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. 

That many did not like Benedict XVI’s silent revolution is evident by looking at the (often unjust) attacks Benedict XVI’s pontificate had been subjected to. And that Benedict XVI’s revolution is being blocked and slowed down has been made evident in many instances during Pope Francis’ pontificate. Perhaps, the most important instance is the account of the book “The Great Reformer,” written by the London-based journalist Austen Ivereigh.

Formerly a spokesperson of Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor of Westminster and deputy editor of the progressive British Catholic magazine ‘The Tablet’, and currently manager of CatholicVoices, Ivereigh has reported that the so-called “Team Bergoglio” has worked behind the curtains to back the Archbishop of Buenos Aires’ election as Pope.

According to Ivereigh, the ‘team’ was composed by cardinals Murphy, Walter Kasper, Carl Lehman and Godfried Daneels. Ivereigh wrote,generating controversy, that the four cardinals “secured Bergoglio’s assent” (although this claim will be modified in the reprints of the book). The issue was raised of the validity of Bergoglio’s election, since ‘Universi Dominici Gregis’, the Constitution that regulates papal elections, forbids any ‘political’ agreement before a conclave.

On the other hand, the Constitution does not forbid the exchange of opinions, the informal dinners, and discussing possible candidates. And the cardinals of Team Bergoglio (Murphy could not even take part in the Conclave) did exactly this: dinners, exchange of opinions and so forth. Yet, the four asked Fr. Federico Lombardi, Director of the Holy See Press Office, to dispute the book’s account, which he did. To which Ivereigh responded by underscoring that they were only denying they had an agenda, not that they urged for Bergoglio’s election.

Ivereigh writes that the four had backed Jorge Mario Bergoglio during the 2005 conclave, and that Bergoglio himself dissuaded them from keep on voting for him –voting that served to block Ratzinger’s election. It seems just a minor detail, but in fact it is a revealing piece of information. After eight years of Benedict XVI, the cardinals chose to look back. It is even a symbolic choice, in a world where everything has a meaning. And the meaning is: we should have walked a different path.

Scandals and continuous attacks on Benedict XVI’s pontificate must be read against this backdrop: the attacks have provided an excuse for cardinals to switch the pre-conclave meetings’ themes from the universal problems of the Church and of announcing the Gospel, to the urgent problem to solve the practical controversies. And they have also backed the notion that the urgent problems may be solved with a reform of the reform. Id est, returning to the past, masking it as a great novelty.

Good part of the biased debate at the pre-conclave meetings is mirrored in the current debate. The so-much discussed Curia reform had been backed by many during the meetings. Yet, just a few cardinals knew in depth what the Roman Curia is, how it works. The financial issue was deemed crucial. But much of the information was that coming from newspapers, and it was not always accurate information.

This backdrop is probably the reason why Cardinal George Pell, Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy and member of the Council of Cardinals, wrote an article on the Catholic Herald.

The headline of the article – “The days of ripping off the Vatican are over” – was true: many have ripped off the Vatican during these years. And Cardinal Pell is moved by the sincere wish to clean the Vatican up. Some passages of the interview are however noteworthy.

Cardinal Pell underscored that the Vatican is not broke, since there are many millions in “sectional balance sheets.” Fr. Federico Lombardi clarified Pell’s assertions the day after the publication of the article, noting that the cardinal was not speaking about hidden funds, as his words may have suggested.

That of the “millions tucked away” is perhaps the most flamboyant assertion.

It is also noteworthy that Cardinal Pell’s text may suggested that Ettore Gotti Tedeschi was sacked from his post of President of the IOR Board of Superintendancy because he was in the middle of a struggle of power; and that Pontifical Councils and Congregation had at least a naive management of their finance – but in fact they were kept to present their balance sheet to the Prefecture of the Economic Affairs for oversight.

True, a rationalization of the organization of the Vatican financial structures might be in order. But it is also true that what Cardinal Pell described as “sectional funds” are more likely the funds of the Secretariat of State, the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and the Congregation for the Eastern Churches: all of them have their own budgets, which are not reflected in the overall Holy See / Vatican City State budget.

All of these institutions have dedicated funds and budgets in order to defend the Church’s freedom. For instance, if in a country where priests cannot have a bank account and neither can their parishes, the Apostolic Nuncio accredited there asks for financial aid from the Secretariat of State, the latter must be able to give it to him quickly and possibly in cash. This is part of the mission of the Church, supporting the dioceses in mission.

In order to guarantee the Church’s freedom, a financial reform that would adhere to international standards and at the same time preserved the Vatican City State specificity had been drafted under Benedict XVI’s pontificate. And a reform of the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs had been put into effect as well, thus giving this prefecture tasks similar to those of a Vatican ministry of finances. The Institute for Religious Works (IOR) had started reviewing all of its clients’ accounts, while Vatican finances as a whole underwent a third-party evaluation by the Council of Europe’s MONEYVAL committee. MONEYVAL’s report found Vatican finances largely compliant with international standards, while the MONEYVAL progress report that followed (issued Dec. 2013) confirmed the seriousness of the Vatican effort.

Pell’s article suggests the need for a complete overhaul. On the other hand, one should consider Benedict XVI’s reforms and their huge impact. Likewise it should be acknowledged that this path had already begun under John Paul II. The new project for finances seemingly aims at the total consolidation of budgets, under the sole control of the Secretariat for the Economy. Instead, Benedict XVI’s reform was based on collegiality, but nobody have really underscored it.

Benedict XVI’s pontificate has not been understood in its revolutionary potentiality. On the other hand, everything done by Pope Francis is (often wrongly) described as a rupture with the past.

Among cardinals, bishops, Curia workers many are feeling a little disappointed, since this new approach – fostered by media – seemingly maintains that nothing had been done in the past. For example, the stress on a new pastoral commitment may  suggest that Church have lacked of pastoral care in the past; the continual mentions to the malfunctioning of the Curia may let understand that in the Curia there are no goodwill men, or that everything has been badly managed until now. Obviously,  Pope Francis do not wish to let things look so. He simply wanted to address problems.

True, things may be improved – and they are going to be. On the other hand, media  should avoid the temptation to portrait Curia as a nest of non professional people, or a place for illicit dealings.

That Benedict’s reform is valid and ongoing can be inferred from the resistance of many bishops and cardinals to its overhaul. The Synod of Bishops – – during which prelates have voiced their concern, in an open debate – has been an important testing ground. Another testing ground was the Pope’s meeting with the heads of Vatican dicasteries on Nov. 24.

Discussing the Council of Cardinals’ proposals for reform, the heads of Vatican dicasteries raised many objections, according to Vatican sources. No problem with the proposal to consolidate two big congregations (Justice and Peace, and Laity and Family) that include five secretariats each (i.e., offices). The issue was – critics stressed – that the reform should only be carried forward according to institutional criteria, taking into account the responsibilities of each dicastery and their valuable contributions. The heads of dicasteries also raised pragmatic issues. For instance: where would employees of the assimilated dicasteries go? All of these issues were reportedly missing from the information presented to the heads of dicasteries.

Not by chance Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga, coordinator of the Council of Cardinals, had granted an interview to reiterate their willingness to carry out reforms. But the real issue is that the reforms may not change anything substantial, just the way each dicastery is managed. In the Nov. 24 report, there were many “gaps” and the heads of dicasteries noticed it. This is the reason why the expected, major announcement of the reform going forward did not take place.

The same happened during the synod of bishops. Pressures toward hasty changes – and carried out as if the Church had never known pastoral care – led to a first draft (the mid-term report) that was not favored by the majority of bishops. The final report had to take into account many of the issues raised, especially the absence language quoted from the scriptures. The final report is not however completely liked, but it is an almost accepted compromise.

The way the synod itself had been managed gave the impression that changes were going to be secretly imposed, without taking into account differences of opinion – as proved by the secrecy of the discussions (the General Secretariat of the Synod did not want to make them public) as well as the lively discussion about making public the observations to the mid-term report.

This is something for the Council of Cardinals to keep their eyes on, as they gather on the 9th, for their sixth meeting. Many of their reforms are presented as a real overturn of the previous status quo. One can assume that Benedict XVI’s reforms, based on collegiality and personal responsibility, scared people. They pushed the Church forward, and had a major impact in the international arena. But at the same time, those reforms obliged everyone to be transparent and clear. The big reform of charity; the big reform of Vatican finances; the reform of the Code of Canon Law (which Pope Francis had  promulgated)… all initiatives introduced under Benedict XVI. Who saw very clearly the need for a new kind of leadership, and this is why he started his reforms by changes to the criteria of admission to seminaries. Quite ironic that one of his last speeches (and a prophetic one, in light of what happened later) was that delivered to seminarians in Rome.

If the Holy See’s commitment to turn the Vatican into a modern state,while keeping its own specificity, has not been understood, it is because on the opposite side stands a model for a pop, company-like Church aiming to stir consciences with simple words people like to hear.

But the Church is not only pop. The Church is also history, mission and sovereignty. And the sovereignty of the small territory of Vatican City State is crucial for the Holy See to exercise its mission. In times when Europe itself had turned its back to Christian values, sovereignty becomes a main tool to fully act as a moral authority.

Pope Francis’ big challenge is now that of completing Benedict XVI’s reforms. The media’s big challenge, on the other hand, is to go beyond the paradigm of discontinuity.

Media need to understand that between one Pope and another there is a series of reforms that need to be carried out to ber effective, and that Francis cannot carry anything forward without appreciating and valuing the work of his predecessor. For instance, as Francis, Benedict XVI had spoken of a poor Church for poor. He did during his 2011 trip to Germany, when he outlined a Church that had to be less worldy, less appeased on its own structure.

It was a slap on the face, for the wealthy German Church. Benedict XVI revoked the latae sententiae commination of excommunication for those who do not pay the “Kirchensteuer,” the Church tax. The excommunication was an outcome of the fact that when one declared he was not going to pay the tax because he was not Catholic anymore, this declaration was considered the equivalent of an act of apostasy. The German bishops responded with a document which stated that not paying the Kirchensteuer was equivalent to a “grave public sin,” which bore in the end the same consequences of an excommunication. Until now, this is the only “grave public sin” German bishops have listed, while for every other “grave public sin,” included that of being divorced and civilly remarried (which also has a social impact), German bishops (including reformer Cardinals Marx, Kasper and Lehmann) ask to act with mercy.

These small contradictions are food for thought. We should go beyond the paradigm of Pope Francis’ discontinuity. But we should also acknowledge that many, among those who have elected him, have their own agenda – otherwise, why should they be so active? How much will Pope Francis follow this agenda, is yet to be known. But their activism indicates that the Pope, in the end, will not back their every move.

According to rumors, the establishment of two new congregations will be the most important novelty of the Francis’ Curia. 

First possible news: the Pontifical Council for Justice and peace will be elevated to the rank of Congregation. Under it, five secretariats: for Life and Human Ecology; for Justice and Peace in the World; for Migrants; for Health Care; and for Charity. This implies the downgrading to mere secretariat within a congregation of (respectively) the Pontifical Academy for Life, the Pontifical Council for Migrants, the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Health Care, and the Pontifical Council Cor Unum.

This latter had a special role in delivering the Pope’s charity in the world – a specialty that the current president, Cardinal Robert Sarah, underscored to Pope Francis when he met him for a private audience last week. Cardinal Sarah is reportedly due to be appointed Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments; if the appointment will be announced, as it seems, he will be called to take over to manage a difficult situation after the sudden departure of two long-term officials like Anthony Ward and Miguel Anguel Ferrer and the appointment of a single undersecretary in the person of Msgr. Corrado Maggioni.

Perhaps, Sarah is being made to pay the fact that he had been in charge of Cor Unum during a difficult transition for Caritas Internationalis under the guidance of  Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodriguez Maradiaga . It may seem odd, but it is not, since Cardinal Maradiaga is the person that should take over the post of prefect of the other new Congregation the Council of Cardinals may announce today: the Congregation for the Laity and the Family, which will embody the Pontifical Council for the Laity and the Family.

If Cardinal Maradiaga is indeed appointed to lead the Congregation, he would arrive in Rome with a new opportunity for a fresh start. In 2012, Caritas Internationalis was amid a storm: the Holy See did not give the ‘nihil obstat’ to the re-candidacy of Lesley Ann Knight as Secretary General. Knight, who was at the time holding the post, had been severely criticized because the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace had been put under the Caritas Umbrella. Development and Peace had in fact supported associations who advocated the legalization of abortion. Moreover, Caritas Internationalis was also a member of the World Social Forum, and obviously not all the groups under the World Social Forum umbrella share Catholic principles. Because of the storm, Lesley Ann Knight lost the post, while Maradiaga was kept as president and Michel Roy appointed Secretary General.

What happened with Caritas Internationalis brought about the start of the big reform of Vatican charity, that had started with the new Caritas Internationalis statutes and in the end involved all the Church’s charities. Cor Unum was among the main players of the transition, since it is so prominent in this area.

On the other hand, Cardinal Maradiaga was sided until Pope Francis’ election: the Honduran Cardinal had never gotten rid of the charge that he had at least been an accomplice of Caritas’ dangerous liaisons with Catholic organizations fickle on Church Doctrine. These are things whispered in Vatican corridors. But every whisper has a weight, in the Vatican.

Maradiaga had climbed Pope Francis’ heart. The World Meeting of Popular Movements – which in fact included many labels of the World Social Forum – organized by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and held at the Vatican elevated Maradiaga’s importance, especially after the Pope delivered to its members a speech – an encouragement to carry on the fight, and the promise that their protests will be part of the new encyclical on ecology the Pope would write.

Healed from the Social Forum injury, Maradiaga can get back to Rome and take that post he coveted so much, working as Pope Francis’ right hand. Since the beginning of the Pontificate, Maradiaga has wanted to be considered one of Pope Francis’ most influential advisers.

Cardinal Peter Turkson should become the prefect of the Congregation for Justice and Peace – as his term as president of the Pontifical Council is expiring. The reform will also lead to the retirement of Cardinals Vegliò and Rylko, respectively presidents of the pontifical councils for Migrants and for the Laity, who should be given the posts of Member of the Congregation. The archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, could be given the post of Canonical in Saint Mary the Major Basilica. That is, a second class post, almost a punishment for leading the diocese of Terni to bankruptcy. However, that of Canonical is a role where Paglia can hopefully apply some lessons learned from his earlier management experiences.

This is how the Pope Francis’ Curia is starting to shape up. The dismantling of the old Secretary of State started when the ‘Foreign Minister’ Mamberti was appointed prefect of the Signatura. Now, it should be the turn of the deputy, Archbishop Angelo Becciu, who is rumored may be appointed archbishop of Palermo, thus eventually also becoming a cardinal, or be appointed nuncio to Italy.

The Pope, however, does not want that any given post be associated with a red hat – he prefers to give the birretta rossa to bishops he feels closer in tought to him and to bishops of peripheries. On the other hand, it is true that the next consistory could be full of surprises.

There are many cardinals that will turn 80 this year: in February, Pope Francis should have a college of electors of 110 people, which will decrease to 105 by the end of the year. The maximum limit of electors cardinals has been fixed at 120. A new round of appointments is expected, and this round will drastically change the geography – and the impact – of those wearing the purple hat.

In creating new Cardinals, the Pope will also weigh the ideas of the candidates, in view of the next Synod of Bishops. At the beginning of last week, the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops gathered – Pope Francis was present, as is his custom – and underscored the importance of this unprecedented path in the history of the Church. On the basis of the ‘Relatio Synodi’ (Synod’s final report), members of the Secretariat have begun to work on the lineamenta of next year’s synod, and many are looking for a vindication. In fact, the progressive push – which had also watered down the real issues raised during the synod’s debate – had been rejected by the assembly, and brought back to light only by Pope Francis’ decision to publish the vote on each paragraph of the relatio.

This decision, together with the Pope’s speech at the Synod’s final Mass, has reignited the enthusiasm of those seeking for a change of pace not only in pastoral activity, but also in doctrine, convinced that only this change of pace will keep the Church up to date.

How much Pope Francis will sustain this progressive push may be deduced from the appointment of the new Cardinals, that will be the prelude to the Pope’s picks for the 2015 synod.

It is also rumored that one of the new cardinals will be Father Enzo Bianchi, superior of the Monastery of Bose and famous for his ecumenical work – also criticized since he tends to put the truth aside on the name of fostering dialogue. Father Bianchi is a thinker the secular world much appreciates. As is Archbishop Bruno Forte, the drafter of the controversial paragraph on homosexuals in the Synod’s mid term relation. Archbishop Forte could be transferred, perhaps to the diocese of Bologna, where by custom a cardinal presides. Also Archbishop Victor Fernandez is in good terms with secular media: the rector of the Catholic University of Buenos Aires and Pope Francis’ ghostwriter, Archibshop Fernandez is expected in Rome to take over a post as head of a congregation.

What is being experienced is, however, a sort of vindication of peripheries with respect to the central authority of Rome, which – according to them – has often suffucated their pushes and forbid them from growing . But Rome is mother, not only leader. And, in the midst of the debate, it is almost a given that a mother would try to prevent her children to lose the deep sense of things, and to put the important values at the center again. But nowadays, peripheries want to be the new center.

Curia Reform should give them a higher profile. Recently, the Council of Cardinals sent a letter to all the Vatican dicasteries, asking which of their functions could local bishops’ conferences take over. The problem does not involve pontifical councils, since the bishops’ conferences have already established commissions on their subject matters. The real goal was that of delegating even more of the Congregations’ functions. For example, to give more power of decision to bishops when a doctrinal dispute arises, without going through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; to give more power to bishops to recognize universities and activities of Charity as Catholic, without undergoing a procedure in the Congregation for Catholic Education and Cor Unum; and finally to give more power to bishops to choose those who may have enter the seminary.

Perhaps the most intense criticism received by Benedict XVI was because of this last issue – a hotspot. Among the first decisions made by Benedict XVI, there was an instruction on the access to seminaries, according to which gay and anyone sympathetic with the gender ideology could not become a priest. It was a groundbreaking decision, according to Father Dariusz Oko, a Polish priest who had studied on scientific basis the problem of homoheresy.

Vatican reforms announced last July 9 seem to be more about a need for a spending review than moved by the real need for reform. It is thus understandable why, until now, only structural reforms have been discussed, while theological matters have been put aside, even fundamental issues like the Holy See Sovereignty.

In fact, it is not the time, yet, to discuss choices of profound meaning in order to redesign a more up to date Curia updating the Pastor Bonus, the 1989 apostolic constitution which regulates the functions of Vatican offices. There is rather the need of rationalizing, of – if possible – generating revenues, of projecting the Vatican administration and finances toward a future when the Holy See will be able to guarantee a pension even to the employees who will be working in the Vatican three generations from now. In order to achieve these goals, there is a need for experts, not theologians. Only history will tell how much the Holy See has sacrificed in evangelical influence and self understanding of its own mission by choosing the path of technical reform, with seemingly no larger vision behind it.

The real face of the reform

Between July 8 and 9, in only two days, Pope Francis’ reform showed its real face. On the 8th of July, the balance sheet of the Institute for Religious Works (namely the IOR, the so-called Vatican bank), as well as those of the Holy See and of the Governorate, were released. The IOR balance sheet was a break with the past and a milestone for the beginning of a new era.In a note released together with the balance sheet, the IOR declared phase 1 of its reform concluded, and affirmed that about 3000 accounts had been closed following an accurate screening (which was already ongoing before, as the MONEYVAL report certified). It also mentions a decision of the Council of Superintendence to restrict the categories of entities and people that can open an account, in effect since July 2013;  and highlighted that, out of the 3000 accounts mentioned above, 2600 were mostly dormant accounts while 396 were accounts that did not meet requirements. The note underscored that 359 accounts would be closed.

A clean up and rationalization plan put in action at an institute that – in the words of outgoing president Ernst von Freyberg’s words – «hid no unpleasant surprises, held no suspicious accounts.» In fact von Freyberg was stressing no more than what the Council of Europe’s MONEYVAL experts had already stated in their report, clarifying that the IOR in particular (and the Vatican in general) were not the places of illicit transactions and opacity described by the media. There was a need to project a new image of the Institute, one going beyond the antagonism that always takes place in a situation of reform and transition (von Freyberg took over his post in the difficult days following Benedict XVI’s resignation, while the – also news media – war for the Papal succession was already in the offing).

Von Freyberg chose to delegate the screening to the external consultants of the Promontory Financial Group, a firm universally deemed authoritative, even if criticized for its links with the U.S. financial-political world that, some said, madethe group a sort of shadow regulator of the market.Even the staff that took the place of the IOR previous general management, who resigned following a Vatican scandal which involved the institute, came from the Promontory Financial Group.

This decision also showed the other side of the coin. The new management did not follow the investment philosophy of the former management. Probably,the former investment portfolio had not been managed in the strict way required by markets, and usually in these cases the portfolio is  not diverse enough and suffers from an over-simplistic management. The IOR stressed that management «has identified a number of legacy investments which required extraordinary and precautionary write-downs in 2013,» and that part of the losses were an outcome of those write-downs. The fact is that the 2013 profit is of only 2,9 million euros, while the 2012 profit amounted to 86 million euros.  

The IOR has nevertheless made an effort, and given the Pope 54 million euros. Out of these 54 million, 50 covered the deficit of the combined balance sheets of the Holy See and theGovernorate (this latter being in the black, thanks to the Vatican Museums), and 4 million were assigned to religious works, i.e. for the Pope to give to charity.

The big reform of the Vatican economic structure

In the mean time, everything was ready for the big reform of the Vatican economy. Cardinal Pell has pushed strongly for it.  He defended the reform in the Council of Cardinals, more or less clashing with Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello, President of the Vatican City State governorate, and less intensely but anyway clearly with Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State. The latter is always losing more influence and power, although the Pope told him that he is fully a member of the Council of Cardinals. Both Bertello and Parolin called for prudence in carrying the reform forward, and for greater appreciation of the Vatican’s special realm. Personal interests influenced them, as well. Bertello was supposed to be chosen to be the moderator curiae, but now he seems ever more sidelined. Parolin is the exponent of the gang of diplomats, the same people who have strongly resisted the Holy See international option, seeking to keep a privileged relation with the Italian State. This tension –between the international option and the Italian habitual rapport – was at the heart of many of the polemics and leaks of documents around Vatican finances.

And this tension was also at the heart of the leaks about the so-called “Maltese gang” that isfollowing the “German gang” in the management of Vatican finances. The Maltese gang is said to be headed by Joseph F.X. Zahra, number 2 of the Council for the Economy and former president of the Pontifical Commission of reference on the Vatican Administrative-Economic Structure, namely the COSEA. A banker who had worked as director of the Central Bank of Malta, Zahra knows Vermiglio, an Italian and fellow member of the Council, very well.  But Zahra is certainly not close to Jean-Baptiste Franssu, the French guru in the “mergers and acquisitions” and asset management branch.

De Franssu’s appointment was backed by Pell, together with a brand new board composed by six people (including the president). At the moment, the appointees to the new board are Mary Ann Glendon, former US ambassador to the Holy See and member of the Pontifical Commission of Reference on the IOR; Clemens Boersing, from Germany; and Sir Michael Hitze, from the UK. Two pending appointments will be filled in the coming months.

Msgr. Battista Ricca has been confirmed as IOR prelate, i.e. the link between the Cardinals Oversight Commission and the Board of Directors. The real news is that Msgr. Alfred Xuereb, general secretary of the Secretariat for the Economy, has been appointed secretary with no right to vote in the IOR board of directors. Formerly Benedict XVI’s second secretary and Pope Francis’ first secretary, Xuereb was appointed by Pope Francis pontifical delegate in the two pontifical commissions of reference, and later appointed Secretary of the Secretariat for the Economy. His entrance in the IOR Board probably means two things: that Pope Francis wants to keep an eye on these issues, and that the Secretariat for the Economy is now taking a leading role.

With the mission of the IOR reconfirmed, it is now time to re-shape the Institute. The IOR will keep itsservice function, the holding of accounts of Vatican employees and former employees, monsignors, prelates and cardinals and even ambassador to the Holy See and Vatican foundations. The management of the assets will be transferred to a new body, the Vatican Asset Management,yet to be established. The Vatican Asset Management should be also entrusted with the patrimonies of the  Congregation for the Evangelization of People and of the extraordinary section of the Administration for the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA), the financial branch,which manages moveable assets derived from settlements linked to the Lateran Treaty.

The APSA extraordinary section will be responsible of maintaining relationships with all the main central banks, in order to – a July 9 Holy See Press Office bulletin reads – «keep on guaranteeing the Holy See’s liquidity and financial stability.»

The APSA was a public authority that acted as a central bank, and now it is going to be turned into a real central bank, with the functions of a treasury department for all the sovereign institutes which will open accounts with the APSA. The reform of the APSA statutes, which took place some months ago and which gave to consultors the function of a supervisory board, should be read in the light of this APSA turning into a treasury department.On that occasion, Vatican also established “due diligence” procedures that were technically unnecessary (considering that APSA provided very few regular banking services and was going to close this banking activity, as the Holy See delegation explained to MONEYVAL) unless APSA was going to become something more than what it was. 

The Secretariat for Economy strengthens its role

The APSA ordinary section, i.e. the management of real estate (in the end, trivial accounting) will be taken by the Secretariat for the Economy, which strengthens its position among the dicasteries of the Roman Curia and acts as a sort of branch of the ministry for finances, i.e. the Council for the Economy. This is how the check and balances of the reform work, explained Cardinal Pell, who is the strongman behind the managerial changes in the Curia.

The transfer of the APSA ordinary section to the Secretariat for the Economy will be managed by a Project Management Office headed by Danny Casey. A skilled manager, Casey was Pell’s right hand running the archdiocese of Sydney and successfully orchestrated the 2008 Sydney World Youth Day. Casey has already moved to Rome, together with his wife Annie, and  he is working on the management side of the issue.

A management side that is mostly built on COSEA suggestions. The first of the COSEA’s ten priorities was that of reforming the pension funds. Everybody is assuring that the retirement pensions for the current and next generation of Vatican employees are safe (Pell said so in a press conference, Zahra reiterated it), but there is a need for a new approach, just as «many western countries have had to face challenges» regarding their pensions system. A technical committee to draft a reform has been appointed. Msgr. Brian Ferme, prelate-secretary of the Council for the Economy, will lead the committee, composed by four lay experts: Bernhard Kotanko (Austria), Andrea Lesca (Italy), Antoine de Salins (France), Nino Savelli (Italy). The committee will meet with representatives of the Council for the Economy, theSecretariat of State, and of the Pensions Funds.

The committee for the reform of Vatican media

The committee appointed to propose a reform of Vatican media, on the other hand, will be composed by external members (senior experts) and Vatican members. The committee – as the same Cardinal Pell admitted – was born under the Secretariat for the Economy by chance, because  «the Council of Cardinals was pushing to do something» regarding Vatican media and so the Secretariat did, since it is the only recently established body that is already somewhat shaped and publishes an internal bulletin «so that all the employees are informed about developments.»

A rationalization of Vatican media has been discussed for more than 30 years. At the present time, the idea is that of integrating and consolidating everything, to streamline procedures and make everything quicker in adapting to the present times. New technologies – as the Pope’s App and the Holy Father’s twitter account – will be developed; digital channels are to be reinforced; a less complicatedcontrol system, freer from the Secretariat of State,is under study to meet the needs of the present times. A major revenue stream from the use of the Pope’s images and sound bites will be studied, perhaps even changing the statutes of the Vatican television, that – it is rumored – has already increased prices charged for the use of Papal footage.

The Committee is chaired by Lord Christopher Patten, Chancellor of Oxford University and until 2014 president of the BBC’s governing board, an authoritative and well known personality. Other members of the committee are Our Sunday Visitor’s president Greg Erlandson (USA); the executive director of the Catholic Media Council Daniela Frank (Germany); Father Eric Salobir, a Dominican, general promoter of the Order of Preachers for Social Communications and founder of the think tank OPTIC (Order of Preachers for Technology, Information and Communication); Leticia Soberon (Mexico), psychologist and founder of the website www.dontknow.net and a former official of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications; and George Yeo, former Foreign Affairs Minister of Singapore who already served in the Vatican as member of the COSEA, as Zahra and de Franssu. The inclusion of these COSEA members in the Vatican ranks showsthat their work has been appreciated by the Holy See.

The “Vatican side” of the committee is comprised by: Paul Tighe, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, who will also be the secretary and “engine” of the committee; the chief of the Office of Information of the Secretariat of State, Msgr. Carlo Maria Polvani, nephew of archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, now Papal nuncio to Washington; Lucio Adrian Ruiz, of the Vatican Internet Service; Giacomo Ghisani of Vatican Radio; and Gian Maria Vian,the editor-in-chief of the Vatican news daily “L’Osservatore Romano”.

Two absences are noteworthy: that of Dario Edoardo Viganò, who was called to head the CTV in order to implementthe “economic turnabout” which will probably lead the CTV to produce more documentaries to be sold at commercial rates, as well as the exclusive for the Pope’s images; and that of Father Giuseppe Costa, director of the Vatican publishing house, one of the few Vatican communications bodies “in the black” that invests a huge effort to promote and spread the Pope’s words.

A glance to the future

Of course, it will take years before the reforms will be carried out. De Franssu has saidthat at least 24 months are needed to reshape the IOR.  The committee for communications will remain standing at least for 12 months (starting its work with a review of the McKinsey report, one of the many external consultants hired by the Vatican under Pope Francis).  Even drafting a pension funds reform will take not less than one year.

The model is that of an «specialized clerical-lay cooperation. » How this cooperation will be carried out at the IOR is still to be determined. The relations of the IOR with the “central bank,” still not active, are to be determined as well. And so it is to be determined how this reform will influence the redesign of the Vatican dicasteries.

There is ultimately a need torationalize expenses, diminish the number of employees (and this is the reason why the Vatican has frozen new hiring some months ago) and find a new balance in the elephantine Vatican structure. The path to reform has just started, and it bears no resemblance with the idealistic times when committees of theologians and Canon law experts adjusted the Curia’s structures and discussed the Holy See sovereignty and the inner theological meaning of every decision or move. Now, instead, it is a time for spending reviews.

Pope Francis’ words were not enough. The Council of Cardinals met July 1-4. The Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, joined this group of 8 appointed by Pope Francis. The Pope – according to Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office – told Cardinal Parolin that he is a full member of the Council. However, no document has been issued yet to certify the Secretary of State’s membership in the group. In the meantime, Cardinal Parolin is trying to keep his position via his being present.

Parolin’s activism is a reaction to the push to have reform engulf, it seems, the very Secretariat of State, that could be destined to be divided into two Secretariats: the Secretariat of State proper, i.e. for diplomacy, and the Secretariat for the Life of the Church, i.e. the general affairs. There would also be a General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops; and there is already the Secretariat for the Economy, led by its proactive prefect, George Pell.

This ‘four secretariats’ structure is just a hypothesis, since the fifth meeting of cardinals have not produced a draft for Curia reform. Widely discussed is the streamlining of the Curia (bringing the Pontifical Council for Laity and Family together; Justice and Peace with Cor Unum and Migrants; and the Congregation for the Divine Worship with that for the Cause of Saints). Also in this case, we are dealing with hypotheses. Pope Francis went back in part to the old draft for a Curia reform written by Cardinal Attilio Nicora shortly before John Paul II’s death. The draft proposed the establishment of a Council of Cardinals, and a brutal amalgamation of dicasteries. The Council of Cardinals was intended to consolidate positions that had crystallized under the administration of the Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, who had his (mostly Italian) interests to maintain. Nicora’s draft was in fact a way to protect this power.

Pope Francis went beyond Nicora’s draft. Angelo Sodano had managed the pre-conclave meetings in a way that led cardinals to speak of management, more than of the substantial issues. The search for a missionary Pope, able to speak to the people, seemed to be a natural consequence. The Pope acts as a front man, while the Roman Curia manages its re-organization, dismantling piece by piece the reform of collegiality carried on by Benedict XVI. Pope Francis noted there was a wish for discussion, the same kind of discussion he was accustomed to, from the Jesuits’ General Congregations. In the end, the Superior General there makes the decision. But during the Congregations, everybody can voice concerns.

This is the spirit that Pope Francis has brought into his pontificate. The notion of a permanent Council, of ongoing talks, can however bring about some surprises. So, the Curia of the old days, after many of his main characters took important posts, had to face some surprises. Especially on the economic side.

For what concerns the economy, Pope Francis has continued, with no rush, Benedict  XVI’s work. The Vatican’s Financial Intelligence Authority strengthened its international profile and issued new statutes. The Vatican first amanded its first anti-money laundering law, and then – under Pope Francis – changed it with a brand new one, which positioned the Holy See among the most advanced countries in the world in this regard. This could not have happened without the enormous effort carried out by Vatican officials.

The Vatican hired several external consultants, thus projecting the idea of a reality moving toward reforms. But consultants are usually people coming from the outside, and this led to pros and cons. On “pro” is that external consultants are professionals (even if also Vatican officials are). A “con” is that consultants can never know in depth the full scope of the realms they are providing advice to and about.

In the media, this is portrayed as a “gang fight”. In fact, what the in the media has become a petty war among gangs, is a fight between two opposite visions. And every mean is licit, in the midst of this war. Also passing to journalists rumors and gossips, sometimes even mischaracterizing reality to prove a thesis.

For what concerns the Institute for Religious Works, the internal line has prevailed. The institute is a resource for the Catholic Church and her mission, and it cannot be abolished. There will not be revolutionary changes. Just an updating, to better insert the institute (whose chirograph and statutes stretch back to 1990) in the international arena.

This issue brings about a debate. The Curia of the old days is tied hand in glove to Italy. And Italy more than once has used the IOR as a scapegoat.  Italy views the Vatican as a subdivision that should manage every international relationship on the basis of its trusted relations with Italy.

This vision contrasts with the international vision, people aiming for the Holy See to be present in the world and able to send money to missions through her own international sovereign channels provided by the IOR.

Among those who support this second vision, there are some who are supporting a more speculative IOR, in order to generate more profits, and to have the IOR fully join the international banking system. On the other hand, there are people who wish the IOR to keep its characteristics of a sovereign institute, with funds at the Pope’s disposal.

Hence, the story of the territorial factions. They are referred to as “The Americans,” “The Germans,” “The Maltese,” and a power struggle ensues. Reality is far more nuanced. The Council of Superintendency of the Institute backed and supported the international turnaround and upholding sovereignty. It also favored the process of reform within the Institute, and making the IOR in some small ways a bank, even (perhaps) giving it the possibility of lending money. An approach that, it seems, was taken at the request of the Pontifical Commission for the IOR, chaired by Cardinal Raffaele Farina.

The process of reform has almost come to an end. The members of the board will probably tender their resignations, in order to support and facilitate a generational change. The Secretariat for Economy should take the lead of the management of the assets, to be entrusted to another body, the Vatican Asset Management. Surely, the president will change: Ernst von Freyberg has accomplished his tasks.  He operated as a full-time president although he was not one under the statutes.  Now that the statutes foresee having one, the job will not go to him.

Who might be von Freyberg’s successor? Two names are often mentioned: that of Jean Baptiste de Franssu, and that of Francis X. Zahra. They are both members of the Council for the Economy, they were both part of the (now dissolved) Pontifical Commission of Reference on the Economic-Administrative Structure of the Holy See, and they both were – according to unconfirmed rumors – in the set of three names that the Spencer&Stuart head-hunting agency had given to the Secretariat of State when the latter was searching for someone to replace Gotti Tedeschi as president of the council of the IOR, who got a no confidence vote by his own council.

These names would represent a line of renewal within continuity, but at the same time they would not act as the hawks, the latter aiming of making the IOR a speculative reality, as they would like to do with many other realities. For example, the widely gossiped commission for communications  would also be tasked with reviewing the Vatican Television Centre statutes, to make it a more commercial and profitable activity.

Paradoxically, it is the leftist-leaning world of pro-internal democracy that is pushing the Vatican towards a capitalistic pivot.  The democrats are very much to the left and very sympathetic to the Pope, so much so that they stand behind the Papal shield when necessary. They praise Pope Francis’ words on poverty, but they also ask the Church to revise her moral teaching.

These contrasting tendencies will came out, for example, in the next discussion on the Non Proliferation Treaty, the first important test for the new Holy See Permanent Observer to the United Nations Bernardito Auza. Archbishop Auza will have to act as a mediator between the prudent position of those who are against nuclear weapons, but do want to ban nuclear energy, because “it has civil implications to be considered”; and those who, even within the Vatican, back the extremist line, that of a total ban on anything nuclear, a choice that would place the Holy See on one side of the negotiations process instead of as a facilitator.

The sovereignty of the Holy See is always at stake. It was so when the Administration for the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA) issued its new statutes, which made its consultants into members of the advisory board, de facto showing that APSA was acting as a bank even when it was referred to as a Central Body of the Vatican City State. This reform could be swept away if the Secretariat for the Economy’s intentions to dissolve APSA become a reality: the tasks of the ordinary section would be taken by the Secretariat for the Economy; while APSA’s extraordinary section would instead be under the responsibility and control of the Council for the Economy.

All of these issues are portrayed by the media as a gang war. Perhaps, there is just a major issue. What seems to be missing is a central vision, which is never made concrete, with processes becoming, instead, ideas on urgent reforms that are not translated into action. In the meantime, Vatican officials are passionately working, trying to keep the Holy See a modern State, yet preserving its peculiarities.

While cardinals are counseled by many voices (some of them are lobbyists), Pope Francis is still speaking about missionarity.

And the Legionaries of Christ never pushed missionarity aside. Stricken by the scandal of their founder, they have initiated, with great sacrifice, a path to renewal that led them to the election of a new government and the drafting of new constitutions. These constitutions have been examined by an ad-hoc commission. The pontifical advisor, Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, has taken part in the process of renewal since the very beginning.

Today, the Legionaries have many vocations, notwithstanding the “abnormal and wasted” life, as Benedict XVI described it, of the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, Father Maciel.  While the Legionaries of Christ was renovating its internal structure and organization, the missionary ideal did not falter at all.  Despite any controversies, the Legionaries of Christ example should be followed.  

Vincenzo Buonomo, professor of international law at the Lateran University, is now Advisor to Vatican City State.  The other appointment is that of Monsignor Giorgio Corbellini, law expert and President of the Labour Office of the Apostolic See, as ad interim President of the Vatican Financial Information Authority, the Vatican’s financial watchdog.

In many ways, Buonomo’s appointment was expected. He is an international law expert, and works for the Holy See since 1983. He has been actively involved in the Vatican’s interactions with the Food and Agriculture Organization and related U.N. bodies. Furthermore, on January 16, he was part of the Vatican delegation presenting a Holy See report on children’s rights before the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child.

His appointment as Advisor to Vatican City State formally confers on him work responsibilities he was already fulfilling. His appointment also represents a sign of institutional continuity. Buonomo had been a skilled collaborator of Secretary of State (now emeritus) Tarcisio Bertone. He also curated the book compiling the diplomatic speeches that Bertone delivered as Secretary of State.

A new president for the Vatican Financial Information Authority was equally expected. On 21 November 2013 the new statute of the Authority came into effect, with several novelties. The most relevant one is that the president of the Authority is now described as “president of the board of directors”, with a more limited scope of responsibilities than in the first statute. The Vatican Financial Information Authority, and in general the Vatican financial structures, have been improving their laws and balancing their powers in order to be ever more adherent to international anti-money laundering standards.

According to the new Vatican Financial Information statute, the president is appointed by the Pope among «persons of proven reputation, free from any conflict of interests and having recognized professional competence in the legal, economic and financial fields as well as in the subject-matters that fall within the scope of activity of the Authority.»

Monsignor Giorgio Corbellini was considered a good match for the post, given his extensive experience at the Governatorate of Vatican City State, first as head of the office of juridical matters and, later, as Vice Secretary-General of the Governorate of the Vatican City State, i.e. the number three at the Vatican City State administration.

Monsignor Corbellini is well acquainted with the financial transparency process that began under Benedict XVI. When the Holy See signed the “Monetary Agreement” with the European Union on 17 December 2009, Monsignor Corbellini was the number three of the Vatican City State administration.

The path to the agreement was not easy. The split between the European Union and the Holy See became so deep that Monsignor Carlo Maria Viganò, then the number two of the Vatican City State administration and now Papal nuncio to Washington, even proposed to withdraw the Holy See from the Eurozone. The proposal did not prosper because the Holy See would have had to assume the high cost of coining and printing its own currency.

Monsignor Corbellini was still Vice Secretary-General of the Governorate when the Council of Europe’s MONEYVAL evaluators came to the Vatican 21 November 2011 for their first on-site visit.

The visit was part of the regular procedures for the evaluation of the financial system of any country that undergoes a MONEVYAL evaluation. The evaluators identified some flaws in the anti-money laundering law. It was then substantially revised. The new Vatican anti-money laundering law (issued via a Governatorate decree on 25 January 2012 and confirmed on 25 March 2012) was «decisive for the MONEYVAL generally positive evaluation of the Holy See financial system,» according to Monsignor Ettore Balestrero, who served as Vatican Undersecretary for the Relations with States during the first part of the MONEYVAL process.

These are the reasons why Corbellini was called to replace Cardinal Attilio Nicora, who prompted the Holy See to take its first steps in the path toward financial transparency. Nicora is now over 75 years old, the retirement age.

It is noteworthy that Corbellini has been appointed president “ad interim”. This gives Pope Francis a certain freedom for eventual further changes. There are many “ad interim” fillings of posts under Pope Francis: the Secretary of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, the Prelate of the Institute for Religious Works (IOR, the so-called Vatican Bank), and the very President of the Vatican Financial Information Authority. Each ad interim appointment responds to different circumstances. At the same time, each “ad interim” appointment must be considered in the light of an on-going reform, and this is why the Pope does not want to be “bound” by selections for the traditional 5-year mandates.

For this same reason, Pope Francis chose to confirm, until the normal expiration of their terms, officials holding positions in congregations and pontifical councils. He did not renew their terms for new five-year periods from the time in which he re-appointed them.

In anticipation of the next meeting of the Council of Cardinals, to be held on February 17-18, it is widely rumored that a first draft of a project for the reform of the Curia will be ready within a couple of months. According to sources, there will not be any structural changes. The reform should just streamline structures, merging some Vatican dicasteries into Congregations to improve the efficiency of the Curia. Regardless, nothing should change in terms of principles, and the cardinals would keep the general design of the Pastor Bonus, the Apostolic Constitution that regulates the functioning of the Roman Curia.

Probably in order to strengthen principles and vision, Gehrard Ludwig Mueller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, delivered a speech (published by the Vatican news daily L’Osservatore Romano) at a conference at the Valencia university on “Primate and collegiality of the Church according to Pope Francis.”  Commenting on the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, Mueller stated that «the Pope often refers to the motu proprio Apostolos Suos (1998), in which John Paul II, following the Second Vatican Council, further defined the tasks of the bishops’ conferences. This does not signal a change of course or a Vatican revolution, as superficial readings maintain. If the Church would allow a struggle for power and fighting over jurisdiction, it would do so at the expense of its missionary mandate. After the ecclesiological synthesis of the Second Vatican Council, an antagonistic or dialectic interpretation of the relations between the universal Church and the local Churches is out of the question […] Imposing a constitutive element at the detriment of another contradicts the profession of faith of the Church: una, sancta, catholica et apostolica.»

Pope Francis seems to share this view. He wanted to expand consultations, and appointed two advisory pontifical commissions (on the IOR and on the rationalization of expenses). The two commissions are now part of Alfred Xuereb’s responsibilities, who serves as the personal delegate of the Pope in them, and is also a well-known and esteemed long-time servant of the Holy See.

Pope Francis initially gave a lot of latitude to external consultants (Promontory Financial Group and KPMG on financial issues; Ernst & Young and McKinsey on communication issues), but now he has seemingly reassessed this approach and placed responsibility over these matters on a sort of “counselors of State,” people within the institution.

Even if Pope Francis seems to be adjusting the relative influence and power of different actors within the institution –because ultimately it is impossible to reform the Curia without counting with the Curia– it is yet to be seen if the people the Pope is choosing represent a step forward or a step back. The media has started the damnatio memoriae of Benedict XVI’s pontificate. The news of Corbellini’s appointment has been greeted as the dismantling of the highest levels of the financial structures that Benedict XVI established, and Nicora accused of several conflicts of interests.

In fact, those conflicts of interests were part of a collegial vision of the Church.  According to this vision, those with particularly relevant sets of skills should serve simultaneously in different dicasteries, if these dicasteries shared responsibilities over a given issue.  This would facilitate dialogue within the Curia. However, with respect to finances, this approach is not appropriate, and this is the reason why Vatican finances have undergone important changes. This is not a dismantling of top structures. It is just a turning of the page, possible thanks to the work of Benedict XVI.

Monsignor Corbellini has been sponsored by the “Curia of the old days.” The same is true of other appointments, which could point to a vindication of the diplomats’ faction led by Angelo Sodano, Secretary of State Emeritus and Dean of the College of Cardinals: the diplomats lost power and influence under Benedict XVI, and now they are set to re-gain them.

Corbellini was also indirectly involved in the Vatileaks scandal, taking part in a TV show on the “Viganò case”. However, one cannot look back forever. Corbellini has accepted the interim presidency of the of the Vatican Financial Information Authority. There should be no unpleasant surprises.

This is the reason why some thought that Pope Francis would have used the 55th anniversary of John XXIII’s announcement, to announce a Third Vatican Ecumenical Council.

Years later, John XXIII recalled the discussions about a new Council, and how his experience as a diplomat in Turkey, Bulgaria and especially France informed his decision. When he spoke about the “Curiali” who maintained there was not enough time to prepare for a new Council, John XXIII asserted: «They have never been outside.»

In fact, the possibility of a Council was already floating within the Vatican Walls. Pius XI started working on a Second Vatican Council in 1922, and then dropped the idea, in favor of first finding a solution to the “questione romana”, i.e. the political dispute between the Italian government and the Papacy since the fall of Rome to Italian unification in 1861. Pius XII requested a preparatory document for a council, and then decided the time was not right and used the ideas developed in the document as text for his speeches.

Writers, intellectuals, and prelates outside the Vatican Walls now perceive the possibility of a new Council.  For instance, Monsignor Celso Costantini gathered some thoughts in writing, later entitled The Council. On the convenience of convoking an Ecumenical Council. «An alleged italianisation de l’Eglise (Italianization of the Church, editor note) is something that has been talked and been written about» Costantini said.   «An ecumenical council would dissipate at once all these dark clouds, showing to the world, including those who are indifferent or hostile to the Church, the features of the Church, its unity and Catholicity, its apolitical character and sanctity.»

Words like these still resonate today. When Pope Francis was elected Pope, there was a lot of talk about an Italianization of the Roman Curia. Benedict XVI’s penultimate consistory was mostly to create Italian cardinals holding posts in the Roman Curia, and this fueled the perception of the «Church’s Italianization.» Partly in response to this criticism, Benedict XVI convoked a second consistory to create just seven new cardinals, all of them coming from outside Europe and none of them members of the Curia.

The criticism was really about the centralism of Rome, considered to be too far from the peripheries. The push for a reform of the Church that led to the choice of Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Pope came from this desire of the peripheries to be main players in the life of the Church.

Yet the centralism of Rome came from the Second Vatican Council. When John XXIII died, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Montini earned the broad support of the college of cardinals because of his personal prestige and above all for his commitment to carry forward the Council toward its intended goal.  That goal was to support innovation on the basis of a united Church, centrally coordinated so that it would not become dispersed and lose ground.

Paul VI worked for this unity, while being a strong innovator. We should not forget that Paul VI was the first Pope to celebrate Christmas Mass outside Saint Peter’s Basilica, in the peripheries (the most moving celebration was that at the siderurgical industry Italsider in Taranto), and that he created cardinal a parish priest, who then continued to be parish priest, something unheard of in the modern history of the Church.

Strongly rooted in the Church Tradition and in Ignatius of Loyola’s rule, Pope Francis is also probably thinking about a big council to break the routine. But not in the way we are used to think about it. He recently made it clear that he does not like the «it has always been done like this» as a guiding principle for a way of life. This is evident in his choice of new cardinals; the emphasis on an intense pastoral outlook; and the homilies he holds every morning at the Domus Sanctae Marthae, which are full of references about how much he detests gossip and scandals.

Pope Francis wants a demundanized Church, and at the same time he is an authoritarian Pope, personally making the final call on most decisions. He will probably do the same with respect to the reforms needed to modernize the «operation» of the «Church machine.»

In fact, reforms were already taking place. On holy communion for divorced Catholics who remarry, Benedict XVI had already started looking into the possible nullification of marriages on the basis of lack of faith, when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Pope Francis institutionalized the fight against the sex abuse scandals announcing the establishment of an ad hoc commission selected by the Council of Cardinals, but Benedict XVI was already fighting the sex abuses before him. The Curia reform has been a «hot topic» for years, and the only proposals about it seem to be mostly «cosmetic,» not really addressing the problem. One example is the discussion about the institution of a Congregation for the Laity, or that for a sort of a Vatican ministry of finance (this latter proposal does not take into account that the Prefecture of the Economic Affairs already has tasks similar to those of a ministry of finance).

Thus, the discussion seems to be far from a Third Vatican Council. John XXIII conceived the Second Vatican Council together with (not isolated from) a synod for the dioceses of Rome and a reform of the Code of Canon Law. These were concrete and structural reforms, which went beyond exchange of views in the hall rooms and responded to a precise vision of the Church, both at a government and field levels.

Not by chance, Archbishop José Rodriguez Carballo, Secretary of the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life, spoke about a possible reform of Canon Law at a convention about vocations. And not by chance the Council of Cardinals said from the very beginning that its true aim was not to make some slight modifications to the Pastor Bonus, the Pastoral Constitution that regulates the Curia’s functions, but to substantially rewrite it.

Yet, Pope Francis seems to want to go even beyond. He coincides with John XXIII in the commitment for peace, his will to renew the Church and even a certain intolerance for the Vatican prison. But Pope Francis seems to aspire to the utopian vision of late Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Martini,  more than to John XXIII’s utopia.

Martini had often been linked to the idea of a Third Vatican Council. In fact, Martini spoke often about a sort of “periodic meetings” on specific themes, a broader consultation of the synod of bishops, and not an ecumenical council tout court.

Pope Francis seems to be following Martini’s path. His first focus has been the family, since the family is always under duress in today’s society. How can the family survive secularization? How can the Church still have something to say to families?

Thus, the family will be the topic of the extraordinary synod to be held in October 2014, and also of the ordinary synod to be held in 2015. Moreover: On February 22 Pope Francis will celebrate the next consistory for the creation of new cardinals. The two days prior (February 20 and 21) Pope Francis will hold a general consistory dedicated to the family. And the Council of Eight Cardinals will focus on the family as well, during their next meeting, scheduled for February 17-18. The following week, Pope Francis will take part in the Council of the Synod of Bishops in preparation for the next extraordinary synod. Pope Francis would also be thinking about how to reform the Council in order to give more weight to the peripheries. This is where a lively and real Church is, according to Pope Francis. This schedule supports a notion of a sort of informal, permanent consultation.

Differences of opinion are normal during a consultation. And sometimes the media is used to air these differences publicly. It happened during the Second Vatican Council, when the Council of the media overshadowed the real Council. And it is happening now, with Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodriguez Maradiaga, the coordinator of the Council of Cardinals, criticizing Gehrard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Müller wrote an article on the Vatican daily L’Osservatore Romano reiterating the doctrine of the Church on divorced Catholics who remarry. Maradiaga’s message is to «be more compassionate, not (just) to think if it is right or wrong.»

But Pope Francis also needs people like Müller to support his notion of a permanent and informal council. In the end, there is always a need for someone to hold the line and uphold the truth, avoiding misunderstandings. A person like Müller can underscore that the Church «is not a federation of national Churches or a global alliance of confessionally-related ecclesial communities with the Bishop of Rome as an honorary president» as a matter of tradition.  The Church is what «testifies to, and realizes, the unity of peoples in Christ.» Church unity, Archbishop Müller said in Spain, comes from Christ, who established the apostles and their successors. Müller added that nationality, language and culture are not «constitutive principles» of the Church. This vision would end in «a secularized and politicized Church, only slightly different from an NGO.»

This is a clear message, coming at the end of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. In the end, if the Church is not united within its own ranks and merely speaks about itself in political terms, there cannot be any push for ecumenism. Pope Francis has always defined himself as «bishop of Rome» and this has fueled great ecumenical expectations. But he knows that the Church cannot be reformed if it does not regain first its internal unity. A viewpoint that was clear in Pope Benedict’s mind as well. This is the reason why Benedict worked to unite all parts of the Church, including traditionalist factions. And this is the reason why Benedict denounced the rapacious behavior («bite and devour») which impeded the Church to be united.

Following this path, Pope Francis has said that «the first reform is that of attitudes.» Let’s see if Pope Francis will follow Martini’s utopia or Roncalli’s.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Francis is now expected to personally write and issue a document (probably a chirograph) to designate the members of the commission and their range of action.

The model seems to be that of the archdiocese of Boston, where the first wave of scandals of clergy sex abuse originated. The archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Sean O’Malley, did an impressive job to rehabilitate his diocese. In addition, one of the main officials in the Boston Church’s response to the scandal was the priest and Canon Law expert Robert W. Oliver, now Promoter of Justice at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

It was thus most appropriate that Cardinal O’Malley was chosen to announce to journalists Pope Francis’ decision to establish the new commission.

O’Malley explained on December 5 that the commission will «study programmes currently in place for the protection of children; formulate suggestions for new initiatives on the part of the Curia, in collaboration with bishops, Episcopal conferences, religious superiors and conferences of religious superiors; and identify qualified persons for the systematic implementation of these new initiatives.  These persons include lay persons, religious and priests with responsibilities in the fields of children safety,  support for the victims, mental health, and the application of the law.»

The commission will also manage, in Cardinal O’Malley words, «programs of education for children, parents and anyone who works with minors; catechists; seminarian education; and priestly permanent education.» It will also handle codes of professional conduct, certification of candidates’ suitability for the priesthood, background and criminal record checks, thorough psychiatric evaluations, cooperation with local authorities, information-sharing about clergy found guilty of sex abuses, and pastoral work to support victims and their families.

These tasks recall those of the Center for Child Protection, launched by the Jesuit-run Gregorian University in Rome one year after the symposium «Toward healing and renewal» organized by the università to outline the Church’s response to the abuse of minors.

The center, whose offices are in Munich, is a collaboration of the Gregorian University, with the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising as well as the University of Ulm’s departments of psychiatry and infant and adolescent psychotherapy.

It functions as a source of distance learning, over the internet and in various languages, for the  competencies necessary for confronting and preventing the sexual abuse of minors.

Father Hans Zollner, SJ, president of the center, took part in the Pope’s June 5 morning mass, together with representatives of the Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People from different countries. Pope Francis met them and gave Zollner the «go ahead.»

In an interview with CNA, Father Zollner explained that «the responsibilities of the new commission will go much further than those the Centre for Child Protection would ever have. We deliver programs to educate personnel for the pastoral. This could be a first area in which we could collaborate with the commission.»

Zollner then added that «three months ago we decided that the Centre for Child Protection will be moved to Rome at the end of the pilot phase, i.e. at the end of 2014, and this will surely open many opportunities for the synergies O’Malley spoke about.»

The commission can be considered the Church’s further response to the cases of pedophile priests.

Long before the scandal of pedophile priests broke out in 2010, Benedict XVI had dedicated a lot of time to the issue, from a fatherly love perspective. That is why Benedict XVI wanted to meet the victims of abuse (he did so in the United States, Australia, Germany, and Great Britain) with discretion, avoiding media commotion.

As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and then as Pope, Ratzinger fought very hard against pedophilia in the Church.

In 2002, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the instruction «De delictis gravioribus» to confront the sex abuse cases. The instruction was criticized as representing a means through which Rome wanted to monopolize jurisdiction over the cases, and that way hide the extent of the problem. In fact, it was the dioceses which often did not report to Rome the cases. Many dioceses did not take any measure against the priests committing the abuses. In many cases they tried to get rid of the scandals by simply transferring the priests.

It was a project of transparency, which Ratzinger undertook and carried forward when he was elected Pope in 2005, thus annoying many people in the Roman Curia.

In 2010, in the midst of the «Year for Priests,» with clockwork precision, a new priests’ pedophilia scandal broke out all over the world, in which some tried to immerse the Pope himself. Benedict XVI response was to put the Church in penance at Fatima, and to ask for forgiveness for the sins of the Church’s sons.

In 2011 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith delivered a letter to bishops’ conferences around the world, asking them to adopt guidelines to fight abuses, by May 2012. The letter highlighted five key points: assistance to the victims of sex abuse; minors’ protection; education of future priests and religious; concern for the abusing priests; and collaboration with local authorities.

Pope Francis’ decision now marks one more step forward in the Church’s response to the abuse of minors. Information about previous steps can be accessed through a special banner in the home page of the Vatican’s official website, www.vatican.va.

This initiative is to be commended, and it is in full continuity with what Benedict XVI did, as O’Malley underlined.

In the end, one question remains. After three days of meetings discussing the Curia reform and analyzing the different Vatican dicasteries (starting with the Congregation for Divine Worship), the only concrete proposal to come out from the Council of Eight is to establish a commission that has little to do with the organization of the Roman Curia.

The first impression derived from this, is that cardinals are yet to develop a vision that would inspire an eventual reform of the Pastor Bonus (the Apostolic Constitution that regulates functions and tasks of the Roman Curia). The cardinals underline that they are not working on adjustments, they are thinking about writing a new Apostolic Constitution.

Nothing has been decided yet on how the new constitution would reform the Roman Curia. So far, the proposals are about more coordination among dicasteries and «more collegiality.»  There is also the notion of a Curia specifically designed to be of service to the Pope, with the Secretariat of State renamed «the Pope’s Secretariat.»

But many of these are issues already foreseen in the Pastor Bonus. So much that many members of the Curia simply note that «if Pastor Bonus had been really applied, we would have avoided many problems we had to face.»