ROME – During the first hearing in a civil trial over the firing of a couple from their jobs at the Vatican Bank over a non-fraternization policy applied retroactively, they are asking to be reinstated and to be awarded damages for mobbing.
The couple, Domenico Fabiani and Silvia Carlucci, on Oct. 1, 2024, were fired from the Institute of Religious Works (IOR), colloquially called the “Vatican Bank,” after getting married on Aug. 31, in violation of a new law which they said was implemented after they had already announced their plans to marry.
According to the new law, published May 2, 2024, if two employees marry, even in a canonically valid ceremony, both contracts will be terminated after 30 days, unless one of them resigns.
The law specifically states that, “In order to ensure equal treatment, the celebration of a canonical marriage between an employee of the Institute and another employee of the Institute, or of other administrations of the Vatican City State, constitutes a cause for loss of hiring requirements.”
“The loss of employment is considered to have been overcome, however, for one of the two spouses if the other ceases his or her employment relationship with the Institute and with other Vatican administrations within 30 days of the celebration of the canonical marriage.”
Intended to be a standard non-fraternization policy aimed at ensuring proper functionality and avoiding conflicts of interest, the law, according to Fabiani and Carlucci, was implemented in May 2024, after they had already announced their intention to get married in February.
Speaking to Italian newspaper La Repubblica on the margins of a Jan. 30 hearing for the opening of a civil trial, Fabiani said, “When we informed the institute that we were getting married, we were fully in compliance with the regulation in force at the time.”
“After our publications, the institute sent out the new regulation via email, so they applied the regulation retroactively,” he said.
In terms of a potential reconciliation deal, Carlucci said, “We were never called, we never had any type of conversation with our managers and the director, we were only called to receive disciplinary notices, I don’t remember these moments of conciliation and I don’t have any memory problems.”
Fabiani said neither had received any other job offers to compensate for the loss of employment.
“I think it’s easy for anyone who has a family and has just taken out a mortgage for a family of five to understand,” Carlucci said, saying, “the Institute knew full well that deciding two months before the wedding whose head should be rolled off was humanly and economically inconceivable.”
The IOR insisted that the new law had apparently been in the works for some time, but they waited until the last member of a marriage between employees retired before implementing it.
Venerando Marano, the new president of the Vatican tribunal, presided over the hearing, asking both parties if they had considered a potential settlement.
However, the couple’s lawyer, Laura Sgrò – who represents a slew of high-profile clients in cases involving the Vatican – said they had not yet received an offer, but were “very willing to accept any possible solution,” and that they were “very sorry that we ended up here.”
Among other things, she argued that the couple, who have children from previous, annulled marriages to support, were not only fired unjustly, but that they also endured unfair treatment and suspensions for developments that were out of their control.
To this end, she said both Fabiani and Carlucci had been suspended and faced salary reductions, “in one case also because news, even if inaccurate, about them came out in the press and they knew nothing about it.”
“Their fault, according to the IOR, was to have spoken about it with their family members and with a representative of the association of lay employees of the Vatican outside of working hours,” she said, saying IOR rules would stipulate that they were not even able to tell their parents about the situation, and the potential risk to their wedding after everything had been organized.
She labeled the treatment of Fabiani and Carlucci as “mobbing” that continued over time and still affect the couple.
The IOR, however, maintains that the law is a standard policy that is common in financial institutions in order to prevent corruption or favoritism.
Roberto Lipari, the lawyer representing the IOR, said the institute had sought to meet all the needs of Fabiani and Carlucci, and that there were “several moments in which the parties could have resolved the issue differently.”
However, he said that now “the IOR believes that there is no room left for conciliation.”
The IOR, Lipari said, “is not a moralizer of people’s private lives.”
“It intervened in this case because the evolution of the people’s private lives determines consequences on the possibility of the functioning of the institute and therefore the institute must intervene to safeguard the independence, objectivity and coherence that the IOR must offer to all employees,” he said.
Fabiani and Carlucci requested to be reinstated and asked that judicial documents regarding the case be sent to Pope Francis as a final recourse, a request Lipari said was “totally inadmissible.”
“We hope in the Holy Father because the situation that has arisen with a family that finds itself with two adults without work is in contradiction with the just speeches that the Holy Father makes on the defense and construction of the family,” Fabiani said.
Given the nature of the case, Marano described the situation as being characterized by “complexity and delicacy,” and insisted on the possibility of a settlement.
The IOR has said it will not be making any statements at this time, but highlighted the “path of renewal undertaken 10 years ago, adopting the best international practices in the financial services industry and fully interpreting the spirit of change assigned to it by law.”
Even if Pope Francis, who last year applauded the marriage between two employees of the Vatican’s communications department, at which such non-fraternization policies are not in place, gets the documents of the IOR, it is unlikely he will intervene, since he himself approved the institute’s new rules, issuing new norms specifically targeting nepotism and conflicts of interest.
This Vatican Bank controversy is unfolding at a time when Vatican employees are generally expressing concern about the impact of financial reforms on their compensation and working conditions, as well as a lack of dialogue with their superiors.
In recent months, the Association of Lay Vatican Employees (Advl) has issued several statements voicing frustration with working conditions and interaction with authorities, and they have also noted the contraction in the pope’s pro-family and pro-labor messages with the severity with which Fabiani and Carlucci have been treated.
Follow Elise Ann Allen on X: @eliseannallen
