Vatican City, Jul 11, 2018 / 01:15 pm (CNA).- A long-time priority of Pope Francis, curial reform – specifically the overhaul of Vatican finances and communications – has been hanging by a thread for the past few years, and some wonder about the pope’s ability to make any meaningful or lasting changes in the Vatican’s way of doing business.
Observers seem to be underwhelmed at the progress Francis has made on major governance issues, among them financial oversight and sexual abuse policy. Some insiders have noted a palpable sense of confusion about what the pope’s reforms are meant to be, and where exactly they are going.
Since June 2017, the man tasked with leading the Vatican’s financial reform, Australian Cardinal George Pell, has been on leave, and is now preparing to face a historic trial for accusations of sexual abuse in his homeland. Some observers have argued that even when Pell was working at full-strength, the financial oversight structures Francis put into place were so tangled by internal power grabs that pursuing meaningful progress had become a delayed goal.
The pope’s communications overhaul seemed to be in shambles after the man charged with overseeing the process, Msgr. Dario Edoardo Vigano, stepped down amid the fallout of March’s “Lettergate” fiasco.
In recent months Francis has also come under fire for inaction on the topic of clerical sexual abuse, specifically in Chile.
Accused of insulting victims and ignoring their complaints, the pope had a major turnaround on the situation in Chile after receiving fresh evidence against a leading abuser priest in the country and launching an investigation which yielded findings frightening enough to make the pope stop dead in his tracks and speed into reverse.
But one of Pope Francis’ closest aides over the past five years, newly-minted Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu, who is leaving the Secretariat of State for a new position as head of the Vatican’s office for canonizations, said recently that the pope’s reform still lacks an overall vision.
In comments to the press ahead of the June 28 ceremony in which he was given his red biretta, Becciu said that while many steps had been taken, it is still “too early” to give a comprehensive judgment on the Curial reform, since it is not yet finished.
An overall unifying vision is still missing, he said, explaining that “so far we’ve had elements, but not a unified idea.” This vision, he said, will likely be provided in the new apostolic constitution drafted by the pope’s nine cardinal advisors, called “Predicate Evangelium,” or “Preach the Gospel,” which has reportedly been completed and is now awaiting approval from Pope Francis.
A gloomy-seeming outlook for curial reform is often pinned on poor personnel decision-making at the Vatican. But two recent appointments to major posts could mark a turning point for Francis, and provide a much-needed morale boost for Catholics looking for the pope to clean house in Vatican offices.
The first of these is the appointment of a close Francis ally, Archbishop Nunzio Galantino, to take the reigns at the Administration of the Patrimony of the Holy See (APSA), which oversees the Vatican’s real estate holdings and investments.
During pre-conclave meetings in 2013, APSA was a key point in discussions on curial reform, as many cardinals recognized it had been being plagued by corruption and was in serious need of greater oversight.
Until Galantino’s June 26 appointment, APSA was led by Cardinal Domenico Calcagno, who has been accused of corruption and was, at one point, under investigation for charges of embezzlement in a previous diocese.
It took Francis more than five years to take action on APSA, which has been a sore spot for many who were hoping to see the pope crack down on financial issues. In a recent interview with Reuters the pope admitted that “there is no transparency” at APSA.
“We have to move ahead on transparency, and that depends on APSA,” he said in the interview. Many Vatican watchers are hopeful that Galantino will be able to bring in the accountability and oversight the office has typically resisted.
The second important personnel change is the appointment of Italian layman Paolo Ruffini as head of the Vatican’s communications office, making him the first layperson to lead a Vatican department, also called a dicastery.
Though Ruffini’s nomination was highly celebrated among Italians, who are pleased to have one of their own moving to such an important post, the new prefect is also seen as highly competent, bringing with him professional experience in journalism dating back to 1979.
Until his appointment Ruffini worked as the director of TV2000, the network of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, and he brings with him extensive experience in television, radio, and print, making him a choice perceived as a competent, well-rounded pick for the job.
Ruffini is considered to be in line with key priorities of the current pontificate, and his appointment can be read as follow-through on Pope Francis’ commitment to eradicate a clericalist mentality in the curia and to add more laypeople to the mix.
Despite the fact that Msgr. Dario Vigano, who headed the office until the “Lettergate” scandal, is expected to stay in the dicastery in the advisory role the pope gave him, observers are hopeful that at least some of the pope’s stubbornness in decision-making is gone, and that the days of poor personnel choices will be a thing of the past.
And with several decisions made that seem to indicate reform is moving in the right – or at least a better – direction when it seemed to be on the brink of failure, a natural question comes to mind: what changed?
Some believe the turning point was the pope’s reaction to the Chilean abuse crisis. After initially defending the bishop at the center of the debate, calling accusations of cover-up on the part of the bishop “calumny” and claiming that no evidence of the prelate’s guilt had been brought forward, Francis had a major turnaround when news came out that evidence had been presented years prior which he either never got, or potentially ignored.
It was a serious blow to Francis’ credibility in the fight against sex-abuse in the Church, and to his public image. Soon after he sent his top investigator on abuse to Chile to look into the situation, and after receiving a 2,300 page report, the pope issued a letter to Chilean bishops saying he had made “serious errors” in judging the situation due to a lack of “truthful and balanced information.”
Many observers pinned the blame on 84-year-old Chilean Cardinal Javier Francisco Errazuriz, who is a member of the pope’s nine-member Council of Cardinals and who has come under heavy fire from victims for covering up abuse while archbishop of Santiago, and for trying to discredit victims’ testimonies.
In his recent interview with Reuters, Pope Francis said his council of cardinal advisors, called the “C9” and whose mandate will be up in October, would be refreshed with new members.
Though such a decision is natural after term limits end, some observers have pondered whether the Chilean crisis and the accusations against Errazuriz, the absence of Cardinal Pell and separate accusations of financial misdealing on the part of Honduran Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga, also a member of the advisory team, have, to a certain degree, awakened Francis to the need to be more selective with his inner circle.
The answers to these questions, of course, are pure speculation, but if one thing can be said about the pope’s latest round of appointments, it’s that while his track record on reform efforts has not been the best, and while there are still loose ends to tie up, he is at least aware of the problems and he seems intent on making good on his promises, even if that does not happen immediately.
And if the first five years of Pope Francis’ curial reform have largely been seen as ineffective, the appointment of Ruffini and Galantino just might give the flicker of hope needed for Catholics to decide that the jury is still out on the long-term process. However, as with any reform, really only time will tell.
[…]
Your Holiness;
Israel only attacks specific targets of military value, and it warns the residents beforehand to give them time to evacuate the area.
Iran, on the other hand – has no problem with TARGETING CIVILIANS. It is, in fact one of their commonly used strategies. E.G. – In their retaliation last night they sent missiles which killed 86 people, and a goodly number of them were residents of an Old Folks’ home.
In any case I understand that in your position you have to speak like this.
I agree with you entirely. Iran has been a terrorist nation for years. We do not discipline (i.e., help change the behavior) unruly or “mean” children by being sweet to them and allowing them to continue to terrorize others. We discipline them, we punish them and make their lives uncomfortable so that they have a motive to stop misbehaving. Yes, we take them to behavioral specialists who sometimes discover physical, mental, or psychological conditions, or environmental conditions (e.g., abusive relative) that causes the child to behave in an unacceptable and “violent” way and we can help that child in various ways (counselling, meds, different schooling, etc.), but often, a child who acts out does so because he/she has been allowed the power to do so by wimpy parents, teachers, etc. And if they are not “stopped” and helped to change their ways, these kids will often grow up to be poor and/or criminals.
We give tickets and occasionally incarceration to people who break traffic laws or other laws of the land–we don’t just overlook it as “their personality” or “their culture.” When someone murders someone, we don’t just say, “He or she had a troubled past.” Yes, sadly, they often did, but that does NOT excuse their horrific behavior. MANY people have a “troubled past”, but they manage to pull themselves out of despair and become good citizens who do much to help their fellow man.
We can’t allow criminals to terrorize our land.
And we should not tolerate national leaders and nations that terrorize their own people along with other nations and put the entire world in danger of planet-wide conflict. We need to teach Iran (or at least the leaders) to “behave” like civilized world citizens and hold them accountable for their many past crimes against humanity.
Pres. Trump gave Iran plenty of warning–it wasn’t a “surprise attack”. They had plenty of chances to change their ways, and they chose to thumb up their noses at the U.S. and other nations and continue their cruel, uncivilized ways in the name of their “religion”. Many Muslims and Muslim nations ARE peaceful, so the “religion” is not telling them to do this awful stuff. It’s the leaders who value power over human life, even the lives of their own people.
Good for Pres. Trump and our American military!
Mrs. Sharon Whitlock: you couldn’t be more correct in what you’ve written here. Our granddaughter just graduated from elementary school. We gifted her with the trilogy Kristen Lavransdatter and in each book we wrote: “The life you have tomorrow will be determined by the choices you make today.” We need to end this ethos that tells everyone they’re a victim and that others reward them on account of it.
We read: “Let diplomacy silence the weapons; let nations shape their future through works of peace, not through violence and bloody conflict.”
Absolutely. In a barbaric age we’re periodically on the brink, and yet globally we’re also like ships passing in the night. In the entirely different context of domestic parties or government agencies at odds with each other, there’s the well-developed path of formal mediation.
Four points:
FIRST, assuming that the parties are symmetrical, potential mediators point to nine criteria which must be met in order to be even eligible for promising mediation. Two of these criteria are that “the issue must be ‘ripe'” (#3, meaning that mediation resolves conflict and does not avert conflict); and that the “agencies [of the same government] are at a point where decisions and actions are ‘needed'” (#7). So far, so good, but criterion #4 is that “‘delay’ serves none of the parties”…
SECOND, this is not to diminish in any way Pope Leo XIV’s plea of reason, but it does admit to complicated communication between a Western culture still rooted somewhat to the incarnational coherence of faith & reason, and the different governments/regimes of a fideistic and non-Trinitarian culture still tied to the non-Western 7th Century. We might be also reminded of the varied understandings of “mokusatsu” by which Bushido Japan either diplomatically “withheld comment” on the final and problematic demand for “unconditional surrender,” or else signaled only to its own captive population that the ultimatum was “unworthy of public notice” (the response was received only as a decoded intercept).
THIRD, these comments, here, are barely even academic and are taken from quite different contexts. Still, in simply trying to decode the Islam world—meaning to understand sectarian and often mutually conflicted Muslim minds (plural)—yours truly, as an un-credentialled layman, now pulls from my shelf a still mostly unread copy of an Islamic compendium: Abdul Aziz Said, Nathan C. Funk, Ayse S. Kadayifci (editors); “Peace and Conflict Resolution in Islam,” University Press of America, 2001).
FOURTH, “Peace and conflict resolution” through plural Muslim lenses?
Diplomacy, yes, but at the same time “a fireman does not negotiate with the fire.” In any event, the recent combination of “rhetoric” plus a stated “60-day deadline” for productive negotiation is now largely history. The state (?) of Iran now pauses to consult with the networked Kremlin…Putin’s strategy in Ukraine of victory-through-delay hasn’t worked so well in Iran.
SUMMARY: No conclusions here, except that words are not always cheap….and with lingering memories from August in 1914 and in 1945.
Thou shall NOT kill.
Your holiness: Why not direct your message of peace to Muslims. They are causing mayhem around the world. In Europe, they are burning Catholic churches, looting, setting cars afire, murdering priests while saying Mass, raping women and young girls. In Africa, Muslims are murdering Christians wholesale. They have kidnapped hundreds of Christian women and forced them to convert to Islam and to worship their god Allah. There isn’t anywhere in the world that’s safe from Muslim predation. They go around bombing schools, hospitals and other civilian targets. In its simple-minded attempt to be “fair”, idiot influencers lay blame on all – Muslim as well as those they refer to as infidels. Frankly, your holiness, somw of us Catholics are tired of our Church leaders tripping over themselves to appear impartial. You can speak to us about Church teavhings but when it come to global politics and civil matters, we’re not listening anymore.
I believe in the concept of just wars. I also believe it is imperative to know your enemy. Iran has been led by a regime of death and destruction from its beginning. There is no path of diplomacy when your enemy is planning your death by any means necessary. Their religious path revels in war and sees war as a path of evangelization as well as a path of creating their desired world order.
The plea for peace is good. But when the lion remains committed to destruction of all around it, it is not time to talk about peace to the lamb.
“War does not solve problems — on the contrary, it amplifies them and inflicts deep wounds on the history of nations that take generations to heal.”
Your Holiness, I strongly suspect that Pope Pius V of Lepanto fame would disagree with you that wars do not solve problems.
And then there is this: ” “No armed victory can make up for a mother’s grief, a child’s fear, or a stolen future.” Really? So are we to infer that a nation that does not resist but allows itself to be destroyed will eliminate a mother’s grief, a child’s fear, or a stolen future?
Good grief! Is this the pacifist pablum we can expect moving forward? Boko Haram may appreciate your rhetoric but I would not want you to address my Marines who are about to go into battle. Respectfully your Holiness, reflect on Ecclesiastes 3:8 please.
Pope Leo: “War does not solve problems; on the contrary, it amplifies them and inflicts deep wounds on the history of peoples, which take generations to heal.”
Pope Francis said similar things. But, if this is the case, then there is no such thing as a just war. However, the possibility of a just war has always been the Church’s position. The Church is not pacifist. Pope John Paul II said as much even when he was objecting to the Gulf war.
Since the issue is about nuclear weapons IMO the very phrase ‘just war’ becomes irrelevant.
“Today more than ever, humanity cries out and pleads for peace…”
.
Honestly, I don’t think that is an accurate statement.
Dear Pope Leo:
The Church holds and teaches that there can be just wars.
Whether this particular situation is such is an important question that deserves attention.
Casual pacifism is not serious.