This pragmatic style is the only reform that has taken place under Pope Francis so far. There [...]]]> The preparatory document of the extraordinary synod for the family grabbed headlines only because of the questionnaire attached to it. It was comprised of 38 questions, posed in an unusually straightforward manner, addressing issues very pragmatically.

This pragmatic style is the only reform that has taken place under Pope Francis so far. There have always been questionnaires at the end of the lineamenta (i.e. the preparatory documents of the synods, anyway a larger one whose final questions help to address the topics). Generally, they were delivered by the general secretary of the synod to the president of the national bishops’ conferences, who in turn would deliver them to the bishops. The bishops would deliver them to the priests in their dioceses, and eventually the priests would deliver them to their pastoral councils, catechists, and lay people active in their parishes. The «chain» of transmission was not always completed. And there had always been a sort of central coordination in managing the answers from Rome.

There is nothing new in having a questionnaire. The same is true about a possible reform of the synod of bishops, an issue that has been discussed over the decades.

Pope Paul VI, after promoting the synod of bishops, decided to endow it with consultative functions only. Why? Because collegiality cum Petro (with Peter) must also be collegiality sub Petro (under Peter).

In fact, Paul VI tried to reform the synod of bishops, and his efforts were carried forward by all the Popes that succeeded him. A possible «middle way» between a synod of bishops representative of the whole Church and the need for a central coordination in Rome has been sought for long time. Pope Francis hopes to find it.

This is perhaps the reason why Francis wanted to convoke the soonest he could an extraordinary synod on the family, specifying that it is the first of three steps. The first step is the extraordinary synod, that will take a «snap shot» of today’s family; the last step will be the general ordinary synod (planned for 2015) on the same topic, intended to provide guidelines; and in the middle, the World Meeting of Families.

More than a reform, it is a modus operandi, somewhat following the model of the general assembly of the CELAM, the Conference of Latin American bishops that Pius XII founded.

Pope Francis is moving fast, because he knows that only during the first years of Pontificate can a Pope really exercise his authority effectively.

At this time, Pope Francis can leverage his huge popularity with the crowds that come to St. Peter’s Square to listen to him, and who believe that there is a new atmosphere under St. Peter’s Dome. When an official of the Secretariat of State was asked about how things were going under the new Pope, he opened the window of his office in the Apostolic Palace, pointed at the crowds in Saint Peter’s Square, and asserted: «How can it be, if not well?»

Crowds, however, do not amount to consensus. The Pope was elected by cardinals, not by a large electorate in a poll. According to rumors about the pre-conclave meetings, Pope Francis was seen as the person who would reform the structure of the Church. After the patient work of John Paul II (Pastor Bonus was issued under his pontificate) and its consolidation by Benedict XVI, cardinals thought it was the right moment for a turning point. Not all the cardinals had that anti-roman and anti-Curia bias that especially affects the cardinals further away from Rome. All of the cardinals were however convinced that it was time for a significant leap forward, at least at the managerial level.

So, riding on his popularity with the crowds, Pope Francis is trying to carry out all the reforms he has in his mind in the shortest time he possibly can.

The reform of the synod of bishops is the first one. The new regulations of the synod were approved by Benedict XVI in 2006.  Before that new regulations, the Ordo Synodi Episcoporum had already been amended twice. Other slight modifications to the Ordo  have been presented as exceptions to the regulations, following the praxis of the synods to fine-tune guidelines to make their sessions easier.

Bishops in England and Wales seemed to have wanted to contribute to reform the synod. They did so, however, naively. Before the preparatory document was issued, they posted the questionnaire online on the website “surveymonkey.” As a result, anybody could answer the questionnaire, even if they were not from a British diocese (one could simply pretend to be from a British diocese). More than an exercise in democracy, it showed a certain lack of judicious restraint. This was so, as well, because the Bishops’ Conference still had to review answers before forwarding them to Rome. The general secretary of the synod, Msgr. Lorenzo Baldisseri, also invited the faithful to respond to the questionnaire and to send everything to Rome. Obviously, the Vatican bureaucracy will review these responses.

All of this can hardly be defined as change. Indeed, change is sought and needed, but no one knows how to manage it. Discussing possible changes requires the involvement of Canon law experts, Vatican officials, and even the Secretariat of State, because it addresses issues like: How to organize the government of the Church? And how to preserve the Petrine primacy?

Introducing the document in a press conference, both Msgr. Baldisseri and Cardinal Petr Erdo (general rapporteur for the synod) underscored –intentionally– the need for «collegiality», and not «synodality».

Msgr. Baldisseri also explained that Pope Francis – who chaired the meeting of the Council of the Synod Oct. 7-8 – wants to «make of the synod, as an institution, a true and efficient tool of communion through which the collegiality hoped by the Second Vatican Council can be expressed and realized.» According to Msgr. Baldisseri, Pope Francis also wants to reinforce the activity of the general secretariat of the synod of bishops «so that it can adequately fulfill its mission to promote the episcopal collegiality» cum Petro et sub Petro «in the government of the universal Church.» This would represent not only «structural changes,» but also a «functional adjustment.»

These words would seem to contradict a general understanding that, under Pope Francis, synodality would experience a push forward, and those who referenced synodality in talking about an ongoing overhaul.

True, Pope Francis has said that he wanted more synodality, and referred to the Orthodox Churches as examples. On the other hand, their synods are one of the reasons why Orthodox Churches become ungovernable and internally divided, able to take extraordinary steps forward and huge steps backwards.

That of the synod of the Orthodox Churches is not a method that fits with Pope Francis’ personality. Speaking with journalists on his way back from Rio de Janeiro, Francis said that he liked collaborators that tell him “no” sometimes, and did not want to be surrounded by yes men. This is true. Listening is one of the Jesuits’ main skills, and Pope Francis is very much a Jesuit.

But he is a decision-making Jesuit. He himself admitted that he had problems with the Company of Jesus because, as a provincial superior, he would take decisions brusquely.  Experience and maturity made him more “consultative”. However, in the end it’s always him to decide.

More importance to the synod, more importance to the bishops’ conferences

The second reform Francis is thinking about is that of the statutes of the Italian Bishops’ Conference (CEI), the only bishops’ conference in the world whose president is not elected by fellow bishops but chosen by the Pope as primate of Italy.

Someone within the CEI felt so bound to petrine primacy to propose to call the president of the Conference «deputy president.»

Yet,  during the 23rd general assembly of the CEI held in Rome from the 7 to the 11 of May, 1983 the bishops considered the possibility of electing their president. In the course of the sessions to approve the new statutes of the CEI – which, among other things, would raise the duration of the mandate from three to five years – the bishops, “on orders from above,” were invited to participate in a non-binding vote regarding the possibility of electing the president and secretary general of the conference, the results of which would be delivered to the Holy Father, who retained the last word on the matter.

Out of 226 eligible voters, 185 votes were casted; the “placet” were 145, the “non placet” 36; 4 ballots were left blank.

This means that the vast majority of the bishops voted in favor of an elected president, although they fell just six short of the quorum of two thirds (in this case, 151 votes) required for changes to the statutes. A quorum that was instead exceeded for the election of the secretary general.

In any case, on October 25, 1984, during the 24th “extraordinary” general assembly held in Rome, then president Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero, the archbishop of Turin (who led the CEI for more than six years), informed that John Paul II  wanted to reserve for himself the appointment of the president and secretary general of the Italian bishops’ conference, “pointing out how this practice constitutes a further sign of attention and benevolence toward the bishops and the CEI on the part of the Holy Father.”

Generally, the Pope would consult with Italian bishops before appointing their president. But the procedure of consultation, and the consultation itself, always remained secret, except in a couple of cases, when they were leaked to the press.

Pope Francis has a different view about the role of the bishops, also Italian bishops. He wants to give to local churches more decision-making power, so he started thinking about a reform of the statutes of the CEI. This is why he only prorogated Msgr. Mariano Crociata as the CEI’s general secretary for one year, instead of confirming him on the post (which would have extended his tenure five more years).

But both the Vatican daily newspaper L’Osservatore Romano and the Italian bishops’ conference newspaper Avvenire headlined that Crociata had been confirmed.

Pope Francis did not like the headlines, which he considered a sort of impromptu halt to his reform idea. Leaving the church where St. Francis tomb is at, in Assisi, on Oct. 4, he complained to the director of Avvenire, Tarquinio, for the mistake. Before, he had blamed it on Gian Maria Vian, director of “L’Osservatore Romano”, according to Mondayvatican sources.

Other sources maintained that Pope Francis complained to Vian about the Osservatore Romano re-publishing the free-flowing conversation the Pope had with Scalfari, the director of the secular Italian newspaper La Repubblica, who had published it already as an interview. Pope Francis did not refute any word of the interview, which is still posted on the Vatican website, translated into six languages.

Among consultations and ideas, Pope Francis’ reform goes on.

Pope Francis is putting his trust in those rooted in Doctrine, appointing them to key posts, in order to provide “magisterial” roots to his actions.

He confirmed at his post the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Gehrard Ludwig Mueller, who was charged with drafting an article that reaffirmed the Church Doctrine on divorced, remarried people; he appointed Cardinal Petr Erdo as general rapporteur of the extraordinary synod for the family, who drafted a document that lays out the magisterium on the family (from the encyclical Humanae Vitae to the Apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio); he asked Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga to be the coordinator of the Council of Eight Cardinals advising him on a possible Curia reform because he deems Maradiaga as «a great organizer.»

Only time will tell if this choices are good. At the moment, the reform of the Church keeps moving, in continuity. In fact, a “functional adjustment” (as msgr. Baldisseri called it) is needed for the synod as well as for many bodies of the Church. Pope Francis wants it fast. He senses the risk that the Vatican bureaucracy halt him. He needs to find a balance between institutionalism and reform. And he needs not to be trapped in the middle of “partisan” battles. Ultimately, the Curia of the old days backed Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s election. Did they think they could trick him? And to what extent are they succeeding?

Yet, there was a [...]]]> From Pope Francis’ trip to Brazil for World Youth Day, we will remember his appeal to young people to «rock the boat»; his visit to a favela in Rio, an almost ritual visit for popes; and his unscheduled movements, which have put to the test his security.

Yet, there was a subtle debate behind the return to Latin America of the first Latin-American Pope.

Behind the totem of a Latin American pope, an intellectual discourse is brewing to give legitimacy and new life to Liberation Theology. Even Leonardo Boff, one of the «fathers» of Liberation Theology, has inserted Pope Francis in its ranks, simply because he sees in the Pope the possibility of a de-institutionalization of the Church.

In fact, Pope Francis is a conservative. More than de-institutionalize, he does not think much of symbols. History will judge whether this is good or not.

On the other hand, that the Latin-American pope can be utilized to promote «theological warfare» is a danger that should not be dismissed lightly. It is worth noting that, perhaps, there was never really a war between Rome and Liberation Theology. Perhaps, ideology overshadowed reality, instigating conflicts were there were none. Conflicts that hid the truth.

Can a friend of Liberation Theology be trusted? This was the insidious question raised right before Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller was appointed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) prefect. Twice, unsolicited information about Müller was anonymously divulged via e-mail to some journalists who cover the Vatican.

The second round of “leaks” was about Müller’s friendship with Gustavo Gutierrez, the “father” of Liberation Theology, and the honorary doctorate conferred on Archbishop Müller by the University of Peru, the very same institution from which the Secretariat of State recently took away the title of «pontifical» because of the university’s lack of adherence to Catholic doctrine.

The question has been recently raised again, as Müller’s book with Gustavo Gutierrez is about to be re-published in Italian. The book is entitled On the side of the Poor, Liberation Theology. In the book, Müller states that «the Latin American ecclesial and theological movement known as Liberation Theology, which spread to other parts of the world after the Second Vatican Council, should in my opinion be included among the most important currents in 20^th century Catholic theology.»

The re-publishing of the book has resurfaced some questions. Gustavo Gutierrez was for a long time under investigation by the CDF because of his book “Liberation Theology”, in which a particular theology is presented through a Marxist-type philosophy of history.

Gutierrez was never admonished, as the Congregation decided that it was sufficient for him to make some slight changes to the book, mostly rewriting its introduction.

Msgr. Müller is not concerned  with any of this. He considers Gustavo Gutierrez a good friend, and still hopes to guide him into theological circles inaccessible to Gutierrez in the years Liberation Theology was intensely debated and contested.

It seems that Müller has asked the Peruvian Bishops’ Conference to identify two Peruvian theologians to join the ranks of the International Theological Commission. It is almost certain that Gustavo Gutierrez will be one of those chosen, since there are very few actual theologians hailing from Peru.

This way, Liberation Theology would have one of its representatives among the ranks of “official” theology.

It is in this reality framework that the publication in Italian of the book by Müller and Gutierrez is taking place. Gianni Valente, an Italian journalist who covers the Vatican, notes that the book «seems in a way to wave goodbye to the theological wars of the past and the hostility that flares up now and again, to cause alarm.» Valente adds that «the arrival of the Catholic Church’s first Latin American Pope has made it possible to look at those years and events without being conditioned by the controversies they gave rise at the time.»

But can we really assume that the first Latin American Pope will shed light on that which is good in Liberation Theology, setting aside years of controversy?

In fact, things are slightly more complicated, as noted by author Pierluca Azzaro. The Italian editor of a book by Müller published by Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Ampliare gli orizzonti della ragione (Expanding the Horizon of Reason, Vatican Publishing House), Azzaro told the National Catholic Register on June 25 that «Müller knows well what he is talking about when he underlines that Liberation Theology is legitimate. He does not wish to put forward a sort of Marxism dressed up with some elementary notions of Christianity. He goes to the core of Liberation Theology.” And that core is that “liberation from sins gives rise to humanity’s concrete cooperation for the liberation that God operates in history.»

This is exactly how the CDF addressed Liberation Theology in two statements issued in 1984 and in 1986. So much so that an official of the Congregation, who asked for anonymity, told the Register on June 25 that “in a broad sense and metaphorically speaking, one can consider Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s second instruction on Liberation Theology as the first of his social encyclicals.” 

The same official explains that «when he was prefect of the Congregation, Ratzinger perfected the method of not admonishing or condemning without explanation. If there had to be a condemnation, the Congregation would deliver two instructions, one pars destruens and the other one pars construens,  as part of  a dialectic process. (…) This was the method followed, for example, when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued its pronouncements on Liberation Theology: first, the Congregation condemned its Marxist orientations (instruction Libertatis Nuntius) and then, it acknowledged its preferential option for the poor (instruction Libertatis Conscientia).»

A reading of the two instructions proves that Rome was not against Liberation Theology tout court. For example, the instruction Libertatis Nuntius states, in its very beginning, that «liberation is first and foremost liberation from the radical slavery of sin. Its end and its goal is the freedom of the children of God, which is the gift of grace. As a logical consequence, it calls for freedom from many different kinds of slavery in the cultural, economic, social, and political spheres, all of which derive ultimately from sin, and so often prevent people from living in a manner befitting their dignity.»

Then, the instruction laments that «faced with the urgency of certain problems, some are tempted to emphasize, unilaterally, the liberation from servitude of an earthly and temporal kind. They do so in such a way that they seem to put liberation from sin in second place, and so fail to give it the primary importance it is due».

In essence, this discussion became an acrimonious debate in Latin America because of the harsh living conditions for the poor there. Liberation Theology came about in reaction to economic, social and political inequality in Latin American countries.

This is the reason why Lucas Cervino, an Argentinian who taught theology in Bolivia, wrote that «Liberation Theology is not dead, as many may think. It has branched out into other areas, and it is in dialogue with Rome.»

In fact, there was a dialogue from the very beginning.

Pierluca Azzaro explains, «it is a fact that there are lobbies and power élites who aim to normalize situations in which social imbalances exist. (However) The Church has always fought against injustice. Just think about Pope Pius XI, who in the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno clearly attacked the international imperialism of money.» 

In fact, this is a battle the Catholic Church has always engaged in, as stated in the Libertatis Nuntius (which includes a summary of papal encyclicals, documents and pronouncements on liberation and social justice). Liberation Theology came out of the very teachings of the Social Doctrine of the Church. It was just a matter of «re-balancing» some of its conclusions.

It is the «demundanization» that Pope Benedict called for, in his speech in Fribourg on September 15, 2011.

According to Müller, demundanization means «transform that which is not good, and then re-unite.» The two CDF instructions on Liberation Theology are part of this process.

A process that found its closure in Aparecida, at the fifth general conference of the bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean, in 2007. The final document of Aparecida is one of the most quoted by Latin American bishops.

Pope Francis was one of the protagonists of the Aparecida conference. He mentions it very often – he did twice during this World Youth Day, speaking with bishops and with the CELAM committee – , and chose to give a collection of the conference interventions, as a gift, to Argentina’s president Cristina Kirchner.

Yet, Gustavo Gutierrez’s new rise could also reignite debate over Liberation Theology.

Pope Francis is being used as a tool to reintroduce the debate. But the Pope is not a Liberation Theologian. He is more someone in tune with the grassroots communities that originated in Brazil during the sixties. At that time, there was no hint of Marxism. It was later that theologians like Boff and Gutierrez learned about Marxism in Germany and brought to Brazil. It was a sort of colonization of thought, that still influences the debate. 

(this piece was originally written for Catholic National Register and then updated after the World Youth Day)