Now it seems that even the most determined FOFs have backed away from calling what the Pope is doing about the Roman Curia a revolution, scaling down to the less ambitious word 'reform', which is, after all, what JMB/PF announced he intended. Only he thought he could do it virtually overnight, but events have shown it takes more than the best of intentions - even supported by universal consensus - to effect reform. It also needs time, patience and the right direction. In his Monday column, Andrea Gagliarducci offered a far more realistic account of how things stand in Curial reform than other Vaticanistas have so far, even if his commentary continues to be encumbered by dubious statements that raise more questions than they answer. Also, two titles were provided for this commentary, and I am showing them both:
Behind Pope Francis: A hidden Vatican
and
Pope Francis: Looking for a reform scenario
March 9, 2015
The official approval of the statutes of the three recently established Vatican economic bodies marked a small turning point in the path toward Vatican reforms.
[The statutes were approved a year and a day after the bodies were created by papal fiat.] The anomaly that Pope Francis created by establishing curial dicasteries without any statutes has now come to a close.
[An anomaly no one disputed at the time, along with the fact that the new Secretariat of the Economy was asked to draw up the statues for itself, the Council for the Economy and the new office of Auditor-General. Do you think MSM would ever have let Benedict XVI get away with anything like that?]
The era of external consultants has now turned into the era of institutionalization. It has now been accepted that a reform, more than a revolution, is needed. But the fact that the statutes have been so hotly debated also shows there is a breach,
albeit a small one,[???? Isn't it more than a 'small breach', when Le Figaro's Jean Guenois presented a dossier at year's end 2014 entitled 'Secret war in the Vatican'? An allegation Fr. Lombardi did not bother to question. Surely, Gagliarducci would be the last one to claim that there will ever be 100% consensus at the Vatican!] within Pope Francis’s administration. This breach can be understood only by taking a wider view.
The debate surrounding the drafting of the statutes was wide and lively. The central question was how to reconcile the need for financial transparency and the wish to adhere to international standards with the need to maintain the sovereignty of the Holy See? This topic of discussion has recurred in all the debates over the reform of Vatican finances since Benedict XVI’s pontificate.
The final model [under Benedict XVI} was then completely developed within the Vatican, after external consultants were entrusted with outlining reforms for a short and difficult period.
The adoption of these recommendations resulted in a generally positive evaluation of the Vatican by the Council of Europe’s committee MONEYVAL, and in a substantial promotion of the Vatican once the anti-money laundering law was completely re-written, a process through which the new law overcame some of the limits present in the first draft. [Thanks for pointing this out from the start! - And not as if financial reform at the Vatican had sprung from scratch in this Pontificate, which is the general impression peddled by the media and now firmly planted in the public mind.]
Vision seems to be the main problem in the case of Pope Francis’s economic reform. On one side were the external consultants, the true main players during the first part of Pope Francis’s pontificate. Their menu of recommendations aimed at creating out of the Holy See an effective institution, able to generate revenues, as if the Holy See were like any other corporate business. On the other hand stood the usual Vatican curialists, men involved for years in a renewal process who were quite aware that the Holy See was not a company, but a sovereign state with all of its complexities.
Debate engaged both of these two poles. But as is always the case, the truth is nuanced, since the two ‘teams’ are not so clearly defined.
Cardinal George Pell, Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy, has committed himself to financial transparency.
[A superfluous statement, as he wouldn't be where he is if he were not!] At the same time, the initial decision to place the management of the real estate holdings of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA) under the umbrella of the Secretariat for the Economy [before any statutes had been written for the new 'economy' structures] was considered a sort of ‘casus belli’ in terms of the debate.
In the end the debate resulted in the decision that the real estate management should be left out of the Secretariat: it has yet to be decided whether an ‘ad hoc’ department for real estate investment will be established, or whether the real estate will return to APSA (which in this case would become a hybrid central treasury).
Meanwhile,
Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Secretary of State, worked in order to secure all of the structural components in the Roman Curia. In the absence of statutes for each of the new dicasteries, Cardinal Parolin matched each of his proposals with supporting documents. [colore-#0026ff]
[This is important information that has not been reported elsewhere, to my knowledge. It shows independent initiative rather than passive submission (to a substantially ungrounded initial decision by the Pope) on the part of Cardinal Parolin] He showed that he wanted to defend the institution. Nevertheless, many curial officials played their own games in an effort to maneuver around Parolin, perhaps in order to protect their own interests.
In the end, the final decision made clear that the Secretariat of State exercises its proper role in the international arena, while the Secretariat for the Economy oversees the dicasteries of Roman Curia, as well as the Vatican City State administration.
This latter point is noteworthy.
A large part of the Holy See’s economic scandals stemmed from the administration of Vatican City State, the point in which the Vatican records the biggest profits. These profits come from the Vatican Museums, or from of public works contracts – a problem raised by the Vatileaks scandal. [There are two things wrong in the preceding statements. 1) Since when has Vatican City State administration (i.e., the Governatorate) been responsible for 'a large part of the Holy See's economic scandals? Name one glaring instance that ever made the news! In fact, the Vatican Museums which fall under the Governatorate, has been the Vatican's largest and steadiest revenue maker - and it hasn't been involved in any financial scandals at all. 2) On public works contracts and the Vatileaks scandal: Mons. Vigano made one specific accusation in his shotgun screed against his perceived enemies at the Vatican - that the annual construction of the Nativity scene in St. Peter's Square was overpriced in 2010 and that he brought it down the following year. The Governatorate explained after Vigano's 2012 letter to Cardinal Bertone (in which he mentions the 'scandal') was made public, that the cost in 2010 was in large part due to the decision to order a permanent modular steel foundation for the Nativity scene that could be reused every year instead of building a new temporary foundation every year. Vigano never rebutted that explanation.
What other 'scandals' involving public works contracts does Gagliarducci know of? Vigano's letter gave the impression that such contracts are generally awarded to 'favored' individuals or firms, but he did not cite specific cases. Whether there are favored individuals or firms, surely the records will show if they presented the best bid possible for the specific jobs they got. And if any bidding was irregular in any way, then prove it.]
If the Secretariat for the Economy had not been able to extend its oversight powers to the Governatorate, it would have failed to satisfy one of the reasons it was conceived.
Not by chance, as this debate was heating up, the media published leaks about the expenditures of Cardinal Pell. The leaks followed
the same Vatileaks pattern – a personal attack intended to slow down a reform process. [This statement illustrates one of my major reservations about Gagliarducci's reporting and commentary. The statement does not apply to Vatileaks at all, about which no one at any time mentioned any 'reform process' - first of all, because MSM was always careful not to attribute any 'reform' (or anything positive, for that matter) to Benedict XVI, and second, because Vatileaks seemed to be directed mainly at discrediting Cardinal Bertone, not for any reforms he attempted, but simply because he was persona non grata to the Curial establishment.]
It is still unknown who was behind the leaks, which included documents accompanied by a narrative that included factual errors. But in the Vatican leakers are either men who have lost their power or who are on the verge of losing it.
The nature of the leaks concerning Cardinal Pell along with some clues provided by the leaks lead observers to surmise that the leakers come from the ranks Prefecture for the Economic Affairs (that is going to be suppressed as a result of Cardinal Pell’s reform) or from some former ranks of the Bambino Gesù Hospital that is run by the Secretariat of State: Cardinal Parolin recently appointed new governors to the hospital. Both of these groups have voiced discontent.
[In any case, the 'leak' was so picayune and easily shot down that I am surprised L'Espresso (Italy's equivalent of TIME magazine) took it seriously - 2500 euros or something spent for ecclesiastical garments, which, it turns out, were not for Pell's personal use, but for the use of the priests in his office. At the very least, L'Espresso could have called Pell to ask for his side before they published their dud of a 'scoop'.]
Clues are not proofs, but sources say that “you should look among the gang of discontents to understand what is going on”. In the end the gang war is not merely over vision.
This is the usual game of crisscross interests that targeted Benedict XVI as well, and the targetting includes even those officials who have sponsored these popes. There is no gratitude, nor vision. Every Pope must face this issue.
Pope Francis is facing the issue as well. The scenario may be even widened. Economic reform was so much a priority that the Council for the Economy, Secretariat for the Economy and General Auditor statutes were issued before the statutes of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors – even though the latter are almost ready. “There was a priority to be respected,” one of the
experts in drafting the statutes said.
Because of this anxiety to carry forward the economic reform, Pope Francis filled the Vatican with external consultants, at first inserted in the Pontifical Commission for Reference of the Institute for Religious Works and in the economic-administrative structure of the Holy See, and sometimes contracted, for millions in fees. These experts brought expertise and skills within the Vatican, and presented all the possibilities to improve management and generate revenues.
At the same time, external experts also seized Vatican secrets, with the possibility to raise infamous campaigns against the Vatican if things do not meet their expectations. [It may not be as sinister as Gagliarducci paints it, but the fact is that all those external consultants have been made privy to all the Vatican documents they could ask for in carrying out their assignments, and one has to trust in the good faith of each consultant not to abuse that rare privilege. One of the main concerns when the Pope appointed Italian media consultant Francesca Chiaoqui as a member of the commission to investigate IOR and make appropriate recommendations was that the woman had a record of using her social network accounts to spread false information about Benedict XVI and Cardinal Bertone. Imagine what someone like her could do with documented facts about any Vatican irregularities or anomalies that the public has never heard of but which would be far more damaging than mere rumors!]
All of their proposals suffered from limitations when it came to understanding the inner nature of the Vatican. Which is not to generate revenues, but to preserve a sovereignty that is needed for the mission of the Church.] [But the primary reason they were hired was to recommend measures that would keep the Vatican/Holy See's financial and economic transactions open and aboveboard at all times. Any recommendations on how to maximize or generate revenues from existing assets and operations would be secondary and in keeping with the primary motivation for their engagement. Besides, the Vatican was not hiring no-name ignoramuses, and the first thing they would have been told by whoever hired them at the Vatican was to learn the fundamentals about the Holy See and Vatican City State - the Holy See is the entity that governs the universal Church under the leadership of the Pope, and Vatican City State is its geographical and juridical location that guarantees the sovereignty of the Holy See in carrying out her mission for the universal Church.][/dim
Who spun Pope Francis to fill the Holy See with consultants? And why did cardinals have such a secular view? ['Spun Pope Francis'? Tsk-tsk, Mr G. Such condescending language for the pluperfect Pope! No one had to 'spin' him - he 'spins' himself enough. But seriously, if, as John Allen recently said of JMB/PF in a recent speech to open the annual 'Partners for Charity' campaign of St. Vincent's Hospital in New York, "beneath the humble exterior lies the mind of a brilliant Jesuit politician”, as his down-then-up-and-never-again-down career in the Society of Jesus proves, he surely must have been in lockstep with his advisers in the matter of financial reforms. As for his advisory cardinals having 'such a secular view', the fact alone that they unquestioningly swallowed Vatileaks as the media served it to them, i.e., 'evil and corruption' in Benedict XVI's Vatican, and considered this the most urgent problem facing the Church when they chose his successor, tells it all.]
These are still unanswered questions. The internal discussion evolves around these questions. It is not a fight between Italian and Anglo-Saxon mentalities, as it is often presented in a very simplistic way by the media – this issue was overcome a long time ago, and Vatican finances were already following the ‘international’ path.
From an external point of view, which lacks many nuanced details, the visions at stake at the moment could even be reconciliable. They are not only because those who are counseling and leading the debate are following their personal interests, [That is a very serious charge - and since it would seem to involve the 'Gang of Nine', are we to think that each of those nine cardinals are really pushing their own agenda ahead of any other consideration? The most prominent members of that advisory council - Parolin, Pell, Maradiaga, Marx and O'Malley - have also been the most outspoken in the past two years, the last three for rash and near-heretical statements that neither the Pope nor Fr. Lombardi has ever disavowed or corrected.] thus blocking any possibility of mutual agreement for the sake of the Holy See.
So, while Pope Francis is turning the page on the second year of Pontificate, the same old problems still affect the Vatican, as the power of different factions has even increased from Benedict XVI’s time. [If this is true, then no one but Gagliarducci has seen fit to make the observation because it is is so antithetical to the universal narrative about this Pope who was widely hailed as the 'can-do' Pope.]
Pope Francis is not pushing a particular agenda of government, while people behind his back are. [Of Gagliarducci's many questionable statements since this Pontificate began, this is one manifest denial of fact that I cannot explain. What was Evangelii gaudium but the manifesto or agenda for his Pontificate? No Pope in my lifetime ever felt compelled to issue such a statement as an Apostolic Exhortation, no less! (Whereas Benedict XVI famously made it clear from the start that he had no agenda other than 'with the whole Church, to listen to the Word of God") This one denial of fact alone considerably diminishes, to my mind, the reliability of Gagliarducci's analyses!
And if 'people behind his (JMB's) back' are pushing their own agenda, hasn't that always been a fact of Vatican life? What is new is that JMB came in expecting and creating the expectation that the very fact of his election would miraculously change human nature, or at least, that of the persons who work at the Vatican. Finding out there was no such miracle perhaps explains why he decided to lecture the Roman Curia on their 'diseases' fully 20 months into his Pontificate!]
How can things be brought to a conclusion? The synthesis – or balance – is achieved when proposals of reform get to the desk of Vatican experts – people who have been always working in the Vatican: they know the Vatican’s peculiarity, and they have always been faithful to the Vatican. The most important reforms carried forward in the course of the last years must be ascribed to these Vatican experts. [And who are these 'Vatican experts', exactly? Names, please! If they have been responsible for the most important reforms in recent years, their names ought to be published! It also means they were part of that Curia under Benedict XVI that has been so thoroughly 'discredited' by the media and in public opinion. So, are they good guys or villains?]
We can now set our glance to the Curia reform, which is a broader issue. A Council of Cardinals in great majority from outside the Curia has been entrusted with studying a possible reform. Their task was to bring the perspective and concerns of peripheries, and to dialogue with the central power in Rome. It seems that they want to bring their ideas to Rome, as a sort of local Churches’ vindication.
Just a few of them know the Curia and its real scope. ['A few'? Who, exactly? There are only nine of them. Other than Cardinal Bertello, president of Vatican City State, not one of them had Rome-based Curial experience before March 13, 2013. Since then, Pell and Parolin have necessarily immersed themselves in the affairs of the Vatican and the Holy See. Maradiaga is president of Caritas International, which is not a Vatican agency, and has mostly operated as a free agent in that capacity.]
Often, these cardinals have merely set their the gaze on Curia scandals, flaws and human contradictions. But only people who are really within the Curia are able to fully understand the Curia.
In the end, the paradigm of the Pontificate is slowly changing. From external consultants to consultants from within. External consultants are called to give opinions, to provide an external point of view; but they are not called to carry out the reforms, to change the Holy See framework.
Now, Pope Francis’s pontificate seems to be turning to normality.[And what exactly is 'normality'? The US army coined the word SNAFU from the acronym for 'situation normal - all f... up"!] If there must be a revolution, this can be done at a slow pace, building the reform structure step by step. Paradoxically, the paradigm of revolution helps more the old powers, which find a way to preserve themselves in the face of continuous announcements of revolution. If reform is slow and 'surgical', instead, tensions are suffocated as they arise, and there is not so much space for media campaigns. [dim=#0026ff][Really? Wouldn't that give them much more time and space???]
There is a group that is silently working in the Vatican to back a true, deep, real reform. Not even Pope Francis is probably aware of it.
Step by step, this group is taking things in their hands. Small signals of a change of pace may be detected. It seems now certain that the Curia reform will take time and that the revision of the Apostolic Constitution that regulates the Curia functions will be now studied by an ad hoc commission.
And the new vice director of the Institute for Religious Works was appointed on March 6: Gianfranco Mammì, who had started his career in the Institute in 1992 as a cashier. Is this the signal that the era of external consultants has come to an end? [One swallow doesn't make a summer. Isn't it more definitive to just check the dates when the external consultants' contracts expire?]
This question is in suspension, as are Pope Francis’s intentions. While the debate was getting heated, Pope Francis did not take a position, and his will was used by both sides. The impression is that the Pope is not very much interested in these discussions. This is another reason why the scenario is really more complicated than foreseen: when the Pope is not providing a clear vision, everyone is afraid to make any moves.[colore] [/dim=9pt][With all those high-powered advisers and announcements right and left about what he wants to do about the Curia, he is 'not providing a clear vision'?][/dim And those who are not afraid are usually those who play a dirty game. [The saying is 'Where there's a will, there's a way'. Whose will is stronger in this case, the Pope's or his opponents? Surely, a determined reformer - he does not even have to be a 'revolutionary - knows that he has to break eggs to make an omelet. Let him break the eggs he has to break in order to get his way!]
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 12/03/2015 21:35]