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.

Actually, Pope Francis is very orthodox. One cannot understand his pontificate if he does not understand his being profoundly a Jesuit. And being a Jesuit implies a mystic side, almost severe. Pope Francis has spoken several times about the existence of the devil, has warned about the perils of a do-it-yourself confession, and has underlined that the Church is hierarchical.

How all of this fits with some of his decisions characterizing his pontificate, it is yet to be understood. A possible explanation is that the Pope strictly separates doctrine from governing, not considering them to be one and the same. It seems that his vision is that the government must be reformed, and possibly dismantled, to be replaced with a more genuinely pastoral approach. And this may be carried out only through an open discussion, richer in questions than in answers.

This approach was noticeable during the last synod of bishops. Pope Francis sidelined the debate between a minority of bishops who focused on the casuistry of the very peculiar cases of homosexuals and divorced remarried, and the large majority of bishops who looked at pastoral care under the light of the doctrine. The Pope did not take a position, nor did he strive to have the synod reach consensus. He simply decided to publish the whole final report of the synod, and to make public the votes each paragraph had attracted, thus giving the impression of an open, almost parliamentarian, discussion with a majority and an opposition. Never mind if the majority is reached also because there are members who vote ‘yes’ only in order to avoid further discussions.

This informal style of government is reflected in the Pope’s everyday activities, in the non-scheduled meetings he holds at the Domus Sacntae Marthae, the daily gathering of opinions from his trusted counselors and from others he holds in high regard. Among the latter, the Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari.

A self-proclaimed atheist, Scalfari founded the leftist newspaper “La Repubblica”, which have never missed an occasion of pointing a finger against the Church, describing her as outdated and detached from the needs of the world. Pope Francis and Scalfari meet often. In two occasions, Scalfari has published the Pope’s words as a conversation. Scalfari himself admitted that the conversations were not recorded, and that he had attributed to the Pope words he had not actually said. The statements of the Holy See Press Office to set the record straight have been useless: everybody thinks that Pope Francis has really spoken the way Scalfari describes.

Last week, Scalfari published some excerpts of one of his conversations with the Pope about the Church’s missionarity, the truth, and the Jesuit and Franciscan identities. The excerpts were part of an op-ed, thus not raisinga lot of media attention. It was however a cunning operation: starting from the words that Pope Francis would have told him, Scalfari lays out – as Father Federico Lombardi, Director of the Holy See Press Office, has underscored – his “personal narrative”,reaching to the point of claiming that the the Pope implicitly supports the notion that truth is relative, and that in the end even the Gospels are a nice invention to fulfill man’s need to tell himself his own truth.

Certainly, Pope Francis did not express his views that way, but the fact that his words, his way to engage in dialogue, is interpreted as if he had, explains why there are so many expectations on his pontificate. A pontificate that everybody seems willing to interpret as rupture, a change of pace and in the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

The glaring proof of this came out last week, after the Pope’s remarks at the plenary session of the Pontifical Academy for Sciences. The theme of the plenary was natural law. The Pope was present to inaugurate a bronze bust of Benedict XVI, displayed at the entrance of the Casina Pio IV, the headquarters of the Pontifical Academy in the heart of the Vatican.

Pope Francis’ speech was divided in two parts: the first praised his predecessor, the second presented the themes of the plenary, including the topic of evolution. Pope Francis said that «God is not a magician, but the creator who broughteverything to life» and that «the notion of evolution is not incompatible with the notion of God.»

Many have pointed out that the Catholic Church, and popes, have been stressing this for years. In fact, to do justice and recognize their contributions, the names of great Catholic scientists should be listed, illustrating such examples as that of Gregor Mendel, the Augustinian monk who pioneered the study of genetics. But the secular media hailed Pope Francis’ words as if they amounted to the advent of a new era and as if the Pope was inaugurating a substantial opening-upto science after years of obscurantism.

Of course, this is nonsense. But this media frenzy proves the extraordinary expectations around Pope Francis’ pontificate. He had won over everyone with his informal way of operating, and brought this peculiar style into the pontificate. He has his own vision – not a program, which he has underscored he does not have – which seems to be about bringing pastoral care back to the center of the life of the Church, even at the expense of the concept of truth. This vision can be summarized by the image of the light house and of the torch, presented at the synod of bishops by the Jesuit Antonio Spadaro, editor of the Italian Jesuit-ran magazine “La Civiltà Cattolica”, and inserted in all of the synod’s documents.

Father Spadaro himself published on La Civiltà Cattolica a diary of the synod, inferring that tensions on key current issues included the call for even more pastoral opening to divorced remarried and homosexuals. This was true, but the bishops making this call constituted a minority. Very likely, the majority of bishops who acknowledged to have received «with dismay» the synod’s midterm report would not identify themselves with those calling for such changes.

Even this synod of bishops was subject to the pressure of the perceived need to tell the story of a Church that got rid of its historical brakes and which went forward toward progress. But this “progress”, in the end, looks like a surrendering to the spirit of the world. In the name of progress, the Church is to be told what to do and what to abstain from doing. And, in the name of progress, the very Church’s internal discourse is completely romanticized.

To present what is really the focus of the Church’s discourse, media should write – and Synod fathers, as well as every priest, should discuss – about the Truth, the formation of priests, and even about confession. They should cover how the Church reflects on how to shape the world and how to orientate it toward the common good. They should understand that the Church is not just about setting up field hospitals, because she works also to address the conditions that make people need those hospitals in the first place.

These are the challenges of vocation and mission of the family, to be discussed at the next synod of bishops. The notion that we are witnessing the second phase of Pope Francis’ pontificate has been widely mentioned, stressing that Francis’ honeymoon with public opinion has come to an end. But this notion – yet if it was clear it dealt with the Western world – focuses on the possible resolutions of the synod’s alleged controversies, leaving aside the most important challenges, which in fact have no appeal to news media.

This is how Pope Francis’ pontificate risks in the end to be completely romanticized and misconstrued, and used as a Trojan horse to make the Church more worldly, closer to secular mentality.

Critics often label “fear of new things” this line of reasoning,leveraging as a counterargument Pope Francis’ October 19 homily for the mass of beatification of Paul VI (and the synod’s concluding mass). On that occasion, Pope Francis declared that «God is not afraid of novelty.»

Pope Paul VI did not fear novelty either. He opened the Church to the modern world. But he always did it with the aim of evangelizing the world – two of Paul VI’s collaborators, cardinals Etchegaray and Poupard have recently stressed. And he also had the courage to write Humanae Vitae, the most cultural countercurrent encyclical ever recorded in history.

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. 

The real problem is the Council, traditionalists used to say, seeing in the post-Council drifts the beginning of the ruin of the Church – withina scale that goes from the ultra-traditionalist Lefebvrists, to moderate seekers of truth. The real problem is the Council, the progressive wing used to say: they had conceived the era of the Council as a time of change, without understanding that the Church’s tradition, the Truth it proposes, is a fixed point that no Council can in the end even touch.

This is the reason why Pope Francis – the first Pope in 50 years who had not taken part in the Council, he just lived through it as a young priest in Argentina – seems to be seeking to place everything under that spirit, hoping to give rise to a discussion that will lead the Church to announce the Gospel in the existential peripheries, with enthusiasm and simplicity, and without too much moralism.

The Pope’s decision seems evident by scrolling down the list of the 26 participants appointed by him to the upcoming synod of bishops. Among them, Cardinal Godfred Daneels, over 80 years old, one of the main characters of the Council, in its most progressive wing; and Cardinal Walter Kasper, who has already outlined some of his views during the consistory convoked by Pope Francis last February, that discussed the family. But the list also includes people with different viewpoints. Like Cardinal Carlo Caffarra from Bologna, who has already presented opinions strongly contrary to Cardinal Kasper’s theses. And like Cardinal Fernando Sebastian Aguilar, whom Pope Francis wanted to recognize with an honorary red biretta (he has turned 80, thus he cannot participate in a conclave), but who is not part of the progressive wing. The list of Papal participants to the synod alternates old prelates and younger people the Pope likes. All of them are called to take part in a wide-open discussion, in a synod where – we can be sure of – a real doctrinal fight will take place.

This battle’s premises lead us to conclude that it will track the Second Vatican Council’s battle. In his last meeting with the Roman clergy, Benedict XVI spoke about a Council of the media and a real Council. Id est, about the Council as the media conceived it, according to a well-defined agenda, and about what really happened during the Council’s talks.

The contents of high-level meetings have been shared with ever more transparency in recent times, in order to avoid a Council-of-the-media effect. This is the reason why the synod of bishops had put together an impeccable structure for communications. Bishops’ statements,prepared in advance, were released at the end of the day and translated into five languages. Naturally, the synodal discussion was kept private, to favor spontaneity and open discussion. However, its atmospherics were described in four different languages to journalists.

Pope Francis’ decision to set a more informal tone for the synod recalls the times of the Council, with its well prepared discussions,but its contents not publicly released; and to the attempts by some Conciliar father to influence the likelihood of having one or another thesis prevail, by leaking documents to journalists.

The Council of the media was born this way. Today, we risk having a synod of the media and a real synod. On the “real side,” prelates have already started working to advocate for their positions. A book, “Remaining in truth”, decidedly opposes the way Kasper set the stage for the discussion of family during the consistory, especially the preferential option for mercy which would bring about a greater likelihood ofallowing divorcees who have remarried to access Communion.

The book contains essays by five cardinals, and it is noteworthy that one of them is Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Mueller has also addressed at length the issue of the family in an interview-book.

This is evidence that the synodal fight has already begun, and its outcome is not predictable.

The Synod of bishops will offer the first real testing ground to Pope Francis. Does the Pope aims at a real change? Or is he just trying to recall the spirit of the Council with the hope of uncovering again the prophecy that renewed the Church?

In fact, prophecy comes to light when its contents are clear, and there is structured thinking. The Second Vatican Council was the fruit of a theological ferment that had been flourishing for decades. The experience of worker priests had already taken place in France and Belgium. Everywhere, Catholics looked for a space in society, even through commitments in politics, encouraged by the Social Teaching of the Church. The former lands of mission (like the United States) had turned into well-established Catholic outposts, thus bringing to attention new issues.

Yet, a succession of popes was necessary before reaching the Council. Pius X fought Modernism, defending the Doctrine; Benedict XV propelled the Church’s missionary activity towards diplomatic activity; Pius XI had to deal with totalitarianism and defended the “piece of land” of the sovereign Vatican City State in order to help the mission; Pius XII laid the groundwork for the advent of John XXIII. And John XXIII finally tore down the wall, and convoked a Council. Then, Paul VI had to put things in order, supporting with intellectual finesse the post-Conciliar Church, moderating the opposing factions.

Paul VI halted the post-Conciliar drift by drafting a Nota Explicativa Praevia (an explicative Note) to the Council’s Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium; by writing and proclaiming the Credo for the Year of Faith; and issuing the encyclical Humanae Vitae without subscribing to the conclusions that his advisors had presented to him. Paul VI thus established that the collegiality of bishops could go far, but not beyond doctrine. The disappointment of the many who had different expectations about what the encyclical would say led to one of the most difficult time periods of Paul VI’s pontificate.

What about Pope Francis? Speaking in an interview, Pope Francis defined Paul VI a hero for what he did in Humanae Vitae. It is yet to be seen if he will be as courageous as his role model. If – after two synods, the one in 2015 expected to include some decisions – the Pope’sdecisions will align with the media expectations, or if he will stand firm on doctrine.

Many are worried that their expectations will go unmet. Like the Jesuit Thomas Reese, who bitterly commented on the National Catholic Reporter that the papal picks for the synod were “disappointing,” and underscored that the Pope has pushed lay people aside and has appointed 25 representatives from the Curia, despite the fact that Curia officers should serve as the audience for an extraordinary synod and not as policy makers.

Reese’s analysis also concludes that Pope Francis’ picks are a blow to Curia reform. If in the synod the importance of the role of the laityis not recognized, and it is only the role of clerics that is appreciated instead –Reese’s reasoning goes– why should not the same thing happen in the reform of the Curia?

This reasoning must be laid on the table today, while the Council of Cardinals is having its fifth meeting.

The reform of Pastor Bonus – the Apostolic Constitution that regulates the functions of the Curia office – is still far away. There are many ideas being discussed, but until now the Council has just conceived an economic reform, and there are many bodies still without statutes.

Pope Francis has open a discussion over institutionalization as well. In order to overcome the Church’s evils, the Church itself must be put in a state of Permanent Council. Every structure, every office may be critically analyzed. To the point where the yet-to-be established Delicta Graviora office in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (an office that will deal with the most-serious crimes in the Church) maybe placed in Buenos Aires, rather than in the Roman Curia.

It remains tobe seen if this narrative – sometimes improvised, since Pope Francis wants it to be spontaneous – will turn into an institutional effort really capable of renewing the Church. Otherwise, Pope Francis could see the prophetic choices he has opted for since the beginning of his pontificate frustrated by the fact that they have not been institutionalized. The risk being that, after Pope Francis, everything will have to start again from zero.