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.

Pope Francis lacks Montini’s Curia experience, and perhaps also his international vision. Raised in the Vatican Secretariat of State, then appointed archbishop of Milan, Giovan Battista Montini practically had already become Pope as he joined the 1963 conclave that elected him as John XXIII’s successor. After his election, there was a lot of speculation about his intentions regarding the continuation of the Second Vatican Council. Paul VI reaction was to address to the Council a programmatic speech, mirroring what he had said at the beginning of the Council. Id est, that a unified vision of the Church was needed and should be upheld by the Council, and that the primacy of Peter could not be set aside. Paul VI did so tactfully, sending to the experts of the Councils, in addition, several proposals to amend some of the documents of the Council in order to underscore the importance of the central Church, and at the same time designing a radical Curia reform, which led to the issuance of the Apostolic Constitution “Regimi Ecclesiae Universae”.

Three pontificates after Paul VI’s, Pope Francis is now facing more or less the same challenges. He does not have to carry forward a Council, but he stands in a post-Council period widely debated. Pope Francis wants to make clear his commitment to the peripheries of the world, and he wants to underscore that laymen are full participants in the management of the Church. Hence, his visits to the parishes; his stress on the role of laymen in his speech to the Council for Economics; and the appointment of his friend and layman Guzman Carriquiry as “Vice-President” Secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Latin-American, a job usually assigned to a bishop.

Paul VI was also a great promoter of the role of laymen in the Church and paid a lot of attention to the peripheries, being the first Pope to celebrate mass on Christmas eve outside the Vatican (in Italsider, an industrial plant in Taranto, Italy). Paul VI was also the first Pope to address the United Nations General Assembly, advocating a moral, rather than a functional, reform of international politics.

A moral reform, more than a functional one, is something that Paul VI wanted for the Church as well. He contributed the Year of Faith and the Credo of the People of God to the Council’s and post-Council’s discussions, in order to reiterate the doctrinal truths. Faced with the ambiguities emanating from the practice of collegiality, Paul VI promulgated “Humane Vitae”, an encyclical which run counter to the views of the majority of theologians that were asked about it.

Collegiality can turn against the Church, if it is not exercised within defined boundaries. This is at the heart of the debate nowadays, with the Curia reform believed to be taking off at the beginning of 2015.

Pope Francis spoke about more synodality, and this is the reason why he gave a more important role to the General Secretary of the Synod, chaired by Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri. In Pope Francis’ view, the General Secretariat of the Synod should be a linking and coordinating body, serving as a sort of “Ministry for Relations with Bishops”. This was underscored by the fact that Pope Francis asked Baldisseri, and not the Secretary of State, as had been customary, to coordinate his meetings with the heads of dicasteries of the Roman Curia.

The synod cannot, in any case, be a governing body. Collegiality is always “sub Petro” (under Peter) and even the dignity of bishops as peers is defined by their having a common leader. Cardinal Gehrard Ludwig Mueller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, explained this at the presentation of a book curated by the former general secretary of the Synod of Bishops, Nikola Eterovic, which includes all of Benedict XVI’s remarks to the synodal assemblies. Mueller’s comments were clearly a reference to the current debate.

Paul VI wanted the synod as an expression of collegiality. But he wanted it to be a consultative, not deliberative, body in order to uphold central coordination and avoid confusions – including doctrinal ones. This way, he did not undermined the responsibilities of the local Churches, while at the same time not doing away with a central body.

Paul VI’s was also combatting pressures to have an agenda for the Church set outside the Church itself. An attempt to set an outsiders’ agenda that exploited openings and the enthusiasm surrounding the Council, to undermine the Church’s authority. It was the now famous “Council of the media” that overshadowed the “real Council,” as Benedict XVI recounted in his last meeting with the Roman clergy.

It was precisely to prevent this that a new managing of Church communications was introduced. “Paul VI pushed out the journalists from the Vatican,” the dean of vaticanisti Benny Lai used to say about Paul VI’s decision to move the Holy See press office outside of the Vatican Walls. The long process of considering new ways to manage Vatican communications began then.

During the Second Vatican Council, the statements of the Conciliar fathers were not disclosed.  The Council of the media was born when the Conciliar fathers resorted to the press to leak the contents of their deliberations, to influence public opinion and particular standpoints. 

This is the reason why the information of discussions at synods is managed differently, and is always evolving towards even more transparency. During the synods of bishops, the summary of the interventions (prepared by the synodal fathers) are delivered to journalists right after the congregations, in 5 different languages, and are also published in the Vatican web-site.  Same-day briefings in different languages are also provided.

Combatting the possibility of a “Church of the media” has been a constant effort since the reform of the Holy See Press Office, which is under the authority of the Secretariat of State since 1986.

Nowadays, communications have become a major concern of the Holy See. The new Pope had been chosen on the basis of his skills to communicate the Gospel.

There is a lot of speculation about a new Vatican office for communications, in order to enhance transparency and the quality of the information being delivered. All offices dealing with communications could come under a “Secretariat for Communications” single umbrella.

There is another interesting rumor about Vatican communications: Pope Francis could establish a Congregation for Culture, embodying the pontifical councils for Social Communications, Promoting New Evangelization, and Culture. Vatican communications would be the responsibility of a new, separate department, under a revamped Secretariat of State (perhaps State’s current two branches will become two different secretariats).

This department could include, institutionally, “La Civiltà Cattolica,” the Italian Jesuit-run magazine which articles are submitted for clearance to the Secretariat of State before they are published.

Hence, the insistent rumors that Father Antonio Spadaro, editor of La Civiltà Cattolica, the first person to interview the Pope, will be the director of the Holy See Press Office. Father Spadaro is taking on an increasingly institutional role leading this journal which has, it seems, become the main conduit to interpret the Pope’s thinking. The series of articles on the Jesuit Peter Faber, recently proclaimed saint; the hiring of Juan Carlos Scannone, theologian and a teacher of Bergoglio, with the task of better explaining the “theology of the people”, the Argentinean branch of the Theology of Liberation; the goal of making this Italian journal always more international: everything points to thinking of “La Civiltà Cattolica” as ultimately becoming an official publication offering Pope Francis’ thought in depth.

A test for Vatican information will be the next synod for bishops. At the moment, the discussion on the synod is still biased by what has been leaked to the media. Statements are often instrumentalized. Prove of it is the speech Cardinal Walter Kasper gave at the consistory on the family. It was intended to be kept as an internal document, but it was leaked to an Italian newspaper and then included in a book which is going to be a best-seller. Why was the speech not made public immediately, thus avoiding this ‘confusion effect’? Are the Second Vatican Council times back?

Pope Francis dream to be a new Paul VI can become the nightmare of having to deal with the same issues that Paul VI did. When Montini addressed the Curia reform, internal resistances pushed him him into isolation. Benny Lai recounted the criticism circulating that Montini’s Papacy “lacked a central government.”

The criticism emanated from a strong internal debate, which has been reprised – yet with different tunes – under this pontificate. The General Congregations that drove to the election of Pope Francis spoke about the Curia functionality, not about big issues. This is the original sin of this pontificate.

When Paul VI went to the United Nations, in the aura of John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris, he highlighted the need for a reform of the United Nations not based on its functions, but from a strong anthropological point of view (and all the Popes has since followed this view).

Paul VI applied this principle to the reform of the Curia. Nowadays, the discussion is mostly about the efficiency of Curia, rather than on the global mission of the Vatican institutions. Pope Francis is now seeking a balance. He has established a parallel Curia: the new bodies are still not identified in the revamped Vatican web site, but they are preparing their statutes and defining their responsibilities. Now, he will delve into communications, which he has been very interested in. At the same time, Pope Francis probably understands now that there is a need of a vision for a more comprehensive reform. A reform of attitudes, in Pope Francis’ words. The challenge of this Papacy is how to carry this reform on, beyond media agendas. Striking the right balance means the difference between living Paul VI’s dream or experiencing his nightmare.