Pope Francis lacks Montini’s Curia experience, and perhaps also his international vision. Raised in the Vatican Secretariat of State, then appointed archbishop of Milan, Giovan Battista Montini practically had already become Pope as he joined the 1963 conclave that elected him as John XXIII’s successor. After his election, there was a lot of speculation about his intentions regarding the continuation of the Second Vatican Council. Paul VI reaction was to address to the Council a programmatic speech, mirroring what he had said at the beginning of the Council. Id est, that a unified vision of the Church was needed and should be upheld by the Council, and that the primacy of Peter could not be set aside. Paul VI did so tactfully, sending to the experts of the Councils, in addition, several proposals to amend some of the documents of the Council in order to underscore the importance of the central Church, and at the same time designing a radical Curia reform, which led to the issuance of the Apostolic Constitution “Regimi Ecclesiae Universae”.

Three pontificates after Paul VI’s, Pope Francis is now facing more or less the same challenges. He does not have to carry forward a Council, but he stands in a post-Council period widely debated. Pope Francis wants to make clear his commitment to the peripheries of the world, and he wants to underscore that laymen are full participants in the management of the Church. Hence, his visits to the parishes; his stress on the role of laymen in his speech to the Council for Economics; and the appointment of his friend and layman Guzman Carriquiry as “Vice-President” Secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Latin-American, a job usually assigned to a bishop.

Paul VI was also a great promoter of the role of laymen in the Church and paid a lot of attention to the peripheries, being the first Pope to celebrate mass on Christmas eve outside the Vatican (in Italsider, an industrial plant in Taranto, Italy). Paul VI was also the first Pope to address the United Nations General Assembly, advocating a moral, rather than a functional, reform of international politics.

A moral reform, more than a functional one, is something that Paul VI wanted for the Church as well. He contributed the Year of Faith and the Credo of the People of God to the Council’s and post-Council’s discussions, in order to reiterate the doctrinal truths. Faced with the ambiguities emanating from the practice of collegiality, Paul VI promulgated “Humane Vitae”, an encyclical which run counter to the views of the majority of theologians that were asked about it.

Collegiality can turn against the Church, if it is not exercised within defined boundaries. This is at the heart of the debate nowadays, with the Curia reform believed to be taking off at the beginning of 2015.

Pope Francis spoke about more synodality, and this is the reason why he gave a more important role to the General Secretary of the Synod, chaired by Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri. In Pope Francis’ view, the General Secretariat of the Synod should be a linking and coordinating body, serving as a sort of “Ministry for Relations with Bishops”. This was underscored by the fact that Pope Francis asked Baldisseri, and not the Secretary of State, as had been customary, to coordinate his meetings with the heads of dicasteries of the Roman Curia.

The synod cannot, in any case, be a governing body. Collegiality is always “sub Petro” (under Peter) and even the dignity of bishops as peers is defined by their having a common leader. Cardinal Gehrard Ludwig Mueller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, explained this at the presentation of a book curated by the former general secretary of the Synod of Bishops, Nikola Eterovic, which includes all of Benedict XVI’s remarks to the synodal assemblies. Mueller’s comments were clearly a reference to the current debate.

Paul VI wanted the synod as an expression of collegiality. But he wanted it to be a consultative, not deliberative, body in order to uphold central coordination and avoid confusions – including doctrinal ones. This way, he did not undermined the responsibilities of the local Churches, while at the same time not doing away with a central body.

Paul VI’s was also combatting pressures to have an agenda for the Church set outside the Church itself. An attempt to set an outsiders’ agenda that exploited openings and the enthusiasm surrounding the Council, to undermine the Church’s authority. It was the now famous “Council of the media” that overshadowed the “real Council,” as Benedict XVI recounted in his last meeting with the Roman clergy.

It was precisely to prevent this that a new managing of Church communications was introduced. “Paul VI pushed out the journalists from the Vatican,” the dean of vaticanisti Benny Lai used to say about Paul VI’s decision to move the Holy See press office outside of the Vatican Walls. The long process of considering new ways to manage Vatican communications began then.

During the Second Vatican Council, the statements of the Conciliar fathers were not disclosed.  The Council of the media was born when the Conciliar fathers resorted to the press to leak the contents of their deliberations, to influence public opinion and particular standpoints. 

This is the reason why the information of discussions at synods is managed differently, and is always evolving towards even more transparency. During the synods of bishops, the summary of the interventions (prepared by the synodal fathers) are delivered to journalists right after the congregations, in 5 different languages, and are also published in the Vatican web-site.  Same-day briefings in different languages are also provided.

Combatting the possibility of a “Church of the media” has been a constant effort since the reform of the Holy See Press Office, which is under the authority of the Secretariat of State since 1986.

Nowadays, communications have become a major concern of the Holy See. The new Pope had been chosen on the basis of his skills to communicate the Gospel.

There is a lot of speculation about a new Vatican office for communications, in order to enhance transparency and the quality of the information being delivered. All offices dealing with communications could come under a “Secretariat for Communications” single umbrella.

There is another interesting rumor about Vatican communications: Pope Francis could establish a Congregation for Culture, embodying the pontifical councils for Social Communications, Promoting New Evangelization, and Culture. Vatican communications would be the responsibility of a new, separate department, under a revamped Secretariat of State (perhaps State’s current two branches will become two different secretariats).

This department could include, institutionally, “La Civiltà Cattolica,” the Italian Jesuit-run magazine which articles are submitted for clearance to the Secretariat of State before they are published.

Hence, the insistent rumors that Father Antonio Spadaro, editor of La Civiltà Cattolica, the first person to interview the Pope, will be the director of the Holy See Press Office. Father Spadaro is taking on an increasingly institutional role leading this journal which has, it seems, become the main conduit to interpret the Pope’s thinking. The series of articles on the Jesuit Peter Faber, recently proclaimed saint; the hiring of Juan Carlos Scannone, theologian and a teacher of Bergoglio, with the task of better explaining the “theology of the people”, the Argentinean branch of the Theology of Liberation; the goal of making this Italian journal always more international: everything points to thinking of “La Civiltà Cattolica” as ultimately becoming an official publication offering Pope Francis’ thought in depth.

A test for Vatican information will be the next synod for bishops. At the moment, the discussion on the synod is still biased by what has been leaked to the media. Statements are often instrumentalized. Prove of it is the speech Cardinal Walter Kasper gave at the consistory on the family. It was intended to be kept as an internal document, but it was leaked to an Italian newspaper and then included in a book which is going to be a best-seller. Why was the speech not made public immediately, thus avoiding this ‘confusion effect’? Are the Second Vatican Council times back?

Pope Francis dream to be a new Paul VI can become the nightmare of having to deal with the same issues that Paul VI did. When Montini addressed the Curia reform, internal resistances pushed him him into isolation. Benny Lai recounted the criticism circulating that Montini’s Papacy “lacked a central government.”

The criticism emanated from a strong internal debate, which has been reprised – yet with different tunes – under this pontificate. The General Congregations that drove to the election of Pope Francis spoke about the Curia functionality, not about big issues. This is the original sin of this pontificate.

When Paul VI went to the United Nations, in the aura of John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris, he highlighted the need for a reform of the United Nations not based on its functions, but from a strong anthropological point of view (and all the Popes has since followed this view).

Paul VI applied this principle to the reform of the Curia. Nowadays, the discussion is mostly about the efficiency of Curia, rather than on the global mission of the Vatican institutions. Pope Francis is now seeking a balance. He has established a parallel Curia: the new bodies are still not identified in the revamped Vatican web site, but they are preparing their statutes and defining their responsibilities. Now, he will delve into communications, which he has been very interested in. At the same time, Pope Francis probably understands now that there is a need of a vision for a more comprehensive reform. A reform of attitudes, in Pope Francis’ words. The challenge of this Papacy is how to carry this reform on, beyond media agendas. Striking the right balance means the difference between living Paul VI’s dream or experiencing his nightmare. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Francis be the pope to revolutionize the Church? The exhortation shows that Pope Francis is solid on doctrine. Pope Francis’ view is «orthodox» on family (the whole paragraph 66 is dedicated to it), abortion (which Pope Francis firmly condemns), and on the non-admission of women to the priesthood. What Pope Francis preaches is a change of strategy in the Church, based on a change of the structures.

The Evangelii Gaudium was supposed to be the post-synodal exhortation issued to close the Year of Faith that began last year with the synod of bishops on the new evangelization. Monsignor Lorenzo Baldisseri, General Secretary of the Synod of Bishops, has underlined that Pope Francis did not want the exhortation to be defined «post-synodal,» and opted instead to issue a wider «programmatic document.»

Pope Francis himself stresses that the document is a program. «I want to emphasize – Pope Francis wrote in paragraph 25 – that what I am trying to express here has a programmatic significance and important consequences. I hope that all communities will devote the necessary effort to advance along the path of a pastoral and missionary conversion which cannot leave things as they presently are. ‘Mere administration’ can no longer be enough. Throughout the world, let us be ‘permanently in a state of mission.’»

Jorge Mario Bergoglio had already spoken about a «permanent mission» to the priests of the diocese of Buenos Aires. The then archbishop Bergoglio proclaimed a missionary year for the Jubilee. At its end, the priests asked him to convoke a synod to discuss and harvest the fruits of their missionary work. Bergoglio stood firmly against it: «A synod would just produce a document that will collect dust on bookshelves. I invite you to continue your missionary experience, to be in a permanent state of mission.»  It is what Pope Francis now wants for the whole Church.

There is more. Together with Pope Francis’ attacks against the idolatry of money, the society of waste, and unrestrained liberalism (attacks that he has increasingly dwelled into during his morning homilies at the Domus Sanctae Marthae, in the interview to the Jesuit-run magazine La Civiltà Cattolica, and in his public interventions) one can also appreciate his goal to reform the Petrine Ministry. And synodality will be crucial to this reform.

What is synodality, and why is it often presented in contrast to collegiality? Collegiality deals with hierarchy and administration, while synodality deals with the overall people of God. Synodality is an attitude, and Pope Francis really wants to develop it. It is unlikely that the Pope will change the very discipline of the Petrine Ministry. He will mostly change (in some ways, he is already doing so) the way the Petrine Ministry is put into action.

More likely, the structural reform will deal mostly with the bishops’ conferences. In paragraph 32 Pope Francis underscores that «a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated.»

In fact, the discussion on a possible reform of bishops’ conference started long time ago. Would entrusting the bishops’ conferences with «genuine doctrinal authority»  mean that these regional conferences would be able to autonomously decide whether to allow communion to believers who have divorced their spouses and then remarried? Would this change and dissolve the functions and responsibilities of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

It is rumored that a reform is already taking place, with priests being called back by their dioceses or sent back to them by their congregations, so that there will no longer be a central organization sending  its officials around the world to report on any problems. Instead, the national conferences of bishops would be able decide on their own about what constitutes a problem to be reported, thus making Roman central power gradually less influential. How the request for more peripheral autonomy will be reconciled with the petrine ministry is yet to be seen.

Pope Francis seems nevertheless to have a clear notion of what he wants to achieve. When he appointed Lorenzo Baldisseri as General Secretary of the Synod of Bishops, he called him in for a meeting in which he tore in half the Pontifical Annuary (the Vatican’s annual directory).  Referring to the Roman Curia half of the torn apart directory, the Pope told Baldisseri: «You do not need that part.»

Nobody knows yet what will be of the Vatican Secretariat of State, but it seems that Pope Francis does not want to resort to it that much. He chose a person he trusts as Secretary of State, Msgr. Pietro Parolin, who had just arrived at his post following an illness and who has already started to visit the different Vatican departments. He will handle the Vatican Secretariat of State dossiers, perhaps streamlining procedures.

Within the Secretariat of State there are ultimately two schools of thought. The first approaches the renewal of the Church from a managerial perspective, appointing external commissions and trusted advisers, launching media campaigns to underline the breach with the past and that times have changed. The second one is that of men within the institution, who must bear the decisions and are asked to tolerate the earnings that consultants and outsider specialists received ad-hoc, sometimes from outside donors. The men within the institution are working to give the Holy See a solid structure, moving beyond the episodes of corruption and resisting power play pressures.

Until now, Pope Francis had stood aside and watched. He has appointed a Council of Cardinals, which this week will once again gather, at the Vatican, to talk about the Pastor Bonus (the apostolic constitution that regulates the Roman Curia) and the possible reform of the Curia. Pope Francis has also established two «pontifical advisory commissions», one on the IOR (the Institute for Religious Works) and one to supervise and rationalize the economic structure of the Holy See.

In the meantime, external consultants, called in to assist with renewal in the Vatican, have increased: the Promontory Group for the IOR, the Grupo Santander for the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See, and Ernst & Young for the Vatican City State Governorate. This led to increasing concerns about possible conflicts of interest. The most salient is that of Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui, a member of an advisory pontifical commission and at the same time employed by Ernst & Young.  There have also been calls for greater transparency in Vatican expenditures: hiring consultants is very expensive, yet no Vatican balance sheet at the moment sheds any light on the fees these consultants are getting.

Pope Francis has probably taken note of these issues and has decided to appoint a delegate of his to the two papal advisory commissions. The Pope’s delegate will be Msgr. Alfred Xuereb, a priest hailing from Malta who had previously been Benedict XVI’s secretary. According to the Holy See Press Office, Msgr. Xuereb task is «to exercise a supervisory role and to inform the Pope, in collaboration with the Secretariat of State, on working procedures and on any initiatives to be undertaken. »

Pope Francis is in this way re-shaping his «revolution». In a short time, he has lowered the “rating” of the interview he granted to the Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari, now taken off from the Vatican website; he corrected and specified some of his words about the Second Vatican Council, in a letter addressed to Msgr. Agostino Marchetto coinciding with the presentation of Marchetto’s most recent book about the Council and its hermeneutic of continuity; finally, he has clarified his doctrinal position, especially through the exhortation Evangelii Gaudium.

Ultimately, Pope Francis has been, until now, collecting ideas. The reform of the Financial Information Authority – a reform based on the vision and the work of Vatican officials who succeeded in getting a generally positive report on Vatican finances by the relevant European institutions– proved that Pope Francis had been able to resist the subtle appeals of followers of the old version of the Vatican money laundering law. The old law, in fact, allowed select top Vatican officials to manage information about the Vatican financial affairs in an autocratic and very personal manner, under the aegis of their special relations with particular (mostly Italian) extra-Vatican institutions.

Yet to be seen is whether Pope Francis will take a further step, going beyond the informal papacy and paying more attention to its institutional side. It is yet to be seen, as well, how will the pope develop a vision that will incorporate the Holy See sovereignty to carry forward the mission of the Church.

At any rate, Pope Francis deems these questions secondary. More than thinking about a possible Curia reform, Pope Francis aims to establish a general synodal attitude. His gaze is not set on the Curia, but outside the Curia. Not on the Secretariat of State, but on the bishops’ secretariats.

Pope Francis’ first goal is to announce the Gospel of mercy, to primarear (a Pope’s neologism that means to take the initiative in showing our concern for our neighbor). Primarear is the marching order for a reform of attitudes, which Pope Francis considers more important than the reform of the structures.

The next consistory (the official ceremony where the selection of new Cardinals is confirmed) will be a good test. The consistory will take place Feb. 22, while a meeting of the Council of Eight cardinals will be held on Feb. 17-18 and the Council of the Synod will meet on Feb. 24. Altogether, there will be about 15 days of consultations of cardinals, taking into account that a meeting of the council of cardinals for economic and managerial affairs of the Holy See (the so-called Council of Fifteen) will be held in February, the week before the meeting of the Council of Eight.

A Vatican official told Mondayvatican Oct. 30: «More than a consistory for the creation of new cardinals, I have the impression that this will be mostly a sort of synod of cardinals. It will represent a new way to offer advice, with cardinals from all over the world, giving everybody the opportunity to share their opinions. It will be something very similar to the CELAM assembly, which the cardinals in the group of eight have clearly said inspired their thinking about a reform of the synod of bishops.»

Cardinal Maradiaga is the coordinator of the group of eight cardinals, while Errazuiz Ossa is one of its most influential members. With more frequency in recent times, Maradiaga has expanded on his ideas about the Curia reform. He has also raised the reform of the IOR (the Institute for Religious Works, the so-called Vatican bank), although it is not part of the curia reform. He has shared with the media many details about what he thinks these reforms should entail.

That of the Congregation for the Laity is his most recent proposal, and some Canon law experts, as well as committed layman in the Catholic Church, have received the idea with skepticism.

In the Roman Curia, there are two different kinds of departments (a.k.a. dicasteries): the Congregations and the Pontifical Councils. While the Congregations have executive powers, the Pontifical Councils do not, and are more in the background. Broadly speaking, Congregations are part of the Church’s government, while the Pontifical Council are about the presence of the Church in the world.

A possible streamlining of the Curia has been widely discussed. It seems that Benedict XVI wanted to consolidate the responsibilities of different pontifical councils. This is the reason why one of his fist moves was to make the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue part of the Pontifical Council for Culture. At the same time, he left for some time the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and that for the Pontifical Council for Migrants under the same president.

Internal pressures and opposition, the need to find a balance between his men and the «system», and the Curia’s very strong old guard headed by the former Secretary of State Angelo Sodano (still very influential, also with the press) led Benedict XVI to renounce to redesigning the Curia.

Realizing that an overall reform would take too long, Benedict XVI opted for a different approach, one attracting less attention but even more challenging: to anchor everything strongly on Doctrine,  develop a solid juridical-legal framework, and to aim for a change in attitudes.

Benedict XVI implemented the reform of the criteria of admission to seminaries; the global reform of Vatican finances; the reform of the Penal Code, which has gone into effect under Pope Francis; the new constitution of Caritas Internationalis; the motu proprio about Catholic charities; and the reform of discipline in seminaries, which are now under the administration of the Congregation for the Clergy.

Pope Francis’ project seems to be of a different kind. More than consolidating pontifical councils and thus streamlining the «consultative» dicasteries, it seems that he aims at integrating the pontifical councils within the congregations, even by elevating some pontifical councils to the rank of congregation. It is rumored that the confirmation of the leadership of some Vatican dicasteries in their posts, until the expiration of their mandates, supports this hypothesis. This is the case, for example, with the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, which could become a Congregation encompassing the Pontifical Council for the Family, Migrants, and the Laity.

A Congregation for the Laity (which in Maradiaga’s vision would encompass the Pontifical Council for the Family, the Pontifical Academy for life, and the current Pontifical Council for the Laity) is a brand new proposal.

Commenting on it, an official of one of the dicasteries that would be interested in this possible reform told Mondyavatican that «this proposal would in fact ‘clericalize’ these dicasteries.»  A Congregation for the Laity, he adds, «would put issues relating to the family and the laity under one of the Roman Curia’s strongest type of structure. The members of congregations and pontifical councils are cardinals and bishops, rarely laymen. But giving the laity a congregation does not mean give laymen more importance within the ranks of the Church. More likely, it is about about putting the laity under one umbrella.»

The same official underscores that «lay people are very important within the ranks of dicasteries, where they oversee key portfolios and hold posts at the highest levels. Should there be a (political) will to expand the role of laymen, more of them should, above all, be made members of congregations and councils, and not just consultants in them.»

In fact, Pastor Bonus states that «the dicasteries are composed of the cardinal prefect or the presiding archbishop, a body of cardinals and of some bishops, assisted by a secretary, consultors, senior administrators, and a suitable number of officials»  (art. 3).  It also foresees that, «according to the specific nature of certain dicasteries, clerics and other faithful can be added to the body of cardinals and bishops.»

Pastor Bonus can obviously be changed. But there would also be a need to change Canon Law, which establishes that some posts are reserved for clergy only.

A brand new Pastoral Constitution to replace Pastor Bonus is in fact what the group of eight cardinals is thinking about. At the same time, Archbishop José Carballo, Secretary of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, has spoken about the possibility of reforming Canon Law. Taking the floor Oct. 29 at a conference about vocational perseverance, and speaking about religious brothers and sisters abandoning consecrated life, Carballo asserted that «there seems to be a need for a specific path for each novice,»  and also «a novitiate longer than what is contemplated in Canon Law,» to allow for better discernment.

According to canon 648 of the Code of Canon Law, the novitiate must last from a minimum of 12 months to a maximum of 2 years.

A reform of the Code could be an option, because Canon Law «is not the Gospel, it is written by men,»  Carballo said. At that point, Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz, Prefect of the Congregation, commented: «That is what Pope Francis told us.» In a conversation after his remarks, Carballo told the author of this blog that «a reform of Canon Law should not only be about the novitiate, it could also be more comprehensive.»

In fact, no reform of the Code of Canon Law is expected at this time. Perhaps in the more distance future. The new code of Canon Law was issued in 1981 after decades of work. It took 16 years to draft «Pastor Bonus»  – which was mostly a realigning of the Curia more than a revolution. The reform of the Synod of Bishops will also take some time, which is the reason why the minor adjustments of every synod are portrayed as exceptions – not changes – to the norm.

The general impression is that we are at the stage of general consultations, more or less open. The group of eight cardinals will meet Dec. 3-5, and it is possible that in February there will be a broader consultation of cardinals, maybe extending it to the members of the General Secretariat of the synod. Paul VI even thought about having the members of the General Secretary of the Synod participate in conclaves. He was dissuaded from doing so, Benny Lai reported, by Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, who thought that the members of the General Secretary of the Synod could be influenced by others. 

That of February may be a sort of mini informal council, partly corresponding to the notion of the permanent assembly that Pope Francis wishes for the Church. This sort of a reform of synodality, a concept close to the Pope’s heart.

As the pieces of the «puzzle» of Pope Francis Curia are put in place, the “Francis’ thought” becomes better understood. A a great means to comprehend Francis’ thinking is the interview he granted to fr. Antonio Spadaro, chief editor of the Italian Jesuit-run magazine La Civiltà Cattolica. The interview was published contemporary by 16 Jesuits magazines all over the world.

The interview provides a good overview of Pope Francis thought. There are three areas covered in the interview that have possibly not received the level of attention they deserve. Precisely these three parts seem to give a clear indication about the direction of the Pontificate. Maybe the hypothesis they give rise to are somewhat far-fetched. At the same time, however, Pope Francis is no stranger to give big surprises.

Will the Congregazion for the Doctrine of the Faith be dismantled?

In Pope Francis’ words: «It is amazing to see the denunciations for lack of orthodoxy that come to Rome. I think the cases should be investigated by the local bishops’ conferences, which can get valuable assistance from Rome. These cases, in fact, are much better dealt with locally. The Roman congregations are mediators; they are not middlemen or managers».

This would lead us to think to a reform of the modus operandi of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Often described as the «Guardian of  the Catholic Orthodoxy in the World», the CDF could in fact be roughly defined as a theological and disciplinary clearinghouse and coordinator. Its centrality has been strenghten to better manage the clergy sex abuses cases. Previously, most of the clergy sex abuses cases were not even notified to Rome, and the scandal was kept under wraps in local diocesis.

Pope Francis has a different plan. He wants to give a new breathing space and a higher profile to the local Churches, also with regards to issues of orthodoxy and pronouncements. It would entail a complete overhaul: from a coordinating center to a series of  local bishops that can decide on their own, according to  particolar needs. Even if Francis speaks about a «valuable assistence from Rome», and this does not mean it will be a supervision.

So, what could the future be like, after a local bishop approves a doctrine that another local bishop may not consider orthodox? Will there be a need for a central coordination, or would all bishops preserve their freedom?”

Maybe the answer to the second question is: yes. In another passage of the interview, Pope Francis explaines that «the dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow».

Synodality vs. collegiality.

On Pope Francis’ words: «We must walk together: the people, the bishops and the pope. Synodality should be lived at various levels. Maybe it is time to change the methods of the Synod of Bishops, because it seems to me that the current method is not dynamic. This will also have ecumenical value, especially with our Orthodox brethren. From them we can learn more about the meaning of episcopal collegiality and the tradition of synodality. The joint effort of reflection, looking at how the church was governed in the early centuries, before the breakup between East and West, will bear fruit in due time».

Clearly, there will be  new rules for the synod of bishops. A new secretary, Lorenzo Baldisseri, whom Pope Francis give his berretta rossa at the end of the conclave, will handle the new rules. Until now number two of the Congregation of bishops, Baldisseri lived for a long time in the Domus Sanctae Marthae where Pope Francis also lives. They spent a lot of time together and Baldisseri likes to be considered one of Pope’s most loyal friends. He will be tasked with changing the synods, maybe giving them more decision-making power.

This also follows from another excerpt in the interview, in which Pope Francis underlined that

«the consistories [of cardinals], the synods [of bishops] are, for example, important places to make real and active this consultation. We must, however, give them a less rigid form. I do not want token consultations, but real consultations. The consultation group of eight cardinals, this ‘outsider’ advisory group, is not only my decision, but it is the result of the will of the cardinals, as it was expressed in the general congregations before the conclave. And I want to see that this is a real, not ceremonial consultation».

Is this different from the path set by Benedict XVI? In fact, yes. Pope Benedict perfected a governing modus operandi based on collegiality from the time he was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith. Card. Bertone, Benedict’s secretary of State, referred to that modus operandi as a model he wanted to apply to the governing bodies of the Church.

Collegiality means to have meeting of peers, and make decisions as such. One might have challenged before a meeting, but at the meeting itself a spirit of peer review prevails and favor agreements. The new impetus Benedict XVI gave to the priesthood comes from a collegial dynamism: the Year of Priests, as well as the missionarity based on Jesus Christ, come from the need to give a collegial direction to the Church.

Card. Mauro Piacenza, prefect of the Congregation of the Clergy, took the responsability to carry out this reform. Piacenza has now been appointed Major Penitentiary, because – it is whispered in the Vatican – perspective have change, and it is now time for synodality, not for collegiality, and Piacenza has been rightly or wrongly a paladin of collegiality.

Synodality means to have meetings with people of different backgrouds and ranks. This kind of meetings are not designed around decision making, but they may lead to the adoption of some decisions neverthless, as it happens in the synods of the Orthodox Church. This is the approach Pope Francis may want to follow.

Reform? No thanks… or maybe yes!

On Pope Francis’ own words: «The dicasteries of the Roman Curia are at the service of the pope and the bishops. They must help both the particular churches and the bishops’ conferences. They are instruments of help. In some cases, however, when they are not functioning well, they run the risk of becoming institutions of censorship». These words provide the gist of everything that was said by cardinals during the General Congregations, when those from afar the Church expressed their disappointment with a Curia that was so detached from them (really was more complex than this, however).

In response to the aspirations expressed during the pre-conclave meetings, Pope Francis asked eight cardinals to counsel him about a reform of the Curia. One of the first reforms should be the installation of a moderator curiae, a sort of workflow comptroller and coordinator. The moderator curiae idea was raised at the General Congregations  by card. Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative text. This idea was so popular that Coccopalmerio was the most voted Italian cardinal at the Conclave. Card. Giuseppe Bertello, a friend of the Pope, number one of the Vatican City State administration, may become moderator Curiae.

It seems, however, that Pope Francis does not feel that a reform of the Curia requires urgent attention. «The structural and organizational reforms are secondary—that is, they come afterward. The first reform must be the attitude».

This assertion provides an answer to those who wondered about the imbalance between the many gestures and the dearth of administrative initiatives. The Pope wants foremost a change of the attitude (toward the fancy cars, the ostentation , the luxury) and only after he eventually succeeds at this, to deal with the structural re-organization of the Roma Curia. The eight cardinals have left many proposals on Francis table. But Pope Francis will ask for a conversion of the hearts, and only after that he will think about a structural reform .

In conclusion, there may not be a structural reform, other than that of a new synodality; local bishops will become more important, maybe at expense of the administrators in Rome; the Pope’s spoils system is in action.