🇮🇹 Versione italiana

Vatican City – On Tuesday, 27 May 2025, the facade of the Apostolic Palace—one of the most symbolic sites of Christianity—became the stage for a disturbing provocation: a video illegally projected by the animal rights organisation PETA, attacking Pope Leo XIV and urging him to take a stand against bullfighting. However, beyond the message—whose target appears entirely misplaced—what is truly alarming is the method, the audacity, and above all, the ease with which this act was carried out.

The Apostolic Palace is not merely a symbolic building; it is the heart of Catholic Church life and, soon, will become the residence of Pope Leo XIV. That someone managed to project a video onto its facade, with no one intervening in real time, is an extremely serious sign: a breach in security, a structural flaw that adds to a series of similar incidents in recent years.

This is not the first time that activists have chosen the Vatican as the stage for their demonstrations. We have witnessed incursions into the Vatican Museums, performances during general audiences, and symbolic intrusions into the Nativity scene in St Peter’s Square. Always with a common goal: to exploit the global visibility of this space to gain a fleeting moment of media attention.

However, while the message may change—from animal rights advocacy to environmental causes or civil rights—the method remains the same: forcing the scene. And each time, the question resurfaces: how was this possible?

The most unsettling answer is that certain individuals continue to remain in their positions despite these serious shortcomings. Security issues within the Vatican City State have been reported for years by Silere non possum. The 2023 incident, when a man in a car managed to bypass checkpoints and reach the San Damaso courtyard, did not trigger any alarms in the Vatican’s organisational machinery. Nor did the dozens of demonstrative incursions that followed, almost always documented and shared in real time on social media.

The Vatican Gendarmerie, often composed of poorly trained personnel, seems more engaged in managing the daily routine than in preventing concrete threats. The real problem is systemic: it has been accepted that certain incidents are inevitable, as if the inviolability of the Vatican were an outdated concept. But if today it was just a projection, what would prevent someone from opening fire tomorrow? And what about the Polizia di Stato (Italian Police), responsible for the security of the square and surrounding areas? Were they all on holiday?

The question is both legitimate and urgent: what if, instead of a video, it had been an attacker? The vulnerability of the Pope, of religious institutions, and even of the faithful in St Peter’s Square cannot be lightly dismissed. Here, security is not just a technical issue: it is a moral responsibility towards millions of believers worldwide.

This episode must mark a point of no return. The Italian and Vatican authorities are called to deep reflection and, above all, to action. Strengthening security, professionalising the Gendarmerie, updating emergency protocols—these are no longer optional choices but urgent duties. Because the real question is no longer how it was done, but when it will happen again—and if next time, it will be too late.

d.P.S.
Silere non possum