Pope Francis: Towards a new Vatican?

Motus in fine citius, the old physicists would say, “Movement increases as the end approaches.” Writers use it when they want a fancy way of saying that time itself seems to compress and therefore to move more quickly in times of crisis, and especially in times of final crisis. If it applies generally, the maxim will also fit the pontificate of Pope Francis, whenever it comes.

That’s not to say the Francis pontificate is nearing its end. There is no news of an imminent death of the pope, nor of a possible resignation. That would be speculation. It is evident—the pope has said so, almost in words—that Pope Francis is taking every necessary measure to ensure his reforms survive his reign when it does end.

In the post-Francis era, everything will be different.

This is at the cost of setting aside not only centuries of history but also the very structure of the Holy See and the Vatican and the same notion of the papacy itself.

After all, at the beginning of his pontificate, in the apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, and then in various pronouncements, Pope Francis had warned against hiding behind, “It has always been done this way.” It is a healthy approach, or can be, but it must be balanced. Tradition, structures, laws—basically everything that Pope Francis has implicitly or explicitly characterized as part of the papal “court,” and therefore destroyed or scheduled for destruction—are also instruments of protection, ways in which the institution helps the Holy Father maintain unity, balance, and justice.

That said, three events in the last week have suggested that things are moving faster:

• The publication of the new Ordo for the papal funeral (this was only announced through the official Vatican News channels, but is not yet available to the public in full).

• The appointment of a sole administrator for the Vatican Pension Fund in the person of Cardinal Kevin Farrell.

• The appointment of the legal head of the diocese of Rome, Fr. Renato Tarantelli Baccari, as the new vice-gerent of the diocese of Rome, that is, as deputy to the pope’s own vicar for the Rome diocese, Archbishop (and soon-to-be-Cardinal) Baldassarre Reina.

They seem like three unrelated facts. In reality, they are all a consequence of each other.

The publication of the funeral rite certifies Pope Francis’s desire to go down in history as the pope who put aside the idea of the pope as sovereign and instead wanted to emphasize the idea of the pope as shepherd. That’s not reading the tea leaves, either, that’s what papal master of liturgical ceremonies Archbishop Diego Giovanni Ravelli told Vatican News.

Therefore, the declaration of death no longer occurs in the room where the pope died but in the private chapel – the body must first be brought to the chapel. Then, its death must be certified, creating problems when the pope dies not directly near a chapel. The traditional three coffins are abolished, and the pope himself is not exposed on a so-called cataletto—a portmanteau of catafalque and bed—but but already in the coffin from the beginning, making it difficult for the faithful to see him. The rite is simplified, although it remains essentially the same. It is divided into three phases but without an exposition of the pope in the Apostolic Palace.

All this should give the idea of a pope as a shepherd.

However, there remain the novemdiales, or nine days of mourning and suffrage Masses celebrated starting from the funeral of the deceased pope. These are traditionally entrusted to different groups, including the papal chapel and the clergy of Rome and the Vatican departments, and testify to the multifaceted nature of the papal function. Even that of head of state, after all. And no one abolishes the protocol allowing royals and governments to come for the pontiff’s funeral.

Instead, the great idea of the pope’s death, which must be public because it must bear witness to Christian resignation to death, is lost. Once deceased, the pope is exposed so that the faithful can honor him and realize the transience of human life. In fact, the rite of confirmation of death requires that the deceased pope be called by his baptismal name, not by his papal name.

Every simplification, ultimately, brings with it an emptying of the content of something unless the simplification has deep roots. Indeed, Archbishop Ravelli admitted that some parts of the rite were eliminated because they were difficult to coordinate. It is the admission of the end of a Vatican world, of the impossibility of this new world to carry forward a tradition and history because it simply no longer knows it. This is not the consequence of the pontificate. If anything, the pontificate is the consequence of this loss of history.

From the beginning, Pope Francis has acted as a disruptive element. He has cultivated a narrative of disruption. It was even said that the pope, refusing to wear the red mozzetta before appearing on the balcony of the blessings after the election, said, “The time for clowning is over.” That’s one of those Roman apocrypha. In his refusal to wear the mozzetta, however, there was also a failure to understand a vestment that does not signify the temporal power of the pope.

The red worn by the popes was borrowed and received from the imperial insignia, but it was something the popes took with purpose: To show that the civilization of love proclaimed and nourished by Christianity is the new kingdom that surpasses secular powers –.

The pontificate, however, has gone forward through pragmatic suggestions. Among these is an economic reform that was supposed to be a revolution. There were several initiatives put in place: a process on financial transparency that had already received recognition at a European level, a very advanced screening process of the accounts of the IOR (the Vatican bank), and also a reform of the Prefecture of Economic Affairs, outlined as a sort of “finance ministry.”

It was all canceled in the name of the evaluation commissions (two on finances and two more on communication) and then in the name of new structures, including those with expensive external consultants. In the meantime, the consultancies and the needs also led to more speculative decisions. There was a need to earn money to make the Holy See’s finances modern. Subsequent decisions disavowed the approach, and, faced with problems, the blame was placed on the executors.

The reforms in the form of revolution have worsened the financial situation, and COVID gave the final blow because the lockdown suspended the liquid income from the Vatican Museums. The result is this: ten years ago, Cardinal Pell, presenting the Secretariat for the Economy, spoke about the Pension Fund and emphasized that “the Holy See is not broke” and that the pensions of the next generation are secure, but the fund had to be reformed to guarantee the subsequent ones.

Now, Pope Francis has appointed a commissioner for the pension fund just ten years later, and it is a sign that either the reforms have yet to be made, or they have not worked.

The Vatican officials could have been more careful. They could have continued the existing reforms instead of establishing new ones, blocking a growth project. It may have been enough not to enter with a disruptive approach. The fact that a sole commissioner is needed means that there is an emergency.

The fact that the sole commissioner is also prefect of a Dicastery and Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church tells of an approach: The pope considers ordinary management after his death purely economic, and the pope trusts only a very few people.

Farrell will have a challenging task.

He is faced with an economic crisis, the general divestment of many Vatican assets, even the idea of selling the Vatican supermarket, and, in general, a loss of financial sovereignty certified by the fact that the Holy See increasingly entrusts its economic management to external companies, coincidentally almost always Italian. Coincidentally, the Vatileaks trials, if you look closely, are mostly Italian cases. And, again, by coincidence, the sentence of a controversial trial like the Becciu trial is infiltrated by Italian jurisprudence.

Faced with the loss of the idea of the pope as sovereign, the Holy See sees its sovereignty eroded because its practical management lacks a profound idea and has worked only on pragmatism. Not even the great charisma of a pope can overcome this crisis.

The third event is the appointment as vicegerent of the diocese of Rome, Tarantelli Baccari.

Tarantelli helped the pope reform the vicariate, which defined the vicar on a par with the other auxiliaries—it was the time when the vicar was Cardinal Angelo de Donatis, then sent to lead the Apostolic Penitentiary. Tarantelli has been a priest for only six years; he has a lightning career.

In all of this, one fact is striking: Pope Francis wants to eliminate the auxiliary bishops of the diocese of Rome. He is appointing episcopal vicars for the city areas—and has eliminated the area of the historic center, absorbing it into the others—and none of these will become bishops. It is a paradox, considering that under Pope Francis, the diocese of Rome has come to have up to eight auxiliaries.

Thus, the problem of the new Vicar of Rome, who would be on a par with other bishops, is overcome. However, Pope Francis decided to appoint a vice-gerent – another auxiliary – and to appoint him archbishop. Perhaps the reading of the decision is wrong or biased, but it also seems natural: Pope Francis rewards those faithful to him with the episcopate.

It is evident in the pope’s asymmetric hierarchy (one bishop secretary for the Doctrine of the Faith, and one not; one cardinal pro-prefect for the New Evangelization, and one not) and in the fact that all those whom the pope wanted to bring to positions of responsibility were appointed bishops. The episcopate becomes a sort of “prize,” like a sergeant in an army commanded by a general. At the same time, the cardinalate is increasingly an honorary title, not a particular career and merit consequence.

Now, it is clear that in this way, Pope Francis is distancing himself from the old way of governing the popes, using his own language. But it is equally clear that in doing so, he is creating his own personal court, his most loyal followers, and he does so outside of the hierarchy or functions. The pope does not want to appear as a sovereign at his funeral but acts as a king, with all that this entails.

This is how all the latest decisions, however different, are connected.

If then, as is rumored, soon-to-be Cardinal George Koovakand is appointed Prefect of the Pontifical Household, the circle will be closed. The Pontifical Household will no longer be the pope’s family but a bureaucratic organism within the Curia. It already happened with the Apostolic Almoner, which became the “Dicastery of Charity,” thus losing the sense of being a direct donation of the pope’s family.

The discarded language may be a matter of semantics, but that means something with meaning is tossed away. Language matters. The language Pope Francis has jettisoned is a personal language with its own significances and signals. Paradoxically, this bureaucratization of the personal and familiar actually accentuates and structurally solidifies the personal rule that has been a hallmark of Francis’s conduct in office.

It is, in a word, the expansion of the personal into the official. For example, the pope did not want the court but did not disdain the Gentlemen of His Holiness nominations. In the latest batch, he included among the new gentlemen, even the commander and vice commander of the Vatican Gendarmerie, Gauzzi Broccoletti, and Giulietti.

If they are still in office, they will still have to personally manage the arrival of the heads of state and government. In the future, they could remain there to accompany the heads of state. But the fact that they are already gentlemen testifies to a rather unscrupulous use of languages.

You can only understand this pope if you understand that every Vatican language has been used and overturned in some way. What Pope Francis will leave behind will be a new Vatican. It is partially true that all popes have done this. There is something different in Pope Francis’s choices, something that has to do with the re-signification of the role of the pope, i.e., of the papacy itself and the role of the papal office as such.

The risks for the future are very high.