Bishops from Eastern Europe and Africa have been the most active in the revolt that has taken place at the Synod of Bishops. A peaceful –but strong– revolt. A revolt which followed the publication of the ‘relatio post disceptationem’, the synod’s midterm report. Cardinal Petr Erdo, General Rapporteur of the synod, had kept the relatio balanced, stressing at the opening of the evangelization the need for better-formed priests and faithful. But the very same Cardinal Erdo then distanced himself from a text it was not completely his own, and which generated an intense discussion in the synod’s hall right after he read it.

Going beyond the polemics on the so-called opening regarding same-sex unions and with respect to divorced and remarried catholics, what was really missing in the relatio was reference to the Gospel. The relation was just a snapshot of reality, a faithful portrait of the current situation where, in the end, there was no space for Christian hope. With that ‘relatio’, the Church had given up shaping the world, and had decided to allow itself to be shaped by the world. This perspective had been effectively summarized by Cardinal Reinhard Marx, archbishop of Munich and Freising, during a briefing with journalists: «We cannot choose our faithful, we should go toward them.»

This was the setting of the relatio post disceptationem. The relatio recalled the limits of Liberation Theology. Id est, the limits of a perfect sociological analysis that is not able to go beyond the current situation. So much so, that the Marxism applied by Liberation Theology as a tool of analysis theorized about the class struggle and revolution,but in order to generate a new equilibrium rather than to change the people’s heart. Christianity, on the other hand, really goes beyond sociology. It is the Gospel, with its mission of love and its teaching based on truth, that can really shape the world and make it better.

Even the perspective behind the relatio denoted an understanding of a Church whose vision would be limited. Far from highlighting the beauty of the Christian life and the great examples that Catholic families provide to the faithful, the synod’s midterm report focused on the irregular situations, underscoring the need for a new, merciful approach. «As if the Church was not merciful before, and now it is,» said Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki, president of the Polish bishops’ Conference.

In fact, all that the relatio dealt with was a Church in need of a new approach. Some claimed that this new approach could be achieved even by eventually changing the doctrine. «The Church can have a change of mind. For example, we know that the Church at the beginning was in favor of slavery, and latershe was not anymore,» said Victor Fernandez, rector of the Catholic University of Argentina, vicepresident of the Commission for the Synod’s Message to the People of God, and Pope Francis’ ghostwriter.

This is a dangerous thesis, and also a false one. From St. Paul on, Christianity has always fought against slavery. So much so, that the first to speak about human rights were the Dominican Fathers Bartolomé de Las Casas and Francisco de Vitoria: sent to America, they coined the expression “human rights” and stressed they were universal, thus rejecting the way the ‘indios’ were treated by the conquistadores.

Of this contribution to international law, as well as many other Catholics’ contributions, there is no record in a large part of all the books written about the history of international law. In fact, almost all of these books have been written after the Enlightenment, with the purpose of finally getting rid of the Church’s teaching. The years of Enlightenment introduced a prejudice against the Church that continues today.

It continues particularly in South America, where the colonial powers pushed the Pope to abolish the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits): they were guilty of having established missions in South America, and teaching the ‘indios’ how to be independent. The movie ‘The Mission’ recounts this story well, which seems to be forgotten.

In fact, Pope Francis’ Argentina is the country that has lived through, more than any other, the new colonization, that of secularism. In only one year, Argentina introduced in its legislation gay-rights bills that allowed gay marriage and in-vitro fertilization, as reported by the 2012 Report on the Social Teaching of the Church issued by the Van Thuan Observatory.

African Bishops seem to be the most aware of the historic risks. It is because Africa is still a colonized continent. There, the Catholic Church is the most important institution working to create conditions for development, in the context of the common good. The Catholic University that has been established in Congo, the other Catholic university in Ethiopia, the health care system that is 70 percent Catholic (and that is now confronting the Ebola outbreak) tell the story of an Africa saved by Catholic ideals. And the Africans are very faithful to these ideals.

African Bishops put the challenges of the future on the table. The challenges do not deal with the pastoral for divorced remarried, or homosexual couples. For the first case, there is a pastoral praxis, put into practice and managed by confessors; for the second case, there is a 1986 instruction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which already addresses the issue.

The challenges of the future are those that arise from colonization by secularist ideas. The real assaults on the family – African bishops spoke about this – are those driven by states and international organizations. The latter are committedto the development of poor countries, but at the same time they link the delivery of aid to the introduction of laws based on gender ideology, undermining the family.

This is how gender ideology is developed: through processes of soft law that can only be opposed with a lot of skill and knowledge.

Skill and knowledge are needed to defend against assaults on religious freedom. Religious communities have the right to their freedom, something that Eastern European countries know well. Not by chance, countries from Eastern Europe were the only ones that sided with Italy when the latter appealed against the European Court verdict that forbid having crucifixes in Italian classrooms.

African and Eastern European bishops have been the most active in defending the doctrine of the Church. Cardinal Wilfried Napier, very angry for the way the midterm report had come about, understood that its content had been picked-up by media, and that any modification or change of approach would have been described as a step back. In his own words, it was an «irredeemable» situation. He also pointed out that «the synod is not convening to speak about abortion, contraception, same sex marriages. It was convened to talk about family.»

And Cardinal Robert Sarah, president of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum and moderator of one of the small groups that has criticized the relatio, reiterated to Catholic News Agency the teachings of the Church about homosexuality and denounced pressure groups behind push to change the Church’s teaching.

Many synod fathers feared that a powerful lobby found its way into the synod and outside the synod, to undermine the teachings of the Church. The publication of the relatio opened the flood gates to the so-called resistance, culminating in the vociferous publication of the reports of the small groups.

After the first week of assembly, the synod fathers broke out in ten groups to analyze the text of the relatio and make their proposals and observations. Generally, all the proposals that gain a supermajority of two third are admitted, and the Pope later synthetize them in a post-synodal exhortation. This synod introduced a new methodology, according to which the synod’s secretariat, together with the general rapporteur, were tasked with writing a final report, which would become a sort of blueprint for the next synod. And even the proposals that did not gain a supermajority had been published – having being made public by the Pope the result of each vote.

The publication of the reports has shown that the majority of synod fathers were on the other side to the midterm relatio. The synod of the media, so well orchestrated and ready to hail with a hooray any doctrinal change in the Church, had been finally surpassed by the real synod.

It is yet to be known who had ultimately drafted the midterm report, which was so controversial and made even more controversial by mistakes in translations. Those that were suspected to have the role of steering the synod in a particular direction came to the fore when the decision was made not to publish the interventions of the synod’s fathers. Then, the number of suspects increased when Pope Francis appointed six prelates to assist Cardinal Erdo in drafting the relatio synodi, the synod’s final report – surprisingly, among the six, there was no one from Africa – the Pope later had to rectify  the mistake by including the commission Cardinal Napier and archbishop of Melbourne Hart. Suspicions still aroused when it was rumored that Cardinal Erdo was only able to introduce very minor changes to the relatio he had received back Sunday evening, Oct. 12. The Pope – it is rumored – had requested the Cardinal to give him the text Saturday, Oct. 11. It is yet to be known who had worked on the text while it reportedly was in Pope’s hands, making it shorter than Cardinal Erdo’s, deleting any mention of sexual disorder, sexual education, and the Gospel.

Given that Archbishop Bruno Forte of Chieti-Vasto, Special Secretary of the Synod, has been indicated by the same Cardinal Erdo as  the drafter of the report, one of the bishops has said he recognized «the hand of Cardinal Ravasi» – President of the Pontifical Council for Culture and president of the message. Many of the bishops have seen Victor Fernandez’s hand in it (apparent in some inaccuracies of the Italian original). But the «guiding group» includes almost all the cardinals of the Council of Cardinals. Cardinal Marx was one of the most tenacious proponents of a change in doctrine. Not by chance, he was called to brief journalists in one of the very last press conferences of the synod.

In fact, this appeasement in the face of the prevailing culture contrasts with Paul VI, whose beatification was scheduled to crown this synod of bishops. A modern Pope, with a missionary vision, who had been able to keep the Church on course at a very difficult time full of controversy. A Pope who had kept his faith, and that had the faithful do the same, issuing the encyclical “Humanae Vitae,” the very last of his pontificate. It was 1968, and his pontificate extended for another 10 years. However, after Humanae Vitae, Paul VI did not write any other encyclical. «He did not want his magisterial acts to be instrumentalized, he wanted to lead the Church with balance in that difficult time,» recounted Cardinal Paul Poupard, who had been among Paul VI’s collaborators. And then he added: «The first telegram that arrived in the Secretariat of State after the promulgation of Humanae Vitae was that of Dom Helder Camara. He thanked the Pope because, with that encyclical, he was protecting children and helping the Third World countries.»

Yes, the very same HelderCamara who lived in the favelas, cited as a champion by all the Liberation Theologians and Third World advocates asking for a greater opening-up of the Church. Today, Helder Camara’s heart seems to have been lost, while merely the cold sociological analysis has remained.

This is the reason why very little is known about the discussions in the synod. Reading the media, it seems the synod is a sort of referendum on Catholic divorce, or at least on the access to Communion for divorced remarried. The temptation to divide in categories (progressives against conservatives) is quite strong. Left in the about discussions in the synod, the media looks for contrasts that, it seems, bear no correspondence to what is actually taking place in the Synodal Hall.

What is reportedly happening in the synodal hall sometimes even includes boring discussions. Before Tuesday, when the topic of difficult pastoral situations broke and brought the discussion to divorced remarried and eventual paths of penance for them, good part of the bishops have spoken – the Holy See Press Office reported – about a change of paradigm on communications. The Church must not follow the world’s approaches to family issues. It must rather be proactively responding, promoting positive models of Catholic families, shedding light on the beauty of Catholic ways of being family. Furthermore, the Church should stop using an offensive vocabulary. Instead of speaking about “sin” with respect to divorced remarried or «intrinsic disorder» with regards to homosexual couples, the Church should present its teaching in a more purposeful way. More Gospel, less natural law. But more Gospel told in a more convincing and captivating way.

In the background, one can read the eternal debate about a Church that must spread a message and the way the Church presents this message to the world. Reading the signs of the times has been for a long time a topic of discussion. Even the synod on the New Evangelization shed light on the need to form priests in giving homilies, so that they be able to tell the Christian message to the world with a modern vocabulary. It is nothing new, in the end.

There is indeed the challenge of how to present the truth of the Gospel. It is difficult to hide truth behind «politically correct» language. Perhaps it is time that the responsibility of coming up with the vocabulary for the message be assigned to the marketing experts, rather than the bishops – provided that marketing must really be part of the way the Church communicates already. And perhaps it is time for bishops to return to the heart of the Gospel.

A long-serving missionary, Father Piero Gheddo, has been raising this issue for a long time. The impact of missionaries – he says – have lost traction because they lost sight of the heart of the Gospel’s message. It is as if Christianity has given up on shaping the world, and is instead being shaped by the world. This topic should enter vigorously in the bishops’ discussions – and it had to be, given the issues Synod’s working document raised.  

Until now, the media has somewhat led the discussion on the family. The absence of any texts on the interventions of the synodal fathers, the impossibility of knowing who said what, undermines rather than stimulates the discussions. It is then easy for the media to take the lead of the conversation.

This is how the issue of communion for divorced remarried – a marginal issue, according also to Cardinal Kasper who put the issue on the table – has become the main topic of the media coverage. A coverage that is building the interest of the synod of bishops about it. Perhaps, losing sight of a very important point in the process.

The point that the crisis of the family represents the crisis of Catholicism. Paul VI forecasted this crisis, and tried to stop it with the encyclical “Humanae Vitae,” not by chance the last encyclical of his pontificate – even though the pontificate went on for another 10 years. John Paul II understood and fought with all of his strength this crisis, dedicating to the family a synod in 1980, an apostolic exhortation and numerous interventions. Benedict XVI lucidly analyzed this crisis, and addressed it in international spheres, informed by the exemplary Christian family in which he was raised, and which made him the man he is, so serene and calm in his relation with himself and God to be the first pontiff of the modern era to resign. This same crisis that Pope Francis rightly identified as a central issue.

The crisis of the family went hand in hand with the secularization of countries. Natural law was undermined by individualism, and this individualism has pervaded society. When, facing international crises, the Holy See diplomacy underscores there is a need for a “supplement of solidarity,” it is in fact trying to recreate that social environment which is conducive to the common good – the center of all of the Church’s activity – in order to foster a new kind of development.

Perhaps Pope Francis’ prophecy lies in his understanding that the family must be put at the center of the debate again.

However, until now, the synod seems to have focused on practical issues, more than on universal principles. For example, there was discussion about how to speed up the procedures to get marriages’ declarations of nullity – about which the Pope has established a special commission to study it. As if the synodal fathers were not conscious that a just and better society can only be built from truth irradiated on society.

It is easy for the media to dwell into and make use of this narrative. Since not even texts are made available, bishops are barely accountable for their words. That the synodal debate is described as “lively, animated, serene” seems to indicate mostly a debate during which no-one takes a stance, afraid of the way his position may be reported.

Just as there had been a Second Vatican Council of the media and a real Second Vatican Council, now there is a synod of media and a real synod. It is enough to read the “Relatio pre disceptationem” by Cardinal Petr Erdo, general rapporteur of the synod, to get an idea of the synthesis that synodal fathers are trying to reach. A real masterpiece balancing different positions, the synthesis underscores there cannot be derogations of the truth, but it also stresses pastoral attention and sheds light to all the nuances of the debate. In the end, the Relatio concludes making an appeal to have “Humanae Vitae,” the encyclical of the soon-to-be-beatified Paul VI’s that was so heavily attacked, reread in a positive light.   

Yet, the relatio has been summarized by the media as a “yes to divorced remarried” and a “no to same-sex unions”. As if these were the center of the discussion. The media is playing out the contrasts, and obviously also being informed by those among the synodal fathers who are best in dealing with the media to gain the support of public opinion.

Certainly, this is not what Pope Francis wanted. He favors having discussions and raising issues. So much so, that the next Oct. 20 consistory will not only be able to vote on the cause of saints – as it was expected – but will also serve to have a broad discussion on the situation in the Middle East, following the meeting of nuncios held in the Vatican Oct. 2-4.

The risk is that of making of the synod more than what it is, by describing it in political terms which are alien to it; presenting it as a struggle that in fact is lost in nuances; or by expecting changes to the doctrine.

These are false expectations. The synod is a consultative body, not a deliberative one. It does not decide on doctrine. On the other hand, the reform of the synod stretches back decades. A reform of the synod was needed to make its discussions more effective. Joseph Ratzinger had spoken about a possible reform at the 1985 extraordinary synod. On that occasion, he stressed the need to make of the synod a really free exchange of ideas, in order to effectively support the Pope. Pope Francis himself is in fact looking for that free exchange of opinions he needs to keep on re-building the Church on the foundations laid by his predecessor. The synod is less than what is expected it to be. But it can be more than what it is currently.