by Serre Verweij
It is official. As predicted, Archbishop Rudelli, the relatively conservative nuncio in Colombia, is replacing the scandal-ridden Archbishop Peña Parra as "Sostituto" at the Secretariat of State. Peña Parra has been exiled from the Curia and appointed nuncio to Italy. Rudelli now takes his place as the second most powerful figure in the Secretariat, right under Cardinal Parolin. While he drew some criticism for using boilerplate synodal language during his time in Colombia, Rudelli has otherwise been firmly conservative — his doctoral thesis was on the theology of marriage, and in it he defended both its indissolubility and its openness to life.
As such, Rudelli fits a broader rightward trend in the Curia and signals an end to the dominance of questionable figures that became the norm under Francis. At the same time, the also fairly conservative Archbishop Rajič — until now the nuncio to Italy, who publicly stated under Francis that homosexuality was sinful — was brought in to fill the vacant role of Prefect of the Papal Household.
As Pope Leo's curial appointments accelerate, the Curia appears in many ways to be returning to the era of Pope Benedict XVI — though just how far that shift will go remains to be seen. Pope Leo has spoken of the Curia with great respect, in sharp contrast to Francis, placing him firmly on the side of the conservative cardinals, at least on this issue. Since Francis's new curial constitution Praedicate Evangelium left many questions open and was never fully implemented, this creates an opening for Pope Leo to alter or effectively overturn it.
Francis had radically attacked the Curia, frequently circumvented it, stripped entire dicasteries of their power, and allowed liberal bishops to ignore them at will. At the same time, he would sometimes appoint his own favorites who would bully local bishops without any legal basis. The law was routinely gutted, sidestepped, and ignored, and the justice system appears to have been corrupted as well — key parts of the conviction of Cardinal Becciu were recently overturned. The late Cardinal Pell criticized all of this heavily in Francis's final years. Now we have a canon lawyer and ecclesial judge as Pope. Leo's promotion of canon lawyers to key curial posts is a promising sign, as is his appointment of Bishop Randazzo as the new Prefect of the Dicastery for Legislative Texts. Pope Leo is well-equipped to clean up this mess, and so the central question becomes: where will he start?
One rather overlooked department is the Dicastery for the Clergy.
Pope Leo replaced the Secretary of that dicastery, Chilean Archbishop Andrés Gabriel Ferrada Moreira, with Italian Archbishop Carlo Roberto Maria Redaelli. The news largely flew under the radar, with only traditionalist media taking note — primarily because of rumors that Redaelli had previously attacked the Tridentine Mass. More speculative claims described him as pro-homosexual. Since then, those rumors have been overtaken by newer developments, and even less attention was paid to the 34 appointments Pope Leo made to the dicastery early in his pontificate. Yet those appointments may prove decisive.
While the debates over Redaelli's alleged positions on homosexuality and the Traditional Latin Mass are complex and genuinely important in their own right, they may turn out to be especially significant in the context of the broader curial changes now accelerating — changes in which Redaelli's dicastery could play an essential role.
Administrative rather than doctrinal decentralization
Critically, Redaelli's appointment as secretary came at a time when sources close to The Pillar told that outlet that Pope Leo is working to reform and decentralize the Dicastery for the Clergy's role in handling disciplinary cases against priests — a responsibility the dicastery took on in recent years. That expansion has strained its staff and led to rushed, disputed decisions that threaten priests' rights. Due process — or the lack of it — for accused priests was a frequent criticism under Francis. This could make the Dicastery for the Clergy a crucial test case for Pope Leo's broader reform agenda.
This news came at nearly the same time as Pope Leo's first Extraordinary Consistory, where curial reform came up and specifically judicial — rather than doctrinal — reform was emphasized. While that topic was ultimately not chosen by the cardinals as one of the main discussion items, a paper on it was nonetheless presented by Cardinal Baggio, the Undersecretary of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, who offered an analysis of Praedicate Evangelium.
In the paper, Cardinal Baggio steered clear of the question of lay prefects and instead emphasized decentralization away from the Curia — but only in areas that would not affect unity in doctrine or discipline, a key distinction from the kind of decentralization Francis championed in his early years. "Sound decentralization," according to Baggio, means giving local bodies "the authority to resolve" matters that do not touch "the Church's unity of doctrine, discipline and communion."
CruxNow noted that Baggio was presenting his own personal views. Yet what he said aligned remarkably closely with what The Pillar had reported around the same time — something virtually no one seems to have picked up on. "Further consideration should be given to applying this criterion to legal matters that are more local than universal in nature," he argued, matters that "continue to be handled by institutions and offices of the Roman Curia, with bureaucratic burdens and expenses that could be avoided."
Cardinal Baggio is the only one of the four cardinals who presented a paper at the recent consistory who currently holds a subordinate rather than a leading position at the Vatican, yet he is said to be held in high regard by the new Pope. His presentation may be the one most revealing of Pope Leo's own thinking. If Baggio was indeed speaking for the Pope, it lines up well with what sources told The Pillar. A dramatic reversal of the situation Francis created may be coming soon. Under Francis, liberal episcopal conferences could depart from Church doctrine — something Pope Leo has explicitly said he opposes — while certain Vatican favorites could dispense "justice" against priests who had made the wrong enemies, in a completely opaque manner. Now we may be seeing the opposite take shape.
Pope Leo appears to be using his expertise in canon law to steadily restore law, justice, and due process within the Church — specifically for clergy. He is dismantling a personalist system of power that harmed both those serving in the Curia and bishops and priests around the world. The Dicastery for the Clergy now appears to be the starting point for this return to normalcy.
The Future of the Dicastery for the Clergy: a prime battleground for curial reform
The Dicastery for the Clergy has been the curial department most radically reshaped by Pope Leo since the appointment of Archbishop Redaelli as secretary. Beyond the aging Prefect, Cardinal You Heung-Sik (now 74), and the undersecretaries, the body looks very different from how Francis left it at his death. This stands in sharp contrast to the Dicastery for Bishops, where beyond appointing Archbishop Iannone as his successor as prefect, Pope Leo kept the same secretary and undersecretary in place and has yet to appoint new members — though he does appear to have reined in Secretary Montanari's outsized influence.
The shakeup at the Dicastery for the Clergy has largely gone unnoticed, but Pope Leo XIV appointed 22 new members and 12 new consultors. Not only was this the highest number of appointments to any dicastery he staffed up to that point, but the Dicastery for the Clergy is by far the most consequential of the dicasteries he has reorganized — overseeing seminaries and the future of the priesthood. Enforcing priestly celibacy, upholding the clerical hierarchy, reforming seminaries, and shaping priestly formation all fall under this institution. The handling of sanctions against priests, including laicization, is also critically important.
It is worth noting not only that all 22 new members were bishops, but that among the 12 new consultors only two were women — both female religious, one of them visibly traditional in her dress. Progressives and even centrists have pushed for years to increase women's involvement in seminary oversight, but that clearly isn't a priority for Pope Leo. Likewise, only two of the token curial liberals — Tagle and Grech — are known to have supported changes to priestly celibacy. All other new members who had spoken on the topic were either lukewarm at best on changes (Aveline and Brislin) or openly supportive of priestly celibacy (Vidal, Herrera, García, Mondovi, Daniel Fernández, and others).
Most significantly, at most roughly a third of the members — 7 out of 22 — could be called liberal, even counting moderate liberals, and no more than 10 out of 22 could be described as real Francis supporters. The number of strong conservatives was also substantial, including anti-LGBT cardinals such as Da Silva and Francis Leo, the Norwegian pro-traditionalist bishop Erik Verden, the Spanish opponent of Communion for the divorced and remarried Jesús Vidal Chamorro, Mexican reformer Hilario González García, and American conservative Edward M. Lohse.
As a result, the revised plenary membership appears unlikely to support married priests or show hostility toward traditionalist seminaries. The FSSP did not seem concerned after their meeting with the new Pope a few months ago — and this development may help explain why.
These overlapping developments make the appointment of the controversial Redaelli all the more important to examine.
A deeper look at Redaelli
Redaelli was born in the summer of 1956 and trained as a canon lawyer. He has been sent to carry out multiple visitations to troubled dioceses. He never implemented Amoris Laetitia in a way that would permit Communion for the divorced and remarried, did not side with those Italian bishops who undermined Humanae Vitae under Pope Francis, and never questioned priestly celibacy. His only notable foray into public affairs appears to have been the kind of welcoming statements toward asylum seekers that are commonplace among Western bishops.
In other words, he is an experienced Italian canon lawyer with a steady, gradual career, a knack for not rocking the boat, no progressive activist tendencies, and he turns 70 this summer. His appointment would likely be seen as entirely unremarkable — notable only for confirming once again Pope Leo's preference for canon lawyers and seasoned, older prelates over young protégés — were it not for three controversies surrounding him.
A Martini protégé?
The first controversy is that Redaelli is supposedly a protégé of the notorious ultra-modernist Cardinal Martini, Archbishop of Milan. Redaelli was ordained by him and spent many years as a priest in his Archdiocese.
He was, however, a native of the city, and had begun his studies and priestly formation years before Martini took office. Martini became Archbishop of Milan in February 1980, and when Redaelli's time came to be ordained for the archdiocese, Martini was the one who ordained him — as a matter of course. For roughly the next 20 years, Redaelli served as an ordinary diocesan priest, aside from time spent in Rome (under John Paul II) pursuing his canon law studies. He held no special roles under Martini — not as vicar general, episcopal vicar, or in any seminary capacity.
It was actually Martini's far more progressive successor, Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi, who elevated Redaelli from lesser positions to become his Vicar General in early 2004. A few months later, John Paul II appointed him auxiliary bishop of Milan. He then continued to serve under the next Archbishop, the well-known conservative Cardinal Scola, until Pope Benedict XVI made him Archbishop of Gorizia in 2012.
Under Martini, he was simply an ordinary priest and canon law expert in Milan.
Was the Traditional Latin Mass abrogated?
The biggest controversy surrounding Redaelli is the claim that he is hostile toward the Tridentine Mass. Specifically, he is alleged to have argued — even before Francis released Traditionis Custodes — that Pope Benedict's document Summorum Pontificum, which removed restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass, should be scrapped or simply ignored.
This story originates from 2018, when the well-respected Italian traditionalist site MessaInLatino reported that, at a closed-door meeting of the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI), Redaelli allegedly argued that Summorum Pontificum was built on legal nonsense, since Pope Paul VI had supposedly abrogated the Tridentine Mass — contrary to what that document asserts. The story spread to traditionalist outlets in other languages and to Infovaticana, though it got little traction in the mainstream Italian media and drew no response from either Redaelli himself or from the conference.
If accurate, such claims would be unworthy of any bishop, let alone a canon lawyer. But they are also oddly out of place in context. Archbishop Redaelli held no formal or prominent role in liturgy or divine worship — either in the Italian Episcopal Conference or in the Roman Curia — nor had he held such a role during his time in Milan. His expertise is canon law. While he could theoretically challenge the legal reasoning behind Summorum Pontificum, pushing that particular interpretation is generally the domain of hardcore anti-TLM ideologues, and raising it at a bishops' conference meeting in 2018 would have served no obvious purpose.
Furthermore, he has no known history of conflict with traditionalist groups, either in Milan or in his own archdiocese. The alleged remarks appear strangely unmotivated — especially since he has no known ties to any of the major enemies of the Traditional Latin Mass, whether Roche, Viola, or Parolin.
There is also no evidence he ever made similar statements at any other time, before or after the alleged incident, and he said nothing about Traditionis Custodes when it was released. Nor did the alleged remarks lead to any action by the conference or any of its left-leaning members; they don't appear to have contributed in any way to the buildup toward Traditionis Custodes. It is a completely isolated story with no clear backstory, no apparent motivation, and no identifiable consequences.
Redaelli was never promoted by Francis to any position in the Dicastery for Divine Worship, nor to any other curial post, during the Vatican's campaign against the traditional Mass. He made no public comment in support of Traditionis Custodes.
Most tellingly, he ignored Traditionis Custodes in his own Archdiocese. Tridentine Masses continued to be celebrated in parishes there not just before the document was issued, but after it. Prelates known to be hostile toward the Traditional Latin Mass — such as Cupich and McElroy — did not drag their feet for years before implementing Traditionis Custodes. Redaelli simply never did. The parish church of San Gottardo in Mariano del Friuli was still offering Tridentine Masses years after the document's release.
If the alleged remarks were misattributed to him, or represented a position he heard and disagreed with, or were simply misreported, then the entire basis for the claim that he opposes the Traditional Latin Mass falls apart.
In that case, Redaelli would be a TLM-friendly Archbishop with a distinguished career in canon law, no history of heterodoxy, and only one real black mark: his weak handling of the gay scout leader controversy during the Francis years.
If the rumors turn out to be unfounded, Redaelli could use his expertise to help conservatives within the dicastery advance Pope Leo's push for a return to normalcy. Given Pope Leo's growing warmth toward the traditional liturgy, it's hard to imagine he would have promoted Redaelli if he took those rumors at face value.
Conclusion
The transformation of the Dicastery for the Clergy shows that while Pope Leo moves slowly and methodically, he can be decisive and thorough when he needs to be. Redaelli has a real opportunity — both to put the rumors about him to rest and to show more backbone than he did during the scouting controversy. If he does, it will be strong evidence that Pope Leo is far better at reading people and gauging their abilities than Francis ever was.
Cardinal Burke once said that the two things the Church most urgently needed to get right were the appointment of bishops and the formation of clergy. As the former Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops, Pope Leo is well-positioned to solidify the former — once he shows he's willing to break through the liberal networks that have long shaped those decisions. For the latter, he may just have taken the first steps toward ensuring that future clergy are formed in orthodoxy and treated with the justice and fairness the law demands.
