Pope Francis and the people

When he was archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio loved to spend time among the people. He was beloved in the “villas miseria”, the slums of Buenos Aires he often visited. He was appreciated by the people because, during protests at the time of the economic crisis, he came out to talk to them.  He was feared by the political power because of his homilies. Jorge Mario Bergoglio made of his being “callejero de la fé” (an urban grassroots advocate of the faith) the center of his pastoral activity. Once elected Pope, he immediately wanted to show his closeness to the people. He asked several times for all to pray for him. He spent hours greeting ill people at the end of the general audiences. His simple, almost simplistic, oratory is disarming and impacting. This is what the cardinals were calling for at the General Congregation, i.e. the pre-conclave meetings: a change of narrative of the Catholic Church, and a new missionary push. In a world where projecting the right image is so important, a good rapport with the people is crucial. On this basis, Pope Francis has built a tremendous popular and media consensus. However, he has also given rise to many expectations yet to be fulfilled.

Pope Francis and the local Churches

Pope Francis considers his being a bishop and a priest to be at the core of his activity. Since the very beginning, he wanted to call himself “bishop of Rome”, rather than Pope. And he has always stressed that he wants bishops and priests who are shepherds, who smell like the sheep they tend to. These shepherds will be entrusted by the Pope with the Keys of the Kingdom.

The image of Roman Curia was stained by scandals when the conclave began. Often, the scandals were the outcome of well-managed media campaigns, as the famous Vatileaks (which put the finger in the wound of the problems without really dissecting them).

There were some at the general congregations who were unhappy with some aspects of the previous papacy. Every bishop or nuncio visiting Rome wanted to have a private meeting with the Pope. Benedict XVI gave his collaborators a hard and fast rule: you can schedule a personal meeting only if it is really important and if a lot of personal attention is needed. Otherwise, better to report in writing. It was a democratic method, which avoided any favoritism. However, bishops in Rome for ad limina visits felt ostracized when they did not managed to have a personal audience with the Pope. The diplomats and the cardinals who were not granted a personal appointment often complained as well.

The complaints were mostly against the secretary Georg Gaenswein and the Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, because of the way they managed the Pope’s schedule and relations. Not by chance, both Bertone and Gaenswein had been the main targets of Vatileaks, and had been the only ones that Benedict XVI publicly defended.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio shared the local Churches concerns, in part as a result of personal experience. In his capacity of archbishop of Buenos Aires and primate of the Church in Argentina, Jorge Mario Bergoglio proposed many priests as bishops, but he got several ‘no’ from Rome. Cardinal Bergoglio also had to put up a fight to appoint his friend Victor Fernandez as Rector of the Catholic University of Buenos Aires, overcoming the Congregation for Catholic Education objecting to the appointment. Bergoglio raised these issues during the general congregations, asking for more autonomy and weight for the local Churches.

Now, the Pope is thinking about giving more decision-making power to bishops. From the interview the Pope granted to “La Civiltà Cattolica” emerged the notion of a possible “dismantling” of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. And Cardinal Kasper’s address at the consistory for the family highlighted the idea of entrusting to some local priests (experienced shepherds) the responsibility of deciding on annulments. Pope Francis has also let it confidentially be known that, if necessary, Canon law itself may be changed.

In the meantime, local Churches are the most engaged in the notion of a reform of the Curia. The Council of Eight cardinals is composed of people coming from the dioceses of the world, with the sole exception of Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello, President of the Governorate of Vatican City State. Until now, discussions on the reform of the Curia has mostly been with Bishops’ conferences. Members of the Roman Curia, as well as experts in ecclesiastical affairs, have been involved in the consultations, but only on their personal capacities.

Meanwhile, the local Churches are trying to be attentive to the Pope’s perspectives, while keeping their own approaches and autonomy. The German Bishops’ Conference elected as its president card. Reinhard Marx, the rising star of Pope Francis pontificate. On the other hand, the Italian Bishops’ Conference is going through a tough period: linked to the Pope, who is the primate of the Church of Italy, the Italian bishops want the Pope to continue to exercise the role of leader and guide. In the past, the pope would elect the president of the Italian Bishops’ Conference. But now, Francis wants its bishops to decide by themselves. It is possible there will be a show down in May, when the bishops of Italy will gather in their annual general assembly. Pope Francis will personal give the initial address to bishops, a premiére. The president of the Italian Bishops Conference Angelo Bagnasco is now marginalized.

Pope Francis and the reform of the Curia

That of the reform of the Roman Curia is one of the greatest expectations raised by the election of  Pope Francis. He himself admitted that he does not have his own plan of government. Rather, he is just following the guidelines of the General Congregations. The discussion in the General Congregations brought the idea that the Curia had to be streamlined. But how?

Pope Francis appointed a group of eight cardinal-consultants, and then put everything under review: he established a pontifical commission for the Institute for Religious Works (IOR), he then established another pontifical commission for the financial structure of the Holy See. After three meetings of the Council of Cardinals, he understood that a reform needs a project, and that a project requires a long journey. So, it seems, he decided instead to carry on the reform with a series of quick runs. He established a Secretary for the Economy. In the beginning Pope Francis just appointed its prefect (Cardinal George Pell), then he appointed a Secretary Prelate (his personal Secretary, Alfred Xuereb, who is also the Pope’s delegate for the two pontifical commissions) and finally he appointed the 15 members of the Council for the Economy.

The new dicastery still lacks its statues, and it is still not known where it will be inserted within the Roman Curia. This is a secondary issue for Pope Francis. It is worth noting that the chirograph that established the Council of Eight Cardinals has been published only shortly before the cardinals first met in the Vatican. Pope Francis, it seems, thinks that the institutionalization can come after.

According to Cardinal Julian Herranz, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, the reform «will be quick and will be deep.» This would indicate that Canon Law experts will be consulted only after the fact, in order to give a juridical shape to a new status quo.

In the meantime, the Vatican hired several international companies as external consultants, which are explaining what everybody in the Vatican already knows, i.e. that the elephantine Vatican machine needs to be streamlined.

Pope Francis did not, however, fired anyone in order to build up a new Vatican ruling class and develop a new project of Curia. He preferred opting for a general freeze on hiring and promotions. The risk is that the Vatican machine would be completely dismantled, instead of it being fix to make it effective in its relations with the world.

Pope Francis and the world

Pope Francis main diplomatic tool is prayer. This was clear from his very first speech to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See. In that occasion, he did not addressed the “big themes” of the pontifical diplomacy, probably taking as a given that the line to follow is that developed by Benedict XVI and John Paul II before him. In all the personal meetings he has had with heads of State or government, Pope Francis has highlighted a mutual commitment for world peace, against human trafficking, and in favor of a culture of the encounter. Pope Francis leaves relations with the diplomats to his Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, a skilled diplomat himself. In his presentation speech to the ambassadors to the Holy See, Parolin explained his goal to engage in a path of dialogue based on personal acquaintance. That diplomacy is not the core of this pontificate is evident. According to several rumors, the diplomatic responsibilities of the Secretariat of State will be tasked to just one of the Secretariats that Pope Francis may be thinking to establish. General affairs (first section) would cease to exist, and its functions would fall to a “moderator curiae”, i.e. a coordinating office.

Some issues (even if complex) are noteworthy: the Pope is the Holy See, not the main representative of the Holy See. This is the reason why the Secretariat of State (i.e. the secretariat of the Pope) held both the tasks of general affairs and diplomacy: to underscore the identification of the Pope with the diplomatic activity of the Church. Will this eventual change lead to a weaker and less influential diplomacy? And how will papal nuncios and missionaries be supported if in the Holy See diplomacy would become just one of the many offices of the new Roman Curia? All of these concerns must be discussed.

Meanwhile, Pope Francis stresses the diplomatic strength of prayer. The vigil for peace in Syria held on September 7 was an extraordinary success. Pope Francis thus walks on the path of his predecessors, since the Popes have always been committed to peace. On the other hand, some questions may arise: how much did the impact of the vigil on public opinion stopped a U.S.  military intervention in Syria? John Paul II’s charisma, his similar call for a day of prayer and fasting, were not sufficient to avoid the Second Gulf War… so, is the Church really heard in the international arena? Or has it become ever more marginalized?

The Pope is not a pop star

These are all critical issues, and would concern every modern pontificate, not just that of Francis. A missionary push is needed. The challenge is not to dilute the faith, but to rise up to the challenges of the world with a culture, with wisdom, and with a set identity. After one year of pontificate, Pope Francis has grabbed newspapers headlines, and he will perhaps be the first pope to win the Nobel Prize. It is worth noting that, for instance, “Time magazine” motivations to elect Pope Francis the person of the year were more the result of a political agenda and an ideological vision of Pope Francis’ actions than a precise analysis of what Pope Francis has been doing.

In fact, Pope Francis has proven to be firmly orthodox. He did not want a direct fight against the spirit of the world. But it is enough to read Evangelii Gaudium, his Apostolic exhortation, to understand that his positions on the ethics themes follow the Church’s tradition. And it suffices to read his daily morning homilies delivered at Domus Sanctae Marthae to understand that the Church’s tradition is alive in Pope Francis (he makes many references to Confession, to the hierarchical Church, to salvation and the Church).

Perhaps there has been a revolution of the Church’s image. It is yet to be seen how much of this revolution has been propitiated by the media, rather than generated by Pope Francis’ actions. Perhaps there is too much marketing, and not enough substance, around Pope Francis’ message. He is very aware that in the end he must watch out for the risk of simply becoming something akin to a pop star. This is the most difficult challenge Pope Francis will need to confront. 

The vile of the UN document is not in the accusations on the cases of child sex abuses by clergy, but rather in the “reach” of the concluding observations about the second Holy See Periodic Report on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The committee even asked, several times, for changes or amendments to Canon Law, for example on abortion.Its observations also intrude into purely religious issues, implicitly attacking the secret of confession («due to a code of silence imposed on all members of the clergy under penalty of excommunication…»), and even regretting that «the Holy See continues to place emphasis on the promotion of complementarity and equality in dignity, two concepts which differ from equality in law and practice provided for in article two of the Convention and are often used to justify discriminatory legislation and policies.»

So, according to the UN Committee, composed of 18 independent experts, the Holy See should stop freely expressing its Gospel-rooted worldview. To justify their request, the members of the Committee even interpret article two of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which in fact only binds the states parties «to respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.»

Rather than an attempt to consider “the spirit” of the convention, the UN document sounds more like a general accusation, almost an attack on the Holy See sovereignty via an attack on its moral principles. It is a nuanced approach, since the distinction between Vatican City State law, Canon Law, and the international rights of the Holy See, is explained and considered. The document addresses the Holy See’s “moral authority”, acknowledges that the priests are not Holy See employees and that Vatican City State has no jurisdiction over Catholic-run schools.  However, the committee then de facto asks the Holy See to take a firm stand on given issues. In the end, the committee is subtly asking the Holy See to change Catholic doctrine: to stop insisting on fundamental rights, on the complementarity between man and woman, and to stop combating abortion. In essence, the committee tries to persuade the Holy See to renounce to speak out loudly.

What has been most interesting to the media are the accusations on the handling of children sex abuses by clergy. The committee requests the Holy See to open up its archives and let it be known how many pedophile priests there are.  However, the accusation that the Holy See made possible abuses on millions of children, and the criticism about the transfer of priests and well-known child sexual abusers «from parish to parish or to other countries in an attempt to cover-up such crimes, a practice documented by numerous national commissions of inquiry,» do not reflect reality. There is no mention of the exemplary commitment of Joseph Ratzinger, before and after becoming Benedict XVI, to combat child abuses. Nor is there any consideration of a Vatican City State law on sex abuse that, if used as an international legal standard, would make every other state outlaws in the fight against pedophilia.

In an interview granted to Vatican Radio, Silvano Maria Tomasi, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the UN Office in Geneva, noted that the UN document «seemed to have been written before the meeting of the committee with the Holy See delegation. The latter gave detailed and precise answers on several points, but the answers are not reported in this final document or seem to have been given serious consideration.» Tomasi also underlined that «probably some NGOs with interests in homosexuality, gay marriage or other issues, have provided input, strengthening in some way an ideological line.»

This ideological line is evident, since the gender theory vocabulary is widespread in the document. The committee asks for the acknowledgement of «reproductive health rights» (a euphemism for an alleged right to abortion), the request to eliminate from Canon Law the terminology about legitimate and natural children, even the exhortation to remove from Catholic textbooks «all gender stereotyping which may limit the development of the talents and abilities of boys and girls and undermine their educational and life opportunities.»

This vocabulary is pervasive in United Nations documents, and it is opposed by the Holy See in the name of an integral humanism oriented to the common good, which is the very international agenda of the Holy See.

That of gender is not a new ideology. The last Christmas greeting address of Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia focused on gender theory.

On that occasion – 21 December2012 – Benedict XVI stated that the very idea of human nature is in crisis, a crisis based on gender «as a new philosophy of sexuality.»

«The very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question,» noting that sexual complementarity, and one’s sex as a given, «is what is now disputed.»

He added that in the relativist ideology of gender, «man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question,» which also calls into question the nature of the family.

This speech is part of Benedict XVI’s legacy, who at that time had already decided when and how to resign.

Now, Pope Francis is called to pick up the thread again. According to sources, Pope Francis has said in a private audience with bishops that the gender ideology is «demonic». Yet, until now, there has not been an official Pope stance on these issues. The Pope has not showed support for the demonstrators of Manif pour Tous in France, who have protested against the institution of same sex marriage and the possibility of adoption for same sex couples in France. Nor has the Pope mentioned the protests in Europe on February 2, shortly before a vote on the Lunacek Report.

The report focuses on the “Yogyakarta principle”, according to which «the special rights for gay people are part of universal human rights.» All the 120 special rights of the gay community must be applied in order to fulfill, at the international level, respect for human rights. On February 4 the report was approved in the European Parliament. It is not binding, but the approval makes the document’s views the official position of the European Union.

The day after the approval of the Lunacek Report, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child final observations were made public. Perhaps a Pope’s preventive declaration would have helped. Or perhaps an articulated and timely communication by the Holy See was needed, challenging the document for his juridical overreach. This kind of reply did not take place if not two days after the release of the report, even though the report reached the Vatican almost two days ahead of its public release, and its content was well known to Vatican advisors on communications.

The strategy was not to prepare any immediate reply.  It is hard to understand why this was the case. The Vatican experts that took part in the discussion of the first report in 1995 foresaw the risk that something like this could happen, and today they say that theyare not surprised at all about the language and content of the new document. Some experts even suggest that the Secretariat of State should reply through diplomatic channels.  The Holy See, they proposed, should convene ambassadors accredited to the Holy See to complain that the committee went beyond its tasks, arrogating to itself the right to interpret the spirit of the Convention.

It was also well known that the  international media was awaiting with great expectation the document, attracted by the questions on pedophilia. Many journalists got credentialed to the UN office in Geneva, their interest mostly focused on the clergy sex abuses scandal.

In fact, Vatican communications advisors were not even timely in presenting information about the Church’s struggle against pedophile in priests. They should have recalled that Benedict XVI reduced to laity almost 400 priests, explained the Holy See efforts to fight the abuses, or at least pointed out the special section about the Church’s response to abuse of minors in the homepage of the vatican.va website.

Vatican communications advisors did not think, either, about highlighting best practices. For example, in Italy there is the Meter Association chaired by Father Fortunato Di Noto. Meter has become an international reference on the fight against pedophilia. In 20 years, the Meter association has welcomed, accompanied and helped more than 1,200 victims of abuses, and denounced more than 1 million and a half pedo-pornographic web sites, thus creating a virtuous circle of information on the pedophilia issue which gave a lot of fruits. Unfortunately, Meter is at risk of ceasing to exist due to a lack of funding.  It is however a beacon  and an example in the Catholic galaxy combating pedophilia. Why have stories like that of Meter not been featured, in order to change the narrative of the media mainstream?

One year after Benedict XVI’s resignation, pedophilia, gender theory, and above all shortcomings in Holy See communications remain front and center issues to contend with. Despite the hiring of several advisors oncommunications, the Church is still reacting to the big issues of the day, instead of being ahead introducing them in their right light.  This is the reason why the Church can be caught off guard in the debate. This was the case in 2006, when Benedict XVI delivered his famous lecture at Regensburg. From that starting point, Benedict XVI was able to start an unprecedented dialogue with Islam. It is now Pope Francis’ turn to build bridges of reason with a world always ready to attack the Church.

The release of the resolution is a milestone:. The era of charismatic and polarizing personalities has come to an end. A new era has taken its place. The era of a solid and clean Church. This is what the Pope wanted. One must not fool around with the institutions. One must serve the institutions. Joseph Ratzinger always followed this dictate, from the time he served as one of the expert theologians at the Second Vatican Council. Now, he is steering the Church in that direction.

There had been several signals that the charismatic personalities era had come to end. For example, the appointment of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone as Vatican Secretary of State. Bertone – a non-diplomat canonist – said from the very beginning that he aimed to be a «secretary of the Church» more than «a Secretary of State». And then, the replacement of Joaquin Navarro-Valls, director of the Holy See Press Office, better known as the «Pope’s spokesman», with Fr. Federico Lombardi, sj: Navarro-Valls allowed his job to be focused on himself as much as Lombardi has done the exact opposite.. Another “big” signal had been the appointment of cardinal Dias as prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of People. Dias’ low key style stands in contrast to that of his predecessor, Cardinal Sepe, who sought the spotlight constantly in the Osservatore Romano – the Holy See newspaper – and wherever he could get it.

Since the beginning of his Pontificate, Benedict XVI set forth several critiques against careerism. His speeches on these topics can be considered part of a long catechesis: on the one hand, the Pope explains the logic of serving the Church; on the other, time after time, Benedict XVI went on challenging and changing the Curial mindset. Less diplomacy, more gospel. Less diplomacy, more law – both Canon and international law. Because institutions are based on the law. And reflection is rooted in truth. Truth and law can be considered the pillars of Benedict XVI’s Pontificate.

There have been different interpretations of the loss of confidence in Gotti Tedeschi. Many observers –particularly the Italians– maintain that Mr. Gotti Tedeschi fell on the wrong side of the internal debate about Vatican Financial transparency. The Holy See recently amended law n. 127 for countering money laundering and the financing of terrorism, and Mr. Gotti Tedeschi had been one of the opponents of this reform. Law n. 127 calls on all the agencies to attain financial transparency. Under the former law, transparency was solely the purview of the Authority for Financial Information. With the new law, everything reverts to the Vatican Secretary of State, while making all the institutions that are under his umbrella accountable. The institutions have an incentive to respond positively, as a means to assert themselves.

This is what the IOR’s board did, when it decided to release the two- page harsh resolution on the loss of confidence in Mr.  Gotti Tedeschi. Any innuendo is swept away by the resolution. Before, the Holy See would whisper, and everybody tried to interpret the whispers. Now, Holy See sheds a spotlight on how things really went. And there is not much to add after that.

«Each of us – Carl A. Anderson, Supreme Knight of Columbus Knights, member of IOR’s board and secretary of the meeting where the decision to remove Mr. Tedeschi was taken, said – has a solid reputation, but it is difficult to project an image of transparency if there is no real transparency behind it. Gotti was not committed to the Institute, he was not focused on his job, he was not properly informed about the activities of the institution and often he did not attend meetings. We had to make a decision, and we voted to withdraw our confidence in him. We had no choice.. The image of the Institute had suffered.. Our objective is to promote transparency and to revamp the Institute’s work, something that Gotti always talked about, but never did».

There are nine stated reasons for the Board’s decision: failure to carry out basic duties incumbent upon the President; failure to remain informed of the activities of the Institute and to keep the Board informed; leaving and failing to attend meetings of the Board; lack of prudence in making comments about the Institute; failure to provide any formal explanation for the distribution of documents held by the President; dissemination of inaccurate information regarding the Institute; failure to counter  flawed media reports about the Institute; polarizing the Institute and alienating personnel; increasingly erratic personal behavior. Two of these stated reasons call into question Gotti Tedeschi reliability, in particular the one about the the distribution of documents that only he held. And so Mr. Gotti Tedeschi goes out of the scene, after only two years as president of the Board of Superintendance of the IOR.

Maybe the key of the quiet revolution of Benedict XVI can be found in this speech. It is – one would say – a twofold revolution. On one side, he aims to reinforce the Faith and to turn back the People of God to God. Too busy in worldly affairs, the People of God seem to have lost his polar star. The Year of Faith that will begin the next November, the Year of Priests in 2009, the Pauline Year in 2008 – all of these events prepared by catechesis, homilies, speeches during the General Audiences which the Pope conceived as the most important part of his Magisterium – are part of this project to turn the People of God to Faith. The Pope wants adult faithful. He aims to a Faith which is feed with the Reason.

But this is just one part of his Pontificate. On the other side, Benedict XVI slowly, but inexorably, reformed the Roman Curia. On the principles that «the human person is the essence of law», the Pope guided the Church toward a comeback of the Law, both international and Canon Law. To understand it, it suffices to read what Benedict XVI wrote to the Catholics of Ireland in 2010. There the Pope 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»

No surprise that the first act of his Papacy was the «Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations  with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies
in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders» , that regulated the criteria of access to seminaries. The last act has been the reform of Caritas Internationalis. In the middle, a series of hidden but necessary reforms.. In fact, during the last years of John Paul II’s Papacy – and one should also say from Pastor Bonus on – the documents issued were not so firmly hooked to juridical sources, but more often to theological-pastoral ones. Under this, many had the occasion to abuse of their unprecedented freedom. The result has been a great confusion within the several bodies and organizations of the Catholic Church. This confusion Benedict XVI wants to clear up.

What Caritas Internationalis is

The General Decree that reform the Statutes of Caritas Internationalis are part of this «quiet legally-oriented revolution» brought on by Benedict XVI. This is why it is so important to understand what this reform really is. First, it is important to point out what Caritas Internationalis really is.

What is Caritas Internationalis? Is it a self governing body with an autonomous Statute, or is it a branch of the Pope? The Pope  – according to the Chirograph During Last Supper – gave to Caritas Internationalis the technical status of a public juridic person. According to Canon Law (Can. 116) «public juridic persons are aggregates of persons (universitates personarum) or of things (universitates rerum) which are constituted by competent ecclesiastical authority so that, within the purposes set out for them, they fulfill in the name of the Church, according to the norm of the prescripts of the law, the proper function entrusted to them in view of the public good; other juridic persons are private». This is why Caritas Internationalis can be considered the tool the Pope uses to favor charity in the world.

The Chirograph had a virtue and a limit at the same time. The virtue was that the sources quoted were more thelogical-pastoral than juridical. So, Caritas Internationalis could not be figured out as a tool in the hands of the Pope, since the Chirograph lacked of juridical tools to assure it. Curial offices seemed to have just a moral authority on Caritas Internationalis, but they did not have – in fact – a juridical authority. This favored the fact that Caritas Internationalis could have a complete independence toward both the States and the Holy See. Thus having the opportunity to include under its «umbrella » organizations that were not so aligned with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. The new statutes better sketch the competences of  each body involved with the Caritas Internationals. That, since it is a tool of the Pope, is obviously controlled by the Secretary of the Pope. That is, the State Secretariat.

The new Statute of Caritas internationalis strenghten the cooperation between Caritas Internationalis and Holy See. At the same time, the competences of the Vatican State Secretariat are better outlined: the State Secretariat is called to be center and joint of the Church. Benedict XVI began this renewal long time ago, but this latter became visible for the first time when the Pope appointed cardinal Tarcisio Bertone – a canonist that served as secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – as Secretary of State, even if Bertone himself proclaims himself «Secretary of Church». The program of renewal of Benedict XVI aims to make lively and present the identity of the Catholic world. «Charity in Truth» is the title of the «social» encyclical by Benedict XVI, and it is also is «plan to govern». The new Statute of Caritas Internationalis, went into effect on May, the 2^nd (when it had been published in the Osservatore Romano) show once more that «Charity in Truth» is the path Benedict XVI is treading to bring the Church to the Year of Faith.

The new Statute

The new Statute of Caritas Internationalis deeply outlines  the competences of the dicasteries involved with Caritas internationalis. First of all, the role of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum - i.e. the Vatican office responsible for coordinating and promoting charitable giving. – is strengthen. In the very first article of the General Decree, Cor Unum is described as «the dicastery qualified about Caritas Internationalis, its observance of this decree and its normative of canon public juridic person, as well as to control and watching, except for what established in the articles that will follow». Caritas Internationalis must address to Cor Unum before issuing any text with doctrinal and moral contents.

Some more details of the decree: it contains new guidelines for the Caritas Internationalis personnel labour standards and it strengthens the roles Vatican offices and the pope play in working with the charity confederation, including naming and approving new board members and approving its texts, contracts with foreign governments and financial transactions.

It also creates a special «support commission» of legal, technical and organizational experts named by the pope to help the organization follow the new norms as well as canon law and the laws of Vatican City State concerning the procurement and distribution of aid, and employment of workers.

At least three members of Caritas’ executive board will be papal appointees, and Pope Benedict XVI named U.S. Bishop Bernard A. Hebda as one of them.
the need of the Holy See nihil obstat (that is «nothing obstructs») for the candidatures to President and General Secreatary – as already previewed in the Chirograph During Last Supper, and – unlike the previous Statutes – also for the candidature of the treasurer.

The Pope told the assembly that the Vatican is responsible for following the activities of Caritas and «exercising oversight to ensure that its humanitarian and charitable activity, and the content of its documents, are completely in accord with the Apostolic See and the church’s magisterium».

Other new elements that laid on the Decree: Cor Unum will name an ecclesiastical assistant whose role will be to foster «a spirit of communion» between the Vatican and members of the organization, foster reflection on theological questions and promote Caritas’ Catholic identity; the list of candidates for president, secretary general and now treasurer will require approval from Cor Unum, the Secretariat of State and the pope; the new papal appointees to the executive board are Bishop Hebda, Archbishop Paul Yembuado Ouedraogo of Bobo-Dioulasso in Burkina Faso, and Maronite Archbishop Youssef Soueif of Cyprus; that Caritas Internationalis and all of its employees, including those working on contract, will have to abide by the new norms, the norms of canon law and the laws of Vatican City.

The qualification of the Vatican Secretariat of State are better outlined. The first section of the State Secretariat must defend the juridical status of Caritas Internationalis, coordinate the qualification attributed to dicasteries – the Pontifical Council Cor Unum and the other dicastieries qualified with the Vatican City State administration -, assist the «Pontifical Council Cor Unum in the vigilance on the transparency of the administration of patrimony and finance of Caritas Internationalis».

The second section of the State Secretariat holds «the relationships with the political, diplomatic, administrative and juridical authority of the States, particularly with the Italian State, as well as the relations with the Regional and International organization»; approves the agreements of official financing coming from governments and International Organizations and the agreements of cooperation and the other official agreements with the governments; it manages the disputes (if and how Caritas internationalis would appeal to a civil or international court to solve a contention).

The path to new Statute

The revision process began in 2007 as a follow-up to Blessed John Paul II having raised the technical status of the federation to a «public juridical entity» of the church in 2004. The new status formally recognized that Caritas carries out its charitable activities in the name of the Catholic Church and it meant the organization would function under the administration of the Vatican.

Prepared by the Secretary of State in conjunction with the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts and legal experts, the decree said it was meant to «complete and interpret» Caritas Internationalis’ juridical status and give the organization a legal foundation and reference point for the application of the new statutes.

Msgr. Osvaldo Neves de Almeida, an official in the Vatican’s secretariat of state, said in an explanatory statement accompanying the decree that the updated status was meant to better support the federation’s activity.

Given Caritas’ worldwide presence, international profile and that it acts in the name of the church, the Vatican «has the task of following its activity and exercising vigilance in order that both its humanitarian and charitable action and the content of the documents that it disseminates may be in harmony with the Apostolic See and with the church’s magisterium, and in order that it may be administered with competence and transparency», the monsignor wrote.

According to the new norms, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will continue to give doctrinal oversight to texts that are of a moral or doctrinal nature and the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See will continue to monitor the administration of temporal goods.

Cardinal Robert Sarah, president of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, said in a statement that the new legal framework does not apply to national Caritas organizations, which will maintain their autonomy; however, the new norms «could inspire the bishops and bishops’ conferences to eventually review their diocesan or national Caritas statutes».

More coordination

The new tidiness of Caritas Internationalis is aimed to give more coordination to dicasteries and organisms linked to the Holy See. This enhanced coordination has been requested by Cardinal Bertone in his preliminary document for the periodical meeting of the head of Curial Dicasteries in January.

Benedict XVI is bringing on a general reform of the Curia, in order to fully bring into effect the Pastor Bonus, the pastoral Constitution about the Roman Curia. In Pastor Bonus, the State Secretariat is indicated as the body that must coordinate the work of all the dicasteries. Benedict XVI’s general reform dealt with Vatican financial branch (it has come into effect the new Vatican anti-money laundering law n. 127, which also outlines the competences of the State Secretariat); deal with the reform of the Prefecture for Economical Affairs, that has now become the Vatican correspondent to a Ministery of Finance; deal with more dialogue and cooperation among the Curial office. It is not a concentration of power, it is more a coordination of power. Exactly what Vatican bodies lacked of.

Anyway, coordination is also about doctrinal issues. The search for truth, the truth itself, can be considered the main commitment of the Benedict XVI’s Magisterium: the Pope dedicated to the truth his firs message for the World Day of Peace (In Truth, Peace 2006) and several times he claimed for a Faith more adherent to the Truth of Gospel, without justifying relationships and positions that denaturalize the Catholic Thought. Recently, this commitment of the Pontificate – that the State Secretariat is bringing on – has become evident when the Secretariat of State avoided to the Catholic University of Perù to define itself anymore as «Pontifical». But it has been very meaningful last year, when the Caritas Internationalis had to elect its new general Secretary.

Theological basis. The problems of the past

Last year, Vatican Secretariat of State did not give the nihil obstat for the re-candidature of the previous General Secretary Lesley-Anne Knight, notwithstanding his job had been praised by the same president of Caritas Internationalis, card. Oscar Andrés Rodriguez Maradiaga. Michel Roy – a French that previously served in the French association Secours Catholique, and he knows what does mean working in a highly secularized country, where it is of great importance to define and defend the Catholic identity – had been appointed as the new General Secretary.

Caritas Internationalis, whose original statutes were approved by the Vatican in 1951, is made up of 164 Catholic relief, development and social service agencies working in almost 200 countries. Most of the member agencies are Caritas or relief and development agencies sponsored by national bishops’ conferences, such as the U.S.-based Catholic Relief Services or the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace.

The CCODP, a Caritas member organization supported by the bishops of Canada, has come under fire from pro-life groups for supporting organizations that advocate the legalization of abortion, distribute contraceptives, and support homosexualist policies. Knight vigorously defended CCODP in a letter sent to donors and obtained by LSN.

Similar problems also exist with other Catholic international aid organizations sponsored by other national bishops’ conferences and that this was a disturbing and unacceptable trend. These bishops’ conferences were not conducting proper oversight over their international development and aid organizations resulting in the funding of groups whose objectives are in serious conflict with Catholic teaching.  The risk is that Caritas Internationalis could be the «umbrella» of a series of organization whose purposes seriously contrast with the Catholicism.

Changes in the Vatican’s approach to international aid appear to be part of the general reform project outlined in Pope Benedict’s recent encyclical letter Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth).

The encyclical insisted that human development and foreign aid cannot be separated from the demands of truth. In the encyclical, the Pope underlined that «some non-governmental Organizations work actively to spread abortion, at times promoting the practice of sterilization in poor countries, in some cases not even informing the women concerned. Moreover, there is reason to suspect that development aid is sometimes linked to specific health-care policies which de facto involve the imposition of strong birth control measures. Further grounds for concern are laws permitting euthanasia as well as pressure from lobby groups, nationally and internationally, in favour of its juridical recognition». There is the need to prevent the risk that these organization get a «Catholic umbrella» to what they do.

In fact to understand the basis of the «policy of Charity» of Benedict XVI, we should re-read his first encyclical Deus Caritas Est. In this encyclical, Benedict XVI affirms that «the Church’s charitable organizations, on the other hand, constitute an opus proprium, a task agreeable to her, in which she does not cooperate collaterally, but acts as a subject with direct responsibility, doing what corresponds to her nature. The Church can never be exempted from practising charity as an organized activity of believers, and on the other hand, there will never be a situation where the charity of each individual Christian is unnecessary, because in addition to justice man needs, and will always need, love».

His reform is something more similar to Gregory VII. That of Gregorian reform is an heroic enterprise, brought on by a few man that works to re-moralized their society and so purify the Church. People gathered around Ildebrando of Soana begins a movement whose effect were so vast that a whole world change. Will this happen with the Benedict XVI’s Papacy?

Elected Pope with the name of Gregory VII, Ildebrando do not only care about the purification and moralization of the Church. He also collect the ancient sources, so creating a corpus of papers that will be the first global law of the world, the Canon Law. More, he defends the autonomy of the Church. In Dictatus Papae, Gregory VII affirms the supremacy of the Pope on any other power, the imperial one included. Then, he organizes the Pontifical Legates network. He establishes two kind of Pontifical Legates: the one in loco, charged by the Pope to look after the application of Gregorian reform on a territory; and the one sent by  Rome to accomplish mission in a foreign countries. The defense of the autonomy and sovereignty of the Church is also brought on, during the Gregorian Age, by creating new canonic collection. Gregory VII auspicates the research of the sources of the law, and so many researchers look for documents that affirms that the Papal authority is the source of the law. This research will bring to light the writings of Attone, Anselm from Lucca, Deusdedit.

It is the work Benedict XVI is doing as well. Joseph Ratzinger began his theological research with his Doctoral thesis on the «People of God and House of God in Saint Augustine’s Doctrine of the Church» – defended in 1951 -, and he has always been aware that he needed to look back to the Church, and then he understood that the Church needed to be less worldy, and that being less wordly means to change and unify. Finally, the Canon Law is the tool that the Church has to do it.

Benedict XVI wants to focus on Canon Law, and this is one of the reasons why the Secretary of State is a Canonist and the last Papal nuncios appointed is Charles J. Brown, a non diplomat that served for years in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This comeback of the Canon Law is driving the Benedict XVI’s choice for what concern international relations, and even for what concern its commitment for financial transparency. This led to a renewed Vatican anti-money laundering law. Not everybody had been happy about it, inside and outside the Vatican Walls. Why?

The new text of anti-money laundering Vatican Law come into effect

There had been no modification to the Decree n. 159 issued by the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State. The last 25th of January, Holy See issued the decree n. 159 to amend the Vatican City State Law n. 127 concerning the countering of money laundering and financing of terrorism. As the art. 7 of the Fundamental Law of Vatican City State, the President of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State  «in cases of urgent necessity, he can issue dispositions having the force of law, which  however lose their force if they are not confirmed by the Commission within ninety days». The Commission confirmed the decree and – beyond whatever it has been written and told during these last three months – there were no doubts about it.

Anti money-laundering Vatican law: a never ending debate

Ever since the Law n. 127 had been issued, the Governatorate knew that this law had been written in a hurry, under the pressure of the investigation of the Public Prosecutor of Rome on two money transfer ordered by the I.O.R. (the Institute for Religious Works), and with the necessity to fully comply to the norms required by the European Union in the Monetary Convention signed by the Holy See in 2009. Yet while Holy See and European Union were discussing the terms of the Monetary Convention, the then number two of Vatican City State Carlo Maria Viganò showed himself doubtful about what the on-going discussion was going to ask to the Holy See, and proposed to unhook the Holy See by Euro area, in order to preserve its sovereignty.

The law n. 127 reassured Italian prosecutors, but on the other hand it did not completely fit to the international standards. The decree was an improvement of the law promoted by the Vatican City State administration in order to fit to international standards and at the same time to let them adhere to a peculiar State that is Vatican City State, while preserving the Holy See sovereignty.

An Italian problem?

Yet, during these last three months, Italian medias highlighted several rumors coming from «inside the Vatican» against the improvement of the law 127. Il Fatto Quotidiano – one of the most prominent and aggressive Italian newspaper – published a series of leaks of reserved documents. Among these documents, there was also an e-mail sent by the Director of the Authority for Financial Information Francesco De Pasquale (the controller) to the president of the Council of Superintendency of the I.O.R. (the controlled). This documents proved a questionable relationship between two parts of the mechanism of control of the Holy See, and at the same time proved that an animated debate took place within the Sacred Walls about the improvement of the Vatican Law n. 127.

It had been also leaked to Il Fatto Quotidiano a notation by cardinal Attilio Nicora, president of the Authority for Financial Information (but also member of the Council of Superintendecy of the I.O.R., member of the Commission for the Governatorate of Vatican City State and member of the so-called Council of 15, the assembly of 15 cardinals that periodically meet to take stock of the Vatican financial situation). In this notation, Nicora described the amendments to the Law n. 127 as “step behind” confronting with the previous text, which he blessed and promoted. More. The last March, the 19th, an article published on Il Corriere della Sera, the most spread Italian newspaper, let understand that Nicora himself was working to rewrite the text of the decree n.159, in order to bring the law back to the “old” law n. 127. The article proved that – inside the Vatican – the debate never ended.

Why the anti-money laundering law changed

The amendments to the Law n.127 had been requested by the advisors of MONEYVAL, the body of the Council of Europe that analyze and judge the adherence of the States to the 40+9 GAFI recommendations for contrasting money laundering and financing of terrorism. Marcello Condemi, a member of the Vatican Authority for Financial Information and draftsman of the first sketch of the old law n. 127, worked on a second sketch of the law right after the first on site visit of the MONEYVAL advisors in Vatican, that took place in November 2011. Several debates within the Sacred Walls followed. Finally, with the decree n. 159, the law n. 127 had been essentially modified. The “new” law n. 127 is now more adherent to international standard. It strengthens the power of controlling of the Authority for Financial Information, but at the same time distributed the controlling powers on several bodies of the Holy See, according to the principle of the separation of powers (even the Gendarm Corps is now encouraged to strengthen its intelligence in order to take part to the countering of money laundering with proper tools of investigation).  It gave to the Vatican Secreteriat of State the complete management of the relationships between States – «The Secretariat of State – it is written in the decree n. 159, art. 2 quinquies – foster the adhesion of the Holy See to treaties and international agreements, as well as the relations and the participation of the Holy See to institution and international organization qualified to define norms and good practices for what concerns the prevention and countering of money laundering and financing of terrorism».

That the effort of the Holy See had been to adhere to international standards for what concerns the countering of money laundering without denaturalize its own institution is evident when – in the decree n. 159 – 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 traditionally neutral and in favor of peace. Since Holy See is a 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 draw up its own list of terror organizations that will be 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. Holy See so maintain its autonomy, but at the same time proves sensibility to the international security goal .

Is there a biggest target?

Maybe there is a biggest target on the basis of the polemics that followed the one the another from the moment in which the Holy See began the process enrolled in the «White List», the list of states most active in preventing and fighting the financial crimes.. The critics to the lack of transparency of Vatican finance would hide a sort of attack to the sovereignty of the Holy See itself. Documents leaked by the press – the so-called Vatileaks, that are now under the investigation of a commission made up of the cardinals Herranz, De Giorgi and Tomko – prove that the «sovereignty issue» has never been taken into consideration by the «step behind» theorists. The leaks are about the retroactivity of the «new» law n. 127; about the will to cooperate with Italian investigators; about a diligence toward Italian authorities that led Ettore Gotti Tedeschi to be voluntarily questioned by the Italian magistrates without these latter submitted the request internationally.

Yet, Paolo Cipriani, General Director of the Institute for Religious Works, explained – during one of the seminars periodically held by the I.O:R. to train the administrators of the Congregation with deposits in the «Vatican bank» – that the Institute has always responded to any request submitted by Prosecutors or Central Banks. The responses by the Holy See, Cipriani explained, had come formally – there had been during the last ten years 20 requests submitted internationally to the Holy See (it is a global data, it does not concerns the only I.O.R.): 19 had been fulfilled by the Vatican City State, the last one has been judged by a Vatican Court – and not formally, for a sort of «good neighborhood relationships» with the other financial institutes. Holy See – Cipriani also underlined – did not answer in the only case the request would be considered a vulnus to its sovereignty.

A wider – international – perspective

It is now time to see things from a wider perspective. The announcement of the improvement of the law n. 127 has been launch in the Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Holy See, in an article by msgr. Dominique Mamberti, the «foreign minister» of the Holy See. Mamberti linked the news of the improvement of the law n. 127 to the ratification by the Holy See of three international threaties – the news about the ratification had been given the 25th of January as well. 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’s a long time that the campaigns to expell Holy See by the concert of Nations – as the See Change campaign – broke down in the public opinion. In 2007, The Economist – one of the most authoritative magazines in the world – published an article headlined “God’s ambassadors” about the Vatican diplomacy. The article ended with this advice for the Holy See: «It could renounce its special diplomatic status and call itself what it is – the biggest non-governmental organization in the world».

Within the bureaus of the United Nations and of the other major international organization in which the Holy See seats as an observer, the idea to expel Holy See from the concert of nations is widely spreads. Even if this idea did not succed, and – on the other hand – on July 2004 the General Assembly of United Nations approved a resolution that not only confirm, but even enhanced the presence of the Holy See within the United Nations.

So, a more subtle strategy began. This strategy – brought on in international environments – aims to undermine the moral power of the Catholic Church and of religions in general. It consists in remarking that religious freedom is something like the freedom of expression, or in confusing the religious freedom with the freedom of worship. Vatican diplomacy is undermined, too. If Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti caused an «earthquake» at the Italian Ministry for Foreign Affair by showing his intention to appoint ambassadors not raised up with a diplomatic career, Vatican insiders refer about the intention to appoint lay people as diplomatic representative of the Holy See. Pontifical Legates must be bishops, since they represent the Pope. This rule is valid and effective only for Papal nuncios: they work as Papal ambassadors, they keep relationships with the governments, and at the same time they work as bishops, speaking to the Episcopal Conferences of the countries they are appointed at, give their opinion about the to-be-appointed bishops.

Nuncios that are appointed as permanent observer within the International organizations (United Nations, U.N.E.S.C.O., F.A.O., European Parliament) must only care the relationships between the Holy See and the governments. This would open to the appointment of lay people as permanent observers of the Holy See.

Could this be the beginning of a weakening of the Vatican diplomacy? In the book C’era una volta un Vaticano (Once upon a time a Vatican), Massimo Franco, underlines this lack of international appeal of the Holy See. Too appeased on Italy and on its relations with Italy – Massimo Franco writes .- the Holy See lost sight of its wide global horizon that made of it the most long-lived and solid institution in the world. Canon right is the first really global and globalized law of the history, and it still consists in a solidity that no friendly diplomatic relations would touch.

This same problem spoiled the path to the Vatican financial transparency. Holy See borders are not anymore with Italy, but with the whole Europe. Yet, the members of the Authority for Financial Information are all Italian, coming from the Bank of Italy milieau – even if the Bank of Italy proved a certain hostility toward the Holy See (the investigation of the Roman prosecutors undermined the Holy See sovereignty, since prosecutors asked for information to the Financial Intelligence Unit of the Bank of Italy – which should be independent – instead of investigating with the Guardia di Finanza).

The “old” law n. 127 would have probably solved the “judicial” problems with Italy, but certainly it would also set back – if not avoided – the Holy See path to the white list. The Plenary Assembly of MONEYVAL will meet the next July, and on that occasion the report about Holy See will be issued. It will not be at that moment that the Council of Europe will decide about the enlistment – or the not enlistment – of the Holy See among the virtuous States. But probably, the possibility to be part of the white list would have been more difficult without the improvement of the law n. 127, that the MONEYVAL advisors auspicated.

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.

Despiting the various analysis (that always deal with numbers and “geography” of the next conclave), there is another way to understand what the next consistory will be meaning. And this way is particularly indicative of what is the approach that Benedict XVI aims the Church to take.

Rumors about a new consistory had been circulating for long time. The last 5th of December, during a confidential meeting with some journalists, msgr. Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, cracked a joke when he had to leave the meeting before of its conclusion. «I am awaited – he said – in the Apostolic Palace. It is not because of my next creation as a cardinal». The consistory question had already come into play, and lists of the possible new cardinals had already begum to circulate.  Some of the most accredited insiders reported that there was a sort of bailouts for a red hat: or Fisichella made the cut, or msgr. Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.

It is during those days that someone secretly made pressures to move Coccopalmerio from the presidency of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts to the Apostolic Penitentiary. The head of Apostolic Penitentiary must be a cardinal, and so the promoted appointment could appear as a promotion. It was – on the contrary – a case of promoveatur ut amoveatur: Coccopalmerio’s move would have broken a post – the one as president of Pontifical Council for Legislative Text – that is considered a key-post for Curia’s balances.

At the beginning of December, there had been other important events to remark. It is the 60th anniversary of the International Organization of Migration, and Holy See marked the anniversary its way, becoming a a full member of the organization, and not just as a permanent observator (this status the Holy See keeps on at United Nations, Unesco, Fao, European Parliament). The I.O.M. was established in 1951, and bases its activities on the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits both migrants and society. It has 130 member States, and around 100 observers. In his address for the application by the Holy See for membership of the I.O.M.,  msgr. Silvano Tomasi – Holy See Permanent Observer at the U.N. office in Geneva – noticed that «the experience of Catholic agencies and association in Geneva and on the ground worldwide, for example the International Catholic Migration Commission and the many national Caritas organizations, is well established and extensive». And he concluded: «The participation of the Holy See as a Member of the I.O.M. is a commitment to collaboration and support in the common search of solutions and assistance to people caught up in this mayor phenomenon of our globalized world».

By becoming a full member of the I.O.M., Holy See increased its diplomatic impact. The decisions is a message sent to the ones who try to undermine Holy See diplomacy from the inside. Rumors from diplomatic environments said that there is the intention to let some lay take important charges in Vatican Diplomatic Corps. Pontifical Legates must be priests, because they represent the Pope. This rule is valid only for Papal nuncios. Papal nuncios are the Pope’s ambassador, but at the same time they work as bishops. They weigh up candidates for episcopate in the countries in which they are nuncios, they speak to Episcopal conferences, and  they also have relationships with governments. On the other hand, nuncios who are appointed as permanent observer  just have in charge to maintain relationships among Holy See and States. Appointing lay people as permanent observers would not be out of Canon Law.

It is a subtle attack, moved from the inside, and it is also made through the requests made by advisors of European Union to enroll the Holy See in the «White List», the list of states most active in preventing and fighting the financial crimes.

On December 16th, the message for the World Day of Peace is presented in the Holy See Press Office. An insider of the Vatican Secretary of State defined the text a «more or less a high school homework». It is certain that the message does not follow the sketch outlined from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, and this is fairly understood during the press conference: card. Peter Turkson and mons. Mario Toso – number one and two of the Pontifical Council for Justice and peace – reveal the guidelines of international law and social doctrine of the Church that are just to be foreseen in the official text. It is the last part of a strain between the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and the Vatican Secretary of State – the climax of this strain was when the Pontifical Council published the document titled «Towards reforming the international financial and monetary system in the context of global public authority».

During these days, the list of the to-be-created cardinals is definitely sketched out. The line is fair. Rino Fisichella will not be a cardinal, and the note of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith on the year of faith – released on January, 7th, but announced on January, 5th – is interpreted as a sort of diminishment of Fisichella, even if he has the important charge to manage the Synod for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, that will open the Year of Faith. On the other hand, Francesco Coccopalmerio is created cardinal. But there is not promoveatur ut amoveatur for him: he keeps his post at the Pontifical Council for the Legislative Texts.

Why Coccopalmerio made the cut? The roots cause can be seen in a speech held by Benedict XVI  in 2008. The Pope spoke to participants in the Study Congress organized by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law. He quoted Antonio Rosmini: «The human person is the essence of law». And he said: «The ius ecclesiae is not only a body of norms formulated by the Ecclesial Legislator for this special people who form the Church of Christ. It is, in the first place, the authoritative declaration on the part of the Ecclesial Legislator of the duties and rights that are based in the sacraments and are therefore born from the institution by Christ himself».

On one hand, Benedict XVI goes on with the «turning back to God» project, announced and proclaimed during the last trip in Germany, that is intended to be completed with the year of Faith. On the other hand, Benedict XVI feels the need to look back to the law, both canon and international law.

In fact, Benedict XVI – in the  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». It was 2010.

It is also in the direction of giving more importance to law that msgr. Antonio Maria Vegliò, president of the Pontifical Council for Migrants, gained the berretta rossa. A highly experienced diplomat, Vegliò also got a doctorate in canon law. His appointment did not surprised as much, because it  fulfills Ratzinger’s requirements: since Holy See joined the International Organization of Migrants, a cardinal can increase the juridical impact of its diplomatic corp. The idea is to get back to the solidity of the international law, and at the same time to leave behind the fickleness of diplomacy.

And right before the announcement of the Consistory, during the Mass of the Epiphany, Benedict XVI made an important Episcopal ordination: the one of Charles J. Brown, a non-diplomat – he served until now in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – recently appointed as Papal nuncio to Ireland, to «fix» the difficult situation the Church of Ireland is living after the clergy abuse scandal. The appointment of Brown  is also a response to the choice of Irish government to close its embassy to the Holy See and to continue relations through an ambassador based in Dublin. Such a «calm and collected» response to Ireland – Thomas P. Melady, who served as U.S. ambassador to the Holy See during the administration of George H. W. Bush, said to Catholic News Service – thus reflects not only pastoral concern but also the «maturity of Vatican diplomacy».

This maturity, Benedict XVI aims to enforce. The list of the to-be-created cardinals increases the impact of Italian cardinals, and of Western Church in General, in the College of Cardinals. But, at the same time, the choices of Benedict XVI let understand what is his position: the Church needs to find its identity again, and its identity is also made of the ius ecclesiae. Turning back to law, to turn back to God: this is Benedict XVI project.