"The Christian faithful (…) have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful". (Code of canon Law Can. 212 §2-3)

"Communication both within the Church community, and between the Church and the world at large, requires openness (…) so as to promote a correctly-informed and discerning public opinion within the Christian community". (Apostolic Letter "The rapid Development" of the Holy Father John Paul II, 2005.1.24 n.12)

The two faces of Ecclesiastical Justice

The First Instance Process

1. The Collegiate Court: With a Decree dated May 26th, 1998, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ordered the constitution of a First Instance Court, whose members were the reverend Monsignor Joaquin LLOBELL, Chief Justice of this collegiate body, Investigating Judge writing the Court’s decision of the “Opus Dei”; the reverend Monsignor Domenico MOGAVERO and reverend Father Giuseppe Angelo URRU, Dominican, with the purpose of instructing the canonic criminal process against Father Andrea D’Ascanio, brother less capuchin. The Promoter of Justice (Public Prosecutor), Don Pier Giorgio MARCUZZI, Salesian. In his status of Patron (Defense Lawyer), Don Ennio INNOCENTI.

2. The Process: Following a long, in-depth, careful and objective examination, which lasted approximately 5 years, the process ended – a Fist Instance Judgment was passed on the 16th of April 2002, which was published on the 27th of September 2002 ­, the aforementioned judgment acquitted the accused of all charges, in virtue of the fact that the moral certainty of the guilt of Father Andrea was not demonstrated, because the facts did not subsist or could not be verified.

On the contrary, the judgment identified those responsible for a real “conspiracy” against Father Andrea D’Ascanio.

3. In order to better understand the meaning of this sentence, which was an absolute acquittal, it is worth pointing out at least the following key reading:

a) This judgment –a heavy study consisting of 121 pages- is well-balanced and reflects an extraordinary sensitivity, sincerity, moral force and coherence to the end by the Collegiate Judging Body.

b) The Court very honestly recognizes the long series of “special” difficulties that it has had to overcome in order to be able to have an objective idea of he facts, principally caused by determined attitudes and pressures, including certain ecclesiastical personalities, directed in a “single direction”, to blame Father Andrea at any cost:

(…) The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (…), from the start of the process, had only attended the accusers, whose credibility was heavily endorsed by His Excellency, the Reverend Monsignor Giuseppe Molinari, Coadjutor Archbishop of L’Aquila, friend of the principal accusers and, through them, of the others” (taken from the acquittal judgment).

c) The demonstrated honesty and value of the Collegiate Court is acknowledged, as it was fully aware that this acquittal would not be seen favorably by “those at the top”. In fact, the acquittal judgment was immediately appealed and a second instance process was filed. With this, the ecclesiastical judicial torture of Father Andrea D’Ascanio began over again.

Let’s take a parenthesis: His Excellency Monsignor Giuseppe Molinari and the usual accusers, having sensed that the process would have a favorable outcome for Father Andrea D’Ascanio, filed another two processes against him and the Armata Bianca: one of them before the Court of L’Aquila, to divest the Movement of its headquarters in Santa Apollonia (Sta. Maria delle Bone Novelle), having possessed such real estate in virtue of a gratuitous loan granted in its favor by the previous Archbishop, Monsignor Mario Peressin, the term of which was established as being twenty years; and another process, which was filed before the Criminal Court of L’Aquila, for the crime of “association with the purpose” of committing who knows how many crimes. At the same time, Father Andrea was also committed with the Minors Tribunal. Therefore, contemporaneously, he had to face the most absurd accusations, but on four judicial fronts.

In continuation we will examine these processes, one by one, starting with the second ecclesiastical process.

The Second Instance Process
: the other side of ecclesiastical justice

1. Introduction

a) The Promoter of Justice appeals the judgment.

Notwithstanding the completely positive outcome of the First Instance Judgment, in which the innocence of Father Andrea D’Ascanio is acknowledged, the Promoter of Justice, Don Piero Giorgio Marcuzzi, Salesian, on the 30th of September 2002, i.e. just two days after the publication of the First Judgment, appealed before the Apostolic Tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the same judging body of the CDF (Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith, according to its abbreviation in Italian), which had recently published the acquittal judgment. It is interesting to make the clarification that Don Pier Giorgio Marcuzzi, in the process that had just ended, did not file any objection to the arguments of the Defense.

b) The appeal is received.

The Moderator of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith received the Appeal from the Promoter of Justice and, by Decree dated the 24th of October 2002, constituted a Second Instance Apostolic Tribunal, which was integrated by His Excellency Monsignor Eduardo DAVINO, Chief Justice of the Collegiate Court, Investigating Judge writing the Court’s decision; Reverend Monsignor Brian Edwin FERME and Reverend Sabino ARDITO, Salesian, Don Pier Giorgio MARCUZZI, Promoter of Justice (Public Prosecutor), with the aim of instructing the Second Instance canonic criminal process against Father Andrea D’Ascanio.
We will talk about the defense counsel in continuation.

2. The anomalous proceeding of the CDF

The same judging body of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the intervention of the maximum exponents of the Dicastery, filed the appeal before itself in order to proceed with a new trial, whose judgment is “definitive, unappealable and which will be immediately enforced”, denying the legitimate right to turn to the Higher Body of the Apostolic Signature. A proceeding that is legally, morally and ethically surprising and inexplicable.

In the appeal, with a praxis that is not legally correct, once again Don Pier Giorgio Marcuzzi, Salesian, was named to act as the Promoter of Justice (Public Prosecutor), who had already performed this function in the First Instance process. He had to resign from the commission granted thereto for serious reasons of poor health, and died on the 12th of April 2003. Father Janusz Kowal, a Jesuit priest, was appointed to take his place.

Fro the start, the new Court demonstrated the feelings behind it, in virtue of the election of the Patron (Defense Counsel) of Father Andrea D’Ascanio and due to the constant requests for money.

3. The election of the Patron (Defense Lawyer).

The Court asked Father Andrea D’Ascanio to name the Defense Counsel who would be responsible for his defense:

Vatican City, Friday, 15th of November 2002
Rev. Father Andrea D’Ascanio
By mandate of the Chief Justice of the Court, I hereby notify you, in certified copy, of the RULING of the Chief Justice, in which you are granted a term of thirty days in which to inform this Court the name of your Patron, with a domicile for the serving of process, who will represent you in the Appeal Process.
Kindest regards.
Don Mario Ugolini. Notary.

Father Andrea D’Ascanio replied:

Maria, Queen of Victories! 4th of December 2002
(…) I propose Reverend Annibale ILARI as my Patron and defense counsel. (…).His domicile for the serving of process is in the basilica of San Giovanni in Laterano (Saint John of Letran): Piazza S. Giovanni in Laterano, 4 – Vatican City.
Kindest regards.
Father Andrea D’Ascanio

The Court challenges the naming of the proposed defense counsel:

Vatican City State Saturday 21st of December 2002
Rev. Father Andrea
By mandate of the Chief Justice, I hereby notify you that this Court does not consider it opportune for Monsignor Annibale ILARI to assume your defense in the case in question, in virtue of his old age (…) The Chief Justice of the Court, for the presentation of a new proposal for your Patron, grants you a term of 15 days, which will start as of the date on which this notification is delivered to you, after which, if this Court has not received your proposal, then it will proceed to appoint a Patron by appointment of the court, to whom you will pay the corresponding fees.
On an exclusively informative basis, this Court indicates the names of two possible Lawyers, one of whom may be chosen by you to take on such charge, these being:
- Father KOWAL Janusz, S.J.; Father PIACENTINI Ernesto, O.F.M. Conv.
(…) The Chief Justice of the Court –and I would like to add my own- sends you his best wishes in virtue of Christmas and the New Year.
Don Mauro Ugolini. Notary.

The intentions of the Chief Justice, His Excellency Monsignor Davino start to appear: that Father Andrea D’Ascanio faces the process with a court-appointed defense counsel who is absolutely trusted by the Court and to whom, in addition, he will have to pay “the corresponding fees”. Let’s make this clause clear, as the subject of the “fees” will be repeated, as we shall see.

Maria, Queen of Victories! 7th of January 2003
Your Reverend Excellency
This is a reply to the notification signed by the notary Don Mario Ugolini, by means of which I was informed that the Court over which you preside, does not deem it opportune “that Monsignor Annibale Ilari may assume my defense (…) in virtue of his old age.”
I would hereby like to state my rejection of the appointment by the Court of a Defense Counsel and once again propose the naming of Monsignor Ilari, a valid person, clearly and actively working as can be seen from his research and publications.
I fail to see how his “old age” constitutes an impediment, in virtue of the fact that he is the same age as his Holiness John Paul II and, notwithstanding this, our Holy Father governs the universal Church: Why is it impossible for a Lawyer of his age to take charge of the defense of a father in a process?
Thank-you for your best wishes that I return with my whole heart and greetings.
Father Andrea D’Ascanio

The Court insists on its position:

Reverend Father Andrea
(…) This Court does not consider the reasons adduced to approve the appointment of Monsignor Annibale Ilari as Patron and Counsel to be sufficient; therefore, the proposed appointment is challenged.
Anyway the Chief Justice of the Court, for the presentation of a proposal for the appointment of Patron and Counsel, grants you a new term of 15 days, which will start as of the delivery date of this notification.
If the granted term ends without having received your proposal, the Court will proceed to appoint a defense lawyer, to whom you should pay the corresponding fees.
In addition, the Chief Justice of the Court, in accordance with canon 1455, §3 of the Codex Juris Canonici, orders you to keep the purpose of the case in question secret, as well as those aspects related to the proceeding that is underway.
Sincerely yours
Don Mario Ugolini. Notary.

Obey, pay and be quiet, according to canon 1455, §3, which verbatim reads as follows:

“…as long as the case or evidence are of such a nature that the disclosure of the acts or evidence puts the reputation of other people at risk, cause disputes, produce scandal or similar inconveniences, the judge may bind the witnesses, experts, and parties (including their adversaries and legal representatives) to maintain secrecy regards the contents of the process).

With the terms of can. 1455, §3 is not possible to understand in wich sense is the reference to this article of the Code of canon Law, seing that Padre Andrea D'Ascanio - was NEVER convoked to the Court – he has never emitted any vow.

Father Andrea D´Ascanio was able to find a lawyer willing to help him and, just one day before the expiration of the term given to him, he informed the Chief Justice of the Court:

Maria, Queen of Victories! 4th of February 2003
Your Reverend Excellency:
In response to your notification signed by Monsignor Mario Ugolini dated the 18th of January 2003, received by your humble servant on the 20th of the same month, I propose Reverend Father Settimio MARONCELLI, from the OHM, Official of the Congregation for the Clergy and Professor of the Faculty of Canonic Law of the “Antonianum” Athenian Pontiff, as my Patron and Defense Counsel, with domicile for the serving of process located at Via Merulana 124b – 00185 Rome. Regards. Father Andrea D’Ascanio.

Due to an oversight of the post office, the envelope with this reply, sent by “certified mail”, was delivered to the Court a few days late. Meanwhile, the Chief Justice, Monsignor Davino ruled and issued the following Decree to the “Required Party”:

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Vatican City Friday, 14th of February 2003
In the name of the Lord.
In virtue of the fact that:
- the term of 15 days granted for the presentation of your confidential Patron has passed (…);
- the granted extension of 15 days for the presentation of your confidential Patron has passed (…)


The Reverend Father Janusz KOWAL, Jesuit Priest, is appointed as the court-appointed defense counsel of the Required Party.
(…) I order that the Required Party shall be responsible for the payment of the fees corresponding to the aforementioned Patron appointed by the court.
His Excellency Monsignor Eduardo Davino (Chief Justice).

Reply by the “Required Party”

Maria, Queen of Victories! 15th of February 2003
Your Reverend Excellency
(…) I would like to state to your Excellency that on the 4th of February 2003, I issued a letter sent by certified mail, in which I informed you of the name of my Defense Counsel of confidence in the person of Reverend Father Settimio Maroncelli from the Order of Minor Brothers.
I have attached the proof of dispatch of the missive and a copy of the letter in question.
Sincerely yours
Father Andrea D’Ascanio

His Excellency, Monsignor Davino, should have accepted the confidential Defense Counsel, and his actions only acted to prove the initial suspicion: his real intention was to take Father Andrea D’Ascanio to trial and entrust his defense to a defense lawyer appointed by and completely trusted by the Court, as suggested from the very beginning.

It is interesting to note that Father Janusz Kowal, a Jesuit, unable to be named as the Defense Counsel of Father Andrea D’Ascanio, was named Promoter of Justice, i.e., his public accuser. The twists in this process never cease to amaze.

Having closed the stage related to the naming of the “defense counsel”, who later becomes the “accuser”, let’s move on to examine the second point, highlighting certain fragments of the extensive epistolary exchange.

4. The ongoing request for money by the Chief Justice of the Court

a) The Chief Justice asks Father Andrea D’Ascanio for € 5,000.00

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Saturday, 29th of March 2003
Vatican City
(…) The Chief Justice of the Court, having examined the First Instance judgment published on the 27th of September 2002, in accordance with canon 1650 §2 of the Codex Juris Canonici, orders that Father Andrea D’Ascanio, from the Order of Capuchin Minor Brothers, should make a bond deposit for the sum of € 5,000.00 (five thousand Euros), by means of a non-negotiable cashier’s check, in the name of the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith- Court”, such document should be delivered to the Notary in the Clerk’s Office.
Kindest regards. Don Mario Ugolini. Notary.

Let’s examine the aforementioned canon:

Can. 1650 - § 2. The judge who has passed the judgment and, if applicable, also the appeal court judge, may order, by operation of law or by request of one of the parties, the provisional enforcement of a judgment that is not yet final or enforced; being able to utilize for this, the preventive measures they deem prudent, in the case of rulings or of compensation ordered for necessary sustenance; or for any other just cause.

The security provided by the canon, although not specifying what “any other just cause” means, can be ordered “by operation of law”, only in the case of “necessary sustenance”, of the party making the petition. Therefore, it should be concluded that the € 5,000.00 asked of Father Andrea D’Ascanio were to provide the Court with “necessary sustenance”.
An intensive epistolary exchange began between the “party on trial” who requests the exact grounds that form the basis of the request and the Court, which continues to renew the request, without offering any explanation:

Father Andrea D’Ascanio replies:

10th of April 2003
Your Reverend Excellency
(…) in your letter dated the 29th of March 2003, I was asked, in a term of 15 days counted from the reception of such notification, to make a bond deposit of € 5,000.00 (…), with all due respect, I request a reason that justifies the obligation to make the aforementioned bond deposit.
Sincerely yours.

In virtue of which the Court does not offer any reason, but rather limits itself to renewing the request for € 5,000.00 euros:

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Vatican City, Friday 11th of April 2003
(…) The President of the Court points out that the obligation to furnish the above bail is inferred from the final Verdict of the First Degree and in accordance with Can. 1650, §2 of the Codex Iuris Canonici.
Sincerely yours
Don Mauro Ugolini. Notary

Given that Father Andrea D’Ascanio did not make the payment, the Chief Justice of the Court once again requested the money:

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Vatican City Monday 26th of May 2003
Reverend Father
(…) the Chief Justice of the Court, his Reverend Excellency Monsignor Eduardo Davino (…) ratifies the obligation imposed on you to make a bond deposit for the sum of € 5,000.00 (five thousand Euros).
Awaiting your reply, I would like to send you my regards.
Don Mauro Ugolini. Notary

Father Andrea D’Ascanio again insists in his request to receive justification for it:

Rome, 11th of June 2003
(…) in response to your letter dated the 26th of last May (…), with all due respect I request that you inform me due to what I should the payment of the sum asked of me (€ 5,000.00: five thousand Euros). I don’t understand if the aforementioned sum refers to the provisions of canon 1650, given that the First Instance acquittal judgment is appealed by the Promoter of Justice.

The exchange of requests continues:

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Vatican City Wednesday, 25th of June 2003
Reverend Father
By order of the Chief Justice of the Apostolic Court, I hereby inform you, in virtue of your question in your letter dated the 11th of June 2003, that the sum of € 5,000.00 (five thousand Euros) should be paid in virtue of the provisions of the First Instance judgment of the criminal case in question, passed on the 27th of September 2002 (page 115); the clarification should be made that such judgment, notwithstanding the fact that it is confirmed or amended, maintains all its effects with regards to expenses.
Don Mauro Ugolini. Notary

Finally, an explanation is given about the request for payment of € 5,000.00, which is passed on the decision passed in the First Instance acquittal judgment, and more precisely, on the provisions of page 115:

In the Sate of the Vatican City, the parties take charge of the court expenses to the extent that the outcome of the case is not in their favor (cfr. Code of Civil Procedure, 1st of May 1946, Article 23). Applying this criterion to this case (cfr. Can. 19, 221 §1, 1752), the Court sentences the Archdioceses of L’Aquila – principal party not favored by the decision,, the foregoing in virtue of the fact that the case of this trial was filed before the CDF by His Excellency Reverend Monsignor Giuseppe Molinari- to pay four fifths of the amount established by the competent authority as the total of this first instance proceeding and Father Andrea D’Ascanio (or in his name, the Armata Bianca, in subordination, the Capuchin Order of the Minor Brothers), in his status as succumbing party to a clearly lesser degree, is sentenced to the payment of the remaining fifth of the aforementioned sum” (Taken from the First Instance acquittal judgment).

We don’t understand why the Court did not give this explanation from the beginning, despite everything, it is not legally correct, as was reported to the highest authorities of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

Rome, 28th of June 2003
(…) I have insisted to this Collegiate Body that it provide me with an explanation that justifies the payment of the aforementioned sum.
I would like to make it clear that my intention is not to delay the payment thereof, but rather to comprehend the logic underlying the repeated request for such payment. (…)
I hoped that as it is an appeal, the purpose of which has not yet been stated, and that a first instance judgment still subsists in favor of Father Andrea D’Ascanio, the decision related to the expenses would remain suspended until the resolution of the appeal process.
In truth, according to common law (…) in the case of applying canon 1650, it would be logical for the Collegiate Body to decree a ruling that would be equal for both Father D’Ascanio and his counterpart bound to the payment of the remaining four fifths.
A ruling of this kind would eliminate any suspicion of partiality in the case. (…)

The reply confirms the way of acting and request of the Court:

Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei
Vatican City, 17th of July 2003
(…) the obligation to pay the aforementioned sum has its own grounds in the provisions of the First Instance judgment, which, notwithstanding the fact that it is confirmed or amended, maintains all its effects with regards to expenses.
Therefore (…) I confirm the request made by the Chief Justice regarding the payment of the sum of € 5,000.00 (five thousand Euros) and I request you to rapidly comply with the provisions of the judgment in question. (…)”

As can be seen, the questions posed are not answered, above all the lack of the issuance of a “ruling with equal legal effects, both for Father Andrea D’Ascanio and for his counterpart, who is bound to the payment of the remaining four fifths”, i.e., for His Excellency Monsignor Giuseppe Molinari, as this “would eliminate any suspicion of partiality in the case.

Having made clear this latter anomalous praxis of the Court and of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Father Andrea D’Ascanio gives the Notary of the Clerk’s Office “the bond deposit “ of € 5,000.00 (five thousand Euros) and with it, ends this tiresome chain of events.
However, that was the first, but not the last:

b) The Chief Justice asks the “required party” Father Andrea D’Ascanio for € 10,000.00 (ten thousand Euros)

On the 6th of November 2004, Father Settimio Maroncelli, defense lawyer, asked His Excellency Monsignor Davino for an extension of the term for the submittal of the defense of Father Andrea D’Ascanio by means of a brief in which he reports that it has not been possible to submit the aforementioned defense in due time and proper form “due to an unfortunate and involuntary accident that happened to my computer: a virus literally destroyed all the file I kept on it, which included, unfortunately, the one corresponding to the defense I prepared for the Reverend Father Andrea D’Ascanio…”

The College of Reverend Judges receives the petition at a price of € 10,000.00 (ten thousand Euros):

The petition filed by the Reverend Patron is received, peremptorily fixing the date of the 2nd of January 2005 (…) In virtue of the granted extension, this Collegiate Body consider it prudent to impose a bond deposit at the rate of € 10,000.00 (ten thousand Euros) to be paid by the required party to the Apostolic Court in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith within a term of 30 days counted as of this notification.
His Excellency Reverend Monsignor Eduardo Davino. (signed)
Reverend Judge Monsignor Brian Edwin FERME. (signed)
Reverend Judge Don Sabino ARDITO, Salesian (signed)
Vatican City, 8th of November 2004

The “required party”, on the 2nd of December 2004, replied, requesting a legitimate explanation of this new request for money:

(…) I would like to ask this Apostolic Court for a timely clarification regarding the legal grounds on which the aforementioned bond is based and, precisely in this stage of the process…

To which His Excellency Monsignor Davino, Chief Justice of the Court, replied:

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Vatican City 10th of December 2004
(…) this Supreme Apostolic Court has received a petition dated 2.12.2004, which contained circumstances and reservations aimed at opposing the requirement of payment of a bond fixed at € 10,000.00 (ten thousand Euros), which was established on the 8th of November 2004.
To this regard, I would like to state to you that:
- the precautionary measure for the payment of a bond, as with any other court order, should be complied with expeditiously by its addressees;
- the imposed bond is legally based on the ruling that imposes it, this in accordance with the Code of Canonic Law.
Therefore, I reconfirm each and every part of the ruling of the Court dated the 8th of November 2004 and hereby inform you that the term for the payment of the peremptorily fixed bond is the 18th of December 2004.
(…) On the other hand, I would like to remind you of the need to act promptly given any provision ordered by the Chief Justice of this Supreme Apostolic Court, legally qualified subject and with full legitimacy, in the exercise of his functions.
+ Eduardo Davino. Chief Justice and Writer of the Court’s Decision

Obey, keep quiet and pay: “expeditiously”, “peremptorily”, “promptly”.

His Excellency Reverend Monsignor Davino, as a “legal” explanation, states that he is the “Chief Justice of this Supreme Apostolic Court, legally qualified subject and with full legitimacy, in the exercise of his functions.”

The “Required Party” draws a check for € 10,000.00 (ten thousand Euros).

c) The Court requests another € 12,000.00 (twelve thousand Euros) from the “accused”

This last provision imposed by the Supreme Apostolic Court on the “Required Party”, in virtue of the signed judgment, is the responsibility of the “accused”:

The expenses of the process, responsibility of the accused, are € 22,000.00 (twenty-two thousand Euros), which should be paid in this Court within a term of one month following the notification of this Judgment; from such sum, the previously paid € 10,000.00 (ten thousand Euros) should be deducted.
Let it be known to the parties.
Vatican City, 1st of February 2005
His Excellency Reverend Monsignor Eduardo DAVINO (signed)
Reverend Judge Monsignor Brian Edwin FERME (signed)
Reverend Judge Don Sabino ARDITO, Salesian (signed)

This second process began with the request for € 5,000.00 (five thousand Euros) and continued with the request for 10,000.00 (ten thousand Euros), and ended with the request for € 12,000.00 (twelve thousand Euros), giving an overall total of € 27,000.00 (twenty-seven thousand Euros).

27,000 Euros requested based on canon 1650 of the Code of Canonic Law for the “support” of a Court that:

- the “accused” was never heard;
- only one witness was ordered to appear;
- it did not want to take into account the telephone taps ordered by the Office of the Federal Attorney General in L’Aquila, which were carried out during the criminal process to which Father Andrea D’Ascanio was subject contemporaneously and from which the existence of a conspiracy can be unmistakably seen;
- passed judgment with a few pages, in which the “accused” was given the following sanctions:

(...) having examined the basis of the case and as so far been deduced from the facts and by law; we, the undersigned appeal Judges, having only God in our sight and invoking the Name of Christ, hereby resolving the appeal proceeding, rule and sentence in accordance with the following: the accused is found to be guilty of the crimes mentioned in No. 146 of the appeal and, therefore, is sentenced to:

1) obligatorily reside in any house of the Order of the Capuchins, which must be designated by the General Minister of the Order, with the explicit prohibition to reside in the territory of Abruzzo and Lacio; furthermore, he may not, without having first obtained the permission of the site’s Superior, leave the territorial limits of the diocese in which his domicile is located;
2) suffer the interdiction of relations of any type, including epistolary or telephonic ones, with the members of the Armata Bianca Association and other connected associations;
3) the power of the accused to hear sacramental confessions is revoked;
4) he is prohibited from celebrating the Holy Eucharist in public, as well as any other sacrament and Liturgy of the Word;
5) he is prohibited from predicating and exercising the functions of spiritual guide.

The penalties imposed on the accused lack a term, in virtue of which they can be considered to be a life sentence, which is made worse by the prohibition of seeing and contacting in any way the people with whom he has shared a spiritual path converted into experienced and witnessed Faith.

Father Andrea D’Ascanio obeyed the orders of the foregoing judgment and nothing has been heard of him for five years.

But, as the imposed penalties were not deemed to be sufficient, a ruling was passed to inform such sentence to the Religious Authorities of all the nations in which Father Andrea D’Ascanio worked with the Armata Bianca.
In Poland, during the Summer of 2005, in the sanctuary of Czestochowa, flyers were handed out informing of this sentence.
Four years later, in 2009, so as not to let the matter be forgotten, the Ecclesiastical Authorities were once again given the order, this time addressed to the “whole Catholic globe”, as passed in the ruling in question; to disclose the judgment once again to the public.

The International Committee will continue its publications in the near future