Pope Leo XIV faces test of Vatican justice in Becciu meeting fallout

John L Allen Jr/ Crux• June 1, 2025

ROME – For the outside world, it is perhaps Pope Leo XIV’s pleas for ceasefires in Gaza and Ukraine that have drawn the most attention since his election just over three weeks ago. For Catholic insiders, a range of papal actions have sparked reaction – from his sartorial choices to the use of sung Latin in public prayer, and even his few initial personnel moves.

For Italians, however, one moment from the new pontiff’s agenda has stood out above all: his 27 May audience with Cardinal Angelo Becciu, whose vicissitudes over the past five years – including his reluctant withdrawal from the recent conclave – have formed the Vatican’s most riveting domestic soap opera.

While the meeting has attracted interest largely in terms of Becciu’s personal fate, it also signals a decision concerning a structural reform with deep historical roots.

It was Becciu whom Pope Francis compelled to resign as Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints in 2020, stripping him of the rights and privileges of a cardinal, though allowing him to retain the title, following allegations of financial misconduct. He was later indicted by the Vatican City State’s civil tribunal and convicted of multiple counts of financial fraud and corruption, receiving a sentence of five and a half years in prison.

Becciu’s appeal is scheduled to open on 22 September before the Vatican’s six-judge court of appeal.

In the meantime, the fairness of the process has been the subject of ongoing controversy, including during the cardinals’ discussions ahead of the conclave. Several expressed the view – shared by many in the Italian press and among legal scholars – that Becciu had been the victim of an unjust process. Some cardinals even supported his original insistence that he should be allowed to vote in the conclave.

When Becciu eventually withdrew after being shown documents confirming that Francis had classified him among the non-electors, his fellow cardinals effectively endorsed him. On 30 April, the General Congregation issued a statement expressing “appreciation for the gesture he’s taken” in withdrawing, and hoping that “the competent organs of justice can definitively ascertain the facts” – a clear sign that many remain unconvinced those facts have yet been established.

As Pope Leo considers his next steps regarding Becciu, it will not be lost on him that the case touches on broader concerns. Beneath the salacious details lies a more fundamental issue: the justice system of the Vatican City State.

Specifically: can any criminal or civil prosecution in a system lacking separation of powers – in which the pope is simultaneously the chief executive, legislator and judge – meet modern standards of fairness and due process?

The question practically answers itself. If Leo wishes to avoid future controversies of the Becciu kind, what reform would be needed to protect the system from charges of giustizialismo – justice imposed by unchecked executive authority?

Two broad options present themselves.

First, Leo XIV could complete the unfinished business of 1870 by ending any residual claim to the papacy’s temporal monarchy and establishing a truly independent judiciary within the Vatican City State.

This would not compromise the pope’s authority in faith and morals, which remains absolute. It would, however, involve a voluntary restriction of his temporal authority in administering civil and criminal justice within Vatican territory – especially in cases like Becciu’s, involving alleged financial crimes.

In such a system, the pope could appoint judges, as a head of state might, but they would otherwise function independently. They could not be removed at will by the pope, and their rulings would not be subject to papal override.

Crucially, such judges would have the power to review and, if necessary, overturn executive actions. For instance, Vatican law requires competitive bidding for public contracts. If a pope sought to circumvent that requirement, judges would need the authority to hear appeals and, if justified, invalidate the action.

Only such a voluntary limitation of papal prerogative would likely persuade fair-minded observers that defendants receive a fair hearing – and restore confidence in the system’s legitimacy.

This would not constitute a doctrinal problem. No formulation of papal infallibility claims that popes are error-free in matters such as budgeting or labour law.

But if that degree of reform is seen as too radical a departure from the modern papacy’s structure, is there an alternative that could still improve perceptions of due process?

Yes: Pope Leo could invoke Article 22 of the 1929 Lateran Pacts, which regulate Vatican–Italian relations following the collapse of the Papal States.

That article states: “At the request of the Holy See, and by delegation which may be given by the same either in individual cases or on a permanent basis, Italy will provide within its territory for the punishment of crimes committed in the Vatican City…”

In effect, the Vatican could hand over the prosecution of criminal cases to the Italian courts, thus removing itself from direct involvement and avoiding the appearance of manipulating the outcome.

Granted, Italian justice has its imperfections. Yet no system is flawless – and this alternative would at least spare the Holy See accusations of double standards in its teaching on due process.

As Pope Leo considers the unresolved issues exposed by the Becciu affair, these are the deeper structural questions beneath the surface. How his legal mind chooses to address them remains to be seen.

(Photo by ANDREAS SOLARO/AFP via Getty Images)