Eminence Giovanni Angelo Becciu, why did you decide to speak?
«Because in the face of injustice we must not remain silent. The Bible says not to let the sun go down without justice being done to the poor defrauded person. It was considered a sin that cried out for vengeance before God. And for almost four years I have been defrauded of my honor, my episcopal ministry and my serenity. It’s much more than a sunset.”
Don’t you think that your story marks a change of phase, in which the casual use of money in the Vatican is no longer allowed? The conviction for embezzlement and fraud in the first instance speaks clearly.
“I have not committed any fraud or embezzlement and I shout it out loud. In a trial you have to find those responsible for those who have made unrestrained use of money. And above all, those who have committed a crime. I deny having been among them, I acted on the basis of what was studied and proposed by our offices. Furthermore, the investment of the sum was authorized by my Superior, the then Cardinal Secretary of State, Tarcisio Bertone.”
Yet one has the feeling that with Francesco they are looking for transparency that punishes previously habitual behaviors. Don’t the investments in the Vatican building in London say this?
«I don’t know if the behaviors you are referring to were habitual, in any case I wasn’t involved in investments. As a Substitute I had much else to think about. For the Secretariat of State there was a special office that dealt with this matter and I limited myself to following their instructions. Furthermore, the office presented me with the investment which also included the Palace of London as being most advantageous for the Holy See. Where was the crime? Have I perhaps obtained a personal benefit? Nobody! And then mind you, when the Secretariat of State decided to purchase the entire property of the Palace, I was no longer Substitute.”
Did he not underestimate the fact that certain behaviors, when there is a trial, are no longer considered legal?
«If you mean that today we have a Vatican judiciary endowed with a sort of imperativeness, perhaps. For years we have been hearing news of trials, and then trials. But the image of a Holy See involved in trials at every turn leads one to believe that the Vatican is made up of people dedicated to evildoing. And this does not contribute to her positive reputation.”
Perhaps even cases like yours don’t contribute.
«In fact, it pains me, but with the trial against me the Vatican has lost a unique opportunity to show the world how to administer justice while respecting the rights of the accused. It hurt me to have been presented as a businessman cardinal. I’m not. Never a cent went into my pocket and the trial has amply demonstrated this. I have not dishonored the Vatican, I have given my life for the Church, serving it throughout the world, in the various Nunciatures, with dedication and commitment.”
He was surprised by the controversial four rewritten of the Pope with the ongoing trial?
«That I was surprised is of little importance, but it is serious that two of the most illustrious canonists in the world were highly critical to the point of questioning the validity of the four documents. What surprised me above all was the change in the rule on the Tribunal called to judge cardinals and bishops. An ad hoc rule!»
He said he felt disadvantaged as a defendant.
«Of course, but I accepted it from the Pope. The Holy Father told me to submit to judgment calmly, because it would be the best way to prove my innocence. Unfortunately, the trial failed to meet Pope Francis’ expectations and ended up not ascertaining the truth. And then there was no equality between the parties, because I was the only one to enter the Chamber with a “conviction”, that of someone who had already been deprived of cardinal prerogatives, and presented as guilty by a violent media campaign of global dimensions”.
You wrote that the trial was “the pit of the Gospel.” Don’t you think it’s an exaggeration?
“No, it was not an exaggeration. I am sorry to point it out, but in a trial in which I did not feel that the Truth was being sought, charity was not observed, respect for others was not shown, false oaths were sworn, slander was made, I did not find the Gospel.”
Perhaps the recording of the phone call with Francesco that she made without his knowledge also made her negative. Something serious, don’t you think?
«I immediately ran to Pope Francis to explain myself and apologize. And he understood. I was desperate and the desperation of the innocent accused is even more dramatic. The Pope had recently left the hospital and there were alarming rumors about his health, with the trial looming. Not wanting to indicate him as a witness, I asked him if he could put in writing the things that only he and I knew: that he had authorized me to mediate for the release of a Colombian nun in Mali. He asked me to write the letter which I then sent to him. But in response I received a harsh, severe one, signed by him but with language that was not his, in which I did not recognize him. I had doubts. I called him back, because he was my only salvation. And I recorded our conversation. But I never used that recording, nor did I make it public.”
And it was used against her. But isn’t the silence of the other cardinals a bad sign for you?
«I went from the phase of the isolated leper to the phase in which during the trial, when it was beginning to be understood that the accusations were all inconsistent, I received a crescendo of expressions of solidarity».
Very private, though.
“At the Consistory I had a cordial welcome. I wrote in a letter that I would have liked a loud defense, but especially after an offensive indictment. You don’t treat a cardinal like that, even if he’s accused, he’s innocent until proven guilty. You shouldn’t treat anyone like that.”
When will the reasons for the sentence arrive?
“I don’t know and it’s difficult to predict.”
The appeal process could begin with the 2025 Jubilee.
«It would be good if it arrived earlier. Otherwise I fear it would be enormous damage to the Church and to the Jubilee itself.”
In the event of an amnesty, would you accept being pardoned by the Pope?
«Honestly, I’m not thinking about amnesty or asking for pardon. I hope that the Court of Appeal recognizes my innocence. Do you know that I still can’t understand what I was accused and convicted of?”
Nothing to reproach intelligence consultant Cecilia Marogna for spending money on luxury goods?
“I have always acted in good faith and pursuing a noble goal. I was convicted of defrauding the Pope in this affair: it is total absurdity. That was a humanitarian operation agreed with the Pope and I was authorized by Him to carry it out.”
The mystery remains as to why on September 24, 2020 he entered the Pope as a cardinal and left as an ex.
“To tell the truth, I did not leave as a former cardinal, but with the suspension of cardinal prerogatives. Unfortunately, someone told the Pope many falsehoods against me, after seven years of loyal and sincere relations. For me, it remains a black hole. They had to destroy me, without a trial. They hoped that I would retire to Sardinia, without fighting. But I did not do it and I will not do it. I will shout my innocence to the world with the force of truth. An interior strength that is even stronger since I was condemned.”
Do you feel deceived?
«Not by the Pope, but by the way in which I was unfairly catapulted into this process. Precisely during the trial it emerged that a conspiracy had been hatched by two ladies to push Monsignor Alberto Perlasca, who had been accused in the investment affair, to implicate me. What then can we say about the messages sent by Mrs. Genoveffa Ciferri to the Promoter of Justice covered with “omission” by the prosecution? There are 126 of them, of which we were only able to read 6. Why? It is the defense’s right to have them in their hands. Among other things that I cannot explain is why the prophecy made to me by the aforementioned lady in a threatening tone in July 2020 and confirmed in the trial came true, that I would lose the cardinal’s hat shortly thereafter and that Monsignor Perlasca would be fully rehabilitated in the Vatican!»
Do you have an answer?
“No, but it remains a disturbing story.”
