Pope Francis will hold a consistory to create new cardinals on the 14 and 15th of February. The announcement came at the end of a busy week: Pope Francis has granted an important interview, has personally reshaped the synod narrative against the media narrative during a general audience, and has taken part in the 7th meeting of the Council of Cardinals. In the end, the announcement of the consistory can be considered a further step forward, to go beyond a small internal crisis .

This crisis lies on two issues: the debate about the Synod of Bishops, and the discussion on Curia reform. In both cases, the discussion has become very lively. In both cases, the Pope is called to take a strong stance. 

For what concerns the Synod of Bishops, Pope Francis tried to calm things down speaking in an interview with the Argentine newspaper “La Naciòn,” the first interview the Pope had given to a newspapers from his homeland. The Synod is “an ongoing process,” the Pope said. And he added that no one has questioned Catholic doctrine, but certainly divorced and civilly remarried people should not be pushed aside. “They cannot be godfathers to any child being baptized, mass readings are not for divorcees, they cannot give communion, they cannot teach Sunday school, there are about seven things that they cannot do, I have the list over there. Come on! If I disclose any of this it will seem that they have been excommunicated in fact! [...] Things need to change, our standards need to change,” underscored the Pope, thus showing that he prefers a more pastoral approach. 

In the General audience of Dec. 10, Pope Francis returned to the issue of the synod. Yes, he said, there had been a lively discussion among the synod’s fathers, but there had not been divisions, and none has ever questioned the fundamental truth of marriage which, the Pope reiterated, is between a man and a woman, indissoluble and open to life. He then added that the Pope is the warrant of the orthodoxy, as he already stated at the beginning of the synod. While, in the speech he delivered at the end of the synod – which Pope Francis considers one of the three official documents of the synod, not including the midterm report – he reiterated the importance of his role as Pope. 

In the middle, the guidelines (Lineamenta) of the 2015 synod have been released. The guidelines include the synod’s final report as it is (with all of its controversies) and a series of 46 final considerations. These are divided in three parts, and each part has an introduction, that the General Secretariat of the Synod generally gives to clearly indicate the method to follow. Id est, not to go back from the “pastoral turn” and to avoid “a mere application of doctrine to pastoral work,” taking into account that the synod’s path has been now traced. 

Certainly, not all the participants of the synod will appreciate these indications. Some days ago, concluding the plenary assembly of the International Theological Commission, Cardinal Gehrard Ludwig Mueller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, underscored that “separating doctrine from pastoral work is almost a heresy.” However, the synod’s guidelines are yet to be published. This is prove that the discussion will be tough. 

Pope Francis has started to manage the crisis. He did it his way, personalizing communication. He personally took the floor. With “La Nación,” he had even spoken of Curia gossip, and explained why he had appointed Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke as Patron of the Sovereign Order of Malta, and why he had not renewed the mandate of the Swiss Guards’ commander

It is perhaps the first time a Pope uses interviews and conversations this way. Pope Francis conversations with the atheistic journalist Eugenio Scalfari, founder of the leftist Italian newspaper ‘La Repubblica’, helped him to gain favor in the secular world. The interview the Pope granted to the Jesuit-run magazine ‘La Civiltà Cattolica’ underlined his being a Jesuit. He granted most of the remaining interviews to secular media, especially Italian ones (‘Corriere della Sera’; ‘La Stampa’; ‘Il Messaggero’) plus one to the Spanish newspaper Lavanguardia, with the purpose of generating a positive image of him in the country that generates so many news about the Vatican. Then, he went on air in radio programs in Argentina. The commitment to communication is finally completed by his personal phone calls. 

Given all this circumstances, it is not surprising that Pope Francis may have used an interview to address the current problems and critics, in order to manage the crisis. The Pope then deepened his commitment by addressing the faithful directly. During last Wednesday’s General Audience, the Pope shared his reading and narrative of the synod of bishops, in order to go beyond the media narrative.

This may be seen as a sign that the debate is even more than lively, within the Sacred Walls. As lively as the debate of the reform is. 

On Curia reform, Pope Francis also took the situation in his hands. In the interview he had granted to ‘La Nación’, Pope Francis clearly said that reforms will take at least one more year. It was a needed explanation, since the discussion on reforms had come to a halt. 

When the Bishop Marcello Semeraro, Secretary of the Council of Cardinals, presented on Nov. 24 the proposals of reform to the heads of dicasteries, the draft was intensely criticized. The way the draft had designed the two big Congregations of Justice and Peace and Laity and Family was – according to many – too vague, and did not take into account the new responsibilities undertaken by the Vatican dicasteries in the course of the years. The Council of Cardinals discussed all of these observations for one day and a half during their last gathering Dec. 9-11. Pope Francis took part in the meeting as much as possible. The very Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office, in the end clarified that the reform’s process is ongoing and that it will not be short. Fr. Lombardi also underscored that – once there is a final draft of a reform, it will be worked on by Canon Law and juridical experts. It will not be quick, contrary to what many over-communicative cardinals of the Council made believe.

Pope Francis is now once more reshaping his revolution. He has always preferred the pastoral issues, but now he is also conditioned by the cardinals that have elected him with a precise agenda. Pope Francis shares the need for a renewal. He wants cardinals and bishops close to the people. He does not deem the institutional structure to be very important, as he has said several times. On the other hand, he has understood that he cannot underestimate a reform of the institutional structure. Sometimes, this reform seems to be designed as a dismantlement of the existing system. Other times, the Pope seems to  strengthen the institutional branch – for instance, when he appointed professor Vincenzo Buonomo as an adviser to the Vatican City State government.

The crisis of Curia reforms lies on two fronts. On one hand, the need to keep an institutional framework. On the other hand, the frenzy of those – and many of them are in the Council of Cardinals – pushing for quick reform, in order to dismantle a system that did not work, according to them. On one side, those who want to carry forward Benedict XVI’s renewal – the Pope emeritus had given reform an institutional framework, including his historical renunciation to the Petrine ministry; on the other side, those who had focused on the discontent over the flaws of the Curia structure to carry forward their own agenda – among those, the cardinals of the old guard, who pushed for a quick conclave. 

Influenced by these dichotomies, Pope Francis has managed the crisis by coming down to the field in person and opening a discussion, that will take place in February. 

According to the schedule provided by Fr. Lombardi, the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors will gather Feb. 6-8, finally provided of statutes and with a full membership (members should go from 8 to 18); the 8th meeting of the Council of Cardinals will take place Feb. 9 – 11;  after that, Pope Francis will convoke a public ordinary consistoy Feb. 12-13, in order to discuss the Curia reform plan; and finally, on Feb. 14-15, Pope Francis will convoke the extraordinary consistory for the creation of new cardinals. 

This way, the creation of new cardinals will come at the end of an intense period of discussions. Probably, a meeting of the Council for the Economy will be likewise scheduled at the beginning of February, so that it may provide cardinals with further suggestions for reform. 

The ongoing discussion gives the impression that Pope Francis wants to put the Church in a sort of state of Permanent Council. In the end, it’s alway the Pope to have the last word. 

This is the reason why the creation of new cardinals may shift the balance of discussion in his favor. In February 2015, the cardinals under the age of 80 and so able to vote in a Conclave will be 110. It means that Pope Francis will have 10 red birrette to reach the number of 120 voting cardinals set by the Blessed Paul VI in 1975 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the ‘Universi Dominici Gregis’, the regulation for the election of a Pope. Pope Francis will have 15 slots for possible new cardinals in the course of 2015: in June, the voting cardinals will be 107, and from November they will become 105. 

Certainly among the new red hats will be Archbishop Bruno Forte, general secretary of the synod, who is about to be appointed to a major archdiocese in Italy or to an important post in the Roman Curia. 

With 15 new hats, Pope Francis can really change the geography and the orientation of the College of Cardinals. 

The change on the College of Cardinals, plus some additional appointments, may allow Pope Francis to take the Church beyond the institutional crisis. But not beyond the synod’s discussion, still close to the heart of people Pope Francis wants to reach for. Bishops will not take any step back from the synod’s discussion, and will not give up to pressures and indications like those contained in the synod’s guidelines. And, though he had accepted and even promoted the Pastoral turn, Pope Francis has let it be known that he is unlikely to deviate from orthodoxy. 

Vatican reforms announced last July 9 seem to be more about a need for a spending review than moved by the real need for reform. It is thus understandable why, until now, only structural reforms have been discussed, while theological matters have been put aside, even fundamental issues like the Holy See Sovereignty.

In fact, it is not the time, yet, to discuss choices of profound meaning in order to redesign a more up to date Curia updating the Pastor Bonus, the 1989 apostolic constitution which regulates the functions of Vatican offices. There is rather the need of rationalizing, of – if possible – generating revenues, of projecting the Vatican administration and finances toward a future when the Holy See will be able to guarantee a pension even to the employees who will be working in the Vatican three generations from now. In order to achieve these goals, there is a need for experts, not theologians. Only history will tell how much the Holy See has sacrificed in evangelical influence and self understanding of its own mission by choosing the path of technical reform, with seemingly no larger vision behind it.

The real face of the reform

Between July 8 and 9, in only two days, Pope Francis’ reform showed its real face. On the 8th of July, the balance sheet of the Institute for Religious Works (namely the IOR, the so-called Vatican bank), as well as those of the Holy See and of the Governorate, were released. The IOR balance sheet was a break with the past and a milestone for the beginning of a new era.In a note released together with the balance sheet, the IOR declared phase 1 of its reform concluded, and affirmed that about 3000 accounts had been closed following an accurate screening (which was already ongoing before, as the MONEYVAL report certified). It also mentions a decision of the Council of Superintendence to restrict the categories of entities and people that can open an account, in effect since July 2013;  and highlighted that, out of the 3000 accounts mentioned above, 2600 were mostly dormant accounts while 396 were accounts that did not meet requirements. The note underscored that 359 accounts would be closed.

A clean up and rationalization plan put in action at an institute that – in the words of outgoing president Ernst von Freyberg’s words – «hid no unpleasant surprises, held no suspicious accounts.» In fact von Freyberg was stressing no more than what the Council of Europe’s MONEYVAL experts had already stated in their report, clarifying that the IOR in particular (and the Vatican in general) were not the places of illicit transactions and opacity described by the media. There was a need to project a new image of the Institute, one going beyond the antagonism that always takes place in a situation of reform and transition (von Freyberg took over his post in the difficult days following Benedict XVI’s resignation, while the – also news media – war for the Papal succession was already in the offing).

Von Freyberg chose to delegate the screening to the external consultants of the Promontory Financial Group, a firm universally deemed authoritative, even if criticized for its links with the U.S. financial-political world that, some said, madethe group a sort of shadow regulator of the market.Even the staff that took the place of the IOR previous general management, who resigned following a Vatican scandal which involved the institute, came from the Promontory Financial Group.

This decision also showed the other side of the coin. The new management did not follow the investment philosophy of the former management. Probably,the former investment portfolio had not been managed in the strict way required by markets, and usually in these cases the portfolio is  not diverse enough and suffers from an over-simplistic management. The IOR stressed that management «has identified a number of legacy investments which required extraordinary and precautionary write-downs in 2013,» and that part of the losses were an outcome of those write-downs. The fact is that the 2013 profit is of only 2,9 million euros, while the 2012 profit amounted to 86 million euros.  

The IOR has nevertheless made an effort, and given the Pope 54 million euros. Out of these 54 million, 50 covered the deficit of the combined balance sheets of the Holy See and theGovernorate (this latter being in the black, thanks to the Vatican Museums), and 4 million were assigned to religious works, i.e. for the Pope to give to charity.

The big reform of the Vatican economic structure

In the mean time, everything was ready for the big reform of the Vatican economy. Cardinal Pell has pushed strongly for it.  He defended the reform in the Council of Cardinals, more or less clashing with Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello, President of the Vatican City State governorate, and less intensely but anyway clearly with Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State. The latter is always losing more influence and power, although the Pope told him that he is fully a member of the Council of Cardinals. Both Bertello and Parolin called for prudence in carrying the reform forward, and for greater appreciation of the Vatican’s special realm. Personal interests influenced them, as well. Bertello was supposed to be chosen to be the moderator curiae, but now he seems ever more sidelined. Parolin is the exponent of the gang of diplomats, the same people who have strongly resisted the Holy See international option, seeking to keep a privileged relation with the Italian State. This tension –between the international option and the Italian habitual rapport – was at the heart of many of the polemics and leaks of documents around Vatican finances.

And this tension was also at the heart of the leaks about the so-called “Maltese gang” that isfollowing the “German gang” in the management of Vatican finances. The Maltese gang is said to be headed by Joseph F.X. Zahra, number 2 of the Council for the Economy and former president of the Pontifical Commission of reference on the Vatican Administrative-Economic Structure, namely the COSEA. A banker who had worked as director of the Central Bank of Malta, Zahra knows Vermiglio, an Italian and fellow member of the Council, very well.  But Zahra is certainly not close to Jean-Baptiste Franssu, the French guru in the “mergers and acquisitions” and asset management branch.

De Franssu’s appointment was backed by Pell, together with a brand new board composed by six people (including the president). At the moment, the appointees to the new board are Mary Ann Glendon, former US ambassador to the Holy See and member of the Pontifical Commission of Reference on the IOR; Clemens Boersing, from Germany; and Sir Michael Hitze, from the UK. Two pending appointments will be filled in the coming months.

Msgr. Battista Ricca has been confirmed as IOR prelate, i.e. the link between the Cardinals Oversight Commission and the Board of Directors. The real news is that Msgr. Alfred Xuereb, general secretary of the Secretariat for the Economy, has been appointed secretary with no right to vote in the IOR board of directors. Formerly Benedict XVI’s second secretary and Pope Francis’ first secretary, Xuereb was appointed by Pope Francis pontifical delegate in the two pontifical commissions of reference, and later appointed Secretary of the Secretariat for the Economy. His entrance in the IOR Board probably means two things: that Pope Francis wants to keep an eye on these issues, and that the Secretariat for the Economy is now taking a leading role.

With the mission of the IOR reconfirmed, it is now time to re-shape the Institute. The IOR will keep itsservice function, the holding of accounts of Vatican employees and former employees, monsignors, prelates and cardinals and even ambassador to the Holy See and Vatican foundations. The management of the assets will be transferred to a new body, the Vatican Asset Management,yet to be established. The Vatican Asset Management should be also entrusted with the patrimonies of the  Congregation for the Evangelization of People and of the extraordinary section of the Administration for the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA), the financial branch,which manages moveable assets derived from settlements linked to the Lateran Treaty.

The APSA extraordinary section will be responsible of maintaining relationships with all the main central banks, in order to – a July 9 Holy See Press Office bulletin reads – «keep on guaranteeing the Holy See’s liquidity and financial stability.»

The APSA was a public authority that acted as a central bank, and now it is going to be turned into a real central bank, with the functions of a treasury department for all the sovereign institutes which will open accounts with the APSA. The reform of the APSA statutes, which took place some months ago and which gave to consultors the function of a supervisory board, should be read in the light of this APSA turning into a treasury department.On that occasion, Vatican also established “due diligence” procedures that were technically unnecessary (considering that APSA provided very few regular banking services and was going to close this banking activity, as the Holy See delegation explained to MONEYVAL) unless APSA was going to become something more than what it was. 

The Secretariat for Economy strengthens its role

The APSA ordinary section, i.e. the management of real estate (in the end, trivial accounting) will be taken by the Secretariat for the Economy, which strengthens its position among the dicasteries of the Roman Curia and acts as a sort of branch of the ministry for finances, i.e. the Council for the Economy. This is how the check and balances of the reform work, explained Cardinal Pell, who is the strongman behind the managerial changes in the Curia.

The transfer of the APSA ordinary section to the Secretariat for the Economy will be managed by a Project Management Office headed by Danny Casey. A skilled manager, Casey was Pell’s right hand running the archdiocese of Sydney and successfully orchestrated the 2008 Sydney World Youth Day. Casey has already moved to Rome, together with his wife Annie, and  he is working on the management side of the issue.

A management side that is mostly built on COSEA suggestions. The first of the COSEA’s ten priorities was that of reforming the pension funds. Everybody is assuring that the retirement pensions for the current and next generation of Vatican employees are safe (Pell said so in a press conference, Zahra reiterated it), but there is a need for a new approach, just as «many western countries have had to face challenges» regarding their pensions system. A technical committee to draft a reform has been appointed. Msgr. Brian Ferme, prelate-secretary of the Council for the Economy, will lead the committee, composed by four lay experts: Bernhard Kotanko (Austria), Andrea Lesca (Italy), Antoine de Salins (France), Nino Savelli (Italy). The committee will meet with representatives of the Council for the Economy, theSecretariat of State, and of the Pensions Funds.

The committee for the reform of Vatican media

The committee appointed to propose a reform of Vatican media, on the other hand, will be composed by external members (senior experts) and Vatican members. The committee – as the same Cardinal Pell admitted – was born under the Secretariat for the Economy by chance, because  «the Council of Cardinals was pushing to do something» regarding Vatican media and so the Secretariat did, since it is the only recently established body that is already somewhat shaped and publishes an internal bulletin «so that all the employees are informed about developments.»

A rationalization of Vatican media has been discussed for more than 30 years. At the present time, the idea is that of integrating and consolidating everything, to streamline procedures and make everything quicker in adapting to the present times. New technologies – as the Pope’s App and the Holy Father’s twitter account – will be developed; digital channels are to be reinforced; a less complicatedcontrol system, freer from the Secretariat of State,is under study to meet the needs of the present times. A major revenue stream from the use of the Pope’s images and sound bites will be studied, perhaps even changing the statutes of the Vatican television, that – it is rumored – has already increased prices charged for the use of Papal footage.

The Committee is chaired by Lord Christopher Patten, Chancellor of Oxford University and until 2014 president of the BBC’s governing board, an authoritative and well known personality. Other members of the committee are Our Sunday Visitor’s president Greg Erlandson (USA); the executive director of the Catholic Media Council Daniela Frank (Germany); Father Eric Salobir, a Dominican, general promoter of the Order of Preachers for Social Communications and founder of the think tank OPTIC (Order of Preachers for Technology, Information and Communication); Leticia Soberon (Mexico), psychologist and founder of the website www.dontknow.net and a former official of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications; and George Yeo, former Foreign Affairs Minister of Singapore who already served in the Vatican as member of the COSEA, as Zahra and de Franssu. The inclusion of these COSEA members in the Vatican ranks showsthat their work has been appreciated by the Holy See.

The “Vatican side” of the committee is comprised by: Paul Tighe, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, who will also be the secretary and “engine” of the committee; the chief of the Office of Information of the Secretariat of State, Msgr. Carlo Maria Polvani, nephew of archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, now Papal nuncio to Washington; Lucio Adrian Ruiz, of the Vatican Internet Service; Giacomo Ghisani of Vatican Radio; and Gian Maria Vian,the editor-in-chief of the Vatican news daily “L’Osservatore Romano”.

Two absences are noteworthy: that of Dario Edoardo Viganò, who was called to head the CTV in order to implementthe “economic turnabout” which will probably lead the CTV to produce more documentaries to be sold at commercial rates, as well as the exclusive for the Pope’s images; and that of Father Giuseppe Costa, director of the Vatican publishing house, one of the few Vatican communications bodies “in the black” that invests a huge effort to promote and spread the Pope’s words.

A glance to the future

Of course, it will take years before the reforms will be carried out. De Franssu has saidthat at least 24 months are needed to reshape the IOR.  The committee for communications will remain standing at least for 12 months (starting its work with a review of the McKinsey report, one of the many external consultants hired by the Vatican under Pope Francis).  Even drafting a pension funds reform will take not less than one year.

The model is that of an «specialized clerical-lay cooperation. » How this cooperation will be carried out at the IOR is still to be determined. The relations of the IOR with the “central bank,” still not active, are to be determined as well. And so it is to be determined how this reform will influence the redesign of the Vatican dicasteries.

There is ultimately a need torationalize expenses, diminish the number of employees (and this is the reason why the Vatican has frozen new hiring some months ago) and find a new balance in the elephantine Vatican structure. The path to reform has just started, and it bears no resemblance with the idealistic times when committees of theologians and Canon law experts adjusted the Curia’s structures and discussed the Holy See sovereignty and the inner theological meaning of every decision or move. Now, instead, it is a time for spending reviews.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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