James Michael Harvey, 63, leaves the post of Prefect of the Pontifical Household. Some say that Benedict XVI’s «head of household» had to leave because of health problems, and that Harvey himself asked for a less challenging post. Saint Paul Outside the Walls Basilica is indeed a tranquil post, prestigious but peripheral.  There, Harvey will be able to organize special events away from the fray. But this is far from being a reward for Harvey. In a moment of deep breaches within the Curia, it is important that the people closest to the Pope stay close.  Possibly, the surprising Papal decision was influenced by Harvey’s role in hiring Paolo Gabriele, the unfaithful butler.

Much have been said about a possible Papal pardon for Paolo Gabriele, the butler found guilty of stealing and leaking personal Papal documents. In fact, the press release that announced the verdict also stated that, for a Papal pardon, there is a need forthe unfaithful butler to express regret for what he did and to apologize to those who suffered from his actions. This has not happened. And the Pope is yet to meet him. Perhaps, the Pope is waiting for the trial of Claudio Sciarpelletti, the Vatican Secretariat of State Specialist tried for abetting Gabriele’s crimes. Paolo Gabriele will be called to the witness stand. He will speak after being sworn in (he was not sworn in when he was the accused party).  Will his statements change?

There is no doubt that Paolo Gabriele wants to speak with the Pope.  He has repeatedly said that he would tell the Pope –and no one else- the real reasons why he did what he did.  He mentions cardinals, talks about others, perhaps in an attempt to draw attention on himself. Benedict XVI probably wants to see how the situation evolves, and then eventually pardon Paolo Gabriele.

How is the Vatican world moving these days? After a scandal – like Vatileaks – every decision carries with it a special weight. The impression we get is of a Pope who is inexorably taking the lead through curia and College of Cardinals appointments. Benedict XVI is surgically accelerating his cleaning up of the Church.

Announcing a consistory is significant. The first name on the list of new cardinals is Harvey’s.  He is the one drawn from the curia. The other five new cardinals all come from out of Europe, and none of them is Italian. Was this a Papal move to balance a «too Italian» and «too much on Bertone’s side» curia? This theory lacks merit: the number of Italian cardinals has not decreased, and the new cardinals are all diocesan bishops. If there had been some new appointment drawn from the curia, it could have been read as a re-balancing of Bertone’s power. In this particular case, Benedict XVI and Bertone have merely «completed» the last consistory of February 2012 by creating five new cardinals that were already expected to get the red hat back in January. This lent the opportunity to move (up and out) James Michael Harvey, vacating the post of Prefect of the Prefecture of the Pontifical Household.

Harvey is the last representative of John Paul II’s old guard at the Pontifical Household. Ordained bishop with Piero Marini (then Vatican master of ceremonies) and Stanislaw Dziwisz (then John Paul II’s secretary, now cardinal and archbishop of Cracow), Harvey knew Paolo Gabriele since he was Assessor at the Secretariat of State and the butler was a floor-cleaner in the Apostolic Palace. Harvey signed off on the hiring of the unfaithful butler. His opinion was decisive in hiring Paolo Gabriele, following Dziwisz’s very good references. Dziwisz was the first to set the stage for the hiring of Paolo Gabriele for the Papal service. Was it a naïve choice, or was it intended to place a confidant close to the Pope?

None of these two hypothesis can be proven. After the butler’s arrest, Harvey breathed a rarefied atmosphere. Vatican sources say that he was not seen much. He silently exits the scene, while Paolo Gabriele speaks out loudly at his trial. Paolo Gabriele is not repentant, and his sentence is so weak that he is not even disqualified from ever again holding public office, according to the «partial and perpetual» disqualification formula which the Vatican Promotor of Justice Picardi made up. In fact, now that the judgment has come into effect, Paolo Gabriele will be removed from office and from any other Vatican office, according to Vatican procedures and to General Roman Curia Regulation art. 79.  This is more than what Picardi had asked for.

In fact, it is the end of Paolo Gabriele’s trial that allows us to discern the panorama. Georg Gaenswein, Benedict XVI’spersonal secretary, comes out worst. Gaenswein does not have a defined portfolio within the Pontifical Household.  He is not a bishop, so his views are often not taken into account. But he is a strong, precise man, and he wants rules to be respected. He attracts the animosity of many. Benedict XVI has understood this, and has confirmed his full confidenceon his collaborator. Now, he could also appoint Gaenswein to Harvey’s post, no matter if as bishop or not. Things are going to change in the Pontifical Household, one way or another. When Leonardo Sapienza, after a long time of service to the Prefecture of the Pontifical Household, was appointed Regent of the Household, he was not ordained bishop.  Even when Sapienza was in fact working as a Prefect. Now, it may be that Sapienza will be ordained a bishop, and as regent will absorb some of the Prefect’s responsibilities. If Gaenswein becomes Prefect, he would enjoy more decision making power, and could better manage the Pontifical Apartment.

This is perhaps the most logical solution. Having to find a way to let Harvey go, the Pope probably considered that the second consistory he decided to hold this year – the fifth of Benedict XVI’s pontificate – was a good occasion. More than a «new consistory», this is last consistory’s «part II». If it were a proper consistory, the list of new cardinals would start with Gehrard Ludwig Mueller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who is entitled to the berretta rossa ex officio, as stated in Pastor Bonus. Benedict XVI himself explained the reasons of this Consistory speaking at the final working day of the Synod of Bishops on the New Evangelization. «With this little Consistory – the Pope said – I wanted to complete the Consistory of February, in the context of the new evangelization, with a gesture of the universality of the Church, showing that the Church is the Church of all peoples, she speaks in all languages, she is always a Church of Pentecost; not the Church of one continent, but a universal Church. This was precisely my intention, to express this in this context, this universality of the Church, which is also the beautiful expression of this Synod. For me it was really uplifting, comforting and encouraging to see here a reflection of the universal Church with its suffering, threats, dangers and joys, experiences of the Lord’s presence, even in difficult situations.»

Let’s now turn to take a look at the five new cardinals.

Bechara Boutros Rai is the Maronite Patriarch of Antiochia. Born in 1940, he studied at the Lateran University in Rome.  Patriarch BecharaRai is a solid and constant reference point for the Lebanese Christian community. He perfectly managed Benedict XVI’s trip to Lebanon.  His frequent statements on behalf of the Christian community in the Middle East have earned him the esteem of many, also within the Vatican Walls. Making the Maronite Patriarch a cardinal is also good for bringing the Churches closer together.

In addition to the siro-malabarian Georges Alencherry, who made the cut for the berretta rossa in the January consistory, the Indian Church gains Baselios Cleemis Thottunkal as its newest cardinal.  Thottunkal, from the siro-malankarian rite, is the Major Archbishop of Trivandrum, India’s oldest Christian Community. The Pope’s choice shows the increasing importance attached to India and to its Christian rites, which merit recognition within a sometimes confusing faith landscape. A landscape that is also challenging from a faith doctrine perspective .

By giving the berretta rossato two heads of Eastern Churches in communion with Rome (Bechara Rai and Thottunkal), Benedict XVI has consolidated a tradition begun with John XXIII and then continued by Paul VI and John Paul II. Many theologians argue that it is not coherent to give the title of cardinal – i.e. member of the Roman clergy and so elector of the Pope, who is the bishop of Rome – to a Patriarch who already holds a higher office, one that is similar to the Pope’s, and who represents a tradition different from the Latin. These are valid considerations that are however trumped by the need to strengthen the universality of the Church.

John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan, archbishop of Abuja, Nigeria, will be created cardinal as well. In 2009, he was chosen to be the rapporteur for Africa at the Bishops’ Synod on the Word of God. He enthusiastically hailed the final message of the synod, underlining it contained «a lot of Africa and a lot of hope». During those days, the synod’s attention drew on him alsoon account of the difficult situation of Christians in Nigeria, victims of attacks almost weekly. Onayekan made it a point to underline that «there is no war of religions» in Nigeria and asked Christians to «respond to violence with peace». The red hat for him is also a sign of solidarity with the Nigerian suffering Church.

Rubén Salazar Gòmez, archbishop of Bogotà, Colombia, is also facing difficult challenges. Born in 1942, Salazar has beena parish priest, a teacher at the Seminar, a director of the Social Pastoral Department of the Colombian Bishops’ Conference and Vicar for the Pastoral. In his career as a bishop (before Bogotà, he was bishop of Cucuta and Barranquilla), he stood out for his call for the release of hostages held by drug traffickers, and for his work in conjunction with the International Red Cross in Colombia. His appointment as a cardinal also has a geo-political significance: Colombia does not have any voting cardinals, while they had three Colombian cardinals in the last conclave.

Finally, Luis Antonio Tagle, 54, archbishop of Manila, will also be created cardinal in the next consistory. He was expected to be created cardinal in the January consistory.  When this did not happen, some critics attributed it to Tagle being part of the Giuseppe Alberigo and Alberto Melloni team thatwrotea history of the Second Vatican Council.  The so called «school of Bologna» reading of the Council as a breach in Church history stands in contrast to Benedict XVI’s hermeneutic of reform. Tagle’sperspective has not led to Pope to change his trust on him. In fact, Tagle has beenassigned important responsibilities during this pontificate. This shows the confidence that Benedict XVI has for Tagle.

With the next consistory (the fifth held by Benedict XVI), the Pope will reach the sum of 90 new cardinals created. As of November 24, the College of Cardinals will be made up of 211 cardinals. Of those, 120 are voting members,while the other 91 are over 80 and cannot be in a conclave.  Thus, of the 120 electors/cardinals,  almost 2 thirds have been created by Benedict XVI.  Despite internal and external attacks, Benedict XVI may achieve something John Paul II did not: to have his successor elected from one of the cardinals he created (Ratzinger was created cardinal by Paul VI).

Benedict XVI has had a hand even in managing the curia. And it is perhaps as a result of his uncompromising actions that the first attacks against the consistory in January were carried out.  Some called the consistory appointments «too Italian» and «leaning towards Bertone.» Then, on Friday morning, some have interpreted the creation of these six new cardinals as a warning for Bertone. But this explanation is far from logical. Obviously, in making selections, one choses trusted people, maybe even friends. Neither the Pope nor Bertone are free of this proclivity. In putting things in order – as the Pope is doing – it is important to have faithful allies.

Meanwhile, we await the November 5^th trial. Claudio Sciarpelletti, computer specialist at the Secretariat of State, will be tried for abetting a crime. Among the witnesses, there should be one Msgr. Carlo Maria Polvani, head of the information office in the Secretariat of State. Polvani is Msgr. Carlo Maria Viganò’s nephew. Viganò’s protest of his move to Washington to become apostolic nuncio (in important letters about «corruption» in the Vatican that he, Viganò, claimed was being prevented from tackling) kicked off Vatileaks. Viganò had already had the opportunity tospeak at length with Benedict XVI. And on Wednesday, October 24, at the general audience, he had been seen kissing the hands of Benedict XVI and taking advantage of thisopportunity to speak with the Pope. Has Viganò come to Italy to defend his nephew?

Vatican City State Law. Its History

Paolo Gabriele’s trial shows the attention to the human person of the Vatican legal order, which is far from «obscurantist», as some in the media have described it. In 1929, the Lateran Pacts are signed. It is the so-called “Conciliation” between the Italian State – that conquered Rome in 1871, ending the Papal administration of the city – and the Holy See. Pope Pius XI himself negotiated the economic aspects of the treaty with Benito Mussolini, then the dictatorial head of the Italian government. From 1871 until then, the Vatican had survived just with the leftover patrimony not taken away from it following the «Porta Pia» invasion, ecclesiastical taxes (a meager source of revenue), and with the deposits and contributions to Peter’s Pence – a distinctive sign of Catholics’ will to aid the Pope.

And it is Pius XI who «supervises» the building of Vatican City State. He walks up to the base of Saint Peter’s Dome to look down over the territory of his City-State. Then, he decides what and where to build up (one third of the Conciliation’s compensation would be used to build Vatican City State); and he delivers funds to restore Papal nunciatures – up to that moment crumbling – thus marking the return of Vatican diplomacy. A Vatican diplomacy that never stopped working. However, before Vatican City-State –in Pius XI’s words «that small piece of land that is needed to carry out our mission»– a diplomacy that was at the mercy of, and heavily influenced by, the countries it worked in. Finally, Pius XI asks Bernardino Nogara – who had previously worked in Banca Commerciale – to manage the funds of the Financial Convention of the Lateran Pacts. This is when Vatican finances begin to take shape.

At the same time, the legal order of the newly born State also takes shape. As it would have been too complicated to draft a brand new legal code, the Vatican City State adopted the legal code then in force in the Italian State. That code is the Zanardelli Code. Vatican City State kept the Zanardelli code even after a new code was promulgated in Italy in 1931, the Rocco code (Alfredo Rocco was the minister for Grace and Justice). The Vatican did not adopt the Rocco code not just because it had been written and promulgated under fascism — i.e. under an authoritarian  regime – but also because the Rocco Code was inspired in legal positivism. The juridical debate between the supporters of the liberal (but not libertarian) ideals underlying the Zanardelli Code and the “positivist” – modern but leading to authoritarianism – essence of the Rocco code still go on today.

What Is Vatican Diplomacy And Why Is It So Important?

It is evident in which side the Pope is.  One can see it in the noticeable new way Vatican diplomacy has been ran during this Pontificate. Benedict XVI has drawn attention several times to natural law, and he has focused every diplomatic speech on the truth and the human person, thus clearly steering the Holy See’s international agenda in new directions.

What is Vatican diplomacy? Cardinal Bertone, Secretary of State, explained it when he received the International Prize «Conde de Barcelona», on September 25. Bertone stated that Vatican diplomacy is not a relic of the past, and that often people fantasize about it rather than really knowing what it is.  «It is – Card. Bertone said – a never-ending pursuit of just and humane ways to consider individuals’ and States’ rights and responsibilities.» In essence – Bertone notes – Vatican diplomacy is «a privileged means of communication» which final goal is the common good.

One of the «primary goals» is – Bertone stated – to be «a herald of the Pope’s message» internationally, to underscore the solidarity of the Pope with people from all over the world. Bertone recalled a famous quote of father Vandrisse, who worked for the French magazine Le Figaro: «The Pope’s diplomacy is a necessity. If it did not exist, one would have to invent it. An ancient and well established praxis, a tool to defend the dignity of the human person and libertas ecclesiae (the freedom of the Church), an occasion to talk about values: this is Vatican diplomacy.»

At the very same time that Bertone was receiving the prize in Barcelona, Dominique Mamberti, Secretary of Relations with States of the Vatican State Secretariat (i.e. a sort of Minister of Foreign Affairs) was delivering a speech at the High Level Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly.

Respect for human dignity was the center of Mamberti’s speech. It is the litmus test that shows whether the rule of law has instead become the rule of rules. Respect for Human Dignity is reaffirmed in the Preamble of the United Nations Charter, where it is written that human rights must be protected by the rule of law. From this point of view, «the application of the rule of law – Mamberti states – embraces every aspect of social life.» But moreover, it is necessary to «go beyond setting up simple procedures in order to guarantee a democratic source for norms and to have the consensus of the international community in the background.» Because «the inalienable dignity and value of each human person» comes before any law or social consensus. And it is not sufficient to «formally abide» by treaties or other forms of international law. «Only – Mamberti affirms – going beyond these considerations, would national and international institution avoid manipulations and coercion from finding their way into the life of individual citizens.»

When the rule of law becomes merely a formal and uncritical adherence to laws and regulations, this can paradoxically degenerate into a means of «oppression of the human dignity and of the rights of persons, communities and States.» The result — also raised by Benedict XVI in his speech to the Bundestag last year – is the specter of ending up with authoritarian regimes. Integral humanism is the antidote.

This is why – Mamberti states – «when talking of the rule of law,» law should be understood as «justice». How to discern it? Starting from human rights – rights that must be ever more universal – and looking at the progression of the philosophy of human rights, a story which dates back to Greek thought and Roman law, is enriched by Jewish-Christian wisdom, the legal orders of other European peoples and by canon law (the only truly international legislation in the world). Principles that have been further elaborated in Christian, Arab, and Jewish renewals, up until the Enlightenment. It is  a complex stratification which leads to the United Nations Charter.

UN Charter Rooted In The Heart Of Man

The Charter is rooted in the heart of man. In its preamble, the founders of the United Nations reaffirmed «faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.» The choice of the word «faith» is revealing. Faith makes reference to  deeply held beliefs. So, the United Nations is based on this faith in man’s rights that all peoples can relate to, no matter what their religious beliefs may be.

«Faith in transcendental human dignity – Mamberti says – or, better, the recognition of its transcendence, becomes the fundamental and indispensible reference point in understanding the rights codified in the foundational documents of the United Nations, and the key to their effective protection and promotion.»

Mamberti notes that lobbying is against the common good. In fact, lobbies influence States over norms that «under an appearance of legitimacy, are as a matter of fact an abuse on norms and international recommendations.» This happened – for example – with the financial crisis. Mamberti underlines that it is possible to have democratic systems produce new laws according to the will of just a few. And it also can happen that – if the human person is considered from a merely materialistic point of view and law is just something to be mechanically respected – the will of the most powerful prevails over the weakest: children, the unborn, the handicapped, the poor or – as it happened with the financial crisis – people deprived of correct information at the right time. «Juridical disorder on one hand – Mamberti says – and anthropological reduction on the other, undermine the ultimate and essential goal of every legal order: to promote and guarantee human dignity.»

That is why there is a need for a transcendental outlook. Because «human rights are linked to human dignity» and «are integrated in the rule of law, as the right to have a father and a mother, the right to make and maintain a family, the right to grow up and be educated within a natural family, the right of parents to educate their own children, the right to work and to a just wage for the wealth produced, the right to culture, freedom of thought and freedom of conscience.» The right of rights is religious freedom, a core theme of Benedict XVI’s Pontificate. Religious freedom – Mamberti says – is «an essential part of every person, which to a degree is identified with his or her very own freedom.» Mamberti calls for a «legal order firmly rooted in humanity’s dignity and nature.»

A Case History: Rimsha’s Case.

These are the very reasons why the Vatican penal code is Zanardelli’s and not Rocco’s. This is a juridical struggle the Holy See fights at every level. The most recent and widely discussed case has been that of Rimsha, the 12 year-old Pakistani girl accused of blasphemy for allegedly setting on fire  – together with other pieces of paper –pages of Quran. Rimsha suffers from Down syndrome.

Rimsha Masih was imprisoned for several weeks. Then, on September the 7^th, she was released on bail, and the authorities moved her and her family to a secret location, in order to protect her from possible fanatic Islamists’ revenge. Her story is so bizarre that many prominent Muslims did not hesitate to state that the charge was absurd, even more so because Rimsha is underage and she cannot read. The trial will take place on October first.

In the end, it was discovered that the same maulvi (responsible for the administration of the Mosque) accusing Rimsha had torn out a page of the Quran and put it over the ashes. The muezzin (who makes the calls to prayer) and other witnesses confirmed this version of events. It was noted that Khalid Jadoon Chishti (that is the maulvi’s name) wanted to expel Christians from the city block where he led the Muslims’ prayer.

This story has stirred a lot of debate in Pakistan. Even Muslim newspapers and magazines accuse Chishti of blasphemy. In Pakistan, people have become aware that the law on blasphemy is too often used for false accusations or even personal vendettas. Hundreds of Muslims – more than Christians – are imprisoned because of this law.

Where Shabahz Bhatti did not succeed, Rimsha’s story did. Bhatti was the Catholic Minister for Religious Minorities killed on March 2, 2011 by a commando of Islamic fundamentalists because he was trying to modify the law on blasphemy. Benedict XVI made of him a symbol in his last speech to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See. One year after Bhatti’s death, Rimsha’s case has helped to open the eyes of the whole country.

Is a law Against Blasphemy Useful?

Just one week after Pope Benedict XVI ended his successful visit to Lebanon, the country’s most senior Catholic leader called for a United Nations resolution «that will ban denigrating religions.»

Meanwhile, in Pakistan – Religion News Service reports – the country’s only Catholic cabinet member, Minister of Harmony Paul Bhatti, told an interfaith gathering in Lahore that he will press U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to pass a UN resolution that condemns «defamation and offenses against religions.» Bhatti said «we must not allow anyone to break our harmony» between Christians and Muslims.

Since 1999, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – an umbrella group of 57 Arab and Muslim nations – has promoted a non-binding U.N. resolution against «defamation of religion,» although support for the measure has steadily eroded in recent years. Even Obama, addressing the UN General Assembly on September 25, made it clear that the U.S. Constitution could never sanction anti-blasphemy laws, and challenged Muslims who are offended by insults to Muhammad to take a broader view. The Vatican, too, has generally opposed efforts to introduce international legislation against defamation of religion, though for different reasons.

Speaking at the UN Human Rights Council in 2010, the Vatican’s permanent observer to the U.N., Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi, warned that «introducing a vague concept of ‘defamation’” was not an effective way of “combating offensive attitudes towards religion,» and might actually lead to «further oppression of religious minorities.»

As in the Rimsha’s case, it shows how the law on blasphemy is often used as an instrument for personal revenge or abuses of power or – as in this case – to «free» villages from religious minorities. «Freeing villages of Christians – Tomasi maintains – has an economic, more than religious, goal.» Fides Press Agency explains how «behind Rimsha’s case there is the ‘real estate mafia’: some speculators wanted to expel Christians from the Mehrabadi quarter for financial reasons, since the value of houses in that part of Islamabad had risen. That is why they concocted the blasphemy claim. Most of the families in that neighborhood are faithful [Christians] who escaped from Gojra, a town set on fire by Islamic radicals in 2009, for an alleged case of blasphemy.»

This is one of the most recent examples of how Vatican diplomacy operates. Instead of legal positivism (a law to prevent an action), it is based on natural law and on the heart of man. This is a key principle that addresses criminal procedures within the walls of Vatican City State, and for the Holy See positions in negotiating UN resolutions. The human person is the focus, and the common good is the goal of its international agenda. So, looking closely to the law applied for the butler’s trial, one can understand a lot about the underlining principles of the Church.

Was releasing the 35 pages of the Vatican Court documents on Vatileaks in their entirety really necessary? Instinctively, one should say yes. Benedict XVI wants full transparency, with no shortfalls. The Pope has completely changed the way the Church speaks. He has focused everything – diplomacy included – on the Truth. Before, the Holy See used to whisper, and everybody was expected to sort out what was meant. Journalists –unacquainted with the subtle language of the Vatican, and unable to understand the dynamics of developments within the Sacred Walls – had to build trust relationships with inside sources, and what was published on the media was the result of these relationships. Not many official documents or press previews were provided. When they were, these official documents – for example, the balance sheet of the Prefecture for Economic Affairs – were explained in detailed press conferences.

Nowadays, the Holy See has embarked in a completely different path. Facing a sort of internal, self-destructive cannibalism that reveals itself in controversies and opposition to a Pope the «old guard» never wanted – for example, like it happened following the revoke of the excommunication of four Lefevbrist bishops – the Pope’s approach is to shed light on the truth. This approach may create some uneasiness. To institutionally present the facts as they stand opens the way to constructive comment. If before the Holy See whispered, today the Holy See – when necessary – clearly states what is that is really going on.

During these past months, there had been several examples that marked this change in the Vatican communication strategy: the publication – leaked institutionally to the prominent Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera – of the memorandum of the no confidence vote on Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, former president of the IOR Council of Superintendence; the almost daily briefings after Paolo Gabriele’s arrest held by the director of the Holy See Press Office, Father Federico Lombardi; and finally the publication of the decision to bring to trial Paolo Gabriele and Claudio Sciarpelletti.

This commitment to transparency does not seem to be complemented by a proper communication strategy. News tend to take a life of their own, supported by new revelations (if any) or by indiscretions. That the media can be biased in presenting the facts is to be expected, and – when possible – avoided. This has not been the case. Regarding the no confidence vote on Gotti Tedeschi, the «narrative» of the former IOR president is still alive and subscribed by the media, because the Holy See did not complement the publication of the memorandum with a solid and effective press briefing. The same «mistake» concerned the San Raffaele issue, i.e. the attempt to save from bankruptcy the hospital founded by Fr. Verzé. To date, public opinion does not understand why the Holy See would want to rescue this non-Catholic institution.  Few remember that the Holy See offer to buy the hospital was launched «hoping» to raise others’ interest in submitting even better offers. Under pressure from within – especially from the former IOR President Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, who now claims to be the only one who was against intervening to save the San Raffaele – the Vatican Secretariat of State considered the matter and made an offer in order to preserve this health facility, hoping and waiting for someone else to step in with a bigger offer.

Perhaps, one of the first signs of Greg Burke’s approach was the note – with pictures – published in L’Osservatore Romano, the Holy See daily, of a meeting the Pope held in his summer residence of Castel Gandolfo with the three members of the cardinal commission, cardinals Herranz, Tomko, and De Giorgi;  the magistrates of the Vatican tribunal; the deputy Secretary of State, Msgr. Angelo Becciu; and Georg Gaenswein, the Pope’s private secretary. These kind of meetings were once kept secret, or at least held discreetly. This transparency can be polluted with speculation on the presence/absence of some members of the Curia.  Cardinal Bertone, Secretary of State, was out of Rome on holidays, but his absence at the meeting was interpreted as prove that he is going to resign.

The same kind of mistake took place when the judicial proceedings documentation on Paolo Gabriele was published.

What is the image projected by the 35 pages of the indictment and the legal proceedings? First of all, Georg Gaenswein, private secretary of the Pope, seems to be the only party to blame, at the very least for naiveté. Being the only witness whose name appears in the documentation, Gaenswein does affirm that Paolo Gabriele was a mere executor of orders, a man who «needed to be told the same instructions twice», with no spirit of initiative. But Gaenswein also maintains that he felt he could trust Gabriele enough to give him some correspondence to deliver. Nothing strange in a small place like the Vatican, where everyone trusts everybody. But someone might malign: why is the Pope, undoubtedly an important person, surrounded by foolish and deceitful people? How are these collaborators chosen? And how was it that the Pope’s secretary failed to filter them out, and did not see Paolo Gabriele for whom he really is? These questions needed an answer, but they remained unanswered, wide open to the interpretation of journalists. There is another question: is there anyone who does not want to see Gaenswein defended and protected? And why?

There can be several answers, considering the various red herrings brought on by the media. But the 35 pages also provide another element to distort the scenario: the several omissis contained in the documentation – the names of witnesses are substituted with a capital letter which presumably is not a real initial. Father Lombardi said that it is easy to figure out who are the witnesses. For example, it would be easy to see when the Memores Domini – laywomen of Communion and Liberation that serve in the Papal apartment – are testifying  in front of the tribunal. But regarding the Memores, no one really knows who said what. And there is almost nothing known about the other witnesses.

There is a logical reason why the omissis are on the document: one or more of the people questioned by Vatican magistrates could eventually be charged during the trial,  or after there is a verdict, when the investigation turns to other aspects of the case. And so, the question is: was it necessary to publish the legal proceedings documents?

These «black holes» in Vatican communications can feed suspicions and conspiracy theories. True, the media should conduct itself responsibly. But there is also the need to manage communications, to come up with a media plan that prevents the black holes. Coordination among Vatican dicasteries is lacking. And maybe the sense of the importance of the Holy See in the world is also missing. News are now above all focused on Paolo Gabriele. But perhaps the media briefings of the Holy See Press Office could also cover other news. Why not talk about the diplomatic activity of the Holy See – almost unknown – or about the many Church activities that take place without much public awareness? And then, certainly, openly speak also about what is not working. But without giving way to communication “black holes”.

That the investigation on Vatileaks was in some ways negatively affected by publicity around Paolo Gabriele’s arrest has become evident in the last two months. During the sixty days of imprisonment, the Pope’s butler has been interrogated several times, and sometimes these questionings have lasted many hours. Gabriele was also questioned at length by the three cardinals of the Commission the Pope appointed to shed light on the leaks of documents covered by professional secrecy. The investigative process was far from easy. There were many attempts to throw the investigation off track. These attempts – perhaps instigated by the accomplices of the butler – sought to delegitimize the investigation and undermine the Roman Curia.

The media complicity

An accurate analysis of these red herring campaigns reveal a certain connivance between the media and the Pope’s unfaithful butler. At least one journalist was questioned by the Cardinal Commission. It is said that this same journalist used to meet Paolo Gabriele in Switzerland, where they exchanged documents. This journalist is not Gianluigi Nuzzi, whose book Sua Santità lead to the investigation that unmasked Gabriele’s dealings – even if the source named «Maria» refers to several people involved in leaking Vatican documents. Long before the publication of the book, there were rumors among the journalists of «a certain exchange of information» that was «managed» by a famous journalist who would help other colleagues become part of the arrangement. This peculiar «information exchange» revealed itself in very similar articles published almost concurrently on Italian newspapers. These articles dealt with «external situations» – e.g. the revocation of the excommunication of the bishops of the Priest Fraternity of San Pius X (the so-called Lefevbrists) – and «internal situations» – criticism of Card. Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State, for allegedly wanting to take the control of the Roman Curia (despite the fact that doing so would be within his responsibility). This is the media environment in which news about the “complicity” of the butler was revealed.

The red herrings

Right after the butler’s arrest, some journalist gave credence to the theory that Gabriele was not the «crow», or at least was just «one of the crows», and was made a scapegoat. This theory was supported with the publication of a blackmailing letter.  The letter threatened to make public a document signed by Msgr. Georg Gaenswein, the Pope’s personal secretary, if the Pope did not fire him and Secretary of State Bertone, the Pope’s closest collaborator.  Benedict XVI promptly reacted, publicly renewing his confidence in both. In the meantime, investigators pieced together information gathered from Paolo Gabriele’s smartphone and the documents found in his house in establishing the picture of Paolo Gabriele’s betrayal.

In July, the rope was tightening as the last interrogations took place. It was then that in Germany and after that in Italy three of the longest-standing Papal collaborators were described as the butler’s masters. The collaborators accused were: Card. Paolo Sardi, formerly responsible for the section of the Secretariat of State that collaborates in drafting the Papal speeches; Ms. Ingrid Stampa, an official of that same section and previously the secretary of Cardinal Ratzinger, who is responsible for the translation into Italian of the books by the Pope; and the bishop Josef Clemens, Gaenswein’s predecessor in the post of personal secretary of the later Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

«These accusations are completely baseless», the Vatican Secretariat of State commented in a strong declaration. In fact, this was another red herring, maybe introduced by Gabriele himself. Gabriele was probably suggested those names after they appeared in articles in the German newspaper Die Welt and the Italian newspaper La Repubblica.  These newspapers also stated investigators found several texts sent from Gabriele’s smartphone to Ingrid Stampa’s cell phone.

The investigation has not come to an end

The Vatican investigators still have much work to do. The trial will not be the end. Big news is that the trial will not only involve the Papal butler, but also Claudio Sciarpelletti, a computer specialist at the Secretariat of State. Sciarpelletti was imprisoned for just one day (the night of May 25, two days after Paolo Gabriele’s arrest), then conditionally released and finally completely freed. He will be tried for abetment. Sciarpelletti’s role is not that of an accomplice, but the Vatican magistrate decided to take him to trial because of his inconsistencies during questionings. Paolo Gabriele – caught in flagrante delicto – is in a different position.  But everything needs to be brought to light.

The indictment by the Vatican Promoter of Justice (the public prosecutor) Nicola Picardi – which is incorporated by the work of examining magistrate Bonnet – sheds to light more details of a scenario that is far from complete. In presenting the documents, Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office, underlined that «the Vatican Magistrate’s Office wants to underline that this is a partial conclusion of the inquiry regarding the criminal charge of aggravated theft against Paolo Gabriele and everything linked to this crime.» It is just a «partial conclusion» because the Vatican Magistrate’s Office received many reports with different allegations. So it wanted to start first with Paolo Gabriele, the clearest investigative path.

The meetings of the Pontifical Family

The two documents taken together – the indictment and the judgment – provide a detailed timeline of how the magistrate reached the decision to arrest Gabriele. The names of all the witnesses are kept secret for privacy, except that of Msgr. Georg Gaenswein. Gaenswein had a meeting on May 21 with the members of the pontifical family: the other Papal Secretary, Msgr. Alfred Xuereb; the four Memores Domini that serve in the papal apartment; the Pope’s collaborator Birgit Wansing; and Paolo Gabriele. During this meeting, Gaenswein asked if anyone had leaked reserved internal documents, allowing whomever was responsible to speak up. Another meeting of this tenor was held on May 23. Gabriele’s attitude was cold – Gaenswein told the magistrate – in denying to be the leaker. The butler kept on denying even when Gaenswein proved that Gabriele was the only person who could have leaked two of the documents published in the book Sua Santità. When questioned by the magistrate, Gabriele declared that he denied any involvement because his spiritual father recommended him to admit only to the Pope what he did.

A mysterious spiritual father

This spiritual father seems to be a very peculiar person. Is it the person that granted an anonymous press interview a few days after Gabriele’s arrest, maintaining that the butler was faithful to the Pope? We do not know. Paolo Gabriele gave him some documents, which the spiritual father claims to have promptly burned, as he realized they were part of «something illicit». Did this spiritual father tried to make Paolo Gabriele realize how seriously flawed his behavior was?

Imbued by the Holy Spirit

Only after the arrest – that took place in the night of May 23 – did Paolo Gabriele decide to cooperate with the Vatican magistrate. A quote from the interrogation provides insights of the Papal butler’s personality. Gabriele claims to be «imbued by the Holy Spirit», claiming that, faced with certain knowledge of corruption, he thought that «a media shock» could eventually help the Pope to clean up the Curia.  He explains how he got in touch with the journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi and why he chose him (he was fascinated with his previous book Vatican S.p.A., Vatican Ld), states that he was the «crow» that granted an interview – hiding his identity – to the Italian TV show Gli Intoccabili, and that the interview was not broadcasted in its entirety. There is no hint of Gabriele’s relations with other journalists. In the documents of the inquiry, it is understood that other documents leaked to the press were not all provided by Paolo Gabriele. The content of some of the documents published in Nuzzi’s book were already public in detailed accounts in other newspapers’ articles. Was Paolo Gabriele the leaker? It is a  legitimate question, but the current process is not meant to address this.

In Gabriele’s papers

In Paolo Gabriele’s messy home one can find everything: part of the documents published in the book Sua Santità, a series of copies of various newspapers articles, and newspaper clippings. «I have a passion for intelligence,» Paolo Gabriele says. In the midst of that disorganization there is also a Euro 100,000 check made out to the Pope, from a Catholic university in Spain – «accidentally placed among other papers, he would never cash it in», Carlo Fusco, Gabriele’s lawyer, declared; a golden nugget given to the Pope by a benefactor in Peru, which Gabriele also attributes to his not being organized; and a 16th century edition of Virgil’s Aeneid. «Gaenswein – Gabriele tells the magistrate – sometimes gave me gifts sent to the Holy Father. Since I have a particular passion for books, Gaenswein used to give me books. For what concerns the Aeneid edition, I remember that my son had started studying that poem, so I asked Msgr. Gaenswein if I could show the book to my son’s teacher. He agreed, and the book remained in my house. I was going to return it.»

No accomplices?

Paolo Gabriele would have acted alone, with no accomplices. Claudio Sciarpelletti was not an accomplice. In a drawer of Sciarpelletti’s office desk investigators found a medium-size envelope, which read «Riservato P. Gabriele». Sciarpelletti gave different accounts of why the envelope was in his drawer. At first, Sciarpelletti said that Gabriele gave him that envelope two years before, and nothing was written on it. Gabriele wanted an opinion about something contained in the envelope, but Sciarpelletti never opened it and eventually forgot about it. Only recently he wrote on the envelope to remind himself about Gabriele’s request for his opinion – a request the butler never insisted on. In another account, Sciarpelletti said that he was given the envelope to give it to Gabriele – the name of the person that gave him the envelope is blacked-out in the indictment. Once, Sciarpelletti said that Gabriele was not a friend, he just happened to know him. Another time, Gabriele and Sciarpelletti are friends who are so close that when they get together their families also join them. There is no evidence to charge Sciarpelletti of aggravated theft or revealing secrets. However, his ever changing responses got him charged with abetting. The penalty for this crime – Father Lombardi explains – ranges «from nothing to not much».

Incompos mentis?

The penalty for Paolo Gabriele, on the other hand, can be a maximum of 8 years imprisonment. But he is unlikely to spend 8 years in prison, considering that he has no previous convictions and the extenuating circumstances. Among them, Gabriele’s peculiar psychological makeup. The Vatican magistrates long discussed if Gabriele was indictable, if he was incompos mentis or not. A psychiatric examination was requested. Prof. Tatarella was the examiner appointed by the Vatican public prosecutor, while Prof. Cantelmi was the examiner appointed by Gabriele’s lawyer. The first stated that Gabriele was not incompos mentis, the latter said he was. Both of them underline some peculiar aspects of the butler’s personality. Tatarella – whose examination is completely accepted by the magistrates – notes a personality marked by a sort of persecutory  delusion: more and more Gabriele «alludes to plots and conspiracies for or against prominent people, both laymen and – more frequently – prelates». Tatarella also reported that Gabriele fell victim to paranoia and his decision to leak the letters was driven by a «deep necessity to win the attention and affection of others.»

The expert appointed by Gabriele’s lawyer suggested Gabriele was prey to «restlessness, tension, rage and frustration.» He felt unfit for the job and vulnerable to «external manipulation». Who knows if Gabriele was manipulated by those «Vatican officials and prelates, even top ranking ones» with whom he confided «beyond what he could revealed if he had observed the limits and the discretion that his institutional role demanded»?

The hunt for the manipulator has just begun: was it Stanislaw Dziwisz, now cardinal, for years personal secretary of John Paul II, the one who hired Paolo Gabriele to serve in the papal apartment? Was it Msgr. James Harvey, Prefect of the Pontifical Household, a good friend of Paolo Gabriele, that after Dziwisz’s recommendation took Paolo Gabriele under his protection? Was it the circle around Jozef Bart, a “Polish gang” parish priest at the Church of Santo Spirito in Sassia — where the devotion of the Divine Mercy is celebrated by will of the late John Paul II – who is a good friend of Dziwisiz and allegedly (according to some rumors) Gabriele’s spiritual father? Or was it some cardinal and prelate of the so-called “diplomats’ faction”, who stands for those who got accustomed to yielding a lot of power under John Paul II and who resent not having that power anymore?

Waiting for the Cardinal Commission report

We still do not know who instigated Paolo Gabriele’s behavior. It is for sure someone intelligent enough to understand the butler’s weakness, and shrewd enough to suggest actions while avoiding being held responsible for them. The Cardinal Commission appointed by Benedict XVI (comprised by cardinals Herranz, Tomko, and De Giorgi) will presumably address this issue. The commission ended a first round of questionings and meetings, but the report is still not public because the commissioners do not want their report to overlap with the magistrate’s investigation. Father Lombardi noted that «The Pope wants to follow with coherence and concreteness the magistrate’s course of action. That is why we may presume (…) that the Pope will wait until the end of Paolo Gabriele’s trial. We know well the character of the Pope, who is very careful to allow things to run their course properly, without rush».

Benedict XVI changes part of his team

In the meanwhile, the first changes in the Curia shows Benedict XVI’s wish to rebalance his team, giving more weight to his personal secretary Georg Genswein. Some observers hypothesize that the involvement of the previous secretary, Clemens, of Ingrid Stampa, and of Card. Sardi was leaked to the press from inside the Vatican. The purpose would have been to alert public opinion so that it would not be surprised when these names are mentioned during the trial, once that all the names omitted become public.

One of the first changes in the Pontifical Household team was, in fact, a «routine» change. Leonardo Sapienza was appointed regent of the Prefecture of the Pontifical Household. His appointment was an open secret. Msgr. Paolo De Nicolò, the prior regent, turned 75 and had to retire, and Leonardo Sapienza – who served for years as protocol attaché to the Prefecture of the Pontifical Household – was De Nicolò’s ideal successor.

Even when De Nicolò’s retirement was expected and Sapienza’s appointment a given, we still do  not know if there will be other changes within the Prefecture of the Pontifical Household. This Prefecture is an important office within the Holy See: it directly serves the Pope and oversees the Pontifical Household and Pontifical Ceremonies (liturgy excluded). Because of the particularity to be at the personal service of the Pope, the members of the Prefecture are constantly in touch with the Pope’s secretaries.

A long-time rumor speaks about a «formal» integration of Msgr. Georg Gaenswein in the Prefecture of the Pontifical Household’s ranks. Gaenswein would be appointed “Adjunct Prefect”, and be ordained bishop.  This hypothesis would be supported by the fact that Sapienza has been appointed regent, but not ordained bishop.

Gaenswein’s integration in the Prefecture staff organogram would be Benedict XVI’s way to provide his own secretary with more weight within the Pontifical Household. Gaenswein was under attack during the so-called Vatileaks scandal. Critics hostile to the Papal secretary became even more vocal with the articles involving Clemens, Stampa and Sardi.

These are just rumors, which are nevertheless revealing because they are mostly focused on the Prefecture of the Pontifical Household and its staff, underscoring the importance of those around the Pope. Vatileaks seemingly had two different goals: to make the Pope accessible to the ones who feel left out and are longing for power; or, if this is not possible, to isolate Benedict XVI, undermining even his closest collaborators, like Gaenswein. It is as if Gaenswein should pay for his role – a natural role for a personal secretary — of filtering access and shielding the Pope.