an investment considered profitable, and that the Pope was informed. The Vatican tribunal itself admitted that the Pope was in the room where the exit of the intermediary Gianluigi Torzi was being negotiated.
Therefore, it will be seen whether Torzi has been guilty of extortion, and the role of Cardinal Becciu, who has always stressed that he had acted in use of his prerogatives, will also be defined.
It will also be seen where the testimony of Monsignor Mauro Carlino, secretary of the Substitute (formerly Angelo Becciu, now Edgar Pena Parra), has made it known that checks were also being made on Mammì, director of the IOR, who was the one who gave rise to the investigations.
And it will also have to be explained why the IOR had first agreed to finance the Secretariat of State with a loan that would help to regain control of the London building, and then unexpectedly refused, even leading to the denunciation of the director.
It will be seen if there has been corruption, if some measures were taken without reason. However, the way in which the process was carried out, for its part, could also create problems with international partners. And so, after the government of the Holy See, the credibility of the Holy See itself would be endangered. These issues are perhaps too little present in the current debate, but they should not be underestimated.
