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. 

This is how the big international organizations promote their agenda. The agenda of the counter-ideology of gender and personal freedom is promoted in a subtle way. Often, a “soft law” process is followed. The ‘soft law’ consists in pressuring states to adopt legislation domestically that reflect principles embraced in international forums (general articles in conventions and treaties, optional protocols, etcetera). Other pressures come through the “final observations” of the UN committees that oversee the implementation of conventions by the states parties. The observations are non- binding, but are nevertheless a means to influence legislation in states.

Secular media has already started to speculate that the Holy See will want to hide information about the abuse of minors by the clergy. This line of argument is misleading. The Convention Against Torture addresses different issues. And – since it is torture that it deals with – the Committee Against Torture should really be looking at the cases of children born alive after an attempted abortion and left to die (600 in Canada from 2001 to 2011). Or late-term abortion methods, such as that of “dilatation and evacuation” that really constitute forms of torture.

These are issues that may come to the fore when the Holy See presents its report regarding how the Convention is applied in Vatican City State and how the Holy See, as a moral authority, is committed and promotes around the world a culture against torture. The presentation of the report may also show some of the biases in the public controversy about the Church’s response to sex abuse of minors by the clergy, because the Holy See did reform its laws to address the issue and new Vatican procedures brought about a decrease in the number of cases of clergy abuses of minors, as data from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith shows.

But these arguments may not be sufficient.

Public opinion is now very accustomed to attacks against the Holy See. Vatican communications advisers have tried to insert “positive viruses” in the secular media stream. For example, by leaking to the Associated Press that about 700 priests had been defrocked by Benedict XVI because of sex abuses of minors. The Holy See’s communications gurus have even tried to ingratiate themselves with the secular media by favoring it when it comes to breaking news, or transmitting the Pope’s words or visual footage.

The assumption behind this course of action is that it will finally make the media take note of the Catholic Church. However, this approach does not actually work. The media, under the control of publishers and financial interests that pursue specific agendas, will report objectively about the Church when there is a major event, but will not hesitate to lead the charge against her if it advances their interests.

The work of Accuracy in Media provides insights about how the “media pendulum swings according to convenience.” Accuracy in  Media is a conservative watchdog group which mission is to promote accurate, fair and balance media reporting.  Even if conservative, Accuracy in Media  raises issues to be taken in consideration.

In 2010 the New York Times stood as one of the newspapers most active in criticizing the Catholic Church over the scandals of the clergy sex abuses of minors. But before that, Accuracy in the Media had launched the campaign “Boycott the New York Times”. Accuracy in the Media showed that the weight of the leftist lobbies (those who promote the “right” to an abortion and individual freedoms, and claim the gender ideology as the only legitimate view on gender issues) swung the pendulum of every single article to fit within a preset agenda.

The qualitative jump that Vatican communications must take means going beyond the secular media. Informing public opinion about the Church correctly is something that has been perhaps missing in recent years. Sensationalism won over information. The same Pope Francis seems to be a victim of this general climate in which there are attacks against the Church, yet the Pope’s character is exalted. Pope Francis’ pontificate risks to be known as what it is not.

Last week, Pope Francis launched via twitter an appeal to politicians to defend the dignity of all.  He has upheld the indissolubility of Christian marriage. In the last general audience, he asked God, and requested all present to do the same, for the gift of understanding, which means seeing through God’s eyes. At the same time, he met the Council of Eight cardinals looking into the reform of the Curia (and the streamlining the Curia was discussed yet again). He met the newly established Council for the Economy for its first meeting, held May 2, when it discussed its statues. Finally, the members of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors gathered in Rome from the May 1 to 3 and started their works.  

The Pope’s statements on the position of the Church on different issues have underscored continuity. The Pope’s series of meetings show that a reform, not a revolution in the Church, is what’s being carried forward. After one year of pontificate, the challenge for the Pope remains balancing a huge popular wave of positive feelings around his pontificate, the need for a sensible governance of the Church, and the defense of that very same Church from the attacks of the secular media.

Until now, everything seems to be going smoothly. Even the Irish premier Enda Kenny has invited Pope Francis to visit the country, following the news a month ago that Ireland would re-open the Rome’s residence of the Irish Embassy to the Holy See. The embassy was closed in November 2011, purportedly for economic reasons.

In fact, the strong disagreements between the Irish government and the Holy See about the Church’s response to the clergy abuse of minors weighted heavily on the decision to close the embassy. Nowadays, according to Enda Kenny, that issue has been overcome, since «Pope Francis has made it clear that his pontificate focuses above all on issues like social justice, poverty and human rights.»

The pendulum of Vatican communications has swung away from highly contested topics and towards social issues, which find more echo in public opinion and with governments. However, it is also true that behind the words “human rights” there are many hidden dangers. Since the Cairo and Beijing conferences, the Holy See has argued for the notion of human rights as individual rights, trying to focus on the defense of the most poor and helpless. This is something rarely encompassed in the States’ agendas and hardly ever fostered by international organizations.

Attention to the poorest and helpless is always secondary in coverage that praises the Pope only if he does take a strong stand on a sensitive issue. A coverage by a media ever ready to attack him as soon as he uses his moral authority to enlighten consciences. At the same time, the news put out by the secular media keep on eroding the notion of the Holy See as an entity recognized under international law which can legitimately engage in diplomacy. It is part of a specific plan begun many years ago, meant to exclude the Holy See from the international community of nations-states and its deliberations.

Will Pope Francis and his team be able to defend the Church from the attacks? A good response to this questions will be provided May 10, when Pope Francis reportedly would address all the heads of the agencies of the United Nations.

Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), said the meeting «could be  very important» if the Holy Father «takes the opportunity to call the agency heads back to their original purposes, rather than pursuing radical agendas.»

The pillars of this structure had been built by Benedict XVI, from the 2010 Motu Proprio through which he established the Financial Information Authority and issued the first anti-money laundering law, subsequently improved and superseded under Pope Francis in order to make a financial system that would meet international standards and at the same time was cognizant of Vatican sovereignty and uniqueness. Both sovereignty and uniqueness are indispensible to carry on the mission of the Church.

IOR, Myths and Facts

The Institute for Religious Works, also known by the Italian acronym IOR, is only one part of the financial structure of the Holy See, even if it is constantly identified as one of its most important. It is commonly known as the “Vatican bank”, and even when it is properly described as a financial institution, press editors tend to revert to the expression “Vatican bank”.

In fact, defining the IOR as a “bank” overlooks a series of essential nuances which are very important in a public discussion  about it.

The first “essential” nuance is that the IOR is not a bank, but a financial institution. It carries out some banking functions, but not all. The IOR’s ultimate goal is not to earn banking profits. The IOR does not give out credits and loans. The IOR is a central body of the Church, whose funds and profits are at the Pope’s disposal. It serves the mission of the Church and it is at the service of the Church.

These are the facts. There is a IOR reality that goes beyond its 6 billion in assets and 18,900 customers. During an unprecedented closed-door meeting with journalists on June 28, 2012, the then General Director of the IOR Paolo Cipriani noted: «We provide financial support in more than 150 countries. Where a diocese is, it is our duty to support it in its most important services. I had the honor to visit some of the poorest countries, and I found out that the Church does fantistic things. I have been in Peru, I saw missionaries taking care of people in villages with houses made of mud. It is incredible what the Church does in the world».

Yet, the IOR is put on the spot every time there is talk of scandals in Vatican finances. As if the roots of evil present in the Church were to be found at the IOR. There are often references to the so-called IOR/Banco Ambrosiano scandal. The IOR became enmeshed in the bankruptcy of Banco Ambrosiano, which president, Roberto Calvi, was found hanging dead from the Blackfriars Bridge in London in 1981.

In a book entitled “Ambrosiano: il contro processo” (Ambrosiano: a counter investigation), Mario Tedeschi, certainly not a Catholic, analyzed all the documents of the trial and reached the conclusion that the IOR was just a scapegoat, a distraction by men of the Italian government and of the Bank of Italy to hide their dangerous liaisons.   These men failed to exercise proper oversight on the financial operations carried out by Roberto Calvi, the so-called “God’s banker”, which in fact financed communist parties and the Sandinista rebels in South America.

That of Mario Tedeschi is a reading of the facts that is never considered in the public discussion. The myth of the IOR as a place of illicit dealings has persisted until today. So much so, that the president of the IOR Board of Superintendence, Ernst von Freyberg, has had to work hard to rebuild the Institute’s image.

Pressures on the IOR

Appointed president of the IOR on Feb. 15, 2013 (four days after Benedict XVI had announced his renunciation) von Freyberg had to overcome opposition to the Institute from even some members of the College of Cardinals. During the pre-conclave meetings, some of the cardinals clearly attacked the existence of the “bank”. Thus, von Freyberg had to work faster to clean up the Institute’s image, substantially accelerating the execution of what was already planned.

The election of Pope Francis, the expectation of renewal created around his election, the eagerness of many to set an agenda for the pontiff himself (probably hoping to weaken the Holy See’s sovereignty) called attention on IOR issues. The pressure was also coming from some of Pope Francis off-the-cuff remarks during his homilies in the morning masses he celebrates at the Domus Sanctae Marthae. The day IOR employees were attending the mass, Pope Francis said that «institutions are not essential». In another occasion, Pope Francis underscored that «Saint Peter did not have a bank account.»

These words sounded like the Institute’s final condemnation. But, also in this case, facts diverted from the myths.

The IOR according to MONEYVAL

Taking into account that the IOR is just one part of the Vatican “financial branch,” and that the reform began by Benedict XVI and continued by Pope Francis is not centered on the so-called Vatican bank, it is worthwhile to revisit the MONEYVAL report, the Council of Europe’s committee which provides an independent and internationally recognized evaluation of the financial transparency standards of the Council’s member states.

The report, issued on July 4, 2012, gave a generally positive evaluation of the measures and reform adopted by the Holy See and the Vatican City State to prevent and combat illicit activities of a financial nature. The report recognizes the IOR’s commitment to meet international standards.

According to the report, the IOR procedures on customer due diligence «went, to some extent, beyond the requirements set out by the Law» (i.e.. law n. CXXVII, reformed with a decree issued January 25, 2012 precisely to fix some of its shortcomings in this regard). Paragraph 471 of the report states that «the procedures partly contain requirements which were missing or unclear in the original version of the Anti-Money Laundering/Combatting the Finance of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Law. This mitigates to some extent the negative impact on effectiveness attributable to the fact that a significant number of elements in the legal framework were introduced only after the first MONEYVAL on-site visit.»

The MONEYVAL report also stressed (paragraph 476) that «the IOR had launched a process of review and update of its client database in November 2010. The IOR demonstrated its commitment and dedication to the completion of this process by the end of 2012. Six persons are involved in this project and are actively approaching clients to receive updated information. By the end of 2011, the Institute had updated the information of approximately 50% of natural persons and 11% of legal persons in its client database module (Sintacs)».

These procedures were based, of course, on some guidelines. There was already a manual (cited, for instance, in paragraphs 411, 412, and 482), and also a categorization of the risks: the different types of clients accepted by the IOR had been classified into five different risk categories (par. 478). In any case, the categorization needed to be updated, because (as mentioned in paragraph 479) «the current approach does not take into account geographic risk, product/service risk, type and frequency of transactions, activity carried out, operative volumes, behavior of the client, or others.» This was normal, as all procedures can be improved.

The new management and the Scarano case

Von Freyberg work started from the basis of this good framework set by the previous management. The new president had also the goal of freshening up the image of the Institute. Von Freyberg promised the publication of the balance sheet, later published and even posted on the IOR official website. At the same time, he had to manage the storm linked to the Scarano Case.

Monsignor Scarano, a suspended accountant for the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA), is currently under house arrest and charged with planning to illegally bring 20 million euro in cash from Switzerland into Italy aboard a government airplane. Msgr. Scarano is also under investigation for a separate alleged instance of money laundering, which is what triggered his funds being frozen by the Vatican on July 9, according to a source who works in one of the Vatican offices related to APSA.  The investigation concerns transactions Msgr. Scarano made in 2009. At that time, he took 560,000 euro in cash out of his personal Vatican bank account and carried it into Italy, to help pay off a mortgage on his Salerno home. According to the Salerno public prosecutor, Msgr. Scarano asked 56 close friends to accept 10,000 euros in cash in exchange for writing checks for this same amount for deposit into an Italian bank account

The 20 million euro to be brought into Italy would come from the D’Amico brothers, rich ship-owners friend of Scarano, donors to charity causes like the opening of a center for the terminal ill in Salerno. The Vatican Financial Information Authority promptly froze funds and sent – for the first time ever – an international letter rogatory to Italy.  There has been no news of a response to the letter so far.

Following the case, it is evident that Scarano’s is an Italian scandal: it is yet to be proven that funds to be donated by the D’Amico brothers were part of the 20 million euro that were going to be transferred into Italy; all of those involved in the trial are Italian and are claiming that the money was going to be transferred to Italy; and tax evasion is not a crime formally linked to money laundering in Italy or in the Vatican. The Rome prosecutor is investigating tax evasion on the part of the Italians D’Amico and corrupted Italian officials.

However, there is the image of this being a Vatican scandal with Scarano under the spotlight. When the scandal broke out, the Institute’s General Director and his deputy resigned (July 1, 2013) and von Freyberg called the American experts of the Promontory Financial Group to carry out a more in depth  screening of the accounts, that should be completed within the half of 2014. It was a way to show an acceleration of the process of transparency and projecting an image of renewal.

The mission continues. Despite the pressures

The public discussions about the Institute and the Scarano scandal once again showed that the IOR is often shortchanged by the media narrative. This narrative has simplistically divided the work of the IOR in what has happened before and after Pope Francis, and before and after the change of management.

The pressure continued, embolden by the fact that Pope Francis decided to take stock of the aim and mission of the IOR without reservations, appointing a pontifical commission of reference for the purpose headed by Cardinal Raffaele Farina. The work of the IOR Commission was then sustained by the work of the Pontifical Commission for Reference on the Organization of the Economic-Administrative Structure of the Holy See, and finally by the establishment of a Secretariat for the Economy.

In the end, all of these commissions and offices agreed that the mission of the IOR must not be brought to an end. A press release on April 7 states that the IOR «will continue to serve with prudence and provide specialized financial services to the Catholic Church worldwide. The valuable services that can be offered by the Institute assist the Holy Father in his mission as universal pastor and also aid those institutions and individuals who collaborate with him in his ministry.»

Pell has requested von Freyberg, and the management of the IOR, to «finalize their plan to ensure that the IOR can fulfill its mission as part of the new financial structures of the Holy See/Vatican City State. The plan will be presented to the Holy Father’s Council of Cardinals and the Council for the Economy.»

«In that respect, the Cardinal-Prefect Pell has confirmed the importance of a sustainable systematic alignment of the legal and regulatory framework of the Holy See/Vatican City State with regulatory international best practices. Strict regulatory supervision and improvements in compliance, transparency and operations initiated in 2012 and substantially accelerated in 2013 are critical for the Institute’s future,» the press release stresses.

The IOR activities should remain the same, and will be inserted within the framework that Dominique Mamberti, Vatican Secretary for Relations with States, described as a sort of Holy See unified text for financial matters, i.e. the law n. XVIII on transparency, supervision and financial information which went into effect on October 8, 2013. The law introduced a broad and articulated legal and institutional framework to regulate financial activities within the Holy See and Vatican City State.

In the end, Pope Francis is not thinking about a revolution of Vatican finances. It would not make sense. The Pope is very well aware of the importance of the mission of the IOR. The Argentine Church, in financial turmoil, was saved by the intervention of the Institute at the end of the nineties. More than a revolution, Pope Francis is carrying forward the updating and renewal started with Benedict XVI.