Vatican City, Mar 31, 2021 / 02:01 pm (CNA).- The U.K. court ruling that overturned an account seizure request by Vatican City prosecutors has raised questions about the reliability of the Holy See’s judicial system.
The verdict by judge Tony Baumgartner overturned an earlier decision seizing the British accounts of the Italian broker Gianluigi Torzi. Torzi was involved in the Secretariat of State’s luxury real estate investment in London.
Torzi was arrested by the Vatican last summer on two counts of embezzlement, two counts of fraud, extortion, and money laundering.
In his ruling, Baumgartner often used the words “misrepresentation” and “mischaracterization” in relation to the Vatican’s request for the accounts seizure (known as a “restraint application”).
In his conclusion, Baumgartner noted that “an applicant to this court for a restraint order relying on external requests should be careful in relying upon facts unverified or unsupported by direct evidence, and should not unhesitatingly rely upon assertions that are not properly established on the facts.”
He also pointed out that “applications of this nature often are brought with haste because of the fear of the real risk of dissipation of assets, but the restraint application was not an application prompted by discoveries made in a new investigation, or even in an investigation that was unfolding.”
This is the third time that Vatican prosecutors have received a negative response from authorities abroad.
The first concerned Cecilia Marogna, who allegedly misused Vatican funds intended for humanitarian activities. Marogna, an Italian citizen, ended up in prison in Italy, while Vatican prosecutors also submitted a request to extradite Marogna to the Vatican. A lower court validated the arrest. But the Supreme Court of Cassation canceled the arrest because the request had no specific motive and “lacked the specific cautionary needs.”
The second was the search and seizure in Fabrizio Tirabassi’s apartment. Tirabassi, an official of the Secretariat of State’s administrative section, was one of the five Vatican officials suspended when the London investigation began. Rome’s public prosecutor initially validated the seizures in his apartment following a Vatican request.
But the measure was later declared null since the search and seizures were part of an “out of the ordinary request,” with “evident and substantial” illegitimate actions, such as that the seizure order came directly by the prosecutor without the validation of a judge.
The Baumgartner ruling is more significant than the other two because it is the first time that a third-party judge has looked into the documents and challenged the professionalism of Vatican prosecutors.
Baumgartner wrote that the Vatican’s “non-disclosures and misrepresentations are so appalling that the ultimate sanction” to reverse the assets’ seizure was appropriate.
The prosecutors, Baumgartner said, maintained that Torzi “‘dishonestly and secretly’ decided to issue himself controlling shares in Gutt (one of the societies that intervened in the purchase) to prevent the Secretariat from acquiring the whole of the interest in the Chelsea Property until the Secretariat agreed to pay him a further EUR 15,000,000 [around $17.6 million].”
But the judge concluded that the allocation of 31,000 shares of Gutt “is improperly characterized as secretive and dishonest in the Letter of Request, and that (…) is a misrepresentation of the facts.”
The British judge also noted that “the Letter of Request is conspicuously silent about [senior Vatican Secretariat of State official] Archbishop Peña Parra’s involvement throughout, a matter I find of some surprise given it emerged after the restraint order had been made that he is said to be the subject of the blackmail” — the alleged extortion of the $17.6 million.
The investigation has not yet led to an indictment, but questions have arisen regarding Archbishop Peña Parra: If he was aware of and endorsed the controversial financial operation, why wasn’t he too included in the investigation?
Most importantly, the British judge’s ruling could mark a serious setback for the Vatican judicial system’s credibility on the eve of the Moneyval report on the Holy See.
Moneyval is the Council of Europe’s committee that evaluates if member states are adhering to international standards. Moneyval will issue its fourth progress report on the Vatican at the end of April. This report will discuss the Vatican judicial system’s effectiveness in countering money laundering and the prevention of financing terrorism, so the Vatican prosecutor will be under strict scrutiny.
Many argue that the Vatican prosecutor’s reliability is in question since he conducted his investigation disregarding the rights of the people involved.
This began with Torzi’s arrest at the Vatican. He went with his lawyers for an interrogation but found himself thrown in a cell for 10 days.
Then there was Raffaele Mincione, an Italian citizen taken from a hotel and placed in custody in Italy. He has filed two lawsuits in London against the Holy See.
There are also possible lawsuits at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg; since some of the defendants have been arrested or subjected to search and seizures without even knowing the charges against them.
Six people were first suspended and then demoted from (or not renewed in) their positions because of the London investigation. They had no notice of the charges against them until the prosecutors had interrogated them. Still, they do not know if they will face trial.
The Holy See is part of an international system and signs declarations, memoranda of understanding, and international conventions. Yet the Vatican state is an absolute monarchy, with a judicial system working under the decisions of an absolute monarch.
What if the activism of the Vatican tribunal backfires against the Holy See? What if any state hostile to religion uses these procedural mistakes and human rights failings to attack the Holy See and the Catholic Church in a broader sense?
These are the reasons why the Baumgartner ruling sends an alarm signal that the pope cannot ignore.
[…]
When will Cardinal Fernandez be investigated for his published account of an erotic conversation he claimed to have had with a sixteen year old girl? That is hardly appropriate pastoral behavior.
Exactly, Lucy.
I’m pretty sure he’s not the one to be in charge of issuing pronouncements on any kinds of moral issues, contemporary or ancient.
The epically failed Bergoglio imbroglio grinds on.
And on.
And on…
Around the same time Francis will be called to account for his frivolous disregard for safeguarding the Deposit of Faith.
We must differentiate between the man and his work to some extent. Michelangelo, who created the famous fresco “The Creation “ in The sistine chapel , was far from being a saint. We must also allow for repentance and change. We never know what is in the heart of a man.Ones past doesn’t necessarily determine his future. We must also remember that sometimes bad men do good things and good men do bad things. Life is very messy and multi dimensional and we must be careful in passing judgment. In this case let’s see what he says and take him at his word, not reading his motives into it.
“The Argentine cardinal in his interview with EFE argued that “people who are concerned” about his work will “be put at ease” by the new document.”
To me it sounds like a habitual (sadly) Vatican’s line: “I say something that violates the Church’s teaching and all are shocked and demand explanations; I will explain nothing but to pacify them and to regain credibility I then say something in a line with the Church’s teaching on another topic so all would sigh in relief.”
This works only for those with a fragmented memory i.e. who are unable to remember bashing when they are given flowers after it, even if it is a years long cycle (bashing – flowers, bashing – flowers etc.).
The words of Fernandez and those who cover him mean nothing to me until he repents and removes his ‘FS’ and pseudo-mystical staff. Noteworthy, being on alert and discerning possible deception is not only exhausting but also damaging for a spiritual life. It is an abnormal situation when a believer should be on guard against deceptions and heresies… in his own Church.
It is detrimental for a soul not to be able to trust those who in a normal situation are supposed to be trusted. It is like not trusting your own father.
I’m with you on this, Anna.
We read: “The Argentine cardinal in his interview with EFE argued that ‘people who are concerned’ about his work will ‘be put at ease’ by the new document.”
Four easing questions about the new document:
1. Does it replace the Natural Law in its entirety with only a shortlist of prohibitions?
2. Does it explicitly support the “Catechism,” or does it confuse? Is “Veritatis Splendor” still ignored, of possibly now dismissed as a “special case”–like all of continental Africa, Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Peru, and parts of Argentina, France, Spain, etc. (re Fiducia Supplicans)?
3. Is the document consistent with “Il dono della vita” (“Respect for Human Life in Origin and the Dignity of Procreation,” John Paul II/Ratzinger, February 22, 1987), or not?
The standing document offers direct and succinct answers to direct and numbered questions submitted by “episcopal conferences or individual bishops, by theologians, doctors and scientists, concerning biomedical techniques [….and in] conformity with the principles of Catholic morality.”
4. Does the document really put the disrupted Church “at ease”–by rescinding the verbose novelty in Fiducia Supplicans? Or, are the lips of Cardinal Fernandez silent? Rescind or re-sinned?
Good points. I fear that even if it seems to support orthodoxy, it will not be on the basis of innate natural law, but it will undermine moral truth by making it seem like Catholic idiosyncrasies.
I read the opening title to this piece that reads: “Vatican to publish document on ‘moral questions’ regarding human dignity, gender, surrogacy” and immediately thought it was intended as satirical.
Having tragically abused so many physically, the plan is to selectively abuse all of us theologically. This is at the hardened heart of clericalism, the very antithesis of service.
The next pontificate has its work cut out for it in clarification.
Praying for clarification though “morals” are often the umbrella under which non-religious or broadly religious societies categorize and classify what they hold to be truisms about healthy attitudes and behaviors.
The Catholic Church teaches Truth “authored” by God the Father, embodied in the Person of Jesus Christ, and moved in the currents of consciences by the Holy Spirit.
The former–morals–may bend, be distorted, or even introduced or eliminated depending on the egoism of humans; the Church teachings are immutable with respect to the fundamental knowledge and understanding of the person and personhood.
Moreover, since the origin of the Church, incredibly wise and able theologians have developed and shared Truth, emulated by great saints. Always present in authentic doctrine has been the dignity of all persons, as they are created in the image and likeness of God. (It has been individuals who for whatever reason have disrespected their own or others’ being.) Later generations have express fundamental and foundational truths in novel or timely ways to best evangelize the populace of any give time period, but the essence remains constant.
We shall see about this document…yes?
I will not read the document. Possible Heresy is not my cup of tea. Anything coming from Jorge Bergoglio or his Vatican henchmen are not to be trusted. Period.