It’s Wednesday, the first rays of the sun are bathing St. Peter’s Square, the cold Roman night is waking up. The faithful are gathering for the audience, Pope Leo has returned from Castel Gandolfo and has fallen again into the temptation of treacherous statements.
Pope Leo XIV criticized the deployment of U.S. forces in the Caribbean, without mentioning President Donald Trump, and stated that “with violence” no one wins. Leo XIV stated that a country has the right to have military forces to “defend peace.” “But in this case it seems a bit different. It increases tensions,” referring to reports of U.S. ships “getting closer and closer to the coast of Venezuela.” “With violence we don’t win. What needs to be done is to seek dialogue.”
The Pope was also asked about migrants detained in his hometown: “Jesus says very clearly that at the end of the world we will be asked how we received the stranger, whether we received and welcomed him or not.” “I think we need to reflect deeply on what is happening. Many people who have lived for years and years without ever causing problems have been deeply affected by what is happening right now.”
Yesterday, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith published a Doctrinal Note of 80 paragraphs, approved by Pope Leo XIV, which explains that «given the need to explain Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it is always inappropriate to use the title of Co-Redemptrix to define Mary’s cooperation.» Always inappropriate, according to the Dicastery; at least for readers of the main languages in which the document has been published, since the English text limits itself to «would not be appropriate », omitting the adverb and preferring the conditional. But since someone must have decided that the Church’s original documents should no longer be written in Latin, it is up to the reader to choose which version to go with.
Newman was very aware of the deep knowledge that Pusey had of the teachings of the Church Fathers. Therefore, it surprised him to be able to accuse the Catholic world of “quasi-idolatry” toward the Most Holy Virgin, due to the abundance of honorific titles and the theological density attributed to her, because it was precisely the “undivided Church” that was so generous with Marian titles. “When you, along with the Fathers, give Mary the titles of Mother of God, Second Eve and Mother of all the living, Mother of Life, Morning Star, New Mystical Heaven, Scepter of Orthodoxy, Immaculate Mother of Holiness and others similar, people might interpret your protests against those who give Mary the titles of Co-Redemptrix and High Priestess as a poor compensation for such language.”
Newman would never have imagined that the day would come when he would have to defend the title of Co-Redemptrix not before an Anglican, but before the prefect of the former Holy Office. The reason the Dicastery eliminates the title of Co-Redemptrix is its potential to generate «confusion and imbalance in the harmony of the truths of the Christian faith, because “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.» «The danger of obscuring the exclusive role of Jesus Christ […] would not be a true honor for the Mother.» These statements are not original, as they are typical of Protestant objections, but they are certainly very curious in an official document that purports to respond to questions that «would frequently raise doubts even in the simplest of the faithful»; yes, because in the era of Fernández’s administration, Doctrinal Notes no longer exist to clarify what may seem confusing, but to obscure what was already clear.
Logic would dictate that, if a term that has become widespread —not only in the devotion of the faithful, but also in papal and episcopal interventions and in official Church documents (think of the two decrees of the Holy Office of 1913 and 1914, respectively)— is misinterpreted contrary to correct doctrine, the Holy See should intervene to clarify and confirm it, not to fuel confusion and discard a title already consolidated on the theological and magisterial level. Because anyone with a minimum knowledge of the evolution of theological reflection on Marian co-redemption and its fundamental clarifications knows that this does not sustain a redemption parallel to that of Christ, nor an absolute necessity of Marian collaboration ( of condign merit) ; nor that the Most Holy Virgin Mary did not need to be redeemed by the Incarnate Word, her Son, for the Redemption. All these aspects are already widely established, but Tucho and company prefer to continue pretending that they are confusing and dangerous.
The note even goes so far as to present a criterion, taken from who knows where , which would be simply hilarious if it were not tragically present in an official document of the Holy See: «When an expression requires numerous and continuous explanations to avoid straying from its correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes inappropriate ». One would have to ask Cardinal Fernández and Monsignor Matteo if they really believe what they have written, because, following this principle, practically all Marian dogmas would have to be retracted. And not only that. Doesn’t the title of Theotokos require —or continue to require— numerous and continuous explanations? Doesn’t the dogma of the Immaculate Conception need to be continually explained to avoid thinking that the Virgin Mary is exempt from Christ’s redemption? Don’t the formulations of the Trinitarian or Christological dogma also require «numerous and continuous explanations»? Would they, therefore, be «inappropriate» and useless for the faith of the People of God? The principle stated in the note constitutes, in effect, the tomb of every dogmatic definition and of theology itself.
The presentation of the history of the doctrine of co-redemption is completely erroneous . The extraordinary contribution of numerous saints and theologians is dismissed in a single paragraph (§ 17), a fairly clear sign that the intention of the note was certainly not to take stock of the situation, but to attack co-redemption. Another dismissal is observed in the scant reference to the teaching of the pontiffs, particularly that of St. John Paul II; only to then devote two extensive paragraphs to Ratzinger’s position when he was still a cardinal. Ratzinger, along with Pope Francis, to whom paragraph 21 is entirely dedicated, would be the authority for arguing that the title of Co-Redemptrix is inappropriate. However, in his vote of 1996, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger did not reject the title, but considered that theological reflection was not yet sufficiently mature to attribute to the Virgin Mary the title of Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix. His opposition to the title, however, refers to a simple 2002 interview (in which, among other things, he declared himself in favor of the underlying doctrine, as an expression of the fact that Christ wants to share everything with us, even his own redemption) .
Fernández confirms himself as a serial manufacturer of doubts and errors, as already happened with the responses to some doubts raised by Amoris Lætitia , with blessings for homosexual couples , with the death penalty and human dignity . He should have been the first prefect to be dismissed with the new pontificate, and instead we find him emboldened to continue his work of confusion based on ignorance, or worse, on ideological manipulations. Instead of suppressing devotion to the Mediatrix of All Graces, Catholics should spread it under this title so that graces may pour out upon a world that desperately needs them. These titles are rooted in Sacred Scripture and have the broad support of saints and popes.
Zuppi, presented in Rome the book by Aldo Cazzullo, Francesco. The first Italian (HarperCollins). While we were all there, pretending that the Church was still beating strongly, Zuppi certified its death with these words: Pope Francis «faced the end of Christianity and did not pretend that Christianity existed.» It seems that even for Zuppi the Vatican II experiment —the theological delirium of the sixties— is a dead living being. The Christianity invented in the sixties was never authentic; it was a hallucination born of the feverish dreams of the Second Vatican Council. Goodbye to Latin, incense, and genuflections; hello to guitars, handshakes, and “dialogue” with a world that didn’t care to dialogue at all. Doctrine has been replaced by “pastoral sensitivity,” that is, letting everyone do what they want, as long as they applaud; the result is that the church pews are emptier than political promises. The inverted doctrine —sin is a “path,” hell a metaphor, the Eucharist a symbolic bite— has produced a generation that thinks of Catholicism as a style, not as a faith. The “ended” Christianity is a strange religion, like a pharmacy, for aging hippies . The true faith? It is still alive, still praying in Latin, still believing in sin and salvation. And, curiously, it is growing precisely where the spirit of the council is collapsing; perhaps the Church can now look toward a new beginning.
It is necessary to distinguish —as Romano Guardini did— between Christendom and Christianity . Christendom is the set of social, cultural, and political structures born of Christianity: an era in which faith shaped institutions, law, art, and daily life. Christianity , on the other hand, is faith itself, the personal encounter with Christ, the following of the Gospel, which can exist even without power, without consensus, even without visibility. As Ratzinger observed in Faith and the Future , the crisis we are living is not primarily religious, but structural and cultural : «The world has enclosed itself within itself… the God hypothesis is no longer necessary to understand the world.» And yet, precisely in this claim of self-sufficiency, man ends up discovering his own emptiness . It is the crisis of Christendom , not of Christianity: what is missing is a system of shared values, not the truth of faith. Ratzinger had already intuited it in 1969, in a passage that today resonates almost prophetically: «The Church will lose much, it will shrink and have to start over more or less from the beginning… but it will be reborn and become the Church of Jesus Christ».
«God’s dream is to reform and renew us so that, through the sacraments, especially the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, we become Christians, members of the living body, that is, of the ecclesial body.» «Our duty is not to reform God’s Church, but to reform our lives.» «Christ is the head, and we, the bishops, priests, deacons, including the Bishop of Rome and Successor of St. Peter, are only his servants, for no one can lay the foundation except the one who is already there, that is, Jesus Christ; these divine words must be the supreme rule.» «Synodality is not the concept of a new church, but… solely the renewal of the Church of Christ in Jesus Christ»
Marilena Bogazzi is the president of Catholic Vegetarians – we have everything – has sent to Pope Leo her writings “Christian-inspired vegetarianism” and “Vegetarianism as an ethical issue,” and has received a response signed by Edgar: «Dear Madam, with a kind letter received here, you have sent to the Holy Father, as a sign of devout homage, some publications of which you are the author. His Holiness recalls that «we are one family, with a common Father who makes the sun rise and the rain fall on all (cf. Mt 5:45); we inhabit the same planet, which we must care for together. For this reason, I reiterate a firm call for unity around integral ecology and peace.» The Bogazzi emphasizes that the Holy Father was referring to all beings on the planet, including animals, and to integral ecology .
Marzia Ceschia, professor of spiritual theology at the Faculty of Theology of Triveneto, offers some reflections on «Dilexi te», the first apostolic exhortation of Pope Leo XIV. «It is evident that the document does not intend to reiterate a sociological priority, but to highlight a theological precedent: «We are not in the horizon of charity, but of Revelation: contact with those who lack power and greatness is a fundamental way of encountering the Lord of history» (n. 5). […] The poor thus constitute a place of theology par excellence, since Christ assumed poverty to be among men […].
The latest ISTAT data confirm a new decline in birth rates. Talk is of a renunciation of parenthood. But it is the fruit of a generation without nature, without others, without history, and ultimately without God. According to the latest Istat data , between 2023 and 2024, births fell by 2.6% in Italy, that is, 10,000 fewer babies. Last year, among pink and blue ribbons, we reached 370,000 births. Since 2008, births have decreased by 35.8%, more than a third of Italians have stopped being born since 2008. Istat points out, first of all, that the number of young people is decreasing over time, low birth rate feeds back. Secondly, there are several factors contributing to the demographic stagnation: «The prolongation of education, the precariousness of youth employment and the difficulty of access to the real estate market, factors that tend to delay emancipation from the family nucleus, along with the decision to renounce parenthood or postpone it». Added to this is the increase in sterility and infertility among young people, as well as abortion: worldwide, three out of ten pregnancies end in abortion, and six out of ten unwanted pregnancies as well.
There are always pleasant surprises and a stolen manuscript from the Archives of the Pontifical Masters of Ceremonies will be returned to the Vatican Apostolic Archives on Tuesday, November 11. It was recovered by the Italian Carabinieri for the Protection of Cultural Heritage. It is a form dating from the pontificate of Gregory XVI (1831-1846), used by the Pope to assign cardinalatial titles during the Consistory. The initials corresponded to a 1864 catalog from which this manuscript was missing.
«…not to do my will but the will of Him who sent me.»
Good reading.