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.

So, on December 27 the Pope emeritus went for lunch to Domus Sanctae Marthae, the Vatican hotel where Pope Francis lives. The Vatican secretary for relations with States, msgr. Dominique Mamberti, and the assessor to the Secretariat of State msgr. Peter Bryan Wells, had lunch with the two Popes, together with the two Popes’ personal secretaries.

It is striking that both the number 1 and the number 2 of the Secretariat of State, i.e. the Secretary of State msgr. Pietro Parolin and his deputy msgr. Angelo Becciu, were not sitting at the same table. According to what is deducible from the short communiqué released through the Vatican radio, both Parolin and Becciu were not in Rome. The communiqué only states that Wells and Mamberti had been invited because «they were in Rome.»

It is also striking that Pope emeritus visit to Pope Francis had not been announced via the usual channels (an anticipations of the Holy See Press Office bollettino to the press agencies, and then the Bollettino itself), while it was announced via Vatican Radio. This is the way through which the news are delivered if the Vatican does not want them to have such a relevance. 

This comunication strategy has been now enough experimented. Communication seems to have become the most important deal in the Vatican. Communication strategy grabbed importance during the Vatileaks scandal, when the Vatican perceived the need to hire an advisor for Communication for the Stae Secretariat, chosen in the person of Greg Burke. Communication strategy was pivotal for cardinals during the pre-conclave meetings, and this is the reason why cardinals in conclave chose for a «change of narration», according to a Wall Street Journal report based on the conversation with four different cardinals. Communication strategy is considered so pivotal to ask McKinsey to study a new Vatican medias strategy.

With his charisma and his natural way to address the crowd, Pope Francis is the corner stone of this new strategy of communication. The risk is that the attention is more focused on Pope Francis gestures, while his words are left unobserved. 

In his “urbi et orbi” message of the Christmas day, Pope Francis, for example, listed countries that suffer conflicts or where Christians are persecuted. The day after, on December 26, Pope Francis spoke about persecuted Christians again, insisting on the issue as much as Benedict XVI did. These messages hardly grab he headlines of the big medias, with rare excpetions, while Pope Francis gestures are always well emphasized. 

In the end, a question remains: is professional communication adapt to the announcement of Gospel? Catholic Church message is eradicated on Truth, while communication need to emphasize emotions and images to be effective.  One must argue that a communication plan may not  be effective to announce the Gospel, while it can be effective to give a new image to the Church. 

Anyway, the new image risks to be untrue. Pope Francis, for example, did not break the tradition of the Church. His work and his commitment are rooted on a long term work and commitment made by previous Popes. The reforms Pope Francis has been working on since his election have begun under the previous Pontificate. And Pope Francis words are anyway in perfect continuity with the Church’s tradition, as the Pope himself said.

Coming back from the trip to Rio de Janeiro for the World Youth Day and responding to a question, Pope Francis explained why he did not speak, during his visit to Brazil, about the changes in society, the abortion, the gay marriages.

«The Churh – Pope Francis responded – has already spoken quite clearly on this.  It was unnecessary to return to it, just as I didn’t speak about cheating, lying, or other matters on which the Church has a clear teaching!  It wasn’t necessary to speak of it, but rather of the positive things that open up the path to young people.  Isn’t that right!  Besides, young people know perfectly well what the Church’s position is.»

When asked about his position, Pope Francis replied: «The position of the Church.  I am a son of the Church.»

Pope Francis the gave a more in depth explanation of the reason why he was not addressing those topics in the interview he granted to “La Civiltà Cattolica”. 

Pope Francis said to the Jesuit run magazine that the Church «cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods … when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context.»

He continued, «The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus … the proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.»

Pope Francis words echoed those of his predecessor, Benedict XVI. On November 9 2006, he met the Swiss bishops gathered for a meeting in the Vatican. He spoke off the cuff, blaming on himself that he had no time to prepare a written speech, and underlined he had not intention to indulge on the small issues, while he prefered highlighting the big themes.

Benedict XVI told:  «I remember, when I used go to Germany in the 1980s and ’90s, that I was asked to give interviews and I always knew the questions in advance. They concerned the ordination of women, contraception, abortion and other such constantly recurring problems. If we let ourselves be drawn into these discussions, the Church is then identified with certain commandments or prohibitions; we give the impression that we are moralists with a few somewhat antiquated convictions, and not even a hint of the true greatness of the faith appears. I therefore consider it essential always to highlight the greatness of our faith – a commitment from which we must not allow such situations to divert us».

Benedict XVI then added: «In the Church, the institution is not merely an external structure while the Gospel is purely spiritual. In fact, the Gospel and the Institution are inseparable because the Gospel has a body, the Lord has a body in this time of ours. Consequently, issues that seem at first sight merely institutional are actually theological and central, because it is a matter of the realization and concretization of the Gospel in our time.»

Certainly Pope Francis re-read this words, while it is widely spoken about possible reforms at least of the Curia organization. Pope Francis pastorality and Pope Benedict theology can together help the Church to get out of the crisis. This two souls cannot be detached the one from the other. And this is proved by Pope Francis continuous seeking for Benedict XVI – a seeking that aims to show a continuity and a friendship among the two Popes. 

It is arguable that the need to show the continuity is part of a communication strategy, and would be aimed to do away with critics and questions raised up during Pope Francis pontificate,  especially for what concerns a perceived lack of institutionality under Pope Francis. It may be. Anyway, the new year with two Popes will surely reveal that the Church’s doctrine has not changed. Pope Francis himself reshaped his revolution. His pontificate is not a breach with the past, as medias often depict it.   

In just a few months, this is the second time Pope Francis decrees a canonization independently from the collegial opinion of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. The first time was when he decided “for certain” the canonization of John XXIII. But there are some differences with Faber’s case. In the case of John XXIII, there had been deliberations within the Congregation for the Causes of Saints about a miracle attributed to the late Pope’s intercession. In the end, there was no unanimity of views regarding whether it was a miracle for sure, and Pope Francis settled the question with his «for certain.»

For Faber, Pope Francis decided independently, without any group deliberations. He wanted Peter Faber, who put forth the notion of spiritual reform, to be a model for the whole universal Church. And this is why Francis took this decision to decree an equipollent canonization.

This is just but one of the instances showing that Pope Francis’ way of governing can be everything but collegial. At the moment, the Roman Curia seems to be completely deprived of authority. The Council of Eight Cardinals named by Francis to look at a possible general revision of the Pastor Bonus constitution (which regulates the functions of the dicasteries of the Curia) has not reached out to the Vatican dicasteries’ to seek their views. Instead, Council members reached out individually to people they trusted within the dicasteries, and asked them for an opinion. Then, Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello, President of the Vatican City State Governorate, was tasked with collecting the different opinions. In fact, there has not been an ordered procedure yet to evaluate how to carry the reform forward. It is only known that this will be a “profound” reform.

There had been several comprehensive reforms in the past few years. The most important, and clearly the most discussed, was the reform of the Holy See’s financial system. In just a couple of years, the Holy See adopted a specific financial system that has been internationally accepted as valid. This system, as could be expected, can still be improved (as is true for the systems of other states), but it has nevertheless received the Council of Europe’s unanimous praise. This was an achievement that, after the first visit of the Council of Europe MONEYVAL evaluators in November of 2011,  seemed reachable only in the long term.

Following the visit, the MONEYVAL evaluators had asked for substantial changes to the then Vatican anti-money laundering law. The law to be modified had been drafted by external consultants. Subsequently, Vatican officials worked to improve the draft, rewriting and aligning the law with international standards. Further adjustments followed, after an overall positive MONEYVAL report issued in July of 2012. These Vatican officials were in a position to understand the legal peculiarities of the Holy See, and thus were able to explain these peculiarities in international forums.

The whole world of the Vatican has changed as a result of work carried out by its in-house professionals. The Vatican penal code reform, the reform of the Prefecture for Economic Affairs enacted in March 2012 (as a result of which, the Prefecture can now be considered a modern ministry of finance), and the reform of Caritas Internationalis statutes and that of the jurisdiction of Catholic charitable associations, have all been carried out by Vatican officials themselves, without an extensive need for external consultants.

However, the use of external consultants and commissions has increased significantly under Pope Francis. Just in the last thirty days, the Vatican has hired the international consultants Ernst & Young, KPMG and McKinsey to render advice on communication, rationalization of expenses, and auditing. Every time the Vatican announced the hiring of an external company, the release specified that “the hiring came after a procedure of selection.” None of these procedures have been made public, nor is it known how much the external consultants will cost. It is rumored that the Vatican is spending millions of euros in consultants, just for having them look at the Holy See as if it were merely a company on which to apply some general international rules for communication, auditing and so on.

This Christmas season, in the Vatican corridors, officials can sense a strong current towards special commissions.  Only those that go with the current get any media attention, riding on the waves of fresh air brought about by Pope Francis.

For example, much has been written about the commitment to transparency of the Institute for Religious Works (IOR). The Institute, headed by Ernst von Freyberg and often referred to (misleadingly) as “the Vatican bank”, is now hosting the men of the Promontory Financial Group.  The Promontory has been criticized in the United State for being a sort of shadow regulator of the market. The Promontory’s men have seized top positions at the Vatican financial institution (Rolando Marranci, the new IOR general director, spent his earlier career with the group) and are screening its accounts. Just a few remember that, in fact, a first screening of the IOR accounts had already been made, as documented in the July 2012 MONEYVAL report and the December 2013 MONEYVAL progress report on the Holy See/Vatican City State.

In the meantime, Promontory was charged with looking into “customer due diligence” at the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA), thus creating somewhat of a precedent in the reformed APSA because it treats it as a private company. “Due diligence” is the evaluation of risks in investments and loans with regards, in particular, to the clients of a bank. However, APSA is not a bank. The Holy See explained this clearly to the MONEYVAL evaluators, noting that while APSA holds some accounts, such banking-type activity is minimal and will be phased out.

There are several internal short-circuits that can occur as a result of the extensive use of external consultants.

Pope Francis seems to be managing everything in a very personalistic manner. Rather than entrusting a “proven” structure like the Roman Curia, possibly inserting in its ranks people he trusts, Pope Francis prefers to confirm in their positions the heads of the Vatican dicasteries and at the same time change its members (as it happened with the Congregation for Catholic Education and the Congregation for Bishops) and make decisions on the basis of his personal knowledge.

Not by accident, his second secretary, Monsignor Fabian Pedacchio Leaniz, has not been inserted in the ranks of the Secretariat of State, as is customary, and keeps going to work every morning at the Congregation for Bishops, where Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio sent him in 2007 with the task – according to the Spanish web portal Intereconomía – of letting him know anything going there.

There is always the impression that the Pope is acting as if he were still under the dictatorship in Argentina, thinking that the Curia – with its workings and machinations – must be bypassed, even at the risk of taking on board the advice of friends of his who are leading him to treat the Church as a company or a non-governmental organization.  Yet, this is precisely what Pope Francis has always maintained should not happen: «We are not a charity NGO,» Pope Francis has often stated.

Comparing the Church to a private company is something that Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui has done several times (even if later saying she was not doing so). Chaouqui is a member of the Pontifical Commission for Reference established by Pope Francis to oversee the simplification and rationalization of the institutions of the Holy See and to monitor Curia-related expenses.

The external advisors had all been hired by recommendation of this commission, and the fact that a “procedure of selection” had taken place does not dispel the notion of a conflict of interests, since Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui is also employed by Ernst & Young.  Chaouqui is believed to have the Pope’s ear, and might have spoken with him at the Domus Sanctae Marthae some Sundays.

What will be the impact of the external consultants over the Vatican? To what extent will they be faithful to the Holy See? How much will their work be just marketing and not mission? These are all open questions, together with those regarding the costs of hiring them. In the Church “poor (and) for the poor”, taking away responsibilities from the Curia is costing an unknown amount of money. It is rumored that this money will be recovered by marketing the Pope’s image, with the Vatican Television no longer making available its image feed for a token fee to Catholic networks and instead selling it to the highest bidder.

It is conceivable that Pope Francis does not trust the men of the Curia. His is mostly a reform in attitudes, as he noted in the interview he granted to the Jesuit-run Italian magazine La Civiltà Cattolica. It is also true that many intelligent people who are part of the Holy See and love the Church are mortified by this behavior. Moreover, their talents are unused, even if they are readily available to work ad majorem Dei gloriam (for the greater glory of God).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Will it be just a dismantling of everything?

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

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

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

With a similar commission (although an internal one), Pope Francis sent the message that he wanted clarity in the activities of the so-called Vatican bank, the Institute for Religious Works (IOR).

For an eventual reform of the Curia, Pope Francis more pragmatically named a group of eight cardinals, including Cardinal Oscar Andrés Maradiaga as their coordinator. The terms of reference for this group have not yet been defined in an official document. It is expected that Pope Francis will soon do so, making the group an official entity of the Church.

It is typical of the Jesuits to form external commissions to confront and resolve problems. Pope Francis has embraced this approach, common in the management of Jesuit provinces, and he is applying it to his pontificate.

Bergoglio’s goals are enormous. He wants to change the way the entire Roman Curia thinks and behaves. A Curia rightly or wrongly perceived by many as out of touch with the people. Pope Francis’ way of proceeding reveals distrust for the Curia.

Pope Francis meets, reportedly quite often, with Benedict XVI. He also phones the dicasteries very frequently, speaking with employees at all levels and asking them about their work.  Some of the employees have also been invited to pay him a visit in the Domus Sanctae Marthae.

Pope Francis has taken the reins of the situation, or he’s trying to. It is an exhausting approach, that which he is taking.

The most recent obstacle he has faced was the appointment of the prelate of the IOR, i.e. the Holy See representative who works as a link between the cardinals’ oversight commission and the board of laymen. Pope Francis decided that Battista Ricca should take that job. Bergoglio knows Ricca very well, they often had lunch together.

Ricca was a career diplomat who – after having served in several nunciatures – was sent back to Rome. There, he gained the reputation of “incorruptible” in his managing of the accounts of the nunciatures. He was also appointed director of three residences for prelates. One, the residence in Via della Scrofa in Rome, was where then-cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio usually stayed during his trips to Roma. Another residence managed by Ricca, the Domus Sanctae Marthae, is now the Papal residence.

So Ricca was very close to the Pope, and this is how he earned the Pope’s confidence. But when the Pope chose Ricca as prelate, no one brought up to him the dossier that explained why, earlier in Ricca’s career, it had been so important to bring him back to Rome. A dossier that the Italian vaticanista Sandro Magister made reference to, and which contained accusations of homosexual behavior.

«Who wants to boycott Pope Francis?» This was the question raised after the publication of Ricca’s story. The Vatican’s problem is not whether specific reports and information are true or not. It is more important to understand who “leaked” the dossier outside the Sacred Walls. With an outgoing, «lame duck» Secretary of State and the appointment of his successor on stand by, it seems as if attacks on anyone’s reputation are fair game. It is a chaotic situation inside the Vatican.

This proves that the Curia’s poisonous environments did not dissipate with Pope Francis’ arrival.

The appointment of the advisory commission for the IOR might have made some believe that Pope Francis realized that it is impossible to reform the Curia without the Curia. Not so. The appointment of this most recent commission shows that the Pope has taken the path of outsourcing.

Benedict XVI started a plan bring order to the expenses and the activities of the pontifical administration. It was necessary to streamline the structures, as often there were unnecessary overlaps and redundancy of responsibilities.

First of all, Benedict XVI reformed the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See, the Vatican «ministry of economy».  Benedict’s reform made the Prefecture look like a modern ministry of finance, with the power to control and project expenses. This way, Benedict XVI worked towards making the Vatican a modern State, and at the same time to strengthen its structures.

In fact, external consultants are not new. Every Vatican dicastery appoints consultants, i.e. experts called to serve the Holy See in some specific field.  However, not until now had consultants been so clearly a part of an outsourcing strategy.

Pope Francis does not favor appointing “ad hoc” consultants for specific issues.   Instead, he prefers to address some problems by presenting them to experts outside the Vatican. An approach that has been accepted in Vatican City State, to the detriment of the Holy See.

The Vatican administration must pay salaries and keep its finances in the black. In order to meet its obligations, Vatican City State has accepted donations. Including very large donations. Donations, however, invite outsiders’ intromission, since the donors may attempt to exert control over everything. They are ultimately buying the Vatican, one piece at a time.

The Knights of Columbus, for example, have been making generous donations to the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA). These donations have served to pay the salary of one of the top consultants at the Vatican, for the past two years. Obviously, before hiring the job holder, the Knights of Columbus were consulted.

Even in the financial area, a lot has been traditionally outsourced. Since the Calvi and Marcinkus era, many things have changed. The IOR is now controlled by a “board of laymen,” the council of superintendency. Ettore Gotti Tedeschi was once named president of this council. But Tedeschi was not a Vatican man. He treated the Vatican more like a multinational company than a sovereign state with funds at the Pope’s disposal. Tedeschi eventually received a no confidence vote from the board he presided.

How was his successor chosen? The IOR’s Superintendency Council decided to contract the services of a specialized agency, a “head hunter”. It was an external agency, which was well paid for its services. The agency identified Ernst von Freyberg for the position. Von Freyberg then hired his own, external, spokesperson, enabling him to manage relations with the press.

In a similar vein, Von Freyberg tasked an American company (the Promontory Financial Group) with auditing the IOR. Nothing wrong or unusual: auditors must be external. What is interesting is that later Antonio Montaresi was appointed the IOR’s chief risk officer. He comes from ranks of the Promontory Financial group. No questions Montaresi’s professional credentials. The issue is, had there been a possible conflict of interest?

In the meantime, Grupo Santander – Gotti Tedeschi had been for years the president of its Italian branch – proudly and loudly announced its re-arrival to the Vatican in the role of consultant to the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See.

Pope Francis wants a poor Church, and always maintains that «structures are important, but up to a certain point.» The problem is that, up until now, Francis is increasing Vatican bodies, and thus expenses. Furthermore, the advisory commission for financial activities can also call on outside experts itself, and will have its needs well covered.

This is how outsourcing in the Vatican is growing. And while the Vatican hires outside experts, inside the Sacred Walls there continues to be potentially disloyal butlers, and priests under the influence of the gay lobby. Will Francis truly succeed in cleaning up the Church? Or will the way he is proceeding favor the formation of new interest groups?

John Paul II used to celebrate Mass in the private chapel at the papal apartment in the Apostolic Palace. In fact, John Paul II’s Masses were never private celebrations: 30 to 40 people were generally invited to attend, and Arturo Mari –John Paul II’s official photographer– rose up very early every morning to take pictures of the Mass. But there was never any record of John Paul II’s homilies or of the conversations that took place right after the Mass. The most informal John Paul II’s magisterium is that of his conversations around the meal table at lunch time, or that of the press conferences he held in the plane during international trips (collected in a book by Angela Ambrogetti, Compagni di Viaggio).

Pope Francis, on the other  hand, lives completely in the midst of the media’s pervasive presence. He does not seem aware of it. He is used to be around people and to give people a clear and simple message. Pope Francis pastoral messages are all firmly established on the principles of “walking, building, confessing” that he alluded to in the first Mass he held as Pontiff, in front of the cardinals.

We should take into account the situation in Argentina –and more generally in Latin America– to really understand what Pope Francis is talking about. In a continent where sects are gaining an ever greater number of followers, there is a need to continuously affirm that salvation can be reached only through Jesus. Since the new movements gain followers by promising work and prosperity, there is a need to keep the Church away from the temptation of trying to meet this demand by running amok offering services and creating new offices.

The Church in Latin America often fell into this temptation. Liberation Theology was a response to a clear need in Latin America to build and work for equality and justice. Yet putting man –and not Jesus Christ– at the center led to considering man himself, and his “material” condition, the measure of all things. Sects kept on flourishing despite Liberation Theology, causing internal divisions within it. Clodovis Boff –who, with his brother Leonardo, gave birth in Brazil to Liberation Theology– clearly stated that, «without Christ, we risk to become only a charitable NGO.»

Clodovis Boff words echoed Joseph Ratzinger’s concerns. As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the eighties, Ratzinger issued two instructions regarding Liberation Theology: the first to condemn its Marxist-materialistic aspects, the second to hail its positive arguments, from the fundamental option in favor of the poor to its focus on the human person. This second instruction (the Libertatis Conscientia) can perhaps be considered the first social encyclical of the future Benedict XVI.

This ante litteram social encyclical is in some ways completed by Dominus Iesus, an apostolic letter issued by Joseph Ratzinger during the 2000 Jubilee. Dominus Iesus was the subject of controversies and polemics, yet it is skillfully written on the basis of Second Vatican Council documents to reaffirm that salvation can be reached only through Jesus. With the letter –unremittingly defended by Pope John Paul II– Ratzinger wanted to put some order in a Church that was relativizing her own faith in the name of interreligious dialogue.

This risk was evident in the interreligious meetings of Assisi, raising concerns that these egalitarian gatherings of religious leaders, resembling an odd UN for different faiths, could lead to confusion and deprive the Church of her mission to propagate the Gospel.

In that same time period, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was bringing order to his Buenos Aires diocese, which was in a moral and financial meltdown. A peculiar Jesuit who spoke plainly, Bergoglio was – according to John Paul II and his circle – the only person capable of giving Argentina’s faithful a new notion of Church.

That plain oratory has become the program of a Pontificate. Disappointing those who expected a doctrinal change of course, Pope Francis has reverted to the arguments of Dominus Iesus four times in the last week, while at the same time issuing a warning about the dangers of ecclesiastical careerism, which also was one of Benedict XVI’s pontificate main themes.

On April 22, after attacking the «Church social climbers,» Pope Francis reiterated that Jesus is the only salvation. «Some of you – he said – would say: Father, are you a fundamentalist? No, I am not. I am just saying what Jesus said: “I am the door, I am the path to bring life.” It is a beautiful door, a door of love, that does not mislead us, that is not false. Always tells the truth. There are perhaps easier paths to follow, but they are misleading, they are not genuine: they are false. Only Jesus is the way. »

On April 23, celebrating Mass in the Paoline Chapel on his namesake Saint’s day, in front of cardinals joining him for this festive occasion, Pope Francis underlined that «the Church is ever more a mother that gives us the faith and our identity. This identity is not a document. It is a sense of belonging. Finding Jesus outside the Church is not possible.»

On April 24, Pope Francis focused on these very same topics. «There is a need for each particular thing,  also for offices, but up to a point,» the Pope said. Then he paused, and smiling at the Vatican employees attending the Mass he added «pardon me (for my saying so).» He then continued: «When the Church boasts about its size and creates organizations and establishes new offices and becomes more bureaucratic, it loses its mains substance.» This is how –the Pope added– the Church «risks to become an NGO. And the Church is not an NGO.»

The Pope used almost the same words in a Mass in the Sistine Chapel on March 14. Yet, since the employees that were attending Mass on April 24 were those of the IOR (the Institute for Religious Works) Pope Francis’ words led to speculations that he was criticizing the Vatican financial institute. Many –including cardinals– have called for the abolition of the IOR. Perhaps, as suggested by Cardinal Cristoph Schoenborn, Archbishop of Wien, by transferring IOR’s funds to an «ethical bank.»

The MONEYVAL report on the Holy See/Vatican City State paved the way for a reform of the IOR and of Vatican finances. But this reform –which is currently under way– is aim at strengthening (rather than dismantling) the Holy See’s financial system, make it more transparent and preventing  new scandals.

It is unlikely that Pope Francis’ remarks were meant as a criticism of an institution that directs 80 per cent of its profits to missions, Catholic schools and hospitals all around the world. Furthermore, the IOR had actually helped the then Archbishop Bergoglio to save the Church of Argentina from economic meltdown.

Ultimately, the April 24 homily echoed once again the main themes of Dominus Iesus. Looking again at what the Pope actually said –and leaving aside speculations about what he supposedly meant– Pope Francis did not seem to be particularly interested in the «organizational» aspects of a Curia reform. There can be no Curia reform if there is not a return to Jesus first.

Returning to Jesus seems to be Pope Francis’ pastoral program. He has tasked the management of the technical and practical aspects of the reform to a group of Cardinals who are friends of his. Pope Francis knows that what is ultimately expected of him is not a management reform. He was elected to take the Church out of her self-referential mode, since this was at the center of his remarks during the pre-conclave meetings, remarks that led the cardinals to vote for him.

Just barely after a month of pontificate, it is evident that there is a need to protect Pope Francis teachings from being trivialize by the media. Otherwise, his message could be misused and abused. It happened with respect to the IOR. It could surely happen again.