There are some 1.3 billion Catholics in the world, of whom 66.7 million, or 5.2 per cent, are Italians. They continue to exercise a disproportionate amount of influence, giving the impression that we are the Italian Church rather than the Catholic Church.
To take one example: a full 21 of the 132 voting members of the College of Cardinals are Italian. Clearly this is the result of historical circumstances but despite attempts to internationalise both the College of Cardinals and the Roman Curia, Italians still predominate.
This is particularly so with regard to the appointment of papal ambassadors (nuncio is the official term). The Holy See is represented at 208 states and international organisations including the United Nations in New York. These missions are served by approximately 115 nuncios – some are applied on a non-residential basis, as in the Caribbean, to several countries or organisations simultaneously.
A full 40 of those serving the Vatican as nuncios are Italian. Equally revealing is the fact that of 57 retired nuncios, 30 are Italian. All this is to be set within the context of the fact that some of the most important posts in the Vatican are held by Italians, not least the secretariat of state headed by Cardinal Pietro Parolin. It is Parolin who drives the Holy See’s disastrous China policy.
Shooting the breeze with trailblazer chemists
Kamala Harris is a descendant of an Irish slave owner in Jamaica
Tactical analysis: Clare got their numbers right, but it’s hard to measure sheer magic
Artist and shepherd Orla Barry: ‘Breeding animals is like making an artwork. You’re putting certain animals together’
One way to circumvent Italian dominance of the Roman Curia and the papal diplomatic corps would be to change the language in which the Holy See conducts its business.
‘Nod and a wink’
The pope has two functions – he is both bishop of Rome and head of the Catholic Church. Naturally as bishop of Rome, all his activities with regard to his diocese must be conducted in Italian. There is no reason, however, why communications of the Curia should be in Italian. English would be a much better medium.
A case could be made for saying that Spanish ought to be the official language of the Curia. More than half the world’s Catholics live in Latin America, where Spanish dominates. However, for the world as a whole, English is the leading language of politics, economics, diplomacy and social discourse.
There are more English speakers in the world than there are people fluent in Mandarin. If the Vatican adopted English as its official language, it would liberate it from Italian dominance. Although the official language of the Holy See remains Latin, virtually all business is conducted in Italian.
Recruitment to the Roman Curia still has about it the feel of a “nod and a wink” as Italians remain preponderant at many levels. Why should so many Italian priests be employed in the Roman Curia given the pastoral needs of the Italian church?
In many instances, recruitment to the Curia gives the impression of being more of a career move than a vocation. So far as the papal diplomatic corps is concerned, would it not be better to appoint competent lay people, men and women, as papal nuncios rather than clerics?
This would require a change in Canon Law. Again, there is no reason why this should not happen. The college for training Vatican diplomats, the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, should open its doors to talented students from all over the Catholic world. In time it would produce a diplomatic corps more representative of what the Catholic Church actually looks like than its current products.
Language proficiency
In the meantime, the Holy See could recruit practising Catholics who are retired diplomats. They would need some retraining, so as to approach matters from the view-point of the Holy See. Such a procedure would further internationalise the secretariat of state, boost the pool from which Vatican diplomats are drawn, and make one arm of papal government much less Italian and clerical.
The next conclave (which elects the pope) should have some sensitivity for the need of the new pope to have a command of English. Pope Francis, for all his impact on the international scene, is clearly handicapped by his lack of proficiency in the language. He did give a major address in English to a joint session of the United States Congress in September 2015.
On that occasion he spoke for an hour, slowly and deliberately, reading his text and mispronounced only a single word. He clearly did not perfect English during his stay at the Jesuit House of Studies at Milltown Park, Dublin, in 1980. He is shy and hesitant about speaking English. On his recent trip to Canada, his apologies for physical and sexual abuse of First Nation children made less of an impact because his words of remorse were spoken in English translation.
The next pope needs to have greater fluency in the world’s international language. If the church of the future is truly to be a global instrument of evangelisation, its centralised bureaucracy must lose its Italian ethos.
Fr Oliver Rafferty SJ is professor of modern Irish and ecclesiastical history at Boston College in the US