The cardinals’ ‘Becciu Test’

Cardinal Becciu's claim to enter the conclave serves up a test of law and leadership for the cardinals

Cardinal Angelo Becciu’s decision to assert the right to participate in the upcoming conclave has struck many observers as the latest in a litany of logically and factually questionable statements from the former sostituto and prefect of the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints.

Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu. Screenshot from Vatican News - Italiano YouTube channel.

However, while his legal right — or lack thereof — to enter a conclave would appear to be straightforward, his public insistence that he can enter the conclave, and presumably intends to try doing so, could prove a powerful test, not just of the collective mettle of senior cardinals, but of the college’s confidence in the rule of law.

How they answer Cardinal Becciu’s claims, and with how much certainty, could prove ultimately to be a final testament to the governing legacy of Pope Francis.

—

Becciu’s status: a question of law

While few dispute Cardinal Becciu’s option to attend the general congregations — which “all cardinals must attend… unless legitimately impeded” — the legal question of Becciu’s right to participate in the coming conclave would seem to be clear, his recent protestations notwithstanding.

That he resigned in 2020 all his rights and privileges as a cardinal, at the instruction of Pope Francis, is a matter of public record, both by his own public statements at the time and those of the Holy See. Perhaps most tellingly, Becciu has previously made claims that Pope Francis was about to restore his rights — though that never actually occurred.

That this resignation was explicitly understood to relate to his status as a cardinal elector was reflected in the Vatican’s own list of cardinal electors and non-electors, with Becciu being explicitly classed in the latter category.

It would also seem to be a fact which Becciu himself acknowledged legally, in the course of a failed lawsuit he brought against various media outlets, claiming their coverage of the financial crimes for which he was eventually convicted led to his forced resignation and, according to his suit, deprived him of the chance to participate in a future conclave and perhaps be elected pope.

While the situation is uncommon of a cardinal who is possessed of the title, under the age of 80, and ineligible to vote, it is still provided for in the law.

Universi Dominici Gregis specifically recognizes that “cardinals who have been canonically deposed or who with the consent of the Roman Pontiff have renounced the cardinalate do not have this right.”

Admittedly, the wording here creates some superficial confusion, in as much as it speaks of cardinals who have been deposed or resigned their cardinalatial status, rather than those who resign all the attendant rights, but not the title itself.

On the other hand, the law would in that sense appear strictly redundant, since a cardinal who has been deposed or fully resigned the title and rank is no cardinal at all.

That Francis chose to leave Becciu with the formal rank of a cardinal, while depriving him of its various rights, was seen by Becciu’s supporters as an unfair act of premature punishment for as-yet-unproven crimes.

Others, however, saw it as a reasonable accommodation by the pope that Becciu could not simultaneously function as a cardinal while under criminal indictment and trial, while leaving open final deprivation of the title (or the restoration of its rights) depending on the outcome of his trial.

In any event, as merely ecclesiastical law, the pope is free to to work within or beyond the norms as he sees fit.

As such, Francis’ decision in Becciu’s case would appear no more legally problematic (indeed perhaps less) within the norms of Universi Dominici Gregis than the rather more absolutely expressed theoretical limit on the number of cardinal electors.

But even if the legal situation is clear, the question remains who is competent to declare it so, or able to enforce it.

—

A question of authority

The general congregation of the College of Cardinals is entrusted with deciding questions of major import by majority vote. However, the law would seem to prevent them doing so in Becciu’s case, since he was compelled to resign by an act of papal authority.

Universi Domenici Gregis specifically states that “those matters are to be absolutely excluded [from the general congregation’s authority] which, whether by law or by practice, come under the power of the Roman Pontiff alone or concern the norms for the election of the new Pope laid down in the present Constitution.”

It is worth noting that Becciu’s resignation of his rights as a cardinal would appear to fall under the curia’s own definition of an unappealable papal act — since this is what they have argued in Vatican City court with regards to Libero Milone, the auditor general forced to resign by Becciu, allegedly under the pope’s direction.

As a matter of practicality, whether Becciu gets a room within the cordon of the conclave would be a matter for the preparatory commission.

The preparations for the conclave are, by law, made by a triumvirate of the Cardinal Camerlengo, Kevin Farrell, the former Secretary of State (the office lapsing with the death of the pope) Cardinal Pietro Parolin, and the president of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State — though this itself is open to legal questions.

At the time of the pope’s death, the president of the commission was Sr. Raffaella Petrini, whom Francis appointed to the role effective March 1. However, the law of Universi Domenici Gregis speaks specifically of “the Cardinal Camerlengo and the Cardinals [emphasis added] who had formerly held the offices of Secretary of State and President of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State.”

The most recent cardinal to serve as commission president is Cardinal Fernando Vérgez Alzaga, who remained on the commission after being succeeded as president by Petrini last month.

The will of the pope on this point is not exactly clear — did the pope intend the commission which organizes the logistics of the conclave to remain three cardinals, or did he intend to amend the law?

Unlike his decision to strip Becciu of his rights, or to name more than 120 cardinal electors, it is possible to proceed with a plain text reading of the norms of Universi without ipso facto going against Francis’ action to appoint a non-cardinal to the role — though it is unclear who can authoritatively interpret the law during a papal interregnum.

These overlapping questions illustrate the questions often raised by various legal actions issued by Francis, which often created circumstances beyond those foreseen in the norms of canon law. While the pope lived and was in office, these difficulties could often be resolved reasonably easily, since the legislator is the ultimate interpreter of the law.

However, without a pope to clarify his intentions, and with the ordinary curial venues for legal interpretation and litigation closed during the sede vacante period, there are no certain places to seek answers.

In the end, and absent any other obvious person to do so, the final determination regarding Becciu will likely have to be made by Cardinal Parolin, who, as the senior cardinal bishop of voting age, presides over the assembly of cardinal electors.

Whatever he decides to do, Parolin will largely have to rely on force of personality and moral persuasion to carry it off.

And Parolin is sure to face claims of illegitimacy, no matter which way he acts. For a cardinal widely regarded as strongly papabile, Becciu has now served up to his former boss an early and unprecedented test of his leadership abilities.