We were right: it was a mandatory act.
«Anyone can file a complaint about anything», explains to UCCR the Promoter of Justice of the Vatican, Alessandro Diddi, «but from this to conclude that the mere opening of an investigation file is something considerable is an inference».
What are we talking about?
Andrea Cionci and the Vatican complaint
Let us return for a moment to the complaint that in 2024 the writer Andrea Cionci filed with the Vatican tribunal.
With it he denounced the bizarre thesis about the "sede impedita" of Benedict XVI, the alleged invalidity of his resignation and the papacy of Pope Francis.
Recently the same Diddi had responded negatively to Cionci's request to access the files, justifying the refusal with the fact that investigations were ongoing.
This simple and obvious answer was used by John-Henry Westen, director of the "LifeSiteNews" portal and spokesman for the excommunicated Carlo Maria Viganò, as an epochal event.
«If mine were truly a psycho-thriller or a fanciful construction», Cionci himself had stated, «why would the Vatican have opened an investigation file and conducted an investigation lasting a year?!».
UCCR's reply: mandatory act
Surprised by this interpretation, UCCR had replied to the author of "Ratzinger Code" explaining the basics of law: it was a simple mandatory act.
Following a formal complaint, the opening of an investigation file and the conduct of investigations is ordinary procedure, independent of the value of the complaint's content itself.
If it's madness, why does the Vatican investigate?
Andrea Cionci had reacted irritably to our article: «These UCCR people are insulting Vatican magistracy», he said.
«If it was a bizarre theory like the Da Vinci Code, why did they spend a year of preliminary investigations on it? Why haven't they archived it yet?»1.
And again: «If it were conspiracy theory, as UCCR says, the investigation would be closed by now»2.
On several occasions, moreover, the same writer and art critic has proudly recalled that Diddi interrogated him "for four hours", emphasizing the high professionalism and seriousness of the jurist: «That this is not a mandatory act is demonstrated by last year's interrogation!».
The criticisms of UCCR have been curiously interspersed with Cionci's more political interests.
He has moved, for example, from "conclave now!" to "remigration now!", from sponsoring petitions about Ratzinger's "sede impedita" to those promoted by far-right representatives (to use a euphemism), from evidence of Leo XIV's antipapacy based on laces, funerals, coats of arms and lace to messages hardly Ratzingerian towards anyone who votes left.
The Promoter of Justice: "Inferences"
While aware of investigative secrecy we wanted to ask for clarification directly from the Promoter of Justice of the Vatican Alessandro Diddi, ordinary professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of Calabria.
What he could tell us about the matter is very little, but sufficient nonetheless.
After illustrating to him the reactions to his communication regarding the opening of an investigation file, the Vatican prosecutor confirmed to us that, following the submission of a complaint, the investigation is «aphysiological activity».
Therefore, «that considerations should be drawn from this is not correct».
He also provided us with an illuminating example: «If someone files a complaint saying that Martians are attempting an attack on the pope, I have the legal obligation to open an investigation file. The law imposes on me to do so even for the most unfounded matters».
However, the Promoter of Justice is keen to clarify that he does not intend to release any comment on the content of the investigations, neither positive nor negative.
He only wishes to reiterate that automatically crediting value to the content of a complaint—whatever it may be—solely from the opening of an investigation file and the duration of investigations «is aninference».
As for why the investigations have been lasting a year, one can easily infer.
The Vatican tribunal has much work and there are several cases on the table, decidedly more urgent.
However, the intention is to close shortly and address the matter with the utmost seriousness, as is normal for any tribunal.
If the Vatican archives it, what then?
In the Vatican they would therefore have opened a file for any formal complaint, even about chemtrails or aliens attempting to attack the pope, according to the example given by the Promoter of Justice.
No "implicit recognition", no historic breakthrough, no confirmation of the "sede impedita". Saying otherwise is manipulating reality.
And if the entire matter were ever archived, what will Andrea Cionci say?
Which dark force will John-Henry Westen, director of "LifeSiteNews", resort to? Which stratagem will the YouTubers and alternative information channels spreading such theses devise?
There are those who say that they will apply to the Vatican tribunal's ruling the same method used to interpret Ratzinger's "Declaratio", namely by finding a secret code hidden between the lines to force a conclusion opposite to what will be written.
We don't believe it, but we shall see.