Further developments in the coverage of the Becciu case. Becciu's attorneys respond to Sandro Magister's article of 23 November.
From Settimo Cielo
By Sandro Magister
(sm) Published as received. The following note disputes point by point the criticisms lodged by Cardinal George Pell against Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu, presented in the Settimo Cielo post of last November 23. It therefore joins the already conspicuous pile of documents and depositions in the possession of the prosecution and the defense, in the trial of Becciu and other defendants underway at the Vatican, with the next hearing set for December 14.
*
STUDIO LEGALE VIGLIONE
Roma, via Fulcieri Paulucci de' Calboli 44
Pregiatissimo Signor
Dottor Sandro Magister
Settimo Cielo
Subject: Article “Vatican Swindle Trial Has an Elephant in the Room: Cardinal Pell” of November 23, 2021 - Request for correction
Distinguished Director,
I am writing to you in the name and on behalf of His Eminence the Most Reverend Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu, who has given me an express mandate to impart the following to you.
With reference to the article in question, by reason of the ample space dedicated to the accounts of Cardinal Pell concerning the person of His Eminence and the relative dissemination that followed to a vast and informed public, there arises the need to report certain critical matters contained therein and therefore requiring correction.
Your many readers, in fact, known to be well-informed about the public debate on ecclesiastical issues, deserve the respect of the truth of the facts, unfortunately compromised up to now by what has been reported but perhaps re-established in part by what follows.
The known procedural injustices endured by Cardinal Pell, whose suffering deserves all respect, cannot however go so far as to include speculations unjustified by the facts to the detriment of Cardinal Becciu. Thus His Eminence gives notice that he has conferred a mandate upon his defenders for the purpose of defending by means of the law his integrity and innocence with respect to these and other unfounded assertions, if not promptly rectified.
Therefore, at the moment we intend to rectify in particular the following points:
1. «Cardinal Becciu is different from most other Vatican figures implicated in financial affairs, who take cover and stay quiet until the artillery fire dies down, and then resume their usual life.»
In the small or large ecclesiastical financial administrations that Cardinal Becciu has had the honor of managing in the service of the Church and of the Holy Father, he has always done so with a high sense of duty, a deep spirit of service, and absolute moral integrity. In this sense, therefore, it is profoundly offensive that Cardinal Pell should propose an equivalence with the so-called “figures” of which he makes public mention.
2. «The statutes of our Secretariat [for the economy] explicitly gave us the authority “to supervise,” controllare, all accounts in the Vatican, including those of the Secretariat of State; our approval was also needed for the purchase of property etc. above 500 thousand euros.»
The Statutes of the S.P.E. were approved on February 22 2015 and had no retroactive powers, much less over acts previously brought into being by the Secretariat of State, which, contrary to what Cardinal Pell affirms, has always had, on the basis of the Apostolic Constitution “Pastor Bonus,” juridical and financial autonomy with respect to all the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia.
In that very Statute, in art. 3 § 1, it is established that: «the Secretariat for the Economy acts in collaboration with the Secretariat of State,» thus affirming a parity of the two bodies and denying any supervisory function of the former over the latter, which has never existed.
The Secretariat of State managed an autonomous Sovereign Fund - certainly not created by Cardinal Becciu, but dating back to the time of Paul VI - known to the Superiors, to whom the Substitutes presented semiannual reports.
His Eminence wishes it to be known that he was never instructed by his Superiors to present reports to Cardinal Pell; nor to his knowledge did Cardinal Pell ever obtain from the Cardinal Secretary of State, in their weekly meetings, such reports. Simply put, the Secretariat of State had full financial autonomy, and the matter was not up for discussion.
Indeed, a few months after the Statute in question was put into effect, by reason of extensive legal difficulties that were weighing upon it, a commission appointed by the Holy Father and headed by Cardinal De Paolis produced the July 4 2016 Motu Proprio “I beni temporali,” which better specified the scope of action of the S.P.E., namely the control of assets administered by the A.P.S.A., and therefore - once again - with the exclusion of the Secretariat of State.
Lastly, it is emphasized that this autonomy was authoritatively reiterated by a contemporary Pontifical Rescript handed over to the Cardinal Secretary of State, which reaffirmed the administrative and financial autonomy of the Secretariat of State.
3. «But in addition to refuting these claims, Cardinal Pell points to Becciu as the most unyielding opponent of any supervision by the Secretariat for the Economy - established in 2014 by Pope Francis and headed by Pell himself - of the accounts of the Secretariat of State. The purchase of the London building was one of the matters of contention, but not the only one.»
First of all, it should be clarified that under the management of Cardinal Becciu the purchase of the London building was not carried out, but corporate investments were made on it, and therefore His Eminence affirms that he does not recall any disputes on the subject. He recalls, nevertheless, how Cardinal Pell was informed of these operations through an inspection carried out by the Auditor General, without the Secretariat of State’s receiving afterward any critical document from the respective offices on the operation.
The Cardinal takes exception to the description of him as a staunch opponent of supervision by the Secretariat for the Economy of the Secretariat of State, or, in general, of the reforms initiated by them. On account of the statutory uncertainties about the powers of the new supervisory body, the competences of said Dicastery were never clear. The role of the Substitute was to apply the rules in force, not to carry out orders from the Prefect of the S.P.E. not contemplated by the regulations.
With regard to the effective will to collaborate with Cardinal Pell and his office, His Eminence recalls that the Cardinal Secretary of State, at the beginning of 2014, asked him to appoint the Assessor for the Secretariat of State, Monsignor Peter Wells, to prepare documentation that Cardinal Pell's office required. His Eminence diligently carried out the order, just as he assiduously responded to other requests in writing.
4. «The deputy secretary of state canceled the external audit and forced the auditor to resign.»
Cardinal Becciu, in recalling the previous public denials furnished on this point, reiterates the most complete falsehood of such a reconstruction, affirming that it was canceled by the Secretary of State, and not by the Substitute.
As for the accusation of having forced the Auditor to resign, His Eminence gives notice that he will be obliged to protect himself by means of the law, because of the blatant falsehood of this reconstruction repeatedly conveyed by Cardinal Pell. In this regard, he reiterates that in that whole matter his role was limited, on the basis of orders received, to asking the Auditor to resign. In the face of his refusal, he invited him, again in keeping with the instructions given him, to report to the Commander of the Gendarmerie.
Lastly and for due contextualization, one should consult the September 24 2017 Bulletin of the Press Office (1) where, in unequivocal and official terms, the reason for this interruption of relations is stated, with the hope that what has been affirmed by the institutional voice of the Holy See may definitively restore for the readers the historical truth on the point, preventing any different reconstruction denied by the official report.
5. «All this was reported in detail by Settimo Cielo in the following post, including the support that Pope Francis gave to Becciu in ejecting Milone and closing ranks against Pell, already deprived of his powers even before he went back to Australia for the trial in which he was charged.»
His Eminence specifies that it was not a question of «support that Pope Francis gave to Becciu,» but, as already recalled, this was a matter of a specific task that was entrusted to him and that he faithfully carried out.
6. «And he comments: “The story will become even more interesting if Msgr. Perlasca starts talking.”»
His Eminence reiterates, with firmness and the greatest respect for the Tribunal, that he does not intend to address the reconstruction of facts and circumstances pertaining to the trial underway with premature disclosures in different venues; he will have recourse to the institutional setting when the time comes.
He is however determined to point out that Cardinal Pell’s expectations will be belied, reaffirming once again his absolute innocence with respect to any wrongdoing.
7. «It was the IOR’s refusal to cooperate in providing another 150 million euros [to the Secretariat of State] for the disastrous Chelsea purchase in London that recently brought the case to the forefront. I was pleased to learn that it was the Holy Father himself who not only authorized the “raids” in the Secretariat of State and in the offices of the AIF.»
The Cardinal intends to emphasize how in this passage the author fails to remind the reader how he, at that time, was no longer Substitute for General Affairs, and that this financial request to the Institute for Works of Religion was solicited by others.
8. «The fact is that the coup de grace for the Secretariat of State then came on December 28 2020 on the orders of Pope Francis, with the forced transfer to the APSA of all its assets, that is, a large part of that billion and 400 million euros that Cardinal Pell - during the few months in which, at the beginning of the pontificate, he was able to act with the pope’s full mandate to clean up - had found outside the official Vatican budgets.»
In this regard, His Eminence intends to specify that the sums managed by the Secretariat of State were indeed «outside the Vatican budgets,» but that this does not amount to suspicions of illicit management, almost as if they were “slush funds,” since they were known to the Hierarchical Superiors who were periodically informed by the Substitute with reports.
In the firm conviction that you will give equal space to such necessary rectifications, given your well-known professionalism and conscientiousness, please accept my
Kind regards,
Atty. Fabio Viglione
Rome, November 29 2021
*
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to deletion if they are not germane. I have no problem with a bit of colourful language, but blasphemy or depraved profanity will not be allowed. Attacks on the Catholic Faith will not be tolerated. Comments will be deleted that are republican (Yanks! Note the lower case 'r'!), attacks on the legitimacy of Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ (I know he's a material heretic and a Protector of Perverts, and I definitely want him gone yesterday! However, he is Pope, and I pray for him every day.), the legitimacy of the House of Windsor or of the claims of the Elder Line of the House of France, or attacks on the legitimacy of any of the currently ruling Houses of Europe.