The truth is that everyone involved had his own reason for using Pope Francis’ image and popularity in order to move beyond the issue. After mentioning the Pope twice in the speech in which he announced the restoration of diplomatic ties, Barack Obama will now be able to label anyone in Congress who criticizes his plan as being against the Pope. And Raul Castro will be able to manage the transition without suffering too much internal opposition, thanks to the backing of Pope Francis. In the end, a little image exploitation is part of the diplomacy game.

The path toward restoration of U.S.-Cuban diplomatic ties began long ago. When U.S. President Barack Obama visited Pope Francis last March, he already talked about it, according to Vatican sources. During those days, public opinion was captured by the delegation of indocumentados that came to Rome to ask Pope Francis to highlight their plight. At the end of the 52-minute meeting between the Pope and Obama, the official press release stressed that at the core of talks were the issues of immigration and human trafficking.

Pope Francis offered the Vatican as a bridge for dialogue between the U.S. and Cuba. During these months – for 7 times in 2013 and 2014 – Cuban and U.S. delegations met continuously and discreetly. The Holy See was regularly updated on the progress of the talks that mostly took place in Canada. Pope Francis personally committed himself: in October he secretly received U.S. and Cuban delegations, sent two letters asking for the liberation of political prisoners and offered the Vatican as a neutral site for negotiation.

Cuba appreciated this mediation, too. Since taking the post of his brother, Fidel, Raul Castro has worked to move Cuba peacefully from the Communist model – a relic of the Cold War – to a new model, open to the world. The transition had been favored by the extraordinary field work of the Church. It was not just a pastoral commitment, narrowly conceived. The Church’s priests and sisters made a great contribution to the educational and healthcare systems, and their work has been universally appreciated. Despite the revoluciòn, the religious persecution and the confiscation of goods that have never been compensated, the Church never abondoned Cuba, not even in a diplomatic sense (the nunciature in Habana has remained continuously open), nor in terms of its field work.

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, then Vatican Secretary of State, went to Cuba in 2008 to mark the 10th anniversary of St. John Paul II’s historic visit to Cuba. There he took note of the Cuban government’s wish for transition. In a press conference, he underscored: “It seems doors may be opened, since Raul knows well the people’s difficulties, what they lack, their aspirations.”

This climate of renewed openness was the background of Benedict XVI’s visit to Cuba in 2012. During the papal visit, Raul Castro took every opportunity to be close to the Pope in order to show that the revoluciòn wanted to be close to the Church. And people, faithful and devout to Catholic Church, caught the message. Despite their exhaustion on account of the embargo, they trusted that things would changed.

In 2012, Raul Castro welcomed the Pope with what looked like a rally: in his address he criticized the bloqueo, the U.S. trade embargo, in an effort to gain the Catholic Church’s diplomatic backing.

Nor should the fact that Cardinal Bertone was in Cuba again during the past weeks be underestimated. The former Secretary of State had an intense schedule in Cuba, thus symbolically representing the continual presence of the Church in Cuba and the ongoing Cuban transition. In the end, Cardinal Bertone embodied the continuity of the Holy See’s diplomacy there.

This is food for thought. The Holy See’s success on the Cuban issue is the climax of a 50 year-long diplomatic commitment. Pope Francis harvested the fruits of the diplomatic efforts carried on from the time of St. John XXIII. St. John Paul II took advantage of the new situation caused by the collapse of European Communist regimes in order to try a brand new diplomatic approach. This new approach was partially based on an active and secret diplomacy, and very much based on a new idea: that diplomacy should not be conducted with States, but with peoples. Hence, he appealed for reconciliation among all Cubans, even those in exile. At the same time, his speeches during his historic 1998 visit to Cuba focused on the topics of family, youth and religious freedom.

Benedict XVI inherited this diplomatic approach, to which he added one principle: diplomacy had to be based on Truth. When he appointed Cardinal Bertone as Secretary of State and Bertone presented himself as “Secretary of Church, more than of State,” some commentators wrote that Benedict XVI’s line could be summed up with the slogan: “More Gospel, less diplomacy.” This conclusion was somewhat misleading. Benedict XVI’s approach was an outcome of the Truth of the Gospel, the two issues were not in contradiction. In diplomatic terms, this meant that dialogue with the secular world had to be carried out with firmness regarding principles.

This issue is peculiarly current. While praising the Cuban success, some commentators have attributed it to the fact that the Church is once again focused on playing a strong diplomatic role, and that it has abandoned the diplomatic approach based on a clear insistence on principles. Commentators also recalled the step-by-step diplomatic doctrine that Cardinal Agostino Casaroli followed in his dealings with the countries of Eastern Europe during the Cold War (the so-called Ostpolitik) and the notion of a “martyrdom of patience,” i.e., a silent Church that waits while it works on diplomatic relations.

This approach meets secular diplomatic criteria that understand the Holy See as a State like any other State, one that puts itself forward as a mediator, when the situation is favourable, in an effort to make friends of States formerly seen as enemies (the Vatican did not do so during the Venezuelan internal crisis, despite the fact that the current Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, was papal nuncio there at the time).

The “martyrdom of patience”, on the other hand, refers to a diplomacy that is founded on Truth and unafraid to proclaim it. It is when the Truth is strongly proclaimed that critics and accusations arise.

St. John Paul II endured this martyrdom, and was subjected to fierce criticism during the first part of his pontificate. And Benedict XVI endured it, too, since he was continually under attack because of his love for the Truth: the Regensburg lecture; his declarations on HIV/AIDS at the press conference during the flight to Africa; his stands against the persecutions of Christians and terrorist attacks with a religious background; his strong criticism of gender ideology. In these and many other cases, the actual words and reasoning of the Pope were hardly sought out by the media. Instead, Benedict was attacked for what was termed his “crusader’s tone” – still the favourite accusation of the liberal world when labelling any priest, bishop, or pope who highlights the truth of the Gospel.

So, kudos to papal diplomacy for being able to mediate in the Cuban – U.S. situation. But we should also ponder other issues on the table. We should wonder whether the Church was used by certain States. At the same time we should continue to insist that it was the Church’s longstanding commitment to diplomacy in Cuba that produced the basis for this final, positive outcome. It should also be clear that this previous commitment was not derived from a secular understanding of diplomacy, but on the Christian concept of diplomacy as aimed at serving the interests of people, not States. The Holy See’s international agenda is the pursuit of the common good, not diplomatic success. In the end, the Holy See, as a sovereign State, has moved beyond the concept of bilateral relations between States, and has sought to encourage a greater participation of countries of the world in the international arena.

The solution of the Cuban question may also lead us to a wider consideration. During Benedict XVI’s pontificate, the strongest criticisms of the Holy See’s diplomacy claimed that it had lost international influence and was closed in on itself. These attacks came at a time when the Holy See was beginning to change its approach to the world and was gradually abandoning its bloated relations with its Italian neighbour (relations that Italy always exploited) and that, following the St. John XXIII’s prophecy written down in the encyclical Pacem in Terris, it was moving beyond the Wesphalian model of relations between States. The countries that worked on the Treaty of Westphalia (1644-1648) drafted the modern system of nation-states, a system which ruled Europe and the world for centuries. St. John XXIII understood that an international system based on nation-states would collapse and would be replaced by an international and interdependent system, mostly based on economic powers, and so he proposed a sort of global authority with global competences to guarantee that even super-national institutions would seek the common good.

Benedict XVI’s pontificate fully followed this intuition. The financial reform of the Holy See and the debates that followed, the great reform of the Church’s charitable organizations (that included the new Statutes of Caritas Internationalis and a new motu proprio for Catholic Charities, so that all of them were under the umbrella of a common view and free from any external pressure), the reform of the Vatican penal code, the attention given to canon law and the consequent choice of Cardinals, the progressive internationalization of the College of Cardinals, and then, in its relation to the world, the pressures applied by the Holy See in favor of a reform of the international financial system and a reform of the United Nations; and Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical Caritas in Veritate that anticipated many of the current Vatican economic reforms – these and many other factors are indicators of the new international approach of the Holy See.

The possibility that these changes would enable the Holy See to make a greater moral impact on the world has lead the secular media (driven by secular institutions) to criticize the Vatican’s new international framework. However, with his recent role in the Cuban question, Pope Francis has now returned to an old style diplomatic vision, and the secular world can now breathe freely again. When Pope Francis spotlights the hot issues – as happened when he addressed the European Parliament and the Council of Europe on November 25 –he is simply ignored both by the media and by diplomats.

All of these data are food for thought. In regard to Cuba, this old style diplomatic approach has borne fruit for certain States. Will it also bear fruit for the Church?

On September 23, it was announced that Archbishop Jozef Wesolowski, the former apostolic nuncio who spent his career in Eastern Europe and that ended up as papal nuncio to the Dominican Republic, has been put under house arrest in the Vatican and will be criminally charged by a Vatican penal court, after the tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had deemed him guilty in the first stage of the process and has defrocked (laicized) him.

On September 25, the Holy See press office announced the dismissal of Rogelio Ricardo Livieres Plano, bishop of Ciudad del Este, Paraguay. The archbishop was dismissed for “grave pastoral reasons” as a result of an Apostolic visit that Pope Francis tasked to the Spanish Cardinal Santos Avril y Castellò. The bishop of Ciudad del Este had been accused of protecting a pedophile priest.

These two moves have shown that Pope Francis really intends to forcefully confront pedophilia. Pope Francis’ determination is evident in the establishment of a Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors; the expected establishment of an office exclusively dedicated to “Delicta Graviora” in the disciplinary section of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; and the first meeting ever organized within the Vatican Walls between the Pope and some of the victims of clergy sex abuses. At the same time, all the attention is focused on Pope Francis’ goodness. Thus creating an all-too-simple contrast between a Pope with a saintly image and a Church depicted as completely corrupt.

So much so, that Joaquin Navarro Valls, formerly director of the Holy See Press Office, wrote an op-ed to clarify things the day after the Kesolowski arrest. Observing a public opinion that looks favorably upon Pope Francis, Navarro Valls noted the danger of the contradiction of revering the Pope while throwing mud against a Church labeled as pedophile. Data in hand, Navarro Valls underscored that celibacy is not the problem, and that the Church is the only institution that has really done something to fight pedophilia, a fight that stretches back two decades (and that Navarro Valls had witnessed) and which includes Kesolowski’s arrest. «The sickness is pedophilia, not the Church,» Navarro Valls concluded.

The clarification was needed, since the modest press statement of the Holy See Press Office– released late in the evening—failed to include any explanation of the legal context, especially with respects to legal aspects.

Kesolowsky had in fact already been defrocked and deprived of diplomatic immunity, and he was not a resident Vatican citizen any more. The Vatican court can exercise its jurisdiction on him only because he had committed the crimes while exercising his function as nuncio, which gave him ex officio Vatican citizenship.

Yet, the unexpected acceleration of the procedure carries with it some issues that could be used to revamp the always alive campaign against the Holy See sovereignty.

When the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith first stage verdict on Wesolowski was made public, an op/ed by James Carrol was published on September 1 in the “Boston Globe” – the newspaper that had broken the story of priestly pedophilia with a series of investigations awarded with the Pulitzer Prize.

«In a show of toughness, Church officials defrocked Wesoloski and promised to try him according to the laws of Vatican City. In effect, though, Church officials once again shielded a predator priest from civil jurisdiction. Victims and officials in the Dominican Republic were left to stew,» stressed Carrol.

Carrol then highlighted that «Vatican statehood is part of the problem» and that the Vatican «defrocked Wesolowski, but an opposite remedy suggests itself for the larger problem – in effect, a “de-stating” of the Holy See». So much so, that – Carrol concluded – the Church’s activity should be put together with that of so many NGOs that the United Nations already acknowledges.

Is this the opening salvo of the umpteenth campaign to undermine the sovereignty of the Holy See? Possibly.

The Holy See is an acknowledged moral authority, and its commitment to peace in the last century has made it one of the most authoritative voices among nations. With no political nor economic interests, the Holy See can strongly pursue its defense of the human being in international gatherings without being accused of any hidden or selfish interests.

This is the reason why the Holy See was invited to become a member state and founder of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and it is one of the reasons why ever more states have entrusted the Holy See with a mediation role. But the United Nations has lobbies that promote their own interests more than those of the human being. For these lobbies, the Holy See has become an unbearable thorn in their side.

More and more often, the United Nations has asked the Holy See to become a full member of the organization. The Holy See has always refused, conscious that, as a member state, it would be obliged to accept as binding decisions coming out of the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the United Nations. The Holy See has always maintained its neutrality. To be a full member of the UN when the use of force is authorized would be akin to silently endorsing war.

Having failed to impose on the Holy See the same regime that applies to other states (which carries many rights, but also diplomatic constraints), lobbies have focused on attacking the Church’s values, trying to undermine its moral authority, and at the same time starting a campaign to downgrade the status of the Holy See in the United Nations from that of a Permanent Observer to that of one of many NGOs.

The clergy sex abuses on minors scandal was one of the tools used to attack the Church’s moral authority. The scandal had such an enormous media impact, that the sociologist Massimo Introvigne described it as a “moral panic”. The Holy See responded according to justice. No pre-emptive verdicts of the accused priests, and a series of norms that centralized controls and strengthened the penal sanctions, while requesting every bishops’ conference to come up with guidelines, according to the sensitiveness and problems of the their countries,to combat this evil.

Asking all bishops to report to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was not a shrouding move. It was mostly informed by the need to know about a series of cases that came to light and where particularly dramatic because bishops had not reported anything to Rome and kept transferring pedophile priests from one parish to another. The guidelines were needed to ensure a high level of commitment against pedophilia at the local level, and in harmony with the civil and penal procedures of each country.

The cases of pedophilia had vast echo in the media, also with the aim to attack the Christian roots of countries, injecting in public opinion the notionthat change is necessary. It happened in Catholic Ireland, where the timing of the pedophilia scandal coincided with thedecision of the government of Enda Kenny to close the Irish embassy to the Holy See (officially for economic reasons) and the adoption of laws allowing same-sex marriage and in-vitro fertilization. And perhaps not by coincidence, the scandal of clergy sex abuses of minors also reached Catholic Malt right before Benedict XVI visited in 2010 – at the time of the Papal visit, there was still no abortion and no divorce in the Maltese legislation.

These are the reasons why the Wesolowski case had to be handled with care. Wesolowski had been convoked by the Vatican before the Dominican Republic authorities could summon him, a detail that media traditionally hostile to the Catholic Church like the New York Times have not failed to notice. The decision to deprive Wesolowski of immunity was announced by Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press office, only in August, two months after the first stage verdict of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that laicized him had been made public. In that same announcement, Father Lombardi said that the Vatican penal authorities would try Kesolowskionly after the end of the second stage of his trial in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

After that, there was the sudden acceleration of September 23. The most attentive observers noticed that the Wesolowski case had been one of the topics of discussion at the 15th International Congress on Canon Law that took place at the Catholic University of Washington. There, some canon law experts complained about the impunity and freedom Wesolowski enjoyed, after he had appealed the verdict from the first stage of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith process. The complaints, reportedly transmitted to the Vatican, brought about the decision to immediately try Wesolowski in the penal court, also to avoidundermining, because of negative press coverage, the effortsof the Church to combat pedophilia.

The Vatican decisions leavethe Dominican Republic (where the alleged abuses have taken place) out of the picture, without the possibility of extraditing or trying the former nuncio. The same is true for Poland, the country Wesoloswki hails from: he was ordained priest by Karol Wojtyla and enjoyed the friendship of Wojtyla’s secretary, Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz (who is preparing to become the Master of Ceremonies of the 2016 World Youth Day, to be held in Krakow).

Wesolowski’s case intersects with a wholly Latin American case, that of the bishop Livieres of Ciudad del Este, the second largest diocese of Paraguay. In an unusual move, Pope Francis made public an apostolic visit led by Cardinal Santos Avril y Castellò – who is very close to the Pope’s heart. Cardinal Avril had been sent to unravel the tangle of accusations between bishop Livieres and the Paraguayan bishops. The accusations had started when the bishop opposed the candidacy to the presidency of bishop Fernando Lugo who,after winning the elections, left the priesthood. But later the criticism continued.Livieres had been very active in his diocese, he established a new seminar and liturgical and sacred art commissions. He also had a public argument with the Archbishop Cuquejo of Asuncion, whom Livieres described as “homosexual.”

In the meantime, rumors about reported sexual incontinence in the seminaries Livieres had established flourished, and about the poor instruction– given that the curricula studiorum was of just 5 years, while in the rest of the Paraguayan seminariesit was 7 years. Bishop Livieres was also accused of having illicitly sold assets of the diocese and of having allegedly protected Carlos Urrutigoity, an Argentine priest who served as his Secretary and then Vicar of the diocese, who in the past had been accused of abusing minors (the students at the academy where 9 to 12 years old).

Pope Francis first took away from bishop Livieres the power to ordain new priests, and then removed him from the post. The news of his removal was justified by an alleged cover-up to protect a pedophile priest, thus giving once again life to the equation “Church=pedophilia”, though the problem must be seen in wider terms – as a letter bishop Livieres published on the website of the diocese suggests.

Perhaps, the Holy See communication experts should think about this. The committee on Vatican media met for the first time from September 22 to 24, and started to analyze the Vatican media. In the offing, the review of the composition of departments, to save money. But there seemingly is no revamping of the way the Church’s message is delivered.

So, while speaking of techniques of communications and rationalization of expenses, the sense of the Gospel is lost and the wide commitment of the Church against pedophilia is not communicated. As a result, everything evolves around the image of the Pope, but perhaps not around the image of the Church. It will work only until someone uses this image to launch another attack, using the abuses of minors as a crowbar to question the very teachings of the Catholic Church. Experts of the UN Committee on the Convention of the Rights of the Child and of the Convention Against Torture already have. It will happen again.

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

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

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

But these arguments may not be sufficient.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

The vile of the UN document is not in the accusations on the cases of child sex abuses by clergy, but rather in the “reach” of the concluding observations about the second Holy See Periodic Report on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The committee even asked, several times, for changes or amendments to Canon Law, for example on abortion.Its observations also intrude into purely religious issues, implicitly attacking the secret of confession («due to a code of silence imposed on all members of the clergy under penalty of excommunication…»), and even regretting that «the Holy See continues to place emphasis on the promotion of complementarity and equality in dignity, two concepts which differ from equality in law and practice provided for in article two of the Convention and are often used to justify discriminatory legislation and policies.»

So, according to the UN Committee, composed of 18 independent experts, the Holy See should stop freely expressing its Gospel-rooted worldview. To justify their request, the members of the Committee even interpret article two of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which in fact only binds the states parties «to respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.»

Rather than an attempt to consider “the spirit” of the convention, the UN document sounds more like a general accusation, almost an attack on the Holy See sovereignty via an attack on its moral principles. It is a nuanced approach, since the distinction between Vatican City State law, Canon Law, and the international rights of the Holy See, is explained and considered. The document addresses the Holy See’s “moral authority”, acknowledges that the priests are not Holy See employees and that Vatican City State has no jurisdiction over Catholic-run schools.  However, the committee then de facto asks the Holy See to take a firm stand on given issues. In the end, the committee is subtly asking the Holy See to change Catholic doctrine: to stop insisting on fundamental rights, on the complementarity between man and woman, and to stop combating abortion. In essence, the committee tries to persuade the Holy See to renounce to speak out loudly.

What has been most interesting to the media are the accusations on the handling of children sex abuses by clergy. The committee requests the Holy See to open up its archives and let it be known how many pedophile priests there are.  However, the accusation that the Holy See made possible abuses on millions of children, and the criticism about the transfer of priests and well-known child sexual abusers «from parish to parish or to other countries in an attempt to cover-up such crimes, a practice documented by numerous national commissions of inquiry,» do not reflect reality. There is no mention of the exemplary commitment of Joseph Ratzinger, before and after becoming Benedict XVI, to combat child abuses. Nor is there any consideration of a Vatican City State law on sex abuse that, if used as an international legal standard, would make every other state outlaws in the fight against pedophilia.

In an interview granted to Vatican Radio, Silvano Maria Tomasi, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the UN Office in Geneva, noted that the UN document «seemed to have been written before the meeting of the committee with the Holy See delegation. The latter gave detailed and precise answers on several points, but the answers are not reported in this final document or seem to have been given serious consideration.» Tomasi also underlined that «probably some NGOs with interests in homosexuality, gay marriage or other issues, have provided input, strengthening in some way an ideological line.»

This ideological line is evident, since the gender theory vocabulary is widespread in the document. The committee asks for the acknowledgement of «reproductive health rights» (a euphemism for an alleged right to abortion), the request to eliminate from Canon Law the terminology about legitimate and natural children, even the exhortation to remove from Catholic textbooks «all gender stereotyping which may limit the development of the talents and abilities of boys and girls and undermine their educational and life opportunities.»

This vocabulary is pervasive in United Nations documents, and it is opposed by the Holy See in the name of an integral humanism oriented to the common good, which is the very international agenda of the Holy See.

That of gender is not a new ideology. The last Christmas greeting address of Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia focused on gender theory.

On that occasion – 21 December2012 – Benedict XVI stated that the very idea of human nature is in crisis, a crisis based on gender «as a new philosophy of sexuality.»

«The very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question,» noting that sexual complementarity, and one’s sex as a given, «is what is now disputed.»

He added that in the relativist ideology of gender, «man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question,» which also calls into question the nature of the family.

This speech is part of Benedict XVI’s legacy, who at that time had already decided when and how to resign.

Now, Pope Francis is called to pick up the thread again. According to sources, Pope Francis has said in a private audience with bishops that the gender ideology is «demonic». Yet, until now, there has not been an official Pope stance on these issues. The Pope has not showed support for the demonstrators of Manif pour Tous in France, who have protested against the institution of same sex marriage and the possibility of adoption for same sex couples in France. Nor has the Pope mentioned the protests in Europe on February 2, shortly before a vote on the Lunacek Report.

The report focuses on the “Yogyakarta principle”, according to which «the special rights for gay people are part of universal human rights.» All the 120 special rights of the gay community must be applied in order to fulfill, at the international level, respect for human rights. On February 4 the report was approved in the European Parliament. It is not binding, but the approval makes the document’s views the official position of the European Union.

The day after the approval of the Lunacek Report, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child final observations were made public. Perhaps a Pope’s preventive declaration would have helped. Or perhaps an articulated and timely communication by the Holy See was needed, challenging the document for his juridical overreach. This kind of reply did not take place if not two days after the release of the report, even though the report reached the Vatican almost two days ahead of its public release, and its content was well known to Vatican advisors on communications.

The strategy was not to prepare any immediate reply.  It is hard to understand why this was the case. The Vatican experts that took part in the discussion of the first report in 1995 foresaw the risk that something like this could happen, and today they say that theyare not surprised at all about the language and content of the new document. Some experts even suggest that the Secretariat of State should reply through diplomatic channels.  The Holy See, they proposed, should convene ambassadors accredited to the Holy See to complain that the committee went beyond its tasks, arrogating to itself the right to interpret the spirit of the Convention.

It was also well known that the  international media was awaiting with great expectation the document, attracted by the questions on pedophilia. Many journalists got credentialed to the UN office in Geneva, their interest mostly focused on the clergy sex abuses scandal.

In fact, Vatican communications advisors were not even timely in presenting information about the Church’s struggle against pedophile in priests. They should have recalled that Benedict XVI reduced to laity almost 400 priests, explained the Holy See efforts to fight the abuses, or at least pointed out the special section about the Church’s response to abuse of minors in the homepage of the vatican.va website.

Vatican communications advisors did not think, either, about highlighting best practices. For example, in Italy there is the Meter Association chaired by Father Fortunato Di Noto. Meter has become an international reference on the fight against pedophilia. In 20 years, the Meter association has welcomed, accompanied and helped more than 1,200 victims of abuses, and denounced more than 1 million and a half pedo-pornographic web sites, thus creating a virtuous circle of information on the pedophilia issue which gave a lot of fruits. Unfortunately, Meter is at risk of ceasing to exist due to a lack of funding.  It is however a beacon  and an example in the Catholic galaxy combating pedophilia. Why have stories like that of Meter not been featured, in order to change the narrative of the media mainstream?

One year after Benedict XVI’s resignation, pedophilia, gender theory, and above all shortcomings in Holy See communications remain front and center issues to contend with. Despite the hiring of several advisors oncommunications, the Church is still reacting to the big issues of the day, instead of being ahead introducing them in their right light.  This is the reason why the Church can be caught off guard in the debate. This was the case in 2006, when Benedict XVI delivered his famous lecture at Regensburg. From that starting point, Benedict XVI was able to start an unprecedented dialogue with Islam. It is now Pope Francis’ turn to build bridges of reason with a world always ready to attack the Church.

There has been some cross communications in the way that news about the illness of the new Secretary of State has been managed by the Vatican. Purportedly to respect the right to privacy, there has not been any medical updates about the health conditions of the Vatican’s No. 2. It was reported that a surgery had taken place that would be followed by a convalescing period, without describing the surgery or informing about the length of time for recuperation. If the goal of this approach was to avoid scaremongering and managing expectations, it failed. Unfortunately, Parolin will arrive in Rome with an aura of mystery about his illness.

Pietro Parolin will not face an easy task.

A pupil of Cardinal Agostino Casaroli and raised in Angelo Sodano’s Secretariat of State, Pietro Parolin has proven to be a skilled and talented diplomat. Thanks to his work, the Holy See was able to “unfreeze” the unofficial rapport with China (the Holy See and the People’s Republic of China have not established official diplomatic relations). The rapport with China fluctuated when Parolin was sent as papal nuncio to Venezuela and stopped looking after this issue.

In addition to his diplomatic skills, Parolin will have to govern a changing institution, i.e. the Secretariat of State. Almost nothing is known about the way the Secretariat of State will work under Pope Francis. The Pope, it seems, wants to delegate the management of general affairs to the Vatican City State administration. This would be the reason for the Pope’s enhancing the authority of the Vatican City State administration head, Cardinal Bertello, and entrusting Bertello’s deputy with the pastoral care of all the inhabitants of the small city-state on the Vatican hill.

So, Parolin should be only the chief of diplomacy, as was –in effect– Angelo Sodano as well. Now Dean of the College of Cardinals, Sodano is still very powerful inside the Vatican. At 86, he continues to meet nuncios and friends who are bishops (he promoted and appointed many of them in 13 years as Secretary of State) and he is still very influential, since many feel indebted to him. In fact, there are many people – Angelo Sodano included – who have never accepted that their world was turned upside-down by Benedict XVI.

Benedict XVI’s reform, as is Pope Francis’, was first of all a reform of attitudes more than of structure. Benedict did not touch the Vatican diplomatic corps. He worked to change the attitude and the work ethics of Vatican diplomacy and Vatican mentality in general. Benedict XVI did not just move aside the monsignors who narrowly focused on the bilateral relation (particularly with respect to financial issues) with Italy. What Benedict did was to give the Vatican a more international outlook and focus.

Unsurprisingly, this new outlook led many to lose privileges and influence. Looking back, some of Benedict’s appointees still came from those with the old, narrow mentality. For example, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, who became President of the Council of Superintendency of the Institute for Religious Works (the so-called Vatican bank). Gotti Tedeschi was more committed to Italian interests than to the Vatican’s.

In any case, step by step, a change of mentality worked its way through and was increasingly more evident and concrete. Benedict XVI’s Secretariat of State was to become a sort of central coordinating point for the Church, and this is exactly why the Pope wanted Canon Law expert Tarcisio Bertone as Secretary of State. Following Benedict’s suggestions and requests, Bertone initiated a twofold reform: more collegiality and coordination among departments; and a new diplomatic doctrine which placed less emphasis on reaching particular understandings (like on the issue of humanitarian intervention) and instead aimed at shedding light on the Church’s commitment to the common good.

Resistance to these reforms was predictable. Collegiality required everyone’s collaborating towards the common good. Even if just one person goes against it, the risk of failing is very high.

When Benedict XVI held the famous lectio magistralis in Regensburg, nobody from the Secretariat of State warned him about the diplomatic tension his words were likely to cause with the Muslim world.  The Secretariat of State said they never had a chance of reading the Regensburg speech before it was delivered, but this is not a justification, since it anyway failed the way the case was handled, also in the relationship with media. It was the last trip managed by Angelo Sodano. The scandal and the rage of so many Muslims served as a warning alarm about some of the internal dynamics at the Vatican. 

The same journalist whose inaccurate reporting and commenting of Benedict XVI’s words sparked the Regensburg controversy is now attempting to rehabilitate the image of Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, a man no longer a part of anything relating to the Vatican but who nevertheless continues to exert influence over Italian newspapers, thus grabbing international press headlines as well.

Benedict XVI’s times were not a good time for «the men of compromise.»  In reaction, their rapaciousness within the Church was pervasive. Benedict XVI and Bertone had to confront and overcome many problems: bad information on the Polish bishop Wielgus appointed as archbishop of Warsaw and the appointment of Gehrard Maria Wagner as auxiliary bishop of Linz in Austria (the first one resigned, the second one renounced to take his new post); a deeply flawed communications strategy on pedophilia which could not shield, for instance, Bertone or Benedict XVI from gay activists’ uproar over Bertone’s comments about sex abuse and homosexuality and over Benedict XVI words about the use of condom to prevent HIV in his way to Africa; and Vatileaks, a widespread practice of leaking documents throughout Benedict XVI’s pontificate.

When the Vatileaks investigation led to the arrest of one of the most prominent characters behind the leaks, the butler Paolo Gabriele, it also became evident that there were many other leaks, including from traditionalists once considered enthusiastic about Benedict XVI but who could not stand some of the Pope’s decisions, like appointing Gerhard Ludwig Mueller as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Nowadays, the situation is different. Nobody can speak about Pope Francis in bad terms. Critical opinions of Francis or his choices have no impact or echo in the media. Critical views of questionable decisions are dismissed as «rumors and gossiping.»  The rumors and gossiping that Francis has said – even to the Vatican  Gendarme Corps – that should be done away with.

In the meantime, Pope Francis is setting off his overhaul. For the time, just a “government reshuffling” fueling conjecture of a return of the diplomats to positions of responsibility and also to speculation about a so-called gay lobby that is said to be gaining terrain and power around Pope Francis. Is it true? If it is, was Pope Francis properly informed? If he was, why did he make these choices?

Some venture that Pope Francis choices are thorough and intentional. As Cardinal Bergoglio, he never had a great rapport with the diplomats, a time when Angelo Sodano headed the Secretariat of State. And he cannot bear any kind of lobby, as he has said repeatedly, including on his way back from Rio de Janeiro. Ultimately, placing his enemies around him may not be merely a way of applying the Gospel commandment of “love your enemy.” It is the personal commandment of a Pope who lived under a dictatorship and felt exiled: the commandment of “control your enemies.”

Now, it remains to be seen how much the enemies may be able to control the Pope.

Pietro Parolin arrives in Rome and is put in the midst of this controversial situation. He started his service in the most unlucky way, and he will have to watch out for the rapaciousness that constantly “bit and devoured” into Benedict XVI’s pontificate, and was often directed against Cardinal Bertone. Will Parolin be able to fend off particular attitudes and behaviors, of the kind that his predecessor had to endure and became a victim of?

It is an important question. After influencing the Conclave, the old guard hopes to influence the Pope and his Secretary of State. If it succeeds, it could represent a retrocession of 40 years or more  for the Vatican. Ultimately, a shepherd Pope does not bother anybody. But a Pope able to deliver the Church to the world, and not just through pastoral reasoning, risks upsetting all the balances. In the encyclical Populorum Progressio Paul VI lamented that «it must be admitted that men very often find themselves in a sad state because they do not give enough thought and consideration to these things,» regarding development.  It is a lament that today is also applicable to thought and consideration about the future of the Vatican and the Church.