Vatican City – Even before the appeal trial begins, pressure from the media and certain ecclesial circles has mounted on the Pope regarding the Sloane Avenue case. Editorials, posts, and articles multiply: each commentator takes a stance, but always with the same binary logic. Either one is for the defendants, or one is against them. As we have already explained in a previous article: complexity finds no place. On social media, crowded with title-peddlers and figures who use vulgar and embarrassing language, it is impossible to start a serious reasoning that considers every aspect of such a case.
Even more worrying is that these theories are being spread not only online, but also in some newspapers, by those driven by personal interests. “Am I a friend of a defendant? Then I defend him. Do I dislike him? Then I attack. Does the Promoter of Justice pass me news and present my books? Then I support him.” In such schemes, complexity does not exist. What is needed instead is a return to what matters: facts and documents. Not the ramblings of fixers who even get the names, references, and – with contempt for ridicule – even the Latin wrong.
A clear risk, which many have been running since the election of Leo XIV, is to read this pontificate through the same lenses of 2013. Some reason like this: “Pope Francis took positions and interfered, why shouldn’t Leo do the same?” A simple reasoning, perhaps even understandable, but devoid of logic. If we criticized Francis for interfering, why should we now ask Leo to do the same – but in our favor? If the Pope must not intervene in judicial affairs, then he must not intervene, period.
Gut decisions
This reasoning must apply to the criminal trial, to war, and so forth. The Vicar of Christ, moreover, must use prudence in his words: he is a head of State, with a diplomacy to maintain, and at the same time a reference point for millions of Catholics whose lives can be compromised by reckless statements. Without forgetting the aspect of truth.
Here the difference is sharp. Robert Francis Prevost is not a man who speaks nonsense, nor is he swayed by the ideologized character of the moment who happens to be received in audience. With Francis it was different: it was enough for a Sicilian cardinal to show him a video of dubious origin, and a few days later he would accuse a former minister of a foreign State of being a “war criminal”. Or an assistant driver – with a professional life best left unmentioned – would speak to him of “perversion” and hand him illegal dossiers produced with the tools of the Vatican Gendarmerie, and he would repeat the vulgar terms before bishops and priests. Just as he made decisions based on those same dossiers, fabricated without any guarantee of truth or usefulness.
This was Jorge Mario Bergoglio. But, fortunately, this is not how Leo XIV operates.
The style of Leo XIV
The new Pontiff still has much to grasp of the dynamics that landed on his shoulders since 8 May 2025. At his side is a loyal and reliable secretary, but he is aware that not everyone around him deserves the same trust. Nonetheless, those who have held positions of responsibility in this small State for years remain indispensable to understanding the functioning of the “machine.” Quietly and without fanfare, Prevost is gathering other trusted collaborators around him. But this takes time, and it is certainly not the usual embarrassing figures – those who populate social feeds or newspaper pages with clumsy analyses, copy-and-paste material, and gross errors – who will dictate the pace.
The style that Leo XIV intends to adopt follows that of his predecessors from John Paul II onward: the Pope is aware that there are judicial organs that operate in his name. We cannot imagine him intervening to steer judges in their verdicts, not even in the Sloane Avenue trial. Prevost has viewed this trial as the cardinals have: at first many believed Becciu guilty, precisely to preserve trust in the Pope. “If the Pontiff has taken such a drastic measure even before the trial, there must be a very grave reason,” a cardinal declared on 24 September 2020. Over time, however, documents, testimonies, and evidence have shown quite a different scenario, behind which, unsurprisingly, appeared the name of the convicted Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui.
Even cardinals far from Becciu’s allies have recounted episodes where the Pope gave his assent and then denied it. Even Parolin acknowledged that the practice had become customary. When Francis was hospitalized at the Gemelli, the Secretary of State entered his room accompanied by the Substitute for General Affairs: a sign of how necessary it was to have witnesses. Leo XIV is fully aware of this past, as well as the dubious role of certain investigative bodies and the Vatican Gendarmerie, who acted in violation of the law, obtaining papal signatures on acts contrary to the rule of law.
Beyond the Tribunal
The new Pontiff will not, therefore, enter into the juridical merits of the trial: that belongs to the appropriate organs. But he can supervise those who manage these functions. He indeed has the power to remove the Promoter of Justice, Alessandro Diddi, who has shown not only inadequacy but also personal interests in the case, even omitting relevant messages. Such a removal would be legitimate, to safeguard the Holy See’s image. To avoid direct papal involvement, even the Court of Appeal could adopt this measure simply by favoring his recusal. The Pope could even take the case into his own hands and decide it directly. The law permits it, but it is neither his intention nor in his temperament.
To say, therefore, that this trial is the testing ground of the pontificate is false. He himself made it clear in July: the Pope’s primary mission is not to govern a State, but to “proclaim the Gospel and Jesus Christ.” Everything else – however important – is secondary.
p.G.A.
Silere non possum