The Pope versus the Vatican

Damian Thompson doesn’t get it. Francis was not elected to clean up the Vatican. Rather he will clean out the Vatican from all aspects of the true Catholic faith.

Strange Silences of a Very Talkative Pope

From Chiesa – Sandro Magister

The Strange Silences of a Very Talkative Pope

Not a word for the abducted Nigerian schoolgirls, nor for the Pakistani Asia Bibi, sentenced to death on the charge of having offended Islam. And then the audiences denied to former president of the IOR Gotti Tedeschi, driven out for wanting to clean house.

by Sandro Magister

ROME, August 1, 2014 – On the feast of Saint Anne, patron of Caserta, Pope Francis made a visit to this city. Everything normal? No. Because just two days later Jorge Mario Bergoglio returned to Caserta on a private visit, to meet with an Italian friend he got to know in Buenos Aires, Giovanni Traettino, pastor of a local Evangelical church.

Initially Francis’s intention was to go only to visit his friend, with the bishop of Caserta left completely in the dark, and it took some doing to convince the pope to expand his schedule in order not to overlook the sheep of his fold.

In Francis the collegiality of governance is more evoked than practiced. The style is that of a superior general of the Jesuits who in the end decides everything on his own. This can be grasped from his actions, his words, his silences.

For example, Bergoglio has spent weeks behind the scenes cultivating relationships with the heads of the powerful “Evangelical” communities of the United States. He has spent hour after hour in their company at his residence in Santa Marta. He has invited them for lunch. He immortalized one of these convivial moments by giving a high five, amid raucous laughter, to Pastor James Robinson, one of the most successful American televangelists.

When no one knew anything about it yet, it was Francis who alerted them about his intention to go visit their Italian colleague in Caserta, and explained the reason: “To extend the apologies of the Catholic Church for the damage that has been done to them by obstructing the growth of their communities.” [Why should the One True Church help heretical sects to grow?]

As the Argentine he is, Bergoglio has experienced first-hand the overwhelming expansion of the Evangelical and Pentecostal communities in Latin America, which continue to take enormous masses of faithful away from the Catholic Church. And yet he has made this decision: not to fight their leaders, but to make them his friends. [To allow the Catholics to apostatize to his friends’ man-made religions]

This is the same approach that he has adopted with the Muslim world: prayer, invocation of peace, general condemnations of the evil that is done, but with careful attention to keep his distance from specific cases concerning precise persons, whether victims or butchers.

Even when the whole world mobilizes in defense of certain victims and everyone is expecting a statement from him, Francis does not abandon this reserve of his.

He did not speak a single word when the young Sudanese mother Meriam was in prison with her little children, sentenced to death only because she is Christian, although he received her once she was liberated thanks to international pressure. [Because that would “offend” Muslims]

He did not say anything on behalf of the hundreds of Nigerian schoolgirls abducted by Boko Haram, in spite of the campaign promoted even by Michelle Obama with the slogan “Bring back our girls.” [Because that would “offend” Muslims]

He is silent on the fate of Asia Bibi, the Pakistani mother who has been in prison for five years awaiting an appeal against the verdict that has sentenced her to death with the accusation of having offended Islam. [Because that would “offend” Muslims]

And yet the campaign for the liberation of Asia Bibi sees the Catholic world everywhere highly engaged on her behalf, and at the beginning of this year a heartfelt letter was made public after she had sent it to the pope. Who did not respond to her. [Because that would “offend” Muslims]

They are silences that are all the more striking in that they are practiced by a pope who is known for his highly generous availability to write, to telephone, to bring aid, to open the doors to anyone who knocks, whether poor or rich, good or bad. [Because that would not help his goal in creating the One World Church]

For example, he had been criticized for being slow to meet with victims of sexual abuse committed by members of the clergy. But last July 7 he made up for this, spending an entire day with six victims brought to Rome from three European countries.

During those same days he took steps forward in the reorganization of the Vatican’s finances, with changes in leadership and the dismissal of the blameless president of the IOR, the German Ernst von Freyberg.

Inexplicably, in sixteen months of pontificate von Freyberg had never been able to obtain an audience with the pope.

But even more inexplicable is the “damnatio” that struck his predecessor Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, driven out in May of 2012 precisely for having pushed forward the work of housecleaning, and by none other than the main culprits of the misconduct.

His requests to Pope Francis to be received and listened to have never received a response.
__________

This commentary was published in “L’Espresso” no. 31 of 2014, on newsstands as of August 1, on the opinion page entitled “Settimo cielo” entrusted to Sandro Magister.

Here is the index of all the previous commentaries:

> “L’Espresso” in seventh heaven
__________

In the photo, Pope Francis in his private study at the residence of Santa Marta.

Peter and the Twelve. The Dispute Over the Powers of the Synod

There are some who want it to be the supreme body of Church governance, a sort of “permanent council.” But Vatican II ruled this out. Cardinals Müller and Ruini explain why, in agreement with Ratzinger as cardinal and pope

by Sandro Magister

ROME, May 15, 2014 – The two synods that are scheduled for October of this year and next are rousing feverish anticipation not only because of the subjects that will be discussed there – the family, and in particular the “vexata quaestio” of communion for the divorced and remarried – but also in expectation of their functioning.

A few innovations with respect to previous synods have already been introduced:

> A Synod As Francis Commands

But there is widespread expectation that even more substantial innovations could be on the way. In the wake of Francis’s intention of associating a more concrete episcopal collegiality with papal primacy in the governance of the Church.

Emblematic of this expectation are, for example, the proposals to strengthen the institution of the synod advanced in the magazine “Il Regno” by Enrico Morini, a professor of the history and institutions of the Orthodox Church at the state university of Bologna and at the theological faculty of Emilia Romagna, and president of the commission for ecumenism of the archdiocese of Bologna:

> Primazialità e collegialità

Morini articulates his proposal as follows:

“A first point is represented by the transformation of the synod of bishops, stipulated by the motu proprio ‘Apostolica sollicitudo’ of Pope Paul VI of September 15, 1965, into an assembly that is not only consultative but also executive.

“The second point is represented by the composition of this episcopal synod, which would become the supreme governing body of the Latin Church (that is, in terms that have unfortunately fallen into disuse, of the patriarchate of Rome). Made up of representatives of all the national episcopal conferences and of all active cardinals, only bishops of the Latin rite should take part in it: in fact, the supreme governing body of the universal Church, in which the bishops of all rites participate, is the ecumenical council. In the meantime, however, the issues expected to be discussed could at the same time be presented for examination by the synods of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

“The synod of bishops should be convened by the pope, who presides over it personally, ordinarily every two or three years. Every meeting of the episcopal synod should elect a permanent council of 12 bishops, all of them cardinals, to accompany the pope in the ordinary governance of the Church, constituting a ‘permanent synod’ equipped, under the primatial presidency of the pope, with executive powers, to be convened every two or three months and renewed at the subsequent meeting of the synod, reserving for the pope the right to veto as a safeguard for his primatiality.”

In Morini’s view, this reinforcement of the synod’s role should also influence the mechanism of the election of the pope.

This election should remain the prerogative of the cardinals alone, in symbolic representation of the Roman clergy, with the exclusion of the Eastern Catholic patriarchs. But the electors would be required to select the pope from among the 12 members of the permanent council of the synod.

Morini comments:

“In this way the synod of bishops, in addition to being the governing body of the Latin Church, would also become a sort of pre-conclave, selecting from within itself those 12 cardinals making up the ‘permanent synod,’ who however could be replaced or confirmed at the subsequent session of the synod.”

*

The prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, has however spoken out against this and similar proposals to strengthen the synod. 

He did so on April 29 while presenting in Rome a volume that collects all of the statements of Joseph Ratzinger, as cardinal and pope, concerning the institution of the synod.

“The synod of bishops,” Müller said, “does not have a function of replacement or surrogacy for the pope or the college of bishops.” And therefore “one understands why by its essence and as a rule it has a consultative and not a primarily executive function.”

But he added that the synod also cannot be compared to a “permanent council,” nor can it replace an ecumenical council:

“By its nature the synod cannot become a stable governing body of the Church, ruled by principles similar to those that regulate many democracies or political institutions. In support of this it must be emphasized how it is not the majority but rather the ‘consensus’ approaching unanimity that is ‘in ecclesia’ the fundamental criterion by which decisions are made, in the synod just as in every other eminent ecclesial assembly. [. . .] If it were not so, it would not be the truth and the faith but rather politics and lobbies that would dominate the genesis of ecclesial decisions.”

It is easy to foresee that at the upcoming synods this demand for almost unanimous consensus will be brought to bear upon those who would like to permit communion for the divorced and remarried: an innovation that still has combative supporters among the cardinals, although they are far from approaching unanimity.

*

In addition to Cardinal Müller, the presentation of the volume with the writings of Ratzinger concerning the synod also featured Cardinal Camillo Ruini.

He dwelt above all upon a text that Ratzinger delivered at a closed-door meeting in 1983, practically ignored until now, that is very clear in ruling out the attribution of powers of governance over the universal Church to the synod.

“In fact,” Ratzinger argued on that occasion, “the supreme authority over the whole Church, which the college [of bishops] united with the pope enjoys, according to Vatican II can be exercised in only two ways: in a solemn manner in the ecumenical council or by a joint action of the bishops spread throughout the world (Lumen Gentium, 22).”

But the synod is neither the one nor the other. Therefore, even if the synod were endowed with executive powers, this would take place only through the delegation of the pope.

Not only that. “What holds true for the synod holds equally true for permanent structures like the secretariat of the synod or its council. These, ‘a fortiori,’ receive their authority from the pope and their acts cannot properly be called collegial.”

The following is the passage of Ruini’s remarks concerning Ratzinger’s positions on the powers of the synod of bishops.

___________

THE SYNOD ACCORDING TO RATZINGER

by Camillo Ruini

I will focus on Joseph Ratzinger’s presentation on the nature, aims, and methods of the synod of bishops that he delivered at the meeting of the council of the secretariat of the synod on April 26-30, 1983, in view of the extraordinary synod of 1985, twenty years after Vatican II.

Ratzinger first of all carefully examines the synod of bishops as it is configured in the new code of canon law, promulgated on January 25, 1983. His analysis is juridical but also theological, and from the encounter of these two approaches some very important guidelines emerge.

Theologically, the synod is linked with the doctrine of collegiality, which in turn is intimately connected to the Church’s responsibility toward the world. 

Under the juridical profile, the synod depends strictly on the authority of the pope, both when it assists him with its advice and when, by papal delegation, meaning through participation in authority granted by the pope, it expresses in certain cases an executive vote.

This dichotomy between the juridical “place” and the theological and pastoral “place” of the synod seems to stem from the nature of the authority of the college of bishops. In fact the supreme authority over the whole Church, which the college of bishops united with the pope enjoys, according to the teaching of Vatican II can be exercised in only two ways: in a solemn manner in the ecumenical council, or by a joint action of the bishops spread throughout the world (Lumen Gentium, 22).

According to Catholic tradition, both Eastern and Western, it is however not conceivable for the bishops to grant and delegate to a few chosen bishops this faculty of participating in the governance of the universal Church. The reason is the ecclesiological nature of the college of bishops, which does not reside in the possibility of composing the central government of the Church by delegation but rather in the truth that the Church is a living body made up of living cells. 

Therefore the bishops take part in the governance of the universal Church by taking care of a certain particular Church, in which the whole Church is present, so that the life of the particular Church in its way constitutes the entire organic structure of the Church.

For this essential reason the synod of bishops, which is not the ecumenical council nor an act of all the bishops spread throughout the world, juridically does not seem able to constitute itself except in relationship with the office of the pope. Theologically however, and according to its pastoral stature, the synod has the task of fostering the bond between the pope and the college of bishops.

*

In the second part of his presentation Cardinal Ratzinger examines the questions already being raised at the time about the reform of the synod of bishops, modestly qualifying his evaluations and proposals as “personal opinions.”

First of all he observes that the simplest and most effective remedy for eliminating the recurrent frustrations in the synod seems to many to consist in the habitual and not only occasional granting of an executive vote.

He does not agree with this proposal, however, in the first place because of the theological reason already presented: the executive vote would regard papal authority, meaning that it would be a delegation of the pope, “and could by no means be defined as a collegial act.” In this way the executive vote is not ruled out, but its scope and significance are precisely delimited.

What holds true for the synod of bishops holds equally true for permanent structures like the secretariat of the synod or its council. These, ‘a fortiori,’ receive their authority from the pope and their acts cannot properly be called collegial. All of this does not change the fact, as Ratzinger clarifies, that the synod of bishops has another claim on collegiality, in that it fosters “reciprocity,” the union and mutual compenetration between the pope, who is in the first place bishop of the particular Church of Rome, and the other bishops and their particular Churches. 

Another of Cardinal Ratzinger’s observations that seems very important to me is the one according to which by trying to do too much in Church governance one ends up resisting the guidance of the Holy Spirit, opposing our works to his gifts and hindering the time of maturation and of a tranquil evolution. Unhealthy activity is often a search for justification by means of one’s own works, which obscures the profound truth of the Gospel parable of the seed that sprouts and grows unbeknown to the one who sowed it (Mk 4:26-28).

As for the freedom that by rights must characterize discussion at the synod of bishops, Ratzinger notes in the first place that, evidently, one cannot bring the faith of the Church into question, but one can bring up questions about the expressions – not only verbal, but in various ways real – adequate to the faith and the way in which the faith can be explained, matured, explored.

Furthermore, the documents of the supreme pontiff that deal authentically, even if not infallibly, with matters of faith do not seem capable of being objects of discussion by the synod, because the synod’s authority comes from that of the pope.

Even the ecumenical council, moreover, has no authority opposed to that of its head. But it is obvious that one can ask oneself how the teaching present in those documents can be given a better explanation and a more profound exposition without altering their contents.

The situation is different for documents of the Roman congregations that are approved by the pope in a simple form only: it does not seem to be ruled out that these should be discussed in the synod of bishops, the supreme council that fosters “closer unity between the Roman Pontiff and bishops” (can. 342).

With regard to the working procedure – Ratzinger notes – one unfortunately gets the impression of witnessing a series of speeches prepared in advance, without any real prompts for discussion, with a fairly generic and disjointed presentation that inevitably ends up provoking a sense of weariness in the synod fathers, who see in all of this no progress in the search for truth.

To remedy this Ratzinger flatly rules out the proposals that would oblige the members of the synod to stick to the deliberations of the episcopal conferences that elected them. The synodal debate would in fact be even more disjointed and it would not be possible to arrive at common conclusions, because no one would be able to depart from the stance he had been sent to represent. It seems to me, however, that in this text of Cardinal Ratzinger there are few indications for a positive solution of the problem of the working procedure and the flaws that have been pointed out in it. 

The cardinal then recalls the personal responsibility of the bishops who take part in the synod – which cannot be delegated to experts – and emphasizes how, in order that their sacramental representation of the particular Churches may become real representation, it is necessary that the particular Churches themselves should play a role in the preparation and application of the synod, which must not be experienced by them only as a moment of discussion and counsel but also as a spiritual approach and a spiritual reality.

Against the tendency to speak much and live little, which unfortunately is fairly widespread today, the words of Saint Cyprian remain decisive: “Let us not say great things, but let us live them” (De bono patientiae, 3). By its nature, in fact, the Church is not a permanent board or council but a communion, and the council must be of service to communion.

Finally, it seems “strictly necessary,” Ratzinger affirms, that “through the synod the voice of the universal Church should rise up in unity and in the power of unity on the great problems of our time.”

To avoid making my presentation too complex I have left out various other observations that Cardinal Ratzinger makes in this 1983 report and that still remain relevant today.

I will end with a reference to the two synods that will be celebrated in the autumn of this year and the next. I think that Ratzinger’s observations on the nature, aims, and methods of the synod of bishops could be of substantial help for the successful outcome of these two very important synods.

__________


The book:

N. Eterovic, “Joseph Ratzinger – Benedetto XVI e il Sinodo dei Vescovi”, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano, 2014, pp. 554, euro 34.00.

Men who govern your Church would have you believe that the right to freedom of expression surpasses every Law of God even when it glorifies sin

How many men are given to believe in wrongdoing, in the name of justice?

Tuesday, May 6th, 2014 @ 20:02

My dearly beloved daughter, the reason My Word is rejected by so many is because the Truth is like a thorn in the side of those who are embarrassed to openly proclaim My Teachings.

The man, who believes that freedom of expression is more important than adhesion to the Word of God, walks a very dangerous path. Any man who believes in his right to declare his views, as being sacrosanct, when they condone sin, is a traitor of Mine.

How many men are given to believe in wrongdoing, in the name of justice? Such men, who dictate your laws, including those, which govern your Church, would have you believe that the right to freedom of expression surpasses every Law of God, even when it glorifies sin.

Sin covers many facets and in today’s world, every single sin is explained away, by proclaiming each person’s individual right to do what pleases him. While not one of you has the right to judge anybody, in My Name, none of you has the right to declare wrongdoing as being a good thing.

Your Jesus

Too many kings in the kingdom

From Harvesting the Fruit

According to CWN:

The Synod of Bishops will undergo changes so that it can be “a real and effective instrument of communion which through the collegiality called for by the Second Vatican Council is expressed and realized,” the secretary-general of the Synod told a November 5 press conference.

For those unaware, that’s the same “collegiality” expressed by the Council in the document Lumen Gentium that prompted Pope Paul VI to take the unprecedented step of adding an explanatory note trying to salvage a Catholic understanding of the Roman Pontiff’s supreme authority and the bishops’ relationship with him. (BTW – it obviously didn’t work.)

Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri, who was selected by Pope Francis to head the office of the Synod, said that the goal of reforms will be to ensure that the Synod “adequately fulfills its mission to promote episcopal collegiality, cum Petro et sub Petro, in the governance of the Church.”

Don’t you just love how the archbishop tossed in a little Latin so as to lend an air of tradition to the utterly untraditional concept of a democratized Church?

The reform in the Synod, the archbishop said, will involve changes “of both a structural and methodological nature.” While he did not provide details of the Pope’s plans, he said that the Holy Father is determined to enhance the role of the Synod as a means of giving the world’s bishops an active voice in establishing priorities and setting policies for the universal Church.

I’m going to go way out on a limb here and say that the reform of the Roman Curia will involve making the Synod an official part of the Curia; the Congregation for Collegiality, perhaps. Oh, and the papal tiara isn’t coming off the shelf any time soon.

[Note: yes the full “democratization” of the Church is underway]

Archbishop Müller attempts to head off Francis on church reform

Archbishop Müller attempts to head off Pope on church reform

at Cathcon

The Prefect of the Vatican Congregation , the German Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, has warned the local churches of taking special regional paths. The “separatist tendencies” of national episcopal conferences could harm the church, Müller writes in an article for the Vatican newspaper “Osservatore Romano” (published this Friday). Individual conferences could never write arbitrary statements, which relativized the “definitive dogmas” of the Church or her sacramental structures.

The Prefect, who will receive the dignity of Cardinal in February, warned of a ” power struggle ” between the centralist and particularist forces in the Catholic Church . “At the end, only a secularized and politicized church would remain, which would only be slightly different from a non-governmental organization. ”

In this context, the Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith criticized “superficial interpretations ” of the doctrinal document,  “Evangelii gaudium” of Pope Francis. Their supporters felt themselves able to see in Pope Francis a revolution in the relationship between the Pope and the bishops of the universal Church . In fact, according to Müller’s words, the Pope only has reaffirmed the results of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) on the collegiality between the two. The Pope and Bishop of Rome , according to Müller, is more than the ” honorary president ” of a worldwide association.

Elements such as language, culture and nation, according to Müller, although they are means to spread the church’s message, could never constitute the Church herself. This consists of the community of all the local churches .

http://www.kathpress.at/site/nachrichten/database/60327.html

Signs to Watch For – Rapidly created Hierarchy will take over My Church

Excerpts from Maria Divine Mercy

This new and rapidly created hierarchy will take over My Church

Thursday, January 16th, 2014 @ 19:41

…

When you know the Truth, which is contained in My Father’s Book, then you know the Way of the Lord and you must follow this path, up to your last breath. Do not deviate from this. But if My Word is tampered with, rewritten and demolished, surely you would never accept this. That is good. But if new doctrines, which differ from My Holy Word, are introduced to you, from within the roofs of My churches, what then will you do? [Note: Francis and his cronies will declare heresies as the new dogma (Modernism) – what will you believe?]

Will you accept a lie, instead of the Truth? Will you accept a doctrine, which will be unholy in My Eyes?

The answer must be no. You must never deny My Word – for anyone. No one, even if they are dressed in the linens of the elite within the hierarchy of My Church, a pauper, a king or a prince – anyone who demands that you accept a new doctrine pertaining to My Word does not come from Me.

My Church is being demolished discreetly from within and each part is being dismantled. As the tiers are pulled down and loyal servants discarded [such as Cardinal Burke] – and then deemed to be no longer useful – the way will be cleared for the doctrines from Hell to be pronounced.

Woe to priests, bishops and cardinals, who dare to defend the Word of God, for they will suffer the most. While some will be excommunicated and accused of heresy – though they will only speak up for the True Word of God – others will be too weak. Many poor sacred servants will give into the pressure to denounce the Laws of God. If they do not agree to embrace the doctrine of lies, they will be thrown to the wolves. Those, whose faith will have already weakened and who love worldly things and who have a fierce ambition in their souls, will be the first in the queue to swear allegiance to the new ‘pledge’.

This new and rapidly created hierarchy will take over My Church. They will declare falsities in the Name of God and take with them many innocent souls of the faithful. The congregations will unwittingly be offered a poison chalice filled with nothing – only bread [note: the abomination of desolation mentioned in Daniel]. The Holy Eucharist will no longer fill their souls. They will soon be fed homilies, which will ridicule the Word of God when they will declare human rights to be the most important doctrine. And then they will declare the greatest heresy, that man will be given Eternal Life, whether or not he repents for his sins [note: you notice how Francis does not call people to repentance nor conversion]. This is how they will destroy the souls of millions.

…

All priests, all bishops and all cardinals who will be dethroned and who remain faithful to Me, will never desert the just or those followers of Mine who have been blessed with the Gift of Wisdom. Then, while the false knowledge will fill the hearts of weak servants in My Church, the Gift of the Holy Spirit will not only Light the souls of My Remnant Church, but will provide the Light, for all those whose names are in the Book of the Living, to My door.

Never before will My disciples be tested in the way in which they will be in the future. They will be given Divine Assistance to enable them to keep the Light of God shining in a world, which will be plunged, slowly and painfully, into darkness, caused by the arrival of the enemy, the antichrist. 

Your Jesus

Council of Cardinals = Recommendations of Modernism

Referenced from Harvesting the Fruit

A closer look at Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga’s speech

Please read a reasonably detailed analysis of Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga’s speech, which sets the tone for Francis moving forward in the Church. Cardinal Maradiaga is the coordinator of Francis’ Council of Cardinals which is working on the reform of the Roman Curia and advising him on church governance. It is the complete text of the cardinal’s speech, with certain of the more troubling Modernist sections in boldface followed by commentary in red.

PDF of analysis of Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga’s speech

Signs to Watch for – Many New Books, Missals and Letters

Excerpts from Maria Divine Mercy

Mother of Salvation: The Truth will be twisted and the Word of God will be presented back to front

Wednesday, January 1st, 2014 @ 13:44

…

Those who are to be appointed shortly, in the highest echelons of my Son’s Church on Earth, will not be from God. They will not serve my Son and will change many doctrines and laws within the Church. So quickly will they bring about such changes, with many new books, missals and letters being introduced, that you will know then that such works would have taken years to prepare. It would not be possible to introduce such radical changes in so many formats, were this not the case. This will be one of the first signs where you can be sure that this soon-to-be-introduced, twisted doctrine will have been created with great care.

…
Your beloved Mother

Mother of Salvation

How the Bishop Factory is Changing

From Chiesa

Vatican Diary / How the bishop factory is changing

Among the cardinals and bishops who are members of the congregation, Pope Francis has replaced half of them. With glaring exclusions. And surprising promotion.

VATICAN CITY, December 20, 2013 – The motu proprio canonizations of John XXIII and the Jesuit Peter Faber on the one hand, and the incisive and determined interventions in the organizational structure of the Roman curia on the other are the most demanding juridical actions taken by Pope Francis during the first nine months of his pontificate.

Among these latter a prominent place belongs to the shakeup in the leadership of the congregation for bishops, the crucial dicastery that works most closely with the pope in the appointment of Latin bishops in much of the world: Europeans, Americans, Australians, and Filipinos (the appointment of prelates for missionary territories in Asia and Africa are overseen by Propaganda Fide).

After personally selecting the new secretary of the congregation in the person of the Brazilian Ilson de Jesus Montanari, his old acquaintance as a neighbor at the Roman residence on Via della Scrofa, and after ordering his personal secretary Fr. Fabián Pedacchio Leániz to continue spending his mornings working in that dicastery, where he has been an official for a few years, the pope confirmed last Monday as prefect the Canadian cardinal Marc Ouellet.

Not only that. But as he has already done at the congregation for Catholic education, here as well he has reshuffled the members of the dicastery. With confirmations, new appointments, and removals.

Let’s start with the twelve new entries.

Among the new components of the congregation there are five cardinals: Francisco Robles Ortega of Guadalajara, Mexico; Donald William Wuerl of Washington in the United States; Rubén Salazar Gómez of Bogotá, Colombia; Kurt Koch, Swiss, president of the pontifical council for the promotion of Christian unity; João Braz de Aviz, Brazilian, prefect of the congregation for religious. Six archbishops: Pietro Parolin, secretary of state; Beniamino Stella, prefect of the congregation for the clergy; Lorenzo Baldisseri, secretary general of the synod of bishops; Vincent Gerard Nichols of Westminster, Great Britain; Paolo Rabitti, emeritus of Ferrara; Gualtiero Bassetti of Perugia. And one bishop: Felix Genn of Münster, Germany.

And then there are the eighteen confirmed.

Fourteen are cardinals: Tarcisio Bertone, secretary of state emeritus: Zenon Grocholewski, Polish, prefect of the congregation for Catholic education; George Pell of Sydney, Australia; Agostino Vallini, cardinal vicar of Rome; Antonio Cañizares Llovera, prefect of the congregation for divine worship; André Vingt-Trois of Paris; Jean-Louis Tauran, French, president of the pontifical council for interreligious dialogue; William Joseph Levada, of the United States, prefect emeritus of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith; Leonardo Sandri, Argentine, prefect of the congregation for the Oriental Churches; Giovanni Lajolo, governor emeritus of Vatican City-State; Stanis?aw Ry?ko, Polish, president of the pontifical council for the laity; Francesco Monterisi, archpriest emeritus of Saint Paul’s; Santos Abril y Castelló, archpriest of Saint Mary Major; Giuseppe Bertello, governor of Vatican City-State; Giuseppe Versaldi, president of the prefecture of economic affairs.

And three are archbishops: Claudio Maria Celli, president of the pontifical council for social communications; José Octavio Ruiz Arenas, Colombian, secretary of the pontifical commission for the promotion of the new evangelization; Zygmunt Zimowski, Polish, president of the pontifical council for the pastoral care of health care workers.

But as has already been seen in the congregation for Catholic education, the most striking list is that of the fourteen removals.

Among the eleven cardinals excluded, four will turn 80 soon: the German Joachim Meisner at Christmas, the Brazilian Claudio Hummes in March, the other German, Paul Josef Cordes, and the Slovenian Franc Rodé in September. But seven are younger: Antonio María Rouco Varela of Madrid, the Portuguese Manuel Monteiro de Castro, the Americans Justin Francis Rigali and Raymond L. Burke, the Italians Angelo Bagnasco, Attilio Nicora, and Mauro Piacenza.

Two archbishops have been removed: the Croatian Nikola Eterovic and the Italian Pier Luigi Celata. And one bishop: the Italian Lorenzo Chiarinelli.

From a numerical point of view, it can be noted that the number of Italians remains unchanged, although their influence has increased because they were 12 out of 33 and now are 12 out of 31. The number and influence of the Latin Americans has increased (from 3 to 5), while the non-Italian Europeans have decreased (from 13 to 10) as have the North Americans (from 4 to 3). The only representative from Oceania remains in place. The members of the curia have also decreased (from 25 to 21), while there has been no change in the number (10) of the churchmen coming from diplomatic careers.

Obviously it did not make the news that the French representation (Tauran, Vingt-Trois) and the Polish representation (Grocholewski, Rylko, and Zimowski) remain unchanged, while the other two representatives of the Churches of Eastern Europe (Rodé and Eterovic) have disappeared.

There was, however, a great stir in the media over the removal, together with Rigali, of American cardinal Burke, a churchman very much attached to the traditional liturgy and always in the front ranks in the defense of “non-negotiable” principles, so much so as to be a tenacious proponent of the fact that on the basis of canon law it is not possible to give communion to those politicians who pertinaciously and publicly support and propose laws in favor of the right to abortion.

In the place of Burke the pope chose Wuerl, who although he has a past as a personal secretary and conclavist, in 1978, of ultraconservative cardinal John Wright (bishop of Pittsburgh and later prefect of the congregation for the clergy), has a much more compliant attitude than Burke with regard to pro-abortion politicians.

This change has been hailed positively in the “liberal” American world, which is now hoping for the selection of more progressive bishops with respect to those appointed in recent years.

The same thing is happening in Spain, where the exit of Cardinal Ruoco Varela has been welcomed with satisfaction by those who desire the advent of new, less conservative bishops.

But particularly revolutionized by Pope Francis is the Italian component of the membership of the congregation.

Two churchmen who grew up in the Genoa of the conservative cardinal Giuseppe Siri have been removed: cardinals Piacenza (already demoted from prefect of the congregation for the clergy to major penitentiary) and Bagnasco (the current president of the episcopal conference, in spite of the fact that the occupants of this position have been members of the dicastery uninterruptedly since 1985, when the responsibility of selecting Italian bishops passed from the council for the public affairs of the Church, now the second section of the secretariat of state, to the congregation).

Also removed is Archbishop Celata, who was the personal secretary of Cardinal Agostino Casaroli.

Taking over instead are the vice-president of the CEI and archbishop of Perugia Bassetti (highly esteemed by the pope), the three churchmen already promoted to other positions in the curia by the current pontiff (Parolin, Stella, and Baldisseri), and the emeritus Rabitti, known for having represented at the CEI a stance different from that of Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the historic leader of the Italian episcopate during the pontificate of John Paul II.

Remaining in the dicastery, instead, are Cardinal Bertone and the cardinal closest to him, Versaldi, as well as Archbishop Celli, heir of the diplomatic school of the elderly cardinal Achille Silvestrini. Also remaining in office is Cardinal Monterisi, in spite of the fact that he will turn 80 next September.

It must also be pointed out that the prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, the German Gerhard Ludwig Müller, has not been called to be part of the congregation for bishops, in spite of the fact that his predecessors Levada, Joseph Ratzinger, Franjo Seper, and Alfredo Ottaviani were members of the dicastery.

In the German-speaking camp, therefore, in the place of Cardinal Meisner comes the bishop of Münster, Genn, who is a member, like the prefect Ouellet, of the Johannesgemeinschaft, the priestly fraternity founded by theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar.

As for Latin America, the Mexican Robles has been selected over his countryman Norberto Rivera Carrera, held to be more conservative, while the Argentine curia member Sandri remains in place, although he is considered an historical Roman rival to Bergoglio.

Curious in this regard is the episode recounted by papal biographer Elisabetta Piqué about the dinner the two shared at Santa Marta before the beginning of the conclave:

“The archbishop of Buenos Aires sat down to eat with his countryman Leonardo Sandri. They had known each other since their youth. Bergoglio was Sandri’s prefect at the seminary in the quarter of Villa Devoto in Buenos Aires, before deciding to join the Jesuits. Their careers were very different. Bergoglio dedicated himself to pastoral tasks, Sandri gave himself to diplomacy and has spent most of his life in the Roman curia. In the past they have had their differences, everyone knows this. But they pretend that nothing has happened.”

With the confirmation of Sandri at Catholic education and at bishops it would seem that the “pretend nothing has happened” of Bergoglio continues even after the conclave. But it will be necessary to wait for the confirmation or non-confirmation of the current leaders of the congregation for the Oriental Churches – who are still provisory – to know if this is truly the case.

Also significant is the appointment as member of the congregation for bishops of the archbishop of Bogotà, and not only because this doubles the Colombian presence in the dicastery. Shortly before receiving the cardinal’s biretta in 2012, in fact, Cardinal Salazar had to undergo a reprimand and make a subsequent corrective declaration after one of his statements was interpreted as favorable toward the legalization of gay marriage in his country.

Just as it is significant that a place in the congregation for bishops has gone to the Englishman Nichols, who ended up in the crosshairs of the Holy Office – and perhaps because of this has not yet been made a cardinal – for not having promptly put an end to ad hoc liturgies for homosexuals.

To be pointed out finally is the twofold promotion of Cardinal Koch, a Swiss theologian of Ratzingerian stamp, who has been incorporated into the congregations for Catholic education and for bishops, of which he was not a member previously.

What the congregation for bishops remade from the ground up by Pope Francis will produce will be seen in the upcoming months.

Before that, however, we will learn the names of the first cardinals created by the new pontiff at the consistory next February. With him, making predictions is much more difficult than in the past. Surprise is the rule.