Is the new Fundamental Law issued by Pope Francis last week simply a modernization of Vatican City’s civil constitution or something much more — perhaps even a Copernican revolution in how the city-state functions and understands itself?
Pope Francis said he issued the new law “to respond to the needs of our times.” And Professor Vincenzo Buonomo, a councilor of the Vatican City State and rector of the Lateran University, stressed this week that this reform, the first in 23 years, merely aims at emphasizing and valuing some of the aspects of the state, while at the same time giving it what he called a renewed “missionary push.”
Yet in some respects, Francis’ May 13 promulgation moves the state closer to the model of a modern, secular state.
To be sure, the new law leaves no doubt that the civil government remains very much an absolute monarchy, with the supreme pontiff possessing all “legislative, executive, and judicial powers.”
But the new law gives Vatican City’s civil entities a more central role, even in international relations, and it now emphatically makes the city-state the guarantor of the Holy See’s sovereignty.
Other notable changes include allowing for lay appointees to its legislative body, the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State; restructuring the state councilors who advise the commission as a “college”; and modernizing and tightening fiscal oversight.
In addition, the role of the secretary of state is de-emphasized while the pope’s powers are centralized, as has been manifested in other reforms during Francis’ pontificate.
Guaranteeing independence
Francis’ new constitution is the third Fundamental Law since 1929, the year in which the Vatican City State was founded with the Lateran Treaty.
The treaty put an end to the so-called “Roman question.” After Rome and the Papal States had been annexed to the Kingdom of Italy in 1871, the problem arose of how to guarantee the independence of the Holy See, which was by then in Italian territory.
It was not just an Italian question because the material and moral independence of the pope and of the bodies through which he carries out his service to the universal Church is in the interest of all Catholics and all states.
From the birth of modern states, the Holy See had understood that the only guarantee of independence would be to manage its own state. And so, the solution to the Roman question involved the creation of a territory so small as to seem almost symbolic but with all the constituent elements of a state: territory, population, sovereignty, and legal system.
Today, the civil government provides security, public order, civil protection, health protection, health care, general hygiene, the environment and ecology, economic activities, postal, philatelic, customs services, connectivity and network infrastructures, construction activities, technical systems, plumbing, and electricity.
It also is responsible for the Vatican Museums’ conservation, enhancement, and use, as well as “superintendence over the assets of the entire artistic, historical, archaeological, and ethnographic heritage.”
After 1929 there were, over time, various adjustments to the state constitution, but it was only under John Paul II that a new Fundamental Law was promulgated, on Nov. 26, 2000.
In 1929, it was envisaged that the legislative power would be exercised directly by the pope, with the possibility of “delegating the legislative power for certain matters or individual objects to the governor of the state.”
The 2000 law instead established that the Pontifical Commission directly exercised legislative power, except for cases in which the pontiff reserved it for himself. The state remained an absolute monarchy, but John Paul II handed over the management of power and administration, making concrete the fact that the pope, despite being king, did not act like a king.
‘Functions,’ not ‘powers’
The Secretariat of State was mentioned four times in the law of 2000 and, in all cases, acted as an intermediary for presenting draft laws or the state budget to the pope.
However, with Pope Francis’ new Fundamental Law, the pope returns to the center of everything.
The Secretariat of State is mentioned only once — in Article 2, which underlines that “the representation of the Vatican City State in relations with States and with other subjects of international law, in diplomatic relations and for the conclusion of treaties, are reserved to the Supreme Pontiff who exercises them through the Secretariat of State.”
This article remains practically unchanged from the previous law, except that it sets forth a more decisive role of the civil administration, which “participates in the international institutions of which the Holy See is a member in the name and on behalf of the State” and which “maintains relations and subscribes, with bodies and foreign bodies, acts necessary to ensure supplies, connections, facilities, and public services.” In this way, the state takes on a more critical role.
But the centralization of the pope’s authority is highlighted in the new constitution by the fact that power is reserved to the pope while other entities are assigned only functions. For this reason, the new law does not refer to the “powers” of the Secretariat of State, the administration, and the Pontifical Commission. Instead, the various bodies have legislative, executive, and judicial functions.
The new law also confirms the legislative function of the Pontifical Commission, until now composed of a cardinal president and other cardinals appointed by the pope. But now there is this novelty: “other members” may also be designated in the commission, including lay men and women.
Yet another change is a requirement for more robust fiscal management.
Under the new law, a three-year financial plan approved by the commission is to be submitted “directly for the approval of the Supreme Pontiff” without going through the Vatican economic bodies or the Secretariat of State, as the old law required. In addition, the budget of the Vatican City State administration is to be “subjected to the control and auditing of a Board, made up of three members, appointed for a three-year term by the Pontifical Commission, to which it reports.”
How this new constitution will affect the Holy See is yet to be understood.
The Vatican City State remains, in the end, the pope’s domain. Nonetheless, the new law suggests that the city-state is no longer merely considered a support to the Holy See but an entity closer to the secular and modern states, as it has never been in the past. It might be a necessary and welcome update to the state’s structure, but could it also undermine the institution of the Holy See?
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
The European Parliament building in Brussels, Belgium. / Ala z via Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 3.0).
Brussels, Belgium, Jun 23, 2021 / 10:00 am (CNA).
A Christian legal group said Wednesday that its inclusion in a report claiming that “religious extremi… […]
A defining theme of Pope Francis’ papacy has been his urging of humanity to better care for the natural environment, which he has done most prominently in his landmark 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’ and numerous subsequent writings and speeches.
The pope’s emphasis on this topic — especially his foray into climate science via his recent encyclical Laudate Deum — has variously drawn both praise and consternation from Catholics in the United States, about half of whom do not share Pope Francis’ views on climate change, according to surveys.
In Laudate Deum, which was released in October as a continuation to Laudato Si’, Francis wrote that the effects of climate change “are here and increasingly evident,” warning of “immensely grave consequences for everyone” if drastic efforts are not made to reduce emissions. In the face of this, the Holy Father criticized those who “have chosen to deride [the] facts” about climate science, stating bluntly that it is “no longer possible to doubt the human — ‘anthropic’ — origin of climate change.”
The pope in the encyclical laid out his belief that there must be a “necessary transition towards clean energy sources, such as wind and solar energy, and the abandonment of fossil fuels.” This follows a call from Pope Francis in 2021 to the global community calling for the world to “achieve net zero carbon emissions as soon as possible.”
He further lamented what he called “certain dismissive and scarcely reasonable opinions [on climate change] that I encounter, even within the Catholic Church.”
In light of the new encyclical — which extensively cites the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — Pope Francis was invited to speak at this week’s United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP28. Though the 86-year-old pope was forced to cancel his trip due to health issues, the Vatican has indicated that he aims to participate in COP28 this weekend in some fashion. It announced today that Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin will represent the pope at the conference.
While various Catholic groups have welcomed the pope’s latest encyclical, some Catholics have reacted with persistent doubts, questioning whether the pope’s policy prescriptions would actually produce the desired effects.
How do Americans feel about climate change?
According to a major survey conducted by Yale University, 72% of Americans believed in 2021 — the latest available data year — that “global warming is happening,” and 57% believe that global warming is caused by human activity.
More recent polling from the Pew Research Center, conducted in June, similarly suggests that two-thirds of U.S. adults overall say the country should prioritize developing renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, over the expansion of the production of oil, coal, and natural gas. That same survey found that just 3 in 10 adults (31%) say the U.S. should completely phase out oil, coal, and natural gas. The Yale study found that 77% of U.S. adults support at least the funding of research into renewable energy sources.
Broken down by party affiliation, Pew found that a large majority of Democratic and Democratic-leaning independents — 90% — favor alternative energy sources, while just under half, 42%, of Republicans and Republican-leaning adults think the same. Within the Republican cohort, however, 67% of Republicans under age 30 prioritize the development of alternative energy sources, compared with the 75% of Republicans ages 65 and older who prioritize the expansion of oil, coal, and natural gas.
In terms of the expansion of alternative energy sources, two-thirds of Americans think the federal government should encourage domestic production of wind and solar power, Pew reported. Just 7% say the government should discourage this, while 26% think it should neither encourage nor discourage it.
How do America’s Catholics feel about climate change?
Surveys suggest that Catholics in the United States are slightly more likely than the U.S. population as a whole to be skeptical of climate change, despite the pope’s emphatic words in 2015 and since.
A separate Pew study suggests that 44% of U.S. Catholics say the Earth is warming mostly due to human activity, a view in line with Pope Francis’ stance. About 3 in 10 (29%) said the Earth is warming mostly due to natural patterns, while 13% said they believe there is no solid evidence the planet is getting warmer.
According to the same study, 71% of Hispanic Catholics see climate change as an extremely or very serious problem, compared with 49% of white, non-Hispanic Catholics. (There were not enough Black or Asian Catholics in the 2022 survey to analyze separately, Pew said.)
One 2015 study from Yale did suggest that soon after Laudato Si’ was released, U.S. Catholics were overall more likely to believe in climate change than before. That same study found no change, however, in the number of Americans overall who believe human activity is causing global warming.
Pope Francis’ climate priorities
Beyond his groundbreaking writings, Pope Francis has taken many actions during his pontificate to make his own — admittedly small — country, Vatican City, more sustainable, including the recent announcement of a large order of electric vehicles, construction of its own network of charging stations, a reforestation program, and the continued importation of energy coming exclusively from renewable sources.
Francis has often lamented what he sees as a tepid response from developed countries in implementing measures to curb climate change. In Laudate Deum, he urged that new multinational agreements on climate change — speaking in this case specifically about the COP28 conference — be “drastic, intense, and count on the commitment of all,” stating that “a broad change in the irresponsible lifestyle connected with the Western model would have a significant long-term impact.”
The pope lamented what he sees as the fact that when new projects related to green energy are proposed, the potential for economic growth, employment, and human promotion are thought of first rather than moral considerations such as the effects on the world’s poorest.
“It is often heard also that efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing the use of fossil fuels and developing cleaner energy sources will lead to a reduction in the number of jobs,” the pope noted.
“What is happening is that millions of people are losing their jobs due to different effects of climate change: rising sea levels, droughts, and other phenomena affecting the planet have left many people adrift. Conversely, the transition to renewable forms of energy, properly managed, as well as efforts to adapt to the damage caused by climate change, are capable of generating countless jobs in different sectors.”
‘Leave God’s creation better than we found it’
Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation think tank, told CNA that he has noticed a theme of frustration and confusion among many Catholics regarding the Holy Father’s emphasis on climate change.
A self-described outdoorsman and former president of Wyoming Catholic College, Roberts spoke highly to CNA of certain aspects of Laudato Si’, particularly the pope’s insights into what he called “human ecology,” which refers to the acceptance of each person’s human body as a vital part of “accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home.”
“I like to think [Pope Francis] personally wrote that, because I could see him saying that,” Roberts said of the passage, which appears in paragraph 155 of the encyclical. Roberts said he even makes a point to meditate on that “beautiful and moving” passage during a retreat that he does annually.
That portion of Laudato Si’ notwithstanding, Roberts said he strongly believes that it detracts from other important issues, such as direct ministry to the poor, when Pope Francis elevates care for God’s natural creation as “seemingly more important than other issues to us as Catholics.” He also said he disagrees with Pope Francis’ policy prescriptions, such as a complete phasing out of fossil fuels, contained in Laudate Deum.
“We of course want to pray for him. We’re open to the teaching that he is providing. But we also have to remember as Catholics that sometimes popes are wrong. And on this issue, it is a prudential matter. It is not a matter of morality, particularly when he’s getting into the scientific policy recommendations,” Roberts said.
Roberts said the Heritage Foundation’s research and advocacy has focused not on high-level, multinational agreements and conferences to tackle the issues posed by climate change but rather on smaller-scale, more community-based efforts. He said this policy position is, in part, due to the historical deference such multinational conglomerates of nations have given to China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases overall.
He said agreements within the U.S. itself, with businesses and all levels of government working together, have produced the best results so far when it comes to improving the environment. He also pointed to examples of constructive action that don’t involve billions of dollars, such as families making the choice to spend more time outdoors or engaging in local activities that contribute to environmental conservation and community life, such as anti-litter campaigns and community gardening. The overarching goal, he said, should be to “leave God’s creation better than we found it.”
Roberts — who said he personally believes humans likely have “very little effect” on the climate — said he was discouraged to read other portions of Laudato Si’, as well as Laudate Deum, that to him read as though they had come “straight out of the U.N.” Despite his criticisms, Roberts urged his fellow Catholics to continue to pray for the Holy Father and to listen to the pope’s moral insights.
“I just think that the proposed solutions are actually more anti-human and worse than the purported effects of climate change,” he added.
‘A far more complex issue’
Greg Sindelar, a Catholic who serves as CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a conservative think tank that studies the energy industry, similarly expressed concerns to CNA about the potential impact of certain climate change mitigation policies on human flourishing.
Like Roberts, Sindelar spoke highly of certain aspects of the pope’s message while expressing reservations about some of the U.N.-esque solutions proposed in Laudate Deum.
“I think the pope is right about our duty as Catholics to be stewards and to care for the environment. But I think what we have to understand — what we have to balance this with — is that it cannot come at the expense of depriving people of affordable and reliable energy,” Sindelar said in an interview with CNA.
“There’s ways to be environmentally friendly without sacrificing the access that we all need to reliable and affordable energy.”
Sindelar said TPPF primarily promotes cheap, reliable access to energy as a means of promoting human flourishing. The free-market-focused group is skeptical of top-down governmental intervention, both in the form of regulation and incentives or disincentives in certain areas of the energy sector.
When asked what he thinks his fellow Catholics largely think about the issue, Sindelar said many of the Catholics he hears from express the view that government policies and interventions rarely produce effective solutions and could potentially hinder access to energy for those in need.
“I think it’s a far more complex issue than just saying we need to cut emissions, and we need to transfer away from fossil fuels, and all these other things. What we need to do is figure out and ensure ways that we are providing affordable and reliable electricity to all citizens of the world,” he reiterated.
“When the pope speaks, when the Vatican speaks, it carries a lot of weight with Catholics around the world, [and] not just with Catholics … and I totally agree with him that we need to be thinking about the most marginalized and the poorest amongst us,” Sindelar continued.
“[But] by going down these policy prescription paths that he’s recommending, we’re actually going to reduce their ability to have access to that,” he asserted.
Sindelar, while disagreeing with Pope Francis’ call for an “abandonment of fossil fuels,” said he appreciates the fact that Pope Francis has spoken out about the issue of care for creation and has initiated so much public discussion.
“I think there is room for differing views and opinions on the right ways to do that,” he said.
Effective mitigation efforts
Susan Varlamoff, a retired biologist and parishioner at St. John Neumann Catholic Church in the Atlanta area, is among those Catholics who are committed to Pope Francis’ call to care for creation and to mitigate the effects of climate change. To that end, Varlamoff in 2016 created a peer-reviewed action plan for the Archdiocese of Atlanta to help Catholics put the principles contained in Laudato Si’ into action, mainly through smaller, more personal actions that people can take to reduce their energy usage.
The Atlanta Archdiocese’s efforts have since garnered recognition and praise, Varlamoff said, with at least 35 archdioceses now involved in an inter-diocesan network formed to exchange sustainability ideas based on the latest version of the plan from Atlanta.
“It’s fascinating to see what everybody is doing, and it’s basically based on their talents and imaginations,” Varlamoff said, noting that a large number of young people have gotten involved with their efforts.
As a scientist, Varlamoff told CNA it is clear to her that Pope Francis knows what he’s talking about when he lays out the dangers posed by inaction in the face of climate change.
“He understands the science, and he’s deeply concerned … he’s got remarkable influence as a moral leader,” she said.
“Part of what our religion asks us to do is to care for one another. We have to care for creation if we’re going to care for one another, because the earth is our natural resource system, our life support, and we cannot care for one another if we don’t have that life support.”
Responding to criticisms about the financial costs associated with certain green initiatives, Varlamoff noted that small-scale sustainable actions can actually save money. She offered the example of parishes in the Atlanta area that have drastically reduced their electric bills by installing solar panels.
“[But,] it’s not just about saving money. It’s also about reducing fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions, and protecting the natural resources for future generations,” she said.
Moreover, Varlamoff said, the moral imperative to improve the natural environment for future generations is worth the investment. “When [Catholics] give money, for example, for a social justice issue like Walking with Moms in Need or special needs, the payback is improving lives. We’re improving the environment here,” she emphasized.
Gagliarducci presents a potential tension of conflicting interests in the new Vatican polity. While assurance is given that the Roman pontiff remains sovereign within his See, the journalist suggests the adaption of the Holy See to the civil state model poses two competing structures.
If the Holy See becomes politicized along civil lines does it become one political body among many. It appears Gagliarducci is right. The city state model preserved the unique identity of the Holy See as a religious quasi political rather than [becoming] a political entity with religious trappings. But if that’s the case, that is where the entire Church is being maneuvered.
As far as I know, only the first Fundamental Law is – possibly – legitimate.
However, the Papal States were STOLEN by anti-Catholic forces – i.e. Freemasons – in the 19th Century. As such, they – and the Vatican – ought to be returned to the true Catholic Church. Any “agreement” obtained from the papacy by the robbers in the 19th century was coerced, and, thus is null and void.
The fact is that any agreement which is merely effective with regards to conscience doesn’t “work” with regards to those hostile to the Catholic Church. The rights of the Catholic Church must be enforced – in the extreme by arms – by Catholics and – ideally – other men of good will. One is led to consider how Hitler broke his agreement with the Catholic Church.
Maybe the best way to understand the novel reorganization of the Vatican city-state might be in Pope Francis’ favorite “novel”…
This would be the Anglican convert Robert Hugh Benson’s “Lord of the World.” In that novel the surviving pope secretly relocates the Vatican from Rome to Nazareth, but the Anti-Christ of unleashed Secularism discovers the ruse and rains down bombs upon the obsolete remnant pope and his few cardinals.
Today Pope Francis retains the Church’s 109 acres within secularized Rome, and camouflages the perennial and remnant Church as a nation-state, more or less… Secularism is stymied outside the walls, as in 1870, because to do more now would be to cannibalize the entire nation-state scaffolding on which modernity stands (the quaint artifact of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648).
But will the defining Vatican wall be bartered away, one brick at a time? Or will the dicastery on Evangelization remain unambiguously steadfast, such that the last line of the dystopian novel does NOT come to pass: “Then this world passed, and the glory of it.”
Or, should we await a Jesuit scholar to update the first of our 266 popes? How about this: “But follow the Lord [of History] in your synodality [vs hearts]. Be ready always with an ambiguous signal [vs answer] to everyone who asks a rationale [vs reason] for the intuitionism [vs hope] that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).
St. Thomas More also worried about such things, but a bit differently:
“God made the angels to show him splendor—as he made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But man he made to serve him wittily in the tangle of his mind! If he suffers us to fall to such a case that there is no escaping, then we may stand our tackle as best we can, and yes […] then we may clamor like champions…if we have the spittle for it. And no doubt it delights God to see splendor where He only looked for complexity. But it’s God’s part, not our own, to bring ourselves to that extremity! Our natural business is in escaping […]” (Robert Bolt, “A Man for All Seasons,” 1960).
‘ Pope Francis once compared reforming the Roman curia to the work of cleaning the Sphinx with a toothbrush. ‘ (C. R. Altieri / CWR)
If you went to clean the Sphinx with a toothbrush and made a big media presentation of it in advance and a public event with free admission for the viewing, that would be fandangle.
I don’t mean to be cynical or mocking to Pope Francis, only to graphically point out that one can not “tell the enemy that the surprise attack is beginning” – it won’t work.
The point is not “to attack” or “to surprise”; it is that if you do not have the right insight but it comes to you by a coincidence, well, it then falls into the same struggling patchwork.
This concrescence (coalescence) -see the quotation,- is sterile and oppressive, especially coming from a Pontificate that professes to be scandalized by rigidity and binary thinking. As if there is nothing in between structural reform and spiritual conversion!
Jesus has so many figures for good stewardship, I would merely highlight the one about the scribe who could bring out the old with the new. It’s a huge field, you simply can not be reductive when it comes to judicious management.
Some years ago I confided to a priest that Pope Francis shouldn’t try to upstage JPII or compete with Benedict etc. I had imagined it would have gotten through to the higher ups and I have since formed the idea that none of them hears what I am saying.
‘ ….. Renewal, rather than replacement, then, seemed at the end of 2016 to be the order of the day.
That is fine, but, as I observed in a piece at the end of last year, “It is one thing to undertake a reform of a bureaucracy. It is quite another to undertake a reform of bureaucrats.” Reform of bureaucrats is still the driving idea behind Pope Francis’ efforts, if Cardinal Parolin has the measure of them. “[W]hen we speak of the Curia,” Cardinal Parolin went on to say in his conversation with Vatican Media, still referring to Pope Francis’ remarks at the end of 2016, “it is not so much to insist on structural reforms, with the promulgation of new laws, new regulations, appointments, etc. Rather it is on the profound spirit which must animate every reform of the Curia, and is the fundamental dimension of Christian life; that is, that of conversion.” ‘
Gagliarducci presents a potential tension of conflicting interests in the new Vatican polity. While assurance is given that the Roman pontiff remains sovereign within his See, the journalist suggests the adaption of the Holy See to the civil state model poses two competing structures.
If the Holy See becomes politicized along civil lines does it become one political body among many. It appears Gagliarducci is right. The city state model preserved the unique identity of the Holy See as a religious quasi political rather than [becoming] a political entity with religious trappings. But if that’s the case, that is where the entire Church is being maneuvered.
Such clarity regarding the government of the Vatican City State! The clarity rivals that of its theological pronouncements.
As far as I know, only the first Fundamental Law is – possibly – legitimate.
However, the Papal States were STOLEN by anti-Catholic forces – i.e. Freemasons – in the 19th Century. As such, they – and the Vatican – ought to be returned to the true Catholic Church. Any “agreement” obtained from the papacy by the robbers in the 19th century was coerced, and, thus is null and void.
The fact is that any agreement which is merely effective with regards to conscience doesn’t “work” with regards to those hostile to the Catholic Church. The rights of the Catholic Church must be enforced – in the extreme by arms – by Catholics and – ideally – other men of good will. One is led to consider how Hitler broke his agreement with the Catholic Church.
Maybe the best way to understand the novel reorganization of the Vatican city-state might be in Pope Francis’ favorite “novel”…
This would be the Anglican convert Robert Hugh Benson’s “Lord of the World.” In that novel the surviving pope secretly relocates the Vatican from Rome to Nazareth, but the Anti-Christ of unleashed Secularism discovers the ruse and rains down bombs upon the obsolete remnant pope and his few cardinals.
Today Pope Francis retains the Church’s 109 acres within secularized Rome, and camouflages the perennial and remnant Church as a nation-state, more or less… Secularism is stymied outside the walls, as in 1870, because to do more now would be to cannibalize the entire nation-state scaffolding on which modernity stands (the quaint artifact of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648).
But will the defining Vatican wall be bartered away, one brick at a time? Or will the dicastery on Evangelization remain unambiguously steadfast, such that the last line of the dystopian novel does NOT come to pass: “Then this world passed, and the glory of it.”
Or, should we await a Jesuit scholar to update the first of our 266 popes? How about this: “But follow the Lord [of History] in your synodality [vs hearts]. Be ready always with an ambiguous signal [vs answer] to everyone who asks a rationale [vs reason] for the intuitionism [vs hope] that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).
St. Thomas More also worried about such things, but a bit differently:
“God made the angels to show him splendor—as he made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But man he made to serve him wittily in the tangle of his mind! If he suffers us to fall to such a case that there is no escaping, then we may stand our tackle as best we can, and yes […] then we may clamor like champions…if we have the spittle for it. And no doubt it delights God to see splendor where He only looked for complexity. But it’s God’s part, not our own, to bring ourselves to that extremity! Our natural business is in escaping […]” (Robert Bolt, “A Man for All Seasons,” 1960).
‘ Pope Francis once compared reforming the Roman curia to the work of cleaning the Sphinx with a toothbrush. ‘ (C. R. Altieri / CWR)
If you went to clean the Sphinx with a toothbrush and made a big media presentation of it in advance and a public event with free admission for the viewing, that would be fandangle.
I don’t mean to be cynical or mocking to Pope Francis, only to graphically point out that one can not “tell the enemy that the surprise attack is beginning” – it won’t work.
The point is not “to attack” or “to surprise”; it is that if you do not have the right insight but it comes to you by a coincidence, well, it then falls into the same struggling patchwork.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/06/13/pope-franciss-open-and-incomplete-reform-of-the-curia/
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/03/02/what-do-pope-francis-latest-financial-measures-mean/
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/08/19/how-pope-francis-is-changing-the-shape-of-the-roman-curia/
ALTIERI
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/07/15/on-doing-what-needs-to-be-done/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-christmas-season-pope-curia-idUSKBN1EF1LG
This concrescence (coalescence) -see the quotation,- is sterile and oppressive, especially coming from a Pontificate that professes to be scandalized by rigidity and binary thinking. As if there is nothing in between structural reform and spiritual conversion!
Jesus has so many figures for good stewardship, I would merely highlight the one about the scribe who could bring out the old with the new. It’s a huge field, you simply can not be reductive when it comes to judicious management.
Some years ago I confided to a priest that Pope Francis shouldn’t try to upstage JPII or compete with Benedict etc. I had imagined it would have gotten through to the higher ups and I have since formed the idea that none of them hears what I am saying.
‘ ….. Renewal, rather than replacement, then, seemed at the end of 2016 to be the order of the day.
That is fine, but, as I observed in a piece at the end of last year, “It is one thing to undertake a reform of a bureaucracy. It is quite another to undertake a reform of bureaucrats.” Reform of bureaucrats is still the driving idea behind Pope Francis’ efforts, if Cardinal Parolin has the measure of them. “[W]hen we speak of the Curia,” Cardinal Parolin went on to say in his conversation with Vatican Media, still referring to Pope Francis’ remarks at the end of 2016, “it is not so much to insist on structural reforms, with the promulgation of new laws, new regulations, appointments, etc. Rather it is on the profound spirit which must animate every reform of the Curia, and is the fundamental dimension of Christian life; that is, that of conversion.” ‘
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/01/15/the-jesuit-pope-and-the-problematic-reform-of-the-roman-curia/