The Vatican City State, long regarded as a bastion of legal order, is facing growing scrutiny over its judicial practices. Until 2013, its legal system was largely aligned with modern European standards, ensuring adequate legal protections. However, in recent years, a pattern of legal irregularities has emerged, calling into question its commitment to fundamental rights.
Notably, this problem extends beyond the Vatican City State itself. The same violations of legal principles that have characterized Vatican judicial proceedings have also been applied in ecclesiastical court, which handle matters such as marriage annulments and ecclesiastical disputes. Pope Francis has implemented a judicial system within the Catholic Church that mirrors the issues seen in Vatican law—compromising due process, procedural fairness, and the rights of the accused.
Human Rights Concerns in Vatican Criminal Trials
One of the clearest examples of this legal crisis is the Sloane Avenue affair, a case widely criticized for violating basic human rights. Observers have noted that judicial safeguards were disregarded, with legal provisions being changed mid-trial—often at the discretion of the Pontiff himself. These interventions had serious consequences for the accused, depriving them of a fair legal process.
Over the past 12 years, there has been a consistent trend of legal norms being bypassed in favor of media interests, personal connections, and informal power dynamics. Judicial appointments have also been shaped more by loyaltythan by legal expertise, leading to a system where justice is unpredictable and influenced by external pressures.
Violations of Legal Norms: The Appointment of Sister Raffaella Petrini
A major legal controversy arose on January 19, 2025, when Pope Francis publicly announced his intent to appoint Sister Raffaella Petrini as President of the Governorate of Vatican City State. Legal experts immediately pointed out that this violated the Fundamental Law of Vatican City State, a legal framework signed by the Pope himself.
Despite this clear contradiction, the appointment was confirmed on February 15, 2025, set to take effect on March 1, 2025. Once again, legal objections were ignored, reinforcing the idea that the Vatican no longer operates as a state governed by the rule of law.
This situation has serious implications beyond the Vatican. Countries such as Italy now face a critical question: Should they continue recognizing judicial decisions issued by Vatican courts, given their repeated legal violations? This issue is particularly pressing in areas such as marriage annulments, which are governed by ecclesiastical court rather than Vatican City law. Or, for the measures against clerics that are taken without guaranteeing them any fundamental rights. As for the work of the Vatican courts, however, how can one think of deliberating a sentence issued by a judicial body that violates fundamental rights even with a direct intervention of the absolute Sovereign during the trial?
Ecclesiastical courts: A Parallel System of Legal Violations
The same disregard for legal norms seen in Vatican City’s governance has been extended to ecclesiastical courts, which handle Catholic Church judicial matters worldwide. These courts oversee critical issues such as:
- Marriage annulments (which can have civil legal consequences in some countries)
- Disciplinary proceedings against clergy and religious figures
- Internal Church disputes regarding governance, and administration
Under Pope Francis, ecclesiastical court have functioned in a manner that mirrors the flaws of Vatican law, including:
- Lack of due process for accused individuals
- Decisions based on personal influence rather than legal principles
- Changes to laws and procedures depriving individuals of legal certainty
These practices not only undermine the credibility of Vatican law but also weaken the authority of ecclesiastical court, which have global implications for Catholic institutions and believers.
Legal Misinterpretations and Their Consequences
Public discussion on these issues has been plagued by misinformation. Some commentators have framed recent legal changes as “progress” under the Apostolic Constitution Praedicate Evangelium, but these claims are false and the decision regarding Sister Raffaella Petrini has nothing to do with the norms for the Roman Curia. The Governorate, in fact, is not an organ of the curia but of the State.
One major point of confusion concerns Sister Raffaella Petrini’s status. Some have suggested that her appointment was groundbreaking because she is a “laywoman,” but this is factually incorrect—she is a religious sister, which carries different legal implications. Cardinal Gianfranco Ghirlanda, too, has in the past cited historical parallels, such as the Abbess of Conversano, to argue that "lay people" have the power to govern without considering that nuns are not laywoman.
This distinction is not just theoretical—it has direct consequences for governance. The Catholic Church does not have authority over the laity in the same way it does over clergy and religious figures. In cases where laypeople commit abuses within ecclesiastical institutions, the Church has limited power to act, which at most includes their removal from office. However, the situation is entirely different for clerics and religious individuals.
For clergy and religious, the Church has broad disciplinary power, which can include:
- Loss of ecclesiastical office
- Suspension of priestly faculties
- Removal from the clerical state ("defrocking")
This imbalance has created a structural problem in Church governance. While lay officials may engage in questionable practices with little accountability, clerics and religious figures—regardless of their actual guilt—can face severe measures with limited recourse to justice.
One example of this issue is the Bose community, where Cardinal Pietro Parolin exercised authority beyond his legitimate jurisdiction. This legal disparity has resulted in selective enforcement, where Church authority is applied inconsistently depending on the status of the individual involved.
Retroactive Lawmaking: A Disturbing Pattern
The fundamental problem with Sister Raffaella Petrini’s appointment was not her background or her status as a "religious" but the clear violation of existing law. The Fundamental Law of Vatican City State explicitly required that the President of the Governorate and the President of the Pontifical Commission must be a cardinal.
However, as seen in previous cases like Sloane Avenue, the law was amended only after it had been broken. The appointment was made official on February 15, set to take effect on March 1, yet the official legal change was only announced on February 25, 2025, following silere non possum outcry.
Despite this amendment, the revised law has not been formally published. It does not appear in the Holy See’s bulletin or the official website of Vatican City State—a clear violation of the fundamental right to legal transparency.
Implications for International and Canonical Law
These developments indicate a deepening legal crisis, not only within the Vatican City State but also in ecclesiastical court worldwide. What was once a structured legal system has become characterized by arbitrary governance, retroactive lawmaking, and violations of individual rights.
If these patterns persist, the international community—and particularly nations such as Italy—must reconsider their recognition of Vatican and Canonical judicial decisions. This is particularly urgent for:
- Marriage annulments, which currently have legal recognition in many countries
- Canonical disciplinary rulings, which affect clergy and Church institutions worldwide
- Other vatican court decisions, which may no longer meet the legal standards required for international cooperation
If the Pope and his adepts do not change their mode of action, the Vatican City State and its judicial bodies risk losing their legitimacy, raising serious questions about their ability to function as credible legal institutions. Vatican citizens and the international community have been waiting for weeks to read the amendment to the Fundamental Law, a very important text for the state, a kind of constitution.