VATICAN CITY (VATICAN CITY)
Crux [Denver CO]
June 1, 2025
By John L. Allen Jr.
For the outside world, it’s perhaps Pope Leo’s pleas for cease-fires in Gaza and Ukraine that have attracted the most attention since his election just over three weeks ago. For Catholic insiders, all manner of papal acts have generated reaction, from his sartorial touches, his use of sung Latin in public prayer, and even his few personnel moves.
For Italians, however, one moment above all from the new pontiff’s agenda has raised eyebrows: His May 27 audience with Cardinal Angelo Becciu, whose vicissitudes over the past five years, including his grudging withdrawal from the recent papal conclave, have formed the Vatican’s most riveting prime-time domestic soap opera.
Though the audience has been of interest here mostly in terms of what it might augur about Becciu’s personal fate, it also points to a decision about a key structural reform with deep historical roots.
It was Becciu, of course, whom Francis compelled to resign as Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints in 2020, fatefully stripping him of his rights and privileges as a cardinal, while allowing him to retain the title, in the wake of rumors of financial misconduct. Becciu was later indicted by the Vatican City State’s civil tribunal and convicted of various forms of financial fraud and corruption, sentenced to five and a half years in prison.
Becciu’s appeal of that conviction is set to open Sept. 22 before the Vatican’s six-judge appeals court.
In the meantime, the fairness of the legal process against Becciu has been a matter of deep controversy, including during discussions among the cardinals leading up to the recent conclave. Several expressed the view, which also has a wide following in the Italian media and among leading Italian jurists, that Becciu has been the victim of an unjust process. Several cardinals even sympathized with his early insistence that he should be able to participate in the election to pick Francis’s successor.
When Becciu finally withdrew after being shown documents with Francis’s initial listing him among the non-electors, his fellow cardinals gave him what amounted to a show of support. The April 30 General Congregation meeting released a statement voicing “appreciation for the gesture he’s taken” of pulling back and expressing hope that “the competent organs of justice can definitively ascertain the facts” of his case – a clear signal that many harbor doubts those facts have been clarified up to this point.
As Leo ponders his next step vis-à-vis Becciu, it will not escape his attention that beyond the saucy personal details, the case raises a deep structural question about the justice system of the Vatican City State.
To wit: Is it possible that any criminal or civil prosecution can satisfy contemporary expectations of fairness and due process in a system in which there’s no separation of powers, and in which the chief executive is also the supreme legislative and judicial authority?
Formulated that way, the question almost answers itself. The issue, therefore, is that if Leo wants to avoid future cases similar to Becciu’s, what reform of the legal system would be necessary to insulate it from charges of what Italians call giustizialismo, meaning the imposition of draconian justice by executive power without due process safeguards?
Two broad possibilities present themselves.
First, Leo XIV could finally complete the unfinished business of 1870 and divest the papacy of all remaining claims to its vestigial status as a temporal monarchy by creating a truly independent judiciary for the Vatican City State.
To be clear, we’re not talking about limiting the pope’s power over faith and morals, which would remain absolute. Instead, the suggestion is that his temporal power would be voluntarily limited when it comes to the administration of civil and criminal justice on Vatican territory, including precisely the sort of alleged financial crimes for which Becciu was convicted.
Under such a system, a pope could appoint justices, just as a president appoints federal judges, but otherwise they would operate independently. They could not be fired by a pope, and their decisions could not be influenced by papal edict.
Most notably, they would have to have the power to review and, where necessary, overturn executive actions. For instance, the Vatican now has a law requiring a competitive bidding process for the awarding of public contracts. Should a pope try to short-circuit that process, judges would have to be empowered to hear appeals and, if warranted, to set aside the executive action.
Only such a voluntary truncation of papal prerogative likely would convince fair-minded observers that the deck isn’t stacked against defendants and restore confidence in the basic fairness of the system.
Such an abnegation would pose no doctrinal crisis at all. Not even the most sweeping conception of papal infallibility has ever argued that popes are preserved from error when it comes to budgeting, for instance, or labor law.
Let us assume, however, that such a step is seen as just a bridge too far in terms of reconstructing the modern papacy. Is there another alternative that might bolster confidence in due process when Vatican officials are accused of crimes?
As it happens, yes. Pope Leo could finally avail himself of a provision contained in article 22 of the 1929 Lateran Pacts, which regulated relations between the Vatican and the government of a unified Italy following the collapse of the Papal States.
That article reads: “At the request of the Holy See, and by delegation which may be given by the same either in individual cases or on a permanent basis, Italy will provide within its territory for the punishment of crimes committed in the Vatican City …”
In other words, the Vatican could effectively punt by handing over responsibility for running criminal trials to the Italian justice system and washing its hands of the entire affair. As a result, at least, no one could accuse a pope or his appointed prosecutors of putting their thumbs on the scales of justice in order to produce pre-determined outcomes.
Granted, given the uneven state of Italian criminal justice, some may wonder if that’s really a desirable solution. No system, however, is perfect, and at least this one would not expose the pontiff to charges of preaching one thing when it comes to due process and the impartiality of the judiciary but practicing another.
As Leo XIV thinks though the issues raised by the Becciu saga, these are the deep currents moving beneath the surface. It remains to be seen how his own keen legal mind will opt to resolve them.