There has been some cross communications in the way that news about the illness of the new Secretary of State has been managed by the Vatican. Purportedly to respect the right to privacy, there has not been any medical updates about the health conditions of the Vatican’s No. 2. It was reported that a surgery had taken place that would be followed by a convalescing period, without describing the surgery or informing about the length of time for recuperation. If the goal of this approach was to avoid scaremongering and managing expectations, it failed. Unfortunately, Parolin will arrive in Rome with an aura of mystery about his illness.

Pietro Parolin will not face an easy task.

A pupil of Cardinal Agostino Casaroli and raised in Angelo Sodano’s Secretariat of State, Pietro Parolin has proven to be a skilled and talented diplomat. Thanks to his work, the Holy See was able to “unfreeze” the unofficial rapport with China (the Holy See and the People’s Republic of China have not established official diplomatic relations). The rapport with China fluctuated when Parolin was sent as papal nuncio to Venezuela and stopped looking after this issue.

In addition to his diplomatic skills, Parolin will have to govern a changing institution, i.e. the Secretariat of State. Almost nothing is known about the way the Secretariat of State will work under Pope Francis. The Pope, it seems, wants to delegate the management of general affairs to the Vatican City State administration. This would be the reason for the Pope’s enhancing the authority of the Vatican City State administration head, Cardinal Bertello, and entrusting Bertello’s deputy with the pastoral care of all the inhabitants of the small city-state on the Vatican hill.

So, Parolin should be only the chief of diplomacy, as was –in effect– Angelo Sodano as well. Now Dean of the College of Cardinals, Sodano is still very powerful inside the Vatican. At 86, he continues to meet nuncios and friends who are bishops (he promoted and appointed many of them in 13 years as Secretary of State) and he is still very influential, since many feel indebted to him. In fact, there are many people – Angelo Sodano included – who have never accepted that their world was turned upside-down by Benedict XVI.

Benedict XVI’s reform, as is Pope Francis’, was first of all a reform of attitudes more than of structure. Benedict did not touch the Vatican diplomatic corps. He worked to change the attitude and the work ethics of Vatican diplomacy and Vatican mentality in general. Benedict XVI did not just move aside the monsignors who narrowly focused on the bilateral relation (particularly with respect to financial issues) with Italy. What Benedict did was to give the Vatican a more international outlook and focus.

Unsurprisingly, this new outlook led many to lose privileges and influence. Looking back, some of Benedict’s appointees still came from those with the old, narrow mentality. For example, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, who became President of the Council of Superintendency of the Institute for Religious Works (the so-called Vatican bank). Gotti Tedeschi was more committed to Italian interests than to the Vatican’s.

In any case, step by step, a change of mentality worked its way through and was increasingly more evident and concrete. Benedict XVI’s Secretariat of State was to become a sort of central coordinating point for the Church, and this is exactly why the Pope wanted Canon Law expert Tarcisio Bertone as Secretary of State. Following Benedict’s suggestions and requests, Bertone initiated a twofold reform: more collegiality and coordination among departments; and a new diplomatic doctrine which placed less emphasis on reaching particular understandings (like on the issue of humanitarian intervention) and instead aimed at shedding light on the Church’s commitment to the common good.

Resistance to these reforms was predictable. Collegiality required everyone’s collaborating towards the common good. Even if just one person goes against it, the risk of failing is very high.

When Benedict XVI held the famous lectio magistralis in Regensburg, nobody from the Secretariat of State warned him about the diplomatic tension his words were likely to cause with the Muslim world.  The Secretariat of State said they never had a chance of reading the Regensburg speech before it was delivered, but this is not a justification, since it anyway failed the way the case was handled, also in the relationship with media. It was the last trip managed by Angelo Sodano. The scandal and the rage of so many Muslims served as a warning alarm about some of the internal dynamics at the Vatican. 

The same journalist whose inaccurate reporting and commenting of Benedict XVI’s words sparked the Regensburg controversy is now attempting to rehabilitate the image of Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, a man no longer a part of anything relating to the Vatican but who nevertheless continues to exert influence over Italian newspapers, thus grabbing international press headlines as well.

Benedict XVI’s times were not a good time for «the men of compromise.»  In reaction, their rapaciousness within the Church was pervasive. Benedict XVI and Bertone had to confront and overcome many problems: bad information on the Polish bishop Wielgus appointed as archbishop of Warsaw and the appointment of Gehrard Maria Wagner as auxiliary bishop of Linz in Austria (the first one resigned, the second one renounced to take his new post); a deeply flawed communications strategy on pedophilia which could not shield, for instance, Bertone or Benedict XVI from gay activists’ uproar over Bertone’s comments about sex abuse and homosexuality and over Benedict XVI words about the use of condom to prevent HIV in his way to Africa; and Vatileaks, a widespread practice of leaking documents throughout Benedict XVI’s pontificate.

When the Vatileaks investigation led to the arrest of one of the most prominent characters behind the leaks, the butler Paolo Gabriele, it also became evident that there were many other leaks, including from traditionalists once considered enthusiastic about Benedict XVI but who could not stand some of the Pope’s decisions, like appointing Gerhard Ludwig Mueller as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Nowadays, the situation is different. Nobody can speak about Pope Francis in bad terms. Critical opinions of Francis or his choices have no impact or echo in the media. Critical views of questionable decisions are dismissed as «rumors and gossiping.»  The rumors and gossiping that Francis has said – even to the Vatican  Gendarme Corps – that should be done away with.

In the meantime, Pope Francis is setting off his overhaul. For the time, just a “government reshuffling” fueling conjecture of a return of the diplomats to positions of responsibility and also to speculation about a so-called gay lobby that is said to be gaining terrain and power around Pope Francis. Is it true? If it is, was Pope Francis properly informed? If he was, why did he make these choices?

Some venture that Pope Francis choices are thorough and intentional. As Cardinal Bergoglio, he never had a great rapport with the diplomats, a time when Angelo Sodano headed the Secretariat of State. And he cannot bear any kind of lobby, as he has said repeatedly, including on his way back from Rio de Janeiro. Ultimately, placing his enemies around him may not be merely a way of applying the Gospel commandment of “love your enemy.” It is the personal commandment of a Pope who lived under a dictatorship and felt exiled: the commandment of “control your enemies.”

Now, it remains to be seen how much the enemies may be able to control the Pope.

Pietro Parolin arrives in Rome and is put in the midst of this controversial situation. He started his service in the most unlucky way, and he will have to watch out for the rapaciousness that constantly “bit and devoured” into Benedict XVI’s pontificate, and was often directed against Cardinal Bertone. Will Parolin be able to fend off particular attitudes and behaviors, of the kind that his predecessor had to endure and became a victim of?

It is an important question. After influencing the Conclave, the old guard hopes to influence the Pope and his Secretary of State. If it succeeds, it could represent a retrocession of 40 years or more  for the Vatican. Ultimately, a shepherd Pope does not bother anybody. But a Pope able to deliver the Church to the world, and not just through pastoral reasoning, risks upsetting all the balances. In the encyclical Populorum Progressio Paul VI lamented that «it must be admitted that men very often find themselves in a sad state because they do not give enough thought and consideration to these things,» regarding development.  It is a lament that today is also applicable to thought and consideration about the future of the Vatican and the Church.

The Pope speaks of darkness and light. «The darkness that poses a real threat to mankind, after all, is the fact that he can see and investigate tangible material things, but cannot see where the world is going or whence it comes, where our own life is going, what is good and what is evil». «The darkness enshrouding God and obscuring values is the real threat to our existence and to the world in general». «If God and moral values, the difference between good and evil, remain in darkness, then all other “lights”, that put such incredible technical feats within our reach, are not only progress but also dangers that put us and the world at risk». «Today we can illuminate our cities so brightly that the stars of the sky are no longer visible. Is this not an image of the problems caused by our version of enlightenment?» «With regard to material things, our knowledge and our technical accomplishments are legion, but what reaches beyond, the things of God and the question of good, we can no longer identify».

Jesus came to illuminate the world. But it seems that the whole Church is living in darkness. The darkness is made up also by those who disobey the Church, who confuse the renovation with the disobedience, who – maybe unconsciously, probably consciously – break the Union of the Church. Benedict XVI remembered it during the Chrism Mass, on Holy Thursday. Holy Thursday is the day Jesus shared his priesthood with the apostles, and the Pope uses the occasion to ask all priests, including himself, to meditate upon what their consecration really means. The Pope asked: «Are you resolved to be more united with the Lord Jesus and more closely conformed to him», which entails a renunciation of oneself and «of the much-vaunted self-fulfillment»? Being Christ-like means not to be served but to serve, not taking but giving, he said. If that is the nature of the priesthood, then what should be the response of priests when faced with «the often dramatic situation of the Church today». Then, without specifying the country, Pope Benedict said a group of priests from a European nation have issued a call for disobedience of Church teaching, specifically regarding the question of women’s ordination.

Last year the president of the Austrian bishops’ conference, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, condemned a «Call to Disobedience», signed by 250 of Austria’s 4,200 Catholic priests. The document urged Catholics to begin a campaign in support of women priests and «priestless Eucharistic liturgies», as well as for Communion to be given to non-Catholics and remarried divorcees. Also, 311 theologians from Austria, Germany and Switzerland signed a memorandum last year demanding the ordination of women and married men, as well as an «open dialogue» on the Church’s «structures of power and communication».

Pope Benedict asked: «Is disobedience a path of renewal for the church?». Then, he added hat Blessed John Paul II taught «irrevocably that the church has received no authority from the Lord» to ordain women. Pope Benedict said perhaps such campaigns are motivated by concern for the Church and believe that «the slow pace of institutions has to be overcome by drastic measures, in order to open up new paths and bring the church up-to-date». «But – the Pope then asked – is disobedience really a way to do this?». And the Pope concluded that true renewal must be based on lives that are radically conformed to Christ and God’s will.

The search for Jesus was topical in Joseph Ratzinger’s research. This is the reason why, to crown in a proper manner a brilliant career as theologian, Ratzinger thought that he had to write a book about the ‘historical’ Jesus according to Gospels. Once he had been elected Pope, the plan did not change. He already published two parts of his work (the uprising will be about the Gospel of the Infancy). The second part of Jesus of Nazareth by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is about Holy Week: from the Entrance to Jerusalem to the Resurrection. Re-reading some extracts of the book is a way to have an accurate picture of this Pontificate and of its guidelines.

The coena Domini according to Joseph Ratzinger

«The breach of friendship extends into the sacramental community of the Church, where people continue to take ‘his bread’ and to betray him. Jesus agony, his struggle against death, continues until the end of the world, as Blaise Pascal said on the basis of similar considerations. We can also put it in the other way around: at this hour, Jesus took upon himself the betrayal of all ages, the pain cause by betrayal in every era, and he endured the anguish of history to the bitter end».

Last Supper. Judas is going to betray Jesus. How many times the Church has been betrayed? How many times the Benedict XVI’s Pontificate itself has been «stabbed» in the back? Some example: during the first months of the Benedict XVI’s pontificate, the translations of his speeches and lectios were delivered in considerable late. Then, an entire – and relevant – part of his magisterium has been kept hidden, since it has not been covered by media. The same medias highlight the “utter chatters” of several «Judas» that break the friendship, and whose breach extends into the sacramental community of the Church. This is the deep reason of Confession. Benedict XVI explained it when he went to visit the prison of Rebibbia, in Rome. Giovanni, one of the prisoners, asked the Pope why he would need to be absolved for his sins by a priest. «If I think I badly behaved – I made people suffer – and I get on my knees in the front of God, and I beg for His forgiveness, would he absolve me? » Benedict XVI answered that, yes, God would absolve him, but  that the sin does not only deal with a «vertical dimension, it is not just about the relationship with God. Sin also has an horizontal, social dimension. If I make sins – even if I am not aware of it – I also damage the community of the faithful. So, the sin is not only personal, but it also deals with society. This is the reason why I need absolution».

It is the same absolution Judas is not able to reach for. If anything, because he does not think that he could eventually be forgiven. «His second tragedy, after the betrayal – Ratzinger writes – is that he can no longer believe in forgiveness. His remorse turns into despair. Now he sees only himself and his darkness; he no longer sees the light of Jesus, which can illumine and overcome the darkness. He shows us the wrong type of remorse: the type that is unable to hope, that sees only its own darkness, the type that is destructive and in no way authentic».

How can a Catholic be like Judas? The Gospel of John – Ratzinger notices – «does not offer any psychological interpretation of Judas’ conduct. The only clue he gives is a hint that Judas had helped himself to the contents of the disciples’ money box, of which he had charge (12:6). In the context we are interested about, the evangelist merely says laconically: “Then, after the morsel, Satan entered into him” (13:27)»

In summary, for John «what happened to Judas is beyond psychological explanation. He has come under the dominion of another. Anyone who breaks off friendship with Jesus, casting off his ‘easy joke’, does not attain liberty, does not become free, but succumbs to other powers. To put it another way, he betrays this friendship because he is in the grip of another power to which he has opened himself”».

The liberty Ratzinger is writing about come only from being disciples of Jesus, as he also underlined during the Chrism Mass on the last Good Thursday.  This thought is at the basis of Joseph Ratzinger’s Papal Magisterium. And this Magisterium has a specific goal: to turn back the man to God.

Pilate according to Joseph Ratzinger

Who was Pontius Pilate? Only the Gospel of Johh tells about the dialogue between Pilate and Jesus. Only John deeply depicts who was Pilate. Who is Pontius Pilate? Everyone of us can be Pontius Pilate, Joseph Ratzinger explains in his Jesus of Nazaret. Benedict XVI also talked about Pilate in the homily in Plaza de la Revoluciòn at La Habana, Cuba. In the Passion according to Joseph Ratzinger, the “character” of Pilate is also a paradigm of our times.

«The image of Pilate in the gospels – Benedict XVI writes – presents the Roman Prefect quite realistically as a man who could be brutal when he judged this to be in the interest of the public order. Yet he also knew that Rome owed its world dominance not least to its tolerance of foreign divinities and to the capacity of Roman law to build peace. This is how he come across us during Jesus’ trial».

Pragmatic, conscious that the Roman dominance was also owed to the Roman tolerance of different faiths, surprised that Jews – i.e. the aristocracy of the Temple – presented to him as friends of Rome asking for his intervention (an intervention he did not deem necessary, since he knew that Jesus was not a revolutionary leader), Pilate probably considered Jesus as a religious fanatic, maybe a violator of Judaic principles – which he was not interested about.

Here is Jesus in the front of Pilate. «So, are you a king?»; Pilate asks. And Jesus answers: «You do say it. I am a king». But the Jesus’ kingship – Jesus has said previously – «is not of this world. If my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I  might not handed over to the Jews».

«This ‘confession’ of Jesus – Ratzinger writes – places Pilate in an extraordinary situation: the accused claims kingship and kingdom (basileìa). Yet he underlines the complete otherness of this kingship, and he even makes the particular point that must have been decisive for the Roman judge: no one is fighting for this kingship. If power, indeed military power, is characteristic of kingship and kingdoms, there is no sign of it in Jesus’ case. And neither is there any threat to Roman order».

Which are the Jesus’ kingship characteristic? «This kingdom – the Pope writes – is powerless. It has no legion. With these words Jesus created a thoroughly new concept of kingship and kingdom, and he held it up to Pilate, the representative of classical wordly power». Jesus goes over: to make the essence and the particular character of the power of this kingship, he does not speaks about authority, but he bears witness to the truth is the essence of his regality.

«What is truth?» The pragmatic Pilate’s question remain unanswered. It is a topical question in political argument and in discussion of foundations of the law. «It is – the Pope writes – the question that is also asked by modern political theory: can politics accept truth in a structural category? Or must truth, as something unattainable, be relegated to the subjective sphere, its place taken by an attempt to build peace and justice using whatever instruments are available to  power? By relying on truth, does not politics, in view of the impossibility of attaining consensus on truth, make itself a tool of particular tradition that in reality are merely forms of holding on the power? What would be a world without truth?»

Yet, Pilate dismiss this question as unanswerable. In the course of his conversation with Jesus, it becomes abundantly clear that Jesus is not a rebel, and his message and his activities pose no threat for the Roman rules. Pilate still fears that perhaps there is something really divine in Jesus. Jews play off one fear against another and – Ratzinger writes – «they appeal to the entire practical fear of forfeiting the emperor’s power, being removed from office, and thus plunging into a downward spiral. The declaration: “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend” (Jn 19:12) is a threat».

Cooperatores veritatis (coworkers in truth) is the episcopal motto that Joseph Ratzinger chose. Truth divides, brings dissensions and difficulties. After revoking the excommunication to four lefevbrist bishops, Benedict XVI is attacked from the flak of the same bishops of Catholic Church. So he decides to write a letter to bishops, in the one he explains why some lack of thought happened, but he complains of his brothers ready «to bite and devour».

Was writing that letter the right thing to do, since it brought even more critics? Benedict XVI could have preferred peace, like Pontius Pilate did.  Pontius Pilate knew that Jesus was not a rebel. He knew the truth. But in the end «the concern for career proves stronger than fear for divine powers».

Resurrection according to Joseph Ratzinger

«Jesus has not returned to a normal human life in this world like Lazarus and the other whom Jesus raised from the dead. He has entered upon a different life, a new life – he has entered the vast breadth of God himself, and it is from there that he reveals himself to his followers».

Benedict XVI dedicated himself for months to the chapter about the Resurrection of Jesus. Resurrection is the key of Christianity. It is the entrance upon the vast breadth of God. Joseph Ratzinger’s thought is condensed in his words about Resurrection. Christianity is condensed in Resurrections.

Resurrection is something completely new, and Christian can only astonish about it. «For the disciples, too – Ratzinger writes – this was something utterly unexpected, to which they were only slowly able to adjust. Jewish faith indeed know about a resurrection of the dead at the end of time. New life was linked to the inbreaking of a new world and thus made complete sense. If there is a new world, then there is also a new mode of life there. But a resurrection into definitive otherness in the midst of the continuing old world was not foreseen and therefore at first made no sense. So the promise of resurrection remained initially unintelligible for the disciples».

Jesus makes everything new. Nobody had thought of a crucified Messiah, and «the fact was there – Ratzinger writes – and it was necessary, on the basis of that fact, to take a fresh look at Scripture». It is the process of theology that developed in all the eras. Theology – and Ratzinger knows it – is nothing more than the – always perfectible – try to tell the mystery of Jesus. This is the reason why the Pope let the magisterium loose from his books on Jseus of Nazareth.

The announcement of the novelty of the Gospel is topical for the Benedict XVI’s magisterium. Scripture yielded new insights in the light of the unexpected turn of events. «The new reading of the Scripture – Ratzinger writes – could begin only after the Resurrection, because it was only through Resurrection that Jesus was accredited as the one sent by God. Now people had to search the Scripture for both Cross  and Resurrection, so as to understand them in a new way and thereby come to believe in Jesus as the Son of God. This also presupposes the fact that for the disciples Resurrection was just as real as the Cross. It presupposes that they were simply overwhelmed by the reality that, after their initial hesitation and astonishment, they could no longer ignore reality. It is truly he. He is alive; he has spoken to us; he has allowed us to touch him, even if he no longer belongs to the realm of the tangible in the normal way».

One can interpret not only the Benedict XVI’s Papal magisterium, but even the extraordinary adventure of the theologian Joseph Ratzinger, as a search for the key to understand the mystery of resurrection and to interpret it through times, people and Church of today. This search began at the times of his thesis for certification to teach theology on Saint Bonaventure’s theology of history.

It was the times of Joachim of Fiore. In his works, he affirmed a Trinitarian rhythm of history. He considered the Old Testament as the age of the Father, followed by the time of the Son, the time of the Church. To be awaited yet was the third age, that of the Holy Spirit. Where did the hope for the arousal of a new time comes from? The answer of Joachim of Fiore is that it would come a new monasticism. In his view, St. Francis of Assisi was the initiator of the new time and in his order the community of the new period –- the community of the time of the Holy Spirit, which left behind it the hierarchical Church, to begin a new Church of the Spirit, no longer connected to the old structures. There was, hence, the risk of a very serious misunderstanding of the message of St. Francis, of his humble fidelity to the Gospel and to the Church, and such a mistake implied an erroneous vision of Christianity as a whole.

Bonaventure – Benedict XVI said in the 10 march 2010 general audience – addressed the problem. He knew that St. Francis and the new community he created, so different from the monasticism known up to then, called for a new interpretation; he understood that there was the practical need of structures and of insertion in the reality of the hierarchical Church, of the real Church, needed a theological foundation, also because the others, those who followed the spiritualist conception, showed an apparent theological foundation: he knows that – although taking into account the necessary realism – it was not necessary to lose the novelty of the figure of St. Francis”.

Bonaventure harmonized the positions: he remembers that Jesus Christ  is the last word of God, in him God has said all, giving and expressing himself -, but at the same time he underlines that  Church is not immobile, fixed in the past and that novelties cannot be exercised in her. “Opera Christi non deficiunt, sed proficiunt,” the works of Christ do not go backward, do not fail, but progress, says the saint in the letter De tribus quaestionibus. Christ is not the end of history. He is the center of history.

Bonaventure’s method – he harmonizes the novelty with Christ, the rebuilding with the adherence to Church, the fathers of the Church with modernity – is at the basis of Joseph Ratzinger’s method. From there, the extraordinary adventure of Pope Benedict XVI began.

Toward the year of Faith

And adventure that lead him to proclaim a Year of Faith,  whose climax will be a public profession Credo of the people of God that religious communities as well as parish communities, and all ecclesial bodies old and new are called to do (as indicated in the apostolic letter Porta Fidei). Benedict XVI explained what the deep sense of the Year of Faith in the homily of the Chrism Mass, on Good Thursday.

«The Year of Faith – he said – commemorating the opening of the Second Vatican Council fifty years ago, should provide us with an occasion to proclaim the message of faith with new enthusiasm and new joy. We find it of course first and foremost in sacred Scripture, which we can never read and ponder enough. Yet at the same time we all experience the need for help in accurately expounding it in the present day, if it is truly to touch our hearts. This help we find first of all in the words of the teaching Church: the texts of the Second Vatican Council and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are essential tools which serve as an authentic guide to what the Church believes on the basis of God’s word. And of course this also includes the whole wealth of documents given to us by Pope John Paul II, still far from being fully explored».

Catechism, Church’s documents, prayer: these are the key words for the Year of Faith. These are the key words of the Pontificate. A Pontificate that made of the Gospel its main topic. Ratzinger’s revolution has come.  A revolution whose symbol is Jesus of Nazaret, to whom Benedict XVI – not casually – already dedicated two books.

There was not just law “n. 127 question”. In the last meeting with heads of Vatican departments (Prefectures and Pontifical Councils), Bertone asked more coordination among the several branches of the Vatican curia. He also pointed at the encroach of the «passion for the little news of ecclesiastical gossip, that undermine the Holy See prestige and sometimes crab the climate of confidence and trust among the Holy See’s bodies». The Pope presided the meeting, and he agreed with each word of his Secretary of State. In 2009 – in his letter to the bishops of Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefevbre – the Pope quoted this paragraph from Galatians 5:13-15: «Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another».

There has been some «bite and devour» against Bertone, too. Since he has been appointed as Secretary of State, the attacks against him had been continuous. Before Bertone turned 75, several influential cardinals had asked Pope Benedict to make a change in Secretariat of State, because of problems with curial government and the lack of coordination that had taken place. Now that he turned 77, many observers spread the voice that there should be a change of leadership in the control room of the Roman Curia.

Benedict XVI and Bertone are following the same footsteps. Step by step, they are changing the Vatican approach. Not casually, Benedict XVI wanted an expert of Canon Law as Secretary of State, and not a diplomat. This choice was not well taken by diplomats and his protégés, that increased their influence under the former Secretary of State, cardinal Angelo Sodano. But it is part of a long-sighted project of Benedict XVI. The Secretary of State must not necessarily come from the diplomatic service. His function is to «provide close assistance to the Supreme Pontiff in the exercise of his supreme office», and  this close assistance does not deal just with diplomatic relationships. For example – according to Pastor Bonus pastoral constitution – the Secretariat of State must «draw up and dispatch apostolic constitutions, decretal letters, apostolic letters, epistles, and other documents entrusted to it by the Supreme Pontiff».

An expert of Canon law –  and Bertone is – could better coordinate the drawing of documents. The Pope himself – in the 2010 letter to the Catholics of Ireland – wrote that  «the program of renewal proposed by the Second Vatican Council was sometimes misinterpreted and indeed, in the light of the profound social changes that were taking place, it was far from easy to know how best to implement it. In particular, there was a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situations». Turning back to the solidity of law, to remember Christian roots and to turn back to God. This seems to be the Benedict XVI’s plan for the universal Church, as the next Consistory would show.

So, attacking Bertone means attacking Benedict XVI. Was that a case, some insider questions, that the strongest attacks against Bertone leadership – the Viganò’s scandal and the consistory itself – came right when the Holy See was strengthening is international impact?  Who wants to undermine Holy See international impact? In fact, in those days Holy See rewrote its 2010 anti-money laundering law, the Vatican law n. 127. It is important to see what the new law really is about, going beyond the possible «bite and devour strategy». It was maybe to prevent that strategy that Holy See made no major announcement of the revision, while the Vatican’s foreign minister, Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, referred obliquely to it in an article Friday in the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano. This is probably also the reason why the law come into effect with an urgent decree, to be ratified by the Pontifical Commission of Vatican City State within 90 days.

The first point of the new Vatican law n. 127 is about financial transparency; the law acknowledges the right to privacy, and at the same time shed the obscurantist myth of Vatican secrecy. In fact, the Vatican law n. 127 aims to protect the right to privacy acknowledged in all the civil countries – the right to privacy is even mentioned in Gaudium et Spes, one of the Constitutions of the Second Vatican Council  – and at the same time it aims to favor the international exchange of financial information.

Why did the Vatican modify the law just one year after its introduction? In fact, the law n. 127 had been written in haste because of several reasons. One of this reasons was the need to solve the «IOR case», that is the seizure – ordered by Italian magistrates – of 23 million euro transferred by the IOR from an account it owned to the Credito Artigiano toward Jp Morgan (20 million) and Banca del Fucino (3 million). Another reason was the need to bring into effect the Monetary Convention with European Union signed in 2009.

It was not downhill to the Monetary Convention. Since February 2009, Vatican and European Commission advisors (Italy was part of the table as observer) start up the job to define the new monetary agreement. European Union conditions immediately seemed too restrictive. The relationship between Holy See and European Union were fraught. Vatican had the will to keep its autonomy, and Mons. Carlo Maria Viganò, then secretary of the Governatory of the State of Vatican City, even proposed to unhook Holy See from the Euro area, in order to let the Holy See avoid to be subjected to too restrictive conditions. Someone also proposed not to close the agreement within the year 2009, and to postpone the closure of the agreement to 2010. But time is short, and hierarchies of the Holy See did not take in consideration both of the hypothesis. The monetary agreement was finally signed on December, 17th 2009. Joaquin Almunia, Europen commissioner for Economical and Monetary Affairs, and mons. André Dupuy, Apostolic Nuncio to the European Union should sign together. But Almunia refuses to sign the agreement in the same room with the pontifical representant, and so Dupuy and Almunia sign the agreement each one in their own office.

Even inside the Vatican, things went on quickly. The Vatican Law n. 127 is adopted and it is decided to extend the effects of the new regulations to the Holy See via a motu proprio by Benedict XVI. The Motu Proprio is released the 30th of December 2010, right in time not to let the agreement lapse. According to some Vatican insiders, the institution of the Authority for Financial Information would mean that the same Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, president of the Commission of Vigilance of the I.O.R., is not given a blank cheque by the Pope, since the I.O.R. itself is subjected to monitoring. This is even truer for what concerns the new law: Jeffrey Lena, the Vatican’s U.S. attorney, noted for example that the new law allows for the IOR itself to be sanctioned up to €2 million if it violates the law — and it also allows for the IOR to have recourse to the Vatican’s court system to appeal.

Modifications of the law – promoted by the Vatican Secretariat of State and the Pontifical Commission of Vatican City State – seem to mean that the new law is not merely «a slap on the face» for some contingent problem. Holy See is going to meet the international standards, and it does not seem to be an occasional concurrency that the same day the implementation of law n. 127 came into effect with an urgent regulations, Holy See announced the ratification of three international agreements. Holy See adhered to and ratified the International Convention for the Suppression of the financing of terrorism (Onu, New York, 1999) and the United Nations Conventions against the transnational organized crime (Palermo, 2000). Holy See also announced the ratification of the United Nations Convention against illicit traffic in narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances (Wien, 1998): this latter Convention had been already signed by the Holy See when it had been adopted by United Nations.

It was January, 25th. During those days, medias highlighted Vigano’s scandal, depicting it in the terms that Vatican could be considered a multinational company whose seat is in Italy. Some days later, a confidential memo on IOR-Aif (Authority for Financial Information) relationships had been leaked to the press. This memo was equivocally a blight on the Vatican transparency toward Italian authorities.

Anyway, the IOR case emphasized almost an excess of diligence by Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, president of the Supervisory Commission of the IOR. Gotti Tedeschi agreed to be questioned by the Italian magistrates, even if these latters did not submit the request internationally. Many Vatican insiders considered the Gotti Tedeschi’s one a «questionable decision». It is because this decision seems to be a renounce to the immunity by Gotti Tedeschi, and this renounce to immunity could be eventually extended to the body of State he presides.

It is important to say that it is not only an Italian-Vatican matter. The improval of the Vatican law n. 127 bodes to a long-sighted choice. In fact, Jeffrey Owens, head of tax issues at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development which maintains the «white list» of the virtuous State in countering money laundering, said to Associated Press that the Vatican is heading in the right direction with the revised norms. «What I see in these developments – Owens said – is that the Vatican has recognized that in today’s financial environment there is a premium on transparency and that to achieve this, this must conform to the highest international standards, whether in the area of money laundering, tax evasion or bribery».

If the «old» law n. 127 had been written in haste, the «new» law shows that Holy See means business on contrasting money laundering. After just one year, Holy See changes his law as requested by  MONEYVAL Adivsors, come for an on-site visit in the Vatican the last November. The advisors noted inadequacies in the Vatican legislation. According to MONEYVAL official communiqué,  «at the conclusion of its mission, the MONEYVAL team  shared and discussed its initial findings with representatives of the Holy See, after which initial views were exchanged». Of these inadequacies, the Holy See was aware. The common references are the 40+9 GAFI recommendations – references that every country should follow.

There are substantial news. For example, the “old” law n. 127 gave the power to supervise and contrast the  money laundering to one only authority, the Authority for Financial Information – established via Motu Proprio by Benedict XVI in 2010. The “new” law fairly share the power among other authorities, that are the Vatican Secretariat of State, the Pontifical Commission of the Governatorate of Vatican City State, the Authority for Financial Information, and also the Vatican Gendarme Corps. This technicality confirms the long-sighted Vatican policy. Jurisdictions are called – coherently to the principle of rule of law – to involve all their institutions, thus competent authorities must follow the same rigour and transparency policy in order to prevent and countering money laundering and financing terrorism.

It is interesting to see that Holy See met the challenge to adequate to International standards without denaturalizing their institutions. In Vatican City State, in fact, there is no market and there are no banks. According to the Italian Supreme Court, IOR is «a central body of the Church», that is a governmental body that does not aim to distribute assets.

One example of the effort of the Holy See is the procedures to take into consideration the list of terror organizations issued by the Security Council of United Nations. According to the law n. 127, Holy See does not mechanically transpose the United Nations Lists. This choice is aimed to preserve the Holy See and Vatican neutrality. In fact, lists are written under the «Chapter 7» of Charter of the United Nations, and that Chapter is applied in war time. Holy See could be embarrassed by a mechanical transposition of the lists, since it could be in contradiction with the Holy See orientation –  Holy See is neutral and in favor of peace. Since Holy See is Permanent Observer to the Assembly of United Nations, and not a Full Member, a settlement has been made to the autonomy of the Holy See: the Vatican Secretariat of State – according to the new article 24 of the law n. 127– will create its own list of terror organizations based on the one issued by the United Nations, so keeping its autonomy, and at the same time showing to be sensitive to the international security goals.

Some superficial observer would think that Holy See is not working seriously. It is not true. Holy See is working seriously, and not to respond to internal problems, or to answer to European or Italian claims. More probably, Holy See wants to give its contribution to achieve strategic goals as the countering to money laundering and to international terrorism financing.