It was basing on this same worry that the Pope made of ecumenism one of the main Pontificate’s leit-motivs. His experience of almost thirty years of guidance of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the continuous divisions he had to face brought him to a reflection. That is that the divide among Christians is a scandal, as he repeatedly said. And that reaching for the unity of Christians, operating for the reconciliations among the several Christians groups – may they be traditionalists, protestants, evangelical -  is part of the program he outlined in his first Pontifical Mass. The program of not having a legislative program, but of following the will of God.

Unreal criticism on Papal ecumenism

«To work tirelessly to rebuild the full and visible unity of all Christ’s followers». This is the «impelling duty» of the successor of Peter. Already in the first Message after his election to the Papal Throne, Pope Benedict XVI spoke these programmatic words. The cause of ecumenism has always been central in this pontificate. Benedict XVI often referred to the necessary «purification of the memory» and see «inner conversion» as the indispensable premise for progress on the ecumenical journey. And he always exercised ecumenical primacy in his many meetings with  representatives of other Churches and Christian communities.

The ecumenism of Benedict XVI is not one of negotiation, of reciprocal concessions of sovereignty, of the watering down of doctrine, for the sake of creating a structure acceptable to all. It is simply meant to revive fidelity to the roots of the mission of Christians in the world, as intended by Jesus Christ. It is meant to create unity on the basis of this fidelity.

Already as a theologian and a cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger worked very hard to ensure that the ecumenical dialogue made headway and enriched it with useful theological reflections. His ecumenical action is expressed more clearly and deeply in his interpretation of the priestly prayer of Jesus, that all may be one, of which the Pope speaks in part two of his book on Jesus of Nazareth.

Anglicans

Among the many criticisms aimed at Benedict XVI, the one of ditching ecumenism no longer holds up, especially after his celebration of Vespers together with the archbishop of Canterbury and primate of the Anglican Communion, Rowan Williams, on the evening of March 10 in the Roman monastery of San Gregorio al Celio.

With the Anglican Communion, the rapprochement that has been seen since Joseph Ratzinger became Pope is in some ways incredible. In the autumn of 2009, Benedict XVI promulgated an apostolic constitution, Anglicanorum Cœtibus to normalize the entrance into the Catholic Church of entire communities of faithful coming from Anglicanism, with their bishops and priests.

Some progressive Catholic currents condemned the initiative as a gravely anti-ecumenical act: that is, as a restoration of the ideology of the «great return» and as the intention of the Catholic Church to «expand its empire» by ripping away portions of rival Churches. But in the Anglican camp, the initiative did not provoke too much rejection.

The announcement of Anglicanorum Cœtibus was made simultaneously from Rome and London, here through the initiative of Anglican primate Williams himself, although he had not been part of the preparation of the document.

This was followed by the entry into the Church of Rome of thousands of faithful and dozens of priests and bishops, accommodated in special “ordinariates”, two of them so far, the first in Great Britain and the second in the United States.

Lefevbrists

Benedict XVI made of his pontificate a pontificate of unity, trying to repair the divides within the Church. One example: the Priest Fraternity of Saint Pius X’s case. Even the criticism aimed at the Pope of putting the embrace with the Lefebvrists in front of dialogue with the other Christian confessions can no more hold up.  Even because the facts say the opposite. The Catholic traditionalist Lefebvre founded the SSPX in 1969 in answer to the reforms pushed through by the Second Vatican Council. The group has grown to include tens of thousands of followers and hundreds of priests — a «painful wound in the body of the church» Benedict XVI  said.

Ratzinger took care of Marcel Lefevbre and his followers since the 80s. In 1988, it seemed that the solution was up to come. After a cardinal Edouard Gagnon’s visit to Ecône  - where the headquarter of SSPX is – on April, 8th 1988, in a letter addressed to the then cardinal Ratzinger designed a proposal to let the SSPX get a regular collocation in the Church. This proposal dealt with an agreement – to be signed in May 1988 – about the Liturgical Books approved in 1962 and with the constitution of SSPX in «Society of Apostolic Life». In exchange. Marcel Lefevbre assured his obedience to the Pope and his acceptance of Second Vatican Council, thus acknowledging the validity of the new rites of the Mass.

The breach anyway occurred. Lefevbre was not authorized for an episcopal ordination – he wanted to ordain a new bishop that was intended to be his successor in SSPX (and this one was Fellay, that is now effectively the leader of SSPX) – and so he backtracked and decided to ordain four bishops without the permission of Rome. The ordination had been fixed for June, 29th 1988. To prevent the illicit ordination, in June, 24 1988 John Paul II gave his permission for the ordination. It was not sufficient. The 15th of August, Lefevbre wrote in a letter that he did not need just one, but three bishops. The breach was unavoidable.

From then on, an important debate took place, until the revoke of the excommunication to bishops ordained without the Papal permission. It was since June 2008 that Lefevbrist asked for the revoke of the excommunication. Lefevbrist said in exchange that they would respond to the proposals of Benedict XVI to bring the SSPX into a new communion with Rome. In 2007, Pope also gave the opportunity to celebrate the Holy Mass according to the rite of 1962. And now that we reached 2012, the Pope made SSPX an offer they could not refuse: a personal prelature, with the agreement that they would accept the Second Vatican Council and the Papal authority. The answer did not come, and all the SSPX statements have been interlocutory and nothing let think about a rapprochment.

All the efforts have been done. Yet, the internal divisions inside the same Fraternity and the waywardness for claiming to always be on the right track incredibly brought to keep the breach, nevertheless the Papal efforts.

Schuelerkreis

«The ambition for the unity of Christians is in the first place a spiritual reality, and this is the reason why its heart is the spiritual ecumenism». It was 2009, and Walter Kasper was still president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the Unity of Christians. «Spiritual ecumenism» had long become is watchword. More than looking at the documents and at the big ecumenical meetings, Kasper had come to look at what was built from the bottom up: he looked at the ecumenical networks born from communities and ecclesial movements, and it compared it to a sort of «back to the origins» ecumenism. In fact, originally ecumenism was brought on by small groups of dialogue, prayer and biblical studies. «Next to (the increasingly difficult) official dialogue, new promising forms of dialogue are arising», Kasper said.

That also Benedict XVI thinks that ecumenism must come from the prayer was immediately acknowledged in Koln. The Pope went to Koln in 2005 – it was his first Papal trip – for the World Youth Day. In his August 19 address to the representatives of the Protestant and Orthodox Churches, the Pope on number of occasion raised his eyes from the text and improvised, adding the words to the official text. In one of these «off the cuff» passages, the Pope maintained that  «now, it is said that following the clarification regarding the doctrine of justification, the elaboration of ecclesiological issues and the questions concerning ministry are the main obstacles still to be overcome. In short, this is true, but I must also say that I dislike this terminology, which from a certain point of view delimits the problem since it seems that we must now debate about institutions instead of the Word of God, as though we had to place our institutions in the centre and fight for them. I think that in this way the ecclesiological issue as well as that of the “ministerium” are not dealt with correctly. The real question is the presence of the Word in the world».

Benedict XVI reprised these issues in his last trip to Germany, in September 2011. In Erfurt – where Martin Luther studied as a Catholic and decided to be an Augustinian monk – many awaited an “ecumenical gift”, and many auspicated that this gift was the revoke of the Luther’s excommunication. The Pope responded to these expectations by explaining that the idea itself of the “ecumenical gifts” is part of a wrong idea of Church, because – the Pope said – «this is a political misunderstanding of faith and ecumenism». «The faith of Christians does not rest on such a weighing of benefits and drawbacks. A self-made faith is worthless. Faith is not something we work out intellectually and negotiate between us. It is the foundation for our lives. Unity grows not by the weighing of benefits and drawbacks but only by entering ever more deeply into the faith in our thoughts and in our lives». In the end, the gift Benedict XVI carried at Erfurt was that of living the Martin Luther’s most intense question:  «How do I receive the grace of God?» And he remembered that Catholics and Lutherans are less divided that what they think, that the «confessional» era has come to an end, that Christians must know how to be missionaries, that no one must ever forget that there is evil, since minimizing the evil «is not a foolishness»: it unavoidably brings man to the loss of himself and of his life.

Basing on prayer, Catholics and Lutherans seem to be closest than what they appear. As close as the 80 stairs that divide the Cathedral from the Saint Severe Church in Erfurt. In Germany, ecumenism is a topical issue. No surprise that just one of this year Schuelerkreis’ rapporteur does not come from Germany.

The teachers of Professor Ratzinger

Let’s give a glance to the teacher of ecumenism of professor Ratzinger. The «hidden» rapporteur of the 3 days meeting had obviously been card. Walter Kasper. At the beginning of 2007, Walter Kasper – then president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the Unity of Christians – projected with the officials of the Vatican dicastery he leaded to collect and present the results of the official dialogue with the Catholic Church and the historical protestant Churches: Lutherans and Reformed, Anglicans and Methodist. This collection was aimed to show to a new generation the fruits of 40 years of dialogue, comparing what had been realized. The project brought to the drafting of the book Harvesting the fruits. Basic aspects of Christian faith in ecumenical dialogue.. This book was the reference book for the Schuelerkreis. The book provided a scenario of the past, in order to acknowledge the great achievements of the ecumenical dialogue so that the new generation of ecumenist will not start from scratch. On the other hand, the book also provided a scenario of the future: true, «exhaustion and disillusionments» spread, and the post-Council enthusiasms seem to be far way; but it is also true that many things changed. Kasper wrote: «Sometimes partners are not the same anymore, and are very diverse by the one we met during and after the Second Vatican Council. There are internal breaches, new issues in the ethic, problems that were unknown in the past. There had been changes in the Catholic Church, as well, and sometimes our documents are difficultly acceptable for our partners».

Theodor Dieter – since 1997 president of the Institute for Ecumenical Research in Strasbourg – talked about the relationship among the ecumenical partners. «I became strictly speaking an ecumenist – he recounts – when I was called to teach to the Institute for Ecumenical Research». In fact, he thread a long path to get there: educated as a strong Lutheran, Dieter always searched for a new way to tell theology, and he found his way reading the fathers of the Church and medieval theologians. Joseph Ratzinger thread a similar path on Catholic perspective, and this lead him to develop a dialogical methodology.

In ecumenism, the studies on the New Testament are basical. In his book Jesus of Nazareth. From the entrance in Jerusalem to the Resurrection, Benedict XVI often quoted the protestant bishop Ulrich Wilckens, whose Theology of the New Testament was a «reference book» for the Papal work. Wilckens presented to Schuelerkreis his studies on the New Testament, that are of great importance for the ecumenical dialogue.

Charles Morerod championed for years ecumenical dialogue. Now, Morerod, Dominican, is bishop of Lausanne, Geneve and Freiburg. In the past, he was part of several ecumenical tables. In an interview to 30 Giorni, Morerod explained that the problem of the Papal infallibility – topical for the Orthodox Church – comes from the fact that «faith is never the result of a poll with a prevailing majority», and that «fair and understandable statements on this issue have been written in the document for the gift of the authority, drafted from the Commission for the Dialogue among Catholics and Anglican» in 1998. That document states that «any solemn sentence pronounced from the chair of Peter in the Church of Peter and Paul can only express faith in the Church». The document also acknowledge that «bishop of Rome, in peculiar circumstances, has the duty to discern and make explicit the faith of the baptized in Communion, and only this», and that the specifical Petrine ministry of universal primate is a «gift» that all Church should accept.

An ecumenical protagonist: the Orthodox Patriarch Kirill

The Orthodox Church often focuses on the issue of the Papal infallibilty. It is not a case that the Orthodox Patriarch Kirill has often spoke of the need of a «practical ecumenism», i.e. an alliance of religions to face – putting aside the doctrinal aspect – the new challenges coming from the social and political changes of this century  imbued by religious indifference and the progressive secularizing trends. This «practical ecumenism» brought the Patriarch – who was one of the contributors of the Basis of the Social Concepts of the Orthodox Church – to ask the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace for a copy of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

Long since a meeting between Benedict XVI and Patriarch Kirill is on agenda. Yet when Alexy II was patriarch, the relationship between Catholics and Orthodox have become less cold thanks to John Paul II, who gifted the Moscow Patriarchate with the icon of the Virgin of Kazan. This made possible that almost all the Orthodox Patriarchates assisted to John Paul II’s funeral and to Benedict XVI’s enthronement, Moscow Patriarchate included: it was an unprecedented fact in the history of the Church. Ever since Kirill became the Patriarch of Moscow – elected with a surprising majority at the synod – the openings of the Orthodox Church toward the Catholic Roman Church increased.

Notwithstanding no representative of the Russian Patriarchate assisted to the ecumenical meeting in Ravenna – because of a polemic with the Costantinople patriarchate – the document on the universal role of the bishop of Rome was then approved also by Moscow. In the Ravenna’s document, the Pope was defined the protos  (first) of Patriarchs, yet they did not agree on how this Papal «primate» had to be practiced. Patriarch Kirill promoted a translation in Russian of the book «Europe, Spiritual Homeland», a collection of Benedict XVI’s speeches about Europe.

The steps forward are undeniable. Kirill himself – meeting the Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti in Mosca – wanted to underline that the relationships with Rome improved. Yet, the official meeting between the Pope and the Patriarch have still not taken place.

An ideal, neutral place for the meeting – it was thought – was Croatia, and the occasion could have been the short Benedict XVI’s trip to Croatia in 2011. Bari was also took in consideration for the meeting – the Southern Italy town’s patron is Saint Nicklaus, who came from Myra, Turkey. Now, Finland is running for hosting the meeting. In June, Kirill met in Moscow three Christian Finnish leaders: the archbishop Leo of the Autonomous Orthodox Church; the Luther archbishop Kari Makinen; the Catholic Bishop of Helsinki Teemu Sippo. These latter invited the patriarch for an official visit in Finland, and they are confident that the Patriarch will accept the invitation. After this meeting, the three went to Rome to celebrate the 70^th anniversary of the diplomatic relations between Holy See and Finland, and there they launched the idea of a possible «meeting», or even of a «joint» visit of Kirill and Benedict XVI to Finland. These are just hypothesis.

On the other hand, within the Orthodox Church there is an anti-Kirill branch that bases its opposition on Kirill’s effort for ecumenism, and this is the real reason why an ecumenical meeting with Rome has not yet been organized – Kirill already met three times Benedict XVI in the Vatican (from 2005 to 2007), when he was president of the Department for external relations of the Moscow Patriarchate. Even Kirill predecessor, Alexy II, had to face an anti-ecumenical branch in Russia: in 1994 Alexy II was even requested by some conservatives members of the Moscow Patriarchate to retire from all the ecumenical organization.

Reconciliation with the Polish Church. A first step

 Kirill is undoubtedly heading toward ecumenism. The last July, 15, he went to Katyn, where Soviet NKVD killed 20,000 officials and members of the cultural-political Polish élite. For years, the bloodshed was credited to Nazis. In Kathyn, Kirill consecrated the new orthodox Church dedicated to the Resurrection of Christ. The image of Our Lady of Czestochowa – that the Polish Catholic bishops gifted to Kirill – will stand upon one of the lateral altars.

Kirill got the image in Poland, where he went in August, 17-19. During the visit, Kirill and Josef Michailik – president of the Polish Bishops’ Conference – signed a document titled «Joint message to the people of Russia and Poland». They worked on the text for two years. In the text, Polish Catholics and Russian Orthodox appeals to «forgiveness, reconciliation and dialogue» in order to heal the wounds of the past and embark on «the way of spiritual and material removal». In the end of the text there is the acclamation to Christ Resurrected «hope for our Churches and for the whole world» and the request for the protection of Mary – to whom Russian and Polish are both very devout – for the great work of reconciliation and approaching «of our Church and our nations».

To forgive, not to forget. Knowing the past – the document states – can so help to discover «the full truth». There is the need – Pawel Przeciszewski, an historical of international relations, maintained – a fair-minded telling of the conflicts between Orthodox and Catholics in Poland (whose borders, in 16^th century, went from Baltic Sea to Black Sea), to be written by representatives of all the people that lived there: Polish, Ukrainians, Latvians, Russians, and many others.

Lutheran and Catholics, a reciprocal mea culpa?

Benedict XVI often made reference to the purification of memory. He talked about it even during the last Schuelerkreis. Among the ideas brainstormed by Ratzinger’s pupils during the three days of meetings – padre Stephan Horn, salvatorian, president of the Students Association, told – there was also the one of a reciprocal mea culpa with Lutheran. The Pope – father Horn explained – «always had in mind that there was the need for a purification of memory». In the homily at the Schuelerkreis final Mass is also inspired by the Benedict XVI’s trips. The Pope talked about this year’s trip in the introduction of the Schuelerkreis. «This years – Stephan Horn says – the Pope was stroke from the joy of faith he found in Benin, as well as in Mexico. Maybe in Cuba society cannot show so freely what they feel. This joy of faith raise great joy in the Holy Father. Who was also very happy for the meeting he had with families in Milan» during the International Families Meeting.

Joy of the faith comes from joy of the law

Benedict XVI’s homily begins with «the joy of the law» – described in the Deuteronomy. A law – he said – « not as a constraint, as something that takes from us our freedom, but as a present and a gift». The Isreal’s law, in fact, comes from God. And – the Pope says – «This is the humble joy of Israel: to receive a gift from God. This is different from triumphalism, from the pride that comes from ourselves: Israel is not proud of her law like Rome may have been of the Roman Law that it gave to humanity, perhaps like France of the Napoleonic Code, like Prussia of the “Preussisches Landrecht”, etc. — legislation we all recognize. But Israel knows: this law was not made by her, it was not the fruit of her genius, it was a gift». The Pope follows: «God showed Israel what is law. God gave Israel wisdom. Wisdom is the art of being human, the art of being able to live well and of being able to die well. And one can live and die well only when the truth has been received and shows us the way: to be grateful for the gift that we did not invent, but that we were given, and to live in wisdom; to learn, thanks to the gift of God, how to be human in the right way».

What is the essential core of law in the Church, i.e. – according to Papal words – «Israel become universal». «This nucleus – the Pope explained –  is simply Christ himself, the love of God for us and our love for him and for all men. He is the living Torah, God’s gift to us, in whom we now receive all the wisdom of God» . And so «joy and gratitude» for reaching the wisdom of good should «for the fact that we can know that we have received the wisdom to live well, that it is what should distinguish the Christian. In fact, in early Christianity it was like this: being free from the shadow of groping along in ignorance — what am I? why am I? how should I move forward? — being made free, being in the light, in the fullness of the truth. This was the fundamental awareness. A gratitude that radiated around and united people in the Church of Jesus Christ».

Nowadays, Church seems to look more at what comes from man than at what comes from God. The Pope says: «I think that we are precisely at that impasse in which we see in the Church only what we ourselves have made, and our joy in the faith is marred; that we no longer believe and no longer dare to say: he has shown us who the truth is, what the truth is; he has shown us what man is; he has given us the law for an upright life. We are concerned only with praising ourselves and we fear being bound by rules that hinder our freedom and the newness of life».

This is a fundamental topic of Ratzinger’s Pontificate. During the last trip to Germany, the Pope – who went there «to speak about God» – even auspicated a less wordly Church in order to turn back to the joy for the true faith.

The Pope warns: « I think that we need to learn anew about “not-having-the-truth”. Just as no one can say: I have children — they are not our possession, they are a gift, and as a gift from God, they are given to us as a responsibility — so we cannot say: I have the truth, but the truth came to us and impels us». It is the reverse. Christ was made man, and so «we must learn to be moved and led by it. And then it will shine again: if the truth itself leads us and penetrates us».

Was releasing the 35 pages of the Vatican Court documents on Vatileaks in their entirety really necessary? Instinctively, one should say yes. Benedict XVI wants full transparency, with no shortfalls. The Pope has completely changed the way the Church speaks. He has focused everything – diplomacy included – on the Truth. Before, the Holy See used to whisper, and everybody was expected to sort out what was meant. Journalists –unacquainted with the subtle language of the Vatican, and unable to understand the dynamics of developments within the Sacred Walls – had to build trust relationships with inside sources, and what was published on the media was the result of these relationships. Not many official documents or press previews were provided. When they were, these official documents – for example, the balance sheet of the Prefecture for Economic Affairs – were explained in detailed press conferences.

Nowadays, the Holy See has embarked in a completely different path. Facing a sort of internal, self-destructive cannibalism that reveals itself in controversies and opposition to a Pope the «old guard» never wanted – for example, like it happened following the revoke of the excommunication of four Lefevbrist bishops – the Pope’s approach is to shed light on the truth. This approach may create some uneasiness. To institutionally present the facts as they stand opens the way to constructive comment. If before the Holy See whispered, today the Holy See – when necessary – clearly states what is that is really going on.

During these past months, there had been several examples that marked this change in the Vatican communication strategy: the publication – leaked institutionally to the prominent Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera – of the memorandum of the no confidence vote on Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, former president of the IOR Council of Superintendence; the almost daily briefings after Paolo Gabriele’s arrest held by the director of the Holy See Press Office, Father Federico Lombardi; and finally the publication of the decision to bring to trial Paolo Gabriele and Claudio Sciarpelletti.

This commitment to transparency does not seem to be complemented by a proper communication strategy. News tend to take a life of their own, supported by new revelations (if any) or by indiscretions. That the media can be biased in presenting the facts is to be expected, and – when possible – avoided. This has not been the case. Regarding the no confidence vote on Gotti Tedeschi, the «narrative» of the former IOR president is still alive and subscribed by the media, because the Holy See did not complement the publication of the memorandum with a solid and effective press briefing. The same «mistake» concerned the San Raffaele issue, i.e. the attempt to save from bankruptcy the hospital founded by Fr. Verzé. To date, public opinion does not understand why the Holy See would want to rescue this non-Catholic institution.  Few remember that the Holy See offer to buy the hospital was launched «hoping» to raise others’ interest in submitting even better offers. Under pressure from within – especially from the former IOR President Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, who now claims to be the only one who was against intervening to save the San Raffaele – the Vatican Secretariat of State considered the matter and made an offer in order to preserve this health facility, hoping and waiting for someone else to step in with a bigger offer.

Perhaps, one of the first signs of Greg Burke’s approach was the note – with pictures – published in L’Osservatore Romano, the Holy See daily, of a meeting the Pope held in his summer residence of Castel Gandolfo with the three members of the cardinal commission, cardinals Herranz, Tomko, and De Giorgi;  the magistrates of the Vatican tribunal; the deputy Secretary of State, Msgr. Angelo Becciu; and Georg Gaenswein, the Pope’s private secretary. These kind of meetings were once kept secret, or at least held discreetly. This transparency can be polluted with speculation on the presence/absence of some members of the Curia.  Cardinal Bertone, Secretary of State, was out of Rome on holidays, but his absence at the meeting was interpreted as prove that he is going to resign.

The same kind of mistake took place when the judicial proceedings documentation on Paolo Gabriele was published.

What is the image projected by the 35 pages of the indictment and the legal proceedings? First of all, Georg Gaenswein, private secretary of the Pope, seems to be the only party to blame, at the very least for naiveté. Being the only witness whose name appears in the documentation, Gaenswein does affirm that Paolo Gabriele was a mere executor of orders, a man who «needed to be told the same instructions twice», with no spirit of initiative. But Gaenswein also maintains that he felt he could trust Gabriele enough to give him some correspondence to deliver. Nothing strange in a small place like the Vatican, where everyone trusts everybody. But someone might malign: why is the Pope, undoubtedly an important person, surrounded by foolish and deceitful people? How are these collaborators chosen? And how was it that the Pope’s secretary failed to filter them out, and did not see Paolo Gabriele for whom he really is? These questions needed an answer, but they remained unanswered, wide open to the interpretation of journalists. There is another question: is there anyone who does not want to see Gaenswein defended and protected? And why?

There can be several answers, considering the various red herrings brought on by the media. But the 35 pages also provide another element to distort the scenario: the several omissis contained in the documentation – the names of witnesses are substituted with a capital letter which presumably is not a real initial. Father Lombardi said that it is easy to figure out who are the witnesses. For example, it would be easy to see when the Memores Domini – laywomen of Communion and Liberation that serve in the Papal apartment – are testifying  in front of the tribunal. But regarding the Memores, no one really knows who said what. And there is almost nothing known about the other witnesses.

There is a logical reason why the omissis are on the document: one or more of the people questioned by Vatican magistrates could eventually be charged during the trial,  or after there is a verdict, when the investigation turns to other aspects of the case. And so, the question is: was it necessary to publish the legal proceedings documents?

These «black holes» in Vatican communications can feed suspicions and conspiracy theories. True, the media should conduct itself responsibly. But there is also the need to manage communications, to come up with a media plan that prevents the black holes. Coordination among Vatican dicasteries is lacking. And maybe the sense of the importance of the Holy See in the world is also missing. News are now above all focused on Paolo Gabriele. But perhaps the media briefings of the Holy See Press Office could also cover other news. Why not talk about the diplomatic activity of the Holy See – almost unknown – or about the many Church activities that take place without much public awareness? And then, certainly, openly speak also about what is not working. But without giving way to communication “black holes”.

That the investigation on Vatileaks was in some ways negatively affected by publicity around Paolo Gabriele’s arrest has become evident in the last two months. During the sixty days of imprisonment, the Pope’s butler has been interrogated several times, and sometimes these questionings have lasted many hours. Gabriele was also questioned at length by the three cardinals of the Commission the Pope appointed to shed light on the leaks of documents covered by professional secrecy. The investigative process was far from easy. There were many attempts to throw the investigation off track. These attempts – perhaps instigated by the accomplices of the butler – sought to delegitimize the investigation and undermine the Roman Curia.

The media complicity

An accurate analysis of these red herring campaigns reveal a certain connivance between the media and the Pope’s unfaithful butler. At least one journalist was questioned by the Cardinal Commission. It is said that this same journalist used to meet Paolo Gabriele in Switzerland, where they exchanged documents. This journalist is not Gianluigi Nuzzi, whose book Sua Santità lead to the investigation that unmasked Gabriele’s dealings – even if the source named «Maria» refers to several people involved in leaking Vatican documents. Long before the publication of the book, there were rumors among the journalists of «a certain exchange of information» that was «managed» by a famous journalist who would help other colleagues become part of the arrangement. This peculiar «information exchange» revealed itself in very similar articles published almost concurrently on Italian newspapers. These articles dealt with «external situations» – e.g. the revocation of the excommunication of the bishops of the Priest Fraternity of San Pius X (the so-called Lefevbrists) – and «internal situations» – criticism of Card. Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State, for allegedly wanting to take the control of the Roman Curia (despite the fact that doing so would be within his responsibility). This is the media environment in which news about the “complicity” of the butler was revealed.

The red herrings

Right after the butler’s arrest, some journalist gave credence to the theory that Gabriele was not the «crow», or at least was just «one of the crows», and was made a scapegoat. This theory was supported with the publication of a blackmailing letter.  The letter threatened to make public a document signed by Msgr. Georg Gaenswein, the Pope’s personal secretary, if the Pope did not fire him and Secretary of State Bertone, the Pope’s closest collaborator.  Benedict XVI promptly reacted, publicly renewing his confidence in both. In the meantime, investigators pieced together information gathered from Paolo Gabriele’s smartphone and the documents found in his house in establishing the picture of Paolo Gabriele’s betrayal.

In July, the rope was tightening as the last interrogations took place. It was then that in Germany and after that in Italy three of the longest-standing Papal collaborators were described as the butler’s masters. The collaborators accused were: Card. Paolo Sardi, formerly responsible for the section of the Secretariat of State that collaborates in drafting the Papal speeches; Ms. Ingrid Stampa, an official of that same section and previously the secretary of Cardinal Ratzinger, who is responsible for the translation into Italian of the books by the Pope; and the bishop Josef Clemens, Gaenswein’s predecessor in the post of personal secretary of the later Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

«These accusations are completely baseless», the Vatican Secretariat of State commented in a strong declaration. In fact, this was another red herring, maybe introduced by Gabriele himself. Gabriele was probably suggested those names after they appeared in articles in the German newspaper Die Welt and the Italian newspaper La Repubblica.  These newspapers also stated investigators found several texts sent from Gabriele’s smartphone to Ingrid Stampa’s cell phone.

The investigation has not come to an end

The Vatican investigators still have much work to do. The trial will not be the end. Big news is that the trial will not only involve the Papal butler, but also Claudio Sciarpelletti, a computer specialist at the Secretariat of State. Sciarpelletti was imprisoned for just one day (the night of May 25, two days after Paolo Gabriele’s arrest), then conditionally released and finally completely freed. He will be tried for abetment. Sciarpelletti’s role is not that of an accomplice, but the Vatican magistrate decided to take him to trial because of his inconsistencies during questionings. Paolo Gabriele – caught in flagrante delicto – is in a different position.  But everything needs to be brought to light.

The indictment by the Vatican Promoter of Justice (the public prosecutor) Nicola Picardi – which is incorporated by the work of examining magistrate Bonnet – sheds to light more details of a scenario that is far from complete. In presenting the documents, Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office, underlined that «the Vatican Magistrate’s Office wants to underline that this is a partial conclusion of the inquiry regarding the criminal charge of aggravated theft against Paolo Gabriele and everything linked to this crime.» It is just a «partial conclusion» because the Vatican Magistrate’s Office received many reports with different allegations. So it wanted to start first with Paolo Gabriele, the clearest investigative path.

The meetings of the Pontifical Family

The two documents taken together – the indictment and the judgment – provide a detailed timeline of how the magistrate reached the decision to arrest Gabriele. The names of all the witnesses are kept secret for privacy, except that of Msgr. Georg Gaenswein. Gaenswein had a meeting on May 21 with the members of the pontifical family: the other Papal Secretary, Msgr. Alfred Xuereb; the four Memores Domini that serve in the papal apartment; the Pope’s collaborator Birgit Wansing; and Paolo Gabriele. During this meeting, Gaenswein asked if anyone had leaked reserved internal documents, allowing whomever was responsible to speak up. Another meeting of this tenor was held on May 23. Gabriele’s attitude was cold – Gaenswein told the magistrate – in denying to be the leaker. The butler kept on denying even when Gaenswein proved that Gabriele was the only person who could have leaked two of the documents published in the book Sua Santità. When questioned by the magistrate, Gabriele declared that he denied any involvement because his spiritual father recommended him to admit only to the Pope what he did.

A mysterious spiritual father

This spiritual father seems to be a very peculiar person. Is it the person that granted an anonymous press interview a few days after Gabriele’s arrest, maintaining that the butler was faithful to the Pope? We do not know. Paolo Gabriele gave him some documents, which the spiritual father claims to have promptly burned, as he realized they were part of «something illicit». Did this spiritual father tried to make Paolo Gabriele realize how seriously flawed his behavior was?

Imbued by the Holy Spirit

Only after the arrest – that took place in the night of May 23 – did Paolo Gabriele decide to cooperate with the Vatican magistrate. A quote from the interrogation provides insights of the Papal butler’s personality. Gabriele claims to be «imbued by the Holy Spirit», claiming that, faced with certain knowledge of corruption, he thought that «a media shock» could eventually help the Pope to clean up the Curia.  He explains how he got in touch with the journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi and why he chose him (he was fascinated with his previous book Vatican S.p.A., Vatican Ld), states that he was the «crow» that granted an interview – hiding his identity – to the Italian TV show Gli Intoccabili, and that the interview was not broadcasted in its entirety. There is no hint of Gabriele’s relations with other journalists. In the documents of the inquiry, it is understood that other documents leaked to the press were not all provided by Paolo Gabriele. The content of some of the documents published in Nuzzi’s book were already public in detailed accounts in other newspapers’ articles. Was Paolo Gabriele the leaker? It is a  legitimate question, but the current process is not meant to address this.

In Gabriele’s papers

In Paolo Gabriele’s messy home one can find everything: part of the documents published in the book Sua Santità, a series of copies of various newspapers articles, and newspaper clippings. «I have a passion for intelligence,» Paolo Gabriele says. In the midst of that disorganization there is also a Euro 100,000 check made out to the Pope, from a Catholic university in Spain – «accidentally placed among other papers, he would never cash it in», Carlo Fusco, Gabriele’s lawyer, declared; a golden nugget given to the Pope by a benefactor in Peru, which Gabriele also attributes to his not being organized; and a 16th century edition of Virgil’s Aeneid. «Gaenswein – Gabriele tells the magistrate – sometimes gave me gifts sent to the Holy Father. Since I have a particular passion for books, Gaenswein used to give me books. For what concerns the Aeneid edition, I remember that my son had started studying that poem, so I asked Msgr. Gaenswein if I could show the book to my son’s teacher. He agreed, and the book remained in my house. I was going to return it.»

No accomplices?

Paolo Gabriele would have acted alone, with no accomplices. Claudio Sciarpelletti was not an accomplice. In a drawer of Sciarpelletti’s office desk investigators found a medium-size envelope, which read «Riservato P. Gabriele». Sciarpelletti gave different accounts of why the envelope was in his drawer. At first, Sciarpelletti said that Gabriele gave him that envelope two years before, and nothing was written on it. Gabriele wanted an opinion about something contained in the envelope, but Sciarpelletti never opened it and eventually forgot about it. Only recently he wrote on the envelope to remind himself about Gabriele’s request for his opinion – a request the butler never insisted on. In another account, Sciarpelletti said that he was given the envelope to give it to Gabriele – the name of the person that gave him the envelope is blacked-out in the indictment. Once, Sciarpelletti said that Gabriele was not a friend, he just happened to know him. Another time, Gabriele and Sciarpelletti are friends who are so close that when they get together their families also join them. There is no evidence to charge Sciarpelletti of aggravated theft or revealing secrets. However, his ever changing responses got him charged with abetting. The penalty for this crime – Father Lombardi explains – ranges «from nothing to not much».

Incompos mentis?

The penalty for Paolo Gabriele, on the other hand, can be a maximum of 8 years imprisonment. But he is unlikely to spend 8 years in prison, considering that he has no previous convictions and the extenuating circumstances. Among them, Gabriele’s peculiar psychological makeup. The Vatican magistrates long discussed if Gabriele was indictable, if he was incompos mentis or not. A psychiatric examination was requested. Prof. Tatarella was the examiner appointed by the Vatican public prosecutor, while Prof. Cantelmi was the examiner appointed by Gabriele’s lawyer. The first stated that Gabriele was not incompos mentis, the latter said he was. Both of them underline some peculiar aspects of the butler’s personality. Tatarella – whose examination is completely accepted by the magistrates – notes a personality marked by a sort of persecutory  delusion: more and more Gabriele «alludes to plots and conspiracies for or against prominent people, both laymen and – more frequently – prelates». Tatarella also reported that Gabriele fell victim to paranoia and his decision to leak the letters was driven by a «deep necessity to win the attention and affection of others.»

The expert appointed by Gabriele’s lawyer suggested Gabriele was prey to «restlessness, tension, rage and frustration.» He felt unfit for the job and vulnerable to «external manipulation». Who knows if Gabriele was manipulated by those «Vatican officials and prelates, even top ranking ones» with whom he confided «beyond what he could revealed if he had observed the limits and the discretion that his institutional role demanded»?

The hunt for the manipulator has just begun: was it Stanislaw Dziwisz, now cardinal, for years personal secretary of John Paul II, the one who hired Paolo Gabriele to serve in the papal apartment? Was it Msgr. James Harvey, Prefect of the Pontifical Household, a good friend of Paolo Gabriele, that after Dziwisz’s recommendation took Paolo Gabriele under his protection? Was it the circle around Jozef Bart, a “Polish gang” parish priest at the Church of Santo Spirito in Sassia — where the devotion of the Divine Mercy is celebrated by will of the late John Paul II – who is a good friend of Dziwisiz and allegedly (according to some rumors) Gabriele’s spiritual father? Or was it some cardinal and prelate of the so-called “diplomats’ faction”, who stands for those who got accustomed to yielding a lot of power under John Paul II and who resent not having that power anymore?

Waiting for the Cardinal Commission report

We still do not know who instigated Paolo Gabriele’s behavior. It is for sure someone intelligent enough to understand the butler’s weakness, and shrewd enough to suggest actions while avoiding being held responsible for them. The Cardinal Commission appointed by Benedict XVI (comprised by cardinals Herranz, Tomko, and De Giorgi) will presumably address this issue. The commission ended a first round of questionings and meetings, but the report is still not public because the commissioners do not want their report to overlap with the magistrate’s investigation. Father Lombardi noted that «The Pope wants to follow with coherence and concreteness the magistrate’s course of action. That is why we may presume (…) that the Pope will wait until the end of Paolo Gabriele’s trial. We know well the character of the Pope, who is very careful to allow things to run their course properly, without rush».

Benedict XVI changes part of his team

In the meanwhile, the first changes in the Curia shows Benedict XVI’s wish to rebalance his team, giving more weight to his personal secretary Georg Genswein. Some observers hypothesize that the involvement of the previous secretary, Clemens, of Ingrid Stampa, and of Card. Sardi was leaked to the press from inside the Vatican. The purpose would have been to alert public opinion so that it would not be surprised when these names are mentioned during the trial, once that all the names omitted become public.

One of the first changes in the Pontifical Household team was, in fact, a «routine» change. Leonardo Sapienza was appointed regent of the Prefecture of the Pontifical Household. His appointment was an open secret. Msgr. Paolo De Nicolò, the prior regent, turned 75 and had to retire, and Leonardo Sapienza – who served for years as protocol attaché to the Prefecture of the Pontifical Household – was De Nicolò’s ideal successor.

Even when De Nicolò’s retirement was expected and Sapienza’s appointment a given, we still do  not know if there will be other changes within the Prefecture of the Pontifical Household. This Prefecture is an important office within the Holy See: it directly serves the Pope and oversees the Pontifical Household and Pontifical Ceremonies (liturgy excluded). Because of the particularity to be at the personal service of the Pope, the members of the Prefecture are constantly in touch with the Pope’s secretaries.

A long-time rumor speaks about a «formal» integration of Msgr. Georg Gaenswein in the Prefecture of the Pontifical Household’s ranks. Gaenswein would be appointed “Adjunct Prefect”, and be ordained bishop.  This hypothesis would be supported by the fact that Sapienza has been appointed regent, but not ordained bishop.

Gaenswein’s integration in the Prefecture staff organogram would be Benedict XVI’s way to provide his own secretary with more weight within the Pontifical Household. Gaenswein was under attack during the so-called Vatileaks scandal. Critics hostile to the Papal secretary became even more vocal with the articles involving Clemens, Stampa and Sardi.

These are just rumors, which are nevertheless revealing because they are mostly focused on the Prefecture of the Pontifical Household and its staff, underscoring the importance of those around the Pope. Vatileaks seemingly had two different goals: to make the Pope accessible to the ones who feel left out and are longing for power; or, if this is not possible, to isolate Benedict XVI, undermining even his closest collaborators, like Gaenswein. It is as if Gaenswein should pay for his role – a natural role for a personal secretary — of filtering access and shielding the Pope.