The disgraced cardinal who has withdrawn from the Conclave
Cardinal Angelo Becciu, once a powerful Vatican official and leading papal contender, has formally withdrawn from participating in the conclave to elect a new pope.
The Vatican 's criminal court convicted Becciu in 2023 of embezzlement and other finance-related charges at the end of the so-called 'trial of the century.'
In recent days, he insisted he was still entitled to vote in the conclave.
However, on Tuesday, he withdrew, apparently after he was presented with two letters, written by Pope Francis before his death, saying he shouldn't participate.
Who is Angelo Becciu?
The 76-year-old is a longtime Vatican diplomat, he served in embassies in Angola, Cuba and elsewhere before taking up one of the most powerful jobs as 'substitute' in the Vatican Secretariat of State.
Francis made him the head of the Vatican's saint-making office and promoted him to a cardinal in 2018, but later forced his resignation over allegations of financial mismanagement.
The Sardinian native rose to prominence under conservative Pope Benedict XVI and is closely affiliated with the conservative Vatican old guard. While he initially became a close adviser to Francis, Becciu owes his downfall to him.
What happened with Angelo Becciu?
Francis forced Becciu's resignation as head of the Vatican's saint-making office and forced him to renounce the rights of the cardinalate on September 24, 2020, after receiving allegations that Becciu sent Vatican money to his brother in Sardinia.
Becciu told journalists that his downfall was 'surreal,' but that he had a clear conscience. He said he remained loyal to Francis and was ready to die for him.
The Vatican, in its official statistics, said he was no longer an elector in the conclave.
Could Angelo Becciu become Pope?
At 76, Becciu is under the age limit of 80 and technically eligible to vote.
After days of controversy about his participation in the conclave, Becciu released a statement through his lawyer, Fabio Viglione, renouncing his participation.
'Having at heart the good of the church, which I have served and will continue to serve with fidelity and love, as well as to contribute to the communion and serenity of the conclave, I have decided to obey as I have always done the will of Pope Francis not to enter the conclave while remaining convinced of my innocence,' it said.
It was not clear what the letters from Francis said.
What was the trial about?
Vatican prosecutors in 2021 issued a 487-page indictment accusing Becciu and nine others of numerous financial crimes, including fraud, embezzlement, extortion, corruption, money laundering and abuse of office.
The main focus involved the Holy See's 350-million-euro investment in a luxury London property. Prosecutors allege brokers and Vatican monsignors fleeced the Holy See of tens of millions of euros in fees and commissions, then extorted the Holy See for 15 million euros ($16.5 million) to cede control of the property.
The London investigation spawned two tangents that involved the star defendant, Becciu, including the Sardinia allegations.
What was Angelo Becciu accused of?
Prosecutors accused him of embezzlement because he sent 125,000 euros in Vatican money to a diocesan charity in Sardinia that was run by his brother. Becciu argued that the local bishop requested the money for a bakery to employ at-risk youths and that the money remained in the diocesan coffers.
Becciu was also accused of paying a Sardinian woman, Cecilia Marogna, for her intelligence services. Prosecutors traced some 575,000 euros in transfers from the Vatican to Marogna's Slovenian front company, then expenditures for high-end luxury goods.
Becciu said he thought the money was going to be used to pay a British security firm to negotiate the release of a Colombian nun who had been taken hostage by Islamic militants in Mali in 2017.
Becciu and Marogna, and six others were convicted of embezzlement and other charges, and all are appealing.
What are the questions about the trial?
Questions continue about the integrity of the trial. During the proceedings, the court heard that Francis intervened on several occasions on behalf of the prosecutors and that the prosecution's prime witness against Becciu was coached and manipulated by outsiders.
Defence lawyers discovered that the pope had secretly issued four decrees during the investigation to benefit prosecutors, allowing them to conduct intercepts and detain suspects without a judge's warrant.
Lawyers argued that such interference by an absolute monarch in a legal system where the pope exercises supreme legislative, executive and judicial power violated their clients' fundamental rights and robbed them of a fair trial.
The tribunal rejected their objections, but in recent weeks, more evidence has emerged about the outside manipulation of the witness and apparent collusion with Vatican prosecutors and gendarmes to target Becciu.
The appeal is scheduled to begin in September.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
20 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Why is defence such a hard sell? The same reason Starmer is struggling in the polls
Defence reviews and foreign policy resets seem to turn up almost as often as the Sussexes' lifestyle brand relaunches these days. Labour's strategic defence review this week comes less than two years after the Conservatives' hardly less detailed defence white paper in July 2023, which in turn was a 'refresh' of Boris Johnson's ambitious integrated review of defence and foreign policy of March 2021. By this measure, it must be doubtful if, come the 2030s, analysts will look back on Keir Starmer and John Healey's review and say it broke the mould. The Labour government was entitled to try to put its own stamp on defence policy, of course, and its review team of George Robertson, Richard Barrons and Fiona Hill did a good, reasonably independent job. Yet this 2020s pattern of repeated strategic adaptation and refocus feels like the new normal now. It is also true that grand strategy does not often survive prolonged contact with the real world. In wartime, as the US general, later president, Dwight Eisenhower once put it, plans are useless but planning is essential. Today, though, war is no longer an academic possibility. So defence policy must adapt afresh, and at pace. Labour's defence review does not always do this convincingly. Most of the imperatives and innovations of the day revolve around resisting the threat from Russia and adapting to the new weaponry of the drone and cyber age. At times, though, this is hard to reconcile with the review's dogged assumption that the transatlantic alliance will remain the bedrock of that resistance. Johnson's 2021 review aimed to recast British foreign policy in the light of Brexit. In some ways, like Johnson's delusional British tilt towards Asia, it represents a worldview that has gone with the wind. In others, especially on Russia, it describes a conflict that still confronts Starmer today. Yet Johnson's review came out as Covid was starting to upend the global economy and before Russia invaded Ukraine. The 2023 refresh took those newer convulsions on board but could not, in its turn, know about the most recent disruption: Donald Trump's return. It is pathetic and shameful that Trump's name does not appear once throughout the new defence review's 140 pages. Its absence reflects Labour's – and London's – bred-in-the-bone fear of offending the US president. Even so, it cannot disguise that this is a defence review for Britain in an age of greater US isolationism. Trump's unreliability and his administration's manifest contempt for Europe cast a long shadow over the whole document and over the government's determination, even in the context of next week's Whitehall spending review, to prioritise defence in line with Nato urgings. Since history never stops, this week's review may itself soon look out of date. Events may grab hold of the steering wheel at any time. China may invade Taiwan, for example, or Russia turn up the heat in the Baltic or against Moldova. Iran may finally test a nuclear weapon. Trump may annex Greenland. Even the ending of the Ukraine war, not just its continuation as before, would necessitate a big course correction and reshifting of priorities for British policy too. If there is a thread running through the document, it is that 21st-century Britain is a big, but not a global power, whose security priority lies in Europe, not elsewhere. The overriding goals for British defence policy are thus, as always, to defend the nation against direct threats, and to make the necessary contribution to the maintenance of peace, freedom and commerce on the European continent. Brexit did not change that. But it was a dramatic illustration of how easy it is to delude a nation that there are magic answers to grindingly difficult problems. It is a mistake, however, to seek blind refuge in the belief that the world has always been a conflicted and messy place, and therefore to assume that 2025 is merely another unfortunate iteration of it. This may indeed be true in a very long view sense. But it does not adequately explain why 21st century governments in many liberal democracies – not least in Britain – struggle to mobilise national support to bring about almost any big and effective change, not just in defence policy but domestically. It is not enough to blame Russia alone for the suffering in Ukraine, or to denounce the United States uniquely for turning its back on European security – even though both are hugely culpable. Part of the problem also lies closer to home. The issue is that while the liberal democratic nation state is the only meaningful game in town, it is no longer delivering what it once seemed uniquely capable of providing for its people. The run-down of defence following the end of the cold war is merely one example of this widely felt failure, albeit an important one. One can select others from most areas of national life. They range from not embracing the digital revolution sufficiently to help rebuild British industry and education, through the failure to prioritise the care of an increasingly ageing population and the cynical depletion of parts of the welfare state, to the shameful pollution of rivers and lakes, the disdain for localism and the wilful neglect of national culture. The results of this are inescapably wounding to politics itself. The most striking thing that has happened in the last 11 months is that Labour has managed to turn an election victory into what looks increasingly likely to be an election defeat when the time comes. Why has this happened? Not because Starmer and his ministers are bad people, or because they have bad values or even bad policies. Certainly not because voters want the Conservatives back. It has happened because liberal democratic governments are no longer able to command the necessary sustained public confidence, even through rocky times, to deliver what people once instinctively looked to them for. That was true of the defence review this week, which was launched on to a sea of scepticism about Labour's ability to pay for its plans. It will be even more true of the spending review in a few days' time. The strands that once meaningfully bound people together within a shared national framework are weaker now. They may not be irreparable. But repairing them requires a lot of humility as well as much determination and a sprinkling of genius. There are no quick answers and it is a massively hard task. Martin Kettle is a Guardian columnist
Reuters
43 minutes ago
- Reuters
Morning Bid: Switch 2 debuts but no fun-and-games in trade
A look at the day ahead in European and global markets from Rocky Swift It's Switch 2 Day! The much-anticipated sequel to Nintendo's immensely successful portable gaming unit goes on sale around the world on Thursday. But don't bother trying to find one: They're all sold out. The Switch 2 is manufactured mostly in China and sold out of Japan, so it's anybody's guess when there will be more of them available and what they'll cost, given all the uncertainty over tariffs and supply chains. A United States deadline for "best offers" on trade came and went on Wednesday without any trade announcements, and President Donald Trump continued to stir up controversy on the global stage with a proclamation banning nationals of 12 countries from the U.S. But the trade talks go on, with Japan sending its head trade negotiator Ryosei Akazawa to the U.S. again today in search of a deal. Germany's new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, is also headed to Washington for some face time with Trump in the Oval Office. The main event today will be the European Central Bank's interest rate decision, which is almost certain to cut rates by 25 basis points. The post-decision comments by President Christine Lagarde will be all the more important for clues on future policy moves. Stock futures pointed to flat openings for both European and U.S. markets. Key developments that could influence markets on Thursday: - ECB decision, speech by Christine Lagarde - German Chancellor Friedrich Merz travels to Washington - German data on industrial orders, consumer goods for April - U.S. data on jobless claims for end of May, trade data for April - Fed's Jeffrey Schmid, Patrick Harker, Adriana Kugler to speak Trying to keep up with the latest tariff news? Our new daily news digest offers a rundown of the top market-moving headlines impacting global trade. Sign up for Tariff Watch here.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Germany's Merz to face Trump in Oval Office on inaugural trip
BERLIN/WASHINGTON, June 5 (Reuters) - Germany's new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, will hold his first face-to-face talks with U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday in a high stakes meeting in the Oval Office as Europe seeks to stave off looming U.S. tariffs and sustain U.S. backing for Ukraine. The 69-year-old conservative, who took the helm of Europe's largest economy last month, is scheduled to join Trump for lunch and one-on-one talks that analysts say could set the tone for U.S.-German ties for years to come. Germany's export-oriented economy stands more to lose from U.S. tariffs than others and the country is also the second largest military and financial backer of Ukraine in its defence against Russia's invasion, after the United States. The meeting comes amid a broader fraying of the transatlantic relationship. Trump's administration has, for example, intervened in domestic European politics in a break with past practise, aligning with right-wing political movements and challenging European policies on immigration and free speech. The encounter will be closely watched after some recent meetings in the Oval Office, with the leaders of Ukraine and South Africa, for example, turned tense when Trump ambushed them with false claims and accusations. Merz and his entourage have sought coaching from other leaders on how to deal with Trump to avoid conflict. The meeting comes just weeks before a critical summit of the NATO Western military alliance which is looking increasingly strained given Trump's threats not to come to the aid of U.S. allies that do not up their spending on defence. Such threats are of particular concern to Germany, which has relied on U.S. nuclear deterrence for its security since the end of World War Two. Merz has already made some bold policy moves that he can highlight to appease Trump, analysts said. He has backed Trump's demand to more than double NATO's spending target to 5% of economic output, earning unprecedented praise last weekend from U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. Merz, who has vowed a more assertive foreign policy, also coordinated a visit by European leaders to Kyiv just days after taking office, two European diplomat sources said. "This shows that Germany is willing to accept a greater responsibility for Ukraine and the European security order – these are all things that have been wished for in the United States over years and will be welcomed," said Sudha David-Wilp of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. "Germany is well-positioned to show that it can help the United States achieve its foreign policy goals." The fact Merz was invited to stay in the Blair House guest quarters across from the White House is a positive signal, said analysts. Merz and Trump could even find some common ground given their business backgrounds, their membership in right-of-centre political parties, their focus on fighting illegal immigration and their fondness for golf, said Steven Sokol, President and CEO of the American Council on Germany. They also both had run-ins with former German chancellor Angela Merkel - who once squeezed Merz out of top-level politics. Moreover Merz has described himself as "a convinced transatlanticist", chairing the "Atlantic Bridge", a non-profit fostering U.S.-German ties, for 10 years. "They might discover a kindred spirit," Sokol said. Still, Trump was unpredictable, while Merz was impulsive, warned analysts, and there were huge frictions in the relationship. "The challenge that he could face is ... if Trump says something is erroneous, do you correct him? Do you risk turning it into an argument?" said Jeffrey Rathke, a former U.S. diplomat and president of the American-German Institute at the Johns Hopkins University in Washington. "Or do you find a way to indicate that you see it differently, but not let it sidetrack the conversation." U.S. administration officials remain upset that Merz criticized Trump shortly before the 2024 U.S. election, a source familiar with its thinking said. And, on the eve of his own election victory, Merz criticised the "ultimately outrageous" comments flowing from Washington during the campaign, comparing them to hostile interventions from Russia. Another possible landmine could be a recent German proposal for a levy on online platforms such as Alphabet's Google (GOOGL.O), opens new tab, and Meta's Facebook (META.O), opens new tab, especially given Trump's close ties with the U.S. tech industry, he said.
