The Roman Curia consists of all the organs within the 44 hectares surrounding Saint Peter’s Basilica that assist the Pope in governing the Church. There are just over three thousand functionaries. It began small, in the XII century, but in 1588 it was transformed by Pope Sixtus V into a body of experts, created especially to confront the reformers; Luther, Calvin and others. Paul VI, in 1967, and Pope John Paul II, in 1998, tried in vain to reform it.
Is considered to be one of the most conservative governmental administrations in the world, and is so powerful that in practice it delayed, filed away and annulled the changes introduced by the two previous popes, and blocked the progressive line of Vatican Council II, (1962-1965).

It continues undetered, as if it worked not for the times but for eternity. However, the moral and financial scandals that took place within its confines have been of such magnitude that a cry has arisen from all the Church, requesting that the new Pope Francis undertake to reform it as one of his missions. As Giancarlo Zizola, the prince of the specialist on the Vatican, sadly now gone, wrote: «four centuries of counter-reformation have nearly extinguished the revolutionary chromosome of the original Christianity, as the Church established herself as a counterrevolutionary organism» (Quale Papa, 1977, page 278).  It rejects everything that is new. In a February 22, 1975 speech to the members of the Curia, Pope Paul VI went as far as to accuse the Roman Curia of having «an attitude of superiority and pride towards the Episcopal College and the People of God».

Will Pope Francis succeed in transforming the Curia, combining Franciscan sensibility with Jesuit rigor? He has wisely surrounded himself with eight experienced Cardinals, from every continent, to work with him to realize this colossal task, and the purges that necessarily must be realized.

Behind all this there is a historic-theological problem that greatly hinders the reform of the Curia. It is expressed by two contradictory visions. The first comes from the fact that, after the 1870 proclamation of the infallibility of the Pope, with the consequent Romanizing, (uniformization), of the whole Church, there was a maximum concentration at the top of the pyramid: namely, the papacy, with «supreme, total, immediate» power (canon 331). This means that all decisions are concentrated in him, a load that is practically impossible for a single person, even with absolute monarchical power, to carry alone. No decentralization is acceptable, because it would reduce the supreme power of the Pope. The Curia, then, surrounds the Pope, who becomes its prisoner; sometimes blocking initiatives that are contrary to its traditional conservatism, or simply putting aside projects until they are forgotten.

The other vision recognizes the weight of the monarchical papacy. It seeks to breathe life into the Synod of Bishops, a collegial organism created by Vatican Council II to assist the Pope in governing the Universal Church. But John Paul II and Benedict XVI, pressured by the Curia, who saw it as destroying the centralism of Roman power, turned it into a consultative rather than a deliberative organism. It meets every two or three years, but with no meaningful effect on the Church.

All indications are that Pope Francis, by convoking the eight Cardinals in order to reform the Curia, with him and under his leadership, will create an organism through which he will preside over the Church. Let’s hope he enlarges this collegiate organism, including representatives not only of the hierarchy but of the whole People of God, women included, because women are the majority of the Church.  Such a step does not appear impossible.

The best way to reform the Curia, in the opinion of experts on Vatican affairs and also of some important leaders, would be a major decentralization of functions. We are in the era of globalization, and of real time electronic communications. If the Catholic Church wants to adapt to this new period of humanity, nothing would be better than to undertake an organizational revolution.  Why not transfer to Africa the Secretary (dicasterio) for the Evangelization of the Peoples?  Relocate the Secretary of Inter-Religious Dialogue to Asia? That of Justice and Peace to Latin America?  Couldn’t the Secretary for the Promotion of Christian Unity be in Geneva, close to the World Council of Churches?  Some secretariats, those involved with the most immediate things, would remain in the Vatican. Through video-conferences, skype and other communication technologies, they could maintain direct daily contact. This would avoid the creation of an anti-power, at which the traditional Curia is a great expert. It would make the Catholic Church truly universal, not just Western.

As Pope Francis is always asking us to pray for him, we have to, in effect, pray deeply, so that this wish becomes reality, for the benefit of all.

Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar,
done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

The Encyclical Lumen Fidei comes under the authorship of Pope Francis, but is known it was written by the previous Pope, now Emeritus, Benedict XVI. Pope Francis clearly confesses : «I assume your precious work, limiting myself to add some contribution to the text».  As it should be, otherwise, it would not have the papal teaching seal. It would simply be a theological text by someone who was Pope once.

Benedict XVI wanted to write a trilogy on the cardinal virtues. He wrote on hope and love. But faith was missing, which now he does with small additions by Pope Francis.

The Encyclical brings no sensational novelty that calls the attention of the theological community, of the faithful as a whole or of the general public. It is a high theology text, with an over elaborate style and filled with quotations from the Bible and from the Holy Fathers. Curiously, Benedict quotes authors from Western culture such as Dante, Dostoievski, Buber, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Romano Guardini and the poet Thomas Elliot. It can be clearly seen the hand of Pope Benedict XVI, especially in refined discussions hard to comprehend even for theologians, handling Greek and Hebrew expressions, as a doctor and a teacher often do.

The text is addressed to the Church. Talks of the light of faith to those who already are inside the world illuminated by the faith. In this sense, it is an intra-systemic reflection.

It has a typical Western and European diction. Only European authorities speak in the text. Not considered are the teachings of continental churches, with their traditions, theologies, saints and witnesses of the faith. It is fitting to point out this solipsism, because only 24% of the Catholics live in Europe, the rest is outside, 62% of them in the so-called Third World and Fourth World. I can imagine a Catholic from South Korea, India, Angola, Mozambique or even an Andean Catholic reading this Encyclical. Possibly all of them will understand very little of what is written there, nor they will find themselves mirrored in that type of argumentation.

The line of theological argumentation is typical of the thinking of Joseph Ratzinger as a theologian: the preponderance of truth as theme, I would say, almost obsessive. In the name of that truth is frontally against modernity. Has difficulty to accept one of the most important themes of modern thinking: the autonomy of the subject and its use at the light of reason. Ratzinger sees it as a way of substituting the light of the faith.

It does not show that attitude so much recommended by Vatican Council II which would be: in facing the contemporary cultural, philosophical and ideological tendencies, it is important above all to identify the nuggets of truth in them; and from there organize the dialogue, the critique and the complimentary. It is a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to imagine that the moderns have only thought lies and falsehoods.

To Ratzinger love itself has to be submitted to truth, without which would not overcome the isolation of the «I» (nº 27). However, we know that love has its own reasons and obeys a distinct logic, different, without being contrary to truth. Love cannot see with clarity, but sees reality with more profundity. Saint Augustine following Plato already said that we only comprehend that which we truly love. To Ratzinger, «love is the experience of truth» (n.27) and  «without truth, faith does not save» (nº 24).

This declaration is problematic in theological terms, because all Tradition, especially the Councils, has affirmed that only saves «that truth informed by charity» (fides caritate informata). Without love, truth is insufficient to reach salvation. In pedestrian language, I would say: what saves are not true preaching but effective praxis.

Every document from the Magisterium is done by many hands, seeking to contemplate the distinct acceptable theological tendencies. At the end, the Pope gives it its form and signs it. This is also applicable to this document. In its final part, probably from the hand of Pope Francis, there is a notable opening that does not match well with the previous parts, that are strongly doctrinal. In them is emphatically affirmed that the light of faith illuminates all dimensions of human life. In the final part, the attitude is more modest: «Faith is not a light that dissipates all our darkness, but a lantern that guides our steps in the night and that is enough for the journey» (nº 57). With theological precision affirms that «the profession of faith is not to assent to a group of abstract truths, but to make that life enters in plain communion with the living God» (45).

The richest part, in my opinion, is nº 45 when the Creed is explained. There it turns into an affirmation that goes over theology and touches philosophy: «the faithful affirms that the center of being, the most profound heart of all things is the divine communion» (nº 45). And completes: «God-communion is capable of embracing the history of man and introducing him in his dynamism of communion» (nº 45).

But in the Encyclical is seen a painful lagoon that takes away great part of its relevance: it does not touch the present crisis of faith of the human being, his/her doubts, questions that not even faith can answer: Where was God in the tsunami that decimated thousands of lives or in Fukushima? How to believe after the massacres of thousands of Native people at the hands of Christians throughout our history, of the thousands of tortured and murdered by military dictatorships from the years ‘970s to ‘980s? How to still have faith after the millions of dead in the Nazi concentration camps? The Encyclical does not offer a single element to answer these questions. To believe is always to believe in spite of… Faith does not eliminate the doubts and anguish of a Jesus who cries on the cross: “Father, why have you abandoned me?”. Faith has to go through this hell and become hope that for everything there is a sense, but hidden in God.  When will it be revealed?

Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar,
done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.