These words seemed a condemnation toward those who served in the Roman Curia in the last years. Vatileaks story is a warning. Paolo Gabriele, the butler who leaked documents to journalist, has been an example of the failure of the Vatican hiring and old boys’ school system definitely failed.

Still, when this failure had place must be understood. This is why what Pope Francis said is somewhat suspended. How should the old Curia man look like? Is the old Curia man’s original model that of those served under Pope Paul VI and during the first years of John Paul II pontificate? Is the old Curia man original model that of those who had been hired under the last years of John Paul II pontificate?

If this latter would be the original model, much could be argued.

After the Wall of Berlin fall, there was a feeling of liberation raised among the ranks of the Catholic Church. The Cold War was over, and so it was the era in which, for example, the defense of religious freedom was not only a religious matter, but also something that dealt with the same existence of the civilization in which religion was defended. Defending religious freedom meant to defend the Western civilization.

When the Cold War came to an end, things were not probably pondered in the most proper way. Yes, John Paul II spoke words of fire against capitalism and consumerism, he attacked the way Western Civilization was acting during his trip to United States in 1984. It was not sufficient, since nobody seemed to remember his words at the end of the Cold War.

Hence, from the Fall of Berlin Wall, a new policy for the hiring was started in the Vatican. People was not anymore hired  only on the basis of skills and morality. People was hired if he is considered a good guy and has a good recommendation.

This is how somebody in the Vatican corridors is describing how thing had gone.

In fact, there is another key point to consider.

When Benedict XVI was elected Pope, he found himself within a system corroded by the gangrene of careerism. There had not been a generational change of the personnel. So, while the old men  of Curia man were in fact old, the new men of the Curia were not as efficient as expected.

What did Benedict do? He started a titanic operation. In his installation Mass, he told that his program was to follow the will of God. After praying, meditating and also weighing on the basis of the experience he had of the Roman Curia, Benedict XVI began convinced that the Holy See needed to strengthen his status of sovereign State in the concert of nations. Leafing through the pages of his beloved Saint Augustine, Benedict XVI remembered that «without rules, the State is something more than a gang of bandits».

His incessant work behind the curtains was aimed to give the Holy See a proper legal framework. Before changing and substituting men, Benedict XVI wanted to build up such a framework in which lobbies, little centers of power, circle of friends could be absorbed.

To reach this goal, Benedict XVI formed a team, and the top officials of this team came from the ranks of the ex Sant’Uffizio. As prefect of the Congregation, Benedict XVI perfected a method, which he based on dialogue. It was a efficient method. It worked.

In fact, the efficientism of this collaborators could perhaps made Benedict XVI suffer. And so, considering the low cultural level of the men of the Curia, Pope Ratzinger’s collaborators thought it was proper to employ experts came from the outside.

In fact, Vatican outsourcing is not something new. But it multiplied, considering that Curia men’s level lowered.

Outsourcing brings to open spaces where lobbies can enter. In fact, external consultant work in the Vatican, not for the Vatican. They carry on their personal interests before the interests of an institution they are not linked to.

This is what is going on with the transparency operation carried on from the Institute for Religious Works, namely the IOR. Recently, IOR launched its web site, while the IOR Council of Superintendancy president Ernst von Freyberg is working hard to show to the world that the fame of opacity and illicit traffic built around the Institute comes from misperceptions, more than from facts.

This is one of the reason why Ernst von Freyberg hired the Promontory Group to audit the IOR. A team of 20 Promontory experts installed in the old IOR office that belonged to msgr. Marcinkus. Eleven out of twenty are working on the list of accountant, filing anything interesting about the account holders, to respond to customer due diligence.

They are analyzing about 1000 account holders a month. That this is the “work of the life” for Promontory is proved by the fact that Elizabet McCaul is in Rome, and sleeps in Domus Sanctae Marthae. Mccaul is one of the most prestigious members of Promontory Group.

Von Freyberg also hired a company of public relations, and so a press office coming from Germany must speak with journalists to explain what lead to this IOR misperception and how things are going to change.

We are anyway talking about experts coming from outside the Vatican. They tell the story they learn, they do not know anything about the Vatican.

It is noteworthy that the communication experts are looking to get personally in touch with journalist, in order to lobby as much as they can. So, there is not the democracy of the news (although the good news) delivered to everybody. The need is to move the public opinion in the direction they want.

Is this real transparency? What will remain of this kind of an “open door policy”? And will be of the experts that were able to work inside the Vatican from the outside?

It is difficult to foresee anything. But it is hopeful that, when Pope Francis used to talk about the old Curia men, he referred to those who arouse under Paul VI and the first part of John Paul II. Hence then, everything changed. That is why the Curial cultural level lowered so much.

The Church in the community of nations

This is the reason why the Holy See is present within the diplomatic framework of the community of nations  –the only religious, not political, institution therein. «Reawake and inspire consciences», this is the task of the Church’s international agenda, according to Mamberti. The Social Doctrine of the Church, in fact, is rooted in the heart of man. As is the Charter of the United Nations. In the preamble of the Charter, the founders of the United Nations reaffirmed «faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small». The choice of the word «faith» is revealing. Faith makes reference to  deeply held beliefs. So, the United Nations is based on this faith in man’s rights that all peoples can relate to, no matter what their religious beliefs may be.

Mamberti explains that «the Holy See has always worked to uphold the centrality of the human person. This vision comes from the human person’s true nature. No one should lose sight of the basic principle that man is at the center of the concerns of the international community».

The Church’s struggles

Mamberti presents an example. He remembers the Church’s struggles for life, he underlines that «even if the right to life is affirmed, it is also ever increasingly questioned. It suffices to think about the debate on abortion, on human embryo experimentations, on euthanasia. Countries speak about “reproductive health” euphemistically. And “to die with dignity” is just a slogan to support euthanasia. It is very important to be alert to defend the right to life».

The Holy See diplomatic work is never ending, and it is always more sophisticated. Diplomacy must «fight» a change of vocabulary that Silvano Maria Tomasi, permanent observer of the Holy See to the UN office in Geneva, described as the change of a way of thinking: «The change of the vocabulary –Tomasi wrote –  began with the sexual revolution of 1968 and asserted itself after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989». It was then that the two blocks of the Cold War were replaced by a plurality of actors in the international scenario. «In this new situation – Tomasi explained in a debate on February 17, 2011– the United Nations felt freer.  Moreover: they felt charged with the specific mission to promote practical priorities that – according to the advisors involved – would have led to a more rightful and free world.»

From 1989 on, the new language to sustain this mission has been built up on a series of «key words»: human globalization, sustainable development, good governance, world ethic, cultural diversity, dialogue among civilizations, quality of life, gender, equal opportunities, homophobia, sexual orientation, safe abortion, future generation rights, non-governmental organization, partnerships, civil society, participative democracy, transnational networks, consensus building, inclusive approach, agent-actor of social transformation, best practices, sexual and reproductive rights, right to choose, equal commerce, diverse forms of family.

On the other hand, the words that belong to the Christian-Judaic tradition are excluded, or even tend to disappear: truth, morality, conscience, reason, earth, will, parents, spouse, husband, mother, father, son, daughter, chastity, complementariness, service, authority, hierarchies, law, commandment, dogma, sin, nature, marriage.

The Church’s new (and old) challenges

This new vocabulary is – Tomasi explained – «a mix of words of authentic human aspirations and values with words that represent an individualistic ideology taken to the limit. The latter inspires and guides the managers of world governance. This is how we get to a systematic and lasting transition of words in the documents of the United Nations: from government to governance, from authority to autonomy and rights of the individuals, from spouse to partner, from happiness to quality of life, from given to built, from family to family in all of its forms, from dignity sufferance to the right to die, from majority decision to consensus, from dogma to freedom of interpretation.»

The language of specialized fields also evolved: the Holy See path to financial transparency forced Holy See officials to come to terms with the terminology of international financial law. How to be a «secure» country in the community of nations was the most important topic during the talks with MONEYVAL – the body of the Council of Europe that evaluates the financial adherence of the member States.

Nevertheless, the diplomatic contributions of the Holy See, disseminated like gems inserted in several international documents, gave its fruits. For example, the right to assistance for victims of cluster bombs was a struggle fought by the Holy See in the drafting of the International Convention in Dublin in 2008. The Cluster Munition Convention was signed in Oslo at the end of 2008.

Mamberti reminded the students of Studium Aquinatis that «the Holy See has always been active in the diplomatic front of disarmament. The Holy See was among the founding members of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) in 1957, which goal is to limit, reduce and eliminate nuclear armaments and to facilitate the shared use of atomic energy for pacific purposes. The Holy See has been and is among the countries that negotiated the treaty of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons as well as other related international conventions and treaties. With regards to cluster bombs, the Holy See was one of the most active States: I personally signed on behalf of the Holy See the adhesion to the Convention and I deposited the ratification documents on the first day it was possible in Oslo on December 2008. The Holy See wanted to send a signal to the international community».

A piece of the history of the negotiations of the Cluster Munitions Convention shows the struggles the Holy See is facing in the international arena. After gaining acknowledgement for the right of victims to be assisted, a delegation wanted to amend the paragraph concerning this right, asking that the assistance needed to be «gender sensitive». The Holy See was very aware of  this: from this addition, each country could be forced to be «gender sensitive» and to develop legislation for a new kind of «health care system» – this process is called “soft law”. This is why the Holy See  worked in order to make clear that everything was applied according to the legislation of each State. It is the same reason why the Holy See did not want to sign the document for the UN declaration on decriminalization of homosexuality, thus becoming the target of international complaints. It was not because the Holy See is against «LGBT rights». The Holy See maintains that, already, the Universal Human Rights Declaration covers all human beings. The so-called «gender sensitivity», or the declaration on decriminalization of homosexuality, would in some ways assess that there are men that are more equal than other men. The question is: why to state the need to decriminalize the homosexuality, why to have anti-homophobic law, when Universal Righet already protect all the human beings from every discrimination?

The Church’s struggle for human rights

The Holy See cares deeply about human rights. The concern for religious freedom has always been one of the core commitments of the Holy See. «Christians or other believers – Mamberti says – are persecuted and discriminated in subtle ways, and this happens when religious freedom is reduced to freedom of conscience or freedom of worship. Religious freedom does not only deal with a personal religious component, it also deals with community». Mamberti recalled that «John Paul II said that religious freedom is the litmus test of human rights. Where religious freedom is under threat, all human rights are under threat. I can assure you that defending religious freedom is the main task of the Holy See, and this brings benefits not only to Christians and Catholic believers, but to all believers.»

The human person is at the core of the Holy See International agenda. That is why the Holy See is committed to the common good. «Human rights – Mamberti says – are a common patrimony to defend, without any alteration. Fundamental rights are not the fruit of a consensus or of majorities, they do not come from the State or from any other human institution. Human rights are part of the human being: they are  a gift  that God gave to humanity».

Recently, the Church has been accused of being a champion of a New World Order, because of the recent reflections of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace about an «authority with universal competences», a super partes international organization to regulate international finance and also the relations among States in order to get to the Common Good – as John XXIII put it in Pacem in Terris. Is this authority a sort of great Leviathan? Or is international finance the Leviathan, as msgr. Mario Toso, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, maintained? The United Nations seems to aim to a New World Order, and this is the reason why it is creating – in its documents – a sort of new anthropology.

A book has been published in Italy that brings to light for the first time in a direct and detailed way the anti-Catholic aversion of the UN and the EU: «Contro il cristianesimo. L’ONU e l’Unione Europea come nuova ideologia  [Against Christianity: The UN and the European Union as a New Ideology] », by Eugenia Roccella and Lucetta Scaraffia.  In the introduction to the volume, Roccella and Scaraffia identify the roots of the new ideology as the «separation between sexuality and procreation». «More –they write– than a different model of sexual behavior, but conceptually analogous to those that have preceded it in history, this is a question of a real and true utopia, because it is based upon the idea that human beings can find happiness in the realization of their sexual desires, without the moral, biological, social, and relational limitations linked to procreation. This utopia has its roots in the sexual revolution in the West during the 1960′s, and it has not yet been disputed, even though it seems not to have kept its promises. It is a utopia that echoes another, one that brings painful memories: that the selection of new human beings can create a better, more healthy, more beautiful humanity».

It is not just a matter of words. It is a matter of ideology. The conceptual scenario has its own dynamics, and this leads to concrete transformations in several branches of social and political life. Religious freedom and the way it has been handled is an example. An approach to religious freedom linked to intolerance was first included in the Declaration on the principles of Tolerance of UNESCO in 1995 and was then promoted in the Resolution 2004/36, adopted in the 60th session of the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations in 2004. A new chapter was then opened with resolution 61/164 (Combating the defamations of religions), adopted in the General Assembly of the United Nations December, 19th, 2006. In that resolution, religion is used to limit other basic freedoms (the right to freedom of expression) and to oppress religious minorities when some impose with force and terrorism their religious ideologies, and deny a place in the public sphere to others’ faith and beliefs.

As always, one should look back in time. It was in 1981 – when the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief – that the concept of tolerance  was placed side by side to religion or belief. «But tolerance – Tomasi explained – is a tool, not a right. In fact, while with religious freedom we mean the guarantee of Government that individuals have freedom of belief and the guarantee of freedom of worship for individuals and groups – including the freedom not to believe in any god– religious tolerance is about accepting or permitting beliefs or religious practices that are different from one’s own.»

These are just some of the hurdles the Holy See faces in its commitment to the Common Good. A commitment that comes out from believing in the inherent dignity of human beings. The same belief that the founders of the United Nations identified in reaffirming «faith» in fundamental human rights, and in the dignity and worth of the human person.

Vatican sidelined

Churches commitment for the ATT was strong. The last week WCC joint appeal reminded all that saving human lives is the most visible and concrete aim of the ATT.  And saving human lives is the reason why the Holy See – which has always been committed to policies and negotiations for disarmament – decided to take part in the drafting of the ATT.  In the end, the Treaty is the «least bad» solution, a hurdle on the path to integral disarmament, which is the great utopian ideal of the Church. A «utopian ideal» that is not an unreachable goal: on the basis of the Social Doctrine of the Church and comprehensive human development, step by step, the Holy See’s diplomatic engagement has been able to achieve important milestones.  It is a path toward the «disarmament of the heart», the necessary pre-condition to reach full disarmament. In fact, Holy See did not have such a considerable weight in the U.N. conference, because of a tense debate over the seating of a Palestinian representative, which was fiercely opposed by Israel and the US. The Palestinian Liberation Organization has observer status at the UN, as does the Holy See. The dispute was eventually resolved when both Palestinian and Vatican delegates agreed to accept lesser status, making them able to participate in the discussions, but not as recognized members.

ATT, a least bad solution

That the ATT is for the Catholic Church the lesser evil solution is clear in the speeches that Francis Chullikat, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, addressed to the Fourth Session of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, last February 13^th.  One of the reasons why the Holy See is a permanent observer – and not a full member – of the United Nations lies on decisions taken on sessions like this.  As a full member, the Holy See would be obliged to vote, and its vote could be politically manipulated.  As a permanent observer, the Holy See maintains its super partes prerogatives, and at the same time has a considerable diplomatic impact.  The Holy See’s main objective is not to have arms considered an «economic good» like any other.

ATT, five Vatican points

Chullikat’s intervention at the committee comprised five points.  First, the scope of the ATT, which should be broad, «comprising not solely the 7 categories of arms which the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms considers, but also small arms and light weapons, together with their relevant munitions, which enter the illicit market often with greater ease and give rise to a series of humanitarian problems».   Second, the request that the Treaty refer to human rights, humanitarian law and development.  At the same time, Chullikat affirms that it is «necessary to find terminology which limits subjective possibilities open to political abuse, and which will facilitate the ascertainment of modalities for application of such criteria».

Chullikat admonished that «the success of the Treaty will depend also on its ability to promote and reinforce international co-operation and assistance between States»; underlined that «provisions relating to assistance for victims must be maintained, and if possible, strengthened, giving attention also to the prevention of illicit arms proliferation, by reducing the demand for arms which often feeds the illicit market». And: «It seems opportune, from this perspective, then, to introduce references in the Treaty to educative processes and public awareness programmes – involving all sectors of society, including religious organizations – that are aimed at promoting a culture of peace.» Finally – Chullikat said – «mechanisms for treaty review and updating need to be strong and credible, capable of quickly incorporating new developments in the subject matter of the ATT, which must remain open to future technological developments. »

On his last interventions to the negotiations in New York, Chullikat re-underlined these five points, remembering that «the ATT debate gave us the opportunity to point out once again the pernicious impact of the illicit arms trade on development, peace, humanitarian law and human rights. Arms cannot simply be compared with other goods exchanged in global or domestic markets. They need a specialised regulation, one capable of preventing, combating and eradicating the irresponsible and illicit trade of conventional arms and related items». Chullikat also said that «this effort calls for the involvement of all members of the international community: States and international organizations, NGOs and the private sector. All of them are responsible for promoting an interrelated action aimed at the “establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources” (cfr. Art. 26 of the UN Charter) ».

Arms are not a conventional economic good

The Chullikat’s five points are part of a well defined program.  On the one hand, the five points underline the need to diminish the demand for an arms market, favoring peace and education processes instead. In this sense, the Holy See supports the proposal not to allow the issuance of patents to inventions that can be dangerous to human beings.  This would make arms production unprofitable, and thus a strong deterrent to the invention and manufacturing of new arms and a good means to get to full disarmament.

On the other hand, it is obvious that favoring peace and education processes means that the Holy See wants more attention paid to people’s development («The new name of peace is development», Paul VI wrote in the encyclical Populorum Progressio in 1967) and to favor the greatest degree possible of multilateral diplomacy, in order to take into account the needs of all countries – even the smallest ones (several times the Holy See has criticized the G-meetings – G8, G20 – and advocated for a reform of the United Nations).  It is to protect the poorest countries that the Holy See requested that the Arms Trade Treaty include all arms – and not just the types included in the United Nations Register –in illicit traffic prevention efforts.

Until now, the Holy See was alone in the fight to broaden the Treaty.  Only recently the United Kingdom – at the end of the visit of the delegation sent by Prime Minister Cameron to celebrate 30 years of diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and the Holy See – joined the Holy See in this effort. And then also Mexico – during the Papal trip – backed the Holy See positions at the ATT negotiations.

An “intellectual” and economical struggle

The Holy See’s position on disarmament impinges upon, in a very particular way, the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. TRIP is an international agreement administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO) that sets minimum standards for mutual recognition of many forms of intellectual property among member states.  It was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1994. Article 27.2 of TRIP allows States to withhold patents on inventions which application could threaten public order or human life or health.

Not to patent weapons inventions would make the development of arms less attractive to industries, and States may be less interested in producing and trading them.  The risk that technological and scientific progress may be used to elude international regulations on disarmament and arms control, or as a means of economic and military hegemony, remains.  Highly developed countries could claim that sophisticated – so called “intelligent” – arms are compatible with disarmament and arms control regulations, and with international human rights. This could lead to a controversial scenario: only the arms held by less developed countries – not as sophisticated – would be incompatible with regulations, i.e. illicit.   Another problematic area relates to the development of genetically modified biological weapons, or bio-technological military applications, were rich countries would also have the competitive advantage.

Economic-financial issues always press on. The «civilian» economy tends to overlap with military-driven technological advancements and spending.  Much of the concerns of the Holy See have been on dual use, i.e. on the possibility that that the same good could be used for both civil and military purposes. There is a need for clarity, since «dual use» technology can bring confusion to trade regimes unable or unwilling to properly distinguish between the civilian and military applications of a product.

These are some of the key points of the Holy See’s diplomatic engagement on disarmament.  The Holy See acknowledges there have been positive developments on disarmament and arms control, and closely monitored the negotiations at the United Nations.  The Holy See is also aware that UN negotiations can always get «stuck» because of the resistance of particularly influential States – as happened in the last U.N. conference. But there are also some encouraging developments, like the adoption of the Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention and the Cluster Munitions Convention – conventions adopted out of the context of the Conferences on disarmament.

A new diplomacy reveals that not only States are interested in disarmament

This model for new diplomatic activity shows the application of the Social Doctrine of the Church and the merits of the principle of subsidiariaty. It reveals that not only States, through traditional diplomatic channels, are interested in disarmament. This new diplomacy can also be very appealing to Non Governmental Organizations. Diplomacy inspired by religious belief – it is worth noting – should not be undervalued.  In the past, documents like the Pastoral Letter on War and Peace. The Challenge of Peace: God’s promise and our response, released by US bishops in 1983, contributed significantly to the debate on arms control, despite Cold War proliferation dynamics. More recently, bishops’ conferences of Scotland, England and Wales campaigned against the renewal of Great Britain’s Trident nuclear system.

More broadly, the fruits of the Holy See’s diplomatic work are like gems shining in many international documents. For example, the right to assistance for cluster munitions victims was included in the Cluster Munitions Convention thanks to the Holy See’s relentless efforts during the Convention’s drafting in Dublin in 2008 (the Convention was signed in Oslo that same year).

Building upon this history of engagement, the Holy See worked on the ATT in New York, and will keep on working on the new talks on this issue.  Reaffirming the perspective of the Social Doctrine of the Church, the Holy See upholds the centrality of the human person. This approach perhaps makes disarmament an even greater challenge.  It is, however, an approach that is about the healing of the heart and thus sets a path more conducive to full disarmament and the common good.

It is a very clear message. The majority of the leaked documents recently published in the book Sua Santità (His Holiness) by Gianluigi Nuzzi discredit Benedict XVI’s secretary Msgr. Georg Gaenswein and the Secretary of State, Card. Tarcisio Bertone. So, the Pope renews his trust in his closest collaborators, the ones that work in silence. It is a clear signal of change in the Holy See’s communication strategy, reached in a crescendo: first, on Tuesday morning, Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office, invited journalists not to be manipulated, since many of the stories published in newspapers fall «outside reality»; on Tuesday afternoon, an interview to Angelo Becciu –substitute (deputy) to the Secretary of State – was published on the Holy See newspaper L’Osservatore Romano. In the interview. Becciu asked journalists to reach «a higher moral standard», and criticized partisan narratives of events; finally, on Wednesday morning, for the first time the Pope talked openly and clearly about the Vatileaks scandal. The Church is not whispering anymore, and there are few things left to interpretation. On the other hand, there are things to take note of.

Paolo Gabriele’s arrest

Paolo Gabriele’s arrest – the Pope’s butler is accused to be in possession and have leaked Papal and Holy See private documents – is just one piece of a puzzle that risks to become hard to manage.  It is not because the Vatican investigators may eventually conclude that there are many people who can be blamed for the situation, perhaps including some cardinals.  The issue lies with a persistent «gang of malcontents» within the Vatican.  It is not a big gang, but it is entrenched in key posts and can count on loyal and silent employees in every corner of the Rome Curia. The close linkages between elements inside and outside the Vatican complicates things even further. Some claim that the masonry had a role in this «scandal», but a masonry working for the good of the Church, in order to save the Church from Card. Bertone.  Yet, attacking Bertone means attacking Benedict XVI and his gentile revolution, which has very much changed the face of the Curial leadership. Attacking Bertone also means attacking the Secretariat of State’s credibility, and this could be dangerous: the Secretariat of State handles relations with foreign countries, and its international image has been damaged. According to Pastor Bonus – the pastoral constitution that outlines the organization of the Roman Curia – the Secretariat of State must also coordinate the Curial offices. However, on the recent past– particularly since the end of the Second Vatican Council – the Secretary of State’s coordination role has lost ground, and his diplomatic profile risen. No surprise that diplomats are unhappy: they suffer from their internal loss of influence, even when they have maintained important relations with elements outside the Church.  If one is to look for a point of contact with the masons or with those hostile to the Church, one should look there.

The inquiry

The inquiry that led to Paolo Gabriele’s arrest started long time ago. The inquiry has been described as an obscurantist Vatican initiative. In fact, the Holy See is acting as every State would, if its head had private papers stolen. The papers are stolen, so the person who stole them needs to be arrested and punished. It is a principle of justice that deals with the right to privacy. It is a crucial matter. Ever since the first leaked documents were published in the Italian newspaper il Fatto Quotidiano and were shown in Gianluigi Nuzzi’s tv program Gli intoccabili (The untouchables), it was evident that most of them were stolen directly from the desk of the Pope. Some did not even had any marking’s from  the Secretariat of State, which means that they came directly from the Pope.

The Vatican Gendarme Corps started its inquiry right after the first publication of the documents. In March, a commission of three cardinals – Herranz, Tomko, and De Giorgi – is appointed by the Pope to investigate the leaks. It was widely known – inside the Vatican – that someone had passed papers out of the Vatican Walls, and that Gianluigi Nuzzi was writing a new book. The strategy is to stay put until the publication of the book. It is a risk. But Vatican enquirers need to be able to charge someone with a crime: as long as the documents were quoted in journals, but not actually reproduced, allegations of wrongdoing could be denied. But, once the documents are published, there is proof of a crime to charge someone with. The possible motives are yet to be determined.

As soon as the book by Gianluigi Nuzzi is published, the Holy See is ready to respond. Informal meetings are called to consider whether or not to take legal action, and a decision to do so is taken. Lombardi states that the publication of the document is «a criminal act» implying that legal action is forthcoming. Everything is now clear, since that kind of document can only come from the Papal apartment.

Who took the documents out? Memores Domini – lay women at the service of the Pope – are excluded; the two secretaries of the Pope, msgrs Georg Gaenswein and Alfred Xuereb, are also excluded; the circle inexorably draws around Paolo Gabriele.

Gabriele – his lawyers maintained and Father Lombardi confirmed– wants to collaborate with the magistrates, and this will broad the scope of the investigation. Paolo Gabriele is not “the” guilty party. He is just part of a sophisticated operation, that involves many among the Curial second lines (i.e. those “grey eminences” that never lose their posts) and among those who once had positions of power but no longer do. The legacy of the 27 years of John Paul II’s Pontificate has been particularly heavy for Benedict XVI. Those who managed power during the last years of John Paul II’s Pontificate, while the Pope was ill, have sought to keep it.

It was – several voices in the Vatican corridors say – the powerful secretary of Karol Wojtya, Stanislao Dziwisz (now cardinal and archbishop of Cracow) who recommended Paolo Gabriele – even if Dziwisz now pointed out that Gabriele did not work for John Paul II. Gabriele began his service in the Papal apartment as second assistant about a decade ago. When Angelo Gugel – the previous butler – retired, Gabriele inherited the position and a house in the Vatican. Dziwisz – who did not want to leave Rome – still kept some influence, in part because he had Wojtyla’s private papers and documents. The late Pope in his will had asked Dziwisz to burn his private papers. But the archbishop of Cracow said that he kept the papers.

Rings of a long chain

We need to look back in time, to Karol Wojtyla’s Pontificate. John Paul II gave great visibility to the Church, and made of it a strong institution in diplomacy. His words, his free style, breaking conventions, tilted the balance of power between states. His first international trip was to Mexico, in 1979. There, the priests could not even wear a habit , and were not allowed to have properties of their own. His second international trip was to Poland, his homeland. There, communism put religion aside and promoted a state atheism that is evident even in public housing construction projects, built by the government, where no provisions are made for places of worship. Things would change in these two countries, and so it will happen in the several countries John Paul II will be visiting during his Pontificate.

It is the Cold War era, and the Church is immersed in intense but behind the scenes diplomatic relations. Notwithstanding John Paul II’s criticism of Western consumerism («We like the singer, not the song», will be the revealing headline of U.S. newspapers during the first John Paul II’s visit to the United States), diplomatic relations deepen and are strengthened with Western countries, in order to counter Communism.

It can seem self-serving, but the mission of the Church is also to protect her communities, and that is why during those times the struggle against Communism is a priority. So, the Church sent money to Solidarnosc, the Catholic Union that is going to change Poland; the Church established diplomatic ties with Ronald Reagan’s U.S. administration; the Church protected its communities even by establishing a dialogue with dictatorial regimes – in fact, you make an agreement with whom you do not trust. Augusto Pinochet’s case is very telling. Pinochet is the dictator of Chile, and he claims himself to be Catholic. In 1986, when he was the victim of a shooting, Pinochet ascribed to the Virgin Mary his survival, and proof of it – he said – was the profile of the Virgin etched by the bullets on his Mercedes. Chilean bishops did not think it was as Pinochet said. On the contrary, many of them were against him. Fortunately, there is a Papal nuncio to deflect confrontations, and his name is Angelo Sodano. At the same time, the military junta sent the nuncio several complaints about bishops and priests with strong political views.

When – in 1987 – John Paul II goes to visit Chile and leans out from the balcony of the presidential house of La Moneda, a hand ushers Pinochet to the side of the Pope. John Paul II – annoyed at what had happened – adds to his program a meeting with the Chilean opposition. Sodano’s considered the Chilean military junta  «a transitory dictatorship». Even now that everything has passed, Sodano is uncomfortable when reminded about relations with Pinochet. Back in 1993, Sodano – already ascended to the post of Secretary of State – wrote to Pinochet that he held for him the highest consideration. Even this is transitory.

The diplomats

Sodano’s way of thinking and acting comes from the diplomats’ school. It is the education of those formed in the Ecclesiastical Accademy and in the shadow of the Ostpolitik of Cardinal Agostino Casaroli, Secretary of State towards the end of Paul VI’s and the first decade of John Paul II’s pontificates. The Academy taught that diplomacy should be a sort of «martyrdom of patience»: ecclesiastical diplomats should talk with everybody, even putting aside differences, or even if the starting point of the dialogue is far from the religious truth, in order to gain some concession. This gives birth to a Church that is very active diplomatically, and this is why she breeds many «high level» diplomats during those years. A pupil of Card. Sodano is Leonardo Sandri: he will be appointed Papal nuncio to Mexico and then substitute (deputy) to the Secretary of State, at the time when Sodano himself is Secretary. Also Giovan Battista Re is formed in the confines of the Secretariat of State, and later will be created cardinal and appointed prefect of the Congregation of Bishops. So is Achille Silvestrini, prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches in the nineties, an esteemed and controversial figure. And Crescenzio Sepe – now archbishop of Naples, who at first was responsible of the Information Office, and ascended to prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples.

Sodano is appointed Secretary of State in 1990, replacing Casaroli. The world has changed. The Berlin Wall fell, the Cold War ended, there is no longer a need to fight Communism. The world is now different. No one puts religions aside, and the Holy See is invited, repeatedly, to enhance its participation in the United Nations by becoming a member state, and not just a permanent observer. The Holy See declined, in order not to risk its neutrality. John Paul II carries on with his guiding mission, but his voice is increasingly set aside. No one listens to him when he speaks against the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia. And no one will listen to the Church when he condemned the Second Gulf War, after 9/11. John Paul II becomes definitely aware that the world has changed during his last trip to Poland: he sees that the enthusiasm for him and for the Church has diminished. The blocks of the Cold War are gone, and the multilateral world acknowledge religions’ right to exist. But this right is conceived mostly in terms of tolerance: religious freedom is confused with freedom of worship, the freedom to profess a faith is confused with freedom of expression. But, even if the world has changed, the Vatican Ostpolitik – based on a sort of Westphalian epistemology that is outmoded– remains always the same: they hope for concessions from the countries’ administration, and they seek behind the scenes agreements, since that is the diplomacy Vatican diplomats learned.

Two teams contending: diplomats and Cdf

One should maybe look to the diplomats’ environment to identify the members of the “Gang of Malcontents”. What is now evident is that the attack to the Pope comes from inside the Church, and that it takes advantage of forces against the Church that are also willing to stir trouble from the outside. The heart of the matter is the Holy See’s sovereignty, and everybody seems to be aware of it. It is at the heart of the matter when the letters by Msgr. Viganò – former number 2 of the Vatican City State administration – are leaked, since they are presented and discussed by the media as if the Church were a multinational on Italian territory. It is a key point in the discussion about the financial transparency and the anti-money laundering law, and it concerns the reform of the Vatican Law n. 127 – (the “old” law practically does not consider the Holy See a State: there is no hint to official privileges and immunities; the Holy See governmental bodies are not involved in ensuring transparency, there is just an Authority for Financial Information – as if in Italy or other countries there would just be the Financial Intelligence Unit to oversee transparency of the institutes of credit, and there would not be the Guardia di Finanza; there is no mention of the peculiarities of the Holy See/Vatican City State).

These are intersecting issues. They involve people that some would consider above any possible suspicion. There are Vatican rumors about a cupola, a group of people that meets once a month in Cardinal Sodano’s office as dean of the College of Cardinals, the first dean to have an office for that post in the recent history of the Church. Sodano very much wanted this multi-million euro office for himself, after he had been replaced as Secretary of State.

Here it becomes evident that, during this Papacy, the «bite and devour» that the Pope censored in a letter to bishops in 2009 has nevertheless been going on. At the beginning of  2006, Sodano knows that his time as Secretary of State is coming to an end. He wants to place his men in key posts. He was one of the first promoters of an immediate beatification of John Paul II – he wanted it to be by acclamation right after his death, in order to move the historical assessment on the Pontificate at least 50 years forward. He did not succeed: Benedict XVI waives the five year waiting period after the death of a candidate, but requests a traditional canonical process.

Then, Sodano presses for the appointment of a successor to Card. Camillo Ruini, then president of the Italian Bishops’ conference. Vatican chats tells that Sodano asks Msgr. Paolo Romeo – then Papal nuncio to Italy, now cardinal and archbishop of Palermo – to send a letter to all the Italian bishops (except Ruini) to indicate who they would prefer as successor of Ruini. Unsurprisingly, someone informs Ruini. Also to be expected, Ruini refers the issue to the Pope. And, naturally, the Pope confirms Ruini as president of the Italian Bishops Conference donec aliter provideatur. He also calls Paolo Romeo for consultations. Romeo leaves the meeting anguished. But it is Sodano that is left shaking.

The news that Sodano will be replaced takes place in June of 2006. To do away with tensions, the Pope announces the substitution will come into effect in September. The new Secretary of State will be Tarcisio Bertone, archbishop of Genoa. Sodano does not waste time. He sends Msgr. Piero Pioppo, then his personal secretary, to Genoa in order to convince Bertone not to accept the new post. But Bertone stands firm, he is faithful to Benedict XVI. There is a summer of interregnum, and Sodano makes his last appointments: Piero Pioppo is appointed as prelate of the I.O.R., a position that had remained vacant for years and that represents a sort of link between the (lay) board of Superintendence and the college of cardinals of the Institute. Then, in September, when the replacement takes effect, Sodano refuses to vacate his office quarters, waiting for his new office as dean to be restructured. After one year, he moves to his new office. The officers of the Secretary of State are still on his side.

The Pope’s Regensburg speech takes place during the 2006 trip to Germany, and it is a diplomatic earthquake. It is the «swansong» of Sodano’s era. Benedict XVI had already began to change the art of diplomacy. The all-is-good Casaroli’s Ostpolitik does not work anymore: the Berlin Wall fell, and with it the traditional enemies of the Church have left the scene. There are no more Communists, and if there are, they struggle among themselves. On the other hand, the Western world is thriving, and Vatican diplomats feel they are among friends. In the name of the struggle against Communism, many relationships had been established. There is, among the Vatican top officials, a mistaken sense of victory. Centesimus Annus, one of the social encyclicals by John Paul II, is a result of an internal debate: how much does the Social Doctrine of the Church apply to the modern world? A «middle way» prevails: it is not overtly critical of the Western World and liberalism, but at the same time it reaffirms the positions of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

In the mean time, the diplomats’ careers are advancing, they are a closely knitted group – even if a book, Via col Vento in Vaticano, published at the end of the nineties, insinuates a subtle war between two factions. They have strengthened their ties in a thousand battles, when they needed to save a community, a diplomatic relation, and this had to be done without taking into consideration more deeply rooted truths. During the war, the Church must promote peace. And truth is maybe a goal too big to achieve.

But there is another team being trained, and it is the team of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The leader of the Cdf team is Joseph Ratzinger, since 1983. Step by step, the Cdf assumed the «Ratzinger’s method». It suffices to read his biography to understand that Ratzinger loves to harmonize positions, not to impose his own point of view. And this is why the decisions of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith do not just censure a position, but go on to note those aspects of a criticized book, theology or ideas which are good. Few may remember, but there are two Cdf statements on the Theology of Liberation,  the first one pars destruens and the second one pars construens of a dialectic process. Nothing is demonized completely.

When prefect of the Cdf, and even earlier, as archbishop of Munich and as a theologian, Joseph Ratzinger warned that pragmatism and ideological struggles had taken the place of faith in Jesus. It is Joseph Ratzinger’s constant worry. In his theological works, he always shed the light on the «Jesus issue». For years, he thinks about a historical  biography of Jesus based on the Gospel, which he will publish after his election as Pope. He is also always worried and aware of the need to harmonize different positions, a concern that he takes from the theology of history of Saint Bonaventure –the topic of his postdoctoral dissertation.

Ratzinger’s team

There is more. Benedict XVI makes of the struggle against the old guard of the Church a sort of moral battle. One of the very first decisions he makes as a Pope is on access to seminaries: the instruction – issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – is criticized, since it denies access to seminaries to anyone who has in any way, even superficially, supported a «gay culture» or a gender culture. Benedict XVI, wants to form true and well-rounded priests, and he also maybe wants to avoid even the opportunity of a gay lobby, believed to be an old undercurrent in some Church circles.  Several times he censured and condemned priestly careerism. One of his strongest denunciations is in 2009, as he celebrates a mass to ordain five bishops.  Among them are Pietro Parolin and Gabriele Caccia, numbers 3 and 4 of the Secretariat of State, faithful to Angelo Sodano, who are appointed bishops and respectively sent as Papal nuncios to Venezuela and Lebanon. It is Benedict XVI’s quiet revolution: the Pope waits for members of the old guard to end their terms in office, and then he replaces them with people he trusts.

In addition to Bertone, the team of Benedict XVI slowly, but inexorably, takes hold of the Curia: William Levada replaces Ratzinger as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; Ivan Dìas is appointed prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples; Malcolm Ranjuth – now archbishop of Colombo -  is appointed secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship. With Bertone, Dias, and the new foreign minister Giovanni Lajolo (who afterwards was appointed as number one of the Vatican City State administration, and has since retired), the Church’s international politics will be less passive and more interventionist, less «realist» and more «Wilsonian»,  along the great ideological battle lines that influence laws, customs, and coexistence among peoples. In Italy, in Spain, and in the West, the principles that Benedict XVI defines as «non-negotiable» are life, the family, and education. In the Islamic countries, the key issue is religious liberty. The same goes for China. There the new course of Vatican geopolitics was reinforced by the naming as cardinal – a firm decision taken by Benedict XVI against the judgment of Sodano and his followers – of the combative bishop of Hong Kong, Joseph Zen Ze-kiun.

This Papal line – that dates back to the very beginning of the Pontificate – is confirmed by the last consistory and even by the most recent choices of Benedict XVI. Diplomacy must be rooted in law, and law in truth. Since his first message for the World Day of Peace (In truth, peace) to the appointment as Papal nuncio to Ireland of Charles J. Brown, a non diplomat that previously served in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Benedict has changed the face of the Church and of its diplomacy, making them more concrete and Jesus-oriented.

Diplomats are marginalized, and unhappy. In the mean time, new Benedict XVI’s men take important posts in the Roman Curia: in 2010, Marc Ouellet is appointed prefect of the Congregation of Bishops. He was one the Canadian editors of the Communio magazine, of which Ratzinger is one of the founders, and in Canada he faces the so-called revolution tranquille, the progressive Canadian secularization. Now he seems to be one of the candidates to be the new prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Joao Braz de Aviz is appointed as Prefect of the Congregation for Religious orders, replacing Franc Rodé – who, as Sodano, was considered one of the protectors of the Legionaries of Christ, the Congregation that Benedict XVI wants cleaned up and reformed after the scandals involving its founder Marcial Maciel.  A Curia and a College of Cardinals enriched with able jurists, confirming a «more law, less diplomacy» approach. In fact, Benedict XVI clearly affirmed in the letter to the Catholics of Ireland in 2010 that underappreciating canon law is one of the reasons why the Church is rotten.

Within the Curia, a guerrilla warfare is being waged.

Old stories, new problems

This guerrilla is also fed from some «missteps». Leonardo Sandri is moved from his post as substitute at the Secretariat of State and replaced with Msgr. Filoni. Filoni – who had previously served as Papal nuncio to the Philippines and in Iraq – is a pupil of Cardinal Bertone, and seemed to be the right man at the right place. If Sandri was the focus of too much gossiping and was too close to the old establishment to be a trusted man, Filoni seems to be the opposite.

But the relationships between Filoni and his old master Bertone worsens. There are rumors – no one would confirm them – that maintain that Filoni wanted to send money to a mission he was very close to, in Taipei, Republic of China (Taiwan). Both Bertone and the Pope asked him not to send this money: if the substitute of the Secretary of State sends money to the Republic of China, this may be considered by the government of the People’s Republic of China an undue intromission, thus complicating the already complex links between Holy See and Beijing. But Filoni sends the money anyway, and the Secretary of State gets a formal diplomatic protest from the People’s Republic of China. The relationship between Bertone and Filoni – is said – deteriorates from there on.

Filoni is nowadays a cardinal and the Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, and the Secretariat of State substitute is now Angelo Becciu. Even though he studied at the old diplomatic school, Becciu has a completely different profile. His career makeover came about in Cuba, where – as Papal nuncio – he managed to smoothly navigate the transition of power from Fidel to Raul Castro.

The Secretariat of State has been regenerated, and so the guerrilla has aimed at other targets. The first leak of Vatican documents – a delicate surgical operation – originally takes place with the publication of another book by Gianluigi Nuzzi, Vaticano S.p.A.. Then, in 2010, the scandal of pedophilia breaks out in the headlines of newspapers, and it is also fed from some internal leaks. These are all circumscribed situations, as were the leaks of the first months of 2012. Up until Sua Santità (His Holiness) is finally published. The book – evidently written in a hurry, since it is full of mistakes – is the signal that maybe something got too far out of the program of measured leaks.

Everybody tries to take advantage from this warfare: every single issue – even if does not have anything to do with it – is described as one of the reasons behind this situation. Even the no-confidence vote on the president of I.O.R. Ettore Gotti Tedeschi by its board of Superintendence is linked to Vatileaks. It is not. Many try to explain the no-confidence motion by linking it to the internal debate about the new Vatican anti money laundering law that both Gotti Tedeschi and Card. Nicora defined «a step behind» in the path to transparency.  Nicora is president of the Authority for Financial Information, Aif, and also a member of the Commission of Cardinals in the I.O.R. and of the Pontifical Commission of Vatican City State – these last two also under the Aif.

Cardinal Attilio Nicora seems to be a key person in the passage from the whispering Church to the Church that speak out loud. He – during the first months of 2005, when John Paul II was about to pass away – was asked to outlined a reform of Pastor Bonus, favored by Angelo Sodano himself. The project remained just a draft. Some sources, who wish to remain anonymous, say that the project’s goal was to have a less bureaucratic Curia: the Pontifical Councils would be embodied in the Congregations, and the prefects of the Congregations, together with other trusted cardinals, would be part of a sort of committee for the management of the Church that would take the duties of the first section of the Secretariat of State of His Holiness. So, His Holiness secretariat would disappear as it exists today, and would keep just the diplomatic section. Part of the reform would address Pontifical Universities, which would fall under the umbrella of a single Roman university, and would each take different specializations.

Some observers considered this reform overwhelming. Yet, the reform would have let Angelo Sodano maintain in effect his leadership. Not as Secretary of State, but exercising his weight and his influence as a member of the «management committee» and trying – as Dean of the College of Cardinals – to guide the works of the next Conclave.

None of these scenarios can be officially confirmed: they are based on hearsays gathered from the Vatican corridors. But these stories point to a more complex and diverse scenario than just a struggle between old and new, good and evil, sketched out by the media. Bertone is depicted as the absolute evil. He surely suffers from some oversights and unfortunate choices. He is accused of an overtly personalistic management of the Church. On the other hand, who wouldn’t appoint trusted associates to key positions? And it is Benedict XVI who trusts Bertone. So much that the Pope – several times, and publicly – has renewed his confidence on him.

The question is to make once more looking forward to the next meeting among religions in Assisi. Joseph Ratzinger did not take part to the first meeting, in 1986. He did not share the way the meeting had been organized, with the risk that one could see all religions mixed in one only vague new-age-oriented religion. «We went in pilgrimage to Assisi – John Paul II said – because we are all convinced that the various religions can and must give their contribution to peace». Twice more – in 1994 and in 2002 – John Paul II called  the religions in one day of prayer, reflection and abstinence for the peace. The first one was aimed to pray for the peace in the Balkans, the second one was called right after the Twin Towers collapse, at the beginning of the new millennium.

Benedict XVI is now preparing to his own pilgrimage to Assisi, the next October, 27^th. The world has changed since 1986, since 1994 and even since 2002. Even the way to look at the meeting has changed, and this is fair when you read the theme of the meeting: «Pilgrims of truth, pilgrims of peace». There is much of the Ratzinger’s thought in this theme: one cannot make less of the truth in order to give a true contribution to peace. The authentic research for the Truth is the key of the dialogue among faithful of different religions – according to Ratinger’s thought – and the research for the Truth bring to mind the image of the Light, a common symbol for many religious traditions. Several times, Benedict XVI reasserted that the «need that all men believing in God look together for peace, try to get close the one to the others, in order to go together – notwithstanding the variety of their images of God – to the source of the light. This is the interreligious dialogue».

When the Pope announced that he would go to Assisi to celebrate the 25^th anniversary of the first meeting of the world religious leaders, quite everybody was surprised. Ratzinger – the one who wrote the Dominus Jesus that confirmed the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus – had been considered by everybody the gravedigger of the Spirit of Assisi. Yet, the Pope decided to go. And he gave his personal imprint to the meeting of Assisi. In fact, the meeting of the 27^th of October has not been included among the liturgical events of the Vatican schedule of October.

The reason why is in the speech Benedict XVI held at the Notre Dame International Center, in Jerusalem, addressing to the organizations for interreligious dialogue. The Pope said: « Together we can proclaim that God exists and can be known, that the earth is his creation, that we are his creatures, and that he calls every man and woman to a way of life that respects his design for the world. Friends, if we believe we have a criterion of judgment and discernment which is divine in origin and intended for all humanity, then we cannot tire of bringing that knowledge to bear on civic life. Truth should be offered to all; it serves all members of society. It sheds light on the foundation of morality and ethics, and suffuses reason with the strength to reach beyond its own limitations in order to give expression to our deepest common aspirations. Far from threatening the tolerance of differences or cultural plurality, truth makes consensus possible and keeps public debate rational, honest and accountable, and opens the gateway to peace.»

It is the gateway Benedict XVI indicated during his last trip to Germany, during the meeting with Jews, Muslims, Lutherans – interreligious and ecumenical meetings that always enrich the Benedict XVI’s visits to a foreign country. The communion among religions can be reached through two ways: the action of the reason on the faith, from a cultural point of view, and the prayer. Each religion should maintain his peculiarity, since religious beliefs presupposes truth.

On the twentieth anniversary (September 2, 2006) of John Paul II’s Inter-religious Prayer Meeting for Peace in Assisi, Benedict XVI addressed a letter to the local bishop of Assisi commemorating the prayer initiative. The letter makes an interesting read. The idea of members of different religions praying together is not forgotten. Rightly stated, it is a good idea. But what is the right statement? Benedict recalls that the most significant event of the past twenty years is «the fall of the Communist-inspired regimes in Eastern Europe». Benedict XVI does note that the division into two opposing political blocks preparing for war did cease. Now  world relations could develop under a «common international law inspired by respect for the needs of truth, justice and solidarity». The logic of this hope was that Communism’s proving itself unworkable left the world open to a revival of a peaceful world on classic human principles.

But it did not happen. «The third millennium opened with scenes of terrorism and violence that show no signs of abating». The Pope next acknowledges that we may think «religious differences are causes of instability or threats to the prospect of peace». Certainly, in light of the religious persuasions of most terrorists, reasons to think this abound. In this light, Benedict remarks that John Paul’s initiative for prayer now seems like «prophecy» The implication seems to be that while it was rather difficult to pray with «atheists» it is possible to pray with Muslims.

The Pope is most concerned that religion’s potential contribution to peace is now being questioned. John Paul II wanted to show «with no possibility of confusion that religion must be a herald of peace». It cannot be rationally held that no actual religions have justified the use of violence to achieve their ends. Benedict himself refers to this issue in his Regensburg Lecture. What seems to be meant is rather that when a religion appears to justify arbitrary violence, it must be rejected as a false religion. Only true religions are heralds of peace. This is a deft but delicate explanation.

The dialogue among religions needs to be pushed up. After September, 11^th, stats (as a Jonathan Fox research does) document that religious conflicts in the world have become in 2002 more common than non religious conflict. On the other hand, rarely religion is the only cause of conflict, and very rarely it is the primary cause of the conflict. For example, the Islamic fundamentalist movements’ riots are never rooted in religion, but they come from secular problems. Many of these riots are acted in authoritarian countries, where the freedom of expression in policy is limited and the opportunity to purposely take part to the political decisions is also more limited. Religious institutions are often the only possible way to create alternative élites. Another data should be food for thought: the discriminations against religious minorities are more frequent than the discriminations against other kind of minorities.

Until a few years ago, religions had scarce consideration in the concert of the nations. For decades before September 11, policy makers and analysts in Western countries exhibited a sort «secular myopia» about religion in politics. Since faith was supposed to be private, they mostly left it out of their analyses. This happened despite the fact that ultra-conservative religious movements had appeared in many world faiths in those years and were often reflected in political action.

When Henry Kissinger published «Diplomacy», his study of international relations, in 1994, it had no index entries for Islam or religion. Ten years later, another US secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, wrote her own study on world affairs: «The Mighty and the Almighty: Reflections on America, God and World Affairs». Almost half the book dealt with Muslims and Islam.

The contrast between the two books highlights the way the world changed after 19 Muslims flew hijacked planes into the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field on September 11, 2001. The attacks brought religion back into public affairs for many Western countries where faith had largely faded into the private sphere.

«9/11 showed religion can no longer be ignored – Scott Appleby, a historian at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, told a seminar on religion after September 11 at Cambridge University – It is a critical element in many national systems and in radical and extremist movements, and also in movements oriented to human rights, peace-building and civil society».

Since that day, governments and researchers in North America and Europe have turned to sociology, psychology, anthropology and other disciplines trying to understand religiously motivated violence and work out how to prevent it.

Iran staged an Islamic revolution and Afghans waged jihad against the Soviet Union. Jews settled in Palestinian territories, the US Christian right emerged and Indian Hindus and Buddhist Sri Lankans went into nationalist politics. Harvard professor Samuel Huntington was one of the few to grasp this trend. His 1996 book The Clash of Civilisations saw religions and cultures at the root of post-Cold War conflict. The West and Islamic worlds were bound to clash, he argued.

Ten years after the September, 11th, twenty five years after the first meeting in Assisi, there is still the need that religions gather together and find an effective answer for the pace. «Many of us – Olav Fikse Veit, general secretary of the World Council of Churches, said –remain convinced that nonviolence can be the most helpful long-term response to violence and the most effective means toward a lasting peace based on justice».

It is the first time the Community of Sant’Egidio has not been involved in the organization of the event. The «organizers» are the Vatican Secretariat of State, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Pontifical Council for the Culture, the Pontifical Council for interreligious Dialogue, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Ecclesiastical movement had been involved for some “marginal” detail and to gather the volunteers. There still no information about how the meeting will be carried out. The most important moment of the day will surely be the pilgrimage  to Saint Francis’ tomb in Assisi. The prayer will be important as well, and the speeches will for sure be about the role and responsabilities of religions in promoting peace. There will not be a liturgy. But there will be a unity based on the research of God. Turning back to God to find the Spirit of Assisi again. This is the Benedict XVI’s plan.