(13 July 2026)

In a motu proprio dated June 24, 2026, entitled Confirma fratres tuos[1]—taken from Christ’s Gospel mandate to Peter[2]—Leo XIV reformed the structure of the Diocese of Rome, amending the Apostolic Constitution In Ecclesiarum Communione, promulgated by Francis on January 6, 2023[3].

From a drafting perspective, the motu proprio rewrites the provisions of In Ecclesiarum Communione, incorporating the recommendations of the working group established by decree on February 25, 2026[4]. It is, therefore, an exercise in synodality aimed at renewing the structures of governance at the service of the particular Church, which recognizes the Roman Pontiff as its pastor and guide.

In keeping with the tradition of his predecessor[5], Leo XIV stated in the preamble to the motu proprio that the Diocese of Rome, precisely because of its significance, is called to promote communion within the Catholic world—a mission that must be carried out through exemplary witness, with an awareness that organizational and functional structures are subject to improvement, and through the prudent use of legal instruments, in order to respond to the changing needs of the Church.

A side-by-side comparison of the two documents reveals a reduction in the number of articles and a simplification of certain expressions, which were originally conceived from a pastoral-pedagogical perspective but are evidently not considered essential in the current draft.

First, in Title I—Guiding Principles—there are some clarifications that reflect the post-conciliar ecclesiological tradition reinterpreted according to a “hermeneutic of continuity,” in the tradition of Ratzinger. This is evident in two points: in Article 1, in fact, the phrase “in a synodal style” is placed after the statement of the objectives pursued by the Vicariate of Rome, thereby reinforcing the instrumental nature of synodality in relation to the ultimate goal of canon law, namely, the salus animarum. Furthermore, in Article 2, the expression “participation in the responsibilities of all the faithful” is replaced by the more restrained phrase “shared responsibility of the faithful,” which is more in line with canon 129 of the Code of Canon Law[6]. Remaining within the context of the synodal approach, Article 4 specifies that the development of the pastoral program—around which the entire diocesan activity revolves—is the responsibility of the Cardinal Vicar. With a view to simplification and legal clarity, the motu proprio eliminates the reference to listening to all the baptized in the formulation of pastoral guidelines.

Furthermore, as advocated by legal scholars[7], the new Article 6 expands the possibilities for reappointment to leadership positions, which are conferred for a five-year term renewable without limitation by the Cardinal Vicar, after consultation with the Episcopal Council. Previously, renewal was decided by the Episcopal Council itself and was permitted only once.

Turning to Title II—Central Structure of the Vicariate—the most notable change concerns the Cardinal Vicar, who regains the central role he had lost under Francis. In fact, the amended Article 10 no longer begins with an explanation of the rationale for this top leadership role in the Diocese[8], but instead emphasizes the profoundly vicarial (and no longer merely auxiliary) nature of this pastoral office. Pursuant to Article 12, his powers are no longer limited to ordinary administration but—marking a return to the structure established by Ecclesia in Urbe—extend to all affairs, with the exception of the most important ones. Conversely, the Vicegerent, whose position had been significantly strengthened—to the point of being placed in direct contact with the Pope—becomes the Cardinal Vicar’s chief collaborator (Article 15) and loses his role in coordinating the curial offices, which is now entrusted to a Moderator curiae[9], appointed by the Pope upon the recommendation of the Cardinal Vicar for a renewable five-year term (Article 19).

The jurisdiction of auxiliary bishops also appears to have been scaled back, because, within their respective territorial or pastoral areas of responsibility, they must always act “in consultation” with the Cardinal Vicar (Article 18). Furthermore, the authority of auxiliary bishops to take administrative measures is no longer explicitly stated. Title III—Synodal Bodies at the Service of the Mission of the Diocese of Rome—has also undergone a general redefinition. In fact, although Francis’s underlying idea was to strengthen both the role of the Bishop of Rome and collegiality within the Episcopal Council[10], the provisions set forth in the previous Article 21 presented some critical issues. Among the most significant were: the differing functions of the Episcopal Council—deliberative or consultative, depending on whether the session was presided over by the Cardinal Vicar or by the Pope[11]; the finality of decisions concerning diocesan life when the procedure followed had entrusted the final decision to the Pope[12]; a certain rigidity in the establishment of procedures, with obvious difficulty in finding a solution for cases not covered by the regulations; and the substantial ability of the Episcopal Council to impose a suspensive veto on the activities of the Cardinal Vicar, which could be overcome only through the involvement of the Pope[13].

The amendments to Title IV, which deals with the Vicariate’s offices, services, and judicial bodies, are more limited in scope and are intended to align the organizational structure of the Vicariate Curia with the changes mentioned above. More specifically, Directors are appointed by the Cardinal Vicar, subject to papal approval, while Deputy Directors are to be appointed by the Cardinal Vicar, after consultation with the Episcopal Council. The omission in the first draft of the IEC regarding the appointment of the Chancellor has been addressed by Article 27, which refers to Article 5, thereby confirming the fully executive nature of the position. The text has also been streamlined by removing certain provisions—such as those regarding the Independent Supervisory Commission or the limits on the Offices’ authority to engage third parties to perform specific tasks—which are now addressed in the implementing regulations. Finally, Confirma fratres tuos removes the Data Protection Officer from the organizational chart—a position introduced by the IEC in accordance with the directives of the Italian Church[14]—and transforms the Opera Romana Pellegrinaggi, previously considered an office, into an autonomous body, presided over by the Cardinal Vicar and endowed with its own charter (Article 30).

The only title that remains unchanged is Title V, on the activity of the courts, a sign that it is advisable for judicial activity not to undergo sudden upheavals, to the detriment of the faithful and the entire institution.

Assessing the impact of Confirma fratres tuos is a daunting task, since it involves many different aspects and requires a period of adjustment to understand its real impact on the community of the faithful. Some signs, however, are clear: first of all, for Leo XIV, synodality is not achieved by multiplying consultative bodies, but through genuine shared responsibility among those called to make decisions; second, the role of the Cardinal Vicar is viewed from the perspective of pastoral care and not as a form of disinterest in the Church of Rome; furthermore, the distinction between the office of Bishop of Rome and that of the Vicar is regarded as a safeguard, because it addresses the dual need for constant pastoral care—which cannot be ensured personally—and for the review of decisions by a higher authority, just as is the case for the faithful of other dioceses; finally, the motu proprio expresses the desire to carry forward Francis’s insights, with an approach characterized by legal sensitivity, a search for systematic coherence, and attention to the gradual nature of reform measures.

Andrea Micciché

[1] Leo XIV, Apostolic Letter in the form of a “motu proprio,” Confirma fratres tuos, June 24, 2026, in the Holy See Press Office Bulletin, B0565 del 30 giugno 2026, https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2026/06/30/0565/01063.html.

[2] Lc 22,32.

[3] Francesco, Apostolic Constitution In Ecclesiarum Communione, January 6, 2023, AAS 115 (2023), 7-29.

[4] Leo XIV, Decreto circa l’assegnazione dei settori territoriali ai Vescovi Ausiliari e al Vicegerente della Diocesi di Roma, February 25, 2026, on https://www.diocesidiroma.it/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Decreto-Santo-Padre-Settori-Diocesi-di-Roma.pdf.

[5] See Gianfranco Ghirlanda, La Cost. Ap. “In Ecclesiarum Communione”: riorganizzazione del Vicariato della Diocesi di Roma, in Periodica de Re Canonica, 2, 2023, pp. 177, 187.

[6] See Antonio Viana, Organización del gobierno en la Iglesia, 4^a ed., EUNSA, Pamplona, 2024, pp. 48-54, 124-125; Id., El problema de la participación de los laicos en la potestad de régimen. Dos vías de solución, in Ius Canonicum, 108, 2014, pp. 603-638, Id., sub c. 129-144, in Angel Marzoa, Jorge Miras, Rafael Rodríguez-Ocaña (eds.), Comentario exegético al Código de Derecho Canónico, 3^a ed., I, EUNSA, Pamplona, 2002, pp. 837-840; Massimo del Pozzo, Una lettura ‘strutturale’ di “Praedicate Evangelium”, in Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, 13, 2022, pp. 78-81.

[7] With regard to the duration of appointments, the Apostolic Constitution IEC followed the same guidelines as the Apostolic Constitution Praedicate Evangelium on the Roman Curia. Critical comments on these guidelines were expressed by Antonio Viana, La potestà della curia romana secondo la costituzione apostolica “Praedicate Evangelium”, in Ephemerides Iuris Canonici, 2, 2022, p. 547, and Manuel Ganarin, La riforma della Curia Romana nella costituzione apostolica Praedicate Evangelium di Papa Francesco. Osservazioni a una prima lettura, in Il Diritto Ecclesiastico, nn. 1-2, 2022, pp. 277-279.

[8] The opening sentence of Article 10 of the IEC originally read: “The extensive commitment required by the governance of the universal Church makes it necessary for me to have assistance in the care of the Diocese of Rome.”

[9] It reestablishes the office of the Prelate Secretary, as referred to in Article 18 of Ecclesia in Urbe.

[10] See Antonio Interguglielmi, La Costituzione Apostolica “In Ecclesiarum Communione”, circa l’ordinamento del Vicariato di Roma, in Ius Ecclesiae, 1, 2024, pp. 336-340.

[11] See Gianfranco Ghirlanda, La Cost. Ap. “In Ecclesiarum Communione”, cit., pp. 191-192.

[12] See Gian Paolo Montini, L’approvazione in forma specifica di un atto impugnato, in Periodica de re canonica, 1, 2018, pp. 37-72; Geraldina Boni, La recente attività normativa ecclesiale: “finis terrae” per lo “ius canonicum”? Per una valorizzazione del ruolo del Pontificio Consiglio per i testi legislativi e della scienza giuridica nella Chiesa, Mucchi, Modena, 2021, pp. 196-201; Valentín Gómez-Iglesias Casal, Aprobación en forma específica, in Javier Otaduy, Antonio Viana, Joaquín Sedano (eds.), Diccionario General de Derecho Canónico, I, Thomson-Reuters Aranzadi, Cizur Menor, 2013, pp. 431-435.

[13] See Andrea Miccichè, op. cit., pp. 834-839.

[14] See Manuel Ganarin, La tutela dei dati personali nei recenti sviluppi del diritto particolare per la Chiesa cattolica in Italia, in Ius Ecclesiae, 2, 2019, pp. 427-448.