Holiness:
After reading the aforementioned speech of January 29 of the current year, I have felt compelled to write you this letter, because one of two things: either I am very much mistaken, and I beg the charity that someone free me from such a tormenting error, or even Orwellian language should have a limit and, so as not to seem like I have perception problems, I am going to comment on your most highlighted words, which are in black on white and here I put in italics:
I cordially greet and thank the Prefect of the Dicastery, along with the Superiors and Officials. I am well aware of the valuable service you provide, with the aim—as stated in the Constitution Praedicate Evangelium—of “helping the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops in the proclamation of the Gospel throughout the world, promoting and safeguarding the integrity of Catholic doctrine on faith and morals, drawing from the deposit of faith and also seeking an ever deeper understanding of it in the face of new questions” (n. 69).
What integrity of doctrine can one still speak of, when the magisterium of your predecessor and your own have issued documents that, as I have been exposing in successive letters, directly oppose the previous dogmatic magisterium? And how can one claim to be drawing from a deposit of faith that has been diluted through the simple expedient of formal contradiction?
Your task is to offer clarifications on the Church’s doctrine, through pastoral and theological indications on often very delicate issues.
Who can consider the denial of what was previously established as a clarification? And how can Catholic theology, whose backbone is organic continuity, being based on Scripture and Tradition, be built upon rupture?
For this purpose, in the last two years the Dicastery has published various documents; I recall the main ones: (…) the Declaration Dignitas infinita, on human dignity (April 2, 2024), which reaffirmed the infinite dignity of every human being, today gravely endangered, particularly by ongoing wars and by an economy that puts profit first.
The nuclear thesis of Dignitas infinita is the infinity of natural human dignity, as already stated in the first point:
An infinite dignity, inalienably grounded in its own being, belongs to every human person, beyond every circumstance and in any state or situation in which they find themselves.
In case there is any doubt that speaking of a dignity rooted in being itself, and independently of circumstances, can only have a substantial character and, therefore, natural, it is immediately added its apprehensibility by reason alone, without the need for any revelation, which is proper to the supernatural:
This principle, fully recognizable even by reason alone, grounds the primacy of the human person and the protection of their rights.
So, if human dignity is already infinite in itself, when, on one hand, infinity is an exclusive note of divinity, as an expression of its eminence, and, on the other, nothing can be added to or subtracted from the infinite due to its incommensurability, what sense would the supernatural realm have, which could not contribute anything and, even if it did, would only result in a divine character that is already possessed naturally by the very infinity?
Not even the theory of obediential potency would justify such a natural infinite dignity in man, for, first of all, dignity is not a mere potency but an act, and moreover, infinity excludes all potentiality and demands full actuality.
Holiness, having already dedicated a letter to you with the biblical and magisterial affirmations contradicted by the thesis of natural infinite dignity, I believe it is not necessary to repeat all the arguments, but simply to reiterate that this thesis, contained in a magisterial document, is a heresy not merely punctual—when a single one of this type would be devastating, since failing in a single dogmatic point is already losing the Catholic faith—but truly radical, insofar as it denies the very foundation of all Catholic doctrine, namely, its supernaturality. And from a document that contains such an aberration, do you say that it clarifies the Church’s doctrine? To me, sincerely, all those words with which you try to cover, with the veil of the most anodyne normality, the greatest doctrinal assault in history, cannot but sound like sarcasm.
The Doctrinal Note Mater Populi Fidelis, on some Marian titles referring to Mary’s cooperation in the work of salvation (November 4, 2025), which fosters popular Marian devotion, deepening its biblical and theological foundations, and at the same time offers precise and important clarifications for Mariology.
In the alluded document, these affirmations are found:
22. Taking into account the need to explain Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, the use of the title of Co-Redemptrix is always inopportune to define Mary’s cooperation.
27. In the strict sense, we cannot speak of another mediation in grace other than that of the incarnate Son of God.
67. Some titles, such as, for example, that of Mediatrix of all graces, have limits that do not facilitate the correct understanding of Mary’s unique place.
Really, can the rejection of Mary’s roles as co-redeemer and mediatrix of grace be attributed, according to your own words, to fostering popular Marian devotion, deepening its biblical and theological foundations? How is any devotion going to be fostered by annulling the most heartfelt prayers that the Church has always dedicated to Mary? For what sense does it now have to beg her supernatural intercession if, precisely, the supernatural gift—grace—is no longer in her hands?
I suppose that the ecumenical objective of convergence with the exquisite Marian aversion of Protestantism will have been fully achieved; but it does not cease to surprise me that on top of that, it is pretended to present it as a fervent fanfare of the most rancid Catholicism. It is the identical ironic and distorting resource that your predecessor already used when, for example, titling Traditionis custodes the document that precisely sought to drastically restrict the liturgical tradition. Nor is it very novel, since it is well known that the formerly called “German Democratic Republic” was not exactly democratic Germany; but that the pontifical magisterium makes use of such cunning verbal tricks irretrievably sinks the entire Catholic doctrine into the deepest discredit, unless that magisterium is only supposed.
Finally, the Doctrinal Note Una caro. Praise of Monogamy, on the value of Marriage as an exclusive union and reciprocal belonging (November 25, 2025), which originally deepens the property of the unity of Marriage between a man and a woman.
From this last document, I am going to extract two points:
122. The person cannot be treated in a way that does not correspond to this dignity, which can be called “infinite,” both because of the unlimited love that God has for them and because it is an absolutely inalienable dignity.
The thesis of Dignitas infinita is expressly confirmed; but, first of all, the reason of God’s love is completely inadequate, since this love, obviously, is supernatural and, therefore, cannot found a merely natural dignity; and, second, inalienability makes that dignity substantial and deprives sin and condemnation of meaning, for neither could the former diminish an infinite dignity nor could the one who possesses such dignity be eternally condemned.
145. An integral vision of conjugal charity does not deny its fruitfulness, the possibility of generating new life, because “this totality, demanded by conjugal love, also corresponds to the demands of responsible fruitfulness.” Sexual union, as a form of expressing conjugal charity, must naturally remain open to the communication of life, although this does not mean that it must be an explicit objective of every sexual act.
Now, after Francis approved the interpretation of Amoris laetitia made by the Argentine bishops, which indicates that, when nullity could not be obtained, (…) likewise a path of discernment is possible, such that, if it is recognized that, in a concrete case, there are limitations that attenuate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person considers that they would fall into a further fault, harming the children of the new union, Amoris laetitia opens the possibility of access to the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351), what importance does it now have that legitimate spouses use artificial contraceptive methods? Do we strain out the gnat and swallow the camel? (cf. Mt 23:24). Will access to a discernment process be denied to those who have taken care to sacramentally regularize their situation, where the possibility of circumstantial limitations that attenuate responsibility and culpability is also considered? Once the situational morality is accepted, which undermines the objectivism that was believed to characterize Catholic morality, what doors can still be put on that field? Having accepted the profanation of marriage by adulterers, who can now sacrilegiously receive penance and the Eucharist, and yet imposing requirements on the duly married lacks all logic and justice, and even seems like a mockery, giving facilities to those who go the wrong way and putting obstacles to those who have taken the right one.
All this work will undoubtedly be of great benefit to the spiritual growth of the holy and faithful People of God.
How can a Roman Pontiff, who is supposed to be assisted by the Holy Spirit, present as beneficial nourishment what, as gravely adulterated doctrine, is nothing more than a poison all the more lethal the more it simulates its correctness?
I particularly appreciate that in this “Plenary” you have begun a fruitful reflection on the theme of the transmission of faith, a matter of great urgency in our time.
In the new jargon, blatant heresy is called “transmission of the faith,” only omitting, of course, that this faith is no longer Catholic, for, although heresy seems to come from the Holy See, it inevitably remains heresy.
We cannot, in fact, “ignore that, in recent decades, a break has occurred in the generational transmission of the Christian faith in the Catholic people”.
The authentic break is currently occurring with the substitution of Catholic dogmatic doctrine by something not only different, but even diametrically opposed, and that is what I want to publicly denounce with this letter.
As I recalled on the occasion of the recent Extraordinary Consistory, we want to be a Church (…) that proclaims the Gospel, above all through the power of attraction.
The only undeniable thing is the attraction; but, of course, an attraction that uses the same means as the world, from which it follows that this gospel that hides the supernaturality, of which we are so unworthy, and that demands, as an ineluctable condition, radical conversion, can only be the substitute to which St. Paul thus referred: “If an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:8). It is to be supposed that, for the apostle, the color with which the angel was dressed would be indifferent, for, as the proverb already says, the habit does not make the monk… nor the angel nor the pope.
Note: Articles published as Tribuna express the opinion of their authors and do not necessarily represent the editorial line of Infovaticana, which offers this space as a forum for reflection and dialogue.