Despiting the various analysis (that always deal with numbers and “geography” of the next conclave), there is another way to understand what the next consistory will be meaning. And this way is particularly indicative of what is the approach that Benedict XVI aims the Church to take.

Rumors about a new consistory had been circulating for long time. The last 5th of December, during a confidential meeting with some journalists, msgr. Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, cracked a joke when he had to leave the meeting before of its conclusion. «I am awaited – he said – in the Apostolic Palace. It is not because of my next creation as a cardinal». The consistory question had already come into play, and lists of the possible new cardinals had already begum to circulate.  Some of the most accredited insiders reported that there was a sort of bailouts for a red hat: or Fisichella made the cut, or msgr. Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.

It is during those days that someone secretly made pressures to move Coccopalmerio from the presidency of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts to the Apostolic Penitentiary. The head of Apostolic Penitentiary must be a cardinal, and so the promoted appointment could appear as a promotion. It was – on the contrary – a case of promoveatur ut amoveatur: Coccopalmerio’s move would have broken a post – the one as president of Pontifical Council for Legislative Text – that is considered a key-post for Curia’s balances.

At the beginning of December, there had been other important events to remark. It is the 60th anniversary of the International Organization of Migration, and Holy See marked the anniversary its way, becoming a a full member of the organization, and not just as a permanent observator (this status the Holy See keeps on at United Nations, Unesco, Fao, European Parliament). The I.O.M. was established in 1951, and bases its activities on the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits both migrants and society. It has 130 member States, and around 100 observers. In his address for the application by the Holy See for membership of the I.O.M.,  msgr. Silvano Tomasi – Holy See Permanent Observer at the U.N. office in Geneva – noticed that «the experience of Catholic agencies and association in Geneva and on the ground worldwide, for example the International Catholic Migration Commission and the many national Caritas organizations, is well established and extensive». And he concluded: «The participation of the Holy See as a Member of the I.O.M. is a commitment to collaboration and support in the common search of solutions and assistance to people caught up in this mayor phenomenon of our globalized world».

By becoming a full member of the I.O.M., Holy See increased its diplomatic impact. The decisions is a message sent to the ones who try to undermine Holy See diplomacy from the inside. Rumors from diplomatic environments said that there is the intention to let some lay take important charges in Vatican Diplomatic Corps. Pontifical Legates must be priests, because they represent the Pope. This rule is valid only for Papal nuncios. Papal nuncios are the Pope’s ambassador, but at the same time they work as bishops. They weigh up candidates for episcopate in the countries in which they are nuncios, they speak to Episcopal conferences, and  they also have relationships with governments. On the other hand, nuncios who are appointed as permanent observer  just have in charge to maintain relationships among Holy See and States. Appointing lay people as permanent observers would not be out of Canon Law.

It is a subtle attack, moved from the inside, and it is also made through the requests made by advisors of European Union to enroll the Holy See in the «White List», the list of states most active in preventing and fighting the financial crimes.

On December 16th, the message for the World Day of Peace is presented in the Holy See Press Office. An insider of the Vatican Secretary of State defined the text a «more or less a high school homework». It is certain that the message does not follow the sketch outlined from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, and this is fairly understood during the press conference: card. Peter Turkson and mons. Mario Toso – number one and two of the Pontifical Council for Justice and peace – reveal the guidelines of international law and social doctrine of the Church that are just to be foreseen in the official text. It is the last part of a strain between the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and the Vatican Secretary of State – the climax of this strain was when the Pontifical Council published the document titled «Towards reforming the international financial and monetary system in the context of global public authority».

During these days, the list of the to-be-created cardinals is definitely sketched out. The line is fair. Rino Fisichella will not be a cardinal, and the note of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith on the year of faith – released on January, 7th, but announced on January, 5th – is interpreted as a sort of diminishment of Fisichella, even if he has the important charge to manage the Synod for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, that will open the Year of Faith. On the other hand, Francesco Coccopalmerio is created cardinal. But there is not promoveatur ut amoveatur for him: he keeps his post at the Pontifical Council for the Legislative Texts.

Why Coccopalmerio made the cut? The roots cause can be seen in a speech held by Benedict XVI  in 2008. The Pope spoke to participants in the Study Congress organized by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law. He quoted Antonio Rosmini: «The human person is the essence of law». And he said: «The ius ecclesiae is not only a body of norms formulated by the Ecclesial Legislator for this special people who form the Church of Christ. It is, in the first place, the authoritative declaration on the part of the Ecclesial Legislator of the duties and rights that are based in the sacraments and are therefore born from the institution by Christ himself».

On one hand, Benedict XVI goes on with the «turning back to God» project, announced and proclaimed during the last trip in Germany, that is intended to be completed with the year of Faith. On the other hand, Benedict XVI feels the need to look back to the law, both canon and international law.

In fact, Benedict XVI – in the  letter to the Catholics of Ireland –  wrote that  «the program of renewal proposed by the Second Vatican Council was sometimes misinterpreted and indeed, in the light of the profound social changes that were taking place, it was far from easy to know how best to implement it. In particular, there was a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situations». It was 2010.

It is also in the direction of giving more importance to law that msgr. Antonio Maria Vegliò, president of the Pontifical Council for Migrants, gained the berretta rossa. A highly experienced diplomat, Vegliò also got a doctorate in canon law. His appointment did not surprised as much, because it  fulfills Ratzinger’s requirements: since Holy See joined the International Organization of Migrants, a cardinal can increase the juridical impact of its diplomatic corp. The idea is to get back to the solidity of the international law, and at the same time to leave behind the fickleness of diplomacy.

And right before the announcement of the Consistory, during the Mass of the Epiphany, Benedict XVI made an important Episcopal ordination: the one of Charles J. Brown, a non-diplomat – he served until now in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – recently appointed as Papal nuncio to Ireland, to «fix» the difficult situation the Church of Ireland is living after the clergy abuse scandal. The appointment of Brown  is also a response to the choice of Irish government to close its embassy to the Holy See and to continue relations through an ambassador based in Dublin. Such a «calm and collected» response to Ireland – Thomas P. Melady, who served as U.S. ambassador to the Holy See during the administration of George H. W. Bush, said to Catholic News Service – thus reflects not only pastoral concern but also the «maturity of Vatican diplomacy».

This maturity, Benedict XVI aims to enforce. The list of the to-be-created cardinals increases the impact of Italian cardinals, and of Western Church in General, in the College of Cardinals. But, at the same time, the choices of Benedict XVI let understand what is his position: the Church needs to find its identity again, and its identity is also made of the ius ecclesiae. Turning back to law, to turn back to God: this is Benedict XVI project.

In fact, there are several reasons why not to even talk about the appeal. The prominent one is that the International Criminal Court will not incriminate the Pope nor anyone of the cardinals. The guilt of a crime is personal, and the definition does not include the resistance to the idea of being subject in the laws of other governmental authorities. This is the reason why Cuno Tafusser, one of the judges of the International Criminal Court, said that «the path to incriminate  Vatican officials is a very narrow one».

Actually, the lawyers that appealed to the International Court knew very well that their request would remain unattended. But Snap and Ccr seem to believe that something will change after their appeal: they filled a 20 thousand pages dossier, outlining clergy abuses all over the world. By appealing to the International Criminal Court, they carried out the idea of Jeff Anderson, the Minnesota lawyer who’s made a career of suing the Vatican over its handling of clergy sex abuses cases. His first case involving the Catholic Church involved Father Thomas Adamson, a Minnesota priest who was accused of molesting several boys in the 1970s and 80s: it was 1983, almost two decades before the sex abuse crisis would erupt in Boston. Since that first case, Anderson has represented thousands of victims across the country, including creditors in several Church bankrupies. He has never agreed to a confidentiality close. And he never discussed for a compensation, except to say that contingencies range from 25 per cent to 40 per cent of judgements. Anderson’s firm – Jeff Anderson and Associates, which employs four other lawyers – has filed hundreds of sex abuse suits against the church. Though he will not disclose how much he has won in settlements, Anderson is thought to be responsible for a good chunk of the roughly $2.5 billion that, according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the U.S. Catholic Church has paid to sex abuse victims to date. He was among the lawyers representing abuse victims in the $600 million settlement with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles in 2007, the church’s largest payout ever. Actually, suing the Catholic Church is a very lucrative business, despiting what Anderson says. «It is not for money», he once declared to Associated Press.

Actually, Anderson know how to work to give their sues the most exposure he can. Anderson was the one who turned the Us Supreme Court the request for the testimony of the Pope in the case John Doe vs. Holy See. Can the Pope, the cardinals, the high representants of the Holy See be called to testify in a trial or be incriminated? Us Supreme Court declined to take the case. Anderson and his supporters proclaimed their victory. In fact, the Court did not take the case because of a juridical evaluation: according to the Act of State doctrine Joseph Ratzinger could not be accused nor called to testimony, because – at the time of the facts – he was acting as a Vatican minister, and no one can be judged for an Act of State. By not taking the case, the Court just letted know that there was no reason nor convenience to make an official pronouncement, since the trial would not eventually be carried out.

The International Criminal Court will probably take a similar decision. Yet the appeal had a huge international interest. And this brought great exposure to Snap and Ccr.  Snap is a non profit association, and it raises via direct mail, telemarketing, special events and Internet appeals something like 600 thousands dollar a year. But the majority of the earning comes from the percentage of the compensations got by suing archdiocese, the Vatican and so on. This is the mechanism: the Snap bring the victim to the lawyer, and they share what they get from the compensation. The Bbb, a rating agency that filled the Standards for Charity Accountability, did not even consider Snap a charity, because it «does not approve the organization budget, has not an approved conflict of interest policy, has not a voting member of the board who is assigned the responsabilità of serving as a the treasurer». In a word, there no way to understand where does the Snap gets money and how it manage it.

More. Some of the victims – for example Michael Baumann and Key Ebeling – abandoned the association. Steve Taylor, one of the most prominent contributors of Snap, had been arrested in 2008 because for attemted possession of more than one hundred child pornographic pictures. Barbara Blaine, the president of the Snap, wrote several letters to defend Taylor, asking the judges to turn a blind eye and focus on the work Taylor had precedently done.

Ccr – on the other hand – is a very active and rich associations. More than 1050 foundations – among the ones the Ford Foundation and the billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Institute – give grants for about 6 million and 200 thousand dollars. It also gets about 370 thousand dollars from Court Awards and attorney fees. Ccr had been founded in the 60s from leftist radicals  like Arthur Kinoy and William Kunstler, and took the defense of the member of the Us terroristic organization Black Panther. Most of their activity dealt with Middle East issues (they are known as wild anti-zionists), but now they decided to make a run on the lucrative case of the clergy abuses.

Oile Lautsi, a Finnish naturalized Italian, mother of two children, began with his husband a battle to remove the crucifix from the classrooms her two sons were attending. Her request of removal was rejected by the School Governor, then from the Consiglio di Stato and finally from the Corte di Cassazione, the last degree of judgement in Italy. Oile Lautsi then appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. The first verdict was favorable to Oile Lautsi. But Italian State appealed to the Great Chamber, and the verdict was against Oile Lautsi requests. Crucifixes will remain on the wall of Italian classrooms.

Is this just an Italian case? Not at all. This judiciary case need to be read on the basis of the principle of so-called positive laity and laicism. Positive laity is intended in order to defend the freedom of everyone in living his own religion. Laicisim believes in a lay State as a unique and supreme principle. This latter view seems to be most developed in Europe. It is one of the fruits of secularization. Religion is «confined» in the big field of the «expressions» of a human being. So religious freedom is going to be considered the same as the freedom of expression. Even the Grand Chambre verdict can yet be a «boomerang».

Some Vatican insider don’t hesitate to define Italian State defense at least misguiding. And even Joseph Weiler – expert in international law, Jewish and teacher of Hebraism at New York University, one of the lawyers intervened in the trial as a consultant of the eight countries that associated to Italy in his appeal – criticized the defensive strategy of Italy long time ago. «I did not like – Weiler said – at a first impression, the defensive strategy of the Italian government, which tried to present the crucifix as a symbol that transcends its religious origins and that has a lay meaning. We can surely follow this argument for other hypothesis, as for example The Red Cross, but it is not an appropriate argument on which found a defense strategy in this case».

Reading the verdict, one can argue that Weiler argumentation was right. «A European court – the Great Chamber stated – should not be called upon to bankrupt centuries of European tradition. No court, certainly not this Court, should rob the Italians of part of their cultural personality». Anyway, tradition can always change. A religion considered as a tradition and defined a «cultural fact» would be of no value in the future. Nobody can contest or change the verdict of the Great Chamber. But this verdict could be undermined by new verdicts on new trials.

Given this defense strategy, many can rightly criticize Catholic Church. For example, the Italian section of the International “left” Catholic organization We are Church, defined «unacceptable – and this was the Italian Episcopal Conference argument – asserting that the refusal of the crucifix in public spaces (schools, courts, hospitals…) would mean relegating Christians and Christianity in the private. It is common known that Christians, maybe more today than in the past, have an adequate weight in the public opinion, especially in Italy».

Why did Italy decide to bring on this defensive strategy? And why did Holy See – even it was not formally a party to the case – strongly supported the position taken by Italy?

The problem is to be put in a wider perspective. Just think of the defense strategy brought on by Jeffrey Lena, lawyer of the Holy See in the Us, in the John Doe vs. Holy See case. Can the Pope, the cardinals, the high representants of the Holy See be called to testify in a trial or be incriminated? Us Supreme Court declined to take the case. Jeffrey Lena explained that the Court accepted Holy See defense argument, according to the one Holy See cannot be compared to any other corporation in which the “boss” is responsible for the actions of his subordinates. In fact, there was a more simple issue to point out: the Supreme Court declined the case on the basis of a principle of «economicity of justice»: there is no need to make a statement when the statement would be useless.

In fact, Lena later explained better is point of view in an interview to National Catholic Register, where he explained that «this was not a decision in favor of the plaintiff or against the Holy See. It was simply a determination that the time was not right to have the case heard by the Supreme Court. It is really not appropriate and indeed misleading, in my opinion, to view the actions of justices as “pro-Catholic” or “anti-Catholic” based on such decisions.  I have every confidence that the justices are simply making decisions based upon what cases are appropriate for them to take at this point in time.  Much too much is made of the religious composition of the court. It seems to me unseemly for Catholics to celebrate or depend upon the Catholic composition of the court, just as it would be unseemly for Protestants to do so».

Why did not the Holy See explain fairly this issue, instead of facing public opinion by underlining topics of little interest for the common people?

The matter, for the Catholic Church, is always more in depth, and deals with the skill of instructing and teaching to its priest and officials, and this lack of skilled officials bring to the choice of unskilled attorneys, teachers and so on. The true problem is not the clerlicalism of the world, but clergy secularism. The same clergy  that was not able to underline that – as a Vatican observer put it – «not only the crucifix would not be toggled from the walls, but the religious symbols on the wall would be multiplied». Because religious dimension is an important and in-depth part of human being. As the Pope wrote in the last message for the World Day of Peace, «the patrimony of principles and values expressed by an authentic religiosity is a source of enrichment for peoples and their ethos. It speaks directly to the conscience and mind of men and women, it recalls the need for moral conversion, and it encourages the practice of the virtues and a loving approach to others as brothers and sisters, as members of the larger human family».