Francis, Nicora and the IOR

The Council of Cardinals has finished another session with next meetings set for mid September and early December and early February. The report notes that “With regard to the themes considered, as well as those indicated in recent days (the Governorate, the Secretariat of State and the Institute for the Works of Religion), the Council resumed its reflections on the dicasteries of the Curia. The Laity and Family were studied in particular depth, especially in terms of the contributions and roles that should be assumed by laypeople, married couples and women. Decisions were not made, but more detailed proposals were offered that will subsequently be inserted into the overall framework of the new configuration of the Curia”.

The press release goes on to mention that the Council focused on “the dicasteries that have so far been studied less thoroughly. Other themes on which there has been an exchange of opinions during the meetings include the nunciatures and their work, and the procedures for the appointment of bishops. Aside from the contribution of the Commission of Cardinals for the Supervision of the IOR, heard on Tuesday and Wednesday, there was no further participation from entities external to the Council”.

In a related piece the restructing of the so called Vatican bank, formally known as the Institute for Religious Works,  and the internal struggles behind it are revealed, “the amount of gossips, rumors, even the leaks anticipating the data of the balance sheet of the Institute for Religious Works (the so called “Vatican bank”) show that there had been a war behind these decisions. The roots of this war are in old stories. The same old stories that brought the Vatileaks scandal. That initially supported Pope Francis’ election. Those in these old stories, now that Pope Francis is carrying forward the work started by Benedict XVI, are playing their last hand. Perhaps, this is the gang war that Pope Francis has been trying to prevent when he had warned repeatedly about the perils of gossiping, asking all to repudiate it.

He goes on to note that Cardinal Parolin is now a member of the Council of Cardinals but “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”.

The writer adds that “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”.

The vision for the new Curia has been speculated before and the writer’s comment about amalgating Divine Worship and Saints is somewhat ironic as the old Congregation for Rites did exactly this job. On a side note the prefect of these two offices, Cardinal Amato is 76 and set to retire and at the same time Cardinal Canizares Llovera is expected to be appointed to Madrid. If both of these moves, Amato’s retirement and the transfer of Canizares Llovera,  were to occur at the same time Francis could begin the consolidations at the very heart of the Curia.

Interestingly he goes on to metion that “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 crystallised 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”.

He rightly points out the Francis is carrying on the work of Pope Benedict, “For what concerns the economy, Pope Francis has continued, with no rush, Benedict  XVI’s work. The Vatican’s Financial Intelligence Authority strengthened its internationalprofile 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“.

He writes about the too close relationship between Italy and the Church,”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 favoured 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”.

He concludes discussing the new leadership of the IOR, “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”.