What we heard  during the very short trial that took place in Vatican City State last week showed how dangerous and careless it was to hire Paolo Gabriele for such a sensitive position. Recommended by Stanislao Dziwisz – now cardinal and archbishop of Cracow, previously John Paul II’s secretary – and by msgr. James Harvey – once assessor in the Vatican Secretariat of State and now prefect of the Pontifical House – Paolo Gabriele perfected over the years his knack for copying and stealing documents.  His version of events – that he began to gather documents in 2010, when the «Viganò’s affair» became public – contradicts the investigation’s findings. Georg Gaesnwein, Benedict XVI’s personal secretary, examined the papers. He noted that there were documents from 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. In their testimonies, the Vatican Gendarmes who searched Paolo Gabriele’s house confirmed that there were several documents taken before 2010. The Pope’s butler also maintained that he only took copies of documents. Facts denied it: there were several original documents in his house –everyone testifying  coincided on this.

Paolo Gabriele is not a scapegoat. He is certainly someone easy to take advantage of. It is so stated in both psychiatric examinations (the one requested by Paolo Gabriele’s lawyer and the one requested by the Vatican Promoter of Justice during the preliminary investigation) undertaken to analyze whether Paolo Gabriele was insano de mente or not. The butler knows and weighs the consequences of his actions. Yet in the psychiatric examination, Paolo Gabriele’s profile is that of an insecure person with a constant urge to meet with the approval of people he considered of a certain importance. During his testimony, Paolo Gabriele told how he used to take the car to go to work everyday, a mere 3-4 minutes commute on foot. Otherwise, he said, everybody could stop him to ask for favors, and he – being a good Christian – could not help but to listen and try to help everyone. Perhaps he took the car only to better hide the documents he stole.

When questioned, Paolo Gabriele almost brags. He says that he copied documents in front of everyone in his office – he had a desk in the room of the two Papal personal secretaries – because nobody would suspect him, since his intentions «were not evil». He explains that he «opened his heart» to Msgr. Gaenswein about his fears regarding the Vatican Gendarmes Corps. In fact, he has a sort of obsession with the Vatican Gendarmes. Somebody noted that it is the fixation of a person who could not become a Gendarme. Paolo Gabriele asks Gendarmes for copies of their regulations, he researches information about the Vatican Gendarme Corps, he reaches out to a certain Luca Catano – whom he though to be a magistrate – thinking he could get more information through him.

But the game Paolo Gabriele played during the trial is very odd. When he was held in custody, his lawyers declared that he was well and psychologically healthy. During the trial, he played the «torture card». Paolo Gabriele maintains that he was imprisoned for 20 days in a tiny cell, so narrow that he could not stretch his arms. He maintains that the light of his cell was kept on 24 hours a day. Giuseppe Della Torre, president of the Vatican Tribunal, opens an investigation about this «tortures». Members of the Vatican Gendarmes Corps are shocked. They treated Paolo Gabriele with kid gloves, and the butler had even thanked them. They deliver a press communiqué, responding point by point to each of Gabriele’s accusations. They counter the possibility of facing further accusations. The day after Paolo Gabriele’s interrogation, Vice Commissioner Cintia was called to testify, and asked that the court record note that «Paolo Gabriele thanked me». To which Paolo Gabriele reacts with a wide smile.

Paolo Gabriele’s defensive line is also questionable. It intends to show that the Pope’s butler was framed. His lawyer Arru insistently raised questions: about the use or not use of gloves during the search in his house (although for «paper searches there is no need for gloves»), about the search in Gabriele’s house in Castel Gandolfo, in Italian territory (although this search is not part of the trial); about the fact that the boxes where all of Paolo Gabriele’s things were placed were perhaps too large, insinuating there were originally more documents than those later considered necessary.  All this calling into question is to support the scapegoat thesis, where Paolo is the victim to a conspiracy. He is the hero framed, who takes the blame calmly.

Paolo Gabriele is not a hero. He is just one of many Vatican employees. Many of them handle documents. Not all of them steal documents. Many of them can have questions about situations, even be shocked. But they try to be loyal to the institution they have been sworn into. It is also true that others would do what Paolo Gabriele did, maybe to earn some extra-money, or for other reasons. There is, in fact, a «gang of malcontents», a sort of group made up of Vatican clerks and prelates. They do not hide their discontent, and they often speak about how to «help the Pope», which means to stir trouble for the Pope.

The existence of this gang of malcontents proves that the Vatican old boys’ club system has failed. Over the years, clerks, officials and even priests poorly selected were hired in the Vatican, and then have been able to advance in their careers, step by step. Mediocre people were able to reach very senior posts, and then co-opted people similar to them. There are almost three such generations. The Vatican must really overhaul its hiring practices.

Gabriele has even mentioned an enabling environment. Who swayed Paolo Gabriele? He talks about cardinals Sardi and Comastri; about Joseph Ratzinger’s long-term collaborator Ingrid Stampa; about Msgr. Cavina, bishop of Carpi, who served for a long time as an official in the Vatican Secretariat of State. The first three – together with Joseph Clemens, whom Paolo Gabriele oddly did not mention – were said to be the Vatileaks inspirers in an article in Die Welt which influenced public opinion (this article was excerpted from the trial, on Paolo Gabriele’s lawyer request). This article – whose contents were officially denied by the Vatican Secretariat of State – was excluded from the process on request by Paolo Gabriele’s lawyer. The butler drops these names, and then distance himself from the consequences. The day after giving testimony, Cristiana Arru maintains that the butler is «bothered» by the fact that the media has referred to these people as his accomplices.

Perhaps, one should look for Paolo Gabriele’s enabling environments elsewhere. Much higher, and also in everyday meeting places. Perhaps in some of the bars around the Vatican where the gang of malcontents gather to complain, and where a cardinal could casually pat someone on the shoulder and let him know that he can be a hero, that he can play a role to save the Pope from his obtuse collaborators. Who seduced Paolo Gabriele? Who had reasons to do so? Many are those who may have a grudge against this Pontificate, and against Bertone, Secretary of State. After almost 30 years, the machine of privileges was dismantled by the Pope and Bertone. They re-built the structures, and gave power to other people.

Once, these internal struggles took place inside the Vatican, invisible outside the Sacred Walls. The loyalty to the institution came above all. There was great consciousness about the importance of the Church in the world. That is no longer the case.

Vatileaks shed light on how prelates often put their personal interests before the Church’s interests. The sense of being Church has been lost. Careerism has grown – and it is not a case that the Pope held several speeches and homily blaming careerism. Much could be learned from the report of the cardinals’ commission appointed by the Pope to investigate how the documents were leaked. The three cardinals –Herranz, Tomko and De Giorgi—looked into the «enabling environment». They reached some conclusions, which they shared personally with the Pope. The issue is not whether someone would like to see Pope Benedict XVI killed or marginalized. The real problem is indifference toward the Church. The scant understanding of its mission, reducing it to a mere power structure. This is why Vatileaks is not over.  It may never be.

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.

His reform is something more similar to Gregory VII. That of Gregorian reform is an heroic enterprise, brought on by a few man that works to re-moralized their society and so purify the Church. People gathered around Ildebrando of Soana begins a movement whose effect were so vast that a whole world change. Will this happen with the Benedict XVI’s Papacy?

Elected Pope with the name of Gregory VII, Ildebrando do not only care about the purification and moralization of the Church. He also collect the ancient sources, so creating a corpus of papers that will be the first global law of the world, the Canon Law. More, he defends the autonomy of the Church. In Dictatus Papae, Gregory VII affirms the supremacy of the Pope on any other power, the imperial one included. Then, he organizes the Pontifical Legates network. He establishes two kind of Pontifical Legates: the one in loco, charged by the Pope to look after the application of Gregorian reform on a territory; and the one sent by  Rome to accomplish mission in a foreign countries. The defense of the autonomy and sovereignty of the Church is also brought on, during the Gregorian Age, by creating new canonic collection. Gregory VII auspicates the research of the sources of the law, and so many researchers look for documents that affirms that the Papal authority is the source of the law. This research will bring to light the writings of Attone, Anselm from Lucca, Deusdedit.

It is the work Benedict XVI is doing as well. Joseph Ratzinger began his theological research with his Doctoral thesis on the «People of God and House of God in Saint Augustine’s Doctrine of the Church» – defended in 1951 -, and he has always been aware that he needed to look back to the Church, and then he understood that the Church needed to be less worldy, and that being less wordly means to change and unify. Finally, the Canon Law is the tool that the Church has to do it.

Benedict XVI wants to focus on Canon Law, and this is one of the reasons why the Secretary of State is a Canonist and the last Papal nuncios appointed is Charles J. Brown, a non diplomat that served for years in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This comeback of the Canon Law is driving the Benedict XVI’s choice for what concern international relations, and even for what concern its commitment for financial transparency. This led to a renewed Vatican anti-money laundering law. Not everybody had been happy about it, inside and outside the Vatican Walls. Why?

The new text of anti-money laundering Vatican Law come into effect

There had been no modification to the Decree n. 159 issued by the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State. The last 25th of January, Holy See issued the decree n. 159 to amend the Vatican City State Law n. 127 concerning the countering of money laundering and financing of terrorism. As the art. 7 of the Fundamental Law of Vatican City State, the President of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State  «in cases of urgent necessity, he can issue dispositions having the force of law, which  however lose their force if they are not confirmed by the Commission within ninety days». The Commission confirmed the decree and – beyond whatever it has been written and told during these last three months – there were no doubts about it.

Anti money-laundering Vatican law: a never ending debate

Ever since the Law n. 127 had been issued, the Governatorate knew that this law had been written in a hurry, under the pressure of the investigation of the Public Prosecutor of Rome on two money transfer ordered by the I.O.R. (the Institute for Religious Works), and with the necessity to fully comply to the norms required by the European Union in the Monetary Convention signed by the Holy See in 2009. Yet while Holy See and European Union were discussing the terms of the Monetary Convention, the then number two of Vatican City State Carlo Maria Viganò showed himself doubtful about what the on-going discussion was going to ask to the Holy See, and proposed to unhook the Holy See by Euro area, in order to preserve its sovereignty.

The law n. 127 reassured Italian prosecutors, but on the other hand it did not completely fit to the international standards. The decree was an improvement of the law promoted by the Vatican City State administration in order to fit to international standards and at the same time to let them adhere to a peculiar State that is Vatican City State, while preserving the Holy See sovereignty.

An Italian problem?

Yet, during these last three months, Italian medias highlighted several rumors coming from «inside the Vatican» against the improvement of the law 127. Il Fatto Quotidiano – one of the most prominent and aggressive Italian newspaper – published a series of leaks of reserved documents. Among these documents, there was also an e-mail sent by the Director of the Authority for Financial Information Francesco De Pasquale (the controller) to the president of the Council of Superintendency of the I.O.R. (the controlled). This documents proved a questionable relationship between two parts of the mechanism of control of the Holy See, and at the same time proved that an animated debate took place within the Sacred Walls about the improvement of the Vatican Law n. 127.

It had been also leaked to Il Fatto Quotidiano a notation by cardinal Attilio Nicora, president of the Authority for Financial Information (but also member of the Council of Superintendecy of the I.O.R., member of the Commission for the Governatorate of Vatican City State and member of the so-called Council of 15, the assembly of 15 cardinals that periodically meet to take stock of the Vatican financial situation). In this notation, Nicora described the amendments to the Law n. 127 as “step behind” confronting with the previous text, which he blessed and promoted. More. The last March, the 19th, an article published on Il Corriere della Sera, the most spread Italian newspaper, let understand that Nicora himself was working to rewrite the text of the decree n.159, in order to bring the law back to the “old” law n. 127. The article proved that – inside the Vatican – the debate never ended.

Why the anti-money laundering law changed

The amendments to the Law n.127 had been requested by the advisors of MONEYVAL, the body of the Council of Europe that analyze and judge the adherence of the States to the 40+9 GAFI recommendations for contrasting money laundering and financing of terrorism. Marcello Condemi, a member of the Vatican Authority for Financial Information and draftsman of the first sketch of the old law n. 127, worked on a second sketch of the law right after the first on site visit of the MONEYVAL advisors in Vatican, that took place in November 2011. Several debates within the Sacred Walls followed. Finally, with the decree n. 159, the law n. 127 had been essentially modified. The “new” law n. 127 is now more adherent to international standard. It strengthens the power of controlling of the Authority for Financial Information, but at the same time distributed the controlling powers on several bodies of the Holy See, according to the principle of the separation of powers (even the Gendarm Corps is now encouraged to strengthen its intelligence in order to take part to the countering of money laundering with proper tools of investigation).  It gave to the Vatican Secreteriat of State the complete management of the relationships between States – «The Secretariat of State – it is written in the decree n. 159, art. 2 quinquies – foster the adhesion of the Holy See to treaties and international agreements, as well as the relations and the participation of the Holy See to institution and international organization qualified to define norms and good practices for what concerns the prevention and countering of money laundering and financing of terrorism».

That the effort of the Holy See had been to adhere to international standards for what concerns the countering of money laundering without denaturalize its own institution is evident when – in the decree n. 159 – the procedures to take into consideration the list of terror organizations issued by the Security Council of United Nations. According to the law n. 127, Holy See does not mechanically transpose the United Nations Lists. This choice is aimed to preserve the Holy See and Vatican neutrality. In fact, lists are written under the «Chapter 7» of Charter of the United Nations, and that Chapter is applied in war time. Holy See could be embarrassed by a mechanical transposition of the lists, since it could be in contradiction with the Holy See orientation –  Holy See is traditionally neutral and in favor of peace. Since Holy See is a Permanent Observer to the Assembly of United Nations, and not a Full Member, a settlement has been made to the autonomy of the Holy See: the Vatican Secretariat of State – according to the new article 24 of the law n. 127– will draw up its own list of terror organizations that will be based on the one issued by the United Nations, so keeping its autonomy, and at the same time showing to be sensitive to the international security goals. Holy See so maintain its autonomy, but at the same time proves sensibility to the international security goal .

Is there a biggest target?

Maybe there is a biggest target on the basis of the polemics that followed the one the another from the moment in which the Holy See began the process enrolled in the «White List», the list of states most active in preventing and fighting the financial crimes.. The critics to the lack of transparency of Vatican finance would hide a sort of attack to the sovereignty of the Holy See itself. Documents leaked by the press – the so-called Vatileaks, that are now under the investigation of a commission made up of the cardinals Herranz, De Giorgi and Tomko – prove that the «sovereignty issue» has never been taken into consideration by the «step behind» theorists. The leaks are about the retroactivity of the «new» law n. 127; about the will to cooperate with Italian investigators; about a diligence toward Italian authorities that led Ettore Gotti Tedeschi to be voluntarily questioned by the Italian magistrates without these latter submitted the request internationally.

Yet, Paolo Cipriani, General Director of the Institute for Religious Works, explained – during one of the seminars periodically held by the I.O:R. to train the administrators of the Congregation with deposits in the «Vatican bank» – that the Institute has always responded to any request submitted by Prosecutors or Central Banks. The responses by the Holy See, Cipriani explained, had come formally – there had been during the last ten years 20 requests submitted internationally to the Holy See (it is a global data, it does not concerns the only I.O.R.): 19 had been fulfilled by the Vatican City State, the last one has been judged by a Vatican Court – and not formally, for a sort of «good neighborhood relationships» with the other financial institutes. Holy See – Cipriani also underlined – did not answer in the only case the request would be considered a vulnus to its sovereignty.

A wider – international – perspective

It is now time to see things from a wider perspective. The announcement of the improvement of the law n. 127 has been launch in the Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Holy See, in an article by msgr. Dominique Mamberti, the «foreign minister» of the Holy See. Mamberti linked the news of the improvement of the law n. 127 to the ratification by the Holy See of three international threaties – the news about the ratification had been given the 25th of January as well. Holy See adhered to and ratified the International Convention for the Suppression of the financing of terrorism(Onu, New York, 1999) and the United Nations Conventions against the transnational organized crime (Palermo, 2000). Holy See also announced the ratification of the United Nations Convention against illicit traffic in narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances (Wien, 1998): this latter Convention had been already signed by the Holy See when it had been adopted by United Nations.

It’s a long time that the campaigns to expell Holy See by the concert of Nations – as the See Change campaign – broke down in the public opinion. In 2007, The Economist – one of the most authoritative magazines in the world – published an article headlined “God’s ambassadors” about the Vatican diplomacy. The article ended with this advice for the Holy See: «It could renounce its special diplomatic status and call itself what it is – the biggest non-governmental organization in the world».

Within the bureaus of the United Nations and of the other major international organization in which the Holy See seats as an observer, the idea to expel Holy See from the concert of nations is widely spreads. Even if this idea did not succed, and – on the other hand – on July 2004 the General Assembly of United Nations approved a resolution that not only confirm, but even enhanced the presence of the Holy See within the United Nations.

So, a more subtle strategy began. This strategy – brought on in international environments – aims to undermine the moral power of the Catholic Church and of religions in general. It consists in remarking that religious freedom is something like the freedom of expression, or in confusing the religious freedom with the freedom of worship. Vatican diplomacy is undermined, too. If Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti caused an «earthquake» at the Italian Ministry for Foreign Affair by showing his intention to appoint ambassadors not raised up with a diplomatic career, Vatican insiders refer about the intention to appoint lay people as diplomatic representative of the Holy See. Pontifical Legates must be bishops, since they represent the Pope. This rule is valid and effective only for Papal nuncios: they work as Papal ambassadors, they keep relationships with the governments, and at the same time they work as bishops, speaking to the Episcopal Conferences of the countries they are appointed at, give their opinion about the to-be-appointed bishops.

Nuncios that are appointed as permanent observer within the International organizations (United Nations, U.N.E.S.C.O., F.A.O., European Parliament) must only care the relationships between the Holy See and the governments. This would open to the appointment of lay people as permanent observers of the Holy See.

Could this be the beginning of a weakening of the Vatican diplomacy? In the book C’era una volta un Vaticano (Once upon a time a Vatican), Massimo Franco, underlines this lack of international appeal of the Holy See. Too appeased on Italy and on its relations with Italy – Massimo Franco writes .- the Holy See lost sight of its wide global horizon that made of it the most long-lived and solid institution in the world. Canon right is the first really global and globalized law of the history, and it still consists in a solidity that no friendly diplomatic relations would touch.

This same problem spoiled the path to the Vatican financial transparency. Holy See borders are not anymore with Italy, but with the whole Europe. Yet, the members of the Authority for Financial Information are all Italian, coming from the Bank of Italy milieau – even if the Bank of Italy proved a certain hostility toward the Holy See (the investigation of the Roman prosecutors undermined the Holy See sovereignty, since prosecutors asked for information to the Financial Intelligence Unit of the Bank of Italy – which should be independent – instead of investigating with the Guardia di Finanza).

The “old” law n. 127 would have probably solved the “judicial” problems with Italy, but certainly it would also set back – if not avoided – the Holy See path to the white list. The Plenary Assembly of MONEYVAL will meet the next July, and on that occasion the report about Holy See will be issued. It will not be at that moment that the Council of Europe will decide about the enlistment – or the not enlistment – of the Holy See among the virtuous States. But probably, the possibility to be part of the white list would have been more difficult without the improvement of the law n. 127, that the MONEYVAL advisors auspicated.