It is the first time that a non-European Pope will visit European institutions. He will deliver two speeches, one in front of the European Parliament and the other one to the Council of Europe. A short program, as it may have been very much recommended by Martin Schulz, president of the European Parliament, who studied at a Jesuit School but is also a self-proclaimed atheist.

Schulz feels a strong connection to the Pope with regards to poverty and the peripheries, and he hopes that Francis will speak precisely about these issues. In Schulz’s view, Pope Francis should talk toEuropean institutions about the need to welcome immigrants, and even to recall his visit to the small Italian Island of Lampedusa, the first trip of his pontificate. And Schulz – as well as radical secularists– is ok with the fact that the papal trip does not even include a pastoral meeting with the Catholic members of the European Parliament: this kind of program paves the way to reinforcing the notion that the Pope is a just a head of state, like any other.

Yet, Pope Francis may surprise everyone. The issues at stake are very important, and they deal not with European identity. They mostly deal with the human being, the way he is envisioned. They deal with the God’s project of creation.

This is where European issues and the Synod on the family follow the same path. Speaking about the family means speaking of God’s project of creation. It means addressing the complementarity between men and women, of their opening to life, of the way this opening to life becomes the fundamental fabric to build a just society. From Gospel to family to social commitment: this path cannot be broken.

But there have been attempts to break this path. At the Synod, African Bishops strongly denounced that in their countries, which are in need of financial aid, this aid is entwined with the requests for changes in the legislation. These changes are meant to introduce the ideology of gender, to break away from the idea of the natural family. In practice, if an African country needs a new irrigation system, itis obliged to introduce gay marriage in its legislation. Or to pass a law to consent to in- vitro fertilization. Or to any other law of the so-called Reproductive Health Rights, an euphemism used at the United Nations to promote the notion that abortion is a “right”.

It is not just an African problem. In 2012, the Report on the Social Doctrine of the Church in the World issued by the Van Thuan Observatory pointed out that the new colonization did not deal with the conquer and exploitation of States, but rather with that of the human being. The report also stressed that laws that potentially destroyed family and countered natural law have been used as a leverage to clear the way for a cultural colonization. Curiously, the country chosen as a case study was Pope Francis’ beloved Argentina.

Pope Francis proved to be very concsious of the issue. On November 15, meeting the Italian Association of Catholic Doctors, stigmatized abortion and euthanasia and stressed that “playing with life is a sin against God creator.”

Pope Francis may then be particularly conscious of the risks posed by a rootless Europe. Risks that must be faced in a Europe where religious freedom vacillates, as underscored by the most recent World Report on Religious Freedom issued by the Pontifical Foundation Aid for the Church in Need.

The most striking data of the report is that there are many European countries were the degree of lack of religious freedom is considered “of concern”, among these the highly civilized United Kingdom, Germany, France and the Netherlands. Scrolling the report, one finds out that in these very countries a Christian may be discriminated against on account of positions taken regarding family – from the choice of a Catholic school to the French protest against the institutionalization of gay marriage – and that Churches are attacked by radical secularists because they dare speak about these topics.

When he presented the report in Rome, Martin Kugler, a member of the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe, provided a gloomy picture of the situation, and underscored that «menaces to religious freedom are above all supported by groups of radical feminists, homosexual lobbies and radical laicists.»

Radical feminists – Kugler explained – think that non-restrictive laws on abortion and contraception, without any possibility of objection of conscience, are needed to pursue a real equality between man and woman; homosexuals want to show that homosexuality is absolutely normal, and aim to silence Christians and Muslims about their positionson homosexuality; radical secularists aim at excluding the religious point of view from public life, since in their view religious groups should not take any public stances.

This is intolerance masked as freedom, with a conception of progress that puts aside every notion of natural law. The basis for this masked intolerance are not new. They can be traced back to the change in the United Nations vocabulary, which the Holy See has denounced increasingly. The international organizations speak about Right to Reproductive Health, right to a dignified death, the right to choose a dignified life. All of these words hide one sole word – and notion: eugenics.

Eugenics is a word nobody wants to mention, since it brings to mind Adolf Hitler’s aberrations. However, eugenics is practiced every time a life is not considered dignified enough to be lived.

It is worth noting an interview that Carl Djerassi, the father of the abortifacient pill, recently granted to the British newspaper “The Telegraph”. In it, Djerassi clearly disclosed the pill’s endgame: that sex would become just a recreational activity. So much so that, starting in 2050, sperm and embryos would be routinely frozen in order to be used for in-vitro fertilization whenever it is considered convenient.

This is not just the practical negation of God’s project. It is also the negation of the human person, since in paternity and maternity lies the fundamental reason of his existence. Only paternity and maternity can give life to Paul VI’s civilization of love.

The recently beatified Paul VI, in drafting the encyclical Humanae Vitae, was keenly aware of the menace of designs which render the human person merely a sort of mechanical robot, with no sentiments, unable to give love a sense.

Such designs, it now seems, are becoming a reality in a rootless and 2012 Nobel Laureate for Peace Europe Union. Meeting European Bishops, Pope Francis has said he had not understood the reason why Europe did not include a mention to its Christian roots in the European Constitution. Those roots were not just an aspect of its identity. They signifiedcare for the human person – just think about the network of hospitals – that has now, it seems, disappeared.

Certainly, not everything is bad. In 2011, a lawsuit promoted by Greenpeace brought the European Court to rule that there cannot be profits from the destruction of human embryos, and that any procedure which implies the destruction of a human embryo cannot be patented. According to the ruling, however, it is possible to patent procedures that involve human embryos and are at the same time useful for that same embryo – i.e. analysis or care.

But this is just part of the narrative. Always in 2011, the Strasbourg European Court of Human Rights labeled as “not coherent” the Italian law on the in-vitro fertilization, which forbade the pre-implant diagnosis of embryos.

On the one hand, a judgment that defended the embryo. On the other, a judgment that would open the doors to eugenics. Two cases that reveal how the rootless Europe has become mostly an unlimited bureaucracy. A concept of the human personis lacking at the core, as are values shared in common. Ideas and ideologies are carried forward through the so-called ‘soft law’, since whenever an appeal reaches the European Court, the final judgment becomes part of the common jurisprudence for all of Europe.

The Europe outlined by the Maastricht Treaty is very much technical and just barely human. As technical and barely human is sex without procreation; and as technical and barely human is a desktop project for a human person, discarding all the human beings that are not healthy or that simply do not meet our aspirations.

When Pope Francis speaks about the prevalence of a «throw-away culture», he has in mind the way that society treats the poor and other marginalized people – anyone who is discarded by society. But he is also probably referring to those discarded by transhumanism in the world. This is the European risk, now. This is the reason why a discussion about the family, the beauty of the natural family formed by man and woman and open to procreation, not only mirrors God’s design on men: It can serve as the greatest antidote to the human being without humanity that bureaucracies and international institutions want to impose.

A release delivered at the end of the meeting reads that «the participants reaffirmed that it is licit to stop the unjust aggressor, always in accordance with international law. Nevertheless, the resolution of the problem cannot be entrusted solely to a military response; the problem must be dealt with
more radically by addressing the root causes which are exploited by fundamentalist ideology.»

In his speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations, for the first time since he has taken over the post, the Secretary of State put on the table the issue of reform of international law, which also includes the reform of United Nations.

The Holy See has been speaking for a long time about a reform of the United Nations, and the debate is very lively. Yet, Pope Francis did not mention it in his meeting with the heads of UN agencies, preferring to focus on other topics. It was a period of high tension between the Holy See and the United Nations, following the release of the concluding observations of the UN committees on the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention Against Torture. It almost seemed as if the Holy See had decided to note the charges levied against her and to carry forward the line of the diplomacy of prayer and dialogue, which is very close to Pope Francis’ heart.

The most recent developments of the international situation had instead suggested a turnabout. The attacks to the Holy See’ssovereignty are not new. As a moral authority, the Holy See has significant influence in international meetings. Though it is not a Member State of the United Nations (it is just a Permanent Observer) the Holy See is one of the most involved states in the organization of multilateral events.

Providence plays a big role in this work. When the Holy See experts negotiate treaties, they are always fewer than experts of bigger states. Despite this inferiority, they have succeed in inserting «positive viruses» within international treaties. Integral human development – a notion of Catholic Social Teaching – is mentioned in a 1986 UN document on development. The Holy See also introduced in many treaties “the right of protection” – a notion that Cardinal Parolin has reiterated in his speeches in New York.

With Pope Francis, diplomatic engagement seemed to have been left somewhat aside. The Pope loves to underscore the need for a culture of the encounter, and made of prayer its main diplomatic tool, focusing attention on some topics in which he has been interested since he was archbishop of Buenos Aires, i.e. human trafficking and fighting poverty. Vatican diplomats had naturally adapted to this approach, including these issues in their speeches and interventions more often.

A change of pace was needed in any case, at every level. The recently-released response of the Holy See to the Concluding Observations of the UN Committee on the Convention for the Rights of the Child has been made on fine points of international law, with a firm rejection to the request of changing Canon Law. Then, on the basis of reports from the extraordinary network of information of nuncios, the Holy See decided for a more proactive strategy, at least for the Middle East.

Looking back to documents and data, it is possible to see that the Middle East crisis could have been widely forecasted, and it had. Not by chance, the post-synodal exhortation “Ecclesia in Medio Oriente” – which Benedict XVI personally gave to the Middle East Church in Lebanon in 2012 – clearly invited Christiansto remain in the land of the Bible and not to flee, despite persecutions. The document also urged the international community to protect Christians.

In the meantime, Benedict XVI had inserted in his speeches references to Christiano-phobia, after a long discussion about the correct use of the word. The Holy See has always opposed this kind of categorization in an international context, because it labels the issue in category terms, and as if this category was “more equal” than others. There are the human rights, which are universal, and the Holy See advocates their full application.

The use of the word «Christianophobia» was the result of an internal discussion that also contemplated the notion of «Christ phobia;» i.e. fear of Christ and his message. This is a profound notion, which had not been properly developed. After Benedict XVI’s resignation and the change in the post of Secretary of State, Vatican diplomacy pointed in other directions.

The worsening scenario in the Middle East and in other usually overshadowed areas like Ukraine once more pointed to the need of pontifical diplomacy to take the reins of the international discussion about international law.

In the end, the current crisis may be seen as a failure of the United Nations, which had been unable to interveneat a multilateral level, and above all react very slowly. The Human Rights Council in Geneva finally held an extraordinary session on the plight of Christians in Iraq only in September, although the crisis had broken out months earlier. And it has been individual states, rather than multilateral forces, that have intervened in the Middle East until now.

This is the reason why a reform of international law and United Nations is needed, and Cardinal Parolin has decidedly reignited discussion about this reform. It was also a topic of discussion during the gathering of the Middle East nuncios to the Vatican, held Oct. 2-4. Even this meeting has taken place late in this crisis; according to some, it should have taken place a year ago.

In three days, nuncios and Secretariat of State top officials, together with some heads of Vatican dicasteries, discussed how to help Christians in the Middle East. Among the heads of dicastery, Cardinal Tauran. In his capacity of President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, he advocated for his dicastery to draft a strongly-worded declaration that called on the main actorsin interreligious dialogue to take a strong stance against the Caliphate’s crimes.

Tauran, one of the main actors of pontifical diplomacy, had understood the need to restore a diplomacy of truth. Unpleasant as truth sometimes is, only truth leads to real dialogue.

In the 3-day meeting, the lack of coordination between those who provide assistance, local bishops and the Holy See was also discussed. A key issue. The amount of financial aid delivered in the last five years has been high. Globally, Aid to the Church in Need has sent 3 million euros to Iraq and 2,4 million to Syria – and we are just speaking about emergencyassistance. It was calculated that Catholic institutions globally have sent 100 million euros to the Middle East, at the beginning applied only to the Syrian crisis and then extended to the whole region.

Given this data, it is surprising that the initial response to the crisis was to provide emergency aid and to build bridgesof prayer and dialogue, while going beyond pontifical diplomacy.

Pope Francis, it seems, has now opted for a change of pace. He will not abandon his commitment to a culture of the encounter, nor to the diplomacy of prayer. Even though a conflict broke out in Gaza a few weeks after the historical meeting for peace in the Vatican, the Pope has always maintained that the meeting was not in vain.

The Pope’s efforts were more successful when he launched the day of prayer and fasting for Syria. That day was however preceded by a meeting between the Vatican’s “foreign minister” Archbishop Dominique Mamberti and the corps of ambassadors accredited to the Holy See. Archbishop Mamberti outlined the Holy See’s views on adiplomatic roadmap for peace.

Now, Pope Francis upcoming voyage to Turkey becomes crucial. There, the Pope will meet with the ecumenical patriarch Bartholomew. The Pope and the Patriarch have started a dialogue on topics of common interest and carried forward a joint effort for peace. During the trip, Pope Francis will likely be called to take a stance. And he will have to do it in a Turkey that had just decided to authorize the possibility of sending land troops to Iraq and Syria.The stance the Pope will take, whatever it may be, will be of extreme importance.

Considering this worrying scenario, will the diplomacy of prayer and dialogue be enough? Pope Francis counts on his personal charisma. He is one of the candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize, and he really has a chance to get it. Compared to John Paul II, who was a candidate for the prize as well, Pope Francis attracts wider consensus in the secular world. John Paul II was popular and loved, but he made governments tremble when he spoke about human rights. Pope Francis uses a more conciliatory approach, which the secular world certainly likes.

Behind this conciliatory approach, there is a need for strong diplomatic engagement. Apostolic nuncios (i.e. the Papal ambassadors) work tirelessly. They are bishops, and their double role of shepherds and diplomats gives them insights that other diplomats do not have. They know the priests on their territory, they weigh in on the state of the local Church. But they also have first-hand information, coming from priests, missionaries and the faithful, and this information is shared with the Secretariat of State, where the “minutanti” put it into reports.

The way these pieces of information are used is crucial. At the moment, the Vatican’s diplomatic policy seems to be that of “wait and see”. Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Secretary of State, has first aimed at establishing a dialoguing and informal collaboration with the ambassadors accredited to the Holy See, as it was evident from the first meeting he had with them in his new capacity of head of Vatican diplomacy. «We already know each other (editor note: Parolin worked for a long time in the second section of the Secretariat of State), let’s lend each other a helping hand.» This was substantially Parolin’s message. It seems that his diplomatic activity will have as its base this informality.

The “nota verbale” is just the most recent of different initiatives. The archbishop Dominique Mamberti, the Vatican’s “Foreign Minister”, mentioned in a program broadcasted in Vatican Radio that the “nota verbale” included all of Pope Francis’ appeals for peace. A similar initiative was held at the Eve of the Day of Prayer and Fasting for Syria, convened by Pope Francis Sep. 7, 2013. In a meeting with all the ambassadors accredited to the Holy See, Mamberti recalled all of the Pope’s appeals for peace and asked for “dialogue and reconciliation”.

The same dialogue and reconciliation Pope Francis is still asking for. In the meantime, there is major work carried on by Christian charities and Vatican institutions on the ground.

The situation of the refugees in Iraq is terrible, and to help face it the Congregation for the Oriental Churches has sent $50,000 for immediate needs; the Pontifical Council Cor Unum sent $400,000 for the same purpose and is playing a huge role on the ground; and Aid for the Church in Need has sent 100,000 euros, keeps collecting money for persecuted Christians and called for a day of prayer for peace on next August 6, Feast of the Transfiguration.

The Holy See commitment may be further quantified. On May 27, 2013, the archbishp Silvano Maria Tomasi, Holy See Permanent Observer to the UN Offices in Geneva, shed light on the «current services to the human family carried out in the world by the Catholic Church without any distinction of religion or race.»

Here is the data: in the field of education, there are 70,544 Catholic kindergartens looking after 6,478,627 pupils; 92,847 primary schools with 31,151,170 pupils; and 43,591 secondary schools with 17,793,559 pupils. The Church also educates 2,304,171 high school pupils, and 3,338,455 university students. The Church’s worldwide charity and healthcare centers include (beyond hospitals and clinics) 18,179 dispensaries; 547 Care Homes for people with Leprosy; 17,223 homes for the elderly, or the chronically ill or people with a disability; 9,882 orphanages; 11,379 baby childcare centers; 15,327 marriage counseling offices; 34,331 social rehabilitation centers; and 9,391 charitable institutions of other kinds. Furthermore – Tomasi said – «it should be added the assistance services carried out in refugee camps and to internally displaced people, and the solidarity help to these uprooted persons.»

These are the spearheads of the Holy See network in the world. These spearheads need support beyond appeals for peace. A visible and clear diplomacy is needed, authoritative enough to impact negotiations.

The popes’ commitment to peace is a well-established historical fact. Pius IX actively promoted a culture of peace, which gave an impetus to the ecumenical dialogue. Leo XIII, Pius IX’s successor, carried the culture of peace to a conference on disarmament in The Hague in 1889. During that same conference some of the 26 nations who had taken part in it acknowledged the role of the Pope as a mediator in conflicts because of his “universal paternity”; Benedict XV outlined his plan for peace during the First World War, while Pius XII’s appeals for peace during the Second World War are history now – his radio message have been described as a “little social encyclical” by Bishop Mario Toso, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

Even the vibrant John Paul II’s calls for peace are part of history now, as well as the day of fasting and prayer proclaimed in the 2003 Ash Wednesday to avoid the Second Gulf War. On that occasion, John Paul II’s efforts were not successful, unlike John XXIII’s efforts during the missile crisis of Cuba: the “Good Pope” diplomatic skills, the echo of his words, avoided a possible world war.

On the trails of that experience, John XXIII then issued the encyclical “Pacem in Terris,” which can be considered the true guide of the Holy See’s diplomatic engagement. Structured on four pillars and anchored on natural law and subsidiarity, the encyclical gives rise to a method, that of starting from the signs of times to get to theology. A method which the Second Vatican Council will apply in issuing its documents.

Together with the work on the ground, firmness on positions is what counts the most in the international arena. Until now, the Holy See had its impact. So much so that in 1986, in a UN document on development, there is a mention of the “integral human development,” a main topic of the Social Teaching of the Church, that is rooted in the Gospel and oriented toward the common good.

The Church bears truth to the world, but it is also always in conversation with the world. On the basis of this principle, the Holy See has had a considerable diplomatic impact. Cardinal Paul Poupard went, as Papal envoy, beyond the Iron Curtain speaking about culture, thus dismantling the communist block through discussions on ideals. That very same period – it was the 80s – Cardinal Roger Etchegaray flew to the very closed Cuba and began a dialogue with Fidel Castro to which the first, historic Papal visit to la isla followed in 1998 (John Paul II was the first Pope to visit there). The nativity that Fidel Castro gave to Etchegaray is still exhibited in the cardinal’s dining room. The lídermáximo, on his part, still has in his bookshelf the books Benedict XVI sent him after they had coffee together during Benedict’s trip to Cuba in 2012 (Castro himself asked for books on God).

Holy See diplomacy has the ultimate strength of its ideal. Its goal is the common good. Its object,the human person. The Holy See does not fight hunger, it advocates for hungry people.

We should take this principle into account, since it is the reason why the on-the-ground network needs to be complemented by strong diplomatic action.

How can this diplomatic action be supported by a Secretariat of State that seems to be always more sidelined within the Roman Curia? Cardinal Parolin has been appointed – though no document has made it official – member of the Council of Cardinals which counsels Pope Francis about Curia reform. But the Secretary of State authority is often undermined by the Pope’s decisions.  Meanwhile, rising stars – entrepreneurial and not the least shy – see their profiles elevated, as that of Cardinal George Pell, Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy.

In the meantime, the way financial aid is delivered may change. Before, everything was done through the Institute for Religious Works (IOR), which guaranteed the sovereignty of the Holy See and safe money transfers. What will happen when the IOR reform is carried out and the IOR becomes something similar to a consulting firm? How will missionariesget financial assistance when operating in countries with a poor banking system?

These cannot be secondary issues for Pope Francis, albeit he is focusing in different things and he has made of prayer a diplomatic tool. But prayers also have the strength of persuasion. And this strength can only come from faith illuminated by reason. The Church can offer the Truth in the public arena. On the basis of this truth, the Holy See acts inpeace negotiations, underscoring the importance of human rights, even raising debates among States. When principles are clearly affirmed, discussion cannot be avoided. And discussion is always a basis for peace.

This is a rather sterile discussion, because it only looks at the practical aspects of the issues.  Actually, the Church is in fact out of date, but not because of those frequently mentioned considerations.  The Church is 200 years behind where it needs to be in order to build, in advance, structures and shape the intelligentsia allowing her to face future problems.

This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Second Vatican Council. We look back at a Church that understood, before the 1968 revolution came about, the need to step up to the challenges of the times.  The Church of the Council created brand new vocabularies and found a way to harmonize tradition (ultimately Faith, which tenets remain immutable) with the new times.  It is a revolution. But it is a gentle revolution – simply a change of perspective.  The decision to turn the altar and let the priest face the congregation while celebrating the Holy Mass is also a symbolic act: the priest faces the people because faith itself is directed towards the people.  A prophecy, more than a Council.

But the discourse that followed the Second Vatican Council was full of conflicting ideas.  The Church was so focused on itself that it was hardly aware of the new signs of the times.  This was a Church that seemed to lack in prophecy.

Recently, the Nobel Prize for medicine was awarded to the Japanese scientist Yamamaka.  He is working on the so-called «ethical stem cells», i.e. adult stem cells that he programs to «go back in time», enabling them to become a given organ, from a vast range of human body parts.  That news spread fast at the beginning, but then there was silence.  This denotes a Catholic world unable to advance its positions in the public arena.  Yamanaka’s research interests had been well known for a long time.  The Pontifical Academy for Life promoted discussions about this research.  But this «Catholic endorsement» took place within Catholic circles, often non-scientific circles.  This presented an image of Catholics favoring ideology over science.  Once that a Nobel prize had shown that there is no need to destroy embryos for research, the Catholic Church could have weight in to promote this finding, through her diplomatic and cultural means.  It does not.  Aside from some semi-official declaration, nothing is done at a diplomatic level, or even – more simply – at a communications level.  No one in the Holy See or Catholic newspapers use the occasion to, at the very least, make reference to prior Holy See international interventions to defend human life.

It is a missed opportunity. Just like with trans-humanism.  Trans-humanism touches on different areas of human life, including the military.  There are already projects to install electronic chips in soldiers, to enhance their human capacities through technology.  This is an issue of concern to the Holy See, which has discussed it in international congresses organized by Vatican dicasteries.  But the discussion has not reached a larger public.  There is a sort of gap between the top and the grassroots of the Church, a separation between academy and people.  This is the crisis of the Church.  This is what makes the Church 200 years out of date.

Almost unable to gain attention in the public square, unable to communicate because nobody thought about renovating the communication process, the Church’s image is that of an institution detached from reality.  In the past, parishes built communities.  Now they often don’t.  There has been a scarcity of priests able to «fill» vacancies in the parishes.  There are always fewer culturally learned priests.  All too often, the view is that a simple priest is all that is needed to head a parish.  But the role of a parish priest is one of the most delicate: he must transmit and have help faith and theology come alive in the community, while understanding and living within the community.

It is a problem that is evident at the highest echelons of the Catholic hierarchy.  As in the board of the Authority for Financial Information, tasked with monitoring Vatican finances.  The board is comprised by people coming from the Bank of Italy.   The former president of the IOR’s (the Vatican trust fund) Council of Superintendents, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, came himself from «outside the Vatican».  Even the «anti money-laundering expert» hired by the Holy See, René Bruehlart, did not have prior Vatican experience or expertise.  Can «outsiders» – with more of a technical than a humanistic formation – who are not fully aware of the Vatican’s universe serve the biggest institution in the world? Will they be able to understand how important she is? Will they be able to contribute deep and far reaching insights?

Another example: when the problem of religious sects erupted in the world in the 70s,  Massimo Introvigne – a lawyer – decided to study the phenomenon.  He had the funds to do it, so he began collecting data and studying new religions and forms of worship.  He became one of the most prominent experts on the issue. Why did not anybody within the Catholic hierarchy thought about studying new religions, before Introvigne did?

There is another, clear problem: regularization.  Initiatives in the Catholic world, but outside any «official control» or endorsement, are regularized.  Just like it happened to Aid to the Church in Need (ACN).  Last year, ACN became a Pontifical Foundation.  It is a big honor, in recognition of the work done.  But it is also a boomerang, with ACN obliged to be politically correct in its the Report on Religious Freedom in the World.

In the end, there is one problem that can comprise all the others. The need to divulgate Catholic thought both internally and externally has been so undervalued that the rights to the Pope’s third book about Jesus of Nazareth have been given to Rizzoli, a non-Catholic publishing house, thus leaving out the whole Catholic publishing world.  The rationale for this choice is that Rizzoli would guarantee a better distribution.  But this seems like the Church surrendering to a sign of the times: the preeminence of the market over ideals.  Few understand Christian utopia.  A concession that confirms it will take the Church many years to re-organize sharing her message in publications and the media, since at the moment Catholic medias have scant impact on the public opinion. On one hand, there is this lack of impact on the public opinion. On the end, there is the lack on vision to make Catholic medias (not institutional Catholic ones) compete with “lay” medias.

The Church is 200 years out of date, not because it is not able to adjust its moral position, but because there are no successors to her brilliant minds of the past.  In part because the Church did not invest in forming a new generation.

This would be an interesting topic to discuss in the synod of bishops for the new evangelization.  A United  Nations document from the mid eighties mentions integral human development, a Christian/Catholic notion.  It was a time when international negotiations could be positively influenced by Catholicism.  Today, who will negotiate treaties? How will Catholic thought be represented?

Pope Paul VI was prophetic.  After the Second Vatican Council, he understood that a new profession of the Creed was needed. This same Pope wrote in the encyclical Populorum Progressio that the world suffers from a lack of thinking and reflection. Nowadays, even the Church suffers from her lack of thought.