The Catholic Church is facing a highly unusual and controversial situation as Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu, once a powerful figure in the Vatican, insists on his right to vote in the next papal conclave—despite being convicted of financial crimes.
This case is reigniting debates over church governance, accountability, and the very process of selecting the successor to Pope Francis.
A Cardinal Convicted
In December 2023, a Vatican tribunal found Cardinal Becciu guilty of embezzlement and abuse of office, sentencing him to five years and six months in prison. The charges stemmed from a series of financial scandals, including a controversial $200 million London real estate deal and the alleged mismanagement of church funds.
The trial—historic in its scope—was part of Pope Francis’s broader efforts to clean up the Church’s financial operations. Becciu was the highest-ranking Vatican official ever to be tried by a lay tribunal within the city-state. In addition to his prison sentence, he was permanently banned from holding public office in the Vatican.
Yet despite this conviction, Becciu insists he still holds one of the most sacred responsibilities of a cardinal: the right to cast a vote in the next papal election.
A Matter of Canon Law—and Interpretation
In 2020, Pope Francis asked Cardinal Becciu to resign from his position and relinquish his rights as a cardinal. This included stepping down from his powerful role as Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. But now, Becciu argues that the Pope never formally removed his right to vote in a conclave.
Becciu points to his presence at a 2022 consistory—a formal meeting of cardinals—as proof that his standing within the College of Cardinals was not entirely revoked. According to Becciu, unless Pope Francis explicitly issued a written decree removing him from voting eligibility, he remains an elector.
His legal team has also emphasized that his conviction is still under appeal, meaning it is not yet final under both Vatican and Italian law. Therefore, they argue, he cannot be excluded from a conclave without due process.
Vatican in a Legal and Ethical Bind
The Vatican now faces a complex dilemma. On the one hand, allowing a convicted cardinal to participate in choosing the next pope could undermine the moral credibility of the Church. On the other hand, excluding him without a clear canonical basis—especially while his appeal is ongoing—could raise serious questions about fairness and legality.
Church law experts are split. Some argue that Becciu’s resignation at the Pope’s request was sufficient to strip him of his voting rights. Others say only a formal decree or final conviction can legally prevent a cardinal under 80 from voting in a conclave.
And this is not just a legal technicality. The integrity of the next papal election—arguably one of the most important moments in global Catholicism—could be called into question if Becciu takes part.
The Broader Implications
This situation comes at a time of heightened scrutiny over the Church’s internal governance. Pope Francis, who has championed greater financial transparency and accountability, now faces the challenge of upholding these values at the highest levels—even when it involves a cardinal he once trusted.
Moreover, Cardinal Becciu’s case exposes a potential loophole in the Church’s structure: while the Pope can ask for resignations and express disapproval, the boundaries of those requests are not always clearly defined in canon law.
What Happens Next?
If Pope Francis chooses to act, he could issue a formal decree removing Becciu from the College of Cardinals altogether. That would definitively strip him of any voting rights. But such a move would be highly symbolic and politically sensitive—especially while Becciu’s appeal is still pending.
As speculation grows over the possibility of a papal conclave—given Pope Francis’s age and health—every cardinal elector’s role will be closely watched. And the controversy surrounding Becciu ensures that this conclave, whenever it comes, may begin under a cloud of legal and moral uncertainty.
