The last act of a farcical process
“There is nothing hidden that does not become known” (Mt. 10,26)
The last act of a farcical process
His Excellency Monsignor Eduardo Davino, in order to give consistency to the statements of the “two fundamental witnesses of the case”, i.e., Alessia Zimei and Gabriella Parisse, wraps himself in the “word” and “testimony” of His Excellency Monsignor Giuseppe Molinari:
(…) it is truly incredible, as has already been indicated, that the very Reverend first instance Judges did not give the corresponding weight to the testimony of His Excellency Monsignor Molinari, considering him, on the contrary, with the same criteria as an innocent bystander together with the responsible parties from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
In fact, it was Monsignor Molinari who received the confidences of the two key witnesses of the process and who channeled them to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (…) the testimony of these two witnesses was validated by the word of His Excellency Monsignor Molinari, who, in addition to giving them a positive judgment, confirms that he was who channeled them to the Congregation.
This leaves us perplexed: Monsignor Eduardo Davino gives the status of guarantor of the Truth (of the witnesses) precisely to Monsignor Giuseppe Molinari, who was nothing less than the mastermind of the conspiracy against Father Andrea D’Ascanio and who forced these witnesses to testify against him in court!
(http://www.truthaboutfatherandreadascanio.net/history-of-a-process-eng.php)
The perplexity increases when Monsignor Davino states that it was Monsignor Molinari himself who “channeled the two witnesses to the Congregation”, thus confirming that it was Monsignor Molinari who acted against morality and against other canons of the Code of Canonic Law:
He ignored his superior, Monsignor Mario Peressin:
Canon 407 § 1: “… The diocesan Bishop and the coadjutor will consult each other regarding the issues of most importance”;
§ 3: “The coadjutor Bishop, when called to participate at the request of the diocesan Bishop, will perform his tasks in such a way as to proceed together with him by mutual agreement”.
Monsignor Molinari, if he had truly received the “confidences of the two key witnesses of the process”, should have carried out a “preliminary investigation” together with his Superior:
Canon 1717 - §1. As long as the Trial court judge has knowledge, at least on a presumptive level, of the perpetration of a crime, it should proceed to investigate with prudence, personally, or through an ideal person; regarding the facts, circumstances and imputability…
From which it can be seen that, according to canon 1720, always together with his Superior, he should have:
“Notified the accused of the accusation against him and the evidence on which it was based, giving him the opportunity to defend himself…”
In fact, as mentioned on page 17 of the acquittal judgment:
“Monsignor Mario Peressin vehemently lamented not having been consulted; notwithstanding the fact that he held the position of diocesan Bishop, and the fact that Father Andrea D’Ascanio had not been given the least opportunity to defend himself.”
In short, if he had considered it necessary, always in mutual agreement with his Superior, he could have initiated the judicial process in the dioceses, in accordance with the provisions of canon 1721.
The foregoing, according to the terms of canon 1419 §1: “In each diocese and for all Cases (…) the first instance judge is the diocesan Bishop…”
These provisions of the Code of Canonic Law are well known by Monsignor Davino, as can be continually seen in this process, but he believes himself to be above the Code, the objective truth of the facts and the evidence.
His only preoccupation is to carry out the orders he received by passing a guilty verdict and forgetting about the IV Commandment: You shall not kill.
The lower Tribunal does not consider Monsignor Molinari to be an “innocent bystander”, but rather the author aware of the entire apparatus of the accusations; in fact he was sentenced to pay four fifths of the procedural costs and expenses and found him guilty of having implicated the “responsible parties of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”.
Is the Armata Bianca a “sect”?
Monsignor Davino, after having demonstrated with “meticulous arguments” (??), that the conspiracy theory and the telephone taps offered as evidence were “inconsistent”, he spends the rest of his time describing the “climate of strict obedience, regarding the Boss” (talking about Father Andrea), which “depersonalizes people” and makes them its victims.
The “credible” witnesses
By not officially being able to use the testimony of Rosa Ciancia, the only witnessed called who was demonstrated to be “false and her testimony inadmissible” even for this tribunal, Monsignor Davino revives from the first process, in addition to Gabriella Parisse and Alessia Zimei who have already been covered, Brother Antonio Tofanelli, Liliana Claps, His Excellency Monsignor Vairo, His Excellency Reverend Monsignor Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Additionally, he proposes, once again, indirectly, Gabriele Nanni and Rosa Ciancia Pelliccione. Let’s move on to the examination of these witnesses chosen from among more than 40 others.
Brother Antonio Tofanelli
His Excellency Monsignor Davino writes in the sentence against the defendant:
“It would be useful in order to delineate the climate that was lived in the Armata Bianca, to use the phrase stated by a witness who has no reason whatsoever to depose in favor or against the accused: “I believe that Father Andrea is a man who is not all well…h gives me the impression of being a mythomaniac… maybe Father Andrea is not alright. I.e., he’s a bit of a mythomaniac. This might be his problem, it’s like he’s playing at being a saint…”
This new accuser was also one of the young men who Father Andrea had taken in, in order to prepare them for priesthood; he had participated in the Marian Pilgrimage in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus during the period 92-93, then he had been transferred to L’Aquila to start his theology studies. This is how he speaks of Father Andrea in his statement submitted to the First Instance Tribunal:
“At the end of the 80’s was when I met this father (…) I met him and he gave me a good impression… the impression he gave me was really good, a very charismatic person, who presented, let’s say it like this, the face of the Father in a really passionate, gratuitous way; in short, it was good to hear him talk…; this lead to my vocation and I started to follow Father Andrea… he was someone who gave, who gave me a lot.”
Since then, Antonio Tofanelli left and did not see Father Andrea D’Ascanio again. How can the statement of this migrating bird be given congruency who, in the first instance, states that he owed his vocation to his time with Father Andrea, and then goes on to define him, when he no longer sees him, as a “mythomaniac who likes to play at being a saint”?
The consideration we have just made, was duly taken into account by the judges of the First Instance Tribunal, who on page 101 of the acquittal judgment state:
“Brother Antonio Tofanelli is a young Capuchin (…) his testimony had the aim of giving credibility to the accusers of “sollecitatio ad turpia” (provocation of obscene things), particularly, for the case of Alessia Zimei. However, all the information that he handles to this regard comes from the accusers at the time of having established the group (June-November 1996).”
In other words, it states that Brother Antonio Tofanelli is a “hearsay” witness, and therefore only contradictions and offenses can be obtained from his statements.
Liliana Claps
The judges of the first tribunal, after having heard the testimony of Mrs. Liliana Claps, dismissed her as a witness, as can be seen on page 55 of the acquittal judgment: “Regarding the mental health of Mrs. Liliana Claps, it suffices to transcribe a few fragments of the statement she submitted to this court (…)”.
And precisely because the mental health of this person is so fragile, the spouses Domenico and Rosa Pelliccione picked her up in Potenza and took her to submit her testimony against Father Andrea D’Ascanio, first before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal and then before the Criminal Tribunal of L’Aquila. In both courts, her precarious state of mental health was pointed out.
After this, they continued to induce her with constant telephone calls, as can be seen from the telephone tapping operation ordered by the Tribunal of L’Aquila.
It is worth mentioning that it is a call from Mrs. Rosa Ciancia Pelliccione, in which she invites her to “reinforce” (??) her accusations, so that at last the “shackles can be put on” Father Andrea (telephone call no. 1130 dated the 13th of January 2000) and another in which Mrs. Claps says that she is “praying a lot so that, for the good of his soul, he (Father Andrea) gets cancer” (call no. 1859 dated the 4th of February 2000).
But the fact that her testimony was dismissed by the First Ecclesiastical Tribunal and by the Promoter of Justice himself, Don Marcuzzi, who received her testimony, had no weight at all for Chief Justice Davino, who declared on page 9 of the sentence against the defendant that he passed:
“omitting the testimony of L.L.C. that, according to the status of the deponent, could be considered rather the fruit of the exaltation than corresponding to the facts, although it is not our feeling (…)” (page 9)
Monsignor Davino never received Mrs. Liliana Loi Claps, but considers that it merits certain credibility and does not even perceive the contradiction thereof: he decides “to omit” this witness, “according to the status of the deponent”, so why does he place her again in the process? The answer is simple: because he doesn’t have any other witnesses who have the least validity and with whom he can support the process.
We all have the right to be personally “convinced”. But no judge, and much less an ecclesiastical judge who introduces his judgment with the phrase “In nomine Domini” (In the name of the Lord), should be able to condemn an innocent man based on the testimony offered by a psychotic.
Monsignor Vairo
“Without mentioning here the testimony of His Excellency Monsignor Vairo, Archbishop of Potenza…”
Monsignor Eduardo Davino also inserted among the “qualified” witnesses, Monsignor Vairo, 83 years old, in convalescence in a rest home in Potenza, also implicated by Giuseppe Molinari, according to the indications of Liliana Loi Claps.
The statements of this old Bishop turned out to be completely false, which was demonstrated during the investigation made by the lower Tribunal. The only point worth noting in his statement is indicated below:
“I was summoned in the D’Ascanio case by the Archbishop of L’Aquila, Monsignor Molinari, who at such time was the Coadjutor Bishop of such diocese.
Later confirmation of the extensive actions carried out by the Archbishop of L’Aquila against Father Andrea.
Monsignor Davino, aware of the fragility of these testimonies, brought Gabriele Nanni and Rosa Ciancia Pelliccione back again:
“And this is where the testimonies of Gabriele Nanni and Rosa Ciancia Pelliccione fit in”
Regarding Gabriele Nanni, we suggest visiting the following link:
(http://www.truthaboutfatherandreadascanio.net/don-gabriele-nanni-eng.php)
Talking about Rosa Ciancia Pelliccione, summoned on four occasions to submit her testimony to the First Instance Tribunal, with a total appearance time of 11 hours, on page 22 of the acquittal judgment, the following annotation can be seen:
Notwithstanding so many occasions and so much vehemence, constantly growing, to state before this Tribunal anything that may be in detriment of Father Andrea, Mrs. Rosa Pelliccione declared new and very serious facts to the Italian Magistrates (…) that she was made to suffer by Father Andrea D’Ascanio (cfr. Process record No. 643). The acts in question had never been informed to this Tribunal, on the contrary, they had been formally denied. In fact, in response to the explicit question of the Chief Justice: “Can you attest to that these facts (…) were committed by Father Andrea?”, to which she replied: “Personally, I cannot attest to them” (taken from the records of the process, No. 166).
Rosa Ciancia Pelliccione was the only witness heard by the Second Instance Tribunal, although it is true that it did not dare place her among its “principal witnesses”. Although Monsignor Davino did not recognize her as credible, her statements were used to “profile” a supposed “unmistakable climate of mysticism and subjection”, which supposedly ruled in the Armata Bianca.
His Excellency Monsignor Tarcisio Bertone
In the search for support of the sentence that had already been decreed, Monsignor Eduardo Davino appealed to Tarcisio Bertone, at that time Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
“It is added that, certainly, the witness Alessia Zimei whilst in the Congregation, had a meeting with the then Secretary thereof, His Excellency Tarcisio Bertone, and it is unbelievable that he did not appropriately assess the issue before starting the process”.
Monsignor Tarcisio Bertone “appropriately assessed the issue”, in fact, all the initiatives taken against Father Andrea D’Ascanio and the Armata Bianca are his, the main ones of which are listed below:
1st. On the 8th of December 1996 the ordaining of two deacons of the Armata Bianca was programmed in Quito (Ecuador). Everything was in order but, a few days before the ordainment, the Papal Nuncio, Francesco Canalini, wrote the following to His Excellency Monsignor Antonio Gonzalez, Archbishop of Quito:
Papal Nunciature of Quito, Ecuador, 27th of November 1996
Your Excellency,
I have the duty to inform you that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has gained knowledge that the ordainment into the priesthood of two young deacons belonging to the “Armata Bianca” Association or Movement is programmed for the 8th of December. In virtue of particular reservations of a doctrinal and disciplinary nature and given that the two young deacons have not received the necessary theological education with permanence in any seminary, I am sending you the instructions of the aforementioned Roman Dicastery, in the sense of abstaining from carrying out the programmed ordainment.
Sincerely yours. Francesco Canalini. Papal Nuncio.
The “instructions” mentioned above, come from His Excellency Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of the CDF.
The priesthood ordainment was blocked, although the stated reasons were not valid: “reservations of a doctrinal and disciplinary nature” never existed with regards to the Armata Bianca; the two deacons referred to had completed their studies in the Pontifical University and had attended the Cavanis seminary in Quito for almost two years, as testified by members of the Board of such institution:
“We declare that the two Italian seminarians lived in our seminary, forging a serious and responsible path of education for almost two years (…)”
2nd. Having returned to Italy, the two deacons in question were received by the Archbishop of L’Aquila, His Excellency Mario Peressin, who incardinated them in the diocese, after the due investigations and after ensuring that everything was in order, ordered that the ordainment would take place on the 1st of May 1997. Then His Excellency Monsignor Tarcisio Bertone once again intervened, who wrote the following to Monsignor Mario Peressin:
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 22nd of April 1997
File A.S. 503-04090
Your Excellency,
According to the indications that have reached this Congregation, on the 1st of May this year, Your Excellency has ordered the granting of presbytery in the diocese under your charge of two young men belonging to the association called the “Armata Bianca”. In virtue of the reservations of a doctrinal and disciplinary nature that exist regarding such organization and, above all, in consideration of the fact that such candidates have not attended any Seminary, this Dicastery is forced to intervene to prevent the ordainment of such young men before the Papal Nuncio in Ecuador.
Unfortunately, once again I have the duty to intervene, in mutual agreement with his Eminency the Cardinal Secretary of State and His Eminency the Cardinal Pio Laghi, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, to induce you to suspend the aforementioned priesthood ordainment.
With the certainty that His Excellency will prove his fidelity to the orders of the Holy See, I would like to take advantage of the occasion to reiterate my sincere affection.
The Devout + Tarcisio Bertone
The content is identical to that sent the first time, Monsignor Bertone added only that “both the Cardinal (Angelo Sodano) Secretary of State and Cardinal Pio Laghi”, agreed with this decision.
Monsignor Bertone, having dismissed the objections alleged the first time, intimidates Monsignor Peressin so that he accepts his arbitrary decision and with this end, requests the aid of the Secretary of State and of another powerful Cardinal.
Regarding the aforementioned veto, there was only a slight variation: the notification was given to the deacons in the afternoon of the 30th of April, i.e. 12 hours before the ordainment, with all the easily foreseeable consequences for their families and for the hundreds of guests that had come from different parts of the world.
The local press commented on the decision with sarcastic articles, in which it can be read that the two deacons were “left all dressed up and with nowhere to go”.
3rd. Monsignor Peressin, having established in the Vatican the inconsistency of the motivations of the veto, set a date, for the third time, for the ordainment of the two deacons: the 17th of May 1998. For which he requested authorization from Rome. In continuation, we will show the reply received on a piece of paper without a heading and with a non-handwritten signature, i.e., with a simple seal of the Prefect Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
28th of April
A.S.503
Your Excellency,
Regarding your letter No. 142/98 dated the 16th of March this year, in which His Excellency asks this Dicastery to raise the reservations regarding the priesthood ordainment of two deacons in order to allow them to receive the presbytery ordainment on the 17th of May this year.
In virtue of the foregoing, I would like to inform you that this Congregation, after having carefully assessed the particular circumstances of the aforementioned deacons and their involvement with the activities of the organization called the “Armata Bianca” and with the founder of such organization, regarding which a serious evaluation is underway by this Dicastery, considers that in order to be able to agree to your request, two important conditions will have to be met.
Firstly, His Excellency, in order to be able to grant the sacred ordainment of the presbytery to the deacons in question, should obtain the prior authorization and written consent of Archbishop Coadjutor, Monsignor Giuseppe Molinari, inclusively in consideration of the upcoming termination of his commission.
Secondly, it is necessary that the two candidates, before the eventual ordainment, state, by means of a written and signed statement, that they have the intention of dissolving any link or relationship they have or maintain with the association called the “Armata Bianca” and/or its founder, as well as stating their desire to place themselves at the service and total obedience of the Archdiocese and their own Minister.
Awaiting compliance with the indicated provisions, I do not want to miss the occasion to send you my kindest regards.
It is incomprehensible why the letter is not written, according to normal rules, on headed paper or why the signature of Prefect Ratzinger is not handwritten, but rather stamped with a seal. Who’s behind the stamped signature?
The deacons replied in this way to Monsignor Peressin, who had sent them a copy of the received letter:
L’Aquila, 7th of May 1998
His Excellency Reverend
(...) We have meditated and prayed long and hard about the proposal made to us by Cardinal Ratzinger, in the sense that in order to be ordained as priests under the conditions of signing a statement by means of which we definitely stay away from the Armata Bianca and its founder, Father Andrea D’Ascanio, “due to a serious evaluation” thereof.
(...) a statement of this type would constitute a real betrayal of the movement with which we have been collaborating for the last eighteen years, and would open the way for future slander against Father Andrea. We believe in the validity of the movement that Father Pius of Pietrelcina wanted; from Father Andrea we have received nothing but good things and we owe our spiritual way and our priesthood vocation to him. We have never “suspected of doctrinal and disciplinary errors”, as stated by the Congregation in the letter with which they blocked our ordainment into the priesthood. Nor has Your Excellency, who has known and followed Father Andrea and the Armata Bianca for many years, found “doctrinal and disciplinary errors”; nor have the Capuchin Superiors, with whose permission it has always worked.
What is behind this strange praxis?
It turns out now that, in order to be ordained as priests, we are asked to sign a statement in which we declare our intention to “definitively stay away from the Armata Bianca and its founder”. This condition is practically an accusation and betrayal against the Armata Bianca and against Father Andrea.
Serving God and the Church is our only aspiration, but we cannot start our priesthood under the sign of betrayal and slander, because before being priests, we want to be men.
Than-you for all your attention and we assure you that you are in the center of our hearts and in our prayers. We beg for your blessing always.
Sincerely yours. Your two deacons.
As a result, the ordainment was cancelled for a third time.
4th. Whilst, on the one hand Monsignor Tarcisio Bertone was busy blocking the priesthood ordainments of the deacons of the Armata Bianca; on the other, Giuseppe Molinari was busy finding witnesses and charges against Father Andrea D’Ascanio, using the “pool” headed by the Zimei family, particularly by Alessia Zimei and Gabriele Nanni, as has already been stated on this same site.
The charges against Father Andrea D'Ascanio
It is time to talk about the 21 charges on which the first ecclesiastical trial of Father Andrea D'Ascanio was established.
Here it is opportune to make a parenthesis. How is it possible that a priest who has done notable things (cfr www.armatabianca.org), who has enjoyed the esteem and trust of his Holiness John Paul II, who always followed and blessed his notable initiatives (for example, with his audience of 10,000 children, burying children who have died due to abortions, organizing the Marian Pilgrimage through all of the ex-Iron Curtain, consecrating millions of children, forming thousands of nests of prayer: the Pope knew about all of this and gave instructions through a Cardinal who was very close to him); who always worked in obedience and collaboration with his Superiors (it suffices to remember the Implantatio Ordinis of the capuchins in Rumania); who was taken in by dozens of Cardinals and Bishops in their initiatives; who in 42 years of religious life and 35 of priesthood, never received news of a single stain that could damage his conduct or morality... how is it possible that all of a sudden this priest should undergo an ecclesiastical process with 21 charges including almost all crimes possible contemplated in the Code of Canonic Law? Where do all these charges come from?
All this arises from the mind and heart of Gabriele Nanni, to later take form in Alessia Zimei, who made the project her own and signed it, as can be seen from her statements before the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Alessia Zimei, having just returned from Ecuador, went to look for Gabriele Nanni at the Probandate house of the Pro Deo et Fratibus de Civitella of Tronto (TE) and she was with him all day on the 2nd of November 1996 talking about “so many things”. Towards the end of this “chat”, Gabriele Nanni told her that he has “nine accusations against Father Andrea” (Page 3 of the second interrogatory of Alessia Zimei before the CDF).
Mr. Nanni confirmed that he was who wrote the submitted accusations, at the time of his deposition before the Tribunal: “there are several points, I think there were nine points, in which Father Andrea is not right” (page 19 of the first interrogatory of Gabriele Nanni before the CDF).
The “nine accusations” referred to were made official and through the Promoter of Justice (Public Prosecutor) Piergiorgio Marcuzzi, who then classified them into 21 crimes. But, once he had undertaken the task of multiplying the criminal classifications in the accusations of Gabriele Nanni, the Promoter of Justice realized the fragility of the list of accusations filed, which did not in any way guarantee the outcome of a sentence against the defendant.
4th. Once again with the intervention of His Excellency Tarcisio Bertone, who made a long and detailed study of the sins that may be committed against the sixth commandment, presumably broken by Father Andrea D’Ascanio, always and only always during the celebration of the sacramental confessions: a circumstance that, in the ecclesiastical world, converts a “sin” into a “crime”, which is sanctioned with the application of the provided maximum penalties.
And, with whom was Father Andrea supposed to have committed these crimes? Naturally, with Alessia Zimei, whom Monsignor Bertone, as had been done previously by Monsignor Molinari, made sign a circumstantiated report duly correlated with all the applicable ordinances of Canonic Law.
A perfect complaint, too precise to be prepared by a girl who did not have any ecclesiastical knowledge and who, when asked if anyone had helped her to write her complaint, and in view of the high degree of legal writing utilized in it, she replied that she was helped by Father Sebastiano of San Bernardino. The preliminary investigation gave the result, a fact presented in the Tribunal, that the Father who has just been mentioned, was an old and very tired Father, as well as knowing very little or nothing about Canonic Law.
The first instance Tribunal officially summoned His Excellency Monsignor Tarcisio Bertone to make a statement, who did not appear, “because he had already been involved in the filing of the court case” (cfr. Page 35 of the Acquittal judgment).
5th. “Those at the top” didn’t like the outcome of the judgment of the First Instance Tribunal, as such body had already foreseen (Page 37) and, just two days after such judgment was passed, an appeal was filed against it.
The composition of the new Tribunal was of the complete confidence of His Excellency Monsignor Tarcisio Bertone: the Public Prosecutor continued to be Pier Giorgio Marcuzzi and one of the two judges was Sabino Ardito, both Salesians and fellow disciples of his during their education.
The figure of the Chief Justice, His Excellency Monsignor Eduardo Davino, appeared widely throughout this disgraceful charade of a process: he never summoned the accused, did everything he could so that Father Andrea was defended by a court-appointed lawyer, did not accept the evidence offered by the defense that threw a lot of light on the process, such as the telephone taps, which were ordered by the Tribunal of L’Aquila, he only summoned one witness: Rosa Ciancia, who turned out to be a first-class liar, he did not take into account the 120-page acquittal judgment at all, which summarizes the more than 4000 pages of procedural records... and he passed judgment on 12 pages, of which only three are dedicated to the accusers examined in the previous process, whose testimonies were rejected due to considering them inadmissible. And he concludes such document as follows:
“The guilt of the accused has been sufficiently proved, in virtue of which the penalties provided in the Code for the crimes in question will be applied thereto.”
Therefore, the judges His Excellency Monsignor Eduardo Davino, Monsignor Brian Edwin Ferme, and Monsignor Sabino Ardito met and sentenced the case in the following way:
“Everything that has been seen until law, in fact and in law, by us, the collegiate second instance body, in the presence of God and invoking the name of Christ, we find the accused guilty of the crimes he is charged with...”
There’s no point talking about the serious penalties imposed on the “guilty” party, which have already been mentioned and which can be consulted on this site. In addition to the foregoing, they are known by all given that the leaders of the CDF disseminated them throughout the Catholic world.
But the judges overrated their role by placing God as the witness to their actions and by passing such judgment in the name of Christ, Truth and Life, whilst the true essence of the act they commit is the most serious sin that can be committed and which reclaims the vengeance of God: a voluntary homicide in detriment of the person of an innocent priest.
The thirty denari of 2,000 years ago have become 27.000 euro. But over the years things have improved: the 30 denari were given by the one who had commissioned the murder; today the 27.000 euro were paid by the one who must be murdered.
Why so much hate and persecution?
Soon we will be analyzing this question.