Monday, July 17, 2017

A "Saint" And A Trial Of Two Alleged Criminals

On July 17, 2017, Crux  published an article by Inés San Martín entitled First Vatican trial under laws against financial crime to open Tuesday, quoted below in part [1]:

A Vatican criminal trial against two former members of a foundation overseeing the Vatican’s Bambino Gesù pediatric hospital is set to start Tuesday, on charges of illicitly using foundation funds to help finance the remodeling of the apartment of Italian Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, former Secretary of State under Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI.

Bertone himself, however, was not an object of the investigation and does not face any charges.

Giuseppe Profiti, who was president of the Bambino Gesù foundation until 2015, and Massimo Spina, the former treasurer, were called to appear before Vatican judges beginning July 18. If they fail to attend court, they will be charged with contempt, according to a July 13 statement from the Vatican’s press office.

After a Vatican investigation which lasted more than a year, Profiti, Spina and their lawyers were notified of the charges June 13, and had until July 11 to supply evidence for their defense.

The Vatican statement said Profiti and Spina “were paid” more than almost $500,000 for “completely non-institutional ends,” using the money to refurbish Vatican property in order “to benefit Gianantonio Bandera’s company.”

Bandera is an Italian businessman whose construction company performed much of the work on Bertone’s Vatican residence.

In short, this trail is about the alleged misuse of funds in the neighborhood of half a million dollars belonging to the Vatican's hospital funds to improve Vatican property.  Is this not about taking money from one pocket of its owner and putting it in the other?  How dare these operatives misappropriate funds that were supposed to benefit the poor, the sick and needy and spend them on real estate improvements at the Vatican?  While this blogger does not think that this criminal, he does think that it is unethical, bordering on sinful, but not unforgivably sinful, taking into consideration the amount of money that is involved.

Below is a photograph of Domus Sanctae Marthae (Saint Martha's House), "a plain but capable $20 million hotel built just for this purpose by Pope John Paul II in 1996." [2]  It was built "[t]o ensure electors in the papal conclave are sequestered from any outside influence, all voting cardinals." [3]


"Photo by Rene Shaw"


Jesuit Father James Martin said that this hotel is by no means luxurious or "posh."  To prove his point, he posted interior photographs of a suite from another source (see below) [4]:


Bedroom
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2010/01/domus-sanctae-marthae.html

Sitting Room
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2010/01/domus-sanctae-marthae.html


According to Father James Martin, that "[a]long with 22 single rooms and one apartment, the Domus has 106 suites." [5]

He also said, quoted without hyperlink [6]:

Over six years of my working life were spent booking rooms for two major hotel chains. And I gotta tell ya — a Renaissance or Adams Mark this ain't. If anything, this is a devout monk's conception of a business-class hotel. It does have a dining room, several conference rooms, plus a main chapel and two smaller chapels to accomodate private Masses. So it is a bit more than an ecclesial Motel 6.

But no mezzanine with deluxe shopping. No pool with swim-up entrances and tiki bar; in fact, the one "bar" it has consists of two vending machines, one for coffee and one for soft drinks. No California King beds with 17"-deep mattresses and small mountains of pillows. If you want to watch TV, there are a couple of rooms with six straight-backed chairs in them (however, the satellite receiver will be turned off for the conclave) — no in-room X-Box, Skinemax or Netflix ... which is just as well.

Mind you, I'm not saying that the beds are uncomfortable, or that the food is substandard; that's not what the "star system" is about. But if you're not there on Church business, you don't want to stay there on vacation. Retreat, yes; vacation, no. Give it two and a half stars for its unique amenities, but don't push it further.

This blogger does not doubt Father James Martin's observations and conclusions.  In fact, a traveler on vacation who is thinking of staying at the Domus Sanctae Marthae should heed his advice - "don't."  After all, it is only a bit more than an "an ecclesial Motel 6."

Here is another observation of the Domus Sanctae Marthae by Sherri Ferris, quoted in part [7]:

From the outside, the Domus Sanctae Marthae, revealed a rather 1960’s dormitory style building but once you walked through the glass doors and into the lobby and grand stair cases, there were lovely plants, tended by the Sisters of Charity, spectacular oil paintings and elegant inlaid marble floors. In fact the floor of my room was beautifully hand crafted herringbone tongue and groove wood, polished faithfully every morning by the staff. The floors were the most beautiful part of the building. The lighting on the other hand was often florescent and as our PPI lighting expert, Frederick Warhanek, would say, not the most flattering or appealing.

The room itself was a bit austere but certainly comfortable with a glass topped desk, wooden chest of drawers, built-in closet, television and an air-conditioner that only worked part-time in the summer (May was on the cusp and consequently even though the temperature was in the low 80’s, was not functioning.) The schedule reminded me of the type of rigid schedule one would find in hotels in the former Yugoslavia – heating or cooling rooms was strictly by the calendar. But alas, this was no doubt due to budget considerations.

Like many things in Italy that don’t consistently work, internet access required some expert help from one of the resident Monsignors. ...

Something just does not seem to add up here, at least not in this simpleton's mind.  John Paul II who had spent $20 million in the years leading up to 1996, the year of completion of "an ecclesial Motel 6" with 22 single rooms, one apartment and 106 Spartan-looking suites had become a saint, whereas two individuals who spent half a million on the renovation of a Vatican apartment in 2013 to 2014 [8] are being treated as if they were criminals.

Disregarding the differential between the value of a dollar circa 1996 and circa 2014, the amount of money that had been spent on the Domus Sanctae Marthae is significant at $20 million, even in 2017 dollars.

This $20 million spent by JP2 could have gone to fund the Vatican’s Bambino Gesù pediatric hospital, but that did not happen.  This sum of money was presuambly not designated to assist the poor; nonetheless it was church funds and funds belonging to the Church, some of which were possibly from donations that were likely not being donated for large-scale real estate improvements but rather to assist the poor, and those who serve Christ in the cloth are supposed to be poor and poor in spirit, just like San Francesco d'Assisi and Sainte Bernadette Soubirous, not real estate moguls.

JP2 was never truly poor, or perhaps even poor in spirit.  "Growing up, John Paul was athletic and enjoyed skiing and swimming. He went to Krakow's Jagiellonian University in 1938 where he showed an interest in theater and poetry." [9] He was nevertheless canonized a saint, for reasons that escape this blogger.

JP2 had good intentions in having the Domus Sanctae Marthae built, "the primary purpose of [which was to provide] accommodation for Cardinals during the conclave to elect a new Pope," [10] as if these Cardinals could not have been housed elsewhere, as if a conclave could not take place without such a building. Below is a brief history of conclave accommodations, quoted in part from an article in the New York Times  dated April 5, 2005, entitled JOHN PAUL II: LIFE IN ROME; The Cardinals' Hotel: Not a Spot for the Bread and Water Routine That Was Used in 1271 [11]:

In 1271, after the papal throne was vacant for three years, anxious Catholics locked up the indecisive cardinals in a crumbling building and put them on a strict diet of bread and water until they made a decision. For an extra dose of motivation, the roof was removed. After enduring rain and harsh sunshine, the cardinals finally elected Pope Gregory X.

Conditions had improved by 1978, the year of the last conclave, but compared with the way of living that most cardinals are used to, the shelter was very modest. Beds were on loan from a local missionary college; the lamps were too weak to read by. The extent of the luxuries were a washbasin and some soap, some notepaper and a desk to write on.

Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, the archbishop of Genoa at the time, found much to be desired during his stay in Rome. He referred to his quarters during the brutal Rome summer of August 1978 as an ''airless tomb.''

He was evidently not the only one who felt that way. The election lasted all of a day before the cardinals elected Pope John Paul I. He died shortly after, and the conclave that selected John Paul II had similarly uncomfortable accommodations.

Cardinal Silvio Oddi, who died in 2001, often complained in his later years about the hardships of conclave housing.

''The cardinals are almost all old, with prostate problems, tired -- with a bathroom for every 10 people,'' he was quoted as saying in L'espresso, describing the 1978 experience. ''I slept near the toilet, but I saw these poor old people crossing 70-meter corridors to get to the bathroom, which they found occupied. Such pain, and what a humiliation. The cardinals had to make their own beds.''

Since a conclave does not take place often, it would probably be less expensive to take over entire floors of 5-star luxury hotels in Rome to accommodate the Cardinals during a conclave than to build a $20 million "ecclesial Motel 6" with Father James Martin giving it "two and a half stars for its unique amenities" then having to maintain it over the years.

Admittedly, half a million in renovation costs for one apartment can be said to be relatively expensive, depending of course, on the quality of products used.  Somehow, this blogger very much doubts that Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone would be pleased to see his apartment looking like a suite at the Domus Sanctae Marthae after the renovation.

It would be interesting to find out how much profit the construction company had earned for the work done on Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone's apartment and how much profit the construction company or companies had earned for building Domus Sanctae Marthae, and if JP2 who spent the $20 million on Domus Sanctae Marthae ought to be brought to trial as well, post-mortem.

Even more interesting would be to hear Bergoglio defend JP2's spending of $20 million on a building that could have gone into a fund for the poor and the sick, one that was supposedly built with functioning modern conveniences, that he has chosen to stay in over the Apostolic Palace [12] despite its Spartan appearance.

Perhaps the Vatican's motto ought to be "God helps those who help themselves" [13] and not "help the poor."



Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)