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.

Pope Francis’ words were not enough. The Council of Cardinals met July 1-4. The Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, joined this group of 8 appointed by Pope Francis. The Pope – according to Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office – told Cardinal Parolin that he is a full member of the Council. However, no document has been issued yet to certify the Secretary of State’s membership in the group. In the meantime, Cardinal Parolin is trying to keep his position via his being present.

Parolin’s activism is a reaction to the push to have reform engulf, it seems, the very Secretariat of State, that could be destined to be divided into two Secretariats: the Secretariat of State proper, i.e. for diplomacy, and the Secretariat for the Life of the Church, i.e. the general affairs. There would also be a General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops; and there is already the Secretariat for the Economy, led by its proactive prefect, George Pell.

This ‘four secretariats’ structure is just a hypothesis, since the fifth meeting of cardinals have not produced a draft for Curia reform. Widely discussed is the streamlining of the Curia (bringing the Pontifical Council for Laity and Family together; Justice and Peace with Cor Unum and Migrants; and the Congregation for the Divine Worship with that for the Cause of Saints). Also in this case, we are dealing with hypotheses. Pope Francis went back in part to the old draft for a Curia reform written by Cardinal Attilio Nicora shortly before John Paul II’s death. The draft proposed the establishment of a Council of Cardinals, and a brutal amalgamation of dicasteries. The Council of Cardinals was intended to consolidate positions that had crystallized under the administration of the Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, who had his (mostly Italian) interests to maintain. Nicora’s draft was in fact a way to protect this power.

Pope Francis went beyond Nicora’s draft. Angelo Sodano had managed the pre-conclave meetings in a way that led cardinals to speak of management, more than of the substantial issues. The search for a missionary Pope, able to speak to the people, seemed to be a natural consequence. The Pope acts as a front man, while the Roman Curia manages its re-organization, dismantling piece by piece the reform of collegiality carried on by Benedict XVI. Pope Francis noted there was a wish for discussion, the same kind of discussion he was accustomed to, from the Jesuits’ General Congregations. In the end, the Superior General there makes the decision. But during the Congregations, everybody can voice concerns.

This is the spirit that Pope Francis has brought into his pontificate. The notion of a permanent Council, of ongoing talks, can however bring about some surprises. So, the Curia of the old days, after many of his main characters took important posts, had to face some surprises. Especially on the economic side.

For what concerns the economy, Pope Francis has continued, with no rush, Benedict  XVI’s work. The Vatican’s Financial Intelligence Authority strengthened its international profile and issued new statutes. The Vatican first amanded its first anti-money laundering law, and then – under Pope Francis – changed it with a brand new one, which positioned the Holy See among the most advanced countries in the world in this regard. This could not have happened without the enormous effort carried out by Vatican officials.

The Vatican hired several external consultants, thus projecting the idea of a reality moving toward reforms. But consultants are usually people coming from the outside, and this led to pros and cons. On “pro” is that external consultants are professionals (even if also Vatican officials are). A “con” is that consultants can never know in depth the full scope of the realms they are providing advice to and about.

In the media, this is portrayed as a “gang fight”. In fact, what the in the media has become a petty war among gangs, is a fight between two opposite visions. And every mean is licit, in the midst of this war. Also passing to journalists rumors and gossips, sometimes even mischaracterizing reality to prove a thesis.

For what concerns the Institute for Religious Works, the internal line has prevailed. The institute is a resource for the Catholic Church and her mission, and it cannot be abolished. There will not be revolutionary changes. Just an updating, to better insert the institute (whose chirograph and statutes stretch back to 1990) in the international arena.

This issue brings about a debate. The Curia of the old days is tied hand in glove to Italy. And Italy more than once has used the IOR as a scapegoat.  Italy views the Vatican as a subdivision that should manage every international relationship on the basis of its trusted relations with Italy.

This vision contrasts with the international vision, people aiming for the Holy See to be present in the world and able to send money to missions through her own international sovereign channels provided by the IOR.

Among those who support this second vision, there are some who are supporting a more speculative IOR, in order to generate more profits, and to have the IOR fully join the international banking system. On the other hand, there are people who wish the IOR to keep its characteristics of a sovereign institute, with funds at the Pope’s disposal.

Hence, the story of the territorial factions. They are referred to as “The Americans,” “The Germans,” “The Maltese,” and a power struggle ensues. Reality is far more nuanced. The Council of Superintendency of the Institute backed and supported the international turnaround and upholding sovereignty. It also favored the process of reform within the Institute, and making the IOR in some small ways a bank, even (perhaps) giving it the possibility of lending money. An approach that, it seems, was taken at the request of the Pontifical Commission for the IOR, chaired by Cardinal Raffaele Farina.

The process of reform has almost come to an end. The members of the board will probably tender their resignations, in order to support and facilitate a generational change. The Secretariat for Economy should take the lead of the management of the assets, to be entrusted to another body, the Vatican Asset Management. Surely, the president will change: Ernst von Freyberg has accomplished his tasks.  He operated as a full-time president although he was not one under the statutes.  Now that the statutes foresee having one, the job will not go to him.

Who might be von Freyberg’s successor? Two names are often mentioned: that of Jean Baptiste de Franssu, and that of Francis X. Zahra. They are both members of the Council for the Economy, they were both part of the (now dissolved) Pontifical Commission of Reference on the Economic-Administrative Structure of the Holy See, and they both were – according to unconfirmed rumors – in the set of three names that the Spencer&Stuart head-hunting agency had given to the Secretariat of State when the latter was searching for someone to replace Gotti Tedeschi as president of the council of the IOR, who got a no confidence vote by his own council.

These names would represent a line of renewal within continuity, but at the same time they would not act as the hawks, the latter aiming of making the IOR a speculative reality, as they would like to do with many other realities. For example, the widely gossiped commission for communications  would also be tasked with reviewing the Vatican Television Centre statutes, to make it a more commercial and profitable activity.

Paradoxically, it is the leftist-leaning world of pro-internal democracy that is pushing the Vatican towards a capitalistic pivot.  The democrats are very much to the left and very sympathetic to the Pope, so much so that they stand behind the Papal shield when necessary. They praise Pope Francis’ words on poverty, but they also ask the Church to revise her moral teaching.

These contrasting tendencies will came out, for example, in the next discussion on the Non Proliferation Treaty, the first important test for the new Holy See Permanent Observer to the United Nations Bernardito Auza. Archbishop Auza will have to act as a mediator between the prudent position of those who are against nuclear weapons, but do want to ban nuclear energy, because “it has civil implications to be considered”; and those who, even within the Vatican, back the extremist line, that of a total ban on anything nuclear, a choice that would place the Holy See on one side of the negotiations process instead of as a facilitator.

The sovereignty of the Holy See is always at stake. It was so when the Administration for the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA) issued its new statutes, which made its consultants into members of the advisory board, de facto showing that APSA was acting as a bank even when it was referred to as a Central Body of the Vatican City State. This reform could be swept away if the Secretariat for the Economy’s intentions to dissolve APSA become a reality: the tasks of the ordinary section would be taken by the Secretariat for the Economy; while APSA’s extraordinary section would instead be under the responsibility and control of the Council for the Economy.

All of these issues are portrayed by the media as a gang war. Perhaps, there is just a major issue. What seems to be missing is a central vision, which is never made concrete, with processes becoming, instead, ideas on urgent reforms that are not translated into action. In the meantime, Vatican officials are passionately working, trying to keep the Holy See a modern State, yet preserving its peculiarities.

While cardinals are counseled by many voices (some of them are lobbyists), Pope Francis is still speaking about missionarity.

And the Legionaries of Christ never pushed missionarity aside. Stricken by the scandal of their founder, they have initiated, with great sacrifice, a path to renewal that led them to the election of a new government and the drafting of new constitutions. These constitutions have been examined by an ad-hoc commission. The pontifical advisor, Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, has taken part in the process of renewal since the very beginning.

Today, the Legionaries have many vocations, notwithstanding the “abnormal and wasted” life, as Benedict XVI described it, of the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, Father Maciel.  While the Legionaries of Christ was renovating its internal structure and organization, the missionary ideal did not falter at all.  Despite any controversies, the Legionaries of Christ example should be followed.  

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.