Frankly, this case now gives me the yawns. Yes, I am willing to suspend my disbelief, seeing where this is all headed for. But how many will be willing to do that at all? One's only guarantee is that Benedict XVI would never knowingly participate in a bogus conclusion... Meanwhile, Paolo Gabriele's lawyer has spoken to Corriere della Sera - and said... nothing new.
The ex-valet's regrets:
He has sent a letter to the Pope
through the cardinals' commission
by Maria Antonietta Calabro
Translated from
July 24, 2012
ROME – The valet has asked for forgiveness. Paolo Gabriele – the ‘Vatican mole’ - has written Benedict XVI to express his sorrow and his repentance for what he did.
The confidential letter was given to the three-man cardinals' commission investigating Vatileaks under Cardinal Julian Herranz, with Cardinals Josef Tomko and Salvatore Di Giorgi,
Corriere della Sera was told by Carlo Fusco, personal defense lawyer for Gabriele who was arrested on May 23 for having pilfered private documents from the Pope’s desk.
After 60 days of interrogation by Vatican magistrates (he was also questioned by the cardinals’ commission), a decision from the Vatican tribunal is expected in the next few days. Based on conclusions reached from the investigation, Gabriele will either be sent to trial or absolved.
[He is only accused of ‘aggravated theft’ – and since Vatican police reportedly found a ‘mass’ of documents at his home that would tend to show he had access to the originals and copied them, it’s difficult to see how he can be absolved of the crime of theft!]
Meanwhile, the Holy See has reacted severely, and in an unprecedented way, to accusations published in two newspapers (one German and one Italian, eight days apart) that it branded ‘false’ against three other persons said to have been complicit with Gabriele – namely, Prof. Ingrid Stampa (who was Joseph Ratzinger’s housekeeper and confidante from 1990-2005), Mons. Josef Clemens (Cardinal Ratzinger’s private secretary for 19 years until he was named secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Laity in 2003); and Cardinal Paolo Sardi
[the writer qualifies Sardi as ‘the Pope’s ghostwriter’ as have other Italian newspapers, but it is a false tag, because he was in charge of the section that edited and translated papal texts for publication, and was so, even during John Paul II’s Pontificate. It’s hard to imagine Benedict XVI having someone he hardly knew as a ‘ghostwriter, even if only for minor papal texts; Sandro Magister has claimed that theologian Inos Biffi, who writes regularly for L’Osservatore Romano, prepares the first draft of some of the Pope’s Wednesday catecheses and Angelus mini-homilies, and that is far more likely. I imagine the first draft of the multiple messages the Pope has to issue for various occasions and to various organizations is prepared by the Vatican office most concerned with a particular event or organization.]NB: Note that Corriere does not seek to exploit the Sardi-Clemens-Stampa canard but simnly cites it.
The Secretariat of State called the accusations "gravely injurious to the honor of the persons concerned who have been in the faithful service of the Holy Father for many years”.
:Lawyer Fusco had announced earlier his client’s intention to ask for a papal pardon. So we asked, when will this happen? He said: “It has happened. Paolo wrote the Pope a confidential letter which has been given to the cardinals’ commission”.
Fusco claims he did not read the letter: “No one else has read it except the three cardinals, because it was a personal decision by Paolo that has nothing to do with the judicial proceedings against him”. He says his client told him that in the letter, he confesses to his errors and begs the Pope’s forgiveness but also states he had no accomplices.
The lawyer said: “There is nothing to show that Paolo had accomplices – not from the questioning made by the interrogators, not from any act or fact that has come to light. Of course, the record will be laid out once the magistrates make a decision.”
Does it mean that Paolo was never part of a plan conceived with persons who were once close to the Pope?
[Strange leading question to ask, as if the only possible accomplices could have been ‘persons once close to the Pope'!]
“Absolutely. Moreover, I did not think the three persons named were ever investigated. I repeat – the only one who has been accused and investigated, as far as I know, is Paolo”.
Very likely, the three were heard as witnesses by the cardinals’ commission and even by the investigating magistrates, Fusco says. and of course, witnesses could have been made to confront Gabriele directly, but “I assure you this did not take place”.
So, according to Paolo, there was no plot at all? “No, none at all, neither inside the Vatican or outside it – none that he was part of. I have no knowledge of how the documents came to be published”.
It seems, therefore, that to describe what happened, one need not refer to Dan Brown, not even to Dostoevsky or Shakespeare. Perhaps Graham Greene. Maurice Castel, the protagonist of Greene’s
The human factor, passed on documents to the enemy – one would call it a leak today – purely out of gratitude
[the Communists had helped his wife in a past life.] [High points to Calabro for citing this literary analog! Too bad she isn't skillful enough to make her sarcasm count!]
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 24/07/2012 18:02]