The Church under Benedict XVI:
A lesson in transparency
by Iacopo Scaramuzzi
Translated from
Sept. 30, 2012
Between initiatives for transparency and an inertia towards 'secrecy', public opinion and worldwide media can now look into one of the most private places in the world - the personal apartment of the Roman Pontiff, Christ's Vicar on earth and absolute sovereign of a pluri-secular State.
As the Pope's valet, Paolo Gabriele had been serving Benedict XVI more intimately than anybody, but he betrayed the Pope's trust. He claims he wished only to help him by denouncing to the world the 'corruption' he claimed to have seen in the Vatican
[It is outrageous and highly objectionable that the MSM simply parrot Gabriele's self-serving words, without challenging his allegation about 'evil and corruption everywhere in the Church' - What 'evil and corruption' exactly has he shown (much less proven) to the world through the assortment of documents he pilfered, other than the petty rivalries and machinations that are common in any human institution? Just as when MSM endlessly cite Mons. Vigano's equally self-serving allegations of 'corruption' in the Vatican Governatorate. when the one example he cites is an apparent overpricing in some construction work that cost 500,000 euro instead of 360,000 - an example hardly rising to 'corruption', especially as the Governatorate department concerned has explained reasonably why the Christmas manger project cost that much during the year they decided to make the basic framework of the annual construction permanent rather than one that had to be rebuilt every year! There has been absolutely no sense of proportion in the reporting of all this, because MSM is too obsessed with having something to slam the Vatican with, the worse the better! But really, where's the beef in the sanctimonious allegations of Vigano and Gabriele? And believe me, if there was really something truly bad to be discovered, the MSM would already have been climbing over each other to be the first out with it. And yet, it's been nine months now since Vigano's letters first surfaced - but has any reporter even tried to investigate and see how much of Vigano's claims are founded? Not one!]
But Gabriele has provoked
one of the most serious scandals in recent years for the Vatican.
[What exactly was the scandal? That documents can be leaked from the Pope's study? Not the first time it has happened, though not in such an organized way and not by a person who had served the Pope so closely on a daily basis. And isn't it a blessing in disguise that the scandal consists in the fact that the leaks happened at all, and not in anything contained in those leaks???]
Now the Holy See is challenged. The Pope proclaims the Gospel message
urbi et orbi, but the Sacri Palazzi (Sacred Palaces) are not used to having their internal conflicts exposed to the public. It's different now.
A reserved person of the greatest integrity, and profoundly German, Joseph Ratzinger has decided to face the 'scandals' investing the Catholic Church during his Pontificate with utmost transparency. From priestly pedophilia to the IOR, from the controversy over the Lefebvrians to relationships with Jews and Muslims, Benedict XVI has chosen frank and direct language to astute diplomatic evasions. Even at the cost of controversy both within the Roman Curia and outside it.
Now, with his former valet, the Pope ordered a full investigation in the Vatican and has obviously wanted the process of justice to take its course. Knowing that this may scandalize those in the Vatican who would have preferred to keep the profile low.
[When Vatileaks has become as loaded a word as Watergate - in a world where nothing is more titillating to public opinion than having the words 'Church' and 'scandal' coupled together inseparably - are there really any deluded souls in the Vatican who think they could ever keep the profile low?] The same ones who hope that with an early conclusion to Gabriele's trial, the Vatileaks episode can come to an end.
[First, the writer is assuming there are people living in cuckoo-land who do think that way in the Vatican; and two, Gabriele's trial for aggravated theft is the least important step in bringing justice and clarity to this episode - the Vatican court has said there are other far more serious offenses to be dealt with but not as easily as a simple crime like aggravated theft, because they have to do with violations of constitutional rights, both of the Pope as a person and as head of state, and of the Holy See itsewlf.]
Apart from Gabriele's personal story,
the unauthorized publication of private documents from the Pope's desk and the Secretariat of State has brought to light divisions and poisonous rancor between the Old Guard from the Wojtyla era and Joseph Ratzinger's people - revealing a government that appears to be badly served by both the Secretariat of State as well as by a merciless anti-Benedict fringe. [What rot! All that was previously known, if not obvious - it's just that Vatileaks provided some documentation that had not previously been available though the substance of such documents had been reported.]
It will be difficult to turn back the pages, as though the ex-valet had acted on his own
[But he did, apparently - or, at least, he volunteered himself to be the major agent and enabler of what he perceived (or was told) to be a supposedly well-intentioned operation that fell into his own misguided perceptions] or as if the last few months have not demonstrated that the Vatican mechanism is jammed somehow.
Which is not likely to happen when the Pope is Joseph Ratzinger.
Andrea Tornielli goes about the business of naming Mons. 'W' in a roundabout way, while providing a proper context for the case against Sciarpelletti. Which, however, would seem like the Vatican police were getting back at him because of the 'dishonorable libel' purveyed about Inspector Giani. But Sciarpelletti apparently had nothing to do with the article - he was being used as a maildrop. So, was filing a case against Sciarpelletti merely a ploy to nail down Mons. Polvani once he is called as a trial witness?
Questions raised about SecState infotech's
trial for 'aiding and abetting' Gabriele
by ANDREA TORNIELLI
Translated from the Italian service of
October 1, 2012
Claudio Sciarpelletti, the IT specialist working at the Vatican Secretariat of State, was found in possession, not of any of the private documents leaked from the Pope's study or the Secretariat but of libellous material against the chief of the Vatican Gendarmerie.
With the ongoing trial of the Pope's former valet Paolo Gabriele - who has confessed to having copied an enormous amount of documents from the Pope's desk and having turned them over to newsman Gianluigi Nuzzi - the Vatican has proven it wishes to proceed with transparency, despite the sensitiveness of a trial which is already predicted to be short but which will also have among its witnesses the Pope's private secretary, Mons. Georg Gaenwein. Which means he will be asked about the daily routine and relationships within the 'pontifical family'.
Meanwhile, the Vatican tribunal decided Saturday to hold a separate trial for Sciarpelletti, accused of 'aiding and abetting' Gabriele in the crime of aggravated theft. Sciarpelletti's lawyer questioned the fact that his client was even being sued, denying that he had 'aided and abetted' Gabriele in any way.
As a computer specialist, Sciarpelletti had occasional access to the papal apartment to work on computer malfunctions, and has admitted to being a friend of Gabriele, with their families visiting each other. He was arrested on the evening of May 25 and subsequently released, after Vatican police found at his desk in the Secretariat of State an envelop containing some documents which his lawyer described as 'non-confidential'.
The material reportedly comprises some e-mail correspondence
[What was that correspondence and between which parties were they? To and from Gabriele and perhaps Mons. W?] and a document that the Vaitcan prosecutor, in indicting Sciarpelletti, had called 'undignified libel' against Vatican police cheif Domenico Giani.
This refers to an account entitled 'Napoleon in the Vatican' that was used by Gianluigi Nuzzi in his book containing the leaked documents, and refers to allegedly questionable activities of the Vatican police which is also in charge of the Pope's security.
It does appear that the documents found in Sciarpelletti's possession were neither confidential nor anything that came from the Pope's desk. Which is the reason why the charge against him had been reduced to simple 'aiding and abetting'.
But according to the Vatican prosecutor's indictment, Sciarpelletti had made conflicting statements about the dicuments. First, he said that the envelop containing the documents, stamped on the back with the seal of the Secretariat of State's Office of Information and Documentation, was given to him by Gabriele.
Then he changed his story to say that the envelop was given to him by Mons. 'W' to be transmitted to Gabriele. This monsignor, who will be a witness in Sciarpelletti's trial, is Carlo Polvani, who oversees the liaison between the various Vatican communications media and the Secretariat of State.
[It must be remembered that before Vigano was named Secretary of the Governatorate, he had been in charge for 10 years of SecState's personnel department, in which he owuld have had a great say in the appointment of all but the highest-level officials of the Secretariat. A lot of power held between him and his nephew who is, in effect, the supervisor of the Vatican media aervices! Nonetheless, Vigano obviously saw his appointment to the Governatorate as his quickest route to becoming a cardinal, especially as he claims Cardinal Bertone had promised him he would be made President of the Governatorate - and therefore, in line for cardinal - when Cardinal Lajolo retired, as he did last year. If Bertone had made that promise at all, he had absolutely no right or power to do so, but let us give him the benefit of the doubt.]
Polvani is also the nephew of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, formerly Secretary of the Vatican Governatorate and now Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, named to that post before letters he wrote to the Pope and to Cardinal Bertone protesting his transfer were made public last January
[when he had already taken the post].. His letters denounced alleged episodes of shady dealings in the Governatorate.
[Once again, unspecified alleged episodes, other than the one 'overpricing' charge. And I acknowledge Tornielli's prudence in not calling the episodes 'corruption'. He uses the Italian word 'malaffare'.]
Sciarpelletti's lawyer also called the court's attention to the fact that his client's second version (he received the envelop from the monsignor to be given to Gabriele) does not, in fact, abet Gabriele because, to begin with, Sciarpelletti never passed it on to Gabriele.
In Nuzzi's book, the chapter dedicated to the Vatican Gendarmerie, "Vatican 007s, mission in Italy", takes up pp. 131-154, and alleges that the men under the command of Inspector-General Giani have carried out police and surveillance operations in Italian territory that are not allowed under existing agreements between the Vatican and Italy, unless specifically authorized.
The section entitled 'Napoleon in the Vatican' describes Giani's career, as well as environmental protection and security agencies in which Vatican police are reportedly stockholders.
[Shows you the kind of trivia that populates Buzzi's book, and was not a minor part of the documents dumped by Gariele onto Nuzzi, even if the document on Giani apparently came from someone else, not Gabriele. Probably Polvani himself? Who might well have been the original leak who handed the Vigano letters to Nuzzi for his TV expose last January!]
On February 5, 2011, a non-bylined article appeared in
Il Giornale reporting that as Secretary of the Vatican Governatorate, Mons. Vigano had proposed that the internal Vatican intelligence service be replaced by an external service.
The report does not explain why Vigano wanted this, but says, "It was feared that for reasons of security and privacy, such an initiative to change a system that has functioned well for years and that has faithfully served those to whom alone they should be responsible, would be blocked".
[So why did Vigano want to change a system that was working? If it ain't broke, leave it alone!]
"Vatican intelligence," the writer continued, "is the responsibility of a respectable person who knows very well who his superiors are
[i.e., he answers directly to the Pope alone, not to any wannabe panjandrum in the Governatorate!]. But still the pressure exercised by an archbishop to replace internal security with the services of an external agency, had become insupportable. Who is this archbishop anyway with the grim outlook who is causing ferment in the Vatican?"
The writer concludes by anticipating that Vigano's initiatives would soon be halted. As they were, in effect.
Now we come to the question of why anyone in the Secretariat of State would have wanted to send Gabriele the 'libel' against Giani. Sciarpelletti told the investigating magistrate on May 28 that "the envelope was given to me about two years ago, and it remained sealed and lying in my desk since then. Frankly, I had forgotten all about it since no one asked me about it afterwards".
Sciarpelletti's timeline would indicate early 2010 - months before the first of the leaked documents (Vigano's letters) were made public in January 2012, and before Gabriele's alleged first meeting with Nuzzi in November 2011.
One might speculate that the document - which did appear in Nuzzi's book published in May 2012 - addressed to Gabriele, was intended for him to call the attention of the Pope's secretary to the 'disrespectful libel' against Giani.
[Yeah, right!] In any case, since the envelop addressed to Gabriele was never delivered to him, it is clear that the document came into Nuzzi's hands by other means.
The separate trial against Sciarpelletti should clear up the circumstances better. The entrance into the arena of Mons. Polvani - even if only as a witness in the Sciarpelletti trial - brings back attention to the Vigano case which was the episode that started the Vatileaks mess.
Here is the story I referred to earlier, which zeroes in on the Vigano connection to Vatileaks and earlier 'indiscretions' - to use the Italian term for gossip, speculation and rumor - about the anti-Benedict fringe in the Secretariat of State.
Vigano nephew will be called
to testify in the Sciarpelletti case
Background to Vatileaks - which all started
when Vigano was assigned to the US
by Maria Antonietta Calabrò
Translated from
September 30, 2012
As reported, IT specialist Claudio Sciarpelletti who was?/is? employed at the Secretariat of State will now be tried separately from Paolo Gabriele for presumed involvement in Vatileaks.
At the samew time, however, the list of witnesses to be called during his trial has been made public. What stands out is the name of Mons. Carlo Maria Polvani, who is in charge of the department of information and documentation at the Secretariat of State, therefore also in charge of department liaison with the various Vatican media, and, even more relevant, the immediate supervisor of Sciarpelletti, in which capacity he has been called as a witness.
Now, his position may not be among the highest ranks in the Vatican bureaucracy, and is surely unknown to the public, but it is strategic. And he is prominently known to reporters covering the Vatican if only because he is the nephew of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, now the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States,
Vigano who was the #2 man at the Vatican Governatorate was the fuse that triggered Vatileaks in January, with the publication of two letters he sent in 2011 to the Pope and to Cardinal Bertone protesting that he wa being moved out of the Vatican. In the process, he alleged in general terms the existence of corruption and other questionable financial transactions he claimed he had occasion to observe at the Governatorate.
But uncle and nephew first made the news - though known only to limited circles at the time - in 2009 with a 'murderous' attack against them that was published in the highly serious and reputable French Catholic newspaper
L'Homme Nouveau', which also publishes the French weekly edition of
L'Osseervatore Romano.
The paper published a two-part investigation by Abbe Claude Barthe, a man known and esteemed by Benedict XVI, who named Vigano and his nephew in a list of reputed 'frondisti' in the Roman Curia who were believed to be working against the Pope and his Secretary of State.
«Y a-t-il une opposition romaine au Pape?» [Is there a Roman opposition to the Pope?) was the title of the article - the question being merely rhetorical.
Barthe referred to a 'couronne sacree' ('holy circle') - "a kind of shadow Secretariat of State functioning within the Secretariat of State" which was acting "with an outlook different from that of the Pope and Cardinal Bertone".
Among them, Barthe named Vigano - who at the time headed the highly strategic personnel department at State - and Polvani whom Barthe described as 'a retro admirer of Che Guevara'. A few months after the article came out, Vigano was promoted to be Secretary of the Governatorate (July 2009), and so became the #2 man in the organism that administers Vatican City State.
[So was the 'promotion' a way to remove him from the Secretariat of State? The problem is Vigano harbored the illusion that he was being put in line to succeed Cardinal Lajolo as President of the Governatorate, and therefore, on a fast track to being named cardinal. Apparently, this goal was highest on his list, and as prestigious as it may be to the Pope's ambassador to the United States, Nuncios just are not on the fast track to becoming cardinal. Assuming these premises are true, how you can hope to be named a cardinal by the Pope you have been working against would seem to be yet another unflattering facet of Vigano's personality!]
In 2010, an e-mail blitz sent to cardinals, apostolic nuncios and the media accused Vigano of promoting his nephew's career at the Vatican.
And In February 2011, an article was published in an Italian newspaper in which, even without naming him, Vigano was accused of wishing to interfere in sensitive matters of security, especially in surveillance and intelligence activities.
[Which, according to Tornielli's background story, Vigano apparently wanted transferred from the Vatican police to an external security agency.]
In May, after the arrest of Paolo Gabriele, Vatican police confiscated from Sciarpelletti's desk in the Secretariat of State an envelop addressed to Paolo Gabriele and containing a document that was the basis for a chapter in Gianluigi Nuzzi's Vatileaks compendium that was very critical of Inspector-General Demonico Giani, who was tagged 'Napoleon of the Vatican'. Was this the riposte to the accusations made earlier against Vigano and his nephew?
Eventually, Vigano was moved out of the Governatorate, even if it was for the very prestigious position of Apostolic Nuncio to the United States. Two letters he wrote in 2011 - one on April 7 to Cardinal Bertone, and another one directly to the Pope on July 7 - to protest his transfer from the Vatican were disclosed ion January 26, 2012, on the TV program 'The Untouchables' hosted by Gianluigi Nuzzi, who would go on to publish his Vatileaks book in May.
That marked the public start of Vatileaks and the investigations that have so far led to the arrest and trial of the Pope's former valet, Paolo Gabriele, who confessed to surreptitiously copying documents he found in the papal study and providing them to Nuzzi.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 02/10/2012 02:01]