Pope Francis will hold a consistory to create new cardinals on the 14 and 15th of February. The announcement came at the end of a busy week: Pope Francis has granted an important interview, has personally reshaped the synod narrative against the media narrative during a general audience, and has taken part in the 7th meeting of the Council of Cardinals. In the end, the announcement of the consistory can be considered a further step forward, to go beyond a small internal crisis .

This crisis lies on two issues: the debate about the Synod of Bishops, and the discussion on Curia reform. In both cases, the discussion has become very lively. In both cases, the Pope is called to take a strong stance. 

For what concerns the Synod of Bishops, Pope Francis tried to calm things down speaking in an interview with the Argentine newspaper “La Naciòn,” the first interview the Pope had given to a newspapers from his homeland. The Synod is “an ongoing process,” the Pope said. And he added that no one has questioned Catholic doctrine, but certainly divorced and civilly remarried people should not be pushed aside. “They cannot be godfathers to any child being baptized, mass readings are not for divorcees, they cannot give communion, they cannot teach Sunday school, there are about seven things that they cannot do, I have the list over there. Come on! If I disclose any of this it will seem that they have been excommunicated in fact! [...] Things need to change, our standards need to change,” underscored the Pope, thus showing that he prefers a more pastoral approach. 

In the General audience of Dec. 10, Pope Francis returned to the issue of the synod. Yes, he said, there had been a lively discussion among the synod’s fathers, but there had not been divisions, and none has ever questioned the fundamental truth of marriage which, the Pope reiterated, is between a man and a woman, indissoluble and open to life. He then added that the Pope is the warrant of the orthodoxy, as he already stated at the beginning of the synod. While, in the speech he delivered at the end of the synod – which Pope Francis considers one of the three official documents of the synod, not including the midterm report – he reiterated the importance of his role as Pope. 

In the middle, the guidelines (Lineamenta) of the 2015 synod have been released. The guidelines include the synod’s final report as it is (with all of its controversies) and a series of 46 final considerations. These are divided in three parts, and each part has an introduction, that the General Secretariat of the Synod generally gives to clearly indicate the method to follow. Id est, not to go back from the “pastoral turn” and to avoid “a mere application of doctrine to pastoral work,” taking into account that the synod’s path has been now traced. 

Certainly, not all the participants of the synod will appreciate these indications. Some days ago, concluding the plenary assembly of the International Theological Commission, Cardinal Gehrard Ludwig Mueller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, underscored that “separating doctrine from pastoral work is almost a heresy.” However, the synod’s guidelines are yet to be published. This is prove that the discussion will be tough. 

Pope Francis has started to manage the crisis. He did it his way, personalizing communication. He personally took the floor. With “La Nación,” he had even spoken of Curia gossip, and explained why he had appointed Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke as Patron of the Sovereign Order of Malta, and why he had not renewed the mandate of the Swiss Guards’ commander

It is perhaps the first time a Pope uses interviews and conversations this way. Pope Francis conversations with the atheistic journalist Eugenio Scalfari, founder of the leftist Italian newspaper ‘La Repubblica’, helped him to gain favor in the secular world. The interview the Pope granted to the Jesuit-run magazine ‘La Civiltà Cattolica’ underlined his being a Jesuit. He granted most of the remaining interviews to secular media, especially Italian ones (‘Corriere della Sera’; ‘La Stampa’; ‘Il Messaggero’) plus one to the Spanish newspaper Lavanguardia, with the purpose of generating a positive image of him in the country that generates so many news about the Vatican. Then, he went on air in radio programs in Argentina. The commitment to communication is finally completed by his personal phone calls. 

Given all this circumstances, it is not surprising that Pope Francis may have used an interview to address the current problems and critics, in order to manage the crisis. The Pope then deepened his commitment by addressing the faithful directly. During last Wednesday’s General Audience, the Pope shared his reading and narrative of the synod of bishops, in order to go beyond the media narrative.

This may be seen as a sign that the debate is even more than lively, within the Sacred Walls. As lively as the debate of the reform is. 

On Curia reform, Pope Francis also took the situation in his hands. In the interview he had granted to ‘La Nación’, Pope Francis clearly said that reforms will take at least one more year. It was a needed explanation, since the discussion on reforms had come to a halt. 

When the Bishop Marcello Semeraro, Secretary of the Council of Cardinals, presented on Nov. 24 the proposals of reform to the heads of dicasteries, the draft was intensely criticized. The way the draft had designed the two big Congregations of Justice and Peace and Laity and Family was – according to many – too vague, and did not take into account the new responsibilities undertaken by the Vatican dicasteries in the course of the years. The Council of Cardinals discussed all of these observations for one day and a half during their last gathering Dec. 9-11. Pope Francis took part in the meeting as much as possible. The very Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office, in the end clarified that the reform’s process is ongoing and that it will not be short. Fr. Lombardi also underscored that – once there is a final draft of a reform, it will be worked on by Canon Law and juridical experts. It will not be quick, contrary to what many over-communicative cardinals of the Council made believe.

Pope Francis is now once more reshaping his revolution. He has always preferred the pastoral issues, but now he is also conditioned by the cardinals that have elected him with a precise agenda. Pope Francis shares the need for a renewal. He wants cardinals and bishops close to the people. He does not deem the institutional structure to be very important, as he has said several times. On the other hand, he has understood that he cannot underestimate a reform of the institutional structure. Sometimes, this reform seems to be designed as a dismantlement of the existing system. Other times, the Pope seems to  strengthen the institutional branch – for instance, when he appointed professor Vincenzo Buonomo as an adviser to the Vatican City State government.

The crisis of Curia reforms lies on two fronts. On one hand, the need to keep an institutional framework. On the other hand, the frenzy of those – and many of them are in the Council of Cardinals – pushing for quick reform, in order to dismantle a system that did not work, according to them. On one side, those who want to carry forward Benedict XVI’s renewal – the Pope emeritus had given reform an institutional framework, including his historical renunciation to the Petrine ministry; on the other side, those who had focused on the discontent over the flaws of the Curia structure to carry forward their own agenda – among those, the cardinals of the old guard, who pushed for a quick conclave. 

Influenced by these dichotomies, Pope Francis has managed the crisis by coming down to the field in person and opening a discussion, that will take place in February. 

According to the schedule provided by Fr. Lombardi, the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors will gather Feb. 6-8, finally provided of statutes and with a full membership (members should go from 8 to 18); the 8th meeting of the Council of Cardinals will take place Feb. 9 – 11;  after that, Pope Francis will convoke a public ordinary consistoy Feb. 12-13, in order to discuss the Curia reform plan; and finally, on Feb. 14-15, Pope Francis will convoke the extraordinary consistory for the creation of new cardinals. 

This way, the creation of new cardinals will come at the end of an intense period of discussions. Probably, a meeting of the Council for the Economy will be likewise scheduled at the beginning of February, so that it may provide cardinals with further suggestions for reform. 

The ongoing discussion gives the impression that Pope Francis wants to put the Church in a sort of state of Permanent Council. In the end, it’s alway the Pope to have the last word. 

This is the reason why the creation of new cardinals may shift the balance of discussion in his favor. In February 2015, the cardinals under the age of 80 and so able to vote in a Conclave will be 110. It means that Pope Francis will have 10 red birrette to reach the number of 120 voting cardinals set by the Blessed Paul VI in 1975 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the ‘Universi Dominici Gregis’, the regulation for the election of a Pope. Pope Francis will have 15 slots for possible new cardinals in the course of 2015: in June, the voting cardinals will be 107, and from November they will become 105. 

Certainly among the new red hats will be Archbishop Bruno Forte, general secretary of the synod, who is about to be appointed to a major archdiocese in Italy or to an important post in the Roman Curia. 

With 15 new hats, Pope Francis can really change the geography and the orientation of the College of Cardinals. 

The change on the College of Cardinals, plus some additional appointments, may allow Pope Francis to take the Church beyond the institutional crisis. But not beyond the synod’s discussion, still close to the heart of people Pope Francis wants to reach for. Bishops will not take any step back from the synod’s discussion, and will not give up to pressures and indications like those contained in the synod’s guidelines. And, though he had accepted and even promoted the Pastoral turn, Pope Francis has let it be known that he is unlikely to deviate from orthodoxy. 

Pope Francis makes important decisions and takes on strong stands, expediently. He meets everybody, and speaks to everyone. Then he makes up his mind, often – as recounted by his first ‘first secretary’, Monsignor Alfred Xuereb – after having prayed. Pope Francis takes his decisions the way Jesuits give their responses. i.e., in a short, straightforward way, leaving to the others the opportunity to personally develop the response.

Hence, the establishment of Pontifical commissions of reference on the Institute for Religious Works (the so called Vatican bank) and on the governing of the Vatican. The commissions had a limited mandate (they gave their final report to the Pope on May 22) and had been established with the idea of counseling the Pope. Likewise, the Secretariat for the Economy, the new Council for the Economy, as well as the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors: all of these bodies have been established without statutes, which are left to the internal discussion of the members within the new bodies. Similarly, the “complaint office” for ‘delicta graviora’ within the disciplinary branch of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: the office does not have a stated mandate yet, but the chairman has been already appointed in the person of bishop José Luis Mollaghan of Rosario (Argentina), whom Pope Francis transferred from a dioceses which did not particularly loved him. And also similarly, the Council of Eight Cardinals, whose establishment was legitimated by a chirograph only at the eve of their first meeting.

Those who see behind these decisions a defined program of action probably do not take into account that Pope Francis himself, in an interview he granted to the Italian prominent newspaper “Corriere della Sera”, underscored that he «did not have a specific plan for the Church,» and the he just «followed the indications of the General Congregations,» i.e. the pre-Conclave meetings of Cardinals.

Pope Francis has in the end one only true goal: that the Church be missionary. In order to have a missionary Church, Pope Francis wants a credible Church. Not only must the Church not be too “mundane” (bound to earthly preoccupations), it should not seem mundane. The Church should not be confined by earthly tasks and linked to struggles for power.

Hence, a series of other Papal choices. For instance, the first Pope Francis’ consistory surprised everyone for the promotion of archbishops (and, in the Haiti case, of a bishop) hailing from a peripheral and unimportant dioceses, while on the other hand Pope Francis did not give the red hat to archbishops in charge of dioceses who have always received them and become cardinals because of tradition and influence. This was how the Pope wanted to show that there are no first and second class dioceses, and that bishops in all dioceses may become cardinals, if they dedicate their lives to serve.

Even the reshuffles among members of the congregations, which led to a list of “promoted” and “dismissed” drafted by media outlets, should be read with a broader view. Simply, Pope Francis did not want power to be concentrated in the hands of very few people, and wanted to show that everyone can be equal.

A victim of this view was Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, President of the Italian Bishops’ Conference. In the reshuffles of the members of the Congregation, Cardinal Bagnasco had been relieved of being a member of the Congregation for Bishops and replaced by his vice-president at the Italian Bishops’ Conference, the Archbishop of Perugia Gualtiero Bassetti, whom the Pope later created cardinal. Cardinal Bagnasco had been confirmed as a member of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, but only until his mandate expires.

These choices were interpreted as a clear Pope Francis repudiation of Cardinal Bagnasco and his way of managing the Italian Bishops’ Conference. Pope Francis’ speech last Monday indicated this was not so. The Pope had not gone to the Italian Bishops’ Conference to impose his personal views. He was giving the inaugural speech by invitation of the very same Cardinal Bagnasco, to back once more a missionary turn.

The Italian bishops discussed and decided that they still want the Pope to choose their president. On the other hand, they paved the way for more collegiality, thus outlining the reform of their statutes: they will vote to elect three candidates, and the Pope will be able to choose among the three chosen. It was said the Pope was deeply disappointed, since it was not exactly what he expected and wanted from the bishops. In fact, the Pope just wanted to promote a wider discussion, in order to reach more collegiality. He is not interested in how the election will be handled. He wanted the bishops to show their unity.

Looking back at Pope Francis’ decisions, it is evident that his missionary zeal takes precedence over any other issue. And the missionary zeal goes together with the social dimension, as shown in the “Evangelii Gaudium” chapter entitled: ‘The social dimension of evangelization.”

Pope Francis has in fact a strong sensitivity to social issues. He had been a young militant of the “Guardia de Hierro” (the Iron Guard), a rightist branch of Peronism. And Peronism, ultimately, is not just a regime. It is a sort of “box of ideas,” where social issues, Populism, even some Christianity, are mixed up together. An Argentinean source defined Peronism a “mystic box.”

To this background, Bergoglio added the ideas of the “Theology of the People,” the Argentine branch of Liberation Theology, Marxism-free and at the same time imbued with the promotion of popular piety which Pope Francis really put at the basis of his formation. Theology of the People taught Pope Francis not to go overboard on moralism and academicism. Jorge Mario Bergoglio used to say that diocesan synods’ outcomes could be just documents to be kept on bookshelves. He rather wanted priests to spend their time with people and bring the issue of the poor of the Villas Miserias to public attention. This kind of sensitivity, Pope Francis transferred to his pontificate.

Even Pope Francis diplomatic stances are imbued with this view. Prayer is the main Pope Francis’ diplomatic tool. It was proven during the most recent trip to Israel: in a an unprecedented gesture, Pope Francis stopped to pray at the wall that separates Israel from the West Bank in the city of Bethlehem on Sunday; then, he invited the Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas for a joint prayer in his house in the Vatican; and at the end of the Ecumenical Celebrations at the Holy Sepulcher, which he celebrated with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Costantinople Bartholomew I, he was inspired by popular piety, and concluded his speech saying that «when disunity make us disheartened, let us pray the Holy Mother of God.»

As a Pontiff, Pope Francis preaches, but he does not want to take strong stances on the big issues. When he meets the most important people in the world, Pope Francis speaks to them in general terms. Last November, the president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, went to visit Pope Francis and told him about his difficulties within the World Bank (he is not a banker, and he faces strong internal resistance) and explained to the Pope the World Bank’s project for the poor. Pope Francis replied paternally: «I pray for you.»

Speaking to the UN agencies on May 9, Pope Francis strongly stood for the rights of the unborn children, but at the same time he did not even mention a possible reform of the United Nations, that the Holy See has been requesting for years. When Italian lawmakers asked him to have mass with them, the Pope simply made his homily on the readings of the day and then left without greeting anyone. The homily was about corruption, since the Gospel was on corruption, and perhaps the interpretation of the homily as an admonishment to politicians is too far-fetched, not reflecting the actual sense of his words.

This is how Pope Francis combines evangelization and social issues. He does not address the big issues. He just gives the Church’s view, yet trying to concretely use his influence to advance some social issue (human trafficking, the struggle against poverty) while maintaining a purely pastoral point of view.

Given these examples (and more could be provided), it is possible to assume that – after one and a half year of pontificate – Pope Francis has not been fully understood yet. His actions are interpreted through categories which are simply nonsense for a bishop nurtured in the Latin American environment. In Latin America, evangelization, social issues and popular piety are mixed together, and the big issues rarely grab the attention of people. Pastoral works comes before everything. From the other side of the ocean, the Pope’s role in the global world is considered something very far.

It seems that the Second Vatican Council tactics are back. During the Council, drafts of the documents still under discussion were leaked to friendly journalists, in order to influence the outcome and favor the more progressive positions. It is not accidental that Benedict XVI has spoken about a «Council of the media» and a «real Council». Nowadays, everything has changed. The instigators of the «Council of the media» are now commanding the levers of the information flow. Therefore, it is imperative that the “real” document be circulated, or at the very least an update on the state of the discussion thus far.

It is a very sensitive discussion. In his most recent interview, granted to the Italian newspaper “Corriere della Sera”, Pope Francis stated that to talk about the family is the first step toward a discussion about a general crisis of society. His aim – he indicated – is to make praxis a pastoral approach, leaving case analysis aside. Pope Francis underlined this in reference to several different issues, from euthanasia to birth control, and to the pastoral care of the divorced and remarried. Speaking about birth control, he quoted Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae, and referred to him as a genius who pulled the brake on a misguided cultural trend, reiterating the tradition of the Church «despite it running countercurrent.» Pope Francis then added that the very Paul VI used to recommend confessors to be merciful.

Recalling Paul VI words helps us to see that exercising pastoral care in a way that looks at the issue on a case-by-case basis is not new. Pope Francis, in fact, wants to specifically underscore a pastoral approach, in the midst on an ongoing crisis of the Church which is yet to relent. But above all he is riding the waves stirred up by the deliberations of the general congregations, i.e. the pre-conclave meetings. «[When I was elected] I did not have a program for the renewal of the Church– Pope Francis said to “Il Corriere della Sera – I am acting on the basis of the outcome of the general congregations.»

The general congregations have been dominated by the old establishment cardinals, by the gang of old diplomats that was certainly shrewder in the wheeling and dealing of a secret vote with plenty of unknowns. The possibility of electing Jorge Mario Bergoglio had been raised all-too casually from the beginning,  and increasingly gained momentum during the votes until his election as the person to carry forward a precise program of government. The Curia of the old days is back, and with it discussions that, up until now, seemed to had been set aside some 30 years ago.

That of communion for the divorced and remarried is a particularly difficult issue. The expectation of a “shift” of position about it has been constantly increasing since Pope Francis was elected, as if it were a fundamental issue. The press underscored Francis’ “progressive outlook,” his open mind, almost taking for granted that a shift of paradigm was simply a must. The discourse in the media portrayed a Pope Francis as someone different from who he really is. Some themes from the period following the Second Vatican Council – which were thought had been dealt with and brought to a closure – are current again. Pope Francis will have to watch out for an agenda set by the media.  A media that will turn against him when they realize he is not about to meet their expectation of fulfilling that agenda.

As soon as an extraordinary synod for the family was announced, the pressure for a change in the Church’s doctrine became really strong. The pressures mostly came from the German language Churches. Not by coincidence, during his 2011 trip to Germany, Benedict XVI warned about a Church rich in works and poor in principles, a clear and painful reference to the German Church, rich because of the kirchensteuer, the tax on religion, and at the same time ever more drifting away from Christian principles. The German-speaking world gave birth – in Austria – to “We are Church”, a far-leaning progressive Catholic association. And, again, it was the German-speaking world that gave birth to the Pfarrer Initiative, a proposal from priests and theologians that called for a change in the Church’s doctrine with regards to the divorced and remarried, civil unions, and women in the priesthood.

Benedict XVI was keenly aware of these issues. In a meeting with the Swiss bishops in 2006, he recalled that – when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and occasionally traveled back to Germany – he was always asked about these very same topics (communion to the divorced and remarried, civil unions, and allowing women to join the priesthood), and he warned not to be concerned constantly and exclusively with moral precepts, since the Christian faith is not just a compilation of precepts.

Pope Francis has also mentioned on several occasions and in different settings that he does not want a moralistic Church, either. He does want a Church that addresses and sheds light on the challenges at hand. Perhaps this is why he called Cardinal Walter Kasper to address the consistory. Cardinal Kasper himself had been, in the early 90s, among the signatories of a document by the bishops in the Rhine region. The document contemplated the possibility for people married and divorced living in a second union to receive the Communion. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then led by Cardinal Ratzinger, called them back to obedience.

The main topics of that 1993 document found echo in the sophisticated presentation by Cardinal Kasper. Ultimately, Kasper recognized that the problem of divorced and remarried who want to receive communion relates to a small portion of believers. And the theme of the divorced and remarried is addressed only in the fifth section of the speech. But it is nevertheless the real focus. And the text reaches this focal point through a series of opaque, almost misleading, statements.

Cardinal Kasper led off from the premise that so many people nowadays have abandoned their faith; they are «baptized, not evangelized,» baptized catecumeni, if not baptized pagan even. Therefore – Kasper maintained – «we cannot start with a list of teachings and commandments, and become fixated with the so-called ‘hot issues’.»

After affirming that «with respect to some situations, the Church cannot propose a solution that is different or in contrast to the words of Jesus,» Cardinal Kasper presented two arguments, yet left it to the synod of bishops the task to come up with more definite solutions.

One approach, Cardinal Kasper proposes, is to develop a more spiritual and pastoral procedure for the causes of marriage annulments.  He contemplates entrusting a priest with pastoral experience the decision to annul, instead of submitting the cause to the ecclesiastical courts (as foreseen by Canon Law). But this approach, some note, would lead to the dismantling of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and finally to a come up with your own faith process, i.e. a faith left to the diverse sensitivities of priests from all over the world. The Church, pragmatically, has always maintained these two stages in decision-making to declare the nullity of a marriage in order to preserve the sacrality of the marriage and to have homogeneous decisions.

In fact, the very structure of the Church is questioned. What one can read between the lines of Kasper’s presentation is that, on the one hand, there is Jesus, prompt to listening, and then there is the Church, all-too rigorous and not sufficiently merciful.

In his second argument, Cardinal Kasper recalls what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated in 1994 (and was later reaffirmed by Benedict XVI in 2012). In some cases – it was stated – the divorced and remarried who cannot receive the sacramental communion can receive the spiritual communion. But – the cardinal argues – if «he who receives the spiritual communion is one with Jesus, how can he be in contradiction with the commandments of Christ? Why, thus, could he not also receive the sacramental communion?»

Cardinal Kasper’s reasoning could give rise to other questions: why is this logic not applied to confession? If the faithful has really repented of his sins, and he spiritually asks for forgiveness to God without the mediation of a priest, why could he not receive absolution? It is evident that following the criteria of the spiritual feeling, we devoid the sacrament of its very essence, and would find ourselves in the very same path of Protestantism.

Kasper also spoke about the early Church, and underscored that there had been some cases of second quasi-matrimonial bonds following situations of adultery in the first union. «It is certain – Cardinal Kasper said -  that in some local Churches there was a common law right that allowed for some Christians to experience a new relationship, with a second partner, even when the first partner was still alive.  This happened after a period of penance, and did not give them a second avenue, not a second marriage, but rather, through participation in the communion, a board for salvation.»

Cardinal Kasper also quoted some of the fathers of the Church, saying they favored this idea. However, such an assertion is contrary to the views set forth by the Jesuit Henry Crouzel in an article published in the Jesuit-run magazine “La Civiltà Cattolica” in 1970. In the article, Crouzel underscored that «it is unacceptable hearing so many remarkable canon law experts asserting as a fact proved by evidence that the current ‘eastern’ discipline concerning the divorce and new marriage is substantially that of the Greek fathers of the 4th and 5th century, which is simply false.»

Father Crouzel’s position, backed with extensive documentation, is that «we ought to demand from theologians and canon law experts that, rather than basing their information about complex issues on books written in a hurry and meant to impact the public at large — following a tactic that reminds us of pressure groups’ efforts to influence the public — they dedicate the attention and time that is required to study more difficult books which are the result of real scientific research. Rather, they find these books too long, too complicated, and they do not have the courage to read them.»

Crouzel evidently puts the finger on a still-open wound. The main reactions to Cardinal Kasper’s words (who then re-launched his agenda in following interviews, also calling for more space for women in the Church) came from the top levels of the German Church, like Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki, archbishop of Berlin, and the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gehrard Ludwig Mueller.

At the offset of the debate, Mueller wrote an article for the Vatican daily newspaper “L’Osservatore Romano” to reiterate the doctrine of the Church. The clarification was needed because of a leak from the dioceses of Freiburg, that is administrated by Archbishop Robert Zoelltisch, President of the German Bishops’ Conference. It was an unfinished working paper, according Zoellitsch, which gave divorced and remarried people access to Communion without a penance which would have included a change in lifestyle.

During recent days, Cardinal Mueller has come back to the issue. His most important intervention was in Milan last February 13, in his lectio magistralis for the inauguration of the academic year of the School of Theology of Northern Italy.

There, Mueller underscored that «the critical rigor of theology should first of all make it steer clear from the superficiality of those who indulge in the mundane contexts created by the pressures of the media and of mentalities which are incompatible with the authentic content of the faith: just think about how inappropriately casual is the theologizing over themes like women in the priesthood, the Church’s authority, the access to sacraments for those who are not in full communion with the Church.»

These are the risks of an informal Papacy. In a sense, Pope Francis is someone who is used to live and continues to live as if under a dictatorship.  During the military dictatorship in Argentina, he stood out for his heroism, a fact that made him some enemies who have later insinuated he was in connivance with the Argentine military regime. These are rumors that time and again have proven to be completely baseless.

Living in the Vatican, Pope Francis seems to be sticking to the same forma mentis of the times he lived under a dictatorship. He is very suspicious toward the Curia (which he defined in a recent interview as «a plague»); he trusts only his friends; he decided to live in the Domus Sanctae Marthae because he can be seen by all, minimizing the risk to fall victim to malicious gossiping. Since the Pope is there, visible, it should be more difficult for some to spread rumors about his way of proceeding, or about “corruption” in the Pontifical family.  To be on the safe side, Pope Francis manages his own agenda, as he always did in Argentina, since the time of the dictatorship there.

But Argentine was ruled by a regime, while the Pope is himself the regime in the Vatican. Thus, the Pope should govern, organize, delegate. In order to govern most appropriately, he must also use the Curia. A Vatican saying reminds all, very timely, that «you cannot reform the Curia without the Curia.»

There is another, not less important, problem: the Pope’s vision of the Curia corresponds and feeds the image of the Curia portrayed by the media: a nest of plots, corruption, and wrongdoings. Unintentionally, Pope Francis risks giving impetus to an old media campaign against the Church.

Yet another consequence is that the “curiali,” who are «as shrewd as snakes but not peaceful as doves, » have more space to act.

The persistence call of the Pope to stop the gossiping sort of «terrorizes» the Curia. This kind of feeling parodoxically inhibits those who act honestly, and favors those who have always shrewdly pushed for their personal agendas. 

While waiting for Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State Elect, to take officially his post on Oct. 15, many in the Curia are busy trying to strengthen their own influence, regardless of what the Pope may wish. One particular field for these «hidden battles «» is that of the «financial management» of the Holy See.

The commission appointed by Pope Francis to supervise Vatican finances has seen its share of scandals.  They evolve around one of its members, Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui.

Chaouqui was very critical of Benedict XVI’s Curia. She also accused Cardinal Bertone of corruption, in a tweet.  She supported Ettore Gotti Tedeschi when he confronted (unsuccessfully) a no confidence vote from the Institute of Religious Works (IOR) board of laymen, and is reportedly one of the aggressive sources of the gossip Italian web portal Dagospia. Chaouqui has also been considered one of the Vatican’s «crows,» i.e. one of those responsible for the leaks of reserved documents from the Apostolic Palace.

Chaouqui is a public relations expert, and it is also rumored that she was the «mastermind» of the financial tycoon Alessandro Proto’s media campaign. Proto gained prominence when it was reported that he was about to raid the stocks of important companies in Italy. His fame increased when he personally denounced –with harsh press releases and lawsuits– characterizations that he was a financial raider.  Later, it became known that Proto himself (on Chaouqui’s suggestion?) leaked news about his financial raids in order to give rise to opportunities to reply to his critics and grab newspapers headlines.

The «Proto approach» could find traction in the Vatican, where the season of poisons has already begun.

 Cardinal Attilio Nicora, president of the Authority for Financial Information, is very active. He agreed to changes to the Vatican anti-money laundering law only because the Council of Europe asked for the modifications, and because they led to a generally positive evaluation by the Council of Europe committee of MONEYVAL.

In fact, the old law made Nicora a sort of man of the compromise, the mediator between the Vatican and Italy. The new law (further revised in January and then on Aug. 8) strengthened the Holy See’s sovereignty and increased its international weight.

The Holy See chose to favor a model of transparency based on international recognition, rather than a special relationship with a nearby State. The first anti-money laundering law, a sort of «good neighbor pact» between the Vatican and Italy, could in fact put the sovereignty of the Holy See at risk.

The MONEYVAL report mentioned just one conflict of interests: that of Nicora, at the time president of the Authority for Financial Information (a controller), president of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See, APSA (a controlled agency) and member of the IOR cardinals’ commission. He had to leave the presidency of APSA.  When Benedict XVI – having already announced his renunciation – renewed the mandate of the members of the cardinals’ commission, he appointed Domenico Calcagno as Nicora’s successor as president of the APSA, and as Nicora’s replacement in the commission.

 An APSA led by Calcagno is still in fact an APSA led by Nicora. The scandal of Nunzio Scarano, the APSA employee who was not dismissed even after the numerous complaints about his performance throughout the years (complaints that had been forwarded to Nicora), is a direct result of Nicora’s personalist management style.

The Scarano affair had other ramifications. Massimo Boarotto, president of the Ordinary section of the APSA, who blocked the rising of Scarano, is back to Verona as parish priest. He was replaced by Don Mauro Rivella, a Canon law expert (he is part of the scientific committee of the Rivista di Diritto Ecclesiastico, headed by Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts) and part of Nicora’s circle. Rumors says that this is why Nicora backed his candidature for the APSA ordinary section post, even though the Italian Bishops’ Conference – in which central secretariat Rivella served for some years – decided that Rivella’s service in the “central government” of the conference had come to an end, and sent him back to his dioceses, Turin.

In the meantime, the IOR (the Institute for Religious Works), which had been constantly under attack, issued an annual report on its 2012 activities, even though the cardinals’ commission of the IOR has not issued its conclusions yet.  [The cardinals’ commission is waiting for the appointment of the IOR general director (von Freyberg took the post over ad interim, after the resignation of the former general director Paolo Cipriani) before issuing its conclusions. A meeting with the Pope is anyway expected for the next week. ]

Von Freyberg promised the publication of the annual report in a May, 30 interview granted to Vatican radio. There are several risks that one should take into consideration. The first: doing what the media expect the IOR to do makes the IOR subservient to the media, as if it would have to justify everything it does. Secondly, if the IOR would do everything a bank does, it would fail. From the very beginning, there has been a debate about its very nature: is it a bank or is it not? The Vatican always had to explain that the IOR is not a bank, but a financial institute.

Beyond the numbers and the “philosophical” problems about its nature, the IOR annual report states that the last modification on the anti-money laundering law (into effect via a Motu Proprio issued in Aug. 8) has been accelerated by Pope Francis. This is at the least inaccurate. Vatican experts have been working for about one year to tailor the law to the Vatican in order to create a Vatican model of financial transparency.

 Ultimately, there is a sort of “publicity craze” that affects almost everybody in the Vatican.

This craze can be augmented by Pope Francis’ behavior, who calls anybody he wants whenever he wants, and often speaks off the cuff. There had been much said about an interview he granted to Eugenio Scalfari, founder of the prominent Italian newspaper La Repubblica. The interview (mostly an ongoing conversation) is not a premiere. As long back as 1959, John XXIII asked his secretary to call the Corriere della Sera to say he was ready for an interview, which he granted to the famous Italian journalist Indro Montanelli.

 Scalfari’s free-flowing conversation with Pope Francis was reported by the journalist in such a general manner, that there are still questions about whether the Pope’s words can be quoted as official positions or not.

The Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, took the decision to report the interview in its entirety, making the Pope’s words sort of official. The Osservatore Romano’s independent decision (not the first one) de facto cut off the Holy See Press Office from any communications strategy. Father Lombardi had no choice but to point out that the content of the interview may be faithful to the Pope’s words, since the Pope did not complain about it, but that he could not confirm they were his exact words.

This is the Vatican today. A Vatican always more prone to outsourcing, while the central institutions are pushed away in a sort of war against Rome. The cardinals of the commission Pope Francis appointed to reform the Curia seem to want to push the Curia away, rather than reform it. They are thinking about re-writing the Pastoral Constitution Pastor Bonus, but all the proposals that came out from their first meeting (the Secretary of State must be a Secretary of the Pope; more space for laymen; a moderator curiae, which mean a sort of director of personnel) are already in the Pastor Bonus. The local Churches have taken over and want to push any central institution aside.

 Will it be just a dismantling of everything?

In the Curia, in the dioceses, in the parishes, there are good Catholics, in love with their missions and doing a great job. But in the Vatican it seems now that what people outside the Church think is more important than what people inside the Church think. The Vatican turns to VIPs to promote what it does, and never thinks about valuing the high professionals it already has.

While the Holy See Press Office works to explain this Papacy, the Pope grabs the newspaper headlines with initiatives that the Holy See Press Office simply is not made aware of. While the Vatican Secretariat of State keeps on doing its job, it is also challenged by sudden Papal decisions, taken without any coordination.

This kind of anarchy is not something new in the history of the Church. The issue is that the institution previously managed this anarchy. Now, the institution itself feeds the anarchy. The informal Vatican of the Pope, a Pope in a “under a dictatorship” permanent mindset, risks giving credence to the view of those who think that the Church is only a “confluence” of strong interests. The goal of the latter is to dismantle the Church.  Will the informal Vatican help them to succeed?