Read Online Merchants in the Temple by Gianluigi Nuzzi - Free Book Online Page A

education, assistance to refugees and immigrants, etc.).
    The pontiffs have always valued the charitable aims of the Peter’s Pence, and have urged the faithful to give generously. “‘Peter’s Pence’ is the most characteristic expression”—Benedict XVI emphasized—“of the participation of all the faithful in the Bishop of Rome’s charitable initiatives.” 4 He describes the central importance of charity in his encyclical Deus caritas est (2006), noting that, “The Church can never be exempted from practicing charity as an organized activity of believers, and on the other hand, there will never be a situation where the charity of each individual Christian is unnecessary, because in addition to justice man needs, and will always need, love.” 5
    Yet according to the financial statements and balance sheets—which I was able to consult directly—the management of the Peter’s Pence is an enigma cloaked in the most impenetrable secrecy. Every year the amount of the collection is publicized but there is no explanation of how it is administered. In other words, we know how much money has been collected from the faithful but not how it is spent. Absolute secrecy is maintained around this detail.
    This paucity of information raised the suspicions of the COSEA members, who wanted a clearer picture of the situation. They had also sensed that their success depended on getting the Peter’s Pence managers to comply with the audit. It was clear that something was amiss when the charity did not reply to Versaldi’s July 2013 request for financial reports, data, and documents. They did not reply, not by the deadline indicated by the Cardinal, nor by the end of autumn. They did give a few informal, evasive answers, but nothing written. Not a single clear, formal, and thorough document emerged from these queries.
    Was this just the classic example of buying time until attention shifted away from the problem? If so, rather than respond negatively, evaders usually prefer to send partial signals, involve other persons, and pretend they don’t understand the request, maybe by claiming that the documents have gone missing. This seemingly casual strategy ended up raising the suspicions of the COSEA members and of the financial consultants of McKinsey, KPMG, and Promontory Financial Group who had been hired by the papal Commission. The issue almost provoked a diplomatic incident in the Curia. The story helps to illustrate the hostile climate in which Francis has to operate. Through the documents that have come into my possession, I am able to reconstruct every step of the conflict.
    The problems started in December 2013 when the Secretariat of State and APSA proved to be less than forthcoming in their answers to the Commission’s requests for documentation. On December 2, in a letter to Reverend Alfred Xuereb, Francis’s personal secretary, the Commission requested the Pontiff’s direct intervention:
    Most Reverend Monsignor,
    Among the tasks awaiting us in the short term there is also an inspection of the activity and the role that the Secretariat of State plays at the economic and administrative level. This was already mentioned to the Secretary of State at a recent meeting. [The former Secretary of State, Tarcisio Bertone, had retired after reaching the age limit. In his place Francis had appointed Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who took office on October 15, 2013.] Based on what came out at the meeting, we believe that an ad hoc action—formal, explicit and unequivocal—could help confirm the desires of the superior Authority.
    The Commission feared that its investigation would continue to be paralyzed by inertia and resistance. Indeed, the letter did not produce the desired effect: the stalemate continued. On December 18, Filippo Sciorilli Borelli of McKinsey of Zurich, one of the Commission’s outside consultants, made another attempt to gain