It should be clear by now that the diplomatic service of the Vatican is in a mess.
Archbishop Luigi Ventura, the apostolic nuncio in Paris (a post held by the future pope, St John XXIII), is facing multiple accusations of sexual misconduct. The French authorities want the archbishop’s diplomatic immunity lifted, so he can be prosecuted. (The archbishop has not commented publicly on the allegations.)
This represents a severe headache for the Vatican: if it does not agree to lifting diplomatic immunity, it will be accused of using it to shelter a senior cleric from the law. That, to put it mildly, will not look good.
But the deeper question is far more troubling: if the nuncio is indeed guilty, one must ask how he came to be appointed to such an important post. The nuncio in France plays a key role in the appointment of French bishops. The French Church is already feeling following the conviction of Cardinal Philippe Barbarin of Lyon for not reporting child abuse. It does not need another scandal right now.
In case anyone has forgotten, this is not the first time the Vatican diplomatic service has been tainted by scandal. The case of Mgr Battista Ricca, who served at the nunciature in Uruguay before being sent to Rome, has not gone away. The allegations made against him have never been refuted or denied.
No one accuses Mgr Ricca of a crime, let it be stressed, but that is not the case with the late Archbishop Józef Wesołowski, sometime nuncio to the Dominican Republic, who was accused of paedophilia and brought to trial in the Vatican, but who died before the case was concluded. Wesołowski was reduced to the lay state, however, and his guilt does not seriously seem to be in question. The account of his trial suggests that perhaps he was recalled to Rome to avoid the greater scandal of a trial by the authorities in the Dominican Republic.
Ventura, Ricca and Wesołowski are three cases, all of which are in the open forum, that concern members of the papal diplomatic corps. We know about them because we have read about them in the papers. But there are other cases where misbehaving Vatican diplomats have been quietly removed from office and reassigned to a place where it is imagined they can do no harm, and where the local authorities have decided, perhaps because they are complicit, not to make a fuss.
In these cases, whistleblowers have not been heeded, or have been forcefully reminded that their testimony is not welcome. We are left with the uncomfortable feeling that we know about these cases only because the three prelates mentioned have been found out. Others have avoided the headlines.
The Holy Father is certainly aware of the problem. In 2017, he created a third section of the Vatican Secretariat of State dedicated to overseeing diplomats. But that might not be enough.
What is the conclusion? That people who should never have been appointed to positions of responsibility were appointed to such positions, even when their lack of suitability must have been apparent. Why was this? Was there a tendency not to face up to unpleasant facts? Or a misplaced sense that mercy was owed to the prelates, but not their victims? Did these men have powerful friends? Or is the oversight exercised entirely defective? Or are all of these factors at work?
Another thing is also certain: there is no need to talk of new structures and procedures. We should all know that sexual and financial impropriety is wrong and in many cases criminal. What is needed now is the will to take action.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.