Although he’s not very well known in the U.S., save among members of the Sant’Egidio community (of which he’s the founding father), Andrea Riccardi is a major figure in the Catholic Church in Italy: a historian of the papacy, a commentator on all things Catholic, and a player in various ecclesiastical dramas.
Most recently, according to Vatican reporter Sandro Magister, Riccardi has taken to defending the Italian character of the Roman Curia, which, after a period of internationalization, has become more pronounced over the past decade. Magister quotes Riccardi as arguing that “the Curia cannot become a kind of U.N., because it is part of the Roman Church and must maintain a particular ecclesial, human and cultural connection with it.”
Permit me to disagree.
The pope is the Bishop of Rome; Rome is an Italian see; the pope governs the diocese of Rome through a cardinal vicar. It is entirely appropriate that the cardinal vicar be Italian and that the personnel of the Vicariate of Rome be predominantly Italian; they are, after all, at the service of the local Roman Church.
Because he is the Bishop of Rome, the pope is also “the universal pastor of the Church” (a title used by the Vatican’s official yearbook in noting the beginning of the pope’s solemn initiation of his Petrine ministry). The more traditional title, “supreme pontiff of the universal Church,” denotes the same reality. In this Petrine service as supreme pastor of the Church throughout the world, the pope employs the Roman Curia. Curial history is complex and need not detain us here; the crucial point is that the Curia today exists to inform and give effect to the pope’s ministry as pastor of the universal Church. The Vicariate of Rome attends to the pope’s mission as a local bishop; the Curia attends to the pope’s ministry as supreme pontiff of the universal Church.
Andrea Riccardi is quite right that “the Curia cannot become a kind of U.N.,” but probably not for the reason he intends. The Curia ought not be “a kind of “U.N.” because the U.N. is a self-serving, bloated and often corrupt bureaucracy. But it makes no sense, today, to argue that the Curia is “part of the Roman Church,” save in the obvious sense that it is located in Rome and therefore takes part in the life of the local Roman Church. The Curia’s purpose, however, is not local but universal: and that is why it is counterintuitive to suggest that any one national culture has a particular aptitude for staffing the Roman Curia, or that the Roman Curia as a 21st century institution has a unique connection to the local Roman Church.
It is true that the Curia’s modus operandi remains largely Italianate and that Italian language competence is a sine qua non of effective service in the Curia today. But the former is not without its difficulties, as the Banco Ambrosiano scandal of the early 1980s, the oft-remarked languid Curial pace, and persisting patterns of Curial cronyism and nepotism ought to demonstrate. And while the Roman Curia may well be the last holdout against English as the primary working language of international centers across the globe, it will almost certainly succumb at some point.
In his service as universal pastor of the Church, the pope must be able to draw on talent from all over the world Church; Italy will surely contribute some of that talent, but it has no monopoly on it. Curialists often speak of “the way we do things here.” Yet those ways, some impressive, some not, were formed in a distinctive epoch of Catholic history—Counter-Reformation Catholicism—that is coming to an end. The universal ministry of the pope in the Evangelical Catholicism to which Vatican II and the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI are giving birth is going to require a different kind of central administration, a different kind of Roman Curia.
It certainly shouldn’t be “a kind of U.N.” But there is no reason for it to be dominantly Italian, either.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Comments:
Xavier Rynne in his series “Letters from Vatican City” speaks of the late Patriarch Maximos Sayegh IV. During the debate on the local episcopate during Vatican II, the Patriarch accused those who prepared the schema, to think that the Church of God consisted of the Pope and the Roman Curia. Furthermore, he went on to suggest that in “his [the Pope] ministry of primacy to the universal Church surrounded by no other assistance than the congregations, tribunals and offices which together make up the Roman Curia, we fail to meet the real needs of the church of our time and to face up to the collegial responsibility of the episcopate for the Church.” His Beatitude also made a distinction regarding the Curia of the Bishop of Rome and the Apostolic Colleges of the Successor of Peter, as well as the fact that Cardinals are “appointed for particular Churches of Rome, shows well that the Cardinals belong to the particular Church of Rome and not to the universal Church of Christ.” This proposal will trigger a crisis in Vatican II, where Cardinal Ruffini will take the occasion to attack Patriarch Maximos for which action the Cardinal will apologize later on. When Maximos raised the question of the role of the Bishop of Rome as Patriarch of the West vis-ŕ-vis the Patriarchs of the East, many member of the Curia will find it extremely offensive and caused conflict amongst bishops such as the famous Frings-Ottaviani exchanges.
If the Roman Catholic Church, from the Pope of Rome and on truly believe that she is “universal”, and not merely paying a lip service to the other lung of the church, the Curia serving it should- if talents are to be had- be not a closed “Italian boys club”. The debate was taken up by the Eastern Patriarch in Vatican II, yet it seems years after his passing, few in Rome (or the East for that matter) heed his call.
The Curia should not be only Italian, and furthermore, should not be only Latin Rite. The “one holy apostolic catholic church” has 22 sects in it, albeit Latin being the largest.
The Italians among us should not view this as a statement directed against them, and should feel no need to circle their cultural wagons, so to speak. Rather, they should rise to the occasion.
We are all part of a Universal Church in a very rapidly shrinking world, thus it would be a growing curiosity if the Roman Curia continued in its currently strong "mono-ethnicity".
Seriously, though: there are already some places that are more well-represented than others. Take, for example, the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska. They have quite a few priests working over there. Or the United States in general.
Must it be Italian? Not necessarily. Must it be Catholic? Yes. But many will argue for different meanings of 'Catholic.' Perhaps a particular notion of 'Catholic' is a driving force behind Riccardi's thought?
P.S. I apologize for mistakes but english isn't my mothertongue or working language.
If I was to allow my emotions to sway my opinion, the uniquely captivating stamp of Italian genius that blossomed in the arts of the Catholic Church surely has brought many souls to the faith. In dark periods of doubt many, including myself , have been so entranced by these Italians images in sound and light that I found my faith rekindled.
Without my willing it my gates were unlocked. The mind was bypassed, brushed aside, then raced to follow the heart back into the fold.
As Christ used captivating parables, rather than the cattle chutes of direct logic, to convinced doubters, the Italian touch in the arts possesses a similar captivating lure.
Our boss journeying on his Ascension has entrusted us with this Italian “talent”. It should never be buried, but deposited in hearts around the world to awake the “interest” of sleeping souls.
Of course I recognize the logic is on the side of de-Italianizng important Vatican offices. But that is the familiar way of logic.