After Francis: The Institution, the Legacy, the Problems

There is a stark contrast between the idea that had been given of the funeral of Pope Francis, with the simplified rites and the desire that it not be seen as a sign of power, with the manner in which the transfer of the Pope’s body from the Santa Marta house to St. Peter’s was organized.

It was, in fact, an impeccable papal ceremony, just as the funeral celebrated on April 26 was a papal celebration with attention to detail. Pope Francis left as a Pope—a special Pope who leaves behind a legacy of gestures yet to be defined, but still a Pope.

The contrast is even more evident if we look at how the Pope’s death was announced: Cardinal Kevin Farrell, Camerlengo, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State, Archbishop Edgar Pena Parra, substitute, and Archbishop Diego Ravelli, master of papal celebrations, showed up in the chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae as clergymen, without even the red-threaded cassock.

It was an official announcement that lacked … officiality.

The announcement was broadcast live on the Vatican networks but not pronounced in front of the square, where the bells did not toll for at least an hour because the electronic transmission that was supposed to activate them was broken.

These are all details that signal a before-and-after. They tell how, upon Pope Francis’s death, the institution was set aside, and the institutional, liturgical, symbolic machine started up again just a couple of days later. Nothing will be done against the deceased Pope, but everything will be done for the Church.

The institution’s return to the center also marks a transition that cannot be underestimated.

Pope Francis brought his charisma and also imposed a series of personal symbols, gestures, and ways of doing things that came directly from his environment and his way of being. Wearing black shoes or black trousers under the cassock, eschewing the papal mozzetta, and showing a certain “allergy” to every institutional situation, Pope Francis basically took a hammer to institutional protocol.

While he reigned, everyone went along.

Yet that protocol was made of a history and dignity that had not been lost. It simply remained under the ashes until it returned at the moment in which the Church, deprived of its head, must speak to the world. And it cannot but speak to the world with its symbols, its signs, and its history—in a word, with its language.

Readers may think that all this is secondary and consider it futile to criticize the Pope for his renunciation or even repudiation of some symbols. Tradition, it is said, is not immutable. The Church, it is added, is not power. The Pope, it is specified, did indeed help the Church to shake off the dust of the past.

That may all be true, and it is a different way of looking at the issue. Still, history says that every time change touches historical languages, identities are lost, and institutions crumble. Rebuilding is always complex, and it is titanic.

Pope Francis defined two points in his will: world peace and brotherhood. However, they remain generic points that concern the world situation more than the situation of the Church. It is a language consistent with the Pope, who spoke to the world before the Church. So much so that, when he met journalists for the first time, he did not give a blessing out of respect for those who were not believers. So much so that, apart from the blessing urbi et orbi in his latest outings, Pope Francis wished “Happy Sunday” but did not utter words of blessing.

The cardinals, however, will begin an exchange of views on the Church this week that will go beyond these questions. It will be a different conclave than the one in 2013.

In 2013, the cardinals were called to respond to a shock: the resignation of Benedict XVI. They immediately looked at the immediate causes and thought that one of the problems lay in the organization. After some time, the finger had been pointed at the Pope’s collaborators. One phrase said that “four years of Bergoglio could be enough.” It meant that a Pope from the end of the world was needed to shake up the institution and lay the foundations for the reform. But only for four years. A controlled panic, to then bring everything back into the institutional fold.

Pope Francis, however, held the office for twelve years and had time to leave a decisive mark on the institution of the Church. For some time, the cardinals have been discussing the need to give an institutional order to the reforms and the various processes that have been started. The reform of the Curia is far from being definitive and needs adjustments. The order of the Vatican City State has been changed several times in recent years and needs to be harmonized.

Then, various open questions concern the credibility of the Church, starting from the fight against abuse to the presence of the Church in society.

The cardinals will, therefore, look for a moderate profile, capable of not throwing away the good things but of moving forward toward normalization. Someone who is less of a protagonist and who lets the Church speak instead, it is said. More pragmatically, someone who does not implement a ferocious spoils system after his election.

Because the great fear, for many, is that of losing the positions of power they have achieved. Pope Francis had a very personal and personal government. The true collaborators were not those with official roles but those who remained invisible. All these collaborators, who were confidants of the Pope, do not have a title or a position. The risk, for them, is that of disappearing.

The Conclave will now tell us whether the cardinals will have the courage to carry out this institutional counter-revolution. It does not mean taking a step back. It means consolidating the institution of the Church and then moving forward with different directions and methods. It would still be a Copernican revolution after a pontificate like that of Pope Francis.

Of course, the cardinals must not make the big mistake of focusing on pragmatic issues during the general congregations. That is what happened before the 2013 Conclave. The choice then went to Pope Francis because he seemed strong enough to make the reforms without backlash. The reality is that they looked to the Pope seeking a missionary profile and a change of narrative. They did not want a genuine reform but rather a shoring up of the existing situation.

On the other hand, Pope Francis reformed, changed the rules, and questioned everything. He made every decision by saying that this was the mandate entrusted to him by the cardinals when they met in the Sistine Chapel. He wasn’t entirely wrong.

So, tomorrow’s Pope will have to speak about Christ first. The rest will eventually be a consequence. And it will be a significant challenge.