A week after his appointment as Deputy Secretary of State, Archbishop Paolo Rudelli promptly arrived at the Vatican, where he [...]]]> On March 28, two weeks after his appointment as Archbishop of Lodz, Cardinal Konrad Krajewski took possession of his see, fulfilling his promise to ensure that a bishop would lead the diocese by Easter.

A week after his appointment as Deputy Secretary of State, Archbishop Paolo Rudelli promptly arrived at the Vatican, where he met the staff, introduced by none other than the Secretary of State himself, Cardinal Pietro Parolin.

Leo XIV appointed new members to the Dicastery for Communication—an expected but carefully calculated decision. The Pope’s choices sent a clear message: his priorities and vision would now set the tone for communications.

At the same time, an international scandal erupted when the subscription magazine The Free Press revealed that the former nuncio to the United States, Cardinal Pierre, had been summoned to the Pentagon. It reported that the Catholic Undersecretary of Defense had implied that the Holy See should align with the United States, drawing a comparison to the Avignon period when the Church was under the influence of French kings. This event further illustrates the complex environment facing Leo XIV’s reforms.

This reconstruction, to be fair, was later denied by Cardinal Pierre and the Undersecretary of Defense, who described a cordial and respectful atmosphere. It is very likely that it was an informal conversation—also because the nuncio is not summoned to the “Defense Ministry” but rather to the Foreign Ministry—and that it was recounted somewhat breathlessly, which ultimately led the journalist to write as he did.

These four events might seem unrelated at first glance.

A closer look reveals a subtle, connecting theme: the Pope’s leadership style and priorities as seen through reforms, appointments, communication strategy, and diplomatic engagement. By examining these connections, we can better understand the Pope’s approach.

First of all, these events determined the speed with which the Pope implemented reforms. He thought carefully, listened to everyone, and perhaps seemed slow to make a decision. But when he decided, Leo XIV decided relentlessly, without hesitation, and expected his decisions to be implemented.

The rapid move and Rudelli’s equally rapid arrival at the Secretariat of State demonstrate the Pope’s desire for rapid change when necessary. Moreover, Rudelli possesses another characteristic beloved by the Pope: institutionality. Indeed, he chose to occupy the substitute’s apartment in the Third Lodge, forgoing the isolated apartment that his predecessor, Pena Parra, had chosen for himself in the Second Lodge, where the diplomatic staff is located.

Second, these events illustrate how Leo XIV implements generational change. The new members of the Dicastery for Communication were eagerly awaited, as the last appointments were in 2021 and all members had therefore expired.

In choosing the new members, Leo XIV made a clear choice: he included the two pro-prefects of the Dicastery for Evangelization (Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle and Archbishop Rino Fisichella), as well as the preacher of the Pontifical Household, who in recent memory had never been included as a member of a dicastery. He also included several presidents of continental episcopal organizations, but there are no Europeans among the new members. There is one cardinal, Cristobal Lopez, Archbishop of Rabat, who has a solid background as a journalist but is at heart a missionary who has lived the life and walked the missionary walk.

In short, Leo XIV seems to be thinking of the Holy See’s communication as something that must first and foremost reach the ends of the earth. No longer just the voice of the Pope, but the voice of the people. Above all, the idea is to develop evangelization.

This could also lead to a reform of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Communication, which currently has both institutional and pastoral roles, as well as news distribution, under its purview. Many hope that the Holy See Press Office will once again report directly to the Secretariat of State, so that official communications will be directly linked to the Pope’s Secretariat, without excessive bureaucracy.

We’ll see.

Meanwhile, Leo XIV will have to appoint a new Prefect of Communications by the end of the year, given that Paolo Ruffini’s term expires. The choice of Ruffini’s successor will be a further signal: will the Pope again choose a layperson, or will he opt for a cleric?

Evangelization also shapes Leo XIV’s diplomacy.

In his Easter urbi et orbi message, he broke with tradition. Leo XIV addressed political leaders head-on, demanding they lay down arms and open direct dialogue. When President Donald Trump declared his intention to destroy a civilization, Leo XIV responded decisively, calling Catholics to mobilize for peace and studiously omitting mention of Trump by name.

His message was unambiguous: the Pope sets principles; Catholics must act with conviction.

Leo XIV’s diplomacy defends principle and personal responsibility, rising above partisanship. The Pentagon meeting with Cardinal Pierre is a telling example: discussions of U.S. positions may have occurred, perhaps Avignon was referenced, but interpreting this as a threat is unsound.

The dialectic has changed. The signals being sent are different.

Leo XIV called for disarmament, and this is one example where language must be disarmed to avoid narrative conflict. Leo XIV’s pontificate, however, is unmistakably coming into is own, characterized by careful and deliberate reform, the revival of institutional symbols, and unflinching clarity of communication. The Pope’s direction is ‘Leonine.’

It’s early for final judgments, but the direction seems clear.

It was a powerful gesture, not only in that it showed a pontiff hale and hoary—like John Paul II early in his pontificate, and also Paul VI, who established the tradition of the Way [...]]]> Leo XIV personally carried the Cross through all the fourteen Stations of the Cross at the Colosseum on Good Friday.

It was a powerful gesture, not only in that it showed a pontiff hale and hoary—like John Paul II early in his pontificate, and also Paul VI, who established the tradition of the Way of Cross at the Coluseum—but also one who understands the power of symbolic actions. Leo XIV’s gestures are deliberate and rooted in Christian and “Roman” tradition. This is a key to understanding his pontificate.

Choosing the mozzetta on official occasions, returning to the washing of the feet with priests as apostles at Saint John Lateran, and personally carrying the Cross (or the monstrance, as he did during the Corpus Domini procession) all signal his intent to center the Church’s identity.

By drawing on these traditions, Leo XIV presents faith as the foundation of the Church’s message to the world, emphasizing the power of symbols over rhetoric.

Starting from this premise, the Pope decided to carry the Cross, emphasizing that in suffering, our eyes must be on Christ. Through this gesture, he aimed to disappear and leave Christ in the foreground, as he stated in his first papal homily in the Sistine Chapel.

The Pope also made the Christians’ global cry for peace all the more vivid.

It’s no accident Leo XIV chose Father Francesco Patton, a Franciscan and former Custos of the Holy Land, to write the meditations for the Stations of the Cross. On the eighth centenary of Saint Francis’s death, a Franciscan from a conflict zone delivers a message of peace.

Peace has been at the heart of Leo XIV’s efforts from the very beginning of his pontificate, when, emerging from the Loggia of Blessings for the first time, he invoked the “unarmed and disarming” peace that only Christ can give.

Leo XIV’s appeals for peace have increased in both frequency and intensity, resonating in his homilies and public appearances.

In his Palm Sunday homily, for example, he declared: “This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace…who does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war and rejects them, saying: ‘Even if you multiplied your prayers, I would not listen: your hands are dripping with blood’.”

In his Easter Sunday Urbi et Orbi address, Leo was arguably more urgent and resounding.

“In the light of Easter,” he said, “let us allow ourselves to be amazed by Christ!”

“Let us allow our hearts to be transformed by his immense love for us!” Leo said. “Let those who have weapons lay them down! Let those who have the power to unleash wars choose peace!”

Those are strong words of admonition and exhortation, spoken unflinchingly to the powerful, but the fact is that Leo XIV’s appeals gain fleeting attention before receding into obscurity. This underscores a disconnect between the Pope’s symbolic communication strategy and the actual influence of his message in today’s media environment.

In his newsletter “Newman,” a couple of weeks ago, Matteo Matzuzzi discussed claims of papal silence. Leo XIV is criticized for not speaking clearly about the Palestinians, not directly condemning Israel, and not addressing major conflicts. Critics see his silence as a reluctance to take a stand or side with history.

Matzuzzi raises the key issue: Should a Pope take explicit political positions, or should he instead set a general direction and empower Catholics to act? This question lies at the heart of current debates over papal communication and the efficacy of Leo XIV’s chosen approach.

In the final analysis, the Holy See is a global player.

The Holy See maintains diplomatic relations precisely because those relations allow the Holy See to defend the poor and the underprivileged, and the Pope is called to take this into account.

Leo XIV’s aim is unity and peace, placing Christ at the center and encouraging Christians to act with faith. His messages often repeat the theme that the priest is an alter Christus, drawing believers to focus on Christ-driven action.

The contrast with Pope Francis’s extemporaneous interventions and willingness to enter direct political debates highlights the main argument: The effectiveness and reception of papal communication depend on whether the Pope speaks as a participant or as a guiding symbol.

Francis’s outspoken approach generated immediate engagement but also blurred the Holy See’s unique diplomatic role.

This pleased the press, who saw in Francis a genuine way of doing things, and also a champion of all their battles, a “crazy horse” who was destined to create confusion in the Church, in fact opening it up to modernity.

Francis’s “maverick” style, however, had some serious consequences – likely unforeseen and unintended – which remain in need of address.

Diplomacy is a whole language, after all, and abandoning it speaks volumes.

For Pope Francis, discarding diplomatic language also diminished the Holy See’s influence; addressing immediate issues through encyclicals and non-universal documents has made the Pope one global player among many, not a prophetic figure; pursuing peace agreements at any cost—beginning with the controversial bishops’ agreement with Communist China—shows the Holy See will take any measures to reach pragmatic goals.

History has given us a Pope (Francis) who was widely heard, even controversial, as he was divisive, attacked, and praised from all sides. The Francis pontificate, in its turn, left a Holy See weakened in a crucial historical moment.

In recent years, the Holy See has seen its diplomats expelled from Nicaragua, had three mediation attempts fail in Venezuela, and has sent appeals for an end to the war in Ukraine that have fallen on deaf ears and leaving the Holy See basically to retreat into a mainly humanitarian rather than a diplomatic mission.

Leo XIV is restoring the symbols, but he hasn’t yet restored the respect they command.

He’s acting in a rapidly changing environment where communication is extremely fast, so the lack of an immediate response seems to be a disadvantage. But he’s acting first and foremost for the Church.

This displeases many, who wish to influence the Pope. William McGurn wrote a harsh editorial criticizing the Pope’s lack of position, noting Iran can’t be helped by homilies.

These criticisms overlook the Pope and the Holy See’s main purpose: to provide balance and seek peace. The Church’s social doctrine is its tool, but actual implementation falls to others. The Pope sets the vision; action requires responsibility from all.

It’s an incredibly synodal approach, according to the best discernible meaning of the term, yet it’s contested by all those who have truly championed synodality. Synodality should function as a kind of democratization of the Church, but when it comes to ideology, a position must be taken.

Perhaps for this reason, papal appeals now encounter media indifference.

While past debates over the papal media presence suggested a possible dilution of the message, today’s environment often sidelines the Pope’s attempts at mediation—illustrating the challenge of having impact through symbolic communication alone.

On Good Friday, Leo XIV carried the Cross, and in the Easter Urbi et Orbi, he launched his powerful appeal for peace.

The hope is that the Church will also rise again, and that the Holy See will once again have an impact on the fate of the world. It doesn’t have to be a visibleimpact; it doesn’t need headlines. It must have a real effect.

In a message to the French bishops gathered in Lourdes for their periodic plenary assembly, the Pope expressed his hope that the Holy Spirit would move the bishops to find “concrete solutions [...]]]> With a shrewd and thoughtful statement, Leo XIV simultaneously refocused and relativized the issue of the use of the ancient rite.

In a message to the French bishops gathered in Lourdes for their periodic plenary assembly, the Pope expressed his hope that the Holy Spirit would move the bishops to find “concrete solutions that will allow the generous inclusion of those who sincerely adhere to the Vetus Ordo,” i.e., the older rites, “according to the guidelines established by the Second Vatican Council regarding the liturgy.”

This is a clever statement for a couple of reasons, not least because it cites the guidelines for reform established by the Second Vatican Council, which created space for the bishops to operate without breaking with Pope Francis’s stated goals for restricting the Traditional Latin Mass in 2021, while also conspicuously omitting mention of Francis’s highly unpopular Traditiones custodes, the motu proprio by which he restricted the old Mass.

Leo XIV demonstrated his desire to go beyond Pope Francis, in other words, seeking a “liturgical peace” that would be of great service to the Church today. Leo also acknowledged – though without laying blame – that Pope Francis, with Traditiones custodes, had created a rift that would be very difficult to heal.

Leo XIV, faced with a Church in France questioning the ever-increasing number of adult baptisms in a generally traditional faith, emphasized that no, those faithful who feel closest to the ancient rite cannot be sidelined.

The Pope’s move is interesting, because it suggests that the issue could be overcome. Moreover, in France, even a non-traditionalist bishop like Cardinal Jean-Marc Aveline, now president of the French bishops, celebrated in the ancient rite precisely to avoid losing a significant group of faithful who nevertheless remain within the fold of Catholic tradition.

The topic is broad. In the face of growing secularization, we are seeing an ever-increasing interest in the Church’s tradition, also reflected in the use of the ancient rite. The return to the Church and to faith is also being observed in countries like Switzerland, where the bishops’ portal catt.ch has dedicated a major survey to the return of faith and the growth in adult baptisms.

The achievement of liturgical peace would be a great one for Leo XIV and for the Church.

Since the Second Vatican Council, the topic of liturgy has become heated, creating divisions and placing Christians in a before-and-after situation, either on one side or the other. Leo XIV wants to absorb these divisions and restore them to unity. He wants to do so—as the letter demonstrates—starting from a local perspective, resolving each case individually, without changing Pope Francis’s provisions, but simply not fully implementing them.

It is a wise decision, which also marks a turning point in the pontificate.

Leo XIV meets and listens to everyone. The audience granted to Gareth Gore, author of a highly critical book on Opus Dei, caused a stir, but was really apart of Leo’s “listening campaign” and of a piece with the pontiff’s practice of maintaining contacts with journalists he knew in Peru.

He is a Pope attentive to public opinion, but not for this reason a slave to it. Gore has asked the Pope to establish a commission of inquiry into Opus Dei, but it is not a given that the Pope will follow up on the request, especially since the Church has the resources to understand situations within religious organizations.

Listening, however, does not mean subservience. The Pope gathers information and weighs before making decisions.

The topic of liturgy is crucial, and indeed, a first test was the dialogue with the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X when it announced its intention to ordain new bishops without a papal mandate. Even before that, Leo XIV had sent a message to the Paris-Chartres pilgrimage last summer, which was significant, considering that the pilgrimage was launched by an association of TLM devotées.

Across the board, Leo XIV is working to harmonize the Church’s government.

In this sense, Leo XIV is seeking profiles with very specific characteristics. The Curia’s latest appointment is that of Australian Bishop Anthony Randazzo as Prefect of the Dicastery for Legislative Texts.

Randazzo comes from far enough away not to become a slave to Roman procedures, but he has lived in Rome long enough to understand how the Curia operates. Randazzo was, among other things, an official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as prefect. Randazzo therefore brings a traditional mindset rooted in the ways of the Curia in the late 1990s, as well as the pastoral experience of a bishop from the other side of the world and a certain ability to address major challenges without too much fanfare or visibility. This is what Leo XIV sought.

Renzo Pegoraro, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy for Life, was highly visible. Leo XIV granted him the title of archbishop, effectively reinstating the principle that heads of dicasteries and pontifical academies should be archbishops, in collegiality with the Pope.

All eyes are now on the Dicastery of Communication, especially since it would make sense to replace a layman like the current prefect, Paolo Ruffini, with a cleric. It would demonstrate how this pontificate is taking a clear direction: No break with the previous pontificate, but a clear return to a pontificate that is “Roman” in form (with all dicastery heads at least archbishops, i.e., in collegiality with the Pope) and institutional in its ways.

In the meantime, it seems that the Pope will also finally starting the reshuffle of the Secretariat of State: according to rumors, Archbishop Edgar Pena Parra will be nuncio to Italy,  Archbishop Paolo Rudelli will be the new sostituto,  Archbishop Petar Rajić will be the new Prefect of the Pontifical Household. These appointments might be effective after Easter, while it is also possible that the Pope will promote archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, currently the Vatican’s “foreign minister”, and will then have a new minister for relations with the States.

Leo’s pontificate, in short, is increasingly appearing as one that does not seek a break, but rather seeks the opportunity to lead the Church into the middle of the 21st century and beyond.

For Leo XIV, a generational change is needed.  But above all, people must be brought back to the faith and nurtured in it. Liturgical peace will help to do this. Institutional adjustments will allow the Pope to act as Pope.

In just the last week, two events have demonstrated specific characteristics of Leo XIV’s pontificate: The ruling issued by the appellate tribunal of Vatican City, which could flip the [...]]]> As we approach the first anniversary of his election, it appears Leo XIV is beginning to reveal the contours and the substance of his reign.

In just the last week, two events have demonstrated specific characteristics of Leo XIV’s pontificate: The ruling issued by the appellate tribunal of Vatican City, which could flip the script on the so-called “trial of the century”; the convocation of the presidents of the world’s Episcopal Conferences to commemorate the tenth anniversary of Amoris Laetitia.

These two events appear to be completely unrelated, and indeed they are.

The first—the court order—is not even a decision of Leo XIV, but more likely a consequence of the change of pontificate, where there is no longer a Pope to intervene during the process and somehow shape its outcome. The second, a direct decision of the Pope, shows us something very important about how Leo intends to follow Francis.

Both developments tells us something, somehow, about who Pope Leo XIV is and about how he actually governs.

The Vatican appeals court’s order concerns the so-called “ Becciu trial” over the management of the Secretariat of State’s funds.

The trial concerned in part Cardinal Becciu and his decision, as deputy, to send aid to a Caritas cooperative in his home diocese, as well as his relationship with self-styled humanitarian worker Cecilia Marogna for the release of several hostages. The crux of the case, however, was the Secretariat of State’s investment in a luxury property in London, which resulted in a huge loss after several changes of ownership and the subsequent refusal of the Institute for the Works of Religion to assist the Secretariat of State with a financial advance, ultimately leading to a formal complaint and proceedings.

During the 86 hearings of the first-instance trial, which ended with the conviction of nine of the ten defendants, resulting in 38 years of imprisonment and about €200 million in fines, the defendants repeatedly argued that the trial itself had been “distorted” by several issues.

First, the documentation made available by the Promoter of Justice (the Vatican prosecutor ) was riddled with redactions, making it difficult to contextualize. These redactions were later revealed when they were published in a different, related investigation, which also revealed a relationship between the Promoter of Justice and two individuals who had influence over Monsignor Alberto Perlasca. This latter was first a defendant, then a key witness, and ultimately considered only a person informed of the facts in the trial.

The second issue is that Pope Francis published four rescripts during the investigations that changed the laws on the fly. These rescripts had remained confidential and were disclosed only during the trial, making the defense’s work even more complex.

All these issues arose during the first-instance trial, but to no avail.

The presiding judge, Giuseppe Pignatone, while ensuring maximum transparency and the ability to question and cross-examine, nevertheless failed to address the issue. The ruling immediately appeared highly questionable, also because the reasoning, in some cases, did not demonstrate “proven” guilt.

The appeal process, however, was immediately different.

The presiding judge, Archbishop Alejandro Arellano, opened the door to the possibility of disqualification of the Promoter of Justice Alessandro Diddi, as requested by the defense. The Promoter of Justice then abstained from proceeding with the trial, a decision that ultimately prevented the establishment of his responsibilities. Thus, the Promoter of Justice’s appeal itself was declared inadmissible, due to obvious procedural flaws. Finally, on March 17, with a 16-page order, the Court of Appeals declared the first-instance trial null and void, upholding many of the defense’s reservations.

The conclusions of the first-instance trial remain valid, but the hearing will be retried at the second-instance trial because the defense was unable to gain a full understanding of the situation and because Pope Francis’s rescripts had effectively created the conditions for a “paradigm shift” in Vatican City criminal law highly unfavorable to the defense.

In a brilliant bit of juridical prestidigitation, whatever one thinks of its substance, the judges did not overturn Pope Francis’s decisions. They simply declared the consequences null and void, and restarted the proceedings not from the beginning, but from the moment they entered the case.

Basically, the judges avoided saying that Francis lacked the power to do what he did – he was the absolute sovereign of the Vatican City State, after all – but they did find that he did not effectively do what he tried to do, because the rescripts were improperly executed from a technical-precedural point-of-view.

This is not a damnatio memoriae, but it certainly reopens the proceedings.

Despite their “diplomatic” caution—if one may say so—it is clear that the new trial could lead to completely different conclusions from those of the first instance.

We’re not starting from scratch, in other words, but we’re starting over—and this this is the central characteristic of Leo XIV’s pontificate.

The debate over continuity or discontinuity with Pope Francis is sterile because Leo XIV himself isn’t interested. He will make corrections where he deems necessary, but without repudiating what came before.

The appeals court applied this reasoning. But it did so because it is the Pope’s reasoning. And it is evident in the convocation of all the presidents of the Episcopal Conferences for the tenth anniversary of Amoris Laetitia.

The debate over Amoris Laetitia developed primarily around a note that seemed to allow divorced and remarried people to receive communion. This issue had caused considerable confusion among the faithful, given a text that nonetheless reaffirmed fundamental questions of the faith and had also led to the famous dubia of four cardinals.

Those dubia had remained unanswered, many of the cardinals who had raised them had since died, but now Leo XIV is starting from there. He doesn’t demonize the exhortation; he doesn’t establish a new procedure, but simply celebrates the document’s tenth anniversary, recalling it in a text that highlights all the uncontroversial passages, and convening all the presidents of the episcopal conferences for a debate to update them.

This doesn’t mean the exhortation will be disavowed. It does, however, mean that the exhortation will be viewed in a different light.

The contours and substance of the pontificate, in short, seem to be emerging as follows: No break with the past, but rather adjustments, corrections, and clarifications, in an attempt to remain in line with the history of the Church, which certainly did not end with the pontificate of Pope Francis, just as it did not end with previous pontificates.

This is why we shouldn’t expect any major revolutions from Leo XIV.

Everything will change in due time. But in the meantime, Leo listens. And, step by step, he takes action if he deems it appropriate. It’s not a revolution, it’s not a restoration.

Quite simply, it is a pontificate: Leo XIV’s pontificate.

Cardinal Konrad Krajewski was appointed Archbishop of Lodz. This move ends his more than thirty years of association with the Vatican. Above all, he is relinquishing the leadership of the Office of Apostolic Charities.

In his place, Leo XIV has [...]]]> Leo XIV’s move to the Papal Apartment coincided this week with a significant appointment.

Cardinal Konrad Krajewski was appointed Archbishop of Lodz. This move ends his more than thirty years of association with the Vatican. Above all, he is relinquishing the leadership of the Office of Apostolic Charities.

In his place, Leo XIV has called an Augustinian, Bishop Luis Marin de San Martín – who is now given the title of Archibshop. Until now, Marin de San Martín had been undersecretary of the Synod of Bishops. The Pope gives him the title of “archbishop”—the title that belongs to an Almoner.

This change is important for four distinct reasons, each marking a shift in approach.

The first reason concerns how the Pope is assembling his team. An Augustinian is appointed Almoner and head of the Dicastery of Charity, strengthening the Augustinians in the Pontifical Family. The Sacristy of St. Peter’s Basilica and the parish of Sant’Anna in the Vatican are also entrusted to the Augustinians. Leo XIV adds another Augustinian, creating the impression of forming his own pontifical family that shares the same language and knowledge. In a future transition, the Pope may restore the Office of Almoners as a personal office rather than a Curia dicastery, returning to the ancient tradition of papal charity and freeing it from bureaucracy.

The Almoner sits to the Pope’s left during state visits, while the Prefect of the Papal Household sits on his right. This post was vacant under Pope Francis but may soon be filled by Archbishop Petar Rajić, the nuncio to Italy.

Rajić, from papal diplomacy, will bridge to the Secretariat of State. Leo XIV balances naming a prefect connected to the Secretariat of State with appointing an Almoner he wholly trusts. Marin came to Rome as the Augustinians’ librarian at the request of Father Robert Prevost, who was then Prior General.

In short, the papal family is being reconstituted.

Leo XIV seems very attentive to balancing the two. First, he rebalanced the group of aides by appointing a former Swiss Guard alongside a former gendarme. Now, he is restoring the ranks of the old Papal Household by placing a member of his own order alongside a person of diplomatic rank.

The second reason is that Leo XIV is beginning to build his own team, and, above all, is doing so outside the circle that once surrounded Pope Francis. Krajewski was highly esteemed as an almsgiver. His role as a helper and supporter of the poor made him excellent in this position and beloved by Pope Francis. As a result, the Pope decided to create him a cardinal to emphasize that even the Pope’s “charity” should have a red hat alongside “faith”—that is, alongside the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Krajewski was a visible expression of Pope Francis’s pontificate. He undertook highly publicized humanitarian missions and sent thank-you letters to sponsors. His visibility even led him to illegally restore power to a group occupying a building in Rome. After standing alongside John Paul II, serving under Benedict XVI, and becoming Pope Francis’s right-hand man, Krajewski returned to his homeland. For the first time, he is an archbishop of a diocese.

He was sent to Lodz, a complex archdiocese left vacant by Cardinal Grzegorz Ryś, who was appointed Archbishop of Kraków.

This was not a promoveatur ut amoveatur — literally “promote in order to remove” – if only because Krajewski was already a cardinal. Still, it leaves one wondering how Leo XIV would assemble his team. He seems to do so without disruption, taking advantage of opportunities and striving for harmony.

The third reason shows the Pope’s desire to restore a more institutional profile and surround himself with men suited to this end.

This desire was evident from the start of his pontificate, when he decided to don the mozzetta. For example, Bishop Luis Marín, in an interview, explained that Pope Francis had been an exception; nevertheless, the Pope’s choir dress remains white and red, reflecting, among other things, a typically Augustinian manner.

The appointment of Archbishop Filippo Iannone as Prefect of the Dicastery of Bishops is an institutional appointment. The appointment of Bishop Marin as Almoner is also an institutional matter. The selection of four new auxiliaries to the Diocese of Rome, all from Rome, as well as the restoration of the central sector, are institutional matters. Soon, an institutional appointment will designate a new Prefect of the Papal Household.

Much more will be possible when Leo XIV chooses his replacement, a key figure in the Secretariat of State and, in effect, the Pope’s first collaborator.

The fourth reason concerns the future of the Synod of Bishops.

Cardinal Mario Grech, the Synod’s Secretary General, immediately pushed to maintain the synodal process’s timeline as conceived. Leo XIV spoke from the start about “synodality” as a hallmark of his pontificate. The Synod’s General Secretariat continued to publish documents, maintain working groups, and advance along its path without disruption.

But the decision to remove Marin carries considerable weight. Leo XIV removes a trusted man from the Synod just as the Synod seeks new impetus. Who the Pope will choose to succeed Marin as undersecretary remains to be seen.

Marin’s departure also suggests, above all, a dismantling of the Synod Secretariat’s structure. In any case, the decision implies—rightly or wrongly—that the Pope does not intend to give the Synod Secretariat the full importance it once had under Pope Francis.

Are we witnessing a new and different synodal momentum? Certainly, four points of interest accompany the appointment of the new Almoner and Krajewski’s departure. These are food for thought. Meanwhile, the Pope continues his institutional journey and returns to live in the Apostolic Palace. This seems to be a moment of great change.

If confirmed, it would mark the beginning of a broad domino effect sweeping Vatican appointments, extending from the [...]]]> Rumors swirled last week surrounding the future of Archbishop Edgar Pena Parra, Sostituto of the Secretariat of State, some of them saying the long-serving papal “chief of staff” will become the pope’s next nuncio to Italy.

If confirmed, it would mark the beginning of a broad domino effect sweeping Vatican appointments, extending from the Secretariat of State to the Prefecture of the Papal Household, a veritable revamp of the government team.

One key element, however, would remain: Cardinal Pietro Parolin as Secretary of State.

Let’s proceed in order.

Ever since Leo XIV’s election, it has been rumored rumored that the Pope would replace the Secretary of State. The Sostituto – a powerful position inside the Roman Curia requiring arguably the closest day-to-day contact and collaboration with the pope – manages affairs and is responsible for the Pope’s autographed replies to various queries.

Basically, everything passes through the sostituto, who is incidentally the only senior official who can regularly walk in to see the pope without an appointment.

It stands to reason, then, that Pope Leo XIV should desire someone he knew and trusted to fill the role, someone who wasn’t a holdover from the reign of his immediate predecessor.

Leo, however, decided not to appoint a successor to Pena Parra immediately. There were at least two good reasons for that. First, Leo XIV wanted a complete handover, and therefore wanted to understand all the files and matters handled by the sostituto before proceeding with a changeover.

Second, moving Pena Parra from the sostituto’s role is not a simple matter, because the only real promotion is to the cardinalate. For this reason, a post as head of dicastery was also being considered.

Instead, the idea of sending him as nuncio – that is, returning him to the active diplomatic service – has gained traction. Some have mentioned the prestigious United States nunciature for him, but having a Venezuelan ambassador in Washington would likely have been complicated.

The nunciature in Italy is prestigious, but more remote from the halls of Vatican power than mere geography suggests. Pena Parra would be the third non-Italian in a row to hold the post, after Pope Francis, by appointing Archbishop Tscherrig (later a cardinal) to that position in 2017, broke the unwritten rule of long standing, according to which the nunciature to Italy should have an Italian in the top job.

If Pena Parra becomes nuncio to Italy, it means the current nuncio, Archbishop Peter Rajic, is destined for a new assignment.

The new post would be that of Prefect of the Papal Household, as early rumors have long suggested. Leo XIV would thus restore the role of head of his “family,” while it is possible that a new post will be found for the current regent, Monsignor Leonardo Sapienza, whose place would be taken by the current vice-regent, Father Eduard Daniang Daleng OSA.

There is also talk of a new assignment for Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, Vatican Minister for Relations with States, who could leave Vatican foreign policy to take up a post as head of acurial dicastery. This post would no longer be—as previously rumored—that of prefect of the Dicastery for Integral Human Development, which would instead be assigned to Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, who would be called from Luxembourg.

The Sostituto’s desk would then remain vacant.

That would mean an open place for Archbishop Gabriele Caccia, currently the Holy See’s observer to the United Nations. Caccia was an assessor at the Secretariat of State when Parolin was undersecretary for Relations with States and was ordained bishop and appointed nuncio for the first time alongside the current Secretary of State in 2009.

The grand return of Caccia to Rome, however, is not a foregone conclusion.

Caccia is also considered a prime candidate to become nuncio to Washington, and in both cases, he would have the strong support of Cardinal Parolin, who could work with a friend in Rome or rely on a trusted person to manage relations with the United States, at a particularly delicate time in history.

In all these scenarios, Cardinal Parolin emerges as the clear winner.

Everyone thought Leo XIV would replace the Secretary of State, but not only has this change not happened, but it doesn’t even appear close. At a time when at least five heads of department will have to be replaced because they have reached retirement age – Czerny , Semeraro, Roche, Koch, Farrell (plus You, who turns 75 in November) – even changing the Secretary of State or the rest of the team would create too great a power vacuum, and an even greater management challenge.

Parolin thus remains the man of continuity.

If Rajic becomes Prefect of the Papal Household, the Secretariat of State’s request, which has always preferred a diplomat to lead the Pope’s family, will have been granted. It’s worth remembering that it is the Prefecture of the Papal Household, not the Protocol Office of the Secretariat of State, that manages the official audiences the Pope grants to heads of state and government.

If Caccia were to become a deputy or nuncio, Parolin would work with a trusted man. If Pena Parra were indeed appointed nuncio to Italy, Parolin would be the only person with strong influence in the Apostolic Palace, while his replacement would receive a transfer that doesn’t even include a promotion, and therefore smacks of punishment.

Pope Francis was often styled “the pope of surprises” but the Leonine pontificate has already shown how surprising it can be. So perhaps, for the substitute role, we can also expect Leo XIV to choose from among the ranks of Vatican diplomats and look to a trusted man outside the Vatican Secretariat of State, or at least outside any preconceived notions.

That would demonstrate the Pope’s willingness and ability to discern among government choices he can delegate and those in which personal relationships and trust need to take priority.

Certainly, Leo XIV’s appointments reveal a different nature and approach to managing problems compared to the previous pontificate. While Francis loved to divide, create asymmetry in government, and shuffle the cards, Leo XIV prefers to unite, maintain cohesion, and rely on those familiar with the territory or the procedures.

Leo’s preferences in these regards are also demonstrated by his appointment last week of four new auxiliaries of the diocese of Rome, all Roman priests – a choice that runs counter to the trend set by Pope Francis, who called diocesan bishops from outside.

This is also demonstrated by the choice of Archbishop Filippo Iannone as prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops.

It is demonstrated by his choice of his personal secretaries, both young and without any experience of the Curia.

If this is the Pope’s general line, then we can expect some surprises in key positions. The generational change will likely be slow, but it could also lead to a new face in Church governance.
When that happens, we will stop seeking continuity and discontinuity with the previous pontificate.

It will simply be the pontificate of Leo XIV.

The news has circulated through the Vatican grapevine, with some trepidation.

Leo XIV’s move to the Apostolic Palace will, in [...]]]> Last February 18th, the scaffolding inside the papal apartments in the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican came down, a sign the the traditional pontifical abode is ready for Pope Leo to take up residence.

The news has circulated through the Vatican grapevine, with some trepidation.

Leo XIV’s move to the Apostolic Palace will, in fact, symbolically concludes a transition. In some ways, at least, it represents a return to normality, of a piece with Leo’s habitual use of other trappings of papal office, like the mozzetta, which Pope Francis had consistently refused to wear.

The return to the Apostolic Palace, however, should not be interpreted as the closing of Pope Francis’s parenthesis.

It represents, perhaps, something different, the beginning of a pontificate linked to the past but not disconnected from the one that preceded it. Leo XIV will not be a pontiff of rupture, nor of restoration, and he will probably not even be a transitional pontiff. He will, more likely, be a pontiff called to restore order and harmony.

Leo will be a builder not of bridges but of their foundations, because, ultimately, in a time of crisis of faith, a heritage of culture and education of the highest caliber has been squandered.

What brings me to these conclusions? Essentially,  three events from last week, all three revealing in some way, the first of which is the publication of the papal travel itinerary.

The Pope will spend the first anniversary of his pontificate, May 8th, in Pompeii to pray to the Virgin Mary, and then in Naples to meet with the people there.

On May 23, the eve of the 11th anniversary of the promulgation of Laudato Si, Leo XIV will be in Acerra, in the so-called Italian “Lands of Fire,” where “fire” refers to burned waste and pollution that causes tumors and diseases.

On the afternoon of June 20, Leo XIV will be in Pavia, where Saint Augustine, the inspirer of the religious order to which he belongs, has his resting place.

On July 4th, the 250th anniversary of the United States’ Independence Day, Leo XIV travels to Lampedusa, and it is a very strong symbolic sign: the Pope, who comes from the United States, and who will not return to the United States to celebrate his nation’s quarter-millennium, will celebrate July 4th in a place where migrants land, while the government of his native land aggressively pursues a policy of expulsion.

On August 6, Leo XIV returns to Assisi to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the passing of Saint Francis, and on August 22, he will be in Rimini to participate in the Rimini Meeting, a major event organized every year by Communion and Liberation.

These announced trips are all small signals.

The focus on the ecological theme developed by Pope Francis remains, but there is also considerable room for popular devotion. The Pope sends a “political” message with his visit to Lampedusa, which was Pope Francis’s first trip, but at the same time, he decides to attend an event of Communion and Liberation, a movement considered conservative and currently too closely aligned with a political faction.

In short, the Pope doesn’t detract from the previous pontificate but adds and enriches its legacy with nuance, seeks to broaden the perspective, and engages in dialogue, even with those who seemed to be outside it.

The second event is a non-event.

On February 19, Leo XIV met, as Popes always do at the beginning of Lent, with the clergy of the diocese of Rome, of which he is bishop. The appointment of new auxiliaries of Rome was expected, but this appointment was not announced. This doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future. But it demonstrates how unpredictable the Pope is in this regard.

The appointment of auxiliaries is necessary. Pope Francis not only eliminated the historic center sector from the Diocese of Rome—later restored by Leo XIV—but he also effectively transferred all auxiliary bishops. Almost all of the sectors into which the Diocese of Rome is divided have been entrusted, in the last year, to episcopal vicars, and in total, there are three active bishops serving in the Diocese of Rome, including Cardinal Vicar Baldassarre Reina.

This is an interesting fact, considering that Pope Francis had appointed up to eight auxiliary bishops for his diocese.

Leo XIV should not proceed with major upheavals,  such as promoting the current episcopal vicars to the rank of bishop. This decision demonstrates his prudence, but also his desire to maintain a connection to the territory, since all episcopal vicars are Roman. What we observe is a reversal of the trend: Pope Francis, instead, brought auxiliaries from other dioceses to Rome, almost as if to break a pre-established pattern.

That Leo XIV did not make the announcement also demonstrates that the Pope does not intend to proceed with a shakeup but wants to normalize and harmonize a situation that has been exceptional for over a year.

The third event concerns the dialogue with the Lefebvrians, and it is here that the complexity of the legacy left by Pope Francis is most evident.

As was to be expected, the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X rejected the preconditions for the theological dialogue proposed by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, namely, acceptance of the Council and a dialogue on certain topics, with the condition that they not proceed with the episcopal appointments already announced.

But, in responding to the Vatican, the SSPX also reversed the issue. It noted that the previous pontificate had always spoken of a canonical-pastoral right, as well as of the right to be heard, and that, therefore, rather than threatening schism or serious sanctions, one could act instead in accordance with charity, understanding that the Society’s sole purpose is to care for souls.

Furthermore, the Society noted that the demand for a dialogue on the basic principles of faith to bring about reconciliation between traditionalists and Catholics cannot even be undertaken, simply because the Church’s tradition is non-negotiable.

The response sets the difficulties created during Pope Francis’s pontificate in high relief. Synodality today also represents a weapon in the hands of the traditionalist world, which Pope Francis had initially flattered and with which he abruptly cut off all possibility of dialogue in 2017—as the Superior of the Society, Father Davide Pagliarani, also recounts in the letter sent to Cardinal Fernández.

It is well known that the management of the traditionalist crisis is the first significant test for Leo XIV. At the same time, the prudence in choosing new bishops, as well as the messages sent by his choice of trips to Italy, demonstrate that Leo XIV does not want to abandon the entire legacy of Pope Francis. There is continuity, which is the continuity by which the Church lives.

The great challenge now is to find coherence and carry forward the decisions, both pastorally and in terms of governance.

The transition from the Franciscan era to the Leonine seems endless, and perhaps it never will really end, or at least never end with any discernible sign. Seamlessness occasionally appears to be the goal of the reigning pontiff.

Only when Leo XIV has clearly outlined the transition will it be possible to understand the true shape of this pontificate.

Heading into the meeting, however, the parties understood their conversation would be the first of [...]]]> There was much anticipation surrounding the announced meeting between the prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, and the Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, Fr. Davide Pagliarani.

Heading into the meeting, however, the parties understood their conversation would be the first of many. It remains to be seen how Leo XIV intends to address one of the first crises of his pontificate.

There is plenty of unfinished business from the Francis pontificate – think only of the case of Jesuit Fr. Marko Rupnik or the ongoing Vatican City courtroom saga over the management of the Secretariat of State’s funds – but the business with the SSPX is the first “fresh” ecclesiastical crisis of the Leonine era.

The traditionalist crisis is nothing new.

Every Pope since the Vatican Council II has inherited it, and its general plan is a holdover from a debate that has been outdated for many generations.

Paul VI found himself in a dramatic dialogue with the founder of the SSPX, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, then Pope St. John Paul II had to confront the question of the schism created by illegitimate ordinations, and Benedict XVI offered a liturgical opening but asked the Society to sign a doctrinal preamble the SSPX couldn’t accept (or at any rate, didn’t). Francis granted faculties and other accommodations to the priests of the Society, but never really took any steps toward the resolution of the underlying issues.

Leo XIV will have to find his approach.

The February 12 meeting concluded as expected, with a promise of dialogue and a threat of non-dialogue. The promise of dialogue is that of a doctrinal journey that clarifies certain issues of the Second Vatican Council, including those of the SSPX, in order to define the minimum fundamental requirements for full communion.

Upon reflection, this is somewhat less than the doctrinal preamble that Benedict XVI asked to be signed.

Benedict XVI could not accept the SSPX’s version that the Council was a historical event, but merely pastoral, and that its developments could therefore be contested or disregarded. And this was not because Benedict XVI was a progressivist, but because he understood “the council of the Fathers,” its difference from the “Council of the media,” and the need to defend it despite published opinion.

The threat of non-dialogue stems from the fact that the Holy See has officially asked the Society to desist from new episcopal ordinations and explained – in words – that any such ordination would cause a schism, and that schism would cause all dialogue to cease.

Leo XIV decided, as was natural, that the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith should address the issue.

The absence of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, responsible for the dialogue with the SSPX since the original SSPX episcopal ordinations, is something Vatican insiders feel keenly, or ought to feel.

Francis suppressed the Ecclesia Dei commission and folded its responsibilities into the Doctrine dicastery (then styled the CDF) in 2019.

And perhaps a natural consequence will be to reinstate a commission like Ecclesia Dei, or at least a permanent dialogue committee, precisely to delicately foster dialogue. A commission like Ecclesia Dei, however, also opens the possibility of reinstating other commissions.

During the Francis pontificate, many internal commissions had been abolished or abandoned, while the Pope formed new and provisional ones (the CRIOR on the IOR, the COSEA on administration, the committee and commission for the reform of Vatican communications, the Council of Cardinals itself) and abandoned those that had remained active in the past.

For example, there was no further news of a meeting of the Commission on China called by Benedict XVI, and Ecclesia Dei was suppressed ahead of Francis’s crackdown on the traditionalist movement with the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes and its subsequent application, which effectively repealed the liberalization of the ancient rite authorized by Benedict XVI.

So, maybe we will get a new (old) Commission.

Then again, maybe the SSPX will decide to proceed with the threatened ordinations anyway, basing its decision on what it considers a loophole in canon law, according to which one cannot incur an excommunication if the person committing an act potentially subject to the penalty did so in the face of a grave situation.

This is a completely subjective assessment, even within the Code, which is why it has been repeatedly stated that the excommunication of the Lefebvrian bishops, later revoked by Benedict XVI amid much controversy, was never valid in the first place.

The fact is that, beyond subjective facts and interpretations, when the Pope formalizes the excommunication, it’s done, and there’s nothing to be done. The goal today is to avoid reaching that breaking point, to find some form of dialogue, even if that means dragging out the debate and waiting for it to be absorbed.

This isn’t a decisive crisis for the pontificate, that’s for sure, but it is a crisis that may tell voluminously about Leo’s governing style.

Leo proceeds through institutional channels—the competent Dicastery—and doesn’t personally engage in dialogue because he doesn’t feel the necessary charisma to move things forward. He demands that everyone act according to justice.

Above all, Leo XIV waits.

He makes decisions when they are inevitable and irrevocable, and for this reason, he thinks carefully before deciding.

Whether this is the best strategy for the traditionalist world remains to be seen. It’s also true, however, that the followers of the ancient rite are growing, and they’re young—just think of the annual traditionalist pilgrimage from Paris to Chartres, which brings together thousands of young traditionalists. It’s a segment of the Church that cannot be ignored. In a time of crisis in vocations, the traditionalist world can be a reservoir of new faith or the cause of schism and division.

The Pope will have to decide how to proceed, and every decision will be a revelation.

Popes generally chose among those they held in highest regard, often ahead of an important assignment [...]]]> The choice of preachers for the Lenten Spiritual Exercises has always had a special significance, and Pope Leo XIV’s choice of a Trappist bishop from Norway to offer this year’s retreat to the Roman Curia is no exception.

Popes generally chose among those they held in highest regard, often ahead of an important assignment or promotion. In some cases, the choice has even foreshadowed election to the See of Peter.

This was the case with Karol Wojtyla, whom Paul VI introduced to the Curia by having him preach the Lenten Spiritual Exercises of 1976. It was the case with Joseph Ratzinger, whom John Paul II chose as preacher for the Lenten Spiritual Exercises of 1983, upon his arrival in Rome.

Benedict XVI almost always chose cardinals, also to give the position greater authority. Pope Francis almost always chose friars or priests—even though one of the latter, Fr. Angelo de Donatis, would later became the Pope’s Cardinal Vicar for the Diocese of Rome—perhaps also to demonstrate how the Pope knew to look after the least important and those who could cause problems.

Leo XIV, in his first choice, named Bishop Erik Varden of Trondheim.

A Trappist with a traditional cast of mind and strong personal piety, Varden will bring his experience as a preacher to the Curia.

It is perhaps telling as well that the Exercises this year will be held in the Pauline Chapel of the Apostolic Palace, rather than in the hill town of Ariccia outside Rome—as was the case during much of Pope Francis’s reign—nor in the Redemptoris Mater chapelof the Palace, where they were held under both John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

The Redemptoris Mater, it happens, is decorated entirely with the works of disgraced celebrity artist and accused serial abuser, Fr. Marko Rupnik.

The choice of Varden is telling in itself.

Varden comes from a Lutheran but largely agnostic family. He converted to Catholicism at fifteen years old after hearing Gustav Mahler’s “Resurrection” Symphony. He has a strong spirituality. His latest book is “Chastity,” and he is generally known for maintaining a strong connection to the Church’s tradition, while integrating it into contemporary times.

The appointment reveals much about Leo XIV, his personal spirituality—a key to which he has already identified in a book by the 17th century Carmelite friar known in religion as Brother Lawrence, posthumously compiled by Fr. Joseph de Beaufort: The Practice of the Presence of God —and his desire not to rush ahead on tradition and Church doctrine.

The world is contemporary, but the Church is not antiquated. Indeed, there remains a powerful message of faith to offer the world. This is what the Pope seems to be saying with the appointment of Bishop Varden as preacher of the Lenten Spiritual Exercises.

The choice of Varden could be received as a comforting sign for those fearing a progressive Pope or a second Francis who would shuffle the cards when everything seemed decided.

Three developments over the past week, however, may add a wrinkle of complexity to the story.

The first: the appointment of Sister Raffaella Petrini, president of the Governorate of Vatican City State, as a member of the Commission for Confidential Matters. The Commission addresses various issues, and it’s clear that the Vatican governor should sit on it. Yet, Sister Petrini’s presence has raised eyebrows among those who thought Leo XIV would put a stop to the decision to appoint women to cardinal positions.

The second was the appointment of Cardinal Giuseppe Petrocchi as president of the IOR’s Commission of Cardinals. After including Cardinal Fernandez Artime — whom Leo XIV apparently held in high esteem — in the Commission, the Pope changed its president following the departure of Vienna’s Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, who had turned 80, and appointed a bishop who had also contributed to the Vatican but lacked specific expertise.

After making several adjustments to the Vatican’s financial laws, many observers, including this one, expected the Pope would restore the Vatican Secretary of State, who had previously served as president of the commission, to the IOR’s membership. Leo, however, decided to continue in the footsteps of Pope Francis’s initiative, at least for now.

The last noteworthy development is the debate that has opened with the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, the so-called Lefebvrians. Their superior, Pagliarani, has already announced that SSPX will ordain new bishops, even without the consent of the Holy See. Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, has already expressed his willingness to engage in dialogue, warning that if the SSPX were to proceed with the ordinations, he would incur excommunication latae sententiae.

Pagliarani will meet with the Vatican Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on February 12th, and it will be seen whether he will proceed with his intent; later, he will complain that he was forced to do so by circumstances.

The rift with the traditional world, or at least with a fairly radical part of it, is an important test for Leo XIV.

Pope Francis never succeeded in regularizing the canonical status of the Lefebvrian group, but he made several concessions to the SSPX during his reign, especially during the Jubilee of Mercy in 2016, when the validity of their confessions and the sacraments they administered was guaranteed.
Leo XIV faces a complex situation because traditionalists complain about continuity with Pope Francis’s pontificate on liturgical matters. For example, they complain that the Francis-era repeal of Benedict XVI’s liberalization of the ancient rite has not yet been abrogated.

Leo XIV, however, does not appear to be a Pope who likes to make major sweeping changes. He will simply work to address the crisis. He has made it known that he wants to do more for the role of women in the Church, hence the appointment of Sister Raffaella Petrini as a member of the Commission for Reserved Matters. He has decided to grant the permissions required by Traditionis Custodes for the celebration of the Mass in the ancient rite, as told by Archbishop Miguel Maury Buendia, nuncio to United Kingdom.

This doesn’t mean Leo XIV is a progressive.

It means he is a Pope who avoids conflicts when and where he can and absorbs the shock of them when and where he cannot avoid them. He has his own approach to diplomacy, both internally and externally.

Varden’s choice, in this sense, is indicative. It indicates where the Pope’s heart beats. And now it’s a matter of enabling it to beat for a long time to come.