More specifically, are all the men who got the red hat from Pope Francis moving with him in the same direction?

Recent events suggest yet again that not all of Francis' cardinals are so-called "Francis bishops", prelates who are enthusiastic supporters of his vision for Church reform and renewal.

This became clear most recently by the extremely negative reaction that many of the bishops and cardinals in Africa (but not only there) expressed towards Fiducia supplicans, the "declaration on the pastoral meaning of blessings" that the Vatican doctrinal office issued last December.

It is not an exaggeration to say that many Africans were outraged that the pope had approved a document that allows priests to offer non-liturgical blessings to homosexual couples.

Francis rebuffed by one of his top advisors

Leading their rebuff of the text was Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu of Kinshasa (Democratic Republic of the Congo), someone who not only got his red hat from Francis but is also one of only nine men who are members of the pope's chief advisory, the Council of Cardinals (C9).

In fact, the ecclesiastical career of the 64-year-old Capuchin Franciscan has ski-rocketed during the current pontificate.

Ambongo was the bishop of the smallest of DR-Congo's 47 dioceses in 2013 at the time of Francis' election.

He had been appointed to the post by John Paul II in November 2004 and it seemed that's where he would stay. But Francis promoted Ambongo archbishop of Mbandaka-Mikoro in 2016.

And just fifteen months later the pope catapulted him from leading the smallest of DR-Congo's six archdioceses to being coadjutor bishop of its largest, Kinshasa.

Within another eight months (November 1, 2018) he was the archbishop ordinary.

Just less than a year later (October 2019) he was created a cardinal. And in March 2023 he was appointed to the C9.

Cardinal Ambongo is also president of SECAM (the Symposium of Episcopal Conferences in Africa and Madagascar).

And it was in this capacity that he issued the African prelates' strongly-worded statement last January, which declared that there would be no blessings for homosexuals on their continent.

Since then, Pope Francis has defended Fiducia supplicans several times in interviews and addresses, often doubling down on his efforts to make the Church more welcoming of homosexuals and other people who are "disordered" or in "irregular unions".

He's defended his vision on this particular issue in the wake of attacks made by one of his own cardinals.

It is not clear what else in the current pontificate Cardinal Ambongo does not fully agree with, but the point is that he is not 100% in agreement.

A Francis majority in the next conclave

And what of the other cardinals Francis has created?

How many of them are really Francis bishops?

Conversely, how many are in fundamental disagreement with the Argentine pope on certain issues or even on the direction in which he's leading the Church?

These are important questions given that, as the pontificate winds down, the cardinal-electors will eventually be called to choose Francis' successor.

It is usually assumed — uncritically — that, since Francis has now named the overwhelming majority of these electors, he has all but ensured that they will pick someone who will carry on his legacy.

Indeed, the numbers are impressive.

As of February 12, there will be 130 cardinals under the age of 80 who are eligible to participate in a conclave. Of these, 95 have been named by Francis, 27 by Benedict XVI, and 8 by John Paul II.

But things will become more interesting in the coming months as more of these men age out.

By October 10 when the next session of the Synod assembly on synodality is underway, nine more cardinals will lose their vote.

Then there will be 91 created by Francis, 24 by Benedict, and only 6 by John Paul.

Among those who will be eliminated from the conclave over the next eight months, are some key allies of the current pope, even some who became cardinals under his two predecessors.

They include Cardinal Sean O'Malley OFM Cap, a C9 member from the United States (turns 80 on June 29); Cardinal Luis Lacunza OAR of Panama (Feb. 24); and Cardinal Baltazar Porras of Venezuela (Oct. 10).

The number of cardinal-electors will drop back to the 120 ceiling set by Paul VI (provided Francis does not create more cardinals in the meantime) on Dec. 24 when Indian Cardinal Oswald Gracias, another C9 member, turns eighty.

The specter of John Paul II still looms

The last six men among the electors who were created cardinals by John Paul II could play a decisive role in the next conclave whenever that happens.

One of them, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Austria, is a key ally of Pope Francis. But the current archbishop of Vienna is also the oldest in the group and will turn 80 in late January 2025.

The second oldest, at 78, is retired Bosnian Cardinal Vinko Puljic. He is not expected to be a force, either as a candidate or a kingmaker at a papal election.

The other four are all 75 years old or younger.

French Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, 73, was forced to step down as archbishop of Lyon nearly four years ago after badly managing sexual abuse cases. He is not expected to have a significant voice at a conclave.

And neither is Croatian Cardinal Josip Bozanic, who retired as archbishop of Zagreb last April at age seventy-four.

But other two men who got the red hat from Saint John Paul — both in 2003 — will likely be among those whom the electors will be taking a closer look at.

Either could emerge as a compromise candidate.

They are Cardinal Péter Erdő of Hungary and Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, one a traditionalist Central European and the other a moderate African.

Erdő, who is only 71, has been the archbishop of Esztergom-Budapest for more than 21 years.

He is a by-the-books canon lawyer who served ten years (2006-2016) as president of Conference of European Episcopal Conferences (CCEE) and has strong connections with many moderate-to-conservative officials in the Vatican.

The Hungarian cardinal has been careful to not to publicly criticise Pope Francis, even as he steers his own ecclesial ship in a very different direction.

He wisely chose not to attend a Mass in Rome last January to mark the first anniversary of the death of Cardinal George Pell.

Erdő was actually supposed to preside at that liturgy. But it would have put him squarely in the opposition camp, given Pell's vicious attack against Francis in an article that was printed after he died.

Turkson, 75, is currently the chancellor of two high-level Vatican think-tanks — the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.

A Rome-educated scripture scholar, he served as archbishop of Cape Coast from 1993 until 2009 when Benedict XVI made him president of the now-defunct Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

When that office was combined with several other departments in 2016 and is now called the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, he remained its head for a little more than five years.

He was "eased" out in January 2022 at age 73 and given his current position.

In any event, the Church's cardinals are already beginning to prepare for the post-Francis era.

With binoculars in hand, Vatican watchers will be carefully looking for signs indicating which way these birds might fly.

• Robert Mickens is La Croix International Editor.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

They told him it would be too risky for a man of his age who has been fighting a bronchial infection and shortness of breath for about a week now.

They said it was not a good idea to make such a long journey, for just a short stay, and try to pack in numerous private meetings and public events.

Sources inside the Vatican say Pope Francis, who will be 87 on December 17, was extremely upset when he received that advice. But in the end, he accepted it. Grudgingly.

No stopping Francis

The Holy See Press Office announced the cancellation of the papal trip last Tuesday afternoon, saying it was due to the fact that the pope was still dealing with flu-like symptoms and an inflammation of the lungs.

But that didn't stop Francis from holding his weekly general audience and a private meeting with a Scottish soccer team the very next day.

And then on Thursday morning, the day before he was supposed to set off to Dubai, he held eight audiences, as the Vatican calls the pope's meetings.

Three of these were semi-private gatherings with largish groups, during which the pope gave published speeches (he actually spoke off the cuff and handed out his prepared texts).

The other five meetings were with smaller groups or individuals.

These included the top brass of the Conference of Canadian Catholic Bishops (CCCB), the papal nuncio to Burundi, the rector of the Catholic University of Argentina, the bishop Hildesheim (Germany), and the two recipients of this year's "Ratzinger Prize" for theology.

Carrying out all this activity (and that was just in the morning and only what was officially in the pope's public diary) was likely Francis' way of saying to friends and foes alike, "Don't get any strange ideas - I'm still alive and kicking!"

And to emphasise that there's no health emergency here, his master of liturgical ceremonies on Tuesday published a slate of six celebrations that he will preside over during the two-week period spanning Christmas Eve and the January 7th Feast of the Baptism of the Lord.

Acting on instinct and personal initiative

None of this is exclusive to this pope. In fact, doing everything to convey the sense that all is well, despite having to deal with the normal aches and pains that come with old age, is something we saw during the final years of John Paul II's long pontificate.

The tired, old adage "the pope is in perfect health, until the minute after he's dead" seems to pertain to every Roman Pontiff.

What is somewhat extraordinary, though, is that Francis actually followed the advice of his doctors this time.

It is extraordinary only because he has not always done so. And because he has shown himself to be a pope who so often acts on instinct and personal initiative, rather than relying on institutional customs and protocols that have shaped and have become part of the modern day papacy and the Holy See.

In fact, Pope Francis has ignored or scrapped many of the protocols and customs. And thank God for that! This has mostly delighted his admirers.

And even some non-Catholics (and anti-Catholics) applaud him for stepping outside the mold, lionizing him as a Roman outsider and Church reformer who has taken on the big, bad institution of wealth and corruption known as the Vatican.

But by increasingly untethering himself from many of the constraints or checks, the Jesuit pope has set aside protocols that were originally designed to serve as safeguarding mechanisms.

Massimo Faggioli pointed this out more articulately in his latest "Signs of the Times" column:

"Francis has also marginalised the institutional filters that are meant to help craft his message and protect his authority.

"This is happening at time when a certain type of hyper-papalism is defining certain sectors of Catholicism, where the Church's voice on public issues is reduced to the dissemination or interpretation of whatever the pope says or does not say, and whatever he does or chooses not to do, and also how the wider public applauds or criticises his words and actions.

"In the higher echelons of the Church's hierarchy, it has become rare for a cardinal or a bishop to express an opinion different from the pope's without being seen as an enemy or a traitor."

And this brings us to reports that Francis has decided that he may strip the arch-traditionalist Cardinal Raymond Burke of his Vatican home and pension.

The 75-year-old American cardinal is one of several high-level Church officials (bishops and cardinals) who have been extremely critical of the pope's theological views, legislation, pastoral priorities and - in short - his pontificate.

The pope can do whatever he wants

Let's be clear: Francis has the authority to take away privileges from any cardinal.

According to the Church's law, about which Burke is considered to be an expert, the pope actually has the authority to do just about anything he wants. And, by law, he is not even obliged to justify his actions.

Further, "there is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or a decree of the Roman Pontiff". Pope Francis did not write that - the 1983 Code of Canon Law did! (This is an urgent issue, but for another time.)

The Argentine pope, in any case, is not a legalist.

And he surely knows that while, "in virtue of his office he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he can always freely exercise", a pope must be shrewd in how he uses that power.

If he is seen to be acting indiscriminately, unevenly, or unjustly, he can actually weaken his own authority.

There is increasing concern, even among those who are enthusiastic supporters of this pontificate and its deeply evangelical theological-pastoral vision for the Church, that Francis may be doing that right now.

He is acting more and more in an isolated and personalist way, which has been disruptive and disorienting for many in the Church.

This is certainly true for those engaged in the Holy See's diplomatic efforts. Francis often side-steps them and carries out initiatives on his own, without even consulting his own Secretary of State or other top officials.

That doesn't mean he is not using the institutional levers at his disposal.

Indeed he is. He has issued numerous decrees, set up untold numbers of protocols for dealing with a variety of issues, but - again - he is seen to apply them unevenly and indiscriminately, or to not even apply them at all.

According to the Church's law, he is under no obligation to justify this, but it is troubling for many (or it should be) that a pope who is now in the process of making synodality the legacy of his pontificate, should act in such a ... non-synodal way.

Churchmen seeking a bit more order

Those of us who have been encouraged and energised by Pope Francis, especially by the vitality he has helped to pump back into the Church and for the force of good he has been in the world, should be concerned about how his unorthodox governing style will be judged by the men who will eventually elect his successor.

Assuming that Francis does not radically alter the current conclave system (an assumption we cannot take for granted, actually), it is more than just a possibility that the cardinal-electors will want to find a pope who is more tied to and respectful of established institutional protocols, especially regarding the Holy See.

As it has been said before, even if more than 70 percdent of the electors have been appointed by Francis, not every one of them is what one proverbially calls a "Francis bishop".

Some of the current pope's cardinals are clericalists, and actually pretty conservative or traditionalist.But all the men in red who will have to decide who succeeds him are classic "churchmen", with hardly any exceptions.

And that means they are men of a certain age who were formed and are steeped in the Church's institutional protocols and customs.

This pontificate, especially in the past few years, has been a bit too disruptive for many of them. Just how many is a good question.

But it seems likely that a majority of the cardinal-electors, even those who would like the next pope to carry forth Francis' project of synodality and vision for the Church, will seek someone who would do that in a more organised and institutional manner.

That means any cardinal seen to have a governing style similar to the current pope's would be eliminated as a serious candidate.

This is another reason why the next conclave looks to be very unpredictable. And that, too, will likely be part of the legacy of this dynamic, disruptive pontificate.

• Robert Mickens is the La Croix International Editor. Each week he publishes the Letter from Rome, unravelling the issues and policies that are alive in the Vatican and within the Church.
• First published in La Croix. Republished with permission

The fractures are most obvious on social media where even priests, bishops and cardinals preach from cyber pulpits all along the theological (or, more correctly, the ideological) spectrum.

Pope Francis recently moved against the latest online episcopal celebrity from the doctrinally rigid end of that spectrum when he relieved Bishop Joseph Strickland from his duties as head of the Diocese of Tyler.

Appointed to the small Texas see in 2012 by Benedict XVI, Strickland has been one of the most vocal critics of the current pope, whom he has publicly accused of undermining the Deposit of the Faith.

Francis like John Paul II and Benedict XVI

The bishop marked his 65th birthday on Halloween by joining other like-minded traditionalists at a conference in Rome where he quoted a letter accusing Francis of being an "usurper".

Using the words of someone else to even suggest the current pope is illegitimate is huge, even by Texas standards. Doing so in the pope's own diocese was a huge and lethal mistake.

Strickland has since gained a few more supporters from among the various anti-Francis critics and crackpots, including non-Americans who probably had never heard of him before he was removed from Tyler on November 11th.

If anybody in the pope's inner circle thought this might in any way lead to a cessation of hostilities towards Francis, they miscalculated.

The pro-Strickland crowd that uses social media as its preferred battleground, have called the pope every name in the book. Dictator is one of their favorites.

Interesting how they have forgotten that Benedict XVI and John Paul II also removed a number of bishops in their days.

The snipers have also attacked Francis and his "magic circle" - including the papal nuncio to Washington, Cardinal Christoph Pierre - for lack of transparency and for refusing to state the reasons why Strickland was removed.

The Roman Pontiff is under no obligation to do so. Benedict and John Paul never did so, either.

No one can hold a candle to Archbishop Viganò

Bishop Strickland is only the most recent high profile Catholic to rail against the current temporal head of the Catholic Church. But he is certainly not the only one.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former nuncio to the United States, was one of the first to really veer off the reservation.

And he did so in a spectacular and unprecedented way in August 2018 when he issued an excoriating open letter urging Francis to resign, accusing him of covering up abuse committed by the former cardinal and now defrocked priest Theodore McCarrick.

No one (at least up till now) can hold a candle to the 82-year-old Viganò, who lobs his deranged rantings and conspiracy theories like bombs in order to discredit the Jesuit pope.

He does this from a secret hiding place, no less, so much does he have the courage of his convictions. It's not too difficult for most reasonable people to see that the attention-seeking Viganò is more than a bit of a "nutter".

We'll have to see if Bishop Strickland, who also seems to like the limelight, intends to follow him down that same road.

After all, he was the first bishop to publicly vouch for Viganò's credibility the very morning the former nuncio issued his open letter attacking the pope.

More credible critics of the pope

But if a loose cannon like Viganò can be easily dismissed, other fierce critics of Francis cannot be.

Cardinal Gerhard Müller immediately comes to mind.

The German theologian and former bishop of Regensburg, who turns 76 on New Year's Eve, is not stupid.

One can disagree with his theological and ecclesiological views, but he represents some of the most classic positions on issues concerning Catholic faith and morals, issues that Francis — legitimately — has opened up for review and reformulation.

Müller, of course, is also the former head of what is now called the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF). Benedict XVI appointed him to the post in July 2012, just months before resigning the papacy.

Francis kept him as head of the doctrinal office after being elected pope in March 213, made him a cardinal in February 2014 at the first consistory of the new pontificate, but then decided not to reappoint him DDF prefect in 2017 when Müller completed his first five-year term of office.

The German cardinal has criticised Francis openly and publicly, most thoroughly in a book-length interview with Italian journalist Franca Giansoldati of the Rome-based daily, Il Messaggero.

He's been more or less respectful in tone, while not hiding his bewilderment at the way the Argentine pope has broken with longstanding Vatican protocols and business-as-usual practices - the same reason why many Francis supporters express their jubilation.

The Synod's way of describing the divisions

There are arguably scores (or more) of bishops and untold numbers of priests who are more sympathetic with some variation of Müller's point of view than with the pope's.

And the lay faithful are all probably over the board. It is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the divisions. But, for sure, the Church is deeply divided.

However, you probably would not draw that conclusion if your first introduction to present-day Catholicism was the "Synthesis Report" that the Synod of Bishops issued on October 28 at the end of the first session of its two-pronged assembly on synodality.

Just take the 42-page text and do a simple word search.

You will find "division" only once in the context of the Church. It's in a section that is listed as number 8, "Church is Mission". In paragraph "f", one finds the following:

In all contexts, there is a danger, that was expressed by many at the Assembly, of "clericalising" the laity, creating a kind of lay elite that perpetuates inequalities and divisions among the People of God.

It would be a stretch to say this is any sort of reference to the current divisions mentioned above.

Similarly, words like "disagreements", "fractures", and "factions" do not appear.

And, for obvious and good reasons, the Synthesis Report - which is inspirational in many ways, but also rather anodyne - avoids naming any sort of "liberal" ("progressive") vs. "conservative" ("traditionalist") tensions or divisions that are, perhaps with the use of more appropriate "labels", a glaring reality in the Church today.

"Labels" is actually found in a section 15 on "Ecclesial Discernment and Open Questions" where it states that, in the Gospels, Jesus "never begins from the perspective of prejudices or labels, but from the authenticity of relationship...".

Meanwhile, the word "controversial" is found six times - three times in reference to "matters", twice regarding "issues", and once for "questions".

Bishops, cardinals, and the next conclave

As for the divisions with the hierarchy the document says this:

"Some bishops express discomfort when they are asked to speak on matters of faith and morals where full agreement within the Episcopate is lacking.

"Further reflection is needed on the relationship between episcopal collegiality and diversity of theological and pastoral views (section 12, paragraph "h")."

Our Catholic leaders, we're told, don't feel comfortable talking about matters about which they disagree.

Once again, this does not seem to properly reflect the reality of what is happening in the Church right now. And that, in and of itself, is alarming.

But divisions there are and, in fact, not a few bishops are publicly giving voice to them, from one side or another (and everywhere in between).

So... what will all this mean when the cardinals are finally called together to elect Pope Francis' successor?

Will they adopt the method of the Synod assembly's Synthesis Report and refuse to acknowledge straightforwardly and descriptively the divisions that exist?

More importantly, on what side of the divide (or where along the spectrum) do the cardinals who will be casting ballots for the next pope line up?

Francis, who will be 87 in a few weeks' time, has named more than 70 percent of the cardinal-electors.

But don't be fooled into thinking they will pick someone who will continue leading the Church along the path he has mapped out.

It may sound strange, but a good number of these cardinals could hardly be called "Francis bishops" in the sense that this term has come to mean.

It is more than likely that they will be forced to choose a compromise candidate. Whether that will be enough to heal the Church's divisions, however, is anyone's guess.

• Rome-based Robert Mickens is La Croix International Editor. He regularly comments on CNN, the BBC and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and writes a weekly column, Letter from Rome.
• First published in La Croix International. Republished with permission.

Actually, once the members of the October 4-29 gathering have voted on a final document (Saturday evening) and then celebrated the concluding Mass in St. Peter's Basilica (Sunday morning), they will not have ended the Synod assembly on synodality.

They will only have ended the first session of that assembly. Pope Francis, the Synod's president, has scheduled a second session for 11 months from now - in October 2024.

What happens in the liminal space between now and then is anybody's guess.

That's because there are numerous issues and events - both in the Church and in the world - that will pose serious challenges to advancing the momentum of the synodal "conversations in the Spirit" that many participants said they so positively experienced.

The Marko Rupnik saga

Let's start with the issue that is no longer the elephant in the room, as it was just a few days ago.

Obviously we're talking about the likely role the pope played in the way the Vatican and the Diocese of Rome dismissed the testimonies of more than 20 women who accused the famous ex-Jesuit mosaic artist, Marko Rupnik, of sexually abusing them.

The Jesuits believed the women, however. And they slapped tight restrictions on Rupnik's work, ministry, and travel.

When the celebrity priest-artist brazenly flouted them, his religious superiors kicked him out of the order.

Demands for full transparency in how Rupnik abuse cases were handled at the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) were always ignored.

And not a single Vatican official, including anyone at the Holy See Press Office, has ever addressed the issue - until last week when it was revealed that Rupnik was recently incardinated in the Diocese of Koper (Slovenia) as a priest in good standing.

Under intense media pressure, and with emerging signs on social media that many Catholics - including some the pope's most loyal supporters - were scandalised and angered by this new development in the ongoing Rupnik saga, the Vatican said Francis had instructed the DDF to re-open the Slovenian priest's abuse case.

Naturally, it did not acknowledge that the pope decided to do so because of the above-mentioned pressure and outrage. It does not matter.

It's regretful to have to say this, but we are long past expecting any real transparency in this pontificate - at least across the board and on a consistent basis.

You are probably asking what all this has to do with the Synod assembly and the next 11 months before its second session.

At least three issues seem to be at play here:

• the lack of transparency in the Church, especially from its leaders;
• the commitment of the Church, and especially the pope, to continue making the clergy sex abuse crisis a top priority;
• and how women are treated by an all-male clergy and hierarchy.

Priests sexually assaulting minors and vulnerable adults

The members of the Synod assembly could not even acknowledge in their "Letter to the People of God" that hundreds, certainly tens of thousands and perhaps even millions of people - minors and vulnerable adults - have been sexually abused by Catholic priests over the past 70 or so years alone.

The best they could muster in their anodyne text was to mention "victims of abuse committed by members of the ecclesial body".

Seriously? This was not a tough one. And it is extremely worrying that they could not even agree that the issue at hand is about priests sexually assaulting vulnerable people.

As for transparency, there was little of that from this first session of the Synod assembly.

Those of us who were not given access to the closed-door gatherings inside the Paul VI Hall - all but about 400 of the Catholic Church's reportedly 1.3 billion members - have no real idea how the discussions were even conducted.

Yes, the "method" was explained to us, but we were not able to witness even a few moments of it actually taking place.

The only things shared with the public were the occasional spiritual reflections, witness talks, theological mini-lectures and general introductions by the assembly's rapporteur.

It was very difficult to get the "feel" or sense of what was really going on in the discussions. We had to rely on participants who shared their "experiences" at press briefings.

And then there's the issue of women and the Church - what type of responsibility and ministry they are allowed to exercise and how they are treated by the male clerics.

This, in the minds of many serious Catholics, is the most crucial issue in the Church today, right up there with the clergy sex abuse crisis.

And, of course, the hierarchy's response to the Rupnik allegations (not believing or meeting with the women he allegedly abused and then putting him back in ministry after the Jesuits dismissed him) hits both issues!

The pope also did his part deflect attention away from the women's issue and focus it, instead, on the way the Church treats gays and lesbians, one of the other hot topics going into the October 4-29 assembly.

It did this by holding much-publicised private meetings with James Martin SJ and Jeannine Gramick SL, two icons of Catholic outreach to the LGBTQ+ community. Fine people, both of them.

And, yes, Jeannine is a woman, but the pope met her and two male officials of her organisation, "New Ways Ministry". It wasn't about her gender.

Trickle down synodality?

How all the above will affect the next 11 months, which Timothy Radcliffe OP - one of the assembly's spiritual directors - has likened to a gestation period or a pregnancy, is hard to say.

The final document is supposed to highlight themes that will require further and more in-depth reflection and discussion, as well as - one supposes - issues that are not on the table.

And where will such discussions take place? In universities, parishes, diocesan chanceries?

The two-session model of this Synod assembly - which actually began in October 2021 with a series of consultations that were held (theoretically) with all the members of the Church at the local, national and regional levels - has, at times, been likened to the process that unfolded during the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).

Preparations got under in various places around the world, beginning in early 1960.

Then the first session was held in autumn 1962 at the Vatican.

Between that and the next three sessions there were those liminal periods when the Council Fathers returned to their dioceses or religious communities and the theologian returned to their universities, academies or research centers.

It has been recognised that this helped bring the Council to the local level and engage Catholics in the work and spirit of Vatican II as it was unfolding.

The Synod fathers and mothers and all the other participants at this year's assembly will also return home for the next 11 months before returning in October 2024 for Round II of the "Synod on synodality", as the two-pronged assembly is often called.

But they will not be able to bring their experience from Synod assembly or engage local Catholics with it in the same way that those who participated in the Council were able to do.

For one thing, it's numerically impossible.

In theory, all the bishops of the world were at Vatican II. Most of them said they were transformed by their experience at the Council and they enthusiastically brought its vision and decisions back home to their priests and people.

Only a tiny percentage of the world's bishops are part of the Synod assembly.

Therefore, the vast majority of the world's dioceses have no direct personal connection to what happened in the Paul VI Hall this past month.

And because of the pope's insistence on a virtual media blackout, they have not had much other connection, either.

You may have heard the old saying "Will it play in Peoria?" It's often used in the United States to ask whether a product, idea or person will appeal to the mainstream, as it is reflected in so many places like this small, typically average city in Illinois.

We might ask the same question regarding the work of the Synod assembly.

The problem is that it can't play in the countless Peorias of the worldwide Church if it's never taken back to the people there.

And how likely is that to happen if their bishops - like the one in the real Peoria - are not part of the Synod assembly?

• Robert Mickens, LCI Editor in Chief, has lived, studied and worked in Rome for 30 years. His famous Letter From Rome, brings his unparalleled experience as senior Vatican correspondent for the London Tablet and founding editor of Global Pulse Magazine.
• First published in La Croix. Republished with permission.

The October 4-29 gathering inside the Vatican is just the first of two sessions of what is commonly called the "Synod on Synodality".

It will be followed up by another session in October of next year.

This initial meeting will include more than 400 participants and, for the first time in the Synod of Bishops' fifty-eight-year history, more than 50 women and a number of other laypersons will be full voting members.

Hopes and fears

Reform-minded and socially progressive Catholics are staking a lot of hope on these two gatherings, which will culminate a three-year process the pope launched in October 2021.

The object has been to involve all the baptised - especially the lay faithful - in a series of conversations at the local, national and regional levels on the future of the Church.

This ambitious exercise, which the "Vatican II" types have eagerly embraced, has been strongly criticized and even denounced by more traditional-minded and socially conservative Catholics.

And anecdotal evidence would suggest that a large percentage of the clergy, even some in the episcopate and College of Cardinals, are also less than enthusiastic about its purpose and possible outcome - that is, the specter of changing things, especially Church teaching and discipline.

Both fans and foes of the Synod are campaigning and lobbying hard to pressure the assembly's participants and Church officials to adopt their respective views.

A number of Catholic reform groups, almost entirely made up of laypeople, have even come to Rome.

They are there to

• push for changes such as the ordination of women to the diaconate and priesthood,
• Church blessings for same-sex couples,
• greater lay participation in the exercise of ecclesial governance,
• whole-scale reform of how candidates are selected and prepared for ministry, as well as how bishops are chosen…

Interestingly, neither the pope (who is the Synod's president) nor his aides in the Synod's general secretariat have forbidden people from raising these topics.

And this has given reform-minded Catholics a measure of hope that Church officials are actually open to considering the changes they are pushing for.

Sorry to say, but this is a false hope - at least at this juncture of the synodal process.

No one should expect any major changes in how the Church is currently dealing with the so-called hot-button issues.

This first session of the Synod assembly will certainly not resolve anything of the sort.

Synodality as the "backbone" of the Church's structure

That does not mean nothing will change.

Not at all.

In fact, much has already changed since 2013 when the cardinals elected history's first-ever pope who is a Jesuit and also the first to be born in the so-called "new world".

Francis, who will soon be 87, has largely overhauled the Synod of Bishops.

And if he's really serious about making synodality a constitutive part of Church's life, ministry and administration - as he's said he does -he must push on with the re-build.

And not only concerning the Synod but also the arcane monarchical governing structure of the Church.

Synodality cannot and will not work until major changes are made to address the anachronisms of that structure.

Cardinal Mario Grech, the Synod of Bishops' general secretary, has said almost as much.

In an in-depth profile the National Catholic Reporter's Chris White did on him, the 66-year-old Maltese cardinal suggested that no changes on particular Church issues could be made unless there were first changes to the ecclesial structure.

"A canon lawyer by training, he said the Vatican should put together a group of canonists, as well as theologians who are experts in the theology of canon law, to 'reflect how synodality can be the backbone of the structure' of the entire Church," White wrote in his profile on Grech.

The Synod of Bishops or just "the Synod"?

And this is where things get interesting.

To move in the direction the cardinal suggests would require further changes to the structure, purpose and authority of the Synod of Bishops itself.

One should note that the pope and his synodal allies, including Grech, have downplayed the fact that we are dealing with the "Synod of Bishops" - and not just "the Synod". Or are we?

The assembly that gets underway on October 4 is specifically called an assembly of the Synod of Bishops.

But in Praedicate Evangelium, the apostolic constitution Francis issued in March 2022 to reform the Roman Curia, the pope changed the name of the office Grech oversees from "the General Secretaritat of the Synod of Bishops" to simply "the General Secretariat of the Synod".

The Vatican's official yearbook, the Annuario Pontificio, had always put the secretariat under the heading "Sinodo dei Vescovi" (Synodus Episcoporum). But the most recent edition (2023) lists it under "Secreteria Generale del Sinodo" (Secrateria Generalis Synodi).

However, the Synod's formal name remains the Synod of Bishops.

It is more than possible that, at some point between now and the 16th ordinary general assesmbly's second session next October, the pope will formally change the name to simply "the Synod" and even make further changes to its competencies.

Do not think this is just a matter of semantics.

This first assembly sure looks like a move towards radically transforming an institution that Paul VI erected in 1965 to facilitate consultations between the Roman Pontiff and representatives of the worldwide episcopate into a body of discernment that includes representatives of all the Church's baptized members, laity and clergy alike.

Only one man decides

This is the necessary first step towards making synodality the "backbone" of the Church's governing structure, to use Cardinal Grech's phrase.

And it's a type of synodality that appears to be quite different from the Eastern Church model, which is still (with exceptions in but a few autocephalous Orthodox Churches) an almost strictly hierarchical and collegial body.

The model that Francis seems to be shaping looks more like a Churchwide assembly that is characteristic of Church of England's Synod but with a major distinction.

The Synod of Bishops has never enjoyed deliberative authority, though Paul VI stipulated that the pope could grant it such.

Up until now that has never been done.

The Roman Pontiff - who enjoys "supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power" (CIC can. 331) - can use it or discard as he wishes.

That brings us to a difficult question, which is probably too much for the pope and most other Catholic Church leaders even to consider: can there be true synodality if, in the end, only one man has the right to decide?

• Robert Mickens is La Croix International Editor.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

Unfortunately, most of their members around the globe - including the overwhelming majority of those belonging to the Catholic Church - seem to be completely unaware of this.

That's because it's a very recent observance. For Catholics, at least.

"The day after tomorrow, September 1st, we will celebrate the World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation, inaugurating the Season of Creation, which will last until 4 October, the feast of Saint Francis of Assisi," Pope Francis reminded those who attended his general audience last Wednesday at the Vatican, before setting off the next evening on his historic September 1-4 visit to Mongolia.

"The senseless war on our common home"

"Let us join our Christian brothers and sisters in the commitment to care for Creation as a sacred gift from the Creator," he told those gathered in the Paul VI Hall. And then he said this:

"It is necessary to stand with the victims of environmental and climate injustice, striving to put an end to the senseless war on our common home, which is a terrible world war.

"I urge all of you to work and pray for it to abound with life once again."

Francis also confirmed reports that he plans to publish "a second Laudato si'" at the end of the Season of Creation on his papal namesake's feast day.

Laudato si', of course, is the landmark 2015 encyclical on care for our common home" - i.e. care for Planet Earth and our natural environment.

We should probably expect that, in the new encyclical, the pope will expound on his concern over the "senseless war" we are waging on the planet.

Laudato si' has been enthusiastically welcomed by environmentalists and many people who may not be Catholic or even Christians, but who are deeply concerned about the current state of the environment, especially because of worrying issues such as climate change and global warming.

Unfortunately, far too many Catholic bishops and priests are still giving the 2015 encyclical a much cooler reception.

So, kudos to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops for highlighting the World Day of Prayer and the Season of Creation by prominently publishing a reflection on this year's theme - "Let Justice and Peace Flow" - on its website.

Hopefully, this will help nudge those Catholics who are skeptical of climate change, or those who believe environmental concerns have nothing to do with Christian faith, to reconsider their ambivalence towards Laudato si' and the urgency of the concerns it has put forth.

Francis, Bartholomew, and the World Council of Churches

Pope Francis, who will be 87 in December, has emerged as one of the leading voices in the global discussion on environmental issues.

That's because he is a true believer - not in environmentalism, but in God the Creator. He explains this beautifully and convincingly in his 2015 encyclical.

Being responsible stewards of creation, and being co-creators with God, are part and parcel of being a Christian. Indeed, it is the duty of every human being who lives in this "common home" called Earth.

Francis is not the first Roman pope to speak about our Christian responsibility to care for creation.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI also expressed their concerns. In fact, so did the Second Vatican Council in Gaudium et spes. But Francis is the first pope to issue an encyclical (and soon a second one) on the matter.

However, he is not the first Christian leader to systematically zero-in on environmental issues. That would be the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the "primus inter pares" of the Orthodox world.

It was the late Patriarch Dimitrios I who first instituted the World Day of Prayer for Creation in 1989.

He chose September 1st as the date of its annual observance.

Then the World Council of Churches (of which the Catholic Church is not a formal member) decided in 2007 to extend the observance up until the October 4th feast of St. Francis of Assisi, calling it the "Time of Creation".

"Called to promote stewardship of the network of life"

Shortly after issuing Laudato si', Pope Francis joined the other Christian communities and made the World Day of Prayer for Creation an official observance in the Catholic Church.

He said it would "offer individual believers and communities a fitting opportunity to reaffirm their personal vocation to be stewards of creation, to thank God for the wonderful handiwork which (God) has entrusted to our care, and to implore (God's) help for the protection of creation as well as (God's) pardon for the sins committed against the world in which we live".

The pope also pointed out that celebrating it on September 1st would also be "a valuable opportunity to bear witness to our growing communion with our Orthodox brothers and sisters".

But it wasn't until four years later that the pope took the first steps towards embracing the WCC-sponsored "Time of Creation".

In his message for the World Day of Prayer in 2019 he noted that, as "beloved creatures of God", we are called to live "in communion with the rest of creation".

And he said that "for this reason, I strongly encourage the faithful" to observe the "Season of Creation", which he called "a timely ecumenical initiative".

He said it was yet another "opportunity to draw closer to our brothers and sisters of the various Christian confessions", while stressing that, since we are in an "ecological crisis affecting everyone, we should also feel close to all other men and women of good will, called to promote stewardship of the network of life of which we are part".

A message from Mongolia

The papal trip to Mongolia may seem to have overshadowed the World Day of Prayer and the Season of Creation.

But in his very first address in the vast Central Asian country, which has been facing its own ecological problems, the pope praised the Mongolian people for their spiritual (he actually said philosophical) and practical attentiveness to nature and the environment with these words:

Your native wisdom, which has matured over generations of ranchers and planters respectful of the delicate balances of the ecosystem, speaks eloquently to those who in our own day reject the pursuit of myopic particular interests and wish instead to pass on to future generations lands that remain welcoming and fruitful.

You help us to appreciate and carefully cultivate what we Christians consider to be God's creation, the fruit of his benevolent design, and to combat the effects of human devastation by a culture of care and foresight reflected in responsible ecological policies...

Furthermore, the holistic vision of the Mongolian shamanic tradition, combined with the respect for all living beings inherited from Buddhist philosophy, can contribute significantly to the urgent and no longer deferrable efforts to protect and preserve planet Earth.

So the papal visit to Mongolia has not and will not overshadow the Season of Creation.

The pope's enduring legacy

Once Francis has returned to the Vatican from his long weekend visit, he will have plenty of opportunities to refocus attention on this time "for letting our prayer be inspired anew by closeness to nature", "to reflect on our lifestyles, and how our daily decisions about food, consumption, transportation, use of water, energy and many other material goods" and "for undertaking prophetic actions", as he described the opportunities the Season offered in his 2019 message.

That, by the way, was issued only four years ago.

That's like a nano-second in the life of the Catholic Church.

But seconds turn into minutes, and minutes into hours, eventually becoming decades and centuries.

If the pope's efforts to help us Catholics fully embrace our Christian (and human) "vocation to be stewards of creation" currently seem to be unrealizable, and even if many believers reject or oppose his efforts, do not lose heart.

When history is written many years from now, I'll wager that one of the enduring legacies of Francis's disruptive and dynamic pontificate will be the concrete initiatives he is now implementing to put the Catholic Church at the forefront in addressing climate change and environmental destruction and making it a leader in caring for all God's creatures and all God's creation.

• Robert Mickens is La Croix International's Editor-in-chief.
• First published in La Croix. Republished with permission.

[That's leaving aside Sixtus V. He's the hard-nosed pope who, in just five years (1585-1590), created the Roman Curia that still exists today in only slightly modified form, and the one who totally transformed the city of Rome. But why digress?]

Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli was elected to the Chair of Peter on October 28, 1958, and died less than five years later on June 3, 1963.

His lasting legacy can be summed up as Second Vatican Council.

John was already 77 years old and just three months into his short pontificate when he announced plans to hold the Council, catching many of the Church's cardinals and Vatican officials completely off guard.

The Good Pope, as many called him, got the conciliar ball rolling, but he only lived long enough to open the first of what would eventually be the Four Sessions of Vatican II.

He did that on October 11, 1962, a day that has been hailed as one of the most momentous in the modern history of Christianity.

And then, eight months later, he was gone.

An inspiration of the Holy Spirit

Pope John was beatified during the Great Jubilee of 2000 and officially declared a saint in 2014, did not change the Church dramatically during his four years and eight months as Supreme Pontiff.

That is, he did not make any significant modifications to Church practice or structures, even if he did strike a new and refreshing tone for Catholicism the world over.

Rather, it was the Council that he convened — through an inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he said — that began a process of reform in the Church more significant than anything since the 16th century Council of Trent.

John's process, which Paul VI tried in various ways to continue during his 15-year-long pontificate (not always successfully), was brought to port at some point during the long reign of John Paul II.

There is no doubt that Pope Francis is trying to revive the Vatican II project of reform that John XXIII set in motion. But sixty years after the Italian pope's death, some wonder if it might be too late.

The fervour to give new life to a more dynamic sort of "People's Church", as the late Vatican II enthusiast and chronicler Robert Blair Kaiser called it, is nowhere near as alive today as it was even twenty-five or thirty years ago.

The current pope's audacious gamble to make synodality (all the baptised — clergy and laity — "walking together") a constitutive part of the Church's very nature and reason for being has aroused great interest.

But that interest is found mainly among older Catholics — the so-called "Vatican II generation".

That's not to say that no young people have been involved in Francis' project.

It's just that, compared to those over the age of 60, they are in the minority.

To put this generational gap into context, consider that only one man alive today was a bishop at the time of John's death. He's 101-year-old José de Jesús Sahagún de la Parra of Mexico.

The temptation to turn back

It's no secret that the Catholic Church — like all the mainline Christian Churches and communities — is experiencing a drop in membership, a crisis in leadership, deep ideological divisions, and uncertainty about how to best carry out its "missionary" or "evangelising" presence in our rapidly and frighteningly changing societies.

So much has happened in the world and the Church during the 60 years since Pope John died that it's tempting to long for the good old days before everything became so uncertain, complicated, and unravelled.

And, honestly, going backwards is not only the temptation of traditionalist Catholics.

The so-called reform-minded types also tend, at times, to want to return to the old debates of the post-Vatican II period that they ended up on the wrong side of, and fight them all over again.

Meanwhile, the young people.... where are they?

Again, it's not like there are no longer any Catholics under the age of 50 or 60. But they are fewer and fewer in number.

That goes for those involved in the traditionalist groups in the Church, as well, which are just more clever and adroit than the "progressives" at marketing themselves as thriving communities, especially on social media.

But attempts to recapture or recreate a bygone era almost always end up badly.

There is no going back — not to the halcyon days of the 1960s Council nor the "golden age" of Catholicism that preceded it.

A prophet in his time

The God of history moves us forward.

Always.

Just read the history of salvation in the Hebrew scriptures, especially the story of the Exodus.

God freed the Israelites from their captivity in Egypt and led them into the desert.

There they would wander for 40 years before finally reaching the land God promised them.

All the while, they defied God and tried to find ways to turn back.

They did not trust in God's Word as it was spoken through the prophets, Moses chief among them.

Many believe that John XXIII was also a prophet in his time.

The Holy Spirit prompted him to move the Church forward just as the world — the one that "God so loved..." and still loves — was also moving forward.

But moving forward means we cannot take everything with us on the journey, only that which is essential, useful, and faithful to the mission.

We must let go of many things (including structures, procedures, and attitudes) that are collapsing, dying, and no longer relevant.

Yes, the journey the Church has been on these past six decades has been extremely rough and very uncertain at times.

We've probably stopped more times than we would like to admit.

And we've even turned back.

But this is all part of the plan of God, in the presence and workings of the Holy Spirit.

So as we remember Pope John with gratitude on the 60th anniversary of his death, let us also give thanks and lend a helping hand to Pope Francis, who is trying to move us forward once more.

"Saint John XXIII, pray for your Jesuit successor, and pray for the Church you served so faithfully."

• Robert Mickens is LCI Editor in Chief.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

But some self-appointed US Catholic intelligentsia members apparently agreed that, this year, it would start on March 13th.

That was the day we marked the 10th anniversary of Pope Francis' election to the papacy.

And while writers generally used the occasion to try to offer a balanced assessment of his decade in office, the super Catholic know-it-alls who don't like him decided it was time to turn their scopes on the 86-year-old pope.

"A Somber Anniversary," was the title of an article in First Things penned by George Weigel, the self-promoting "official biographer" of John Paul II.

"Pope Francis' Decade of Division," donned the piece Ross Douthat wrote in his regular column in the New York Times.

And Raymond Arroyo, host of the EWTN program "The World Over," egged on Cardinals Raymond Burke and Gerhard Müller as they complained about all the ills in Church over these past ten years.

The autocratic pope who is feared in the Vatican

Weigel, who has increasingly displayed his deep dislike for Francis and his pontificate, wrote a piece that was a scattershot of unverified accusations and laments.

He blasts the pope for allegedly creating "fear engendered by (his) systematic effort to deconstruct the legacy" of the late Polish pope in the field morality — sexual morality.

"The approach to the moral life that has dominated the 'synodal process' thus far is a flat-out rejection of the basic (and classic) structure of Catholic moral theology that undergirds the Polish pope's 1993 encyclical Veritatis splendor," Weigel says, "just as the deliberate ambiguities in the 2016 apostolic exhortation, Amoris laetitia, undercut John Paul II's teaching in the 1981 apostolic exhortation on marriage and the family, Familiaris consortio."

Perhaps Weigel, who is "distinguished senior fellow" at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington (DC), sees sexual morality in terms of black and white.

But that's not really the issue here.

His real beef is that Francis, even though he's the pope who canonized John Paul, refuses to support the uncritical hero-worship of the late pontiff that Weigel and his buddies have long been pushing.

We learn that some of those same pals are disgruntled officials in the Roman Curia.

"The prevailing mood in today's Vatican is one of trepidation," he says, claiming that even officials who actually support Francis' vision and policies are scared. "Because papal autocracy has created a miasma of fear, parrhesia (the "speaking freely" Francis encourages) is not the Roman order of the day, except in private," he alleges.

And Weigel would know, as he is part of the coterie of clergy and influential laity that privately gripe about Francis as they strategize to find a candidate to their ideological liking that can get elected to replace the Jesuit pope when the time comes.

The silent pope who is courting schism

This is not to say that Francis should be sheltered from criticism.

Not all at all.

Weigel is right to question the pope's record on sexual abuse, for instance, especially the pope's own involvement in the cases concerning the Slovenian Jesuit mosaic artist, Marko Rupnik.

But this "distinguished senior fellow" does not have a single good or kind word for Francis and his ten years in office.

And that is just unfair.

While he notes the pope's "efforts to display God's mercy in his public persona", he does not mean it as a compliment.

Weigel blasts Francis for creating a "slough of dysfunction" inside the Vatican by the "inconsistencies and contradictions in papal pronouncements and policy".

He says the pope who acts like an autocrat at home (and stomps on "the authority of American bishops to provide for the liturgical nourishment of some faithful Catholics"- that is, people who want the Old Latin Mass) is the same pope who allows Germany's bishops to "openly defy Roman authority".

Weigel claims that "much of institutional German Catholicism seems comfortable with apostasy", though nobody in Germany has suggested changing anything in the creed.

But, nonetheless, he claims that "schism is not out of the question".

His target is not the Germans, however. It is clearly Francis.

"The papal voice in response to this crisis is, at best, muted," Weigel says.

He saves the heavy artillery for the pope's

• continuous appointment of "bishops and cardinals who have a tenuous grasp on fundamental truths of the Catholic faith",
• his "imperious manner" of governing "with little concern for established procedure",
• and for dramatically diminishing the "Vatican's moral authority in world affairs" by his "inept papal commentary and Vatican policies that create the impression that the Church is abandoning her own".
• And, as expected, Weigel pulls out some of his old ammunition for what he calls the pope's "kowtow to the Marxist mandarins of the People's Republic of China"...

"George Weigel's column is syndicated by the Denver Catholic, the official publication of the Archdiocese of Denver," readers are informed.

This is not surprising, given that its archbishop, Sam Aquila, has called Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò — the former papal nuncio to Washington who continues to demand that Pope Francis resign — "a man of deep faith and integrity".

Tellingly, Aquila issued no statement on the occasion of the pope's 10th anniversary. At least he had the good sense to keep his mouth shut.

The cruel pope who is dividing the Church

Meanwhile, in the pages of the venerable old Gray Lady, the New York Times, Ross Douthat says the "Catholic right has started a civil war" in the Church, but he insists that this is "a consequence of the specific ways that Francis has pursued his liberalization, rather than just a reflexive opposition to anything outside their comfort zone".

Douthat, who calls himself a "conservative Catholic", is an excellent writer.

But he's a no theologian.

Douthat repeats the longstanding lament of his tribe that Francis causes confusion.

He says the pope's attempted "strangulation" of the Tridentine Mass was "micro managerial cruelty".

Worst of all, he links to a nasty article by British writer Damian Thompson, lending credibility to this tortured soul's malicious attacks on the pope, which are full of innuendos, half-truths and outright lies.

"Seen now at its 10-year milestone, then, this pontificate hasn't just faced inevitable resistance because of its zeal for reform," Douthat says in his final lines.

"It has needlessly multiplied controversies and exacerbated divisions for the sake of an agenda that can still feel vaporous, and its choices at every turn have seemed to design to create the greatest possible alienation between the Church's factions, the widest imaginable gyre."

The only thing Douthat gets right in this last sentence is that there is a great alienation between the Church's factions. But it is wrong to take aim at Francis and accuse him of deliberately causing it.

Obviously, for one side of this ecclesial divide it's now open season on the pope.

• Robert Mickens is LCI Editor of La Croix International.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

The pope, on February 20, ordered the Dicastery for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (DDWDS) to publish a rescript that says bishops must get Vatican approval before they allow priests in their dioceses to celebrate the Old Latin Mass.

The new rescript and a DDWDS letter to bishops in December 2021 were issued to help clarify and properly implement Traditionis custodes, the "motu proprio" Francis published in July 2021.

That text reversed Summorum Pontificum, a "motu proprio" from 2007 in which Benedict XVI invented the novel idea that there could actually be "two forms of the one Roman Rite" — one called extraordinary (pre-Vatican II) and the other ordinary (post-Vatican II). This theo-linguistical sleight of hand basically allowed for the perpetuation of a rite that had been completely re-ordered and reformed.

Stomping on the authority of local bishops?

When Traditionis custodes came out, traditionalists were furious with the current pope and now they are even angrier with him over the new rescript.

They and certain commentators who continue to look for any opportunity to discredit him have accused Francis of stomping on the rightful authority that local bishops have to regulate the liturgy in their respective dioceses.

Such accusations have no merit whatsoever.

In fact, it was Benedict XVI who took such authority away from the bishops when he issued Summorum Pontificum, which stipulated that a priest required "no permission from the Apostolic See or his own ordinary" to celebrate in the Tridentine Rite.

Moreover, the late pope put the now-defunct Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" in charge of regulating — and, it turned out, "promoting" — use of the Old Rite everywhere throughout the world.

This commission was established in 1988 to facilitate a return of traditionalists who had followed the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre into schism.

Thankfully, Pope Francis disbanded the "Ecclesia Dei" Commission in 2019.

Andrea Grillo, professor at the Pontifical Liturgical Institute at Sant'Anselmo in Rome, went even further to debunk the ideas that Francis had curtailed the authority of local bishops.

He noted that such authority is to regulate the Church's liturgy (ritual) in their territories.

But that ritual is only the current reformed Mass. Traditionis custodes, Grillo explained, abolished the fictitious ritual dualism of the so-called extraordinary and ordinary forms.

"The Council Fathers perceived the urgent need for a reform"

Thus, there is only one rite.

Anything that deviates from that — which is what the Tridentine Mass does — is an exception and that is why it must be approved by the Apostolic See.

Its use should also be rare, as Paul VI (and most bishops at Vatican II) envisioned when the late pope begrudgingly conceded to requests immediately following the liturgical reform that elderly priests be allowed to continue celebrating with the last (1962) edition of the unreformed Roman Rite.

The bishops who attended Vatican Council II voted overwhelmingly in support of the constitution on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, which begins with these words:

This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever-increasing vigour to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council, therefore, sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy (SC, 1).

Cardinal Arthur Roche, the DDWDS prefect, reiterated this in his December 2021 letter to bishops around the world.

"One fact is undeniable," he said.

"The Council Fathers perceived the urgent need for a reform so that the truth of the faith as celebrated might appear ever more in all its beauty, and the People of God might grow in full, active, conscious participation in the liturgical celebration," the cardinal stated, making specific reference to Sacrosanctum Concilium, 14.

Not all the bishops — indeed not all Catholics — were pleased with how the liturgical reform turned out in the end.

But no one could have imagined that 50 years later, a Roman Pontiff would allow a tiny group of people — Catholics with fundamental disagreements over the general thrust of Vatican II and even specific reforms stemming from it — to live in a parallel liturgical (and ecclesiological) universe within the Church, and even allow them to promote its further spread.

Thankfully, another Roman Pontiff has moved to phase out this anomaly completely. Because, pure and simple, it was never the intention of Vatican Council II that it exist in the first place.

• Robert Mickens is LCI Editor in Chief.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

The Australian cardinal, who died of a heart attack on January 10, has been described by friends and admirers as a "great leader", a "white martyr" and "courageous".

However, when Pell levelled that attack against Pope Francis less than a year ago in a lengthy screed that he sent to all the Church's cardinals, he showed just how courageous he really was - by issuing it under a pseudonym.

It was published last March by Italian journalist Sandro Magister who, after Pell's death, revealed that this "memorandum on the next conclave" was indeed the cardinal's handiwork.

Among other things, it lambasts the Jesuit pope for causing confusion. "Previously it was: 'Roma locuta. Causa finita est.' Today it is: 'Roma loquitur. Confusio augetur'," Pell says.

And he criticises the pope for remaining silent on a number of moral issues, including the Church in Germany's push to bless same-sex unions, ordain women priests and offer communion to the divorced and remarried.

The cardinal was 81 when he died and, thus, he was already disqualified from voting in a conclave to elect Francis' successor.

But that did not stop him from trying to influence the election, as the purpose of the memorandum makes clear.

In fact, Pell was one of the main ringleaders among those in the hierarchy who quickly soured on the Argentine pope.

The big and blunt Australian led the quiet, behind-the-scenes effort to identify an electable papal successor who - as he notes in the memorandum - would "restore normality, restore doctrinal clarity in faith and morals, restore a proper respect for the law and ensure that the first criterion for the nomination of bishops is acceptance of the apostolic tradition".

"The Holy Father has little support among seminarians and young priests"

The late cardinal had a loyal following that includes traditionalists and the doctrinally inflexible (certainly in the English-speaking world), especially among the younger clergy and those who are being prepared to join their ranks.

He states this quite matter-of-factly in his diatribe against the current pope.

"The Holy Father has little support among seminarians and young priests," he claims. There is, of course, ample anecdotal evidence and even certain surveys that support this.

Pell says this "wide-spread disaffection exists in the Vatican Curia", as well.

This poses a major problem for Pope Francis and his vision for reforming the Church.

While most ordinary Catholics around the world are probably not emotionally or ideologically invested in the same issues or concerns that so troubled Pell; and while these Catholics generally have a favourable or even highly favourable view of the current pope; it will be extremely hard to implement Francis' vision and reforms if the Church's clerical workforce is not on board.

Indeed, this unmarried, all-male clergy has become - in many ways - a major obstacle to spreading the Gospel itself, especially in the dynamically evangelical and missionary style that the pope spells out in Evangelii gaudium, his 2013 apostolic exhortation that reads like a blueprint for a revitalized and reformed Catholic Church.

The open, inviting, merciful, non-judgmental, journeying Church of imperfect people that stumbles along trying to discern how to more faithfully love God and embrace and care for all God's creation (its people, other living creatures and our "common home" the earth), is seen as anathema to those who think like Pell.

The late cardinal accuses Francis of watering down the "Christo-centricity" of Church teaching.

"Christ is being moved from the centre," he says, an incredible charge against a man who is probably one of the most radically evangelical popes ever.

Pell says Francis "even seems to be confused about the importance of a strict monotheism, hinting at some wider concept of divinity; not quite pantheism, but like a Hindu panentheism variant". Pell's clerical admirers — as well as those Catholic layfolk that are just as traditionalist and sectarian — agree with that assessment.

Return to a more ancient custom

The synodal process the pope has opened up in the Church — which he clearly wants to be a permanent and constitutive part of ecclesial life, ministry and governance — cannot fully take root or succeed if a significant portion of the Church's ordained ministers do not embrace and support it.

The only real option the pope has to try at least to make sure they do is by expanding the pool of candidates for the diaconate and presbyterate (ordained priesthood).

Without introducing any sort of novelty, and returning to its more ancient custom, the Church should re-open the presbyterate to married men in addition to (and not necessarily in substitution of) those who have the charism and ability to profess life-long celibacy.

The Church should also return to the ancient custom of ordaining women to the diaconate.

As it currently stands, limiting the ordained ministry to just one tiny subset of the People of God no longer serves whatever good purpose the creation of an unmarried and all-male clerical caste system might have originally had.

It needs to be scrapped because the pool of candidates right now is far too shallow and, in manifest ways, alarmingly putrid.

But you can be sure that any such changes would be met with the stiffest resistance - by certain cardinals, many bishops and a whole lot of priests and seminarians.

Most of them would fight to preserve, intact, the special club for which God has "set them apart" from the rest of the baptized members of the Body of Christ.

"Just men, just priests... What a wonderful time!"

Cardinal Robert Sarah, the 77-year-old retired Vatican official from Guinea and another traditionalist icon, revealed just how much the current clerical model is cherished as he shared his memories about Benedict XVI with the French daily Le Figaro immediately after late pope's recent funeral.

"I remember the Year for Priests that he decreed in 2009," Sarah began.

"The pope wanted to underline the theological and mystical roots of the life of priests."

And then the cardinal vividly recalled the "magnificent vigil in St. Peter's Square" to conclude the year-long event with these words:

The setting sun flooded Bernini's colonnade with golden light. The square was full.

But unlike usual, there were no families and no nuns - just men, just priests.

When Benedict XVI arrived in the popemobile, with one heart everyone began to acclaim him, calling him by his name.

It was striking to hear all these male voices chanting "Benedetto" in unison.

The pope was very moved.

When he turned back to the crowd after stepping onto the stage, his tears were flowing. The prepared speech was brought to him, which he left aside, and he freely answered questions. What a wonderful time!

The wise father teaching his children.

It was like time was suspended. Benedict XVI confided in them. That evening he had definitive words on priestly celibacy. Then the evening ended with a long moment of adoration before the Blessed Sacrament...

A wonderful time, indeed.

Just men, just priests. And among them admirers of cardinals such as Pell, Sarah and a number of others - just men, just priests; those who form the stiffest opposition to Pope Francis and his effort to reform the Church.

• Robert Mickens is LCI Editor in Chief. First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

Ratzinger was born in 1927 on Holy Saturday in the final hours of the Easter Triduum. He died nearly 96 years later on the morning of New Year's Eve, the penultimate day of the Christmas Octave.

And the funeral Mass and burial of the "pope emeritus" — a title he invented for himself in 2013 when he resigned — was to take place on the day before the Epiphany. All very fitting for a man who put the Catholic liturgy at the forefront of his life.

As his body lay in state in St. Peter's Basilica, tens of thousands of Christian pilgrims and tourists in Rome for the holidays joined the Catholic clergy, religious, and civic leaders to pay their last respects to the man whom many will remember as "B16".

What has the pope said?

The pope — that is, Pope Francis — was the one who first alerted people that his retired Bavarian predecessor was gravely ill. That was just three days before Benedict's death on December 31.

But in the initial days after the death, Francis said very little about the man who preceded him as Bishop of Rome (2005-2013).

The 86-year-old pope spoke on three occasions — during Vespers on New Year's Eve, and then at morning Mass and the noonday Angelus on January 1. He remembered Benedict each time.

"Speaking of kindness, at this moment, my thought naturally goes to dear pope emeritus Benedict XVI who left us this morning," Francis said at that Vesper service.

"We are moved as we recall him as such a noble person, so kind. And we feel such gratitude in our hearts: gratitude to God for having given him to the Church and to the world; gratitude to him for all the good he accomplished, and above all, for his witness of faith and prayer, especially in these last years of his recollected life. Only God knows the value and the power of his intercession, of the sacrifices he offered for the good of the Church," the pope concluded.

He remembered Benedict again the next morning at Mass for the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God, with these very brief words: "We entrust beloved Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI to our Most Holy Mother, that she will accompany him on his journey from this world to God."

Then Francis offered these thoughts at the Angelus: "At this time, let us invoke (Mary Most Holy's) intercession especially for Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI who left this world yesterday morning. Let us all join together, with one heart and one soul, in thanking God for the gift of this faithful servant of the Gospel and of the Church. We saw recently on TV, the 'Sua Immagine' program, all that he did and the life of Pope Benedict."

Business as usual

Then there was a fourth occasion, Francis' general audience on Wednesday, the day before the funeral.

He once again mentioned Benedict at the outset, calling him "a great master of catechesis" whose "acute and gentle thought was not self-referential, but ecclesial".

But then, the Jesuit pope put his predecessor aside and began the final lesson of his catechetical cycle on discernment. It seemed sort of odd — and even surreal — that, like Saturday and Sunday, Francis gave Benedict what amounted to an "honourable mention" and then continued on with his prepared remarks without any further reference to the former pope.

After Vespers on New Year's Eve, he surprised his aides by changing protocol at the last minute.

He was supposed to be taken by the "popemobile" from the basilica to visit the Nativity scene in St Peter's Square, but he had his butler push in his wheelchair the entire distance across the cobbled-stoned square, passing through several thousand cheering tourists and visitors.

It was almost to say, "There is just one pope. And, fear not, it is I."

Francis took a break from public appointments on Monday and then resumed his normal schedule of activities the following day, holding meetings and audiences with individuals and groups.

He also went ahead with his Wednesday general audience.

It must be said in Francis' defence that the manner in which Benedict decided to live out his retirement — continuing to wear white and call himself "pope emeritus" — created an ambiguity that has lingered even in these recent days.

Not a few reporters continued to wonder how the established protocols for deceased popes would be applied to Benedict, forgetting that he was no longer the pope when he died.

But he certainly gave new life to the title "emeritus", which is now being used more and more by people who have retired or stepped down from all sorts of roles or professions.

It's become so bemusing that a friend jokingly referred to his "ex" as his "wife emerita".

Who's expected at Benedict's funeral?

The Vatican announced early on that it had invited only Germany and Italy to send official delegations to Benedict's funeral.

It said political leaders and government officials from other countries were welcome to attend, but only in a private capacity without being accorded the normal protocols and security details usually reserved for official visits.

Nonetheless, some big names — bluebloods and political conservatives in Europe — planned to attend the funeral Mass.

And that makes sense since Benedict XVI was the last Old World pope and believed firmly that the classic European philosophical and cultural tradition was part and parcel of Christianity.

Here are just a few of the people who will be attending the funeral in a private capacity:

• Sofia of Greece and Denmark, the former Queen of Spain
• King Philippe of Belgium
• President Andrzej Duda of Poland
• President Marcelo Nuno Duarte Rebelo de Sousa of Portugal
• President Katalin Novak of Hungary
• President Nataša Pirc Musar of Slovenia

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his wife came to Rome early in the week to pay their last respects to Benedict lying in state, but they were not expected to stay for his funeral.

Meanwhile, a number of European countries are sending government ministers, while most nations will be represented by their current ambassador to the Holy See.

There will be numerous ecumenical delegations on hand, too.

The various Orthodox Churches, which held Joseph Ratzinger and his theology in high regard, will have the most representatives at his funeral.

Naturally, a high number of the Roman Church's cardinals are expected to be attending, as well as heads of national episcopal conferences from around the world. And, of course, numerous other bishops, priests and woman and men religious — as well as ordinary Catholics — will be in St. Peter's Square on Thursday.

The funeral: "simple, solemn and sober"

Ratzinger, who was extremely devoted to the Church's liturgy, requested that his funeral be "simple, solemn and sober", according to the Holy See Press Office director, Matteo Bruni.

And since he died a former pope, the liturgy will be slightly different from that for a pope who died in office.

But only slightly so.

The major difference is that the actual pope, Francis, will be presiding.

Normally, the College of Cardinals's dean presides at a dead pope's funeral. But, again, the one who died was no longer pope. The confusion, however, does not end there.

Forgive the insistence on clarity, but it must be pointed out that the men in charge of the papal liturgies have caused more confusion with their sloppy use of terminology.

In the Order of Service for Benedict's funeral they indicate Pope Francis as the "presider" and "celebrant".

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re is listed as "the cardinal at the altar".

What?

The other clerics — cardinals, bishops and priests — are called "concelebrants", forgetting that everyone in the assembly is actually "celebrating".

The muddle is due to the fact that Francis is unable to stand at the altar and preside at the Eucharistic liturgy, so someone else has to do that for him.

Another "Santo Subito"? A Doctor of the Church?

But this is not all that alarming compared to another more serious matter.

And that is the calls for Benedict to be proclaimed "Santo Subito" (i.e. to be made a saint immediately), as happened in 2005 at the funeral of John Paul II. Benedict's longtime personal secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, was the one who first said that he believes "it will go this way".

In fact, at the end of the Wednesday general audience, a group of young people began chanting "Santo Subito! Benedetto!"

That elicited a few scattered boos.

Then there are those who are calling for Joseph Ratzinger to be made a Doctor of the Church.

One of them is Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, the former president of the Italian Bishops' Conference.

"I hope he will soon be declared a Doctor of the Church," he told the Turin-based daily La Stampa.

"Like the star of Bethlehem, Benedict XVI will continue to point the way to Jesus to the pastors of our time," he said.

"I place Benedict XVI among the greats, as Doctor of the Church, a Church Father," Austrian Cardinal Christophe Schönborn told Corriere della Sera.

"We will remember Joseph Ratzinger in the 20th century as we remember John Henry Newman in the 19th and Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventura in the 13th centuries," the 77-year-old Dominican said.

Among Ratzinger's various characteristics was his insistence that faith and reason must go hand-in-hand.

But some of his most illustrious admirers seem to have lost their sense of reason or, at least, their sense of perspective.

At least Cardinal Walter Kasper, another German theologian who often sparred with the late pope, seemed to have kept his head on this one.

"I'm not really in favour of 'Santo Subito'," the 89-year-old cardinal told Il Giornale.

"I think we need more time; times teaches us many things. Then, we'll see... if it's possible."

Until then, may Benedict XVI rest in peace and finally contemplate the face of God, as he so much desired throughout his long life.

• Robert Mickens is LCI Editor in Chief. First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

He showed early on that he had no intention of merely reciting prepared speeches or sticking to the stodgy old Vatican script pertaining to protocols and ceremonies.

In fact, over this past decade, we've all gotten used to a chatty pope who seasons almost every address he delivers (that is, when he actually reads them) with some aside or impromptu remark, often using the salty language of the working class.

At times he also throws out a word or phrase of his own invention, something the pundits call (after the Jesuit pope's family name) "Bergoglisms".

This often drives officials in the Roman Curia absolutely crazy, while it greatly delights almost everyone else. Well, not everyone. And not all the time.

Francis pokes the bear

Several days ago Francis raised the ire of officials in Russia by a comment he made about the Ukrainian war in one of his latest interviews. (Yes, this is also the pope who does interviews — lots of interviews.)

This time it was with America, the US Jesuit-run magazine based in Midtown Manhattan.

"How would you explain your position on this war to Ukrainians, or Americans and others who support Ukraine?" the pope was asked.

"When I speak about Ukraine, I speak about the cruelty because I have much information about the cruelty of the troops that come in," he said.

In hindsight, it's clear that he should have stopped there. But he did not.

"Generally, the cruellest are perhaps those who are of Russia but are not of the Russian tradition, such as the Chechens, the Buryats and so on," said the 85-year-old pope.

Sergei Lavrov, the Kremlin's foreign minister, wasted no time in voicing displeasure with the pope's remarks.

"Pope Francis calls for talks but also recently made an incomprehensible statement, completely un-Christian, singling out two Russian nationalities into some category from which atrocities can be expected during hostilities," he said.

"Of course, this doesn't help the cause and the authority of the Holy See," he added.

Whoa!

A card from the pope's own hand

It's not clear what the pope was thinking.

But some analysts believe he may have been trying to help reopen the Vatican's line of communications with the Russian Orthodox Church, which has largely been jammed up by the two Churches' difference of opinion over Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Most people from Chechnya are Muslims, while a strong Buddhist ethos exists in the mainly non-denominational Buryatia (a Siberian republic near Mongolia) where just over a quarter of the population is Orthodox.

Or perhaps Francis continues to believe — contrary to all historical evidence — that the Holy See can play some kind of role in facilitating talks between Ukraine and Russia.

By singling out two ethnic minorities, he may have thought his comments would show proof of his esteem for the Russian people.

But un-Christian? The Vicar of Jesus Christ?

Lavrov, who has the build of a rugby player but is the savviest of diplomats, must have pounced on the chance to use that card because it came straight out of the pope's hand.

Recall that it was Francis who said, in reference to Donald Trump during the 2016 US presidential campaign, that "a person who only thinks of building walls... is not Christian".

More Russian indignation

Lavrov was not the only Russian infuriated by the pope's comments about the Chechen and Buryat perpetrators.

"I expressed indignation at such insinuations and noted that nothing can shake the cohesion and unity of the multinational Russian people," said Alexander Avdeev, the Kremlin's ambassador to the Holy See.

Russian anger — whether it was sincere or just choreographed as well as a ballet at the Bolshoi Theater — apparently did not stop there.

Many sections of the Vatican's main web portal (.va) were mysteriously inaccessible for nearly two days last week and there's suspicion that it may have been caused by a Russki cyber-attack.

There are Vatican officials and others who will say that this latest "un-holy row" with Russia (as one media outlet called it) would never have happened if Francis had not given yet another interview.

The Argentinian pope, who seemingly had little time for journalists when he was the cardinal-archbishop of Buenos Aires, now grants interviews almost as willingly as he hands out rosaries at papal audiences.

And he almost always arranges these sit-downs on his own, usually without even informing the Vatican's communications department.

Mary McAleese incensed by pope's "misogynistic drivel"

But the segment on Russia was not the only part of America's interview with Pope Francis that caused a stir.

Mary McAleese, who served as president of Ireland from 1997-2011, was especially incensed by the manner in which the pope justified the Catholic Church's exclusion of women from the priesthood.

"It was reassuring and gratifying to observe the utter impenetrability of the reasons you offered, their ludicrous lack of logic or clarity, in short the fact that you offered just more unlikely misogynistic drivel," she reportedly told Francis in an email sent to the Vatican.

The 71-year-old McAleese, who has a doctorate in canon law from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, has strongly criticized the pope on women's (and other) issues before.

But in fairness to her, Francis was somewhat rambling in his comments this time, and his logic was not crystal clear.

Basically, he was trying to say — as far as I can understand — that there is a "Petrine principle", which concerns the Church's ministry, and a "Marian principle", which concerns its femininity, and that is "where the Church sees a mirror of herself because she is a woman and a spouse".

It could have been a problem of translation since the pope spoke in Spanish.

But that seems unlikely given that there was an Argentinian fluent in English who served as translator.

And in any case, Francis made other "interesting" remarks during this interview, as well. For instance, he said: "Jesus never created a bishops' conference. He created bishops."

There are probably at least a few scripture scholars and one or two theologians who would ask him to explain that a bit more.

A wider problem

To be fair to the pope, he said some really good and encouraging things in this recent interview.

But he also repeated much of the stuff that he's already said on numerous other occasions, like comparing abortion to hiring a hitman.

Repetition is not necessarily a bad thing.

In fact, it can be an effective pedagogical tool.

And it's also true that not everyone tracks the pope like the journalists who are assigned to cover him. So it's probably wise for him to repeat some of the things he feels are important to every single audience or group of people he encounters.

But recently, Francis seems a bit "off his game", as it were.

He's begun making impromptu comments that are not always that clear or articulate.

For instance, he gave a rambling, off-the-cuff talk on November 12 to members of the Dicastery for Communication that was hard to make sense of.

And in an aside while addressing the International Theological Commission (ITC) on November 24, he offered what he called an historical example of "indietrismo" in the Church — a Bergoglism that means always looking to the past and believing nothing should change because "we have always done it this way".

The pope actually gave what seemed to be a counter-example.

He pointed out an unnamed group that separated from Rome after the First Vatican Council (presumably the Old Catholics) because they were "trying to be faithful to tradition" but then ended up ordaining women.

That's hardly a group that says, "We've always done it this way."

Something's off-centre

To be absolutely clear, none of this is to suggest that the pope's mental faculties are slipping.

There are days when his voice is especially strong, and he expresses himself as articulately as ever.

He has amazing stamina and is extremely "on the ball" for a man who will be 86 years old in just a few days (December 17).

On the other hand, he is going to be 86. And he keeps up a schedule that even a man (or woman) half his age would find very challenging to follow.

There is also the factor of his physical health.

We have never been given exact information on what exactly ails him or what sort of medication he may be taking.

The Vatican has never issued any clinical data on this.

All we have is the pope's own non-clinical description of his health issues, such as dealing with a sciatic nerve problem and a knee ailment.

Francis is extremely private about health matters, and that must be respected.

But something seems to have changed in his demeanour since July 2021, when he had major intestinal surgery.

He sometimes appears to be less focused than before.

And it is obvious that he is dealing with physical pain, which can alter a person's mood.

It can also affect one's prayer life.

The late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago said that after he had a serious cancer operation, he "wanted to pray, but the physical discomfort was overwhelming".

He told some friends who came to visit him in the hospital: "Pray when you're well, because if you wait until you're sick you might not be able to do it" (The Gift of Peace, Loyola Press 1997).

Francis has always impressed me as a man of deep, contemplative prayer; someone who is centred and focused.

It's said that his longstanding practice is to spend a few hours, early in the morning, alone in prayer.

But I wonder if whatever it is that ails him has interrupted this practice and forced him to change his normal prayer rhythm and routine. Because he seems to have changed.

All the more reason to willingly take up the request the pope makes every time he speaks, whether he's reading a text or making impromptu remarks.

And that request is this: "Please pray for me."

• Robert Mickens is LCI Editor in Chief.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

Those who fiercely criticize the Synodal Path that the Catholic Church in Germany embarked upon in 2019 — and even those who enthusiastically support it — cannot deny that the Jesuit pope is responsible.

The only reason the Germans have been able to spend the past three years discussing carefully-argued proposals for major Church reforms — hardly any that are deemed acceptable by the vast majority of officials in the Vatican — is because Francis has allowed them to do so.

Benedict XVI and John Paul II would have never even considered or tolerated it. That should be clear to everyone.

It doesn't matter if one agrees with what the Germans are proposing — which includes the option for priests to marry; the inclusion of women at all levels of ecclesial governance and ministry; and a comprehensive review and reformulation of the Church's teaching on human sexuality, to name just the most salient points.

Whether one supports such changes or not makes little difference.

The horse has already bolted.

And now it's going to be near impossible for Francis to simply ignore the Germans' proposals out of hand without giving the impression that all his talk about synodality has been nothing but a sham.

He and everybody else know that.

That's also because the Catholics of Germany aren't the only ones who see the urgent need for a serious reform of the Church and not — as Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State, called it — a reform in the Church.

He warned the German bishops during their Nov. 14-18 "ad limina visit" to heed the distinction.

And, indeed, it is a crucial one.

An intuition that opened pandora's box

But unlike the Italian cardinal (who has often been touted as a leading candidate to succeed Francis) and his confreres in the Roman Curia, the Germans have seen clearly that structural change is the real issue.

They are aware that the Church's current institutional model and structures are no longer fit for purpose.

The imperial-monarchical paradigm is long outdated and anachronistic.

It is also unsustainable and has increasingly become a burdensome impediment to promoting authentic Christian witness, discipleship and the spread of the gospel.

Perhaps Pope Francis is not fully 100% convinced of this, but he seems to at least intuit it.

Why else would he open up the pandora's box that synodality has proved itself to be in various ways?

The pope has his own personal limitations, like all of us, but one thing he is not, and that is stupid.

He can take the pulse of a room very quickly, even the pulse of the global living room where the proverbial elephants are lurking.

He knows very well that Catholics all over the world want things to change and he's urging them to explain what they think the changes should be.

When he refused to accept the proposal to ordain married men to the presbyterate, which was overwhelmingly approved in October 2019 by bishops attending the so-called Amazon Synod, it caused deep disappointment and even anger among many.

But that refusal did not close the debate.

If anything, it has only provoked more insistent calls to make clerical celibacy optional, as revealed by the Synodal Path (which the Germans began in December 2019) and the recent synodal consultations with Catholics around the world.

Bishop Bätzing stands up to Vatican cardinals

But the top officials in the Roman Curia made it clear during the German bishops' "ad limina" that they expect their confreres north of the Alps to put the brakes on what they see as a run-away train.

French-Canadian Cardinal Marc Ouellet, head of the Dicastery for Bishops, even urged them to impose a moratorium on the Synodal Path, which is supposed to have its final session next March.

The response of Bishop Georg Bätzing, president of the German Bishops' Conference (DBK), was a polite but firm, "Nein, danke!"

It was impressive the way the 61-year-old bishop of Limburg stood up to the Vatican bureaucrats.

Despite the fact that he never studied in Rome, he did not seem at all intimidated by their attempts to use the old curia tactic of playing strong with the weak.

Bätzing showed no sign of weakness.

Just read the English translation of his opening remarks at the Nov. 18 meeting on the Synodal Path that he and his fellow countrymen held with Ouellet, Parolin and Cardinal Luis Ladaria SJ (Dicastery for Doctrine).

Right at the start the DBK leader pointed out that "the Synodal Presidium consists of two bishops and two lay people" and lamented that "essential persons" of the Synodal Path — the lay delegates — were not invited to Rome for the talks.

"And that is why our reflections, discussions, shared perspectives and possibly directions are subject to being discussed, communalised and appropriated with all those involved in the Synodal Path," he said.

In other words, he told the Vatican officials that he and his fellow bishops would agree to nothing without the consent of their lay partners.

"We urge you to listen to us in this plight."

The bishop was also unafraid to state the perplexity many German Catholics felt by the letter Pope Francis sent them in June 2019 to offer some guidelines and cautionary notes in the run-up to the Synodal Path.

"It has caused surprise that the pope's letter does not refer to the actual starting point of the Synodal Path, namely sexual abuse, the inadequate handling of it by Church authorities, the cover-up by bishops and also the continuing lack of transparency shown by Roman authorities in dealing with it," he said.

The Church "gambled away a lot of trust and credibility" as a result of the abuse crisis, Bishop Bätzing pointed out.

"We will only gain new trust if there is a major change in the way we exercise our ministry, involving clergy, religious and laity in decision-making and decision-taking in a serious and tangible way. And this not only applies to the Church in our country but also to the universal Church," he added.

"We urge you to listen to us in this plight," Bätzing pleaded.

Or was it a warning?

A contribution to the entire Church

He then batted back the numerous criticisms that thus far have been levelled at the Germans and their Synodal Path, whether by people at the Vatican or other more doctrinally rigid (conservative) Catholics.

For instance, he refuted accusations that the Germans were flirting with schism or looking to set up a national Church, even taking umbrage at such a suggestion.

"I am saddened by the power this word (schism) has acquired, with which one tries to deny us catholicity and the will to stay united with the universal Church. Unfortunately, this also includes the rather inaccurate comparison with a 'good Protestant Church'," the DBK president said.

That comparison, unfortunately, was actually made by the pope himself.

"No new Church is being founded, but the decisions of the Synodal Path ask, based on Holy Scripture, Tradition and the last Council, how we can be Church today — missionary and dynamic, encouraging and present, serving people and helping one another," Bishop Bätzing told the Vatican representatives.

He insisted that Germany's Catholics want only to "contribute to the conversation" going on in the entire Church.

The next several months

So what happens next?

Pope Francis has sometimes given mixed signals but has mostly voiced some of the same concerns the Synodal Path's critics expressed.

Nonetheless, he has not stepped in to halt the process.

At the last minute, it seems, he even decided not to attend the Nov. 18 meeting between the German bishops and his Vatican aides. That was likely done to give the participants full freedom to hash out their difference — and for him to remain above the fray.

The Synodal Path is scheduled to hold its final session in just four months' time.

Obviously, there are those, including many Vatican officials, who would like to see the pope step in and impose the moratorium that Cardinal Ouellet had suggested.

But that would be seen in Germany, and in many other quarters, as the atomic option. And it would likely create a disaster, leaving damage impossible to repair.

That's because many, if not most, of the reforms that Catholics in Germany are demanding, are the same ones that believers in more docile parts of the Church are also embracing.

Over these months leading up to October 2023 and the international Synod assembly here in Rome, many will be following the movement of the Synodal Path to see if the changes it's pushing for gain greater momentum and wash over the rest of the Church.

• Robert Mickens is LCI Editor in Chief.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

It seems like they are almost always the main focus or at least a significant part of whatever we write or talk about.

And why not? Bishops are considered "successors of the apostles by divine institution".

They are "teachers of doctrine, priests of sacred worship and ministers of government". These are the men who have been entrusted by God (what else is divine institution?) with the "function of ruling" the Church (cf. Code of Canon Law, no. 375).

The bishops are the "high priests" of Catholicism, marked out as the "principal dispensers of the mysteries of God" (can. 853). Wow! Talk about powerful and important people!

The bishops possess almost all the authority in the Church, as well.

They often delegate this to others, but there is nothing in the law that obliges them to do so.

In fact, no significant changes can take place in our life of worship, and no important personnel moves can be made without their consent.

Certainly, in the case of diocesan ordinaries, the bishops have the final say in all the consequential matters pertaining to the local faith community.

Like an absolute monarch

And then there's our obsession with the "super-bishop", the Bishop of Rome. Commonly called by his non-juridical title "the pope" (or referenced devotionally as the Holy Father), he is canonically designated as the Roman or Supreme Pontiff.

He "enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he can always freely exercise" (can. 331).

In fact, "there is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff" (can. 333§3).

The pope is at the pinnacle of a power structure that exists only in absolute monarchies (of which there are few remaining today) or dictatorships.

Theologically, of course, the Bishop of Rome is not a super-bishop. But in the early centuries of Christianity, various popes steadily expanded their juridical authority over other local Churches and, soon enough, the imperial (monarchical) papacy was fully established.

If the people and clergy of the local Christian communities once elected the bishops — that is, when temporal rulers weren't the ones choosing them -, today, it's the pope who "freely appoints bishops or confirms those who have been legitimately elected" (can. 377§1).

Supreme administrator and supreme judge

What about the so-called "temporal goods" of the Church? "By virtue of his primacy in governance, the Roman Pontiff is the supreme administrator and steward of all ecclesiastical goods" (can. 1273).

If a local bishop wants to sell church properties, depending on their monetary or cultural value and provenance (e.g. if they were bequeathed these properties), he needs the approval of the Apostolic See. Also called the Holy See, this is really just another name for the Roman papacy.

And when it comes to judicial matters, if "the diocesan bishop is the judge in the first instance in each diocese and for all cases not expressly excepted by law" (can. 1419§1), it's the pope who is "the supreme judge for the entire Catholic world". He can try or adjudicate cases personally or through the tribunals of the Apostolic See (cf. canon 1442).

You've probably noticed that the Code of Canon Law likes to use that word "supreme" when referring to the pope and his authority.

So, yes, he and his fellow bishops are a pretty big deal in the Catholic Church.

And it should be no surprise that they get a lot of press.

But for a long time now, it's usually not been very flattering for many of these "successors of the apostles".

A broken model

The problem is that almost all these men come from societies that are more or less considered democracies.

But they are trying to "shepherd" the people of their dioceses within a structure that is juridically top-down and quasi-monarchical.

This is an uncomfortable fit for most of them and their people.

I imagine most bishops do not want to act like a dictator, but they are working under intense pressure in a system where the buck really does stop with them.

Those who appear to be the most effective bishops are the ones who are not afraid to delegate their authority generously and empower others.

But how many do this?

Since all responsibility for whatever happens ultimately rests with them, there seem to be too many bishops who are careful about how they share their power.

It doesn't matter whether that is out of a noble sense of duty or out of fear of losing control; it's often a recipe for disaster.

There are those bishops who believe they must constantly "correct" those in their charge who deviate even slightly from the most insignificant Church law or teaching.

Their zeal to always be in charge leads them to do things that end up having a demoralising effect on their people and their priests.

The recent "Catholic Project" survey, which showed that most priests in the United States have serious trust issues with their bishops, is proof of this.

And the situation is probably not much different among priests in a lot of other countries.

On the other hand, the US bishops — at least as a national episcopal conference — may not accurately represent the Catholic hierarchy around the world.

During their conference assembly last week, they elected new leaders who are either in opposition to the pastoral priorities Pope Francis has set forth, such as dialoguing with all in society and accompanying people on the margins, or who have given those priorities a lukewarm reception.

That goes for the pope's efforts to implement synodality at all levels of the Church.

Is synodality the answer to the problem?

On the whole, the bishops in the United States are among those — and there are probably many of their peers in other parts of the world, too — who have shown little interest in the wide-ranging consultations with all the baptised members of the Church that are a key part of the synodal process.

The response of the US bishops to those consultations, which were held very unevenly throughout their country, was seen by many who are not exactly in the bishops' cheering section as surprisingly honest and reflective of the general mood of US Catholics.

The synodal process has really only just begun. It is in its fledgling stages, and there is still a lot of ambivalence, scepticism and even hostility towards it.

But if it does actually begin to take root in the Church and the hierarchy finds itself having to be in ongoing dialogue — even debate — with the People of God, it will be near impossible to simply ignore or easily reject the calls for change and reform it is surfacing.

Obviously, the very idea of synodality can find no home in a top-down, monarchical system where only a tiny group of celibate men ultimately make all the decisions.

But if it does become constitutive of the Church, as Pope Francis says it must, then the Church's current structure will have to be changed. Because otherwise, synodality will end up being nothing but an empty slogan, even a farse, if — for example — the Catholic faithful continue to be denied a say in how their bishops are selected.

And that includes the Supreme Pontiff himself, the Bishop of Rome.

• Robert Mickens is LCI Editor in Chief.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

Those who avail themselves of the liturgies that celebrate and solemnise these key moments of our Christian existence are often called cradle-to-grave Catholics.

And if you believe the Vatican's statistical office, we are growing in number. Its latest figures claim that the global Catholic population increased by 16 million new members between 2019 and 2020.

But I'll let you in on a secret: the papal mathematicians are very good at addition, but they have an extremely hard time subtracting.

They only remove dead people, not those who have been baptised but no longer claim to be Catholic.

Of course, that's not the statisticians' fault, because it's nearly impossible to know the exact number of people who have opted out or have just quietly walked away — unless, of course, they've formally quit by signing a legal declaration, as is possible in places like Germany.

In any case, there is more than just anecdotal evidence to show that the numbers of baptisms, church weddings and even funeral Masses are on the decline in most parts of the world.

I'm especially interested in focusing on the decline in church funerals, given that November — which begins with the Feast of All Saints and is followed next day by the Feast of All Souls — has traditionally been a special month for us Catholics to remember our dead.

I'm thinking especially of what appears to be a growing number of life-long Catholic who are deprived of a proper church funeral after they've died.

One of the greatest regrets in my life is that I allowed that to happen to my paternal grandfather when he died back in early 2004.

"Honey, we don't want to have a funeral"

"Papa", as we called my grandfather, became a Catholic in 1940 when he married the daughter of a Hungarian (Catholic) couple that had immigrated to the United States.

Like many so-called "converts", he became a very "devout Catholic".

He and my grandmother, "Nanny", never missed Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.

They religiously said grace before every meal, which included a Hail Mary and the Lord's Prayer for extra measure!

I also discovered something else about Papa's devotional life when I shared a hotel room with him and Nanny during a 1994 visit to Budapest.

Each night before going to sleep, he would kneel at his bed and spend nearly a half-hour whispering prayers of petition for the very specific needs of family members and friends.

He would also give thanks for the blessings of the day and ask forgiveness for any offences he knowingly or unwittingly committed.

On a cold Sunday afternoon in late January, some ten years after that memorable visit to Hungary, I was in Switzerland, when I got a phone call from a relative to inform me that Papa had died that morning.

He had spent the last several weeks in hospital and then a nursing home infirmary following a bad fall.

He was 87 years old.

I immediately called Nanny to tell her I was "coming home" on the earliest flight the next day and would be there in time to help plan the funeral.

"Honey," she said, "We don't want to have a funeral."

Since she was a Mass-going Catholic, I was really stunned to hear this.

I said nothing more about it over the phone, thinking this was just her grief speaking.

My grandparents had been inseparable and they doted on each other throughout more than 63 years of marriage.

Obviously, Nanny was devastated at losing Papa.

Plus, my father, their only child, had died five years earlier. She felt alone and vulnerable.

Role reversal

When I finally got to her home a couple days later, I again brought up funeral arrangements.

But she repeated what she'd said on the phone: "We don't want to have a funeral."

And this is where I made the mistake that I regret to this day. I quietly just accepted her choice, failing to realize that Nanny was probably not in the right frame of mind to be able to make such a decision.

The fact that she was 83 was not the issue. She lived to nearly 99 and, until the last year or so of her life, was sharp as a tack.

No, the real reason was that Papa had always taken care of such arrangements as paying the bills, making the major purchases, and so forth.

She was not psychologically equipped or prepared to do so.

A number of other incidents occurred in the months afterwards that finally made me realise that our roles had been reversed.

Nanny, who had become like a mother to me after my dad's death in 1999, now needed someone to be something like a parent or a protective son for her.

That someone was me.

Nanny lived on for over 15 more years.

She died on Holy Thursday (April 18) in 2019, just three days after the blaze that almost destroyed Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris.

Such details one does not forget.

This time I picked up my phone in Rome and immediately began making arrangements for a funeral that would include a Mass for Christian Burial.

A lasting legacy

We had the celebration at St Stephen's Church in Toledo (Ohio), which was the immigrant parish where she had been baptised in 1920.

There were only a few dozen people at the Mass.

Most of them were not Catholic.

The liturgy was carefully planned, and family members were assigned to place the pall on the casket, do the readings and present the offertory gifts.

The priest, a longtime friend of the family, gave a homily that highlighted aspects of Nanny's life and challenged us to think hard about the one lasting legacy - just one thing - that she gave to each of us.

Although most of my family is no longer Catholic, all seemed moved by the ritual.

When we do funerals right, they are powerful.

One of my nieces even told me she was interested in becoming a Catholic.

I'd like to think that her great-grandma's funeral helped in some way to confirm her desire to do so.

I scan the obituaries each day in the Toledo Blade and read of many people who grew up Catholic, went to the parish grade school and diocesan high school.

They were married in the Church. Some are even touted as being devout Catholics and active in their parishes when younger. But so often, they are never given a public funeral Mass, especially if they are elderly. I suspect that's because their heirs are no longer practicing.

Sadly, the faith is not being passed on.

So I will be giving thanks for Nanny and Papa during the month of November as we remember our beloved dead.

For I am grateful that, among the many ways they influenced my life, inspiring me to hold on to the Catholic faith is the most important gift and lasting legacy they left to me.

• Robert Mickens is LCI Editor in Chief.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

Of course, that doesn't mean people always agree with what he says or that those who do actually take significant actions or change their behaviour.

It's enough to think of the pope's incessant appeals for peace. One must admit that they have not brought an end to many wars if any.

And what has been the result of his repeated exhortations to show greater respect and reverence towards all of creation — human beings, animal and plant life, and all the elements in the environment?

Most people — even in the Vatican — don't seem to know or be much interested in the fact that we're currently in the "Season of Creation", a five-week-long ecumenical initiative to find ways to protect "our common home". Yet, this is also something Francis has strongly endorsed.

Still, these issues get decent press mostly because even those in the mainstream secular media recognize that the pope has a certain moral authority, even if he is not an expert on environmental issues or international diplomacy and peacemaking.

A teacher of prayer

Francis is a Christian priest and bishop and, as such, he is fundamentally a "spiritual" leader. That means his expertise or specialization is in spiritual matters. And one of most important of all is prayer.

Most people probably don't know that he spent almost an entire year using his Wednesday general audiences to teach about prayer.

"Prayer is the breath of faith; it is its most proper expression. Like a cry that issues from the heart of those who believe and entrust themselves to God," he said on May 6, 2020, when he started the weekly catechetical series.

The pope continued lecturing on prayer for the next two months before briefly suspending the lessons in order to speak to the public about the urgency of "healing the world" in light of the deep social ills the coronavirus pandemic had brought to the fore.

But he resumed the teaching cycle on prayer in early October 2020 and continued the weekly lessons right up until June 2021. In all, Francis gave 38 talks on the subject. But most of these went largely unreported even; I regret to say, by La Croix International.

A topic too embarrassing or just too intimate?

Perhaps we Catholics are not comfortable talking about the issue publicly because we're afraid we'll be seen as "preachy" or "churchy".

Many Catholics — perhaps most, actually — seem to be as embarrassed to talk to others about their "prayer life" as they are to talk to them about their sex life! Is it because they don't have one? Or do they find it is too private and intimate to speak about openly?

When I say "they", of course, I mean "we" — all of us.

I suspect one of the issues is that most Catholics have not been taught much about prayer beyond reciting texts such as like the Hail Mary, keeping personal devotions and going to Mass.

We saw this during our awkward attempts to fill the void left by suspended public liturgies during the various pandemic lockdowns. It seems that as spiritual leaders and companions, we Catholics have not done very well — in general — in giving people the tools to help them build an interior life.

Prayer is more than just going to church on Sunday

Even some six decades since the end of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), the Church continues to convey the message that the "litmus test" for being a Roman Catholic consists in faithfully observing the "obligation" to attend Mass on Sundays and a fixed number of Holy Days.

Certainly, there have been major efforts to promote spirituality in the post-Vatican II Church, such as meditation, Lectio Divina, centring prayer, etc. But group recitation of the rosary before Mass or Eucharist adoration afterwards, as well as other "devotions", continue to hold pride of place.

All spirituality, in a certain sense, is Eucharistic since the celebration of the Eucharist is the "source and summit" of the Church's faith and life. But we continue to perpetuate the medieval obsession with the Eucharistic elements.

And we tend to reduce prayer to the exercise of asking God for help (for ourselves or others) or giving God thanks for our blessings, which is all well and good.

With few exceptions, our Catholic bishops and presbyters have not helped people explore the Church's tradition of contemplative prayer. And that may be because many of them have not been taught how to do so.

The contemplative approach to navigating a world in dramatic upheaval

It is not essential to be a monk or nun to engage in contemplation, to just sit with God in silent stillness. But some form of contemplation is essential to being a believer, even one who identifies as Catholic.

I'm no prophet, but it seems clear to me that we are only at the beginning of probably the biggest upheaval and most dramatic transformation in human history.

The cacophony of information (and misinformation) that is being spread today at such dizzying speed has alone begun to destabilize the communities and institutions that were once our points of sure reference.

How long this disruption will continue and what sort of casualties it will leave in its wake is anyone's guess. The Church, because it is part of this world, will not be spared.

The only way to navigate this huge transformation, it seems to me, is through a contemplative approach. That does not mean running away from reality and navel-gazing.

Overcoming a dualism that is not Christian

Contemplation and action are not opposed. One cannot healthily exist without the other.

"In Jesus Christ, in his person and in the Gospel, there is no opposition between contemplation and action," the pope said at his general audience on May 5, 2021.

"No. In the Gospel and in Jesus, there is no contradiction. This may have come from the influence of some Neoplatonic philosopher, but it surely has to do with a dualism that is not part of the Christian message," the pope said.

The Franciscan spiritual teacher Richard Rohr says contemplation is precisely nondual thinking. Here he also uses the example of how Jesus in the Gospels deals "contemplatively" with the reality of good and evil:

Jesus does not hesitate to dualistically name good and evil and to show that evil is a serious matter. However, he does not stop there. He often speaks in dualistic images, especially in regard to issues of wealth and power: "You cannot serve God and mammon" (Matthew 6:24).

Yet Jesus goes on to overcome these dualisms by the contemplative, nondual mind.

We can and should be honest about evil, even at the risk of making some people uncomfortable, but we must not become hateful, nor do we need to punish the "goats" in our life. We keep going deeper until we can also love them and seek their healing and transformation.

External behaviour needs spiritual guidance

Rohr, who founded the Center for Action and Contemplation, insists there can be no opposition between effective action and authentic contemplation.

"The most important word in our Center's name is not Action nor is it Contemplation; it's the word and. We need both compassionate action and contemplative practice for the spiritual journey," he says.

"Without action, our spirituality becomes lifeless and bears no authentic fruit. Without contemplation, all our doing comes from the ego, even if it looks selfless, and it can cause more harm than good. External behaviour must be connected to and supported by spiritual guidance," Rohr concludes.

Go back and look more carefully at Laudato si' (On Care for our Common Home - 2015) and Fratelli tutti ( On Fraternity and Social Friendship - 2020), and you'll see that in these two encyclicals, Pope Francis draws the same conclusion.

Of course, if you meditate a bit more prayerfully on the Gospels, you'll discover that so does Jesus.

• Robert Mickens is LCI Editor in Chief.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

Robert Mickens is the editor of the Roman Catholic newspaper La Croix International. He has lived, studied and worked in Rome for 30 years.

Mickens told inews he expects Pope Francis to pre-announce his resignation in October 2023, at the final synod gathering of bishops, with his term to end in 2025.

Mr Mickens said: "There are no rumours, but in my gut, I expect he will give his two years of notice at this event. He's preparing people for the possibility that he will resign, so it's not so shocking when it comes about."

Some religious commentators also believe that Pope Francis' decision to retire could set a "new norm", making him the third Pope to do so in history.

Pope Francis' predecessor, Benedict XVI, was the first pope to resign in more than 600 years when he stepped down in 2013, citing poor health.

Deacon and political commentator Calvin Robinson said: "It used to be that the Chair of St Peter meant service for life. The bishop of Rome, once elected, would occupy the role of obligation until such time as the Lord ended his tenure.

"It is a very contemporary idea to see this vocation as a job like any other, that one resigns from by choice. However, the precedent has been set. Benedict XVI was only the second Pope to retire, and if Francis wee to do the same, it might set a new norm."

On the subject of the Pope's health, sources told Mr Mickens that the 85-year-old Argentinian looked "really bad" on the flight home to Rome following his six-day tour of Canada.

Pope Francis remarked on his return from this trip, "the door is open" to stepping down if his health issues prevent him from completing his duties.

Francis said he currently intends to continue to serve, but when he does step down - if at all - the decision will be guided by God.

The pontiff also commented about a trip to Kazakstan planned for September, saying, "That wouldn't be too rigorous a journey."

Mr Mickens said he believes the Pope's wheelchair will become a permanent fixture, making working life more difficult.

"It's obvious he's got to cut things back, and the wheelchair is going to be a permanent fixture. With his age and weight, it will be difficult for him to gain mobility.

"I don't think there's any kind of surgery that can address the situation.

"We don't even know the impact of the surgery on his colon last summer, and he could have something else wrong that we don't know about."

Source

• iNews

But in the last several months it's basically become a guessing game about what's going on in the Vatican because even people who are supposed to be in the know — that is, the pope's top aides in the Roman Curia — are pretty much in the dark about what their boss is up to or planning to do next.

The latest proof came during a recent interview with the Mexican television network "Univision" when Francis was asked about whether clear protocols need to be established for when a pope resigns the papacy.

He said "history will help resolve" the issue. And while he praised Benedict XVI for the way the former pope has lived out his own retirement, Francis added that "things should be delineated better and explained better" in the future.

The pope's top canonical advisors must have been surprised to hear that. Just last May the secretary for the Dicastery for Legislative Texts, Spanish Bishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta, insisted that setting such protocols "is not a necessity".

He argued that any legislation in this regard could simply be changed or eliminated by a future pope.

The interviews

That July 11 interview with Univision was the third that Pope Francis had given to a mainstream secular media outlet, and the second in Spanish, over the course of about three weeks.

The first was on June 20 when he sat down for a video-taped conversation with the president of the Argentine news agency Télam.

This high-ranking media official must not have been aware that the pope plays a significant role in Church and Vatican affairs, many of which are marked by extreme crisis right now. What else can explain why all but one of her questions pertained solely to world events and political issues?

The other interview, also video-recorded, was conducted on July 2 in Italian by the Reuters news agency.

Veteran reporter Phil Pullella spoke with Francis — as he did in a previous interview in 2018 — on a wide range of topics. Excerpts of the pope's answers were released thematically over the course of five days.

The Reuters and Univision interviews addressed a number of similar topics, particularly the pope's health and speculation that he might resign, among other things.

An additional element that they have in common is that the journalists who conducted the interviews (Pullella for Reuters and Valentina Alazraki for Univision) are respectively a papal knight and papal dame.

Francis granted them the honorific titles last November, calling them the "deans" of the Vatican press corps.

The pope shuns his own communications department

And what about his own communications team, Vatican Media? The Holy See spends more money annually on this department than on all its nunciatures around the world. And, yet, Francis does not avail himself of its services.

He ordered a reform of that sector and a consolidation of its various branches shortly after his election as pope. It did not go smoothly and some of the people he entrusted with overseeing the task — including the Milan priest at the head of the project — fell by the wayside.

When Francis made a sort of "apostolic visit" to the Dicastery for Communication in May 2021 he did not offer much praise or encouragement. It was more like a scolding.

"How many people listen to (Vatican) Radio?" he asked. "How many people read L'Osservatore Romano?"

There would obviously be a whole lot more listeners and readers if people knew that when the pope gives exclusive interviews he gives them to Vatican Media.

But Francis does not even inform the heads of the various branches of the communications department — including the Holy See Press Office — when he decides to give interviews with an outside source. They find out only afterwards.

Who knows why?

Going it alone

Francis is the pope that has brought synodality to nearly every structure of the Church and loves to explain the concept as all the People of God "walking together". But when it comes to governing, certainly in the last several months, the pope seems to be more and more walking alone.

He is not coordinating his activities with his Vatican aides. He caught almost everyone by surprise on March 19 when he abruptly ordered the publication of his apostolic constitution on the reformed Roman Curia, Praedicate Evangelium.

The text had not yet been properly edited or translated in various languages. But it suddenly appeared on a Saturday afternoon — and an Italian public holiday to boot — full of mistakes and not even properly formatted.

Francis again surprised his closest aides on May 29 when he announced plans for a consistory in late August to create new cardinals immediately followed by a two-day summit of all the men in the red-hatted college.

It is understood that he informed only two officials of the consistory — that was the day before the announcement. It is unclear who he consulted, if anyone, about the men who will be the new cardinals.

Some of the names on the list have raised eyebrows to say the least. And one of them, a Belgian bishop over the age of 80, eventually asked to be taken off the list because of his mishandling of several sex abuse cases.

A pope who is acting like a monarch?

Many in the more progressive or left-leaning sectors of the secular media give extremely positive coverage to Pope Francis. Catholics should be pleased that they do.

But the fondness these media folks have for him seems to be based on their assessment of him as an anti-institutional figure, a "liberal", and maverick that loves to upend the status quo.

And, indeed, those who identify as reform-minded Catholics or Vatican II types would share that view in some ways.

They (we) would also say that Francis is a truly evangelical pope who has reconnected the Church to the vision and ethos of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) after a long period of growing restorationism.

But no man is perfect and even popes have their flaws. That should not detract from the qualities that somehow make them even more endearing because of — not despite — their human imperfections.

Meanwhile, Francis' greatest critics — Church traditionalists — have disparaged him for acting like a dictator or absolute monarch.

They note that he has made more changes unilaterally and "on his own initiative" — i.e. "motu proprio" — than any pope before him. In fact, he's issued 50 apostolic letters "moto proprio" in less than ten years in office, that is more than John Paul II did in nearly 27 years.

This is his right as Bishop of Rome.

Exercising power

"In virtue of his office, he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal power in the Church, which he can always freely exercise," the Code of Canon Law states unequivocally (Can. 331).

And Francis has shown he is not afraid to exercise this power. Is he wrong to do so?

Yes, he's been bold to use this power "motu proprio", though probably not as much as some reform-minded Catholics would like.

Those who are not fans of the Jesuit pope think he's used it too much. But they should look on the bright side.

Father Reginald Foster, the brilliant American Carmelite who was chief Latinist at the Vatican Secretariat of State for many years, once told me: "If I were pope, on Day One I'd sign 100 decrees to reform the Church. And on Day Two I'd resign."

Lucky for the Trads, Francis is a Jesuit, not a maverick Carmelite.

• Robert Mickens is Editor in Chief of La Croix International.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

That headline appeared in the October 6, 1972 issue of the National Catholic Reporter.

"If insiders' reports are accurate, Pope Paul is faced with a threatened palace revolt over proposed changes in the procedures used to elect a pope," wrote Desmond O'Grady, the now-deceased Australian who was NCR's very first Rome correspondent.

O'Grady identified the three men who warned they would resign as Cardinal Franjo Seper, the Yugoslavian who was then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and two Italians — Cardinal Carlo Confalonieri (head of the Congregation for Bishops) and Cardinal Giuseppe Siri (archbishop of Genoa).

He said these three senior clerics feared Paul VI would cave into demands to substantially alter who could participate in the conclave that elects the Roman Pontiff.

The new plan evidently was to allow the presidents of national episcopal conferences to be part of the electoral body and to restrict the vote of the cardinals to only those who were in charge of Vatican offices or local dioceses at the time of the "sede vacante" (i.e. at the death or resignation of the pope).

Episcopal collegiality in the spirit of Vatican II

The proposal had been around for some time. One of its most vocal advocates was Cardinal Michele Pellegrino of Turin in Northern Italy.

Almost immediately after Paul VI named him bishop in September 1965, just a month before the start of the fourth and final session of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), Pellegrino began clamouring for changes to the conclave's membership.

His views found substantial support among a good number of Council Fathers, but also stiff opposition from several heavyweights who were fixtures of the Roman Curia's old guard.

The opponents claimed any change in the papal electoral system could undermine the Bishop of Rome's standing as the Vicar of Christ and would reduce the pope to a sort of president of the combined local Churches.

But those who supported Cardinal Pellegrino's proposal — and they exist even to this day — believed that a conclave restricted to cardinals, which the Roman Pontiff chooses independently and at his own discretion, was not in line with the principle of episcopal collegiality in the spirit of Vatican II.

One of the most outspoken on this point was Cardinal Leo Joseph Suenens of Malines-Brussels (Belgium).

Pope Francis converges with Cardinal Suenens

In a long and carefully worded interview published in May 1969 in the French periodical Informations Catholiques Internationales, he argued — as he did in a book written several months earlier — for practical changes that would better foster co-responsibility at all levels of the Church.

Suenens' interview, which stretched over fifteen pages, was extremely important at the time of its publication, which was just a little more than three years after the Council.

Revisiting it today, some 53 years later, it is striking to see how the main topics he dealt with in that conversation are among the issues that Francis has made priorities in his pontificate.

They include rebalancing the relationship between the centre and the peripheries, papal primacy and collegiality, the bishop and his people, life and law, and the pope and the Roman Curia. And they also entail the status and mission of papal nuncios and, of course, the role of the College of Cardinals.

The current pope has given much attention to addressing these issues, save the last one.

His practice of giving the red hat to men in countries, dioceses and offices that have never before been headed by a cardinal does not address the issues that most concerned reformers like Cardinals Pellegrino and Suenens.

Paul VI takes another look

The problem is not just geographics. As the late Primate of Belgium pointed out in his 1969 interview, the College of Cardinals does not offer a "faithful image of (the Church's) diversity".

And the way its members are selected (arbitrarily and by the pope alone) does nothing to change that substantially. In fact, Suenens argued that it smacked of absolute monarchy and risked conveying who is in favour with the pope and who is not.

He also believed that lay people had to have some sort of role in helping select those in higher office, including the Roman Pontiff.

But Pope Paul, who was a close friend of Suenens', moved carefully on the issue. During a consistory to name new cardinals in early March 1973, he announced that he was looking into a different proposal to allow Eastern Church Patriarchs and the fifteen members of the Synod of Bishops' permanent council to participate in the conclave.

A few weeks later, he repeated this to officials in the Synod's secretariat. But, in the end, he did nothing.

That did not end the debate, however.

"A special enclave within the College of Bishops"

John R. Quinn, the late archbishop of San Francisco, offered a number of "possibilities" for changing the way the Roman Pontiff is elected in his 1999 book The Reform of the Papacy: the Costly Call to Christian Unity.

He acknowledged that the College of Cardinals was a "distinguished body" and that it "has performed great service to the popes and to the whole Church" during its thousand-year history.

But he said there were "three problems" that necessitated its reform — it is "a special enclave within the College of Bishops"; it's awkward relationship to the Eastern Churches; and its exclusive role in the election of the pope.

Quinn noted that the manner in which the Bishop of Rome is elected has changed over the course of the centuries. And while history shows that some of the earlier "procedures... were open to great abuse, it has also shown that the exclusive role of the cardinals in this process has also been open to abuse".

And while "confining the election to 120 cardinals at the most creates a manageable electoral body", he argued that this college "does not relate directly or structurally to the episcopal conferences".

Quinn insisted that "at least some of the presidents of conferences" merited a vote in the conclave. He also suggested representatives from religious orders and the laity "could be invited to express their view on the more important qualities they would like to see in the next pope".

The late archbishop admitted that it would be tricky to decide exactly who might be invited to do this, but said, "Whatever the problems involved, careful consideration should be given to how lay persons could be included."

Synodality and how bishops (and popes) are selected

All this sounds very much in sync with the synodal process that Pope Francis has been trying to make a constituent part of the Roman Catholic Church's communal life and decision-making process.

He has brought synodality — which includes the participation, in various ways, of all the People of God, ordained, lay and vowed religious — to bear on almost all areas of the Church, including the Roman Curia.

But he has done little to extend this to the selection and appointment of bishops and nothing to make it part of the election of the Roman Pontiff.

Francis has made scant use of the College of Cardinals as a consultative body.

But he is summoning all its members (both cardinal-electors and the men over 80 who have lost their vote in the conclave) to two days of meetings at end of August, only the third time he's held such a red-hatted summit in over nine years.

The stated reason is to "reflect on the new apostolic constitution Praedicate evangelium", the document he published on March 19 to put in place his reform of the Curia. Three months later, and despite the fact that the constitution went into effect on June 5, the text exists only in Italian.

What will happen in August?

A large number of cardinals, maybe more than half of them, do not have sufficient facility in Italian to read — let alone reflect on — this document. In any case, what will they be reflecting on? The reform is done.

It's now up to the pope to begin replacing the numerous Curia officials who are beyond retirement age or have worked many years at the Vatican, with new people who are willing to implement the reform energetically, collaboratively and according to the spirit with which it was written.

As for the meeting of cardinals in August, it's already been suggested here that it could be "the occasion and forum for Francis to make an important announcement about the future of his pontificate and when the cardinal-electors will have to exercise the one function reserved to them alone — elect the Bishop of Rome".

Of course, that is just a conjecture, but...

If Francis is planning to announce a date for his resignation, he may want to do it before all the world's cardinals.

It is not likely that he would step down immediately and probably not even in a few weeks' time, as Benedict did. What if, instead, he were to initiate a lengthier period of discernmentlasting several months or more?

Such discernment, if it is to include the participation of all the People of God, would require some concrete changes to at least the procedures the College of Cardinals follows.

It would be quite unusual if Francis were to do nothing

The 85-year-old pope has recently been keeping his cards to his chest more than usual, so we have no indication if he is actually even considering any significant changes to the conclave.

One might think it is a far too ambitious project for an elderly man who is currently giving so much of his energy to other major initiatives, most of them still in their infant stages.

But every pope in the last hundred years or so (at least those who have lived more than 33 days) has at least tweaked the apostolic constitution regulating the sede vacante and election of the Roman Pontiff.

It would be quite unusual if Francis, who has been revising or updating almost everything in the Church, were to do absolutely nothing.

Beware the ghosts of Pellegrino, Suenens and Quinn...

• Robert Mickens is LCI Editor in Chief.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

The abrupt cancellation of the trip, which had just been confirmed on May 28, intensified concerns over the pope's health and the future of his pontificate.

Francis, who is six months into his 86th year, was relegated to using a wheelchair several weeks ago, and it's becoming more and more obvious that his strength is failing. The only question is to how great an extent.

The answer to that — as he has said on numerous occasions — will determine whether or not he decides to follow in the footsteps of Benedict XVI and resign from the papacy.

"I will do what the Lord tells me to do. Pray and seek God's will. But I believe that Benedict XVI is not a unique case," Francis said in May 2014 during a press conference on his flight back from the Holy Land.

"Seventy years ago, for the most part retired bishops didn't exist. And now, we have plenty of them. What will happen with retired popes? I believe that we should see (Benedict) as an institution: he opened a door, the door to retired popes," Francis said on that occasion.

"Will there be others? God knows. But this door is open. I believe that a Bishop of Rome, a pope, who feels that his strength is failing - because these days we are living longer - has to ask the same questions that Pope Benedict asked," he added.

Has Francis begun asking those questions? Many of his supporters refuse to even entertain the thought.

Is the pope perfectly fine? Or does he have a serious illness?

Honduran Cardinal Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga — one of the Argentine pope's closest advisors — this week even accused people who openly speculate about a papal resignation as creating a "cheap soap opera".

The cardinal, who is six years younger than the pope, said Francis has never thought about resigning and added that suggestions that he will are coming from the pope's enemies.

Rodríguez insisted that the pope "is not going to resign, nor is he sick." Indeed, he said Francis "is perfectly fine" despite whatever ails him (again, the Vatican has never said) and "will continue to govern the Church."

But another cardinal in Rome — a native English-speaker who once headed a major Vatican office — has been telling people on at least three continents over the past several months that the pope has a terminal illness.

Which cardinal is right? And do either of them really know?

There is something definitely not right with Pope Francis, but as I wrote for another publication on May 20, the only thing Vatican officials will say is that he has a "knee problem".

Even though that is keeping him from walking, it has not stopped him from stepping up the pace of his daily activities.

People like Cardinal Rodríguez say this is proof that the pope is fine. But don't be fooled.

Picking up the pace may not be a good sign

Argentine Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, one of the pope's personal theologians and ghostwriters, said it means something else.

"If one day he should intuit that he's running out of time and he doesn't have enough time to do what the Spirit is asking him," the archbishop said in 2015, "you can be sure he will speed up."

Is that what's happening? Does the pope feels like he's running out of time?

His announcement on May 27 of a consistory for the creation of new cardinals at the end of August surprised absolutely everyone.

Popes don't usually hold consistories in August. The last time that happened was in 1807 when Pius VII announced a cardinal in pectore who wasn't revealed and given the red hat until eleven years later!

And popes don't usually preannounce consistories three months in advance, either. That, too, is unheard of.

It has been suggested that Francis did so in order to make sure every single member of the College of Cardinals is able to get to Rome for that event and the two days of meetings he's scheduled for immediately afterwards.

A big announcement coming?

Officially, the gathering is to discuss plans for implementing the new apostolic constitution for the reformed Roman Curia. But that is not an issue that concerns only the cardinals.

As noted last week, the pope may actually be wanting to engage the cardinals in discussions on a matter that is peculiar to them alone — the election of his successor.

Benedict XVI announced his resignation in February 2013 at a consistory for the approval of sainthood causes. Only the cardinals living in Rome and a few others in town on business were at that event.

If Francis is planning to announce a date for his resignation, he may want to do it before all the world's cardinals.

It is not likely that he would step down immediately and probably not even in a few weeks' time, as Benedict did. What if, instead, he were to initiate a lengthier period of discernment lasting several months or more?

There is no precedent for this in the Roman papacy, as far as I know. But there is now in the other institution that has deeply shaped Francis — the Society of Jesus.

The new Jesuit way

The Father General of the Jesuits, like the Bishop of Rome, is elected for life.

But Fr. Hans Peter Kolvenbach was the first to voluntarily resign (excluding his predecessor Pedro Arrupe whom the Vatican virtually forced out). Kolvenbach, who was elected Father General in 1983, informed members of the Society of Jesus in 2006 that he intended to step down in 2008, the year he would turn 80.

Fr. Adolfo Nicolás was elected his successor and in May 2014 he wrote to Jesuits around the world informing them that he, too, would be resigning in late in 2016 also at the age of 80.

Nicolás sent a letter to all the world's Jesuits inviting them to "enter into the process of a profound and genuine spiritual discernment regarding our life and mission" in the run-up to his resignation and the election of his successor.

Each of these Jesuit leaders gave two years' notice. What if the pope were to do something similar? What would be the purpose?

A period of discernment

This is all posited, of course, on whether Francis comes to the conclusion that he must resign for health reasons or because he feels his "strength is failing".

In the months following the August consistory, the pope will turn 86 (December 17) and mark the 10th anniversary of his election as Bishop of Rome (March 13). While one or the other anniversary might be a symbolic date to step down, there is something else to consider.

Francis has decided to create 16 new cardinal-electors, bumping up their total number to 132. Why that number and not just 8 or 10, or perhaps 20?

Barring any deaths, it will take just over a year (September 17, 2023) for the number of cardinal-electors to drop back to the 120 ceiling that Paul VI established.

In that period, 10 cardinals created by Benedict XVI and two by John Paul II will age out. Only one of Francis' cardinals will lose the vote. That's Cardinal Gregorio Rosa Chavez of El Salvador who turns 80 one week after the August consistory.

What if the pope were to announce his resignation for September 2023? It would give the cardinals an entire year to discern the future leadership and trajectory of the Church and a chance to better know each other.

And it could also include discernment by the entire People of God.

The question that all in the Church would be pondering is whether we want to continue on the reforming, expanding path of synodality that Francis has forged or whether we want to return to a safer harbour. It would be, in a sense, a sort of referendum on the pontificate.

The last such was at the conclave of June 1963 following the death of John XXIII. But more than a referendum on the pope's program, it was a poll on the Second Vatican Council, which had just gotten underway the preceding autumn.

The cardinals elected Paul VI, someone who was committed to continuing the Council and held three more autumn sessions.

As long as Benedict XVI is still alive...

One of the main reasons most people seem to believe talk of Francis' possible resignation is "crap", as one of my colleagues called it, is because there is already one retired pope and he's still alive.

The reasoning is that it would be too confusing to have two former popes living at the same time. But this is not the sort of logic that Francis follows.

In fact, he's shown that he's not afraid to create a bit of confusion from time to time — for the purpose of bringing people to a deeper understanding of certain situations or teachings.

During his flight back from Armenia in June 2016, Francis was asked about the issue of having a reigning pope and a retired one and whether that was causing perplexity.

"There is only one pope. The other, or sometimes as with emeritus bishops, there may be two or three of them, but now they are retired," he said.

So Francis does not appear to be worried about any confusion that might ensue should he retire while Benedict is still alive. His successor would be the "only pope", while he and Benedict would simply be retired.

As for issuing new protocols governing the resignation process and the rights and duties of the one who resigns the papacy, they would not necessarily have to be applied to Benedict or seen as a rebuke of the way he organized his own resignation and life of retirement.

And in any case, Francis has not been afraid to overturn significant pieces of legislation that his predecessor put in place. Most notable was his abrogation of Benedict's 2007 "motu proprio" Summorum Pontificum, bringing an end to the unfettered use of the pre-Vatican II liturgy.

"I'll resign before having another operation!"

To be absolutely clear, we are not talking about "rumours" that the pope is going to resign. There are no such.

Like the surprise announcement of the August consistory, there are probably only one or two people — such as the pope's personal physician — who have any idea about the exact nature of Francis' health situation that would fuel any rumours.

We never even got a detailed report last July after he underwent major surgery for the removal of a third of his large intestine. It was discovered, however, that the surgery took longer than expected and the pope credited a nurse with saving his life.

So, rumours? No. It is merely the confluence of Francis' deteriorating health, the sudden acceleration of his daily activities (and hoped-for travels) and his decision to create 16 new voting cardinals that have led some people to wonder if he is planning to make a big announcement about the future of his pontificate.

A few weeks ago at a closed-door meeting with the Italian bishops' conference, he apparently said something like, "I'll resign before I have another operation!"

Certainly after last year's intestinal surgery, which was evidently somewhat touch-and-go, the pope couldn't bear to think of putting doctors under the pressure of performing what could be a life or death operation on him.

One thing is absolutely clear, however: Pope Francis has an unshakeable trust in the Holy Spirit, which he said filled him with consolation just moments before he appeared on the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica on March 13, 2013, as the newly-elected Bishop of Rome.

He's said that that sense of peace has never left him. And that's why whatever he may be contemplating for the next stage of his life and ministry, we can be sure that he's doing so as best he can in harmony with the Spirit.

• Robert Mickens is LCI Editor in Chief.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.