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 announcement of a consistory was expected. So it was that of the membership in the Cardinals’ Commission for the Oversight of the Institute for Religious Works (Istituto per le Opere di Religione, IOR), also known as the Vatican bank (misleadingly). Pope Francis, however, surprised everybody, almost accelerating timeframes.

Perhaps Pope Francis decided to play the surprise card: he never does what it is expected, also because – as he clearly wrote in the apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium – he does not want to be beholden to a «it has always been like this» maxim. Traditions – full of meaning – are not as important as the signals Pope Francis wants to project. Regarding the choice for new cardinals, Francis wanted to elevate the profile of the peripheries of the world, and at the same time show that there are no “class A” and “class B” dioceses. Regarding the IOR cardinals’ commission, there is the feeling that Pope Francis is following the path of Benedict XVI.

Benedict XVI’s huge effort for financial transparency was also marked by a change in the Holy See’s strategy at the international level. Benedict XVI was conscious that the Vatican’s borders were no longer just with Italy, but at the very least also with Europe, and that the privileged relationship with the Italian neighbor should not be a double-edged sword for the Holy See. The multilateral approach – together with a specific striving toward the truth, the “guiding light” of Benedict XVI’s pontificate – had to be pursuit at every level. This multilateral approach was carried forward according to the logic of collegiality.

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of State until last September, had also called for more collegiality. Even before the Vatileaks scandal, as some leaks were already coming out from the Vatican corridors, Bertone underlined the need for more coordination in the drafting of documents, in the preparatory paper of one of the periodic meetings of heads of Vatican dicasteries. Bertone provided the example of the method used by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

This logic of collegiality was carried forward to every field, also to the financial area. For this reason, Benedict XVI appointed the president of the Administration for the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (also known by its Italian acronym, APSA) among the members of the IOR cardinals’ commission. When Benedict XVI had to renew the commission on February 16, just a few days before the end of his pontificate, he replaced the former president of the APSA Nicora with his successor Calcagno. On the other hand, Benedict XVI had to renew the commission to leave the house in good order, since its mandate was going to expire. But he also wanted to leave a free hand to his successor, and that is why he only replaced Nicora (who had become President of the Authority for Financial Information) and confirmed all the other members.

Pope Francis wanted to wait and study the issue. In the end, he opted for a radical change. Only Jean Louis Tauran, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, kept his post within the commission, the only bridge between the old and the new management. Pope Francis appointed as a member of the new board: Santos Avril y Castellò, Archpriest of the Roman Basilica of Saint Mary the Major and a good friend of the Pope; Cristoph Schoenborn, Archbishop of Wien, Austria; Thomas Christopher Collins, Archbishop of Toronto, Canada; and Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State.

Neither Calcagno, nor any other APSA representative, have been included in the ranks of the commission. More than a “discontinuity” choice, or as an end to Cardinal Bertone’s era, Pope Francis’ decision should be read as one of strong continuity with Benedict XVI’s policy on finances.

Multilateralism brought the Holy See to look at international standards when dealing with its own financial transparency. Undergoing the evaluation process of the Council of Europe’s MONEYVAL committee, as the Vatican did, means engaging in a multilateral dynamic and peer-to-peer relations with other States, on the basis of international standards.

This is the reason why the collegiality policy cannot be applied anymore to the Vatican financial intitutions, since there must be a clear distinction between a public authority (APSA) and a financial institution (IOR), and this is exactly the reason why Cardinal Calcagno can no longer be part of the IOR Cardinals’ Commission.

Nothing extraordinary, from this perspective. Pope Francis merely took Benedict XVI’s work and carried it on, until bringing to a conclusion the reform of the Vatican financial system. The new anti-money laundering law, and the establishment of the Committee for Financial Security, enhanced and surpassed the first anti-money laundering law, which was drafted by external consultants and then completely rewritten by Vatican experts in order to fully comply with international standards.

It would have been perhaps useful if someone would have explained what was going on, in terms of financial reform. For months, newspapers wrote about an “examination” of the Holy See finances by the European commissioners; about the Vatican need to be included in a “white list” which in fact does not exist; and about a report which purportedly represented either an upgrading or downgrading of the standing of Vatican finances by European authorities, while it was merely a “peer review.”

These sort of clarifications seemed to come late, and were also obscured by internal feuds that led to many flawed characterizations of the transparency process. Misinformation often leaked to newspapers by Vatican individuals with an agenda.

Left unanswered is the question about who in particular had wanted to undermine Benedict XVI’s pontificate. As is the question of whether Pope Francis’ pontificate is being rightly defended, by the Vatican institutions themselves.

Pope Francis loves to speak off-the-cuff, and his spontaneity has led to some misunderstandings and to more or less instrumentalized controversies regarding what he says. So, the Vatican felt obliged to deliver a note (posted Jan. 13 on the Facebook page for the Vatican’s “news.va”) in order to precisely enumerate every official websites where Pope Francis’ statements and comments can be read, in order to avoid any further misunderstandings.

It was a necessary measure. Today, many in the Vatican are profoundly aware that it is necessary to shed light on what the Church is really all about. These are Vatican officials that go beyond the business-like approach that consultants take.  Consultants like McKinsey, which has already begun its meetings in the Vatican in order to see how to rationalize the Holy See’s media operations (in fact, the debate about a reorganization of Vatican media goes back to 1983, when a commission confidentially met in the Vatican).

Those who look at the Vatican as if it were just a big company, with a need for a rationalization of its structures and a good press office to communicate innovations, can never fully grasp the issues. Many Vatican officials, on the other hand, have dedicated their whole life to the Holy See and are thus fully aware of the need to shed light on the Church’s reality.

It may be true that, regarding Vatican finances, clarifications had come late. However, Father Federico Lombardi, Director of the Holy See Press Office, was really timely in delivering a note explaining in detail why the Holy See was presenting a report on children’s rights to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on January 16.

In 1990, the Holy See signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Two optional protocols, on “the involvement of children in armed conflict” and on “sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography” complement the convention. Ratification of these kinds of conventions generally require its states parties to present periodic reports on their implementation.

Every state party must report about its implementation of the convention, but the media did not underline this. The media wanted to exploit a “juicy” target of opportunity. After a state submits its written report to the committee, the independent experts who comprise the committee may submit questions in writing to the state party, which also answers them in written form. These questions and answers in some ways guide the dialogue in Geneva. Among the questions, there was one about children sex abuse by the clergy.

The Holy See gave an articulated answer, explaining the differences between the Holy See, the Vatican City State, and the Catholic Church; and about Penal Canon Law and criminal domestic laws. The Holy See briefers stressed that the Vatican encouraged every local bishops’ conference to establish guidelines to address cases of abuse on the basis of their domestic law, emphasizing the commitment of popes to fight the abuses, from John Paul II on.

In his intervention, Silvano Maria Tomasi, the Holy See Permanent Observer to the UN Office at Geneva, listed the most recent Vatican initiatives, not included in the written answers because these initiatives had taken place after the written responses were delivered. Tomasi also stressed the Council of Cardinals’ decision to establish an international commission for the protection of children.

From all of the above, the only thing that the media focused on, yet with a superficial perspective, is the Holy See’s admission that «there are no excuses» for the abuse cases. This despite the fact that Father Lombardi issued a long note clearly explaining that the report is part of a continuous evaluation process, and how to read the Holy See’s answers. Father Lombardi wanted to clear up any possible doubts.

In the same days, Associated Press published a Holy See statistics proving that Benedict XVI defrocked nearly 400 priests for raping and molesting children. The report finally shed light on Benedict XVI effort in combating the clergy sex abuses. The Associated Press got the Vatican analysis statistics, and this was not presumably by chance. In 2010, when another milestone in the sex abuse saga came out with hundreds of cases reported in the media across Europe and beyond, Associated Press quoted a 1985 letter by the then prefect for the Congregation of the Faith Joseph Ratzinger in which he reportedly resisted pleas to defrock a California priest with a record of sexually molesting children, citing concerns including «the good of the universal Church.»

In fact, Vatican communications seem to be evolving around Pope Francis, sensitive to his particular approach and also giving a wider perspective to his comments, and at the same time it is also working to change the narrative for what concerns the Benedict XVI’s pontificate. There is also a clear message that there has not been a breach with the past. There is a continuity in pastoral action, even if there are, as could be expected, differences in style between Benedict XVI and Francis. The report presented in Geneva is a testament to that continuity in diplomatic action.

Ultimately, the statements of Vatican diplomats show that the Church is the largest “values agent” in the world. While keeping a consistent stance (that of the common good and of the defense of human dignity), Vatican diplomats know how to enshrine, in the best possible ways, every papal comment. The same is true of Vatican officials charged with drafting official documents. In this way, the Pope’s worldviews and concerns are preserved and his guiding principles are embraced by the people.

The Catholic Church is still alive precisely because of the completeness of its content. No professionalizing of her communications will ever be able to displace this expertise. The Church has been nurturing this expertise for several millenniums.

In front of the Roman clergy, he spoke for one hour off-the-cuff, with no hesitation and with a certain serenity. And he denounced one of the “issues” with the Church, probably for him the pivotal one. Which is that there had been two Second Vatican Councils: one of the Fathers and one of the media. The latter deprived the Council of its content, used the Council’s key words to make the sacred profane, to maintain that ministers are not important and that laymen should democratically assume power. A political view of the Church, the virtual version of the Second Vatican Council, won the media. But now the real version is coming afloat, albeit with difficulty. Strength, tenacity, and a capacity of renewal are required. Benedict XVI doesn’t feel in himself that strength. So he resigned Peter’s ministerium.

Yet, Benedict XVI’s renunciation was not painful. Coherent with what he always said and wrote, the Pope trusted in God. His last actions as Pope – following an unchanged schedule – will be the Pope’s legacy to his successor. A legacy and path Benedict XVI already hinted at when he announced his renounce.

Monday, February, 11, the Madonna of Lourdes commemoration and a holyday at Vatican City State because of the anniversary of the Lateran Pacts. Cardinals in Rome gathered in a public ordinary consistory, with the aim to set a date for three canonizations. At the end of the Consistory, the Pope speaks in Latin, and declares that «with full freedom» and «well aware of the seriousness of this act» he renounces the ministry of Bishop of Rome entrusted to him 19 April 2005. Because, the Pope explains, «in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith», he feels that he lacks the strength of mind and body to carry on with his ministry.

 Those words already set the profile for the next Pope. Part of Benedict’s legacy will be in every word he utters, every speech he will deliver until February 28 – when the Sede Vacante (Vacant See) will officially begin. It was clear in the meeting with the Roman clergy, on Thursday, February 14^th. Priests of Rome asked the Pope to tell them about the Second Vatican Council. He suggested to “chat” with them, and spoke calmly. He remembered the enthusiasm of the Council, he traveled again through the Council’s main issues (liturgy, ecclesiology, revelation, ecumenism and religious freedom). He contrasted the «Virtual Second Vatican Council» with the «Real Vatican Council». «People – the Pope said – have heard about the Council according to the media, not the Council according to the Fathers. While the Council according to the Fathers was within the sphere of faith, the Council according to journalists was explained from a different perspective (i.e. not from faith), with a different hermeneutic: a political hermeneutic, a battle for power among the different parties. Surely, the media sided with those  advocating for the Church’s decentralization, for more power for bishops and then – through the use of the word “People of God” – for power for laymen. This media’s Council – accessible to all – «created so many calamities and problems and miseries: closed seminaries, closed convents, trivialized religion. So the true Council had many difficulties in taking shape, to realize itself. The virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. But the real strength of the Council has been present, and step by step it becomes concrete and becomes the real strength.»

 This program requires strength to be implemented. Benedict XVI’s program has been an ambitious one: returning the Church to God. How to do this, despite the poisonous influence of a Church (a Curia) suffering from the gangrene of careerism, against a Church perhaps excessively deferential  to the media, with the risk of trivializing solemn occasions and liturgies?  Like the Benedictines, the Pope wished to go beyond. He climbed high up, from where his thought could fly afar and reach everybody. As Saint Benedict from his cloister, Benedict XVI aimed at a new civilization, using his speeches as the building blocks of a Cathedral, moving attention away from gestures and actions and focusing instead on a deeper thought and theology, thus avoiding any trivialization.

The Pope explained and lived faith with reason, because faith is reasonable, alive and real — a fundamental and constant notion in Ratzinger’s theological work. The Curia, however, was still entangled in the long  legacy of John Paul II’s era. A renovation program needs a lot of strength to be carried out. Benedict XVI felt he had established the foundations, and that – through his theology and work – he had built a solid framework of thought. Now, there is a need for someone able to revolutionize everything, to change a mentality. And Benedict XVI knows that this someone cannot be him, who lived in Wojtyla’s Curia, being a voice in opposition, maybe the only voice.

When did Benedict XVI took this decision? There was not a precise moment. Those who know the Pope well can see that he had set a goal line and made headway to reach it. The time to step down was not – as the Pope told Peter Seewald in the book/interview Light of the World – in the midst of the clergy child abuse scandal. Nor was it time to step down when the Year of Faith was to begin, as all of Benedict XVI’s pontificate had pointed toward the Year of Faith. The time to step down was not during the Vatileaks scandal. At the beginning of his Pontificate, the Pope prayed for the courage of not running away when faced by the wolves. He did not. Now was the right time to step down: everything had been put in order with his most recent decisions, which really seemed intended to bring his pontificate to a close.

While there was not a single event solely responsible for the decision, perhaps the Pope’s meeting Paolo Gabriele in jail, the day the butler was pardoned, represents a turning point. Paolo Gabriele is the unfaithful butler who was sentenced to one year and a half imprisonment for leaking the Pope’s personal papers. The photographs show a butler who looks like a daring head of state who had finally succeeded in meeting the Pontiff. The Pope, indeed, seemed a little astonished, probably because of the butler’s self assurance – Gabriele now works at the Vatican-affiliated Pediatric Hospital Bambino Gesù, far from Vatican walls. Many inside the Vatican – especially among those most loyal to the Pope – disliked that portrait: Paolo Gabriele facing imprisonment with self assurance, and then behaving presumptuously after his pardon and liberation. Benedict XVI was surely not indifferent to all of this. Was Paolo Gabriele, Vatileaks’ artifex, just a man unprepared to deal with an unexpected career jump, and who then attributed to himself the role of defender and savior of the Church? Or was he influenced by other «parties» made up of those who – during the sunset of John Paul II’s Pontificate – ruled everything and later ill-received Benedict XVI’s new course?

A Pope can also ponder about these issues. Several days before he pardoned Paolo Gabriele, the Pope met with the Cardinal Commission charged with investigating the leaks of documents. The three cardinals reportedly gave him a dossier with information from their interviews with Vatican staff, which made him realize the extent of the network working against his wishes to make the Church more transparent and pure.

Perhaps Benedict XVI had wished to stay through the conclusion of the Year of Faith. Vatileaks, in fact, changed everything. They wanted the Pope to get rid of Card. Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of State, or at least of his personal secretary, Georg Gaenswein. Benedict XVI made an unprecedented choice: he stepped down, leaving both Bertone and Gaenswein at their posts. A powerful retaliation: Bertone is Chamberlain, and as such will remain at his post during the Sede Vacante  and the conclave. And Gaenswein, recently appointed Prefect of the Pontifical Household and ordained archbishop, will keep his post as well, to manage everyday affairs. In fact, Chamberlain and Prefect are the only two posts that specifically retain their portfolios during the Sede Vacante. Moreover: Gaenswein – and this prove that he is very close to Ratzinger – will go on being Benedict XVI’s personal secretary, and eventually he may take over the management of the Ratzinger Foundation, established to perpetuate the memory of Benedict XVI’s thought and work.

Benedict XVI has wanted to avoid going through a long «end of the pontificate» period, as in John Paul II’s last ten years. During that period, many appointments were not Wojtyla’s, speeches were not Wojtyla’s, and the choices were not Wojtyla’s. During those ten years, a hard core of clerks, monsignors, and nuncios rose within the Curia, who later made Pope Benedict’s  path more difficult.

Inside the Vatican, there are always the same faces, as portrayed by a wonderful picture in the last page of the Vatican daily newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, in its February 11^th edition. Angelo Sodano, Bertone’s predecessor as Secretary of State, will not be in the conclave: too old. His faction is made up of many of the diplomats he formed, headed by Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, Prefect of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches. Sandri was among the very first people to be transferred to a new post under Benedict XVI. Many of the attacks against Bertone came from Sodano’s party, which will probably support the idea of a discontinuity with the current Pontificate, believing there is a need to have a Pope that is more focused on management than on faith.

Yet, the College of Cardinals is very Ratzingerian. In the five consistories he convoked, Benedict XVI created 90 cardinals (hailing from 37 different countries): 84 are still alive, 67 will be in the conclave, where a majority of 78 cardinals is needed to elect the new Pope. Ratzinger’s cardinals will constitute the hard core of a college willing to inherit and carry on Benedict XVI’s legacy. It will help that the Pope will live within the Vatican Walls, at the Mater Ecclesiae, formerly a seclusion convent. This choice gives a new pope the maximum level of discretion and the greatest possibility of access to his predecessor, allowing them to confidentially discuss the Church’s current affairs. (Maybe even to re-visit the dossiers which Ratzinger consulted when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – dossiers which were rumored to have been left behind in Ratzinger’s former apartment, in piazza della Città Leonina, where now Ludwing Mueller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and curator of Ratzinger’s opera omnia, lives.)

What will the next pope be like? One can hazard a guess, based on Benedict XVI’s most recent  speeches: he will be a «young Pope» (60-70 years old), very close to the outgoing Pope, able to renovate and at the same time to lead the ship of Peter within the tradition. Card. Cristoph Schoenborn, Archbishop of Wien, would seem to be the most suitable choice, for his résumé. Schoenborn, with the counsel of Ratzinger – at the time Prefect of the former Sant’Uffizio – forcefully confronted clergy pedophilia scandals in Austria in the mid-Nineties, and is a dedicated pupil of Benedict XVI. But he has attracted some negative press coverage. Schoenberg was compelled to publicly apologize after he spoke critically about how Sodano, when he was Secretary of State, had managed the clergy sex abuse scandals. Schoenborn is perceived as unreliable in governance.  Would he be  agreeable  to all?

This is a time when Cardinals’ profiles are under scrutiny.  Under the spotlight are: Tagle, the young Filipino Cardinal; Ouellet, the Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops; and Odilo Pedro Scherer, Archbishop of Sao Paulo, Brazil, and member of the Institute for Religious Works (IOR) Cardinal Commission. It is a time when links are revealed. But what will become of all the knots tied toward a conclave that was not imminent, had it taken place after Benedict XVI’s death? What will be of the trusted relationship with Georg Gaenswein that many heralded or sought? Which of the fluctuating friendships will now be determining?

With his renunciation, Benedict XVI has profoundly shaken all of the above.  He has done it with a logic that has its own theological terminology, “un-mundanizing”, which he used during his most recent trip to Germany. The Pope underlined that secular trends had been in some ways providential to the Church, because they made the Church less worldly. Un-mundanizing, i.e. separate and unify. Benedict XVI is the only sovereign able to separate himself from the things of the world, with the aim of reuniting the  Church.

Benedict XVI choice is full of humility. The Pope personally assumed the question at the center of the general audience of Wednesday, February 13^th. «What is the God’s place in my life? Is he the Lord, or is it me?» Benedict XVI then explained: «The option between the closure of our selfishness and the opening to the love of God and others» is «the option between the human power and the power of the cross, between a redemption seen in the only material wealth and a redemption as God’s endeavor». To convert – the Pope concluded – «means not to be close in the search of his own success, prestige and post, but to get that every day, in small things, truth, faith in God and love become the most important thing». This principle, Benedict XVI put into practice as Pope: conscious that the Church is Christ’s, he decided to renounce his ministry.

And in the evening, during the Ash Wednesday celebration, he asked if it was possible to turn back to God, and he said that turning back to God could concretize in our life only when the Grace of Lord penetrate in the inner of ourselves and shake this inner, giving us the strength to rip the heart apart. «In our own day – the Pope said – lots of people are ready to “rend their clothing” in the face of scandals and acts of injustice – the fault naturally of others – but few seem prepared to do something about their own “hearts”, their own consciences and their own intentions, allowing the Lord to transform, renew and convert them».

That homily was precious, in pure Ratzinger style. It recalled that freedom of thought and expression that Ratzinger embraced during the 2005 Sede Vacante and at the outset of his Pontificate. Later, the Pope adopted a more papal mode of speech, which somewhat lacked this special ability to shake the conscience.

Now professor Ratzinger is back, and Pope Benedict is leaving a precise legacy. Will the cardinals know how to carry it forward?

Can it be definied a Modern Kulturkampf? During the second half of the 19^th Century, right after the First Vatican Council, the German Chancellor Otto von Bismark launched a struggle against the Catholic Church. He failed. But this struggle still echoes in German society. A couple of years ago, when a referendum about the teaching of religion at school had been promoted, some observer talked about a renewed kulturkampf.

It seems evident to many Vatican insiders that there is still a struggle against the Christian thought, and recently two cases seemed to have once more proved it: the disinformation campaign against Timo Soini, the Finnish nationalist party leader, and the disinformation about the new Hungarian Constitution, that begins claiming at the Catholic roots of the country. If then one would make a more in depth analysis of Western Parliaments composition, he would notice the lack of influence of the Catholic parties.

Italy is not an exception. After the disappear of the Democrazia Cristiana (Christian Democracy), Catholics politicians had been scattered in several (and different) political parties. Usually, it is thought that Catholics are closer to Berlusconi administration, and affiliated to the center right. But there are Catholics among the Italian center-left parties, too. Their voice is always hidden. Catholics’ spokesmen had become exponent of Christian laissez-faire liberalism or devout atheistic (this is how atheistic that speak considering the thought of the Church had been labeled).

The last 29th of June, a dinner took place at the Istituto Salesiano del Sacro Cuore di Gesù in Rome (a Salesian institute). Catholic politicians, young people, member of ecclesiastical movement sat at the same table to talk about the education of a new generation of Catholics politically and socially committed, and about what could be the space for this new generation in the Italian parties. This dinner has been interpreted as the signal of a opposition between the Vatican Secretariat of State and Italian Episcopal Conference. Isn’t it true that Cardinal Bertone wanted – and still wants – to be himself the leader of the Italian Church «in regard to relations with political institutions»?
When on March 25, 2007, Bagnasco took office as president of the CEI, it was Bertone who wrote as much to him in black and white, in a public letter. Bertone hadn’t even notified the pope about the letter.

Many wrote – and thought – that 29th of June meeting was intended to put the basis for a new Catholic party. It had been called the Cosa Bianca, the White Thing, a name that remembers the colour of Christian Democracy. The aim was to promote «a new thing», rooted in the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church. There had been only a «political» question: wheter if the scatter of Catholic politicians in several parties is something positive, or if Catholics need to find some political unity. There is no aim to break up Catholic world. The contrast between Italian Episcopal Conference and the Secretariat of State was not part of that meeting.

In fact, cardinal Bertone did not take part to the 29th of June dinner. There were both center-right and center-left Italian Catholic politicians (Beppe Pisanu, Paola Binetti, Giuseppe Fioroni, Lorenzo Cesa, Rocco Buttiglione, Savino Pezzotta), exponents of ecclesiastical movements (Sant’Egidio, Focolarini, Rinnovamento nello Spirito, Agesci, Azione Cattolica, Acli), the chaplain of the Chamber of Deputies mons. Lorenzo Leuzzi. There were also teachers and young people. And in that occasion the conference about the Catholics in Europe had been launched.

The way to the conference was quick and intense. There had been other meetings before, during the ones Catholics of different belongings and politicians agreed on the importance to give birth to a movement of action and reflection, moving from the appeal of the Pope for a new wave of Catholic politicians. This was sufficient to let a part of Italian Catholic and political world tremble. Italian newspapers published endorsement to criticize the meeting. Articles outlining the invasive and strong blessing of the Secretariat of State on the meetings had been written down. And there were a certain discontent in Italian Episcopal Conference. «There is no ending for intellectual misery. Today, thinking together to educate a new generation of Catholic politicians has become a cultural crime, or lese-majesty», monsignor Mario Toso, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, says.

There had obviously some discontent among the participants to the meeting, especially when it had been clarified that there was no intention to endorse a new Catholic party. Italian Episcopal Conference, on the other hand, fears to lose the privileged relationships with the political world. Their project risks to fail.

What is the project? «The problem – an insider source of Vatican Curia says – is not to discontent the politician bishops are linked to. The 8 per mille mechanism is too profitable for Catholic Church. But it is a system that tends to ‘blackmail’ the Church». According to Otto per mille mechanism, a part of the taxes paid by every Italian taxpayer is devolved to either the Catholic Church or some other organisation -State included. However, if no other specific group is selected as an Otto per mille beneficiary, the money is automatically re-distributed into the several organisations -according to proportionality.

So, the line is not to stamp the friends politician’s feet, and maybe thank for the Advance Directive Bill or – much better – for the cancellation of the tax it had imposed on those ecclesiastical properties which are not worship sites. The tax had been issued as part of a recent law regarding ‘fiscal federalism’, but also because Bruxelles was starting to investigate the matter. However, shortly before the Permanent Council of Italian Episcopal Conferecence of the last March (the meeting that a sort of ‘little Paliament of bishops’ holds twice a year), the exemption re-appeared. And, in return, the episcopal hit-out the opposition was waiting for never arrived.

In this way, the Church lack in prophecy. Benedict XVI appeal for a new wave of Catholic politicians is based on the need to educate a generation rooted in the Social Doctrine of the Church. Bishops and priests must educate in the parrish. Christifideles laity are called to put into action the principles. «The Christifideles laity – the Pope said – in particular, cannot be solely passive beneficiaries but are the protagonists of the Church’s social doctrine at the vital moment of its implementation. They are also valuable collaborators of the pastors in its formulation, thanks to the experience they have acquired in the field and to their own specific skills».