« In search of the spiritual | Main | Thanks again »
August 23, 2005
Curial Changes in the air?
Papabile says:
The first ten days of September will leave everyone's head spinning. There's a major reorg coming....
Combine those with reports from three continents that certain prelates have already been given happy news and are preparing for new assignments in Rome, and you can see -- again -- that something BIG is afoot. The strategy at work here is to have it done early and done quickly, lest everyone get too comfortable at their desks coming back from vacation....
What's more, as the dicastery heads are all ex officio members of the Synod of Bishops, it just makes better sense for the New Curia to be appointed prior to the 2 October opening of the Synod on the Eucharist, so the incoming prefects and presidents can take their seats in the Hall and be able to mix it up the bishop-delegates coming to town from around the world. Encouraging good working relationships is what you do when you want your bureaucracy to be a collegial one, and the Pope has explicitly given his commitment to that.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8348bdd3a69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Curial Changes in the air?:
Comments
P and W's timetables sound accurate, now that WYD is in the EWTN tape library. Much to do on this side of the pond. Point one- the new archbishop of San Francisco, who will probably be fitted with riot helmet, face shield, and Kevlar armor to face the city's Powers That Be. Then again, what could happen a few hundred miles to the south. As in City of Angels. As in a cardinal with a less-than-cordial relationship with the local prosecutor. Concerning alleged nocturnal activities of his proteges. Wondering here in Philly if curate veteran Cardinal Rigali is also off to Rome- again, for good. He has four auxiliary bishops at his disposal- one of whom, Mike Burbidge, is America's youngest. No lack of bench strength in the U.S., just considering some of our personal faves- Chaput, Burke, Myers, Dolan, Sheridan. Most under 60. Should be oodles of fun to watch.
Posted by: Gerard E. at Aug 23, 2005 10:57:38 AM
Who is the boom going to be lowered on? Is there someone in particular you all are thinking of who will be fired? Is this typically a big event when a new Pope comes around?
I'm not Catholic, so I'm just trying to get a feel for what you all seem to pick up with your Catholic spidey-sense.
Steve
Posted by: Steve at Aug 23, 2005 11:10:56 AM
Exciting...
Posted by: hieronymus at Aug 23, 2005 11:22:33 AM
It's not spidey-sense. Papabile and Rocco both have their sources. And it's really not "firing." Many of these curial heads (especially those we are discussing who might be moved) are over 70. at least, and some over 75. This is a new papacy. Changes are natural.
Posted by: amy at Aug 23, 2005 11:27:34 AM
Will Cardinal Mahony be getting a "promotion" to a desk job in Rome?
Posted by: Quintero at Aug 23, 2005 11:27:51 AM
The US ambassador to the Vatican doesn't always have a close pulse on the situation of the Church in America.
Just a week ago, I met Raymond Flynn, who was the ambassador under Clinton. He also spoke at my college graduation. I was part of a group that was reading a screenplay he has underway, based on his novel, the Accidental Pope. This accidental Pope, a widower from Boston, champions the cause of women's ordination, among other things.
One of my notes on the screenplay was that he needed to consider his audience: his protagonist would not appeal, for instance, to the 1 million people gathered in Cologne this month. Flynn seemed shocked. As he looked around the room at a dozen of us twenty- and thirty-somethings, he flat out asked us: "You mean women's ordination is not an issue that you feel passionate about?" And we universally shook our heads. It was like an epiphany for him. I went on to say that his protagonist might have looked like a hero in 1962, but not today. What he didn't seem to understand is that our generation feels like survivors of the sexual revolution, not its advocates.
I'll blog more about this soon. But I was surprised to see that a US ambassador to the Vatican could have such an insular view of ecclesial life in America. Obviously he hadn't spent much time in a US seminary...
Posted by: Clayton at Aug 23, 2005 11:41:37 AM
Who is this guy?
Easy. Just read the article and you'll see how he got the appointment:
He is "one of the GOP's biggest donors during the last election ...."
Posted by: RP Burke at Aug 23, 2005 11:43:33 AM
...Chaput, Burke, Myers, Dolan, Sheridan ...
Radical authoritarians all. Be careful for what you wish for ...
Posted by: RP Burke at Aug 23, 2005 11:44:56 AM
Clayton:
I particularly liked the part with the Pope's son roller-skating through the Vatican hallways.
Worst. PopeFiction. Ever.
Posted by: amy at Aug 23, 2005 11:57:37 AM
"Radical authoritarians all. Be careful for what you wish for ..."
Authoritarian or authoritative? There's a big difference between the two.
Posted by: Sean Gallagher at Aug 23, 2005 12:06:27 PM
I haven't read the novel, so I was spared that passage. The screenplay had almost nothing about his wife and kids.
But to be fair, the screenplay is a work in progress. And the writer Flynn hired to write the script is open to making some major revisions. We gave him nearly two hours of notes. So we'll see how the next draft turns out.
Posted by: Clayton at Aug 23, 2005 12:07:53 PM
RP Burke,
I see from your email address that you are a ND alum. Taken many McBrien classes, have we?
Posted by: Damian at Aug 23, 2005 12:23:58 PM
RP Burke,
I see from your email address that you are a ND alum. Taken many McBrien classes, have we?
Posted by: Damian at Aug 23, 2005 12:24:06 PM
I meant authoritarian. The crew mentioned as "our faves" mistake the one for the other.
Posted by: RP Burke at Aug 23, 2005 12:24:48 PM
Damian,
Graduate degree, not in theology. So, one fallacy you can't use is to tar me by association.
Posted by: RP Burke at Aug 23, 2005 12:32:13 PM
I don't think Mahony will get "kicked up" to the Vatican. Benedict, as a member of the curia for twenty some years, recognizes the value of having qualified people in those offices rather than simply place-fillers. I suspect it more likely that someone with proven Roman experience - Burke, Rigali, Dolan - would end up there. Levada in the CDF, one of the most powerful positions in the Vatican, also makes it unlikely that another American, let alone another Californian, will be given a major post any time soon.
I'm expecting a good deal of "tinkering" with the apparatus of the Roman Curia over the next couple years: John Paul the Great did a major reorg in 96, but a lot of the key players remained in position, which has the effect of moderating the changes. Benedict, with a curialist's eye, will likely look to efficiency and quality in the personnel rather than shifting job descriptions (although he's already moved the task of dealing with laicizations from the Cong. for Sacraments to the Cong. for the Clergy).
It should be an interesting couple of months, and I'm anxious to see how the ball begins rolling.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Aug 23, 2005 12:34:34 PM
So, is the sort of unspoken rumor that Cdl. Sodano is out at the Secretariat of State? Or am I just confused?
Posted by: mark j at Aug 23, 2005 12:43:44 PM
I was just joking about the spidey sense phrase. Thanks for the reply.
Posted by: Steve at Aug 23, 2005 1:23:39 PM
Benedict, with a curialist's eye, will likely look to efficiency and quality in the personnel rather than shifting job descriptions...
It will be interesting to see if this holds true. One complaint that I have heard voiced is that the current structure of the Curia has everyone else in the Curia formally reporting to the Secretariat of State rather than directly to the Pope. The Secretariat of State has two sections, the Section for General Affairs, and the Section for Relations with States. As the Secretariat of State's page on the Vatican's web site states, "In conformity with Arts. 41-44 of Pastor Bonus, the Section for General Affairs or the First Section is responsible for handling matters regarding the everyday service of the Supreme Pontiff, both in caring for the universal Church and in dealing with the dicasteries of the Roman Curia."
Since the Secretariat of State allegedly is dominated at the mid-levels by Italian diplomats who are accustomed to diplomatically smoothing over problems so as to give a "good appearance" to things, so the complaint goes, making the rest of the Curia and the Church report to it as a middleman to the Pope through the Section for General Affairs has the effect of important internal Church matters being filtered through the lens of a political diplomacy whose main object is to avoid anything unpleasant. While that may be called for at times (certainly not always) in relations with foreign governments or other non-Catholic entities, using a diplomatic model for managing the day-to-day internal affairs of the Church may be detrimental to it.
If what I have been told is an accurate picture of the curial bureaucracy, Cardinal Ratzinger used to have to work under this model himself, with his interactions with the Pope and other dicasteries often being finessed through the Secretariat of State before reaching their intended intended parties. Consequently, he's got the names and numbers of anyone at the Secretariat of State who was an obstacle to getting things done in the past and knows what limitations of the current model enabled them to be obstacles.
Posted by: Ronny at Aug 23, 2005 1:29:54 PM
The Vatican Ambassador nomination may confirm suspicions that Catholics - and Christans in general - were just being used for the last 6 years. For all the talk of how interested Rove was in Catholic matters and what excellent access Catholics had through Deal Hudson, once Hudson was disgraced, they didn't know anyone else and had to come up with someone who is not in the Catholic loop.
I guess we can be grateful it wasn't John Bolton, although a nonentity is almost as insulting if a bit less destructive.
Posted by: Jaime at Aug 23, 2005 3:26:50 PM
I wonder if they asked or even thought of Mary Ann Glendon for ambassador.
That might have been an inspired choice, guaranteeing Catholic points of view would get lots of press and giving a boast to pro-life and embryonic issues. Aside from being brilliant and articulate, she's photogenic.
If they are really pro-life, why didn't they nominate someone who can effectively make that argument?
Posted by: Dudley at Aug 23, 2005 3:39:56 PM
One wonders if New York may be in for a change with a move to Rome and possibly Newark to across the river and maybe Lincoln. We shall wait and see.
Posted by: Tom at Aug 23, 2005 3:51:52 PM
One wonders if New York may be in for a change with a move to Rome and possibly Newark to across the river and maybe Lincoln. We shall wait and see.
Posted by: Tom at Aug 23, 2005 3:52:28 PM
Dear Mr. Rove,
I am available for the position of ambassador to the Vatican. I look forward to hearing from you.
John
Posted by: John J. Simmins at Aug 23, 2005 4:24:02 PM
Dear Mr. Rove,
I am available for the position of ambassador to the Vatican. I look forward to hearing from you.
John
Posted by: John J. Simmins at Aug 23, 2005 4:26:24 PM
