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 new statute of the Vatican Financial Information Authority (AIF) better aligns the Authority with new Vatican legislation, and with international standards. It also develops a new kind of Authority. Conceived by the drafter of the first Vatican money laundering law as a sort of «monocratic» authority (a Vatican dicastery presided by a cardinal with broad overall powers) the Financial Information Authority is taking a new shape as a result of progressive improvements to its statue.  

The appointment procedures for the president of the authority have changed. According to article 4 of the old motu proprio that established the Authority, the president was appointed by the pope, just like the head of a Vatican dicastery, and so it was taken for granted that the president should be a cardinal, or at least an archbishop. From November 21 on – when the new statutes has come into effect – the president will be chosen, together with the other four members of the board of directors, «among persons of proven reputation, free from any conflicts of interest and having recognized professional competence in the legal, economic and financial fields as well as in the subject-matters that fall within the scope of activity of the Authority.»

The statute of the Financial Information Authority makes the Authority brand new. The director becomes one of the statutory office holders, to be appointed together with a deputy director. Both are appointed by the Secretary of State.

This is how the Vatican legal/institutional framework to counter money laundering and prevent the financing of terrorism has been further improved, following the recommendations given by MONEYVAL, the Council of Europe’s committee that evaluates the path to financial transparency of its member states.

Tracing back the path that led to this new statute helps us to appreciate all the work done at an institutional level by the Vatican.

The old money laundering law, modeled in the Italian money laundering law, focused the Authority’s functions on its president, just as if he was the head of a Vatican dicastery. Cardinal Attilio Nicora, one of the sponsors of the former law, was appointed president of the Authority. Nicora is still the president of the reformed Authority, which will oversee all the Holy See’s financial and economic affairs.

At the time he was appointed president of the AIF, Nicora was also president of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA) and a member of the board of cardinals of the Institute for Religious Works (IOR) and of the Governorate of Vatican City State. All of these entities were under his supervision as president of the AIF.

The former money laundering law had several shortfalls. For example, a division of labor was missing. The responsibilities of the Vatican Gendarmes Corps, Vatican City State Governorate and Secretariat of State were not precisely delineated. The international cooperation system did not take into account the Holy See’s idiosyncrasies.

These «shortcomings» were a result of the law having been written by external consultants, surely competent on money laundering, but seemingly not cognizant of the Holy See’s sovereignty and its particular nature.

This is why Holy See officials had to adjust the legal/institutional framework. The new money laundering law was issued in a decree on January 25 and met many of the MONEYVAL evaluators’ observations. The new law represented the first quick fix of the institutional framework, to give more weight to the Secretariat of State and to build a customized financial system, tailored to Vatican City State’s particularities (such as the Vatican having no banks and no market economy.)

The MONEYVAL plenary assembly welcomed the changes, and it issued in July 12, 2012 a generally positive report on the Holy See/Vatican City State. The report, as could be expected, requested some adjustments to the law.

Some of these adjustments regarded the Financial Information Authority, and the Holy See carried forward the reform process step by step. In December 2012, two adjustments to the money laundering law gave the AIF the power to issue memorandums of understanding with its counterparts in other countries without the prerequisite of a nihil obstat (no objection) from the Secretariat of State.

These two adjustments further improved the procedures for cooperation and international exchange, and facilitated the AIF joining the Egmont Group (comprised of financial intelligence units from all over the world) in July 2013.

The enhanced authority of the AIF led to the signing of several memorandums of understanding, the most important of them with the U.S.’ FinCEN and with the Italian Unit for Financial Information.

In the meantime, a more general reform of the Vatican financial system was being prepared. With a motu proprio issued August 8, 2013 Pope Francis established the Financial Security Committee (whose members include the director of the Authority), and in October 8, 2013 a new law was issued, which gave the Holy See a sort of «single reference text for financial issues,» according to its characterization by the Vatican Secretary for the Relations with States, Monsignor Dominique Mamberti.

There are three important novelties in the new AIF statute: first of all, it strengthens the independence of the Authority, thus protecting it from possible interferences and power struggles among very prominent people within the Roman Curia; it officially assigns to the Authority prudential supervision, an important issue noted in the MONEYVAL report; and, lastly, as requested by the evaluators, it distinguishes the two functions of the Authority, by establishing two different departments, the Office of Supervision and Regulation and the Office of Financial Intelligence. This distinction made some observer note that the Authority for Financial Information could even be renamed “Authority for Oversight and Financial Information.”

The new AIF president will probably be a lay person, while the tenure of current board of directors seems to be reaching to an end. The board is comprised of Italians, coming (with a couple of exceptions) from the Bank of Italy milieu, who view their work through the anachronistic lens of  a Vatican-Italy special relation.

The appointments of the new president and board of directors, expected soon, will put an end to the only conflict of interest that the MONEYVAL report highlighted. The report did not name the person in the conflict of interest, but it was evident that it was Cardinal Nicora. In paragraph 797, the report underscores that «one of the members of the Cardinals’ Committee is also President of the AIF. This could raise concerns regarding a serious conflict of interest. It is therefore strongly recommended that the same person should not hold positions in the supervisory body and a supervised body.»

One of the very last actions of Benedict XVI was the renewal of the IOR cardinals’ commission. In the commission, Nicora was replaced by Cardinal Domenico Calcagno, his successor as head of the APSA. The decision was clearly to avoid a conflict of interest, but it was nevertheless criticized.

In the Holy See Press Office Bollettino that broke the news about the issuing of the new AIF statute, it was also announced that the professional services agency Ernst & Young was being hired by the Vatican City State Governorate as a consultant. According to the Bollettino, the choice was made after a «procedure of selection, » but this note cannot dispel the shadow of a conflict of interest, since Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui, one of the members of the commission that Pope Francis appointed to rationalize expenses and functions in the 37 Vatican offices, works for Ernst & Young.

Are external consultants really able to understand the Vatican’s peculiarities? The progression of the money laundering law proved that, ultimately, only institutional decisions taken within the walls of the Vatican succeed in projecting the Vatican forward to face new challenges in the world.

The experts of the Promontory Financial Group, retained by the IOR to screen its accounts, are doing nothing more that carrying out what the IOR was already doing. MONEYVAL’s report praised the IOR’s commitment, welcomed the Institute guidelines to apply international transparency standards, and underscored (in paragraph 476) that «the IOR launched a process of client  database review and update in November 2010. The IOR demonstrated a clear commitment and dedication to complete this process by the end of 2012. Six persons are involved in this project and are actively approaching clients to receive updated information.»

Some complaints are already percolating inside the Vatican Walls. It is rumored that the hiring of the Promontory Financial Group has been particularly expensive, although it is not known how much it is actually costing. It would also be interesting to know how much the Vatican is spending to have the Spanish bank Grupo Santander (whose representative in Italy is Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, former president of the IOR Council of Superintendency until he got a no confidence vote) to counsel the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See.

While nothing is known about these costs, there is a downsizing of the Vatican dicasteries’ personnel taking place. It has been explained as a response to a needed austerity and spending review. Five people have been reportedly removed from the Congregation for the Clergy, and it is rumored there is a list of 30 people in the various Vatican dicasteries ready to leave, some of them recalled by their dioceses but others sent back by initiative of the dicasteries themselves. This list would have been put together at the request of Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello, President of the Vatican City State Governorate and, it seems, a veritable deus ex machina inside the Vatican.

Reasons for downsizing the Curia would be part of a wider project of reform. Instead of sending Vatican officials around the world to report back any problems, the Vatican Congregations would be asking the countries’ conferences of bishops to report any problems, leaving them the possibility to take decisions and thus making Roman central power gradually less important. Pope Francis’ reform is intended to give more power to the «peripheries». In the meantime, in the very center of the «empire», there is a risk of a multiplication of small conflicts of interest that would damage the Holy See’s reputation. Consultants are external, with a finite commitment defined in contracts subject to expiration and early termination. The mandates of the commissions appointed by Pope Francis are also limited in time.  Is it truly a good idea to base the reform of the Curia on the advice of outsiders? Is outsourcing in the Vatican really the solution?

The absence of Msgr. Pietro Parolin at the ceremony of his taking possession as Secretary of State was certainly not a good thing. Struck by gallstone (or appendicitis according to other sources), Msgr. Parolin had to undergo an urgent, albeit not grave, surgery operation. During the ceremony, Pope Francis, after thanking the outgoing Secretary of State Card. Bertone, coined for Parolin a peculiar description: Secretary of State

Prolonging the absence of a leader at the helm of the Secretariat of State also means pushing back the attention-seeking obsessive tendencies of Vatican officials and dicasteries, always ready to jump to center stage. At the same time, it seems that Pope Francis wants to go beyond the Roman Curia.

The Pope’s inability to bear a central government would come from his personal experience of marginalization. As a young head of the Province of the Company of Jesus, he was assigned to Germany (which he felt was like being exiled) to study for a PhD he never completed, and then called again to Argentina and assigned to teaching.

The decade of the 80s is a “vacuum” in Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s biography. In experiencing this exile and marginalization, he would have concluded that governments are merely power establishments,  and that reality is better grasped from the periphery.

This is how the assertive Jesuit became a bishop impatient with centralized management, one who takes upon himself all management responsibilities, because he thinks it is best to trust no one.

This exile, together with the experience of living the military dictatorship in Argentine, forged the character and the ideas of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Perhaps he associates the Curia to the Province of the Company of Jesus which exiled him to Germany. As Pope, he paid homage to the late Jesuits General, Arrupe, by visiting his tomb at the “Casa Generalizia”, the Jesuits headquarters in Rome.

Yet Arrupe was one of the strongest “adversaries” of Bergoglio within the Jesuits, and some Jesuits have pointed out that, had Bergoglio not become Pope, he would have never gone to render honor to Arrupe’s tomb. This might have been the moment Bergoglio really internalized that he had become Pope.

Staying away from the Curia increasingly became “a must” for Jorge Mario Bergoglio (in fact he often did not attend the meetings of the Congregations he was a member of). Now, one of Pope Francis’ missions is to save the Roman Curia from itself. He does not want special events to take place at the Vatican. Not even the Curia’s traditional spiritual exercises of Lent will be held as usual in the Vatican’s Redemptoris Mater Chapel this year.  Instead, they will be held in Albano, Rome. The exercises will be lead by Fr. Angelo de Donatis, a simple priest.

As much as Francis wants to go beyond the Curia, someone will still be needed to run the Curia. Someone who, at the very least, can handle rumors and anxieties at the Secretariat of State. Pietro Parolin is someone who would probably take on this difficult task.

Parolin’s task will not be just about getting a new handle over diplomacy and downplaying general affairs. He must also, most importantly, give a direction to the government to the Holy See.

Pietro Parolin will not be a vice-Pope. Certainly, he will need to protect himself from pressures coming from all directions.  And he will also need to reign in those who vie for recognition and merits since the arrival of the new Pontificate.

A sign of the complete anarchy reigning within the Vatican Walls is the last small reform of Vatican Finances, regarding the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA). The reform was announced in a press release by the APSA, which the Holy See Press Office circulated in a bulletin different from its own bulletins.

The press release announced that APSA had started the “due diligence” process, hiring the Promontory Financial Group (already contracted by the IOR) for this purpose. Due diligence is the “evaluation of risks” in investments and loans, particularly with regards to the clients in a bank.

Yet, even if APSA is usually described as a sort of central bank, it is not a bank. When the evaluators of the Council of Europe Committee of MONEYVAL asked the Vatican about APSA’s activities, the Vatican explained that APSA has some accounts, but that its banking-type activity is minimal (they have only 23 accounts, 15 belonging to clerics and 8 to laymen) and that a process to close this banking-type activity started in 2001.

The APSA decision to announce the starting of the due diligence process is problematic: the APSA is not a bank, but is acting as one. So, there is an open question: what should the due diligence process be about? Are the Vatican dicasteries subject to due diligence on their activities?

The same issue arose when the Institute for Religious Works (known with the Italian acronym of IOR) issued its Annual Report, as banks usually do. The IOR is often described as the “Vatican bank” or the “so-called Vatican bank”, although the Vatican has always pointed out that –and explained why– the Institute is not bank. The report could confuse public opinion. If the IOR puts into practice everything requested from a bank, the debate about the nature of the Institute is somewhat “suffocated” from the beginning. Does this ambiguity help the Holy See’s mission?

Hardly, judging from the way the Holy See operates in the European and the international arenas.

The Holy See strategy was that of creating a customized financial model for the Vatican (where there are no banks or markets). One that would adhere to international standards while maintaining the Holy See’s “special kind” of sovereignty.

Neither the APSA nor the IOR seemed to be aware of this. They appear to want to act solo, without coordinating with the “central government” of the Church, in order to show the world that a path toward transparency has began. This behavior earns a lot of publicity to the IOR’s President, Von Freyberg, and elevates the image of the APSA (as well as the profile of external agencies, like Promontory, despite the fact Vatican officials are doing most of the work).

There is something worth noting about APSA. Cardinal Attilio Nicora had been for years president of this Vatican dicastery, until he had to resign, since he was also president of the Authority for Financial Information. Nicora’s conflict of interests (he was at the same time president of both a controller body and a controlled body) was the only issue underscored in the July 12 MONEYVAL report. But Nicora always kept control over the APSA, which he considers a creature of his. Most of the APSA moves are inspired by Nicora, anxious to take center stage once more.

In the meantime, “second tier officials” rose in importance within the Vatican, but it is hard to know on whose recommendation.

One of this second tier characters is Ilson de Jesus Montanari, an employee with a rank of second class secretary who has suddenly been catapulted to the number two position at the Congregation for Bishops. A Brazilian and young, Ilson is rumored to be a close friend of Msgr. Fabiàn Pedacchio Leaniz. Pedacchio is the Pope’s personal Secretary, but still serves as an official of the Congregation for Bishops, where he was sent by Bergoglio in 2007 (Pedacchio had been Bergoglio’s eyes on the Curia for several years).

It was Giovan Battista Ricca who introduced Ilson to Cardinal Bergoglio. Ricca, it seems, backed Ilson’s appointment. Ricca was the director of the House of Clergy in Via della Scrofa, where Ilson used to live and where Cardinal Bergoglio used to stay when he came to Rome.

Ricca was appointed by Pope Francis prelate of the IOR. As soon as the news of the appointment spread out, the vaticanista Sandro Magister published a leaked document about a homosexual scandal which involved Ricca when he worked in the Papal nunziature in Uruguay. The documents accused Ricca of being “the prelate of the gay lobby”, which is how Magister headlined his article. Was also Ilson part of a the gay lobby as Ricca was accused to be? Was he only part of the small circle of friends that rose around card. Bergoglio when he was cardinal? This kind of speculation is often rumored in Vatican corridors.

Finally, one of Pope Francis’ most recent appointments is food for thought. Fernando Vergez, Legionary of Christ, General Secretary of Vatican City State, will receive the title of bishop. Pope Francis (somewhat belatedly) announced this decision with a long and unusual letter to Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello, President of the Vatican City State government.

In the letter, Pope Francis explains that the General Secretary of Vatican City State should focus on pastoral duties and the care of the souls of all at Vatican City State. So, while Vergez will be a sort of “bishop of the Vatican parish”, Bertello is charged with management, thus increasing his power.  It is also the Pope’s intention to entrust Bertello with the coordination of the Curia’s general affairs.

The upcoming ordination of Vergez as archbishop is a good development for the Legionaries of Christ. Vergez’ mother was one of the women in the close circle of Marcial Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries who lived a double life: that of a respected founder of a Congregation full of vocations; and that of a drug addict who had love affairs with several women, at least three illegitimate children, and who abused his seminarians.

The secretary of the late Argentine Cardinal Eduardo Pironio and a respected and active member of the Legionaries of Christ, Vergez distanced himself from the founder of the Congregation at the right time, when the rise of Legionaries of Christ was going to come to an end because of the process instructed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith lead by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Vergez reportedly testified that the Legionaries statutes approved by Pope John Paul II were not those the Congregation really applied. This is how he was awarded a post in the Vatican City State government. From there, he was catapulted to the number two position at the Vatican City State government.

Vergez’s promotions will presumably help the image of the Legionaries of Christ, which is preparing its general chapter in March and that is ever losing more “freshmen”. The Legionaries of Christ and its traditional supporters, like Secretary of State Emeritus Angelo Sodano, can thank the Pope for this opportunity.

Ultimately, Pope Francis clearly stated that he felt nostalgia for the Curia man of the old days. After the promotions of people presumably part of a gay lobby (and can this not be but a strategy to keep everybody under control?), and his preference to govern without the Curia as much as he can, Pope Francis keeps on going his own way.

Yet, a signal to Parolin has been given. The Pope said Parolin need not worry too much about his new job. Parolin’s importance is not considered pivotal, as evidenced by the Pope not waiting one week for Parolin to get well before officially inaugurating the new Secretary of State’s term in office.  

Right after Easter, Pope Francis will have to make appointments to fill important posts. Foremost is the appointment of the new Secretary of State. Tarcisio Bertone has been confirmed at this post donec aliter provideatur, «until otherwise provided». It is nevertheless clear that there will be a change of Secretary of State: Bertone is 78, three years beyond retirement age. He stayed at his post because Benedict XVI trusted him and did not want to lose one of his most loyal collaborators.

Tarcisio Bertone has been criticized for several reasons. Most poignantly, for not being a diplomat.  Paradoxically, this is one of the reasons why Benedict XVI chose him as Secretary of State. Bertone was not part of that «circle of diplomats» who rose through the ranks under the wing of Angelo Sodano, who led the Secretariat of State for almost 13 years. The heaviest attacks to Benedict XVI’s pontificate came from that circle of diplomats. Benedict XVI was guilty – they used to say – of lowering the profile of their work, taking Vatican diplomacy in a different direction.

Now diplomats are back on the top. Jorge Mario Bergoglio clashed with them as archbishop of Buenos Aires, when the papal nuncio – under Sodano’s indications – dismissed every one of Bergoglio’s suggestions for the appointment of new bishops. Yet, one of the most important endorsements for Bergoglio’s election came from Leonardo Sandri, Sodano’s dauphin and for a long time Bergoglio’s sworn enemy (Bergoglio received him on Friday, March 22)

Ultimately, the contest was for the position of Secretary of State, more than for the papacy. That of Secretary of State is a highly coveted post, because it is there than strings are pulled and contacts made. The Roman Curia, however, failed in its attempt to manage the conclave and this – according to an official of the Secretariat of State that speaks under condition of anonymity – is very serious. «It is – he says – as if Washington citizens were called to vote to elect New York City’s mayor. »

Trying to understand how the conclave played out can help us to understanding how Pope Francis will decide on his first appointments. It will be a difficult governing test.

According to initial reconstructions, Bergoglio did not enter the conclave with a considerable block of votes. On the other hand, no one had a strong candidacy: Marc Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, never got over 20 votes; Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York, got just a few more; Angelo Scola, archbishop of Milan, had a maximum that – according to sources – ranged from 30 to 37 votes.

Odilo Pedro Scherer, archbishop of Sao Paulo, never had more than 20 votes. To undermine his candidacy, a rumor was circulated that he had the support of Cardinal Giovan Battista Re, Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for Bishops and Dean of the Conclave.  Re is a good friend of Cardinal Sodano (even if they drew apart towards the end of John Paul II’s pontificate).

This way, Bergoglio’s candidacy made inroads, and votes for him doubled from ballot to ballot. By the third ballot, before the lunch break in the second day of the conclave, it is reported that Bergoglio once again had the voting block that had backed him in the 2005 conclave. We are talking about nearly 30 votes, starting with that of Cardinal Daneels from Belgium. After the lunch break, Bergoglio’s candidacy took off.

At the fourth ballot, Bergoglio got 76 votes, one short of the required two thirds to be elected. At that time, the cardinals of the Curia were still not voting for him, and were divided on which strategy to follow.

It is rumored that Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello, head of the Vatican City State administration, convinced part of the Italian curiali to switch their votes to the already certain-to-win Bergoglio. Pope Francis was thus elected with a very large majority, getting from 90 to 100 votes (depending on the source).

Bertello hopes that his effort will be rewarded with his appointment as Secretary of State. Taking the post of Secretary of State would be sort of a Bertello’s revenge on Bertone, since Bertone did not appoint him Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. For this post, Bertone appointed Fernando Filoni, then deputy at the Secretariat of State. Bertone and Filoni were not in the best of terms, so the promoveatur ut amoveatur (“promote to remove”) helped Bertone to dispense with his deputy. At the time, Filoni himself was considered a possible contender for the position of Secretary of State.

Perhaps Pope Francis will go beyond the dynamics of the conclave. It is rumored that an Italian nuncio will take over Bertone’s position. The choice of an Italian nuncio is coherent with the need for a change of narrative for the Vatican: a nuncio is more likely to be seen as not stained by the recent scandals that have hit the Roman Curia.

If this were to be, Lorenzo Baldisseri, the secretary of the Conclave, would be the one chosen. Once elected, Pope Francis – following an ancient tradition – gave him his red hat: Baldisseri will be created cardinal at the next consistory.

Baldisseri is a long-term diplomat. Among his most remarkable achievements is the Concordate (Church-State agreement) signed with Brazil at the time he was serving as papal nuncio in Brasilia. Now he is Secretary of the Congregation for Bishops, and will remain as such until his creation as cardinal. Then, he will probably benefit from a career jump.

Beyond the initial enthusiasm, the Curia is still on a wait-and-see mode regarding how Pope Francis will govern. So far we know that Pope Francis prefers the lower-profile title of bishop of Rome, and that he has made all his speeches in Italian, even the one in front of the ambassadors (by tradition, the language of diplomacy is French).

When cardinals chose Pope Francis, they were certainly looking for a change in narrative. The Pope’s attention to the poor, his plain oratory, his “Argentinian” modus operandi that leads him to embrace everyone and to approach the crowds to greet them, disregarding security considerations, has changed the attitude of the media to the Papacy: currently, all headlines are positive, not much is said about scandals, and the Church is not even attacked for her stand on bioethics and moral issues.

Many maintain that the honeymoon will soon end, since the Pope will have to take a stand. It is also true that Bergoglio has never favored taking an open stand on any given position, preferring a person to person dialogue.

This style is perhaps not fitting for a Pope, called to take strong position to defend principles in the international arena. This is why Vatican officials are worried. The appointment of the Secretary of State will be a litmus test.

Vatican officials would be relieved if the Pope would opt for continuity, promoting the current Secretary for Relations with States, Dominique Mamberti, to the post of Secretary of State, and creating him cardinal. Mamberti would be backed by the old diplomatic guard (the skilled diplomat Jean Louis Tauran is one of his mentors).  Mamberti did a good job during Benedict XVI’s pontificate as well, and has the capacity to manage the Secretariat of State.

In any case, the choice of Secretary of State will signal if Pope Francis’ pontificate will favor continuity, or if truly the Pope who has come from the ends of the earth is set to take on a different path. We shall soon see if Pope Francis will be just a world parish priest, or a Pope with a specific diplomatic doctrine.

It is a very clear message. The majority of the leaked documents recently published in the book Sua Santità (His Holiness) by Gianluigi Nuzzi discredit Benedict XVI’s secretary Msgr. Georg Gaenswein and the Secretary of State, Card. Tarcisio Bertone. So, the Pope renews his trust in his closest collaborators, the ones that work in silence. It is a clear signal of change in the Holy See’s communication strategy, reached in a crescendo: first, on Tuesday morning, Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office, invited journalists not to be manipulated, since many of the stories published in newspapers fall «outside reality»; on Tuesday afternoon, an interview to Angelo Becciu –substitute (deputy) to the Secretary of State – was published on the Holy See newspaper L’Osservatore Romano. In the interview. Becciu asked journalists to reach «a higher moral standard», and criticized partisan narratives of events; finally, on Wednesday morning, for the first time the Pope talked openly and clearly about the Vatileaks scandal. The Church is not whispering anymore, and there are few things left to interpretation. On the other hand, there are things to take note of.

Paolo Gabriele’s arrest

Paolo Gabriele’s arrest – the Pope’s butler is accused to be in possession and have leaked Papal and Holy See private documents – is just one piece of a puzzle that risks to become hard to manage.  It is not because the Vatican investigators may eventually conclude that there are many people who can be blamed for the situation, perhaps including some cardinals.  The issue lies with a persistent «gang of malcontents» within the Vatican.  It is not a big gang, but it is entrenched in key posts and can count on loyal and silent employees in every corner of the Rome Curia. The close linkages between elements inside and outside the Vatican complicates things even further. Some claim that the masonry had a role in this «scandal», but a masonry working for the good of the Church, in order to save the Church from Card. Bertone.  Yet, attacking Bertone means attacking Benedict XVI and his gentile revolution, which has very much changed the face of the Curial leadership. Attacking Bertone also means attacking the Secretariat of State’s credibility, and this could be dangerous: the Secretariat of State handles relations with foreign countries, and its international image has been damaged. According to Pastor Bonus – the pastoral constitution that outlines the organization of the Roman Curia – the Secretariat of State must also coordinate the Curial offices. However, on the recent past– particularly since the end of the Second Vatican Council – the Secretary of State’s coordination role has lost ground, and his diplomatic profile risen. No surprise that diplomats are unhappy: they suffer from their internal loss of influence, even when they have maintained important relations with elements outside the Church.  If one is to look for a point of contact with the masons or with those hostile to the Church, one should look there.

The inquiry

The inquiry that led to Paolo Gabriele’s arrest started long time ago. The inquiry has been described as an obscurantist Vatican initiative. In fact, the Holy See is acting as every State would, if its head had private papers stolen. The papers are stolen, so the person who stole them needs to be arrested and punished. It is a principle of justice that deals with the right to privacy. It is a crucial matter. Ever since the first leaked documents were published in the Italian newspaper il Fatto Quotidiano and were shown in Gianluigi Nuzzi’s tv program Gli intoccabili (The untouchables), it was evident that most of them were stolen directly from the desk of the Pope. Some did not even had any marking’s from  the Secretariat of State, which means that they came directly from the Pope.

The Vatican Gendarme Corps started its inquiry right after the first publication of the documents. In March, a commission of three cardinals – Herranz, Tomko, and De Giorgi – is appointed by the Pope to investigate the leaks. It was widely known – inside the Vatican – that someone had passed papers out of the Vatican Walls, and that Gianluigi Nuzzi was writing a new book. The strategy is to stay put until the publication of the book. It is a risk. But Vatican enquirers need to be able to charge someone with a crime: as long as the documents were quoted in journals, but not actually reproduced, allegations of wrongdoing could be denied. But, once the documents are published, there is proof of a crime to charge someone with. The possible motives are yet to be determined.

As soon as the book by Gianluigi Nuzzi is published, the Holy See is ready to respond. Informal meetings are called to consider whether or not to take legal action, and a decision to do so is taken. Lombardi states that the publication of the document is «a criminal act» implying that legal action is forthcoming. Everything is now clear, since that kind of document can only come from the Papal apartment.

Who took the documents out? Memores Domini – lay women at the service of the Pope – are excluded; the two secretaries of the Pope, msgrs Georg Gaenswein and Alfred Xuereb, are also excluded; the circle inexorably draws around Paolo Gabriele.

Gabriele – his lawyers maintained and Father Lombardi confirmed– wants to collaborate with the magistrates, and this will broad the scope of the investigation. Paolo Gabriele is not “the” guilty party. He is just part of a sophisticated operation, that involves many among the Curial second lines (i.e. those “grey eminences” that never lose their posts) and among those who once had positions of power but no longer do. The legacy of the 27 years of John Paul II’s Pontificate has been particularly heavy for Benedict XVI. Those who managed power during the last years of John Paul II’s Pontificate, while the Pope was ill, have sought to keep it.

It was – several voices in the Vatican corridors say – the powerful secretary of Karol Wojtya, Stanislao Dziwisz (now cardinal and archbishop of Cracow) who recommended Paolo Gabriele – even if Dziwisz now pointed out that Gabriele did not work for John Paul II. Gabriele began his service in the Papal apartment as second assistant about a decade ago. When Angelo Gugel – the previous butler – retired, Gabriele inherited the position and a house in the Vatican. Dziwisz – who did not want to leave Rome – still kept some influence, in part because he had Wojtyla’s private papers and documents. The late Pope in his will had asked Dziwisz to burn his private papers. But the archbishop of Cracow said that he kept the papers.

Rings of a long chain

We need to look back in time, to Karol Wojtyla’s Pontificate. John Paul II gave great visibility to the Church, and made of it a strong institution in diplomacy. His words, his free style, breaking conventions, tilted the balance of power between states. His first international trip was to Mexico, in 1979. There, the priests could not even wear a habit , and were not allowed to have properties of their own. His second international trip was to Poland, his homeland. There, communism put religion aside and promoted a state atheism that is evident even in public housing construction projects, built by the government, where no provisions are made for places of worship. Things would change in these two countries, and so it will happen in the several countries John Paul II will be visiting during his Pontificate.

It is the Cold War era, and the Church is immersed in intense but behind the scenes diplomatic relations. Notwithstanding John Paul II’s criticism of Western consumerism («We like the singer, not the song», will be the revealing headline of U.S. newspapers during the first John Paul II’s visit to the United States), diplomatic relations deepen and are strengthened with Western countries, in order to counter Communism.

It can seem self-serving, but the mission of the Church is also to protect her communities, and that is why during those times the struggle against Communism is a priority. So, the Church sent money to Solidarnosc, the Catholic Union that is going to change Poland; the Church established diplomatic ties with Ronald Reagan’s U.S. administration; the Church protected its communities even by establishing a dialogue with dictatorial regimes – in fact, you make an agreement with whom you do not trust. Augusto Pinochet’s case is very telling. Pinochet is the dictator of Chile, and he claims himself to be Catholic. In 1986, when he was the victim of a shooting, Pinochet ascribed to the Virgin Mary his survival, and proof of it – he said – was the profile of the Virgin etched by the bullets on his Mercedes. Chilean bishops did not think it was as Pinochet said. On the contrary, many of them were against him. Fortunately, there is a Papal nuncio to deflect confrontations, and his name is Angelo Sodano. At the same time, the military junta sent the nuncio several complaints about bishops and priests with strong political views.

When – in 1987 – John Paul II goes to visit Chile and leans out from the balcony of the presidential house of La Moneda, a hand ushers Pinochet to the side of the Pope. John Paul II – annoyed at what had happened – adds to his program a meeting with the Chilean opposition. Sodano’s considered the Chilean military junta  «a transitory dictatorship». Even now that everything has passed, Sodano is uncomfortable when reminded about relations with Pinochet. Back in 1993, Sodano – already ascended to the post of Secretary of State – wrote to Pinochet that he held for him the highest consideration. Even this is transitory.

The diplomats

Sodano’s way of thinking and acting comes from the diplomats’ school. It is the education of those formed in the Ecclesiastical Accademy and in the shadow of the Ostpolitik of Cardinal Agostino Casaroli, Secretary of State towards the end of Paul VI’s and the first decade of John Paul II’s pontificates. The Academy taught that diplomacy should be a sort of «martyrdom of patience»: ecclesiastical diplomats should talk with everybody, even putting aside differences, or even if the starting point of the dialogue is far from the religious truth, in order to gain some concession. This gives birth to a Church that is very active diplomatically, and this is why she breeds many «high level» diplomats during those years. A pupil of Card. Sodano is Leonardo Sandri: he will be appointed Papal nuncio to Mexico and then substitute (deputy) to the Secretary of State, at the time when Sodano himself is Secretary. Also Giovan Battista Re is formed in the confines of the Secretariat of State, and later will be created cardinal and appointed prefect of the Congregation of Bishops. So is Achille Silvestrini, prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches in the nineties, an esteemed and controversial figure. And Crescenzio Sepe – now archbishop of Naples, who at first was responsible of the Information Office, and ascended to prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples.

Sodano is appointed Secretary of State in 1990, replacing Casaroli. The world has changed. The Berlin Wall fell, the Cold War ended, there is no longer a need to fight Communism. The world is now different. No one puts religions aside, and the Holy See is invited, repeatedly, to enhance its participation in the United Nations by becoming a member state, and not just a permanent observer. The Holy See declined, in order not to risk its neutrality. John Paul II carries on with his guiding mission, but his voice is increasingly set aside. No one listens to him when he speaks against the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia. And no one will listen to the Church when he condemned the Second Gulf War, after 9/11. John Paul II becomes definitely aware that the world has changed during his last trip to Poland: he sees that the enthusiasm for him and for the Church has diminished. The blocks of the Cold War are gone, and the multilateral world acknowledge religions’ right to exist. But this right is conceived mostly in terms of tolerance: religious freedom is confused with freedom of worship, the freedom to profess a faith is confused with freedom of expression. But, even if the world has changed, the Vatican Ostpolitik – based on a sort of Westphalian epistemology that is outmoded– remains always the same: they hope for concessions from the countries’ administration, and they seek behind the scenes agreements, since that is the diplomacy Vatican diplomats learned.

Two teams contending: diplomats and Cdf

One should maybe look to the diplomats’ environment to identify the members of the “Gang of Malcontents”. What is now evident is that the attack to the Pope comes from inside the Church, and that it takes advantage of forces against the Church that are also willing to stir trouble from the outside. The heart of the matter is the Holy See’s sovereignty, and everybody seems to be aware of it. It is at the heart of the matter when the letters by Msgr. Viganò – former number 2 of the Vatican City State administration – are leaked, since they are presented and discussed by the media as if the Church were a multinational on Italian territory. It is a key point in the discussion about the financial transparency and the anti-money laundering law, and it concerns the reform of the Vatican Law n. 127 – (the “old” law practically does not consider the Holy See a State: there is no hint to official privileges and immunities; the Holy See governmental bodies are not involved in ensuring transparency, there is just an Authority for Financial Information – as if in Italy or other countries there would just be the Financial Intelligence Unit to oversee transparency of the institutes of credit, and there would not be the Guardia di Finanza; there is no mention of the peculiarities of the Holy See/Vatican City State).

These are intersecting issues. They involve people that some would consider above any possible suspicion. There are Vatican rumors about a cupola, a group of people that meets once a month in Cardinal Sodano’s office as dean of the College of Cardinals, the first dean to have an office for that post in the recent history of the Church. Sodano very much wanted this multi-million euro office for himself, after he had been replaced as Secretary of State.

Here it becomes evident that, during this Papacy, the «bite and devour» that the Pope censored in a letter to bishops in 2009 has nevertheless been going on. At the beginning of  2006, Sodano knows that his time as Secretary of State is coming to an end. He wants to place his men in key posts. He was one of the first promoters of an immediate beatification of John Paul II – he wanted it to be by acclamation right after his death, in order to move the historical assessment on the Pontificate at least 50 years forward. He did not succeed: Benedict XVI waives the five year waiting period after the death of a candidate, but requests a traditional canonical process.

Then, Sodano presses for the appointment of a successor to Card. Camillo Ruini, then president of the Italian Bishops’ conference. Vatican chats tells that Sodano asks Msgr. Paolo Romeo – then Papal nuncio to Italy, now cardinal and archbishop of Palermo – to send a letter to all the Italian bishops (except Ruini) to indicate who they would prefer as successor of Ruini. Unsurprisingly, someone informs Ruini. Also to be expected, Ruini refers the issue to the Pope. And, naturally, the Pope confirms Ruini as president of the Italian Bishops Conference donec aliter provideatur. He also calls Paolo Romeo for consultations. Romeo leaves the meeting anguished. But it is Sodano that is left shaking.

The news that Sodano will be replaced takes place in June of 2006. To do away with tensions, the Pope announces the substitution will come into effect in September. The new Secretary of State will be Tarcisio Bertone, archbishop of Genoa. Sodano does not waste time. He sends Msgr. Piero Pioppo, then his personal secretary, to Genoa in order to convince Bertone not to accept the new post. But Bertone stands firm, he is faithful to Benedict XVI. There is a summer of interregnum, and Sodano makes his last appointments: Piero Pioppo is appointed as prelate of the I.O.R., a position that had remained vacant for years and that represents a sort of link between the (lay) board of Superintendence and the college of cardinals of the Institute. Then, in September, when the replacement takes effect, Sodano refuses to vacate his office quarters, waiting for his new office as dean to be restructured. After one year, he moves to his new office. The officers of the Secretary of State are still on his side.

The Pope’s Regensburg speech takes place during the 2006 trip to Germany, and it is a diplomatic earthquake. It is the «swansong» of Sodano’s era. Benedict XVI had already began to change the art of diplomacy. The all-is-good Casaroli’s Ostpolitik does not work anymore: the Berlin Wall fell, and with it the traditional enemies of the Church have left the scene. There are no more Communists, and if there are, they struggle among themselves. On the other hand, the Western world is thriving, and Vatican diplomats feel they are among friends. In the name of the struggle against Communism, many relationships had been established. There is, among the Vatican top officials, a mistaken sense of victory. Centesimus Annus, one of the social encyclicals by John Paul II, is a result of an internal debate: how much does the Social Doctrine of the Church apply to the modern world? A «middle way» prevails: it is not overtly critical of the Western World and liberalism, but at the same time it reaffirms the positions of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

In the mean time, the diplomats’ careers are advancing, they are a closely knitted group – even if a book, Via col Vento in Vaticano, published at the end of the nineties, insinuates a subtle war between two factions. They have strengthened their ties in a thousand battles, when they needed to save a community, a diplomatic relation, and this had to be done without taking into consideration more deeply rooted truths. During the war, the Church must promote peace. And truth is maybe a goal too big to achieve.

But there is another team being trained, and it is the team of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The leader of the Cdf team is Joseph Ratzinger, since 1983. Step by step, the Cdf assumed the «Ratzinger’s method». It suffices to read his biography to understand that Ratzinger loves to harmonize positions, not to impose his own point of view. And this is why the decisions of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith do not just censure a position, but go on to note those aspects of a criticized book, theology or ideas which are good. Few may remember, but there are two Cdf statements on the Theology of Liberation,  the first one pars destruens and the second one pars construens of a dialectic process. Nothing is demonized completely.

When prefect of the Cdf, and even earlier, as archbishop of Munich and as a theologian, Joseph Ratzinger warned that pragmatism and ideological struggles had taken the place of faith in Jesus. It is Joseph Ratzinger’s constant worry. In his theological works, he always shed the light on the «Jesus issue». For years, he thinks about a historical  biography of Jesus based on the Gospel, which he will publish after his election as Pope. He is also always worried and aware of the need to harmonize different positions, a concern that he takes from the theology of history of Saint Bonaventure –the topic of his postdoctoral dissertation.

Ratzinger’s team

There is more. Benedict XVI makes of the struggle against the old guard of the Church a sort of moral battle. One of the very first decisions he makes as a Pope is on access to seminaries: the instruction – issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – is criticized, since it denies access to seminaries to anyone who has in any way, even superficially, supported a «gay culture» or a gender culture. Benedict XVI, wants to form true and well-rounded priests, and he also maybe wants to avoid even the opportunity of a gay lobby, believed to be an old undercurrent in some Church circles.  Several times he censured and condemned priestly careerism. One of his strongest denunciations is in 2009, as he celebrates a mass to ordain five bishops.  Among them are Pietro Parolin and Gabriele Caccia, numbers 3 and 4 of the Secretariat of State, faithful to Angelo Sodano, who are appointed bishops and respectively sent as Papal nuncios to Venezuela and Lebanon. It is Benedict XVI’s quiet revolution: the Pope waits for members of the old guard to end their terms in office, and then he replaces them with people he trusts.

In addition to Bertone, the team of Benedict XVI slowly, but inexorably, takes hold of the Curia: William Levada replaces Ratzinger as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; Ivan Dìas is appointed prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples; Malcolm Ranjuth – now archbishop of Colombo -  is appointed secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship. With Bertone, Dias, and the new foreign minister Giovanni Lajolo (who afterwards was appointed as number one of the Vatican City State administration, and has since retired), the Church’s international politics will be less passive and more interventionist, less «realist» and more «Wilsonian»,  along the great ideological battle lines that influence laws, customs, and coexistence among peoples. In Italy, in Spain, and in the West, the principles that Benedict XVI defines as «non-negotiable» are life, the family, and education. In the Islamic countries, the key issue is religious liberty. The same goes for China. There the new course of Vatican geopolitics was reinforced by the naming as cardinal – a firm decision taken by Benedict XVI against the judgment of Sodano and his followers – of the combative bishop of Hong Kong, Joseph Zen Ze-kiun.

This Papal line – that dates back to the very beginning of the Pontificate – is confirmed by the last consistory and even by the most recent choices of Benedict XVI. Diplomacy must be rooted in law, and law in truth. Since his first message for the World Day of Peace (In truth, peace) to the appointment as Papal nuncio to Ireland of Charles J. Brown, a non diplomat that previously served in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Benedict has changed the face of the Church and of its diplomacy, making them more concrete and Jesus-oriented.

Diplomats are marginalized, and unhappy. In the mean time, new Benedict XVI’s men take important posts in the Roman Curia: in 2010, Marc Ouellet is appointed prefect of the Congregation of Bishops. He was one the Canadian editors of the Communio magazine, of which Ratzinger is one of the founders, and in Canada he faces the so-called revolution tranquille, the progressive Canadian secularization. Now he seems to be one of the candidates to be the new prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Joao Braz de Aviz is appointed as Prefect of the Congregation for Religious orders, replacing Franc Rodé – who, as Sodano, was considered one of the protectors of the Legionaries of Christ, the Congregation that Benedict XVI wants cleaned up and reformed after the scandals involving its founder Marcial Maciel.  A Curia and a College of Cardinals enriched with able jurists, confirming a «more law, less diplomacy» approach. In fact, Benedict XVI clearly affirmed in the letter to the Catholics of Ireland in 2010 that underappreciating canon law is one of the reasons why the Church is rotten.

Within the Curia, a guerrilla warfare is being waged.

Old stories, new problems

This guerrilla is also fed from some «missteps». Leonardo Sandri is moved from his post as substitute at the Secretariat of State and replaced with Msgr. Filoni. Filoni – who had previously served as Papal nuncio to the Philippines and in Iraq – is a pupil of Cardinal Bertone, and seemed to be the right man at the right place. If Sandri was the focus of too much gossiping and was too close to the old establishment to be a trusted man, Filoni seems to be the opposite.

But the relationships between Filoni and his old master Bertone worsens. There are rumors – no one would confirm them – that maintain that Filoni wanted to send money to a mission he was very close to, in Taipei, Republic of China (Taiwan). Both Bertone and the Pope asked him not to send this money: if the substitute of the Secretary of State sends money to the Republic of China, this may be considered by the government of the People’s Republic of China an undue intromission, thus complicating the already complex links between Holy See and Beijing. But Filoni sends the money anyway, and the Secretary of State gets a formal diplomatic protest from the People’s Republic of China. The relationship between Bertone and Filoni – is said – deteriorates from there on.

Filoni is nowadays a cardinal and the Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, and the Secretariat of State substitute is now Angelo Becciu. Even though he studied at the old diplomatic school, Becciu has a completely different profile. His career makeover came about in Cuba, where – as Papal nuncio – he managed to smoothly navigate the transition of power from Fidel to Raul Castro.

The Secretariat of State has been regenerated, and so the guerrilla has aimed at other targets. The first leak of Vatican documents – a delicate surgical operation – originally takes place with the publication of another book by Gianluigi Nuzzi, Vaticano S.p.A.. Then, in 2010, the scandal of pedophilia breaks out in the headlines of newspapers, and it is also fed from some internal leaks. These are all circumscribed situations, as were the leaks of the first months of 2012. Up until Sua Santità (His Holiness) is finally published. The book – evidently written in a hurry, since it is full of mistakes – is the signal that maybe something got too far out of the program of measured leaks.

Everybody tries to take advantage from this warfare: every single issue – even if does not have anything to do with it – is described as one of the reasons behind this situation. Even the no-confidence vote on the president of I.O.R. Ettore Gotti Tedeschi by its board of Superintendence is linked to Vatileaks. It is not. Many try to explain the no-confidence motion by linking it to the internal debate about the new Vatican anti money laundering law that both Gotti Tedeschi and Card. Nicora defined «a step behind» in the path to transparency.  Nicora is president of the Authority for Financial Information, Aif, and also a member of the Commission of Cardinals in the I.O.R. and of the Pontifical Commission of Vatican City State – these last two also under the Aif.

Cardinal Attilio Nicora seems to be a key person in the passage from the whispering Church to the Church that speak out loud. He – during the first months of 2005, when John Paul II was about to pass away – was asked to outlined a reform of Pastor Bonus, favored by Angelo Sodano himself. The project remained just a draft. Some sources, who wish to remain anonymous, say that the project’s goal was to have a less bureaucratic Curia: the Pontifical Councils would be embodied in the Congregations, and the prefects of the Congregations, together with other trusted cardinals, would be part of a sort of committee for the management of the Church that would take the duties of the first section of the Secretariat of State of His Holiness. So, His Holiness secretariat would disappear as it exists today, and would keep just the diplomatic section. Part of the reform would address Pontifical Universities, which would fall under the umbrella of a single Roman university, and would each take different specializations.

Some observers considered this reform overwhelming. Yet, the reform would have let Angelo Sodano maintain in effect his leadership. Not as Secretary of State, but exercising his weight and his influence as a member of the «management committee» and trying – as Dean of the College of Cardinals – to guide the works of the next Conclave.

None of these scenarios can be officially confirmed: they are based on hearsays gathered from the Vatican corridors. But these stories point to a more complex and diverse scenario than just a struggle between old and new, good and evil, sketched out by the media. Bertone is depicted as the absolute evil. He surely suffers from some oversights and unfortunate choices. He is accused of an overtly personalistic management of the Church. On the other hand, who wouldn’t appoint trusted associates to key positions? And it is Benedict XVI who trusts Bertone. So much that the Pope – several times, and publicly – has renewed his confidence on him.