VATICAN CITY — The Vatican’s sprawling financial trial may not have produced any convictions yet or any new smoking guns as prosecutors work through a first round of questioning of the 10 suspects accused of fleecing the Holy See of tens of millions of euros.
But
testimony so far has provided plenty of insights into how the Vatican operates,
with a cast of characters worthy of a Dan Brown thriller or a Shakespearean
tragicomedy. Recent hearings showed a church bureaucracy that used espionage,
allowed outsiders with unverified qualifications to gain access to the
Apostolic Palace and relied on a pervasive mantra of sparing the pope
responsibility — until someone’s neck was on the line.
Here are
some revelations so far in this unusual airing of the Vatican’s dirty laundry:
WHAT’S
THE TRIAL ABOUT?
The
investigation was borne of the secretariat of state’s 350 million-euro ($370
million) investment in a London property, which was such a debacle that the
Vatican sold the building this year at a cumulative loss of more than 200
million euros ($210 million).
Prosecutors
have accused Italian brokers, the Vatican’s longtime money manager and Vatican
officials of swindling the Holy See out of tens of millions in fees and
commissions and of extorting it of 15 million euros (nearly $16 million) to
finally get control of the London building.
Pope
Francis wanted a trial to show his willingness to crack down on alleged
financial impropriety. Three years on, though, the investigation has cast an
unwelcome spotlight on some of Francis’ own decisions and how Vatican
monsignors managed a 600 million-euro ($630 million) asset portfolio with
little external oversight or expertise.
WHAT
ABOUT THE TANGENTS?
The
original investigation has spawned tangents, including one in which a once-powerful
cardinal, Angelo Becciu, is accused of embezzlement for having donated 125,000
euros ($130,000) in Vatican money to a Sardinian charity run by his brother.
Linked
to him is another codefendant, Cecilia Marogna, a security analyst who is accused
of embezzling 575,000 euros (over $600,000) that Becciu had intended as payment
to liberate a Colombian nun held hostage by al-Qaida militants. They both deny
wrongdoing, as do the other defendants.
SPIES,
SPIES EVERYWHERE
Marogna’s
story, detailed for the first time last week, is a remarkable tale which, if
corroborated, would be a chapter of its own in the storied history of Vatican
diplomacy.
She and
Becciu say she gained entry in the Apostolic Palace on the basis of an email
she wrote Becciu in 2015 about security concerns. Based on her grasp of
geopolitics and apparent connections to Italian intelligence, she became an
adviser to Becciu, then the No. 2 in the secretariat of state.
According
to her statement, Marogna became a conduit to Becciu for everything from
Russian emissaries seeking the return of holy relics to efforts by Catalonia’s
separatist leader to establish a channel of communication with the Vatican.
Becciu
testified that he turned to Marogna in 2017 after a Colombian nun was kidnapped
in Mali, and Marogna suggested that a British intelligence firm could help
liberate her. Becciu testified that Francis approved spending up to 1 million
euros for the operation and insisted that it be kept secret even from the
Vatican’s own intelligence chief.
The tale
suggests Becciu, with the pope’s approval, created a parallel Vatican
intelligence operation using an Italian freelancer.
It’s not
the only instance of espionage that pose questions about the Vatican’s status
as a sovereign state: Becciu testified last week that Francis himself ordered
the ouster of the Vatican’s first auditor general because he had hired an
external firm to spy on the Vatican hierarchy, whom he suspected of wrongdoing.
In
previous testimony, a Vatican official told prosecutors that Becciu’s
replacement, Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra, had brought members of the Italian
secret service into the Holy See t o sweep his office for bugs, again bypassing
the Vatican’s own gendarmes.
MONSIGNOR
PERLASCA MAKES A CAMEO APPEARANCE
No
figure in the trial is as intriguing as Monsignor Alberto Perlasca, who was the
chief internal money manager in the secretariat of state, responsible for the
Vatican’s equivalent of a sovereign wealth fund with estimated assets of 600
million euros (around $630 million).
It was
Perlasca who recommended certain investments or advised against them, and it
was he who signed the contracts in late 2018 giving Italian broker Gianluigi
Torzi operative control of the London property. The basis for the extortion
charge against Torzi is prosecutors’ allegation that he pulled a fast one on
the Vatican to gain that control and only relinquished it after getting paid 15
million euros (nearly $16 million).
Perlasca
was at first a prime suspect in the case. But after his first round of
questioning in April 2020, Perlasca fired his lawyer, changed his story and
began cooperating with prosecutors.
Despite
his involvement in all the deals under investigation, Perlasca escaped
indictment. Last week, the tribunal let him join the trial as an injured party,
enabling him to possibly recover civil damages.
Hours
after tribunal president Giupseppe Pignatone admitted him as a civil party,
Perlasca showed up at the tribunal unannounced, sat in the front row of the
public gallery and declared “I’m not moving.”
Prosecutor
Alessandro Diddi immediately objected and Pignatone ordered him to leave, which
he did.
SPARE
THE POPE AT ALL COSTS
Many of
the defendants have testified that, at key junctions, Francis wasn’t only
informed of the issues but approved them, including the crucial moment in which
the Vatican had to decide whether to try to sue Torzi to get the London
property or pay him off.
Several
witnesses and defendants have said Francis wanted to “turn the page” and
negotiate a deal. Prosecutors say Francis was essentially duped by his own
underlings, and they subsequently obtained from Francis four, secret executive
decrees giving them carte blanche to investigate in ways the defense says
violated the suspects’ legal guarantees and basic human rights.
But
blaming the pope marks an unusual development, since Vatican culture generally
seeks to spare the pope responsibility for anything that goes wrong.
Becciu
explained this tradition during his testimony by invoking its Latin phrase “In
odiosis non faceat nomen pontificis,” roughly meaning that the pope shouldn’t
be drawn into unpleasant matters.
Becciu
responded to a question about why the pope only approved of financial decisions
orally, not in writing.
“I’m
from the old school … where you try to protect the pope, protect his moral
authority without involving him too much in earthly matters. This doesn’t mean
not informing him, but not giving him the responsibility for certain
decisions,” he said.
Becciu
kept to that until Francis released him from the pontifical secret so he could
testify in his own defense. Becciu then revealed that Francis himself had
authorized the Colombian nun liberation operation and had ordered the
resignation of the auditor-general.
The week
ended with the testimony of one of Perlasca’s deputies, Fabrizio Tirabassi, who
explained how investment decisions were made and the origins of the London
property deal. His lawyers said Tirabassi’s testimony proved that there was no
crime in the deal.
“The
only mystery of this story is why someone wanted to have a trial about an issue
that the hierarchs of the Holy See wanted to conclude with a deal,” the lawyers
said.