Did Cardinal Becciu cut a deal?

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Apr 30, 2025

Last week Cardinal Angelo Becciu—the once-powerful prelate who was convicted last year on criminal charges of embezzlement—insisted that he had the right to vote in the papal election, even though in 2020 he had (on orders from Pope Francis) renounced his privileges as a cardinal. This week, he announced that, for the sake of Church unity, he would not press the issue, and would not join the conclave.

What made him change his mind?

The disciplinary action imposed on Cardinal Becciu in 2020, even before the “trial of the century” began, was unique. He retained the title of cardinal, but not the privileges. It was never clear exactly which privileges he had forfeited. He said that Pope Francis had invited him to join other cardinals at the consistory of last December, and even claimed that the Pope planned eventually to reinstate his full status as a member of the College of Cardinals.

In practice, whether they accepted his claims or not, the other cardinals generally did accept his participation in the “general congregations” leading up to the conclave. But his name was not on the list of eligible electors. As of last week he planned to contest that decision. Then, after the full College discussed his case and planned to take a vote on his eligibility, he bowed out. Why?

The first, most obvious explanation is that after hearing the discussion, and conferring with his colleagues, Cardinal Becciu recognized that he would lose the vote, so he spared everyone a painful confrontation. That reading of the situation still seems logical. But…

Take a careful look at the statement released by the College of Cardinals on April 30:

Regarding His Eminence Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu, it was noted that the latter, having the good of the Church at heart, and to contribute to the communion and serenity of the Conclave, has communicated his decision not to take part in it. In this regard, the Congregation of Cardinals expresses its appreciation for the gesture he has made, and hopes that the competent judicial bodies will be able to definitively ascertain the facts.

A graceful statement, in response to a graceful withdrawal? Yes, but take careful note of the second sentence. What “facts” are the cardinals hoping will be established? What “competent judicial bodies” will pursue them? The simple “fact” is that Cardinal Becciu will not vote in the papal election. There is no judicial body to which he can appeal (especially since he has withdrawn voluntarily), and in any event the conclave will be over before any appeal could be heard. So what does the sentence mean?

Apparently what the cardinals mean to say is that, while they cannot accept Cardinal Becciu’s claim that he has a right to vote in the conclave, they nevertheless wish him well as he pursues an appeal of his criminal conviction—an appeal now pending before the Vatican tribunal. The statement from the College of Cardinals does not mention that appeal (or the conviction), and thus does not question the justice of the verdict against Becciu. Still it does suggest a degree of sympathy, in its “appreciation for the gesture he has made.” No one on either side of the case can object to a desire to “definitively ascertain the facts.”

But in light of Cardinal Becciu’s reputation as the ultimate Vatican insider, with a well-deserved reputation for vigorously defending his own interests, it is quite possible to give the facts another reading. As the price of his graceful exit, might he have sought an assurance from powerful prelates that, after the conclave, they would look favorably on his appeal and his bid for complete reinstatement?