While it is yet to be understood what «Spirit of Francis» means, it is becoming evident that Pope Francis’ Church is taking shape. The first year-and-a-half of his pontificate may be considered transitional, made up of jumps forward and steps back, foretold revolutions later redefined, provocations and informal demotions.

Jesuits usually take one year or a bit more for transitions, once they take on a new assignment with management responsibilities. During the transition, they speak with everybody, to figure out what direction to take.

On the other hand, Pope Francis has already said that he did not have a specific design for the Church when he was elected, and there is no reason to doubt it. But clearly, Pope Francis had some very precise ideas, which he is putting into practice now. One of these ideas was that of bringing back the so-called «Spirit of the Council, » i.e. the intellectual vivacity of the Second Vatican Council which he experienced as a young priest in Argentina. Another idea was giving the pastoral activity of the Church more impetus, as the Pope is convinced that this is the only way the Church will be able to address the needs of the greatest number of people possible – and hence, the concern for the Church’s image. And another idea was that of giving more power to local bishops, even on hot topics like rendering final judgments on cases of doctrine or morality.

These ideas had somewhat become reality as the Pope kept speaking about and exercising the «outward-looking Church». Pope Francis chooses with care the peripheries to go to, from those which may have a stronger impact on public opinion. The Pope must lead by example, and must be visible – this is Pope Francis’ intention. Furthermore, these ideas have become a reality in the form of “consultative” bodiesin government, despite much criticism. These include several external commissions to discuss the functioning of the Vatican, as if the work already carried out in this regard within the Vatican walls were not legitimate; the appointment of a Council of Cardinals to conceive a Curia reform without including someone with juridical background able to help drafting the documents; and finally, the establishment of a parallel Curia, made of a series of new bodies yet without statutes, which are still discussing their structures and responsibilities.

These decisions have brought about the big reform of the Vatican economy, the establishment of a Vatican committee for media, and the establishment of a Pontifical Commission for the protection of Minors.

The committee on the media will meet in Rome September 22-24, to define how it will work and which issues it will deal with. The Commission for the Protection of Minors will meet October 3-4, with the purpose expanding its membership to include representationfromall the continents (Africa, Asia and South America are still missing) and to draft its statutes. In doing so, it will have to balance its responsibilities against those of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, particularly of the office on “Delicta Graviora” (the most grave crimes) to be set up in the disciplinary section of the Congregation. Responsible for this section will be the archbishop José Mollaghan, who will work from Buenos Aires (Argentina).

The proliferation of offices in the context of a reform intended to streamline the Curia would aim at giving Pope Francis space to fill these offices with those who are not in line with his thought and his idea of the Church. Some observers have started to talk about a “de-ratzingeritzation” process. It is now time to make decisions.

Cardinal Raymond Burke – it is almost taken for granted – will be appointed head of the Order of Malta, an honorific post. Burke would leave the Signatura tribunal to someone closer to Pope Francis’ thinking. The announcement of the transfer should be given during the synod of bishops, in which Cardinal Burke will be one of the most active participants. Cardinal Burke defends the tradition of the Church, and he is one of the cardinals who contributed to the book “Remaining in Truth,” which clearly opposes the theses on family and access to communion for divorced remarried that Cardinal Walter Kasper lectured about during the last consistory.

That this battle is on-going is evidentin the strong stance taken by Cardinal Kasper himself. Responding to the critics, he underscored that the final target is not him and his positions, but Pope Francis himself, who even praised Cardinal Kasper’s words at the consistory by referring to them as “theology on one’s knees.”

There are other key posts that may remain vacant, as that of “Vatican foreign minister.” After eight years, Archbishop Dominique Mamberti should leave his post of Secretary for Relations with the States. Archbishop Emlile Tscherrig, papal nuncio to Argentina, may take Mamberti’s post. Tscherrig is a good friend of Pope Francis, and also helped in organizing the Pope’s lunch with the Argentine President Cristina Kirchner last Saturday. Other rumors point to Bryan Wells, Assessor of the Secretary of State, who is highly regarded and would also be one of the candidates to take Mamberti’s post as leader of the Vatican foreign policy.

Each rumor must in any case be assessed carefully, since they are a way not only to promote, but also to “burn” some names.

For what concerns episcopal picks, Pope Francis has mostly followed his predecessor’s line, though he has personally intervened in some occasions closeto his heart. He did not do the same with new cardinals picks. He wants new cardinals whose profiles can serve as examples of an outward-looking Church, and he is being provocative in selecting those who will get the new red berretta at the next consistory, to be held probably in February.

Step by step, Pope Francis is shaping his team. But we shouldn’t be fooled: Pope Francis does not care that much about posts and the pedigree of his interlocutors. What he values is the advice of the few people that he really trusts. He will hold many consultations and discussions, but at the end he will make his own decisions.

It will be so with the Council of Cardinals. Father Lombardi stressed that the Council makes proposals, it does not take decisions. Pope Francis, Lombardi added, may there after extend the consultations about a Curia dicastery to a wider circle with all the heads of Vatican dicasteries, during one of the periodic meetings that he has wanted general secretary of the synod of bishops Cardinal Baldisseri–and not the Secretary of State, as was usual–to conduct.

The synod will be the first real testfor Pope Francis. The appointments he wants to make public during the synod will finally show what kind of Church does Pope Francis have in mind. Will it be a Church modeled on the Jesuits’ governing bodies, with four different Secretariats to help to support the Pope govern?

Certainly, the marching order will be collegiality, on which the Pope and the media are insisting a lot. This push for collegiality would also lead us tothink about a restoration of something preceding Benedict XVI.

After announcing his resignation, Benedict XVI met with the Roman clergy and spoke off-the-cuff about the Second Vatican Council. That lecture has made history, since it raised for the first time the issue of a council of the media and a real council. That lecture was indeed a real program for the Church of the future. Benedict XVI also spoke about episcopal collegiality, described the limits of the definition of collegiality and underscored that these limits could be overcome with an option for communion. And communion is at the center of the introduction of the Pastor Bonus, the apostolic constitution that regulates the responsibilities and functions of the Curia offices.

But while the spirit of Francis is filledwith collegiality, it is also clear that ultimately the Cardinals have not followed Benedict XVI’s vision. Rather, they have opted for topics that were discussed before Benedict’s pontificate.

Everything will be clarified with the upcoming appointments and with the outcomes of the synod of bishops. Pope Francis is called to make decisions, and these decisions will show what kind of Church he has in mind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This anecdote has been revealed by Archbishop Georg Gaenswein in a interview granted to the German television network Zdf (and posted in the religious information portal korazym.org). Monsignor Gaenswein is Benedict XVI’s private secretary and the Prefect of the Pontifical Household under Pope Francis, thus playing the role of sort of a «bridge between two Popes.»

In this capacity, Monsignor Ganswein also transmitted the messages (always more frequent) and invitations Pope Francis sends to Pope Benedict.  In July 2013, Benedict XVI was invited to take part of the unveiling of the statue of Saint Michael the Archangel in the Vatican gardens. Following that, Pope Francis visited the monastery Mater Ecclesiae in Vatican City State, where the Pope emeritus is now living. The visit Pope Francis paid Benedict to wish him a merry Christmas was then followed, shortly after Christmas, by a lunch together at the Domus Sanctae Marthae, where Pope Francis is living. And finally, Pope Francis invited Benedict XVI to take part in the Consistory of February 22, when the Pope emeritus sat among the cardinals, as first in dignity but at the same time “primus inter pares.”

«The Pope emeritus is an institution,» Pope Francis said in a recent interview. That Pope Francis gives particular consideration to the recommendations and the presence of this institution is proved by the fact the he sent Benedict XVI the first printed copy of the interview he granted to the editor of “Civiltà Cattolica”, Father Antonio Spadaro. They were not mere notes. Pope Francis asked Benedict XVI for comments. And Benedict XVI – in Monsignor Gaenswein’s words – made his homework and sent Pope Francis a series of remarks, in four pages.

What the remarks were about is a mystery that Monsignor Gaenswein does not want to unveil. In any case, Father Spadaro recently published a book which included the interview, and explained in that there had been some touch-ups, with unedited part of the interviews and some slight modifications. «It is a sort of definitive version,» fr. Antonio Spadaro maintained. This is significant.

In fact, the counsel of Benedict XVI can be seen behind some of Pope Francis’ recent decisions. Step by step, one piece after another of advice, Pope Francis reshaped his revolution. He institutionalized the group of Eight Cardinals (which he first thought should be only informal). He has limited his vague statements, which are now more focused on the gospel and are less off-the-cuff comments.  He has started to trust and value advisers from within the Church, after a season in which the (really expensive) hiring of external consultants had become, it seems, the rule.

Certainly, there is also some of Benedict XVI’s influence in the trust that the incumbent Pope is  increasingly placing on Monsignor Alfred Xuereb, formerly the Pope emeritus second secretary and now the first secretary of Pope Francis, thanks to a recommendation letter Benedict XVI wrote for him.

Xuereb, a Maltese, has a diplomatic background few seem to know much about, and great tact addressing issues.  He was first appointed Pope Francis’ delegate in the pontifical commissions dealing with the Institute for Religious (a.k.a. IOR) and with the economic structure of the Holy See, and then prelate general secretary of the newly established Secretariat for the Economy.

In the end, both of Benedict XVI’s secretaries are playing key roles in this pontificate. This certainly bothers those who have supported the narrative that there was a need, after Benedict XVI’s pontificate, for a change in course. Maybe we should read under this light the most recent attacks against Georg Gaenswein, the first to be under attack in the Vatileaks scandal and yet working side by side to both Popes. A media outlet has called for Gaenswein to resign from his position of confidence to the Pope, because of some statements made in an interview to a German media which have been taken out of proportion.

Monsignor Gaenswein and Monsignor Xuereb are very valuable to a Pope that, as has been noted, engages reforms in rushes of impetus, and without having a general project (as he admitted in his most recent interview).

Pope Francis nevertheless wants to walk on and continue the path traced by Benedict XVI, who made of the joy of the faith the main focus of his pontificate.  A joy he linked to the reasonableness of faith. Benedict strongly spoke against the Church becoming entrenched behind a fortress of moralisms, but rather always restated the truth of the faith. He asked for a demundanization of the Catholic Church, and at the same time underscored that the Curia and the ecclesiastical institution are part of the body of Christ, i.e. the Church.

Every assertion by Benedict XVI was balanced by a further explanation. This is something that appears to be missing in Pope Francis’ dialectic. Beyond the broad discussion about Pope Francis’ discussion on negotiable and non-negotiable values (which can only be understood if placed in an Italian context), Pope Francis has shown that he does not wish to argue against the spirit of the world: he prefers to run to the encounter of the world. This approach is commendable, and at the same time carries the risk of Pope Francis remaining vague on important themes, not directly addressing the issues at the heart of the Church today.

In fact, Pope Francis acts instinctively. Monsignor Xuereb revealed in an interview that, when Pope Francis must take a decision, he prays and meditate, and when he feels something is persistently coming back to mind, he understands it is the right decision to take. So, to counterbalance Pope Francis’ instinctiveness, there is a need for someone to show him the nuances and guide the balanced dialectic needed when you are the Bishop of Rome. Who better than Benedict to advise the pope?

Benedict XVI began his pontificate acting as a professor, favoring wide open debate. Thus creating much discussion, and at the same time several controversies: but it was always the Pope speaking.

Benedict XVI later fine-tuned his speeches, calibrated his approach and found a way to express himself in a more balanced (I would say ‘Papal’) way. He only returned to the “professor Ratzinger” mode in the last part of his pontificate, when he felt free from the bounds of his ministry. Pope Francis is now called to take a qualitative jump, to really become a Pope in words and in the government of the Church.

Benedict XVI is probably the main person responsible for Pope Francis’ seeking this qualitative jump. Benedict kept the promise he made of obeying and honoring his successor, to the point of becoming an influential and appreciated adviser to the Pope.

The last interview granted by Pope Francis also opens up new scenarios for the future. Pope Francis hinted that “perhaps” there will be other Popes emeritus, leaving open the possibility that he would resign as well in the future. If Benedict XVI is still alive at that time, will there be then a sort of college of Popes emeritus?

Pope Francis and the people

When he was archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio loved to spend time among the people. He was beloved in the “villas miseria”, the slums of Buenos Aires he often visited. He was appreciated by the people because, during protests at the time of the economic crisis, he came out to talk to them.  He was feared by the political power because of his homilies. Jorge Mario Bergoglio made of his being “callejero de la fé” (an urban grassroots advocate of the faith) the center of his pastoral activity. Once elected Pope, he immediately wanted to show his closeness to the people. He asked several times for all to pray for him. He spent hours greeting ill people at the end of the general audiences. His simple, almost simplistic, oratory is disarming and impacting. This is what the cardinals were calling for at the General Congregation, i.e. the pre-conclave meetings: a change of narrative of the Catholic Church, and a new missionary push. In a world where projecting the right image is so important, a good rapport with the people is crucial. On this basis, Pope Francis has built a tremendous popular and media consensus. However, he has also given rise to many expectations yet to be fulfilled.

Pope Francis and the local Churches

Pope Francis considers his being a bishop and a priest to be at the core of his activity. Since the very beginning, he wanted to call himself “bishop of Rome”, rather than Pope. And he has always stressed that he wants bishops and priests who are shepherds, who smell like the sheep they tend to. These shepherds will be entrusted by the Pope with the Keys of the Kingdom.

The image of Roman Curia was stained by scandals when the conclave began. Often, the scandals were the outcome of well-managed media campaigns, as the famous Vatileaks (which put the finger in the wound of the problems without really dissecting them).

There were some at the general congregations who were unhappy with some aspects of the previous papacy. Every bishop or nuncio visiting Rome wanted to have a private meeting with the Pope. Benedict XVI gave his collaborators a hard and fast rule: you can schedule a personal meeting only if it is really important and if a lot of personal attention is needed. Otherwise, better to report in writing. It was a democratic method, which avoided any favoritism. However, bishops in Rome for ad limina visits felt ostracized when they did not managed to have a personal audience with the Pope. The diplomats and the cardinals who were not granted a personal appointment often complained as well.

The complaints were mostly against the secretary Georg Gaenswein and the Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, because of the way they managed the Pope’s schedule and relations. Not by chance, both Bertone and Gaenswein had been the main targets of Vatileaks, and had been the only ones that Benedict XVI publicly defended.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio shared the local Churches concerns, in part as a result of personal experience. In his capacity of archbishop of Buenos Aires and primate of the Church in Argentina, Jorge Mario Bergoglio proposed many priests as bishops, but he got several ‘no’ from Rome. Cardinal Bergoglio also had to put up a fight to appoint his friend Victor Fernandez as Rector of the Catholic University of Buenos Aires, overcoming the Congregation for Catholic Education objecting to the appointment. Bergoglio raised these issues during the general congregations, asking for more autonomy and weight for the local Churches.

Now, the Pope is thinking about giving more decision-making power to bishops. From the interview the Pope granted to “La Civiltà Cattolica” emerged the notion of a possible “dismantling” of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. And Cardinal Kasper’s address at the consistory for the family highlighted the idea of entrusting to some local priests (experienced shepherds) the responsibility of deciding on annulments. Pope Francis has also let it confidentially be known that, if necessary, Canon law itself may be changed.

In the meantime, local Churches are the most engaged in the notion of a reform of the Curia. The Council of Eight cardinals is composed of people coming from the dioceses of the world, with the sole exception of Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello, President of the Governorate of Vatican City State. Until now, discussions on the reform of the Curia has mostly been with Bishops’ conferences. Members of the Roman Curia, as well as experts in ecclesiastical affairs, have been involved in the consultations, but only on their personal capacities.

Meanwhile, the local Churches are trying to be attentive to the Pope’s perspectives, while keeping their own approaches and autonomy. The German Bishops’ Conference elected as its president card. Reinhard Marx, the rising star of Pope Francis pontificate. On the other hand, the Italian Bishops’ Conference is going through a tough period: linked to the Pope, who is the primate of the Church of Italy, the Italian bishops want the Pope to continue to exercise the role of leader and guide. In the past, the pope would elect the president of the Italian Bishops’ Conference. But now, Francis wants its bishops to decide by themselves. It is possible there will be a show down in May, when the bishops of Italy will gather in their annual general assembly. Pope Francis will personal give the initial address to bishops, a premiére. The president of the Italian Bishops Conference Angelo Bagnasco is now marginalized.

Pope Francis and the reform of the Curia

That of the reform of the Roman Curia is one of the greatest expectations raised by the election of  Pope Francis. He himself admitted that he does not have his own plan of government. Rather, he is just following the guidelines of the General Congregations. The discussion in the General Congregations brought the idea that the Curia had to be streamlined. But how?

Pope Francis appointed a group of eight cardinal-consultants, and then put everything under review: he established a pontifical commission for the Institute for Religious Works (IOR), he then established another pontifical commission for the financial structure of the Holy See. After three meetings of the Council of Cardinals, he understood that a reform needs a project, and that a project requires a long journey. So, it seems, he decided instead to carry on the reform with a series of quick runs. He established a Secretary for the Economy. In the beginning Pope Francis just appointed its prefect (Cardinal George Pell), then he appointed a Secretary Prelate (his personal Secretary, Alfred Xuereb, who is also the Pope’s delegate for the two pontifical commissions) and finally he appointed the 15 members of the Council for the Economy.

The new dicastery still lacks its statues, and it is still not known where it will be inserted within the Roman Curia. This is a secondary issue for Pope Francis. It is worth noting that the chirograph that established the Council of Eight Cardinals has been published only shortly before the cardinals first met in the Vatican. Pope Francis, it seems, thinks that the institutionalization can come after.

According to Cardinal Julian Herranz, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, the reform «will be quick and will be deep.» This would indicate that Canon Law experts will be consulted only after the fact, in order to give a juridical shape to a new status quo.

In the meantime, the Vatican hired several international companies as external consultants, which are explaining what everybody in the Vatican already knows, i.e. that the elephantine Vatican machine needs to be streamlined.

Pope Francis did not, however, fired anyone in order to build up a new Vatican ruling class and develop a new project of Curia. He preferred opting for a general freeze on hiring and promotions. The risk is that the Vatican machine would be completely dismantled, instead of it being fix to make it effective in its relations with the world.

Pope Francis and the world

Pope Francis main diplomatic tool is prayer. This was clear from his very first speech to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See. In that occasion, he did not addressed the “big themes” of the pontifical diplomacy, probably taking as a given that the line to follow is that developed by Benedict XVI and John Paul II before him. In all the personal meetings he has had with heads of State or government, Pope Francis has highlighted a mutual commitment for world peace, against human trafficking, and in favor of a culture of the encounter. Pope Francis leaves relations with the diplomats to his Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, a skilled diplomat himself. In his presentation speech to the ambassadors to the Holy See, Parolin explained his goal to engage in a path of dialogue based on personal acquaintance. That diplomacy is not the core of this pontificate is evident. According to several rumors, the diplomatic responsibilities of the Secretariat of State will be tasked to just one of the Secretariats that Pope Francis may be thinking to establish. General affairs (first section) would cease to exist, and its functions would fall to a “moderator curiae”, i.e. a coordinating office.

Some issues (even if complex) are noteworthy: the Pope is the Holy See, not the main representative of the Holy See. This is the reason why the Secretariat of State (i.e. the secretariat of the Pope) held both the tasks of general affairs and diplomacy: to underscore the identification of the Pope with the diplomatic activity of the Church. Will this eventual change lead to a weaker and less influential diplomacy? And how will papal nuncios and missionaries be supported if in the Holy See diplomacy would become just one of the many offices of the new Roman Curia? All of these concerns must be discussed.

Meanwhile, Pope Francis stresses the diplomatic strength of prayer. The vigil for peace in Syria held on September 7 was an extraordinary success. Pope Francis thus walks on the path of his predecessors, since the Popes have always been committed to peace. On the other hand, some questions may arise: how much did the impact of the vigil on public opinion stopped a U.S.  military intervention in Syria? John Paul II’s charisma, his similar call for a day of prayer and fasting, were not sufficient to avoid the Second Gulf War… so, is the Church really heard in the international arena? Or has it become ever more marginalized?

The Pope is not a pop star

These are all critical issues, and would concern every modern pontificate, not just that of Francis. A missionary push is needed. The challenge is not to dilute the faith, but to rise up to the challenges of the world with a culture, with wisdom, and with a set identity. After one year of pontificate, Pope Francis has grabbed newspapers headlines, and he will perhaps be the first pope to win the Nobel Prize. It is worth noting that, for instance, “Time magazine” motivations to elect Pope Francis the person of the year were more the result of a political agenda and an ideological vision of Pope Francis’ actions than a precise analysis of what Pope Francis has been doing.

In fact, Pope Francis has proven to be firmly orthodox. He did not want a direct fight against the spirit of the world. But it is enough to read Evangelii Gaudium, his Apostolic exhortation, to understand that his positions on the ethics themes follow the Church’s tradition. And it suffices to read his daily morning homilies delivered at Domus Sanctae Marthae to understand that the Church’s tradition is alive in Pope Francis (he makes many references to Confession, to the hierarchical Church, to salvation and the Church).

Perhaps there has been a revolution of the Church’s image. It is yet to be seen how much of this revolution has been propitiated by the media, rather than generated by Pope Francis’ actions. Perhaps there is too much marketing, and not enough substance, around Pope Francis’ message. He is very aware that in the end he must watch out for the risk of simply becoming something akin to a pop star. This is the most difficult challenge Pope Francis will need to confront. 

All of this gives rise to the thought that the economic crisis was just an excuse, even if supported by real data. And that, in the end, the need for a freeze on hiring is motivated by the upcoming streamlining of the Roman Curia. A step forward in Pope Francis’ path of reform.

Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodriguez Maradiaga, Archbishop of Tegucigalpa (Honduras) and coordinator of the Council of Cardinals, has spoken several times about a possible new Congregation for the Laity. This Congregation would include as its departments the current Pontifical Councils for Laity, for the Family, for the Migrants and for Justice and Peace. A hint of this “amalgamation” would be that Pope Francis has confirmed the heads of these Pontifical Councils just until the end of their current terms in office. By contrast, the heads of other dicasteries have been so far confirmed for full new terms in office (i.e. their terms have been renewed, resetting the clock to keep them in office for five years from the time of Pope Francis’ election).

The Congregation for the Eastern Churches and the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity have been the last dicasteries’ heads that Pope Francis fully confirmed, on Feb. 19.

The general project of Curia reform – according to rumors – would include the creation of a Congregation for Culture and New Evangelization, which would include the Pontifical Councils for Social Communication, for the New Evangelization and for Culture.

These moves would allow Pope Francis to make some further changes without the necessity of amending the Pastor Bonus, the Pastoral Constitution that regulates the functions of the Curia.

One of the changes would have to do with the head of the dicasteries. Until now, Congregations must be chaired by cardinals, while Pontifical Councils can be chaired by a cardinal or an archbishop. According to these rules, layman cannot chair a dicastery.

Changing a pastoral constitution requires time. But if a dicastery is turned into a department, the latter can be chaired by anyone. For instance, a married couple could lead the Department for the Family.

In fact, none of these changes represent a definitive reform. The meetings of the Council of Cardinals are still in the general discussion phase. Also the Commission for the Protection of Minors, announced at the end of the December meeting, is just a proposal still to be realized, as Father Federico Lombardi, Director of the Holy See Press Office, explained during a media briefing.

It is the same for reforms. Cardinals have just put on the table some proposals, gathering opinions from the dicasteries in a somewhat lose manner (just asking employees directly, rather than asking the dicasteries).

Those who were waiting for a quick and drastic reform had to change their mind when Cardinal Maradiaga, in one of his countless interviews to the press (that not every cardinal appreciated), said: «Time is needed for reforms.»

So, Pope Francis’ revolution is increasingly becoming a series of “cosmetic” changes, perhaps useful to clean the Church’s tarnished image, but not deep enough for real change.

Also the reviled Vatican finances may be subjected to this cosmetic treatment. Since the beginning of their meetings, the cardinals of the Council have been talking about the establishment of a sort of Vatican “Ministry of Finances” (to consolidate in one place all the Vatican financial activities). Perhaps the cardinals do not remember that the reform of the regulations of the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs issued 22 February 2012 (exactly two years before Pope Francis’ first consistory) already tasks this Vatican dicastery with financial programming similar to that of a Ministry of Finances.

The Institute for Religious Works (IOR), wrongly known as the “Vatican bank”, is always a target. It is thought that the IOR will be absorbed into the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA), thus keeping its functions even if it is placed under another dicastery.

The backers of this idea are not taking into account, for instance, that APSA has been structured over the course of the years as a public authority, and that its diminishing banking activities are being phased out to strengthen its public authority profile.

On the other hand, those who had been served by the IOR understand its importance. Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop Emeritus of Chicago and considered one of Pope Francis’ ‘super electors’, noted in a recent press interview: «During my 12 years as General Vicar of my religious congregation, the Oblates of the Immaculate Mary, I found the IOR very useful. We used it to transfer money from the richer provinces to places with an inadequate banking system. As a lay tool of the Pope’s sovereignty, the Vatican should have at its disposal the required means to enjoy financial independence. The characteristics of this independence and its necessary limits to prevent that the bank becomes a commercial bank are still to be analyzed.»

The road ahead is long. At the end of the week, Pope Francis created 19 new cardinals, some of them completely unexpected.  The Pope had two main goals: break careerism, showing that there are no ‘class A’ or ‘class B’ dioceses; and at the same time show that he is paying attention to the world’s peripheries.

The cardinals selected last week took part in the extraordinary consistory on the family. Once again, the cardinals addressed the issue of holy communion for Catholics that remarry after a divorce.  Father Lombardi’s briefing made it clear that it was a very general exchange of views.

In the end, even the awaited reform on communion for divorcees who remarry seems to be less than what was expected, or what the public was made to believe it could be. Pope Francis’ revolution is mostly a reform of the attitudes, of pastoral approach. Now, the challenge is not to reduce every reform to a «change everything in order not to change anything.» This would be just marketing. And the Catholic Church is not a company which needs a new, improved image, despite what the many consulting companies recently hired by the Vatican may think. 

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.

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.

The February 22 consistory will start shaping the future Church. The numbers are clear. From now to 2017, 32 cardinals will turn 80, thus losing the right to vote in a future conclave. And from now to Feb. 22, there will be 106 cardinal electors, so Pope Francis had in fact 14 “red hats” he can grant this year, according to the norm introduced by Paul VI which sets the maximum number of voting cardinals at 120. The Pope will create (in the language of the Church, cardinals are “created”) some 46 cardinals from now to 2017, more than one third of the cardinals voting in the conclave.

So, the creation of new cardinals (16 voting cardinals, hailing from 12 different countries) started outlining the future Church. These new cardinals will take part in the next conclave and will bring their perspectives to the General Congregations, the pre-conclave meeting in which voting and non voting cardinals take part. The new cardinals will be those who will decide which suggestions to accept, or how to interpret them.

What is Pope Francis’ perspective? Giving a glance to the list of new cardinals, Pope Francis wanted to stress the attention on the “peripheries” of the Church, and at the same time he wanted to signal that no more appointment in a major diocese can be considered a privilege.

In the past, it was granted  that being a bishop of a diocese by tradition led by cardinal would have the red hat in dotation. Hence, the pressures moved by many “ecclesiastical lobbies” to appoint their “faithful” as bishops of certain diocese, or as head of certain Vatican dicasteries.

Pope Francis decided not to deliver red hats to the chiefs of Vatican dicasteries, and he made it clear that being the administrator of an important diocese is not a criteria anymore.

The Curia will have just four “berrette rosse” ex-officio: the Secretary of State, Pietro Parolin; the Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Gehrard Ludwig Mueller; the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, Beniamino Stella; and the General Secretary of the Synod, Lorenzo Baldisseri, whose charge is not in fact part of the ranks of the Roman Curia.

The latter seems to have a key role in pushing forward Pope Francis reform, and not by chance he was the second cardinal of the Pope Francis list. It is yet to be understood how the “greater synodality” called-for by the Pope will be implemented, but certainly Baldisseri is increasing his influence. For instance, he managed the periodic meeting between the Pope and the heads of Vatican dicasteries, a meeting that was traditionally coordinated by the Secretary of State. And it is always Baldisseri who is visibly engaged in a reform of the synod of bishops, trying to put in order an issue under discussion going back to Paul VI.

More than on the Curia, Pope Francis’ attention was focused on the “peripheries of the world,” but he will also be very attentive to balancing the “geography” of the college of cardinals. Pope Francis wanted to avoid the criticism levied against Benedict XVI after his first consistory in 2012, which many considered “too Italian” and “excessively Curia-oriented”. Benedict XVI was in fact merely filling the “holes” in the puzzle, mostly granting ex-officio red hats. His work was completed with a second consistory in 2012, with no Italian nor European cardinals, in order to underline the universality of the Church.

Pope Francis could be criticized for the opposite reason, i.e. for having a “too much of a Latin American” consistory. There will be five new Latin American cardinals: the Brazilian Orani Tempesta (Rio de Janeiro), the Argentinean Mario Aurelio Poli (Buenos Aires), the Chilean Ricardo Ezzati (Santiago) and the Nicaraguan Leopoldo José Brenes Solòrzano (Managua). Pope Francis bestowed the red hat on two cardinals from Africa (Jean Pierre Kutwa and Philippe Nakellentuba Ouedraogo); two from Asia (Andrew Yeom sou-jeong and Orlando Queved); and six from Europe (Gehrard Ludwig Mueller, Pietro Parolin, Beniamino Stella, Lorenzo Baldisseri, Gualtiero Bassetti and Vincent Nichols), one from North America (Cyprien Lacroix) and one from Central America (Chilby Laglois).

In choosing the new cardinals, Pope Francis also wanted to highlight the pastoral experience.  Cyprien Lacroix, archbishop of Quebec, Canada had been for ten years missionary in Colombia; Orani Tempesta, archbishop of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, is knows as “the bishop worker” for his tireless presence in parrishes and peripheries; Andrew Yeom Sou Jeong, archbishop of Seoul, hails from a family of Catholics for long time persecuted, and has been a parrish-priest for several years; also Philippe Nakellentuba Ouedraogo, archbishop of Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, also has a long term experience as parrish priest; and Ricardo Ezzati Andrello, a salesian archbishop of Santiago in Chile, worked a lot in the pastoral and educative structures of the Salesians, and knows very well the problems of the peripheries.

Pope Francis seemingly also wanted to promote the idea that there are not “first class” or “second class” dioceses or posts in the Catholic Church, and this led to several surprises.

For example, the archbishops of important dioceses like Bruxelles, Venice, Turin, Bahia, Bangkok  will not be lead by a cardinal, while Pope Francis gave the red hat to Gualtiero Bassetti, Archbishop of Perugia and deputy president of the Italian bishops’ conference.

According to some observers, the choice would signal Pope Francis’ preference for the “ad personam cardinalate”, i.e. the creation of cardinals according to the will and the trust of the Pope, and not pursuant to the place where they are posted as archbishops.  

In fact, the last archbishop of Perugia who got the red hat was Vincenzo Pecci, who was elected Pope Leo XIII in 1878.

The “ad personam cardinalate” approach would be also confirmed by the fact the Francesco Moraglia, Patriarch of Venice, may not get the red hat. There are two patriarchs in the Roman Catholic Church, that of Lisbon and that of Venice, and both of them already have the right to don red vestments. Thus, a non-cardinal patriarch is considered an exception. Moraglia, however, does not seem to be as close to the Pope’s heart as Bassetti.

Pope Francis seems anyway “rewarding” the people he trusts. Looking backward to his appointments, it is remarkable that the first Argentinean bishop he ordained was Victor Fernandez, rector of the Catholic University of Buenos Aires. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio struggled with the Congregation for Catholic Education to get Fernandez appointed as a rector. Not by accident, Pope Francis made major changes early-on to the Congregation for Catholic Education, deciding to change about half of its members. Nor is it accidental that Jean Louis Brugues, who had been secretary of the Congregation when Bergoglio argued with it, did not make the cut in the next consistory, even if he is now Prefect of the Vatican Apostolic Library, traditionally a cardinal-level post.

These are just educated guesses about the next consistory, reflecting the logic of the current state of affairs. However Pope Francis is governing on his own, as he always had, looking forward to appointing his men in key posts and not trusting the Curia that much. In fact, the Roman Curia was strongly criticized by cardinals in the pre-conclave meetings for its lack of transparency, poor communication and the Vatileaks scandal.

Now, there is a risk of a centralized government which appears to be too quick to consider every suggestion put forward by outsiders. The mushrooming of consultants and commissions (all of them with funds attached to them, and thus costly) has brought into the Vatican external agents who know little about the history and the peculiarities of the Holy See.

Pope Francis has been warned about this risk, and it seems that he has started to balance different perspectives. He also kept a balance with respect to the appointments of the new cardinals, naturally rewarding the people he trusts or he feels closer to, but at the same time giving to Latin America only what the Latin American Church may reasonably expect.

The consistory is just a step in a process of permanent reform. In fact, the consistory on February 22 will come after a general consistory of cardinals and following the meeting of the Council of Eight Cardinals appointed to advise the Pope about a Curia reform, which will meet February 17 to 18. Pope Francis will also take part in the Council of the Synod of Bishops, in a discussion left open in time, which is likely to become a permanent, informal council to keep the Church moving. “A Church that pulls away (from the world) is a sick Church,” Pope Francis has said. So the reform of attitudes must be permanently fed with discussions and ideas.

All the attention is focused on the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the family. A synod that will start in a context full of expectation about collegiality and a possible reform of the Doctrine of the Church, especially with respect to gay couples and the dispensing of sacraments to remarried divorcees. A new balance must be found between ultra-progressive views and the need for the Church to face new problems in a changing world. The discussion will be lively.