As someone who was not reading the Pillar when the trial first started, this is the best summary of the case I have seen by far.
Side note, I wish the Shrine of St. Joseph was open more often then mass just 5 times a month. I was passing through St. Louis a few years ago on the way to a summer job for a camp in Colorado and would have loved to see it, but the place was locked up. I feel like we as a country don't recognize that we have so many beautiful churches and communities all around the country, that people would love to see, but we keep them locked up.
If random whackos would stop stealing everything that wasn't nailed down, vandalizing interiors and setting the place on fire, we could leave nice churches unlocked more often.
Phew! Ed, I don't know how you keep that case all together. My head was swimming after just a few paragraphs so...I'll take your word for it. Whatever "it" is.
// Pope Leo XIV has invited the presidents of the world’s episcopal conferences to meet in Rome in October 2026 “to proceed, in mutual listening, to a synodal discernment on the steps to be taken in order to proclaim the Gospel to families today.” //
The organization pope, Pope Bland. Say nothing and offend no one. I dunno. Maybe Catholicism just needs to be there, now and then reminding everyone, through the mass media, that it still officially opposes abortion and euthanasia and war and malnutrition and conspicuous waste.
The Vatican financial‑crimes trial was always tortuous, but the Appeals Court decision may have fundamentally altered its course. I always have to reduce cases to CliffsNotes to understand them, and Ed can jump in if he disagrees with my condensing. Here’s the distilled version:
1. The Rescript: Pope Francis issued a rescript—essentially an executive authorization—allowing a confidential investigation into the Secretariat of State’s finances. The court reclassified it as a law. Once treated as a law, it required formal publication to take effect. Because it wasn’t published, the court ruled it legally ineffective. That reclassification allowed the court to neutralize the rescript without directly challenging papal authority—thereby weakening the prosecution’s case and paving the way for a new trial for Angelo Becciu.
2. Becciu’s Victory: For Angelo Becciu, the path is straightforward. The neutralization of the rescript undermines the legal foundation of the investigation, giving him grounds for a retrial with full procedural safeguards.
3. Milone’s Challenge: For Libero Milone, the path is far less clear. The court indicated he must refile against Becciu personally rather than the Secretariat of State. But even if he does, he faces two major hurdles:
• Becciu will argue that his actions were official acts performed in his capacity as sostituto, not personal misconduct.
• Because these acts derive from papal authority, the court may again refuse to adjudicate the substance of Milone’s claim.In short, Milone can technically refile, but the court could still dismiss the case without ever addressing the substance of his claims.
4. The Takeaway: The court has, intentionally or not, created a process that insulates Vatican finance officials from accountability when actions are tied to their office—even when personal gain may be involved. Becciu benefits directly; Milone faces an almost impossible path to vindication
.
5. Institutional Irony: In my view, the Court—established under papal authority—has effectively created a mechanism to neutralize its own
effectiveness. Put another way: papal sovereignty will always prevail, and the Court will always find a way to limit or circumvent its own functional authority when the two come into tension.
Grateful for the hard work you’ve done over the yrs to translate the miasma of Vatican law into plain English. After I read these posts, however, all I can think of is the Englishman who said he had to become Catholic bc only the Holy Spirit could keep this crazy Church afloat for two millennia 🤦♀️
I don't think it was an Englishman but a Cardinal Secretary of State explaining to Napoleon why he wasn't going to be able to destroy the Church. If we haven't been able to do it ...
I still have a hard time understanding how reigning in a civ pro error by a Pope who played fast, loose, and sloppy with following procedures in general (including the ones he himself established) says anything meaningful about papal sovereignty.
Yeah, same here. The heading (branding it a rescript) is a fly in the ointment, but otherwise it seems like the kind of thing you want to do—make an argument based on words and laws and their meaning, and not just get blown over by fiat. Presumably, the difference between rescript and law is real. The counterargument so far seems to be based on the Pope having wanted a certain thing—I agree Becciu needs to be held accountable, but that’s not much of a counterargument. It seems like the argument needs to be more on the basis of the content vs. the heading and how they can really be reconciled.
"One of the great benefits of having my particular brand of pessimism ... is ... that I am always joyfully surprised." I fully identify with this sentiment.
Yeah, I thought that if Pope Francis was intending to do a rescript than it would be a rescript. It seems the judges are unintentionally using the same arguments the Bennyvacantists used when they said that Benedict XVI didn't resign the right way.
After years of my wife saying I'm crazy for explaining what JD and Ed are saying as if we go way back, now I can say I'm still crazy but I have shaken hands with these gentlemen.
"Milone’s last appeal was rejected by Vatican City judges because, and I am not making this up, he didn’t sue Becciu first as an individual, rather than suing the Secretariat of State, for something Becciu did in office, using the powers of that office, which he then publicly said he did as an act of that office shortly before being promoted."
For what it is worth, and probably not much, that is exactly the time of legal hoop one must jump through if one attempts to sue a state official for civil rights violations in the United States. What you refer to would get a suit dismissed in federal court.
So it may be bizarre, but it is not uniquely bizarre.
----------
On a more substantive canonical note, I am very glad we have the holder of a J.C.D. as Supreme Pontiff. I have very high confidence that he will immediately recognize the issue and address it. I am certainly not criticizing his predecessors back to Saint John Paul II, but those with primarily theological training may not recognize how critical this apparently tiny development is. Particularly with a world in crisis.
"The problem is that the judges of the Court of Appeal have arrogated this authority to test the force and effectiveness of papal governance to themselves. That is a big deal. That is something which I think would be deeply problematic to let go unchallenged."
Who else would exercise this authority? Maybe I'm importing an American understanding of the judicial system here (quite possible), but isn't that one of the primary responsibilities of judges?
That's surely "Pillar reader Cardinal Becciu"?
But not in a good way.
As someone who was not reading the Pillar when the trial first started, this is the best summary of the case I have seen by far.
Side note, I wish the Shrine of St. Joseph was open more often then mass just 5 times a month. I was passing through St. Louis a few years ago on the way to a summer job for a camp in Colorado and would have loved to see it, but the place was locked up. I feel like we as a country don't recognize that we have so many beautiful churches and communities all around the country, that people would love to see, but we keep them locked up.
If random whackos would stop stealing everything that wasn't nailed down, vandalizing interiors and setting the place on fire, we could leave nice churches unlocked more often.
Building a high-trust society is exceptionally difficult compared with tearing one down.
Phew! Ed, I don't know how you keep that case all together. My head was swimming after just a few paragraphs so...I'll take your word for it. Whatever "it" is.
The best thing about being a pessimist is you’re constantly proven right or pleasantly surprised. Happy birthday Ed!
// Pope Leo XIV has invited the presidents of the world’s episcopal conferences to meet in Rome in October 2026 “to proceed, in mutual listening, to a synodal discernment on the steps to be taken in order to proclaim the Gospel to families today.” //
The organization pope, Pope Bland. Say nothing and offend no one. I dunno. Maybe Catholicism just needs to be there, now and then reminding everyone, through the mass media, that it still officially opposes abortion and euthanasia and war and malnutrition and conspicuous waste.
"ultimately lead to legal anarchy in Vatican City."
-But it's based on the Italian legal system. The insanity and anarchy is baked in from the start.
The Vatican financial‑crimes trial was always tortuous, but the Appeals Court decision may have fundamentally altered its course. I always have to reduce cases to CliffsNotes to understand them, and Ed can jump in if he disagrees with my condensing. Here’s the distilled version:
1. The Rescript: Pope Francis issued a rescript—essentially an executive authorization—allowing a confidential investigation into the Secretariat of State’s finances. The court reclassified it as a law. Once treated as a law, it required formal publication to take effect. Because it wasn’t published, the court ruled it legally ineffective. That reclassification allowed the court to neutralize the rescript without directly challenging papal authority—thereby weakening the prosecution’s case and paving the way for a new trial for Angelo Becciu.
2. Becciu’s Victory: For Angelo Becciu, the path is straightforward. The neutralization of the rescript undermines the legal foundation of the investigation, giving him grounds for a retrial with full procedural safeguards.
3. Milone’s Challenge: For Libero Milone, the path is far less clear. The court indicated he must refile against Becciu personally rather than the Secretariat of State. But even if he does, he faces two major hurdles:
• Becciu will argue that his actions were official acts performed in his capacity as sostituto, not personal misconduct.
• Because these acts derive from papal authority, the court may again refuse to adjudicate the substance of Milone’s claim.In short, Milone can technically refile, but the court could still dismiss the case without ever addressing the substance of his claims.
4. The Takeaway: The court has, intentionally or not, created a process that insulates Vatican finance officials from accountability when actions are tied to their office—even when personal gain may be involved. Becciu benefits directly; Milone faces an almost impossible path to vindication
.
5. Institutional Irony: In my view, the Court—established under papal authority—has effectively created a mechanism to neutralize its own
effectiveness. Put another way: papal sovereignty will always prevail, and the Court will always find a way to limit or circumvent its own functional authority when the two come into tension.
Grateful for the hard work you’ve done over the yrs to translate the miasma of Vatican law into plain English. After I read these posts, however, all I can think of is the Englishman who said he had to become Catholic bc only the Holy Spirit could keep this crazy Church afloat for two millennia 🤦♀️
I don't think it was an Englishman but a Cardinal Secretary of State explaining to Napoleon why he wasn't going to be able to destroy the Church. If we haven't been able to do it ...
I still have a hard time understanding how reigning in a civ pro error by a Pope who played fast, loose, and sloppy with following procedures in general (including the ones he himself established) says anything meaningful about papal sovereignty.
Yeah, same here. The heading (branding it a rescript) is a fly in the ointment, but otherwise it seems like the kind of thing you want to do—make an argument based on words and laws and their meaning, and not just get blown over by fiat. Presumably, the difference between rescript and law is real. The counterargument so far seems to be based on the Pope having wanted a certain thing—I agree Becciu needs to be held accountable, but that’s not much of a counterargument. It seems like the argument needs to be more on the basis of the content vs. the heading and how they can really be reconciled.
"One of the great benefits of having my particular brand of pessimism ... is ... that I am always joyfully surprised." I fully identify with this sentiment.
Yeah, I thought that if Pope Francis was intending to do a rescript than it would be a rescript. It seems the judges are unintentionally using the same arguments the Bennyvacantists used when they said that Benedict XVI didn't resign the right way.
Great live show
After years of my wife saying I'm crazy for explaining what JD and Ed are saying as if we go way back, now I can say I'm still crazy but I have shaken hands with these gentlemen.
"Milone’s last appeal was rejected by Vatican City judges because, and I am not making this up, he didn’t sue Becciu first as an individual, rather than suing the Secretariat of State, for something Becciu did in office, using the powers of that office, which he then publicly said he did as an act of that office shortly before being promoted."
For what it is worth, and probably not much, that is exactly the time of legal hoop one must jump through if one attempts to sue a state official for civil rights violations in the United States. What you refer to would get a suit dismissed in federal court.
So it may be bizarre, but it is not uniquely bizarre.
----------
On a more substantive canonical note, I am very glad we have the holder of a J.C.D. as Supreme Pontiff. I have very high confidence that he will immediately recognize the issue and address it. I am certainly not criticizing his predecessors back to Saint John Paul II, but those with primarily theological training may not recognize how critical this apparently tiny development is. Particularly with a world in crisis.
Really hoping His Holiness rediscovers in the papal apartments a big red button which untangles all this mess.
"The problem is that the judges of the Court of Appeal have arrogated this authority to test the force and effectiveness of papal governance to themselves. That is a big deal. That is something which I think would be deeply problematic to let go unchallenged."
Who else would exercise this authority? Maybe I'm importing an American understanding of the judicial system here (quite possible), but isn't that one of the primary responsibilities of judges?
The Pope is absolutely supreme.
Or supposed to be.
Pope Leo might just need to go medieval, exercise some of that absolute authority, and make some summary decisions.