For months, a young Egyptian man was accepted as a priest in three Turin parishes. His purported ordination was exposed as fraudulent only after a parishioner raised the alarm. The archdiocese has acted against the impostor, but questions remain concerning the authority under which he ministered and the sacraments the faithful believed they had received.
It took a parishioner recognising something amiss in a photograph to expose a deception which had apparently escaped the attention of several ecclesiastical authorities. By then, the man calling himself Father Salam Faragalla had been celebrating what were believed to be Masses, hearing confessions and assisting in three Catholic parishes in Turin. He had been received by the local clergy, arrangements concerning his ministry had been initiated through the appropriate ecclesiastical offices, and his name had appeared in the diocesan directory. On Sunday, 1 November, the parishioners were informed that he was an impostor. Their astonishment was understandable. Among those who had trusted him were Catholics who had disclosed their sins in confession, believing they were receiving sacramental absolution.¹
The young man arrived in Turin in June, claiming to be a 25-year-old Egyptian priest belonging to the Coptic Church. He intended, he said, to continue his engineering studies at the Polytechnic University while exercising his priestly ministry. His documents appeared satisfactory, including an ordination certificate dated 31 January 2025. Father Davide Pavanello, parish priest of Santa Rosa da Lima in the Pozzo Strada district, welcomed him. Arrangements were reportedly initiated between the relevant Egyptian ecclesiastical authority, the Archdiocese of Turin and the Italian Episcopal Conference. He began concelebrating Mass and subsequently substituted for priests at San Leonardo Murialdo and Nostra Signora del Sacro Cuore di Gesù, where Father Giuliano Naso has pastoral responsibility. According to Father Naso, there was an interruption during July and August, making the frequently repeated claim of four months of continuous ministry inaccurate. The actual number of celebrations and confessions involved has not yet been publicly established.²
His supposed Eastern Christian background provided a convenient explanation for certain peculiarities in his manner of celebrating. Few Latin Catholics are sufficiently acquainted with the Coptic liturgical tradition to recognise whether a visiting priest’s ceremonial habits are authentic. Nor would most parishioners have thought it necessary to enquire. The young man had been welcomed by their clergy and recognised in the diocesan directory as a presbitero extra-diocesano, a priest belonging to another jurisdiction. Such an entry carries an assurance of ecclesiastical standing, whatever the administrative qualifications which may attend its compilation.
The deception unravelled following a telephone call to Father Naso from a parishioner who had seen the supposed priest’s photograph and was convinced that he could not be what he claimed. Father Naso initially feared that the allegation might be malicious, but brought it to the attention of Father Mario Aversano, the episcopal vicar for pastoral affairs. Further enquiries were directed to the Egyptian ecclesiastical authority, whose response reportedly arrived within a day. The documents had not been issued by the authority named upon them. The supposed engineering student was also found not to be enrolled at the Polytechnic. The archdiocese immediately removed him from ministry, deleted his name from its directory and reported the matter to the public prosecutor. Alberto Riccadonna, spokesman for Archbishop Roberto Repole, publicly described him as a fraudster. According to RAI’s Piedmont regional service, the young man subsequently disappeared from public view. Corriere della Sera cautioned that even his reported name and age had not been conclusively established.³
Father Pavanello’s reaction, recorded in a subsequent interview with la Repubblica Torino on 3 November, was notably charitable. He expressed no resentment towards the young man whose claims he had accepted, but hoped that he would repent and change his life. One would expect a Catholic priest to desire the conversion of someone who has deceived him, although the circumstances must have been particularly distressing. Father Pavanello had offered hospitality to a supposed fellow priest. The betrayal extended considerably beyond that personal kindness, however, and the parishes now have practical responsibilities towards those whose sacramental lives may have been affected.⁴
The speed with which the decisive confirmation was obtained from Egypt invites closer scrutiny of the original arrangements. The Italian reports describe procedures involving ecclesiastical authorities in both countries and the Italian Episcopal Conference. They do not establish precisely what was verified before the young man began exercising ministry, whether the procedures had been completed, or who permitted him to hear confessions. These omissions matter. A priest newly arrived from abroad may reasonably be offered hospitality while his credentials are examined. The decision to admit him to sacramental ministry requires certainty about matters which hospitality itself cannot establish.
There is nothing novel about the need for such precautions. The Church has for centuries employed commendatory letters, commonly called a celebret, to establish the standing of a priest seeking to celebrate Mass outside his own diocese. The Council of Trent insisted upon appropriate credentials for visiting clergy, and the discipline survived the subsequent codification of canon law. Canon 903 of the present Latin Code permits an unknown priest to celebrate upon presentation of suitable letters from his ordinary or superior, issued within the preceding year, or where it can prudently be judged that nothing prevents him from celebrating. This provision allows for reasonable pastoral judgement, particularly when priests travel. It assumes that the man seeking admission is actually a priest. A document recording an ordination is evidence of a sacramental fact which must have occurred; the document itself confers nothing. The authority said to have issued it remains the obvious source from which its authenticity may be confirmed.⁵
The Church’s requirements concerning confession are more exacting, because valid absolution ordinarily requires both priestly orders and the appropriate faculty. Canons 965 and 966 establish these conditions. The Latin Code further provides that a priest’s suitability for the confessional must be established, that his own ordinary should be consulted insofar as possible before a habitual faculty is granted, and that such a faculty is to be conferred in writing. Other provisions govern faculties already possessed by priests and their exercise beyond the territory in which they were originally granted. Whether the man in Turin claimed to possess an existing faculty, whether a new one was purportedly granted, or whether he was simply permitted to hear confessions without anyone establishing his canonical position, has not been disclosed. These are distinct possibilities, and the responsibility of the ecclesiastical authorities cannot properly be assessed until the facts are known.⁶
The uncertainty surrounding his claimed Coptic identity makes the original verification all the more important. The Coptic Catholic Church is an Eastern Catholic Church in full communion with Rome. The Coptic Orthodox Church possesses valid apostolic succession and sacraments but is outside full Catholic communion. Their clergy cannot be treated as though their ecclesiastical circumstances were identical. A Coptic Catholic priest may minister in a Latin Catholic parish subject to the relevant discipline and permissions. A Coptic Orthodox priest cannot ordinarily concelebrate with Catholic priests, as canon 908 expressly forbids such concelebration with ministers of Churches not in full communion. The available reporting does not consistently establish which Church the impostor claimed to represent. His ecclesiastical affiliation ought to have been settled before any decision concerning his ministry, particularly when differences in his liturgical practice were being attributed to an Eastern Christian tradition.⁷
The sacramental implications of the affair require some care, especially as the Italian reports have understandably concentrated upon the more unusual aspects of the deception. Catholic doctrine concerning Holy Orders is unambiguous. Priestly ordination confers an indelible sacramental character, enabling the recipient to act in persona Christi in the offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the administration of those sacraments reserved to the priesthood. The Council of Trent reaffirmed this teaching against the reduction of priestly ministry to an ecclesiastical appointment or function. Canon 900 accordingly identifies the validly ordained priest as the only minister capable of confecting the Eucharist. The outward performance of the ceremonies cannot supply an ordination which never occurred.⁸
The reports establish that the ordination documents presented in Turin were fraudulent and that the archdiocese consequently rejected the young man’s claim to priesthood. They do not provide a complete account of his identity or independently document every possible aspect of his religious history. The sacramental conclusions must therefore be stated with reference to the reported finding that he was never ordained. On that basis, any Mass he purported to celebrate alone was invalid. He could have pronounced the words of consecration accurately and performed the customary ceremonies with considerable familiarity, yet the bread and wine would have remained unconsecrated.
Some of the reported celebrations involved genuine priests, and this introduces a necessary distinction. Where a validly ordained priest properly celebrated Mass, the presence of the impostor pretending to concelebrate would not itself invalidate that priest’s consecration. Similarly, Hosts consecrated previously at a valid Mass would remain the Blessed Sacrament even if subsequently distributed by someone without priestly orders. Parishioners who received Communion from the young man should therefore be given an accurate explanation of the circumstances rather than left to suppose that every celebration in which he participated was necessarily invalid. The parish schedules and recollections of the priests concerned ought to make it possible to establish much of what occurred.
The position of those who confessed to him is more troubling. RAI TGR Piemonte reported explicitly that the man heard confessions during his time in Turin. The ordinary Catholic approaches the confessional believing that the priest possesses the sacred power to absolve sins and the necessary authority to exercise that power. He discloses matters of conscience under the assurance that the minister of the sacrament is acting in the place of Christ and is bound by the sacred obligations of his office. If the supposed confessor had never received Holy Orders, his purported absolutions were invalid. No permission granted by an ecclesiastical superior could have supplied the sacramental character which he lacked.⁹
Those affected should receive clear pastoral guidance without being subjected to unnecessary distress. Catholics conscious of grave sins which they confessed only to the impostor should approach a genuine priest, explain the circumstances and make a valid sacramental confession. Their good faith in having approached someone presented to them as a priest involves no personal culpability for the deception. The Church’s teaching concerning perfect contrition is also relevant. Where sorrow for sin proceeds from love of God above all things and includes the firm intention of receiving sacramental confession as soon as possible, forgiveness of mortal sin may be obtained before absolution is received. Such teaching has always been intended to reassure the penitent of God’s mercy while preserving the obligation to seek the sacrament instituted by Christ. Parishioners should be helped to understand their position privately, without being required to disclose the contents of their confessions to diocesan investigators.¹⁰
Nuntiatoria has recently examined related questions of sacramental validity and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in our commentary upon Cardinal Roche’s statements concerning the Society of Saint Pius X. In that controversy, the validity of the priests’ ordinations is recognised, while the juridical circumstances of their ministry and the faculties governing particular sacraments remain disputed. The Turin affair involves the more elementary question of whether the man had ever received priestly ordination. The distinction is important, particularly when the language of validity and lawfulness is employed without sufficient care. A validly ordained priest may exercise his ministry unlawfully, and in certain sacraments the absence of a required faculty may also affect validity. The power conferred by Holy Orders remains a sacramental reality, whatever subsequent questions arise concerning its exercise. In Turin, that foundational reality appears to have been absent.¹¹
The canonical penalties mentioned in some Italian accounts also require qualification. Suggestions that an impostor who attempts to celebrate Mass or hear confessions necessarily incurs automatic excommunication are inaccurate as statements of the present Latin law. Canon 1379 §1 provides for an automatic interdict in specified cases of attempted Eucharistic celebration and attempted absolution or prohibited hearing of confessions. Additional penalties, including excommunication, may be imposed according to the gravity of the offence. There is the further question of whether the individual concerned is subject to the Latin Church’s penal legislation, given that even his ecclesiastical affiliation has not been established. Canon 11 defines those bound by merely ecclesiastical laws, while the penal provisions themselves require the conditions for canonical responsibility to be satisfied. The alleged conduct is grave; its precise canonical consequences cannot responsibly be pronounced upon the available information. The reserved delicts concerning attempted Eucharistic celebration and absolution are likewise governed by the norms of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.¹²
There are other matters which may be less dramatic but remain important to the faithful. The young man reportedly received accommodation, hospitality and modest payments associated with his purported ministry. These circumstances may be relevant to the civil investigation, although the available evidence does not establish his motive. Any Mass intentions accepted for celebrations which did not sacramentally take place should be identified and fulfilled by genuine priests. The Church’s legislation concerning Mass offerings imposes obligations which cannot be discharged by an invalid attempted celebration. Records of intentions, parish schedules and the testimony of those who worked alongside the man should assist in establishing what requires attention.¹³
Father Naso deserves acknowledgement for pursuing the parishioner’s allegation despite his initial concern that it might prove malicious. His decision led to an effective investigation, and he subsequently explained the discovery to the faithful. According to la Repubblica, parishioners thanked their clergy for speaking plainly, notwithstanding their understandable distress. There is every reason to continue in that manner. A careful account of the celebrations affected, appropriate provision for renewed confessions, and the fulfilment of any outstanding Mass intentions would assist the parishes considerably. These measures should not depend upon the eventual outcome of proceedings before the civil authorities.
The Archdiocese of Turin acted promptly once the false documentation was confirmed. Its removal of the man and referral of the matter to the public prosecutor were appropriate. As of 6 November, the available local reporting has not established that the individual has been located or arrested, nor has it identified any formal criminal charge. There has been no detailed public account of the original verification process or of the pastoral arrangements made for those whose confessions and purported Masses were affected. Enquiries may well be continuing privately. The absence of published information should not be taken as evidence that no action is being undertaken, although the faithful require sufficient guidance to understand their own sacramental position.
What remains to be explained is the interval between the man’s arrival in June and the discovery of his deception. The Italian reports suggest that ecclesiastical procedures had been initiated, while also recording that the decisive confirmation from Egypt followed a parishioner’s warning. The responsibility for verifying the standing of visiting clergy belongs to those entrusted with their reception and supervision. Individual parish priests should be able to rely upon established procedures, and the faithful should be able to rely upon their pastors. Where those arrangements have apparently failed to establish the essential facts, an examination of the procedures followed is necessary both to identify the cause and to prevent a recurrence.
The Catholic Church has always regarded the priesthood as belonging to her divine constitution. The faithful receive the sacraments through ministers who have been constituted for that purpose, and the Church’s disciplinary arrangements exist in part to protect the reality of what those ministers administer. It is for this reason that questions of ordination, jurisdiction and faculties demand such precision. They concern what happens at the altar and in the confessional, where Catholics entrust themselves to the sacred ministry believing that Christ acts through His priests.
The parishioner who raised the alarm has performed a considerable service to the communities concerned. Father Naso responded appropriately, and Father Pavanello’s hope for the young man’s repentance reflects the charity which ought to govern the conduct of the clergy. The Archdiocese of Turin must now establish how the impostor was admitted to ministry and ensure that those affected receive the pastoral assistance necessary.
The most important question concerns the confessions. Someone evidently considered the man sufficiently qualified to hear them, or permitted him to do so without establishing the necessary qualifications. The Italian reporting has yet to identify who made that decision, what credentials were relied upon, or whether the appropriate ecclesiastical authority had ever confirmed his orders and faculties. Until those matters are explained, the circumstances which allowed the deception to continue remain unresolved.
¹ Federico Gottardo, “Don Salam, prete impostore diceva messa in 3 parrocchie smascherato dopo mesi”, la Repubblica, 2 November 2026.
² Giovanna Favro, “Falso sacerdote celebra Messa per due mesi a Torino: per don Salam è arrivata la denuncia”, La Stampa, 2 November 2026; ANSA, “Finto prete celebrava Messa, 25enne denunciato a Torino”, 2 November 2026.
³ Cesare Ferrari, “Smascherato il falso prete egiziano di Pozzo Strada”, Corriere della Sera, 2 November 2026; RAI TGR Piemonte, “Il raggiro di don ‘Salam’, finto prete egiziano che celebrava messa e confessava”, 3 November 2026.
⁴ Federico Gottardo, “Nella chiesa del finto prete: ‘Era credibile, ora si penta’”, la Repubblica, 3 November 2026.
⁵ Council of Trent, Session XXIII, Decree on Reformation, chapter XVI, 15 July 1563; Richard L. Burtsell, “Celebret”, The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 3 (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908); Codex Iuris Canonici (1983), canon 903.
⁶ Codex Iuris Canonici (1983), canons 965–973.
⁷ Codex Iuris Canonici (1983), canon 908.
⁸ Council of Trent, Session XXIII, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Order, 15 July 1563; Codex Iuris Canonici (1983), canon 900.
⁹ RAI TGR Piemonte, “Il raggiro di don ‘Salam’, finto prete egiziano che celebrava messa e confessava”, 3 November 2026; Codex Iuris Canonici, canons 965–966.
¹⁰ Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1451–1457.
¹¹ Nuntiatoria, “Cardinal Roche and the SSPX: Jurisdiction Is Not the Whole Answer”, 16 October 2026.
¹² Codex Iuris Canonici (1983), canon 11 and canon 1379 §§1–2; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Norms Regarding Delicts Reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”, 11 October 2021, arts 3–4.
¹³ Codex Iuris Canonici (1983), canons 945–958.
Leave a Reply