Roma Locuta Est

April 26, 2025 – (Steven O’Reilly)  I have long followed the case of Cardinal Becciu and Pope Francis with interest and curiosity, and have written several articles on the matter (see HERE, HERE, and HERE).  I always found the actions of Francis in his case to be odd. He revoked Becciu’s cardinal privileges without a trial, then before the trial he seemed to tease their restoration — and this a few months after meeting with the Cardinal in Becciu’s apartment, on Holy Thursday. The pope met with a Cardinal, someone essentially under “indictment” at the time, in the Cardinal’s apartment, on Holy Thursday, forgoing other papal activities for that solemn occasion to do so, i.e., saying the Mass of the Lord’s Supper at St. Peter’s Basilica.  Then there is Cardinal Becciu’s comment to a relative that “he (Francis) wants me dead” (see here and here).  Odd.

Now, in current news, according to recent news reports, Cardinal Parolin has produced two letters in which the former Pope Francis says that Cardinal Becciu is not eligible to vote in a papal conclave. According to an article in The Pillar: 

Cardinal Pietro Parolin showed the letter to Becciu Thursday night, the Italian newspaper Domani reported.

Domani said Parolin allegedly had two typed letters, signed “F” by Pope Francis, indicating that Becciu could not participate in the conclave that will elect Francis’ successor – one letter from 2023 and another from last month during the pope’s illness.

As the senior cardinal bishop of voting age, Parolin presides over the assembly of cardinal electors.

[Source: Letter from Pope Francis reportedly bans Becciu from conclave, Michele La Rosa]

This news comes after Cardinal Becciu had been claiming he had the right to fully participate in the upcoming conclave, even after Pope Francis appeared to have stripped him of his cardinalate privileges a few years ago.

Cardinal Becciu had once served as “sostituto” or “Substitute” – essentially the pope’s chief of staff; the second-highest ranking official in the Vatican, behind only Cardinal Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State. But, “On 3 July 2021, a Vatican judge indicted Becciu on multiple charges, including embezzlement, money laundering, fraud, extortion, and abuse of office“, and  “On 16 December 2023, the Vatican announced that he had been found guilty and sentenced “to five years and six months imprisonment, perpetual disqualification from public office, and an eight thousand euro fine” (See Wikipedia article on Becciu for summary). Throughout it all, Becciu maintained his innocence, saying anything he did was with the approval of Cardinal Parolin, and or Pope Francis himself (see HERE). 

Where the truth may be in all of this, is up to the courts. Certainly, Cardinal Pell, in his Demos article, indicated he did not believe Becciu was being treated fairly by Pope Francis at the time – for example, Becciu having been stripped of his cardinal privileges without a trial (see HERE).

This just underlines, at least in my personal view, that there was something odd about the role of Pope Francis in Becciu’s case.  In an August 2022 article (see The Rehabilitation of Cardinal Becciu: what’s up with that?), I wrote in part:

Readers may be aware that Cardinal Becciu is currently  embroiled in a Vatican trial involving an apparently shady London real estate deal. While the Cardinal’s guilt or innocence has yet to be adjudicated, there is something quite odd about the Becciu affair involving the London deal. It was only when the transaction became public and after international authorities began to act upon it that Pope Francis moved to punish Becciu. Only then did Francis remove Becciu from any office he held in the Church, taking away most if not all the benefits, privileges and duties of being a Cardinal – leaving Becciu a Cardinal in name only. Thus, the appearance is that the hand of Francis was forced by others, i.e., it certainly seems he was motivated by the appearance of things. 

Given the punishment inflicted by Francis upon Becciu occurred before the start of the trial, it seems quite clear Pope Francis, at least, seems to have been quite convinced of Becciu’s guilt in 2020. Obviously, Francis must have felt he had sufficient cause to discipline Becciu as he did, again effectively leaving Becciu a Cardinal in name only.

Yet, according to Forbes, five years before this disciplinary action — i.e., circa 2016 — Francis had been given a dossier accusing Becciu of financial corruption, involving “incontrovertible” proof of wrongdoing (see Catholic World Report, Pope Francis and the Cardinal Becciu affair). However, Forbes’ source said Francis “closed the file; that was the end of it.”

If the above is indeed the case, why did Pope Francis allow Becciu to remain in office another four years into 2020?  Furthermore, why did Francis not remove Becciu from the Cardinalate altogether, instead of allowing him to retain his title?  Yet, as odd as all that is, there is something even more bizarre. Recall, by 2021, Francis had been aware of the accusations against Becciu involving the London real estate deal for about a year, and the 2016 file with “incontrovertible evidence” regarding other potential corruption against Becciu, as reported by Forbes.  The bizarre thing is, with the impending trial date approaching, Francis met privately with Becciu at Becciu’s apartment, on Holy Thursday of all evenings! (see Catholic News Agency: Report: Pope Francis celebrates Holy Thursday Mass with Cardinal Becciu).

Now, why would a Pope, on Holy Thursday of all days — when he might be doing “popey” things — be meeting in the private apartment of an essentially ‘indicted’, former member of the Curia who he had disciplined upon Francis’ assumption of his guilt?  Very odd. What happened on that night in Becciu’s private apartment? Did they discuss the case? Did they discuss what Becciu might conceivably say or not say publicly or at trial about Francis?  Certainly, the appearance of the meeting does not look good.

Then in August, according to Crux at the time, Cardinal Becciu told a group that: “On Saturday, the pope phoned me to tell me that I will be reinstated in my cardinal duties and to ask me to participate in a meeting with all the cardinals that will be held in the coming days in Rome” (See Crux, Cardinal at center of Vatican trial claims he has been ‘reinstated’ by Pope). In the same Crux article, Cardinal Becciu’s lawyer confirmed the invitation noting also that attendance at consistories is a prerogative of a cardinal, and that Francis had “frozen” these prerogatives with regard to Cardinal Becciu in September of 2020.  Yet, Becciu was “summoned” to the consistory. 

Yet, subsequently, a Vatican spokeman “speaking on background…said Italian Cardinal Angelo Becciu’s apparent invitation to participate in a high-profile meeting of cardinals next week represents a personal gesture on the part of Pope Francis, but that it does not necessarily mean Becciu’s rights as a cardinal, stripped by the pope two years ago, are being restored.” (Source:  Crux, Invite for accused cardinal doesn’t necessarily imply rehabilitation, Vatican source says)

As I wrote in my article back then about these developments, it all seemed strange, even having “the appearance of a pardon being dangled before Becciu” before a trial. As I went on to write (HERE):

“If one were to imagine an American president meeting privately with a prominent, criminally indicted, former member of his Administration; and then if he were to publicly dangle reinstatement to the former office  before that former official, then these things would certainly give at least the appearance of collusion or obstruction of justice. That Francis did not act on supposed “incontrovertible” proof against Becciu five years before certainly gives rise to a reasonable inference, or suspicion that Becciu just might know something which Francis does not want divulged.  But of what? The London deal? Something else?”

That led me to consider another curious financial transaction in which Cardinal Bergoglio was once involved with, What does Cardinal Becciu know about Francis?  As discussed in that article, Cardinal Becciu had taped at least one of his conversations with Pope Francis.  I wrote in this second article:

“I am not saying there is something Becciu knows about Francis that is damaging, only that the patterns of actions and inaction in this relationship certainly give rise to a reasonable suspicion there is much more going on here below the surface than meets the eye. In particular, Francis appears to tease Becciu’s restoration to the Cardinalate before the outcome of a trial without any apparent factual basis, and then we find out Becciu has taped at least one conversation with the Pope! Hmmm.  Is that not strange? Is it unreasonable for the outside observer to consider the inference Becciu might know something, perhaps something damaging to Francis and or his papacy, that Francis does not want to become public knowledge?   Is it reasonable to wonder whether this explains the seeming dangling of a full restoration to the cardinalate before Becciu?”

What makes this speculative question somewhat more interesting is that Cardinal Becciu told a family member back in July 2021, just before he taped his conversation with Pope Francis (see here), that “he (Francis) wants me dead” (see here and here)!  As reported by ANSA (emphasis added):

Cardinal Angelo Becciu, the highest ranking Vatican cleric to be tried for financial crimes, told his family in a recent chat that Pope Francis wanted him dead, La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera dailies reported online Friday.

“He wants me dead” and “I didn’t think we’d get to this point” were two of the comments reportedly made public by the Vatican’s promoter of justice Wednesday in the trial into alleged mismanagement of Vatican funds including a London property on Sloane Avenue.

(Source: ANSA, Pope ‘wants me dead’ says Becciu, November 25, 2022)

All very odd indeed.  Here are my past articles on the Becciu case:

1. The Rehabilitation of Cardinal Becciu: what’s up with that?
2. What does Cardinal Becciu know about Francis?
3. Becciu claims Francis wants him dead!

Now, we learn Cardinal Parolin produced a couple of letters wherein the late Pope Francis bars Cardinal Becciu from participating in any future conclave. Interesting that Parolin is acting to nix Becciu’s role in a conclave. Is Parolin afraid of what he might say, and that it might sink his own papal chances?  However, it appears that Cardinal Becciu can still at least participate and speak at the pre-Conclave Congregations, which are meetings where all cardinals, vote eligible or not, gather to discuss the needs of the Church, and what sort of man is needed as pope.

Ever since I began following this strange case, there was a thought in the back of my mind that Cardinal Becciu might yet have some role to play with questions related to Pope Francis before all is said and done. Though Cardinal Becciu cannot vote in the conclave, he can, it appears, speak in front of the Congregations.  If so, that is definitely one of the speeches for which I would like to be a proverbial fly on the wall.

Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta. He has written apologetic articles, and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. He writes for Roma Locuta Est He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com. Follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA.