The man held responsible for the Vatileaks scandal acted alone, without accomplices and the “influences” of other people he was in contact with, which he may have been subject to, are of a “subjective” nature not an “objective” one: investigation results showed no proof of complicity.
This is what the explanation of the sentence issued against Benedict XVI’s former butler essentially said.
Gabriele was sentenced to three years for aggravated theft, though the sentence period was halved to one year and six months because he had no criminal record and judges found his declaration stating he had acted the way he did because he thought he was “helping the Pope”, credible.
Justices Giuseppe Dalla Torre, Paolo Papanti-Pelletier and Venerando Marano consider Gabriele fully chargeable. In one of the sentence’s passages, they recall Gabriele’s statement: “Of course I knew what I was running a risk, in the sense that I was in danger of being found out.” These words are clearly indicative of “the defendant’s ability to understand the illicitness of his behaviour and his firm intention to act on this.”
Another chapter in the text of the sentence deals with the former butler’s potential accomplices. Gabriele stated he had none and judges wrote that the “testimonies discussed in the preliminary investigations confirm this statement” and explain that “no evidence to the contrary” emerged form “the judicial police investigations.”
In terms of potential instigators, the Pope’s former butler said he had been influenced by surrounding circumstances,” mentioning names of people he was in contact with in the Vatican. The Tribunal said it believed him when, in response to a request for clarification on the matter, Gabriele explained that by “influence” he did not mean “collaboration” of the individuals mentioned in copying and distributing the content of the Pope’s secret letters.
“It is understandable, given the nature of his job that Gabriele was in contact with so many people – the sentence reads – and the fact that he was a sought-after source of information due to his closeness to the Holy Father was not to be underestimated.”
But according to judges, the term “influence” “has no objective value, in as far as it refers to an external force that drove him to commit a criminal act.” There is therefore no “proof of complicity” although “further investigations are underway.”
In relation to the leaked documents, the sentence reveals that it was not just copies that were found but originals too and judges pointed out that the defendant “occasionally contradicted himself” on the numbers of copies made.” But in as far as the stolen documents go, “the defendant’s confession in both the preliminary investigation phase and during the court hearings is confirmed in the testimonies given during the hearings and in the other evidence obtained.”
But significantly greater importance than before was given to a number of objects found in Gabriele’s house: the cheque for one hundred thousand Euros made out to the Pope, the nugget (no one knows whether gold or not) and the Cinquecentina Aeneid.
Judges believe the defendant’s statements regarding the cheque and the nugget, in which he said that he was not conscious of having stolen them and that this theft was due to a “deterioration of his disorder.”
The sentence reveals that the circumstances surrounding the Vatican Gendarmerie’s discovery of these objects in Gabriele’s house are not completely clear, as the police body gave “ambiguous” testimonies on this. In terms of the old book, the butler’s justification was that he had asked the Pope’s secretary for permission to borrow it so his son could take it to school.
Fr. Georg Gänswein had no recollection of this, but the sentence concludes that “the justifications given by Gabriele are not contradictory and there is no proof of the defendant’s animus avertendi (intent to steal, Ed.).”
Finally, the sentence specifies that Gabriele’s action “caused reprehensible damage to the pontiff, the Holy See and the entire Catholic Church.”
At the same time, however, it took into account Gabriele’s "simplistic intellectual capacity” and that this “personal condition could have led to the subjective conviction - albeit wrong – that he was “benefiting not damaging the Church,” as the former butler stated.
Interestingly, the sentence explains the reasons the rejection of the request made by Gabriele’s defence, for two cardinals from the Commission of Cardinals to be summoned: the former Prefect of Propaganda Fide, Ivan Dias and the former theologian to the Papal Household, Georges Cottier.
Why would it have been interesting to listen to their testimonies?
What information were they expected to give?