Posted on 11/25/2025 3:20:11 PM PST by ebb tide
In his June 11, 2025 tribute to Francis, Cardinal Víctor Manuel “Tucho” Fernández expressed his sensitivity to the way in which people perceive his words:
“Therefore, when faced with a complex theological moral issue, we must always consider how it impacts real people, their lives, and their suffering. We should ask ourselves what effect our words might have on this person’s life if we say this or that. It is not that the truth itself changes; yet, the truth can be perceived by another person in different ways. For example, if I say that Christ is not a human person, theologically this is absolutely correct. But if I say the same thing to someone who has not studied theology, they might understand that Christ is not a real man, that he is a man with a part ‘cut off,’ or that he is not like us. The same applies when classical theology affirms that there is no movement in heaven. What does the person understand first? That it is better to remain here below, that eternity must be very boring, and so on.”
Tucho is evidently a very smart man who knows much about Catholicism, even if (as it seems) he does not happen to believe any of it. With this in mind, it is interesting to consider how he chose to condemn the title of “Co-redemptrix” in his Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith’s new “doctrinal note on some Marian titles regarding Mary’s Cooperation in the work of salvation,” Mater Populi Fidelis. One would think from the response of some Catholics that the new document entirely denied Our Lady’s role in the Redemption, but we can see from the excerpts below that this assessment is not quite accurate:
With these passages and several others, Tucho essentially shows why it would be entirely appropriate to call the Blessed Virgin Mary “Co-redemptrix.” However, here is what Tucho says about applying this title to Our Lady, just as the saints and popes have done for centuries:
“Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it is always inappropriate to use the title ‘Co-redemptrix' to define Mary’s cooperation.”
Even though this sentence literally affirms that Mary had a “subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption” — which again suggests that the term “Co-redemptrix” is correct — Tucho asserts that it is always inappropriate to use the term that various popes and saints have used for many centuries. We of course disagree with his conclusion, but there is a distinct harm from the way in which he chose to phrase his message: he did not need to adopt such a condescending and judgmental tone, but for some reason he did. This is especially disturbing when we recall the words quoted earlier from his Francis tribute: "We should ask ourselves what effect our words might have on this person’s life if we say this or that.”
This motivation appears more certain when we consider two aspects of Tucho’s tribute to Francis: a distaste for those who condemn sin and errors, and an insistence on infinite and inalienable human dignity.
It is easy to say that Tucho intended to attack the Blessed Virgin Mary by rejecting the titles of “Co-redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of all graces.” While this is certainly a reasonable conclusion, much of the document affirms the perfect legitimacy of the teachings that justify those titles. And the ecumenical objective of pleasing Protestants is also a likely motive for denying these Marian titles, even though several doctrines to which the Protestants object are emphasized in the document. However, if we had to pinpoint an even stronger motivation for this document, it seems that it would be Tucho’s dislike of “conservative” and “traditional” Catholics, who are almost certainly the groups most offended by the rejection of Our Lady’s titles.
This motivation appears more certain when we consider two aspects of Tucho’s tribute to Francis: a distaste for those who condemn sin and errors, and an insistence on infinite and inalienable human dignity.
Distaste for Those Who Condemn Sin and Errors
As we can see the following words from Tucho’s tribute, he and Francis shared a dislike for conservative Catholics:
“Pope Francis never had a personal issue with theology—no personal criticisms or disputes, not even with a theologian—nor any ‘wounds’ that could influence him. I can say this with certainty. However, he was very struck by the constant accusations against others that he happened to hear, especially when he was a bishop, because some members of the Episcopal Conference belonged to a very conservative line of thinking and continually wanted to condemn this or that priest for saying something in a homily, or for writing it somewhere, etc. So, it is more about that aspect. I think that if there was anything that could have influenced him, so to speak, it was primarily a kind of unease toward people who dedicate their lives to persecuting others and finding faults in them, to looking for mistakes in them, and so on. And this was his issue: not with theology itself, but with this kind of situation.”
These words equate a conservative line of thinking with “persecuting others and finding faults with them.” On a purely natural level, we can understand why someone who did not understand Catholicism might agree with this: Catholicism can seem so harsh in telling people that they must avoid offending God if they wish to save their souls. By the same token, though, Jesus’s words surely seem harsh to those who lack a proper understanding of the Faith:
“Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh. And if thy hand, or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to go into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.” (Matthew 18:7-9)
God gave us free will and thus we can choose to reject these words. If we accept them for what they plainly mean, though, we have to conclude that the so-called conservative line of thinking is actually preserving people from being “cast into hell fire.” Far from being unkind, then, the conservative line of thinking denounced by Tucho is actually the fruit of a charitable desire to help souls please God and make it to Heaven.
We can see from Tucho’s words that his dicastery sometimes gives nominal Catholics what they want, by deliberately erring on the side of making it easier for sinners to remain in their sins.
Obviously this is not what many nominal Catholics want to hear — they want assurances that God loves them as they are, without them needing to try to overcome sin. We can see from Tucho’s words that his dicastery sometimes gives these nominal Catholics what they want, by deliberately erring on the side of making it easier for sinners to remain in their sins:
“If you can choose between improving someone’s life or making it more complicated, you should always choose to improve it, not complicate it. And if an issue can be resolved, we should do so. From this, we can derive a very simple principle, which I believe can also be useful for our work: not to complicate further the lives of people who already face many problems each day. Therefore, we must be careful not to add unnecessary burdens to their lives. Recall that Pope Leo told us to continue on the same lines of work we had under Pope Francis. So, when analyzing a situation, if we are unsure whether to say yes or no, we say yes. If there’s a possibility of resolving something to help someone, then we do it. This can also help ensure that the Dicastery is not viewed as an ‘agency’ that is constantly checking for errors or dangers.”
Arguably, the most noticeable manifestation of this has been the promotion of the LGBTQ agenda, especially through Fiducia Supplicans. Of course there is great irony in the work of Tucho, Francis, and now Leo XIV, in trying to improve lives by saying “yes” when the Church has always said “no” — this approach may superficially improve someone’s life for a moment, but only at the cost of leading them to hell. Moreover, illegitimate accommodations for those who refuse to abandon their sins and errors invariably adds unnecessary burdens for practicing Catholics.
So we can see Tucho’s definite orientation away from orthodoxy and purity and toward heterodoxy and sin. Is it any mystery, then, why he would want to attack those who show their love for orthodoxy and purity by honoring the Blessed Virgin Mary?
Insistence on Infinite and Inalienable Human Dignity
In his tribute, Tucho also emphasized Francis’s view of human dignity:
“Pope Francis especially appreciated our document Dignitas Infinita, because he has always emphasized this point, ever since his days as a priest. The document addresses the infinite dignity of each human person, which is a belief that guided his priesthood, episcopate, and the choices he made, such as visiting this journalist, this hairdresser, or this cleaning lady. For him, it was essential to meet every person, regardless of their social standing, because they are people with inalienable dignity, loved infinitely by God. This is the key point.”
As discussed in a previous article on Dignitatis Infinita, this view of an “infinite” and “inalienable” dignity is completely at odds with actual Catholic teaching. Even before considering an expression of the Church’s true teaching on this (from Leo XIII), we can apply common sense: if each human person has infinite and inalienable dignity, then Judas and Hitler had the same dignity as the Blessed Virgin Mary. That is obviously insane.
He affirms “Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption” and yet he unjustly chides those who appropriately use the term “Co-redemptrix” to describe Mary’s subordinate role.
As we can see from the words of Pope Leo XIII’s 1885 encyclical on the Christian Constitution of States, Immortale Dei, man loses his dignity through error and sin:
“Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption.”
Thus, human dignity may have a “native fullness” but is neither infinite nor inalienable. These words from Leo XIII also teach us why heretics like Tucho would want to emphasize an infinite and inalienable human dignity: this is an indirect way to deny this disastrous consequences of error and sin.
Tucho’s tribute to Francis also included a personal anecdote about human dignity:
“He never told me, ‘You must do it,’ but always waited for my free decision. He never pressured me. In meetings with him, during some difficult moments I had to face—moments that were truly very hard—he said to me: ‘No, Tucho, hold your head high and don’t let them take away your dignity.’ He said this firmly, looking me in the eyes, and that phrase really struck me and has remained a constant source of consolation for me.”
Tucho did not elaborate on the “difficult moments” he faced, but presumably they involved criticisms from Catholics about the inappropriate nature of various things that he had said and done, such as writing a book entitled “Heal Me With Your Mouth. The Art of Kissing.” In such times, it appears that the fable of an inalienable and infinite dignity was his shield against those mean Catholics who thought they always needed to condemn error and sin.
The poor man had to deny Mary (his mother and ours) her historical titles just to get back at all those Catholics who have found faults with his religious views.
With this context, we can return to what many consider to be the most offensive sentence in the new doctrinal note on Mary’s titles:
“Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it is always inappropriate to use the title ‘Co-redemptrix' to define Mary’s cooperation.”
He affirms “Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption” and yet he unjustly chides those who appropriately use the term “Co-redemptrix” to describe Mary’s subordinate role. The poor man had to deny Mary (his mother and ours) her historical titles just to get back at all those Catholics who have found faults with his religious views. Perhaps our best possible “revenge” would be to pray and sacrifice in reparation for the sins of Tucho and Leo XIV, asking Our Lady, Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces, to convert them to the true Catholic Faith. Our Lady of Perpetual Help, pray for us!
“If you can choose between improving someone’s life or making it more complicated, you should always choose to improve it, not complicate it. And if an issue can be resolved, we should do so. From this, we can derive a very simple principle, which I believe can also be useful for our work: not to complicate further the lives of people who already face many problems each day. Therefore, we must be careful not to add unnecessary burdens to their lives. Recall that Pope Leo told us to continue on the same lines of work we had under Pope Francis. So, when analyzing a situation, if we are unsure whether to say yes or no, we say yes. If there’s a possibility of resolving something to help someone, then we do it. This can also help ensure that the Dicastery is not viewed as an ‘agency’ that is constantly checking for errors or dangers.”
Arguably, the most noticeable manifestation of this has been the promotion of the LGBTQ agenda, especially through Fiducia Supplicans. Of course there is great irony in the work of Tucho, Francis, and now Leo XIV, in trying to improve lives by saying “yes” when the Church has always said “no” — this approach may superficially improve someone’s life for a moment, but only at the cost of leading them to hell. Moreover, illegitimate accommodations for those who refuse to abandon their sins and errors invariably adds unnecessary burdens for practicing Catholics.
Ping
OK, I'll be Sirius. The problem is that the Catholic church can't split itself into the Accurate Catholic church and the Heretical Catholic church, the way the Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Baptists have, so as Paul put it, we can know who are the sheep and who are the goats. So the result is that Catholicism suffers from continuous GERD (Goats Eternal Reflux Disease), as it constantly has to digest the heresies exploding out of the church leadership, and try to hold on to the orthodoxy and orthopraxis also exploding out of the other part of the church leadership.
YMMV, but you might express yourself more charitably.
I apologize if I sounded less than charitable. As a non-Catholic, I wish nothing but Godliness for the church, and if that requires removing the ungodly, as it has in all the Protestant branches, so be it. I care about all churches who name the name of Christ as He is, not as they wish he were--and frankly, I have to divest myself daily of all that is not of Christ, and the closer one gets, the more divestiture of sin is required.
This is another aspect of the whole “we can’t have these teachings proclaimed because they’re too difficult to explain and people won’t understand” and it is just false spiritual guidance.
Did Tucho deny Christ’s humanity? Did he throw shade on a fundamental tenet of Christian faith that Christ is both fully man and fully God? Of he gets something so fundamental wrong what else is he getting wrong?
CC
What are you more upset with...that the poster called out the obvious issue with roman catholicism...or that there are obvious issues with roman catholicism??
Father Linus Clovis, spiritual director to Family Life International, gave an address on May 18, 2017 at the fourth annual Roman Life Forum in which he described the problem particularly well:
It is self-evident that the Catholic Church and the anti-Church currently co-exist in the same sacramental, liturgical and juridical space. The latter, having grown stronger, is now attempting to pass itself off as the true Church, all the better to induct, or coerce, the faithful into becoming adherents, promoters and defenders of a secular ideology.
The entire address can be found here:
beat it, e
Truth hurts, doesn’t it.
beat it
Now, if you can't handle the public debate...head over to the caucus threads with ebbtide. The two of you can hang out together.
Nobody asked you anything.
Butt out.
Seems you can't handle the conversation.
I think it’s the public statement of what everyone knows - Romanism failed hundreds of years ago. Plastering over the sin is just cosmetic. A whitewashed tomb.
At the moment, this Guy has no interest in what you have to say.
Please bother someone else.
Sheesh.
Sheesh.....roman catholics are some of the most thin skinned people around. You're letting a poster on a message board bother you??
Head for your safe space.
No need to be rude, e.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.