Pope Leo XIV reversed a diocesan reorganization approved by Francis in the Diocese of Rome. The reversal reinstates the central sector of the diocese, which Francis had abolished in 2024. Pope Leo stated that the motivations behind Francis' original reform remain unchanged despite the reversal. The pope is expected to appoint new auxiliary bishops for the Diocese of Rome, potentially from the Roman clergy.
17 days ago
Pope Leo XIV issued the motu proprio Immota manet on November 26, 2025, reversing Pope Francis' 2024 reorganization of the Diocese of Rome by restoring the central sector.1 2 This sector, comprising five historical prefectures in the city's ancient core, had been abolished to better integrate it with Rome's suburbs.1 The document, dated November 11, 2025, takes effect immediately and emphasizes the sector's unique pastoral identity.2
In October 2024, Pope Francis enacted La vera bellezza, dissolving the historic center zone to address growing disparities between Rome's urban core and its expanding periphery.1 Francis argued that the center risked becoming an isolated "living museum," with pastoral efforts focused on charity and devotions rather than broader city integration.1 2 The reform redistributed the central prefectures across the remaining four zones—north, south, east, and west—aiming for greater diocesan unity.1
This change followed tensions, including the removal of Bishop Daniele Libanori as vicar for the central sector in April 2024.1 Libanori's ouster stemmed from clergy conflicts, including a disputed statement of support and his role in investigating allegations against Fr. Marko Rupnik.1 Priests in the historic center expressed dismay, learning of the abolition just before the Synod on Synodality began, questioning the lack of consultation.1
Pope Leo XIV upheld the "motivations, premises, and considerations" of Francis' reform but highlighted the central sector's "specificity and homogeneity" as justifying its restoration.1 2 The 2025 Jubilee Year played a key role, demonstrating the sector's internal unity amid heavy pilgrim influx and logistical demands.2 Leo noted that practical implementation of Francis' changes proved challenging, as the dense network of churches and institutions in the center did not align easily with peripheral structures.2
The title Immota manet—"It remains unmoved"—symbolizes stability in papal governance, allowing flexible adjustments via motu proprio without rejecting prior intentions.2 This move restores a framework familiar to Roman clergy, balancing the center's historical responsibilities with the diocese's overall mission.1 2
The 2024 reform faced resistance from historic center priests, who viewed it as abrupt and divisive.1 One priest called it paradoxical amid the Synod on Synodality, citing a lack of synodality in the process.1 Broader discontent arose from Francis' late appointments of non-Roman auxiliaries, like Cardinal Vicar Baldo Reina and Bishop Michele Di Tolve, which alienated parts of the local clergy.1
Libanori's controversies, including perceived battles within the vicariate and his Rupnik investigation, exacerbated divisions.1 Francis' document referenced avoiding "fiefdoms" that foster conflict, indirectly addressing these issues.1 The reversal signals a response to such feedback, prioritizing pastoral coherence over forced integration.2
Restoring the central sector positions it alongside the four peripheral zones, each ideally led by an auxiliary bishop under the cardinal vicar.1 Pope Leo has not yet appointed a new vicar but is selecting three or four auxiliaries from the Roman presbyterate, aiming to rebuild local ties.1 This could foster greater stability post-Jubilee, reconciling the center's sacred heritage with suburban needs.2
The decision underscores papal authority to adapt structures based on experience, potentially easing clergy tensions while maintaining Francis' vision of unity.1 2 Long-term success will depend on integrating the center's pilgrim-focused role with the diocese's broader outreach.2
Reevaluate the Church’s principle of diocesan territorial unity
The Catholic Church's principle of diocesan territorial unity underscores the idea that a diocese, as a particular church, is fundamentally organized around a defined geographic area to foster cohesive pastoral care, unity among the faithful, and the effective exercise of episcopal authority. Rooted in both scriptural and canonical traditions, this principle ensures that the bishop shepherds a specific portion of God's people in a bounded territory, mirroring the incarnational nature of the Church—universal yet locally embodied. However, reevaluation in contemporary contexts reveals it as a normative framework rather than an absolute rigidity, allowing for pastoral adaptations while preserving the Church's hierarchical and communal structure. This analysis draws on canonical norms, conciliar documents, and recent papal initiatives to assess its enduring relevance, flexibility, and theological depth.
At its core, the principle is enshrined in the Code of Canon Law (1983), which defines a diocese as "a portion of the people of God which is entrusted to a bishop for him to shepherd with the cooperation of the presbyterium, so that, adhering to its pastor and gathered by him in the Holy Spirit through the gospel and the Eucharist, it constitutes a particular church in which the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and operative." This definition emphasizes not just territory but the organic unity of the faithful under their bishop, where the territory serves as the natural container for this community.
Canon 372 further clarifies that "as a rule, a portion of the people of God which constitutes a diocese or other particular church is limited to a definite territory so that it includes all the faithful living in the territory." This territorial delimitation promotes administrative clarity and prevents jurisdictional overlaps that could fragment pastoral efforts. Similarly, Canon 431 extends this logic to ecclesiastical provinces, grouping "neighboring particular churches... into ecclesiastical provinces limited to a certain territory" to enhance common pastoral action and episcopal collaboration. The intent is practical: territory ensures the bishop can conduct visitations, coordinate apostolates, and maintain oversight, as echoed in Canon 374, which mandates dividing each diocese into parishes or other distinct parts for localized care.
Historically, this principle traces back to early Church councils, which adopted the Roman Empire's territorial model for ecclesiastical governance. As noted in canonical scholarship, it aligns with conciliar decrees like those of Nicaea I (c. 6) and Constantinople I (c. 2), prohibiting bishops from intruding beyond their boundaries to avoid disorder. The Fourth Lateran Council (c. 9) reinforced this by forbidding multiple bishops in one city or diocese, likening such multiplicity to a "monster" with too many heads. Thus, territorial unity safeguards the hierarchical order jure divino (by divine law), ensuring the Church's visible unity while allowing for evolution in its concrete organization jure ecclesiastico (by ecclesiastical law).
The Second Vatican Council, particularly in the Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church (Christus Dominus), provides a theological and pastoral lens for reevaluating territorial unity. Chapter II stresses that "in revising diocesan boundaries first place must be accorded to organic unity of each diocese," considering personnel, offices, and institutions as a "living body." The document outlines criteria for boundaries: preserving natural population units, civil jurisdictions, and social structures; ensuring territorial continuity; and accounting for psychological, economic, geographic, and historical factors. The goal is efficacy—the diocese should be sized such that the bishop, aided by others, can perform pontifical functions, visitations, and apostolic coordination while knowing his priests and laity well.
This approach balances territorial integrity with flexibility. Christus Dominus implicitly recognizes that strict territoriality serves the Church's mission but must adapt to "the variety in composition of the people of God" for more effective pastoral office. It aligns with the Catechism's view that particular churches (dioceses) are "constituted after the model of the universal Church," existing in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop in apostolic succession. Here, territory is not an end but a means to incarnate the universal Church locally, fostering the "one and unique Catholic Church" through eucharistic and gospel-centered gatherings. Reevaluation through this lens affirms the principle's vitality: in a globalized world, territorial boundaries prevent fragmentation but must evolve to address urban sprawl, migration, and cultural diversity without undermining episcopal unity.
While territorial unity is the general rule, Church law explicitly permits exceptions, highlighting the principle's adaptability for pastoral expediency. Canon 372 §2 allows the supreme authority (the Pope) to erect particular churches in the same territory if advantageous, after consulting bishops' conferences, particularly for rites or similar reasons—such as Eastern Catholic eparchies overlapping with Latin dioceses. This personal jurisdiction principle complements territoriality, permitting "superimposing and co-existence of various jurisdictions" based on rite, nationality, or other factors.
At the parish level, Canon 518 mirrors this: parishes are "as a general rule... territorial," including all faithful in a territory, but personal parishes may be established for rite, language, nationality, or "some other reason." The 2020 Instruction from the Congregation for the Clergy further nuances this for diocesan subdivisions, urging the identification of "different territories within each Diocese" into groupings like vicariates forane, considering homogeneity, customs, and area traits to foster priestly collaboration. Such adaptations respond to modern realities, like multicultural urban dioceses, without eroding the overarching territorial framework.
The Catholic Encyclopedia on dioceses reinforces that unions or divisions of territories occur for "motives of public utility," such as population size or resources, always under papal authority after consultation. In unions, dioceses may retain distinct identities (e.g., separate chapters and revenues) while sharing a bishop, distinguishing this from mere temporary administration. Reevaluating here reveals territorial unity as a stable norm, yet one that accommodates oikonomia (dispensation for pastoral good), as discussed in Eastern traditions. This flexibility prevents the principle from becoming a barrier to evangelization in diverse contexts.
Recent papal initiatives illustrate how territorial unity is reevaluated in practice, prioritizing synodality and encounter over rigid geography. Pope Francis' 2024 motu proprio La vera bellezza reconfigured the Diocese of Rome to strengthen "unitary and synodal perception" amid post-war urban expansion, emphasizing Christ's centrality as the "true beauty" that transcends space. It argues that pastoral efforts aim at personal encounters with God, where "time is superior to space"—territory as mere "scenario" for divine-human dialogue, not an absolute limit. This reform divided Rome into sectors for better management, adapting territoriality to metropolitan density while preserving diocesan wholeness.
Such changes prompt reevaluation: does territorial unity hinder or enhance mission in megacities? The sources suggest enhancement through adaptation, as Christus Dominus advocated. However, where sources touch on reversals or consolidations (e.g., in union principles), they underscore that modifications must serve utility without fragmenting the "living body" of the diocese. The Encyclopedic Dictionary notes that particular churches (eparchies) achieve unity "through the Gospel and the Eucharist," prioritizing theological bonds over mere geography. In light of ongoing reforms, territorial unity remains essential for hierarchical communion but must yield to pastoral needs, ensuring no "contradiction between legitimate diversity" and unity.
Theologically, this principle reflects the Church's incarnational mystery: Christ entered a specific time and place, yet sends the Spirit to gather all. As Lumen Gentium (cited in sources) teaches, particular churches contribute gifts to the universal whole, with Peter's chair preserving variety for unity. Reevaluation affirms its role in combating individualism, promoting local identity, and integrating migrants—yet warns against over-territorialization that ignores personal jurisdictions or global mobility. In ethics, it demands nuance: bishops must balance autonomy with Roman oversight, avoiding "intrusions" while fostering collegiality.
In conclusion, the Church's principle of diocesan territorial unity endures as a cornerstone of ecclesial organization, safeguarding pastoral efficacy and visible communion. Supported by canon law's "as a rule" norm and Vatican II's emphasis on organic wholeness, it allows exceptions for rite, culture, or utility, as seen in recent adaptations like Rome's reconfiguration. This reevaluation reveals a dynamic principle: essential for the Church's mission yet flexible to serve the "time superior to space" in today's world, ensuring every faithful finds a shepherded home in Christ's body.