At the beginning of 2025, when Pope Francisco was still hospitalized and his pontificate was entering its final phase, the then prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, announced the imminent publication of two texts: one on monogamy and another on the Marian titles of the Virgin, in particular Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix. Nine months later, both documents see the light under the pontificate of Leo XIV, confirming —according to Specola— the theological and structural continuity of the so-called “Francisco era”.
For many observers, this gesture represents a decisive test of the doctrinal direction of the new Pope: will he maintain without review the most controversial texts of the previous pontificate, or will he mark distance from the authoritarian and ambiguous style of the Doctrine of the Faith under “Tucho” Fernández?
An inherited pontificate
Specola describes the moment with irony:
“If Pope Leo’s desire is to calm things down, it seems we are on the worst of paths”.
Both documents —the one on monogamy and the one dedicated to the Marian titles— had been drafted and promoted by Fernández before Francisco’s death, but they were not published.
Leo XIV’s decision not to shelve them, but to ratify and officially disseminate them, shows that the new pontiff has chosen to give continuity to the doctrinal line that sought to close debates rather than illuminate them.
The problem, notes Specola, is not only the content, but the method:
“All these texts —from Fiducia Supplicans to Traditionis Custodes— are divisive documents: they stifle discussion with the exercise of authoritarian power and alienate the faithful from the faith”.
The Marian Note and its theological ambiguity
The Doctrinal Note Mater Populi Fidelis, dedicated to the titles of the Virgin Mary, has been the most visible trigger of this controversy.
The document discourages the use of the title “Co-Redemptrix” and moderates that of “Mediatrix”, alleging a risk of “theological misunderstandings”.
For its critics, the text is a veiled denial of Mary’s singular role in the work of redemption and a sign of distrust toward the classical mariological tradition.
The historian Roberto de Mattei expressed it harshly:
“Behind a syrupy tone, the document hides a poisonous content: it seeks to strip the Virgin of her supernatural greatness, reducing her to an ordinary woman”.
De Mattei sees in this Note “the culmination of the post-conciliar mariological drift”, which in the name of moderation has opted for a doctrinal minimalism that disfigures the Mother of God.
Read also: “Who like the Virgin?”: Roberto de Mattei denounces the Vatican’s mariological drift
The debate between correctness and timidity
The theologian Mario Proietti, on the other hand, defends a positive reading:
“The Note denies with words what it affirms with doctrine”.
According to him, the text implicitly recognizes Mary’s cooperation in the redemption and her maternal intercession, although it avoids the traditional titles.
“The document teaches that Mary cooperated in a singular way in the redemptive work of her Son and continues to exercise a function of maternal mediation: that is the classical definition of Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix. It’s just that the text defends the truth, but fears its own name”.
Proietti concludes that the Note “does not incur dogmatic error”, but sins of pastoral timidity, avoiding proclaiming what it actually upholds.
A Church that fears to name what it teaches
Specola emphasizes that the underlying problem is not linguistic, but spiritual: a Church that fears to pronounce the words of its own tradition ends up defending the truth in silence. The Mater Populi Fidelis Note does not formally deny co-redemption or Marian mediation, but renounces affirming them with the clarity demanded by the Magisterium.
The result is a voiceless theology: orthodox in letter, insecure in tone, unable to inspire devotion or certainty.
Thus, Leo XIV inherits not only Francisco’s documents, but his deepest theological crisis: a Church that, in the name of «prudence», fears to teach and defend what it has always believed.