Pope Francis, the future to be deciphered

The letter that Pope Francis addressed to the Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera on March 14 is the epitome of the pontificate.

When the newspaper published the letter on March 18, it was immediately apparent that the Pope could not have written it. There’s nothing wrong with that. Not all of the Pope’s texts are written personally by the Pope. He, however, must approve them before they are published.

How come, then, a letter of response to the director of Corriere della Sera has become a priority for Pope Francis? The Pope is now discharged from the hospital. When the letter was released, the information said that the Pope was better; his breathing was more regular, and he had gradually resumed some work activities. After all, some decisions can only be made by the Pope, starting with the provisions of the new bishops to go through some regular activities.

It is no coincidence that the substitute of the Secretariat of State, who deals with general affairs, is the one who sees the Pope most when activities are regular. The substitute submits to the Pope the decisions of ordinary government, the problems that may arise, and the texts to be approved and signed. Ultimately, the substitute, in the organizational chart of the Curia, is the person closest to the Pope in absolute terms.

During his hospital stay, the Holy See regularly announced when the Pope could devote himself to some work. Medical bulletins generally emphasized that the Pope had alternated work with rest.

Twice, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State of the Holy See, visited Pope Francis with his substitute, Archbishop Edgar Pena Parra. In both cases, the visits took place on Sunday mornings. In practice, the Pope has met with his secretariat once every two weeks since he has been in the hospital.

Why has Corriere della Sera become a priority for Pope Francis? This is where the synthesis of the pontificate lies. Outside the institution that works with and for the Pope, there is a parallel world of people the Pope trusts who lead the Pope to make decisions outside of institutional channels.

Until the letter to the Corriere, the recording of the Pope’s voice had passed through the Vatican Dicastery for Communication and, from there, was distributed to the faithful. The only photo of the Pope in the hospital, carefully taken to avoid showing signs of illness, had also been the one mediated by the Dicastery for Communication.

However, this “protection” around the Pope was broken by a letter to a newspaper, a personal initiative that could only create prejudice. Why was that newspaper chosen? Why hasn’t Pope Francis responded to all the other messages? Why does Pope Francis continue to prefer unofficial channels for such important communication?

It is worth remembering that Pope Francis is not the only Pope to give himself to the secular media.

Benedict XVI published a reflection in the Financial Times to give a recent example. No Pope, however, has given so much attention to communicating himself outside the institution of the Church. The choice to respond to the Corriere della Sera is in line with Francis’s pontificate, but it is also indicative of the direction given by the Pope’s closest advisors.

And so, we face a communication bubble around Pope Francis.

As long as the Pope was in the hospital, the government of the Church seemed to be at a standstill because it was difficult to know the actual conditions of the Pope. Not all communications on the health of the pontiff need to be public. There was, however, no internal information network, at least for the cardinals called to be the first advisors to the Pope, that allows everyone to understand how to move forward, what type of decision to make, and in what perspective to move forward.

In short, a lack of institutional network does help the Church to move forward beyond the personalism of Pope Francis. The institution has emerged dramatically weakened by this pontificate, and the institution would be the one that guarantees continuity even under challenging situations. For example, when John Paul II was ill, it was well-known who was the custodian of his instructions.

And, if you read the chronicles of the last two months of John Paul II’s life, you notice that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger visited him, who was immediately a point of reference for everyone.

However, this pontificate has no recognized point of reference other than the Pope. The hope is that this limbo condition will end soon.

Now that the Pope has been brought back to Santa Marta, it remains to be seen whether he will be able to resume his normal work rhythm, which is highly doubtful. It also remains to be seen whether those around him will again push him to make decisions.

It would be nothing new.

There have always been jackals around the Pope, as around any figure of power. However, the jackals of the past still considered the importance and balance of the institution they served. Now, the institution itself seems to be at stake.