That many did not like Benedict XVI’s silent revolution is evident by looking at the (often unjust) attacks Benedict XVI’s pontificate had been subjected to. And that Benedict XVI’s revolution is being blocked and slowed down has been made evident in many instances during Pope Francis’ pontificate. Perhaps, the most important instance is the account of the book “The Great Reformer,” written by the London-based journalist Austen Ivereigh.

Formerly a spokesperson of Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor of Westminster and deputy editor of the progressive British Catholic magazine ‘The Tablet’, and currently manager of CatholicVoices, Ivereigh has reported that the so-called “Team Bergoglio” has worked behind the curtains to back the Archbishop of Buenos Aires’ election as Pope.

According to Ivereigh, the ‘team’ was composed by cardinals Murphy, Walter Kasper, Carl Lehman and Godfried Daneels. Ivereigh wrote,generating controversy, that the four cardinals “secured Bergoglio’s assent” (although this claim will be modified in the reprints of the book). The issue was raised of the validity of Bergoglio’s election, since ‘Universi Dominici Gregis’, the Constitution that regulates papal elections, forbids any ‘political’ agreement before a conclave.

On the other hand, the Constitution does not forbid the exchange of opinions, the informal dinners, and discussing possible candidates. And the cardinals of Team Bergoglio (Murphy could not even take part in the Conclave) did exactly this: dinners, exchange of opinions and so forth. Yet, the four asked Fr. Federico Lombardi, Director of the Holy See Press Office, to dispute the book’s account, which he did. To which Ivereigh responded by underscoring that they were only denying they had an agenda, not that they urged for Bergoglio’s election.

Ivereigh writes that the four had backed Jorge Mario Bergoglio during the 2005 conclave, and that Bergoglio himself dissuaded them from keep on voting for him –voting that served to block Ratzinger’s election. It seems just a minor detail, but in fact it is a revealing piece of information. After eight years of Benedict XVI, the cardinals chose to look back. It is even a symbolic choice, in a world where everything has a meaning. And the meaning is: we should have walked a different path.

Scandals and continuous attacks on Benedict XVI’s pontificate must be read against this backdrop: the attacks have provided an excuse for cardinals to switch the pre-conclave meetings’ themes from the universal problems of the Church and of announcing the Gospel, to the urgent problem to solve the practical controversies. And they have also backed the notion that the urgent problems may be solved with a reform of the reform. Id est, returning to the past, masking it as a great novelty.

Good part of the biased debate at the pre-conclave meetings is mirrored in the current debate. The so-much discussed Curia reform had been backed by many during the meetings. Yet, just a few cardinals knew in depth what the Roman Curia is, how it works. The financial issue was deemed crucial. But much of the information was that coming from newspapers, and it was not always accurate information.

This backdrop is probably the reason why Cardinal George Pell, Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy and member of the Council of Cardinals, wrote an article on the Catholic Herald.

The headline of the article – “The days of ripping off the Vatican are over” – was true: many have ripped off the Vatican during these years. And Cardinal Pell is moved by the sincere wish to clean the Vatican up. Some passages of the interview are however noteworthy.

Cardinal Pell underscored that the Vatican is not broke, since there are many millions in “sectional balance sheets.” Fr. Federico Lombardi clarified Pell’s assertions the day after the publication of the article, noting that the cardinal was not speaking about hidden funds, as his words may have suggested.

That of the “millions tucked away” is perhaps the most flamboyant assertion.

It is also noteworthy that Cardinal Pell’s text may suggested that Ettore Gotti Tedeschi was sacked from his post of President of the IOR Board of Superintendancy because he was in the middle of a struggle of power; and that Pontifical Councils and Congregation had at least a naive management of their finance – but in fact they were kept to present their balance sheet to the Prefecture of the Economic Affairs for oversight.

True, a rationalization of the organization of the Vatican financial structures might be in order. But it is also true that what Cardinal Pell described as “sectional funds” are more likely the funds of the Secretariat of State, the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and the Congregation for the Eastern Churches: all of them have their own budgets, which are not reflected in the overall Holy See / Vatican City State budget.

All of these institutions have dedicated funds and budgets in order to defend the Church’s freedom. For instance, if in a country where priests cannot have a bank account and neither can their parishes, the Apostolic Nuncio accredited there asks for financial aid from the Secretariat of State, the latter must be able to give it to him quickly and possibly in cash. This is part of the mission of the Church, supporting the dioceses in mission.

In order to guarantee the Church’s freedom, a financial reform that would adhere to international standards and at the same time preserved the Vatican City State specificity had been drafted under Benedict XVI’s pontificate. And a reform of the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs had been put into effect as well, thus giving this prefecture tasks similar to those of a Vatican ministry of finances. The Institute for Religious Works (IOR) had started reviewing all of its clients’ accounts, while Vatican finances as a whole underwent a third-party evaluation by the Council of Europe’s MONEYVAL committee. MONEYVAL’s report found Vatican finances largely compliant with international standards, while the MONEYVAL progress report that followed (issued Dec. 2013) confirmed the seriousness of the Vatican effort.

Pell’s article suggests the need for a complete overhaul. On the other hand, one should consider Benedict XVI’s reforms and their huge impact. Likewise it should be acknowledged that this path had already begun under John Paul II. The new project for finances seemingly aims at the total consolidation of budgets, under the sole control of the Secretariat for the Economy. Instead, Benedict XVI’s reform was based on collegiality, but nobody have really underscored it.

Benedict XVI’s pontificate has not been understood in its revolutionary potentiality. On the other hand, everything done by Pope Francis is (often wrongly) described as a rupture with the past.

Among cardinals, bishops, Curia workers many are feeling a little disappointed, since this new approach – fostered by media – seemingly maintains that nothing had been done in the past. For example, the stress on a new pastoral commitment may  suggest that Church have lacked of pastoral care in the past; the continual mentions to the malfunctioning of the Curia may let understand that in the Curia there are no goodwill men, or that everything has been badly managed until now. Obviously,  Pope Francis do not wish to let things look so. He simply wanted to address problems.

True, things may be improved – and they are going to be. On the other hand, media  should avoid the temptation to portrait Curia as a nest of non professional people, or a place for illicit dealings.

That Benedict’s reform is valid and ongoing can be inferred from the resistance of many bishops and cardinals to its overhaul. The Synod of Bishops – – during which prelates have voiced their concern, in an open debate – has been an important testing ground. Another testing ground was the Pope’s meeting with the heads of Vatican dicasteries on Nov. 24.

Discussing the Council of Cardinals’ proposals for reform, the heads of Vatican dicasteries raised many objections, according to Vatican sources. No problem with the proposal to consolidate two big congregations (Justice and Peace, and Laity and Family) that include five secretariats each (i.e., offices). The issue was – critics stressed – that the reform should only be carried forward according to institutional criteria, taking into account the responsibilities of each dicastery and their valuable contributions. The heads of dicasteries also raised pragmatic issues. For instance: where would employees of the assimilated dicasteries go? All of these issues were reportedly missing from the information presented to the heads of dicasteries.

Not by chance Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga, coordinator of the Council of Cardinals, had granted an interview to reiterate their willingness to carry out reforms. But the real issue is that the reforms may not change anything substantial, just the way each dicastery is managed. In the Nov. 24 report, there were many “gaps” and the heads of dicasteries noticed it. This is the reason why the expected, major announcement of the reform going forward did not take place.

The same happened during the synod of bishops. Pressures toward hasty changes – and carried out as if the Church had never known pastoral care – led to a first draft (the mid-term report) that was not favored by the majority of bishops. The final report had to take into account many of the issues raised, especially the absence language quoted from the scriptures. The final report is not however completely liked, but it is an almost accepted compromise.

The way the synod itself had been managed gave the impression that changes were going to be secretly imposed, without taking into account differences of opinion – as proved by the secrecy of the discussions (the General Secretariat of the Synod did not want to make them public) as well as the lively discussion about making public the observations to the mid-term report.

This is something for the Council of Cardinals to keep their eyes on, as they gather on the 9th, for their sixth meeting. Many of their reforms are presented as a real overturn of the previous status quo. One can assume that Benedict XVI’s reforms, based on collegiality and personal responsibility, scared people. They pushed the Church forward, and had a major impact in the international arena. But at the same time, those reforms obliged everyone to be transparent and clear. The big reform of charity; the big reform of Vatican finances; the reform of the Code of Canon Law (which Pope Francis had  promulgated)… all initiatives introduced under Benedict XVI. Who saw very clearly the need for a new kind of leadership, and this is why he started his reforms by changes to the criteria of admission to seminaries. Quite ironic that one of his last speeches (and a prophetic one, in light of what happened later) was that delivered to seminarians in Rome.

If the Holy See’s commitment to turn the Vatican into a modern state,while keeping its own specificity, has not been understood, it is because on the opposite side stands a model for a pop, company-like Church aiming to stir consciences with simple words people like to hear.

But the Church is not only pop. The Church is also history, mission and sovereignty. And the sovereignty of the small territory of Vatican City State is crucial for the Holy See to exercise its mission. In times when Europe itself had turned its back to Christian values, sovereignty becomes a main tool to fully act as a moral authority.

Pope Francis’ big challenge is now that of completing Benedict XVI’s reforms. The media’s big challenge, on the other hand, is to go beyond the paradigm of discontinuity.

Media need to understand that between one Pope and another there is a series of reforms that need to be carried out to ber effective, and that Francis cannot carry anything forward without appreciating and valuing the work of his predecessor. For instance, as Francis, Benedict XVI had spoken of a poor Church for poor. He did during his 2011 trip to Germany, when he outlined a Church that had to be less worldy, less appeased on its own structure.

It was a slap on the face, for the wealthy German Church. Benedict XVI revoked the latae sententiae commination of excommunication for those who do not pay the “Kirchensteuer,” the Church tax. The excommunication was an outcome of the fact that when one declared he was not going to pay the tax because he was not Catholic anymore, this declaration was considered the equivalent of an act of apostasy. The German bishops responded with a document which stated that not paying the Kirchensteuer was equivalent to a “grave public sin,” which bore in the end the same consequences of an excommunication. Until now, this is the only “grave public sin” German bishops have listed, while for every other “grave public sin,” included that of being divorced and civilly remarried (which also has a social impact), German bishops (including reformer Cardinals Marx, Kasper and Lehmann) ask to act with mercy.

These small contradictions are food for thought. We should go beyond the paradigm of Pope Francis’ discontinuity. But we should also acknowledge that many, among those who have elected him, have their own agenda – otherwise, why should they be so active? How much will Pope Francis follow this agenda, is yet to be known. But their activism indicates that the Pope, in the end, will not back their every move.

Pope Francis’ words were not enough. The Council of Cardinals met July 1-4. The Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, joined this group of 8 appointed by Pope Francis. The Pope – according to Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office – told Cardinal Parolin that he is a full member of the Council. However, no document has been issued yet to certify the Secretary of State’s membership in the group. In the meantime, Cardinal Parolin is trying to keep his position via his being present.

Parolin’s activism is a reaction to the push to have reform engulf, it seems, the very Secretariat of State, that could be destined to be divided into two Secretariats: the Secretariat of State proper, i.e. for diplomacy, and the Secretariat for the Life of the Church, i.e. the general affairs. There would also be a General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops; and there is already the Secretariat for the Economy, led by its proactive prefect, George Pell.

This ‘four secretariats’ structure is just a hypothesis, since the fifth meeting of cardinals have not produced a draft for Curia reform. Widely discussed is the streamlining of the Curia (bringing the Pontifical Council for Laity and Family together; Justice and Peace with Cor Unum and Migrants; and the Congregation for the Divine Worship with that for the Cause of Saints). Also in this case, we are dealing with hypotheses. Pope Francis went back in part to the old draft for a Curia reform written by Cardinal Attilio Nicora shortly before John Paul II’s death. The draft proposed the establishment of a Council of Cardinals, and a brutal amalgamation of dicasteries. The Council of Cardinals was intended to consolidate positions that had crystallized under the administration of the Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, who had his (mostly Italian) interests to maintain. Nicora’s draft was in fact a way to protect this power.

Pope Francis went beyond Nicora’s draft. Angelo Sodano had managed the pre-conclave meetings in a way that led cardinals to speak of management, more than of the substantial issues. The search for a missionary Pope, able to speak to the people, seemed to be a natural consequence. The Pope acts as a front man, while the Roman Curia manages its re-organization, dismantling piece by piece the reform of collegiality carried on by Benedict XVI. Pope Francis noted there was a wish for discussion, the same kind of discussion he was accustomed to, from the Jesuits’ General Congregations. In the end, the Superior General there makes the decision. But during the Congregations, everybody can voice concerns.

This is the spirit that Pope Francis has brought into his pontificate. The notion of a permanent Council, of ongoing talks, can however bring about some surprises. So, the Curia of the old days, after many of his main characters took important posts, had to face some surprises. Especially on the economic side.

For what concerns the economy, Pope Francis has continued, with no rush, Benedict  XVI’s work. The Vatican’s Financial Intelligence Authority strengthened its international profile and issued new statutes. The Vatican first amanded its first anti-money laundering law, and then – under Pope Francis – changed it with a brand new one, which positioned the Holy See among the most advanced countries in the world in this regard. This could not have happened without the enormous effort carried out by Vatican officials.

The Vatican hired several external consultants, thus projecting the idea of a reality moving toward reforms. But consultants are usually people coming from the outside, and this led to pros and cons. On “pro” is that external consultants are professionals (even if also Vatican officials are). A “con” is that consultants can never know in depth the full scope of the realms they are providing advice to and about.

In the media, this is portrayed as a “gang fight”. In fact, what the in the media has become a petty war among gangs, is a fight between two opposite visions. And every mean is licit, in the midst of this war. Also passing to journalists rumors and gossips, sometimes even mischaracterizing reality to prove a thesis.

For what concerns the Institute for Religious Works, the internal line has prevailed. The institute is a resource for the Catholic Church and her mission, and it cannot be abolished. There will not be revolutionary changes. Just an updating, to better insert the institute (whose chirograph and statutes stretch back to 1990) in the international arena.

This issue brings about a debate. The Curia of the old days is tied hand in glove to Italy. And Italy more than once has used the IOR as a scapegoat.  Italy views the Vatican as a subdivision that should manage every international relationship on the basis of its trusted relations with Italy.

This vision contrasts with the international vision, people aiming for the Holy See to be present in the world and able to send money to missions through her own international sovereign channels provided by the IOR.

Among those who support this second vision, there are some who are supporting a more speculative IOR, in order to generate more profits, and to have the IOR fully join the international banking system. On the other hand, there are people who wish the IOR to keep its characteristics of a sovereign institute, with funds at the Pope’s disposal.

Hence, the story of the territorial factions. They are referred to as “The Americans,” “The Germans,” “The Maltese,” and a power struggle ensues. Reality is far more nuanced. The Council of Superintendency of the Institute backed and supported the international turnaround and upholding sovereignty. It also favored the process of reform within the Institute, and making the IOR in some small ways a bank, even (perhaps) giving it the possibility of lending money. An approach that, it seems, was taken at the request of the Pontifical Commission for the IOR, chaired by Cardinal Raffaele Farina.

The process of reform has almost come to an end. The members of the board will probably tender their resignations, in order to support and facilitate a generational change. The Secretariat for Economy should take the lead of the management of the assets, to be entrusted to another body, the Vatican Asset Management. Surely, the president will change: Ernst von Freyberg has accomplished his tasks.  He operated as a full-time president although he was not one under the statutes.  Now that the statutes foresee having one, the job will not go to him.

Who might be von Freyberg’s successor? Two names are often mentioned: that of Jean Baptiste de Franssu, and that of Francis X. Zahra. They are both members of the Council for the Economy, they were both part of the (now dissolved) Pontifical Commission of Reference on the Economic-Administrative Structure of the Holy See, and they both were – according to unconfirmed rumors – in the set of three names that the Spencer&Stuart head-hunting agency had given to the Secretariat of State when the latter was searching for someone to replace Gotti Tedeschi as president of the council of the IOR, who got a no confidence vote by his own council.

These names would represent a line of renewal within continuity, but at the same time they would not act as the hawks, the latter aiming of making the IOR a speculative reality, as they would like to do with many other realities. For example, the widely gossiped commission for communications  would also be tasked with reviewing the Vatican Television Centre statutes, to make it a more commercial and profitable activity.

Paradoxically, it is the leftist-leaning world of pro-internal democracy that is pushing the Vatican towards a capitalistic pivot.  The democrats are very much to the left and very sympathetic to the Pope, so much so that they stand behind the Papal shield when necessary. They praise Pope Francis’ words on poverty, but they also ask the Church to revise her moral teaching.

These contrasting tendencies will came out, for example, in the next discussion on the Non Proliferation Treaty, the first important test for the new Holy See Permanent Observer to the United Nations Bernardito Auza. Archbishop Auza will have to act as a mediator between the prudent position of those who are against nuclear weapons, but do want to ban nuclear energy, because “it has civil implications to be considered”; and those who, even within the Vatican, back the extremist line, that of a total ban on anything nuclear, a choice that would place the Holy See on one side of the negotiations process instead of as a facilitator.

The sovereignty of the Holy See is always at stake. It was so when the Administration for the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA) issued its new statutes, which made its consultants into members of the advisory board, de facto showing that APSA was acting as a bank even when it was referred to as a Central Body of the Vatican City State. This reform could be swept away if the Secretariat for the Economy’s intentions to dissolve APSA become a reality: the tasks of the ordinary section would be taken by the Secretariat for the Economy; while APSA’s extraordinary section would instead be under the responsibility and control of the Council for the Economy.

All of these issues are portrayed by the media as a gang war. Perhaps, there is just a major issue. What seems to be missing is a central vision, which is never made concrete, with processes becoming, instead, ideas on urgent reforms that are not translated into action. In the meantime, Vatican officials are passionately working, trying to keep the Holy See a modern State, yet preserving its peculiarities.

While cardinals are counseled by many voices (some of them are lobbyists), Pope Francis is still speaking about missionarity.

And the Legionaries of Christ never pushed missionarity aside. Stricken by the scandal of their founder, they have initiated, with great sacrifice, a path to renewal that led them to the election of a new government and the drafting of new constitutions. These constitutions have been examined by an ad-hoc commission. The pontifical advisor, Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, has taken part in the process of renewal since the very beginning.

Today, the Legionaries have many vocations, notwithstanding the “abnormal and wasted” life, as Benedict XVI described it, of the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, Father Maciel.  While the Legionaries of Christ was renovating its internal structure and organization, the missionary ideal did not falter at all.  Despite any controversies, the Legionaries of Christ example should be followed.