VATICAN CITY (VATICAN CITY)
Crux [Denver CO]
July 22, 2026
By Christopher R. Altieri
Long-simmering unease over the lack of Vatican transparency in a high-profile abuse case boiled over this week and brought a major problem of governance into sharp focus.
In a word: Why are criminal trials at Church law conducted in secret?
The question has vexed penal lawyers practicing in the Church’s justice system, criminal justice experts, and reform advocates, for years.
The case of Father Marko Ivan Rupnik, a disgraced Slovenian priest and former Jesuit who gained worldwide renown as a mosaic artist and spiritual master allegedly while abusing dozens of victims over many years, is a microcosm of the problem.
Earlier this week, the attorney for five of Rupnik’s accusers, Laura Sgrò, delivered a withering public critique of the Church’s efforts to provide justice in the case, complaining of procedural irregularities, foot-dragging, and an almost Kafkaesque lack of transparency.
RELATED: Rupnik victims ‘disheartened and distressed’ but determined, says lawyer
The Vatican says secrecy is necessary “out of respect for the process itself and to avoid causing further pain to those involved,” words that came in a statement issued Wednesday after rumors of Rupnik’s acquittal began circulating earlier in the week.
The trouble is that’s just not the case, at least not necessarily, and the Vatican knows it. The criminal court system of the Vatican City State – technically a “civil” jurisdiction – is incontrovertible proof.
Trials in Vatican City criminal court have been public affairs for many years.
Trials at Vatican City criminal court
The trial of Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu on charges of corruption and embezzlement is one recent example.
Becciu first went on trial in 2021 and was convicted, but he maintains his innocence and has seen his case make significant headway during the ongoing appeal.
The Vatican published the specific charges against Becciu, witnesses gave public testimony, and a pool of accredited journalists covered the proceedings.
The 2021-2024 Vatican City trial of Father Gabriele Martinelli and Father Enrico Radice is another.
Martinelli was charged with abusing a fellow student when he was a student at the St. Pius X minor seminary – then located on Vatican grounds – while Radice had been the seminary rector at the time the crimes were alleged and was charged with being an accessory.
Martinelli was convicted of “corrupting a minor” – a lesser charge – and Radice was acquitted.
The two “Vatileaks” trials were likewise public affairs involving Pope Benedict XVI’s erstwhile butler, an IT specialist in the Secretariat of State, a femme fatale PR consultant, and two Italian journalists – all lay persons – who were tried in Vatican City court, along with a Spanish monsignor and his assistant, another layman.
The butler, Paolo Gabriele, was convicted of stealing documents and sentenced to 18 months in prison, which he served in the Vatican, and was ordered to pay expenses. The IT fellow, Sciarpelletti, was also convicted and ultimately received two months’ suspended sentence and five years’ probation.
Francesca Chaouqui, the femme fatale, was convicted and given an 10-month suspended sentence. The monsignor, Angel Lucio Vallejo Balda, was convicted and sentenced to 18 months. Vallejo’s assistant, layman Nicola Maio, was acquitted.
When it came to the journalists, Gianluigi Nuzzi and Emiliano Fittipaldi, the court ruled it had no legitimate jurisdiction over the accused, who committed none of the alleged criminal acts on Vatican soil.
All those trials received ample media coverage.
Journalists were on hand to hear testimony – some of it from very senior prelates – and review motions and rulings. People read about the proceedings in the press and had opinions about the trials’ conduct.
The trials were not perfect – not by any stretch of the imagination – but they were meaningfully public.
Leo XIV: The challenge of justice reform
There is no reason in principle why trials under canon law should not also be meaningfully public.
Meanwhile, the Church’s addiction to secrecy is actually harming the integrity of judicial process at at canon law and actively hurting victims, many of whom have been waiting for years and some of them – like Rupnik’s victims – for several decades to see justice done on their alleged abuser.
The Vatican also called the Rupnik acquittal rumors “entirely unfounded,” in case you were wondering, and said the case is still with the judges.
RELATED: Vatican denies rumors of Rupnik acquittal
Whatever happens to Rupnik, the fact is that his case demonstrates the weakness of the rationale for judicial secrecy in the Church’s system.
Pope Leo XIV’s training and experience in canon law played no small part in his attractiveness as a candidate in the conclave that elected him. The cardinals also chose him because he is an institutionalist by character and temperament.
Root-and-branch reform of the Church’s whole justice system would be a gargantuan undertaking beyond the scope of any one man and likely beyond that of any single pontificate.
Nevertheless, there are measures well within Leo’s reach.
He could order the specific charges facing Father Marko Rupnik to be published. He could order the names of the judges published.
He could allow reporters access to motions and rulings, subject to review and redaction to protect vulnerable individuals and legitimately sensitive information.
Access to testimony is admittedly a more difficult matter, because trials at canon law are mostly paperwork affairs, and even when witness testimony is taken, it is not often in a courtroom but in a setting more like a deposition in U.S. legal culture.
In any case, one could understand, sympathize, even applaud Leo the jurist’s reluctance to interfere with a trial already underway, even though it is being conducted within a system and under rules that are highly imperfect, to say the least.
Such measures as those mentioned here, however, would not be interference in the process.
They would be common-sense steps to ensure a modicum of transparency, without which confidence in the Church’s ability to administer justice will only continue to erode.
They would be a far cry, at any rate, from Francis’s involvement in the Becciu matter.
Francis made several changes to the law during the Becciu trial, changes that included a special rescript allowing the cardinal to be tried in Vatican City criminal court, in the first place.
The most important thing Pope Leo can do in the Rupnik case is to ensure that justice be done, and that it is seen to be done.
Leo did not make the Rupnik mess, nor did he create the broader problems of leadership culture that perpetuate the abuse and coverup crisis or design the secret system that erodes public confidence in the Church’s ability to deliver justice.
He bought them all – lock, stock, and barrel – when he accepted his election to Peter’s see.
Now, we’re waiting to see whether he will take steps to deal with them.
Follow Chris Altieri on X: @craltieri