Leo XIV: The coming Church

The document calling Mary’s title of co-redemptrix “inappropriate” isn’t the only news that broke last week.

At the press conference presenting the doctrinal note, held in the Jesuit Curia rather than in the Holy See Press Office, as would be more appropriate for a document of such importance, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez announced that the document on monogamy would also be published soon.

The document on monogamy, as well as the document on the titles of the Virgin Mary, had been widely announced by the prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in January of this year, just before Pope Francis began his hospital stay and the final journey of his life.

It remained to be seen whether Leo XIV intended to publish these documents. So, it now appears that Leo XIV intends to leave nothing unfinished or wasted of the work already begun by his predecessor.

He did so by publishing Dilexi Te, the exhortation on poverty that bears the signature of Leo XIV but which in reality bears a profound imprint of Pope Francis. He did so by accepting a speech to popular movements, with whom he continued to meet, which advanced a series of the Argentine pontiff’s most cherished concerns, with the idea of a social Christianity that clashes somewhat with the centrality of Christ that Leo XIV had championed since the beginning of his pontificate. And he did so by publishing the “suspended documents,” which may see some adjustment but in reality carry with them the spirit of their initiator, Leo’s predecessor.

Indeed, the document on the titles of Mary seems to diverge significantly from the idea of unity and reconciliation in the Church that permeated the choice of Prevost as Pope and the first steps of Leo XIV. By its very nature, the document of the Doctrine of the Faith was bound to divide, in some way.

DDF not only called the co-redemptrix title “inappropriate” but was also cool to Mary’s title of Mediatrix. One wonders what will become of parishes named after Mary Mediatrix (even one in Syracuse – the one I’m thinking of is in Sicily, not upstate New York – named after Mary Mediatrix of All Graces, which is specifically and explicitly discouraged in the DDF document)?

Said shortly: This document opens a new front in the intra-ecclesial debate that perhaps didn’t need to be opened.

Leo XIII had even spoken of co-redemptrix, and John Paul II loved to call the Virgin Mary that, so much so that he did so seven times during his pontificate. Benedict XVI, however, who insisted on precision—he was a theologian, of course—avoided the title, noting the potential difficulties of comprehension.

But that’s precisely the point. If a title is difficult to understand, labeling it as inappropriate, even in a 21-page document, regardless of how clear and fluent it is, isn’t enough. What’s needed is a thorough theological study, a debate that ultimately allows everyone, if not to accept, then at least to understand the conclusions reached. And that’s what’s been missing.

The document had the same gestation as the document on the blessing of irregular couples, which Fernandez had said had been submitted to the Dicastery for review. In the end, it reportedly emerged that there had only been general discussion of a document on the topic, but that the final result had not been discussed in detail during the feria quarta, the Wednesday meeting of all the Congregation’s officials that serves to discuss issues with an interdisciplinary approach.

This document embodies the same paradox that accompanied Pope Francis’s pontificate: “Synodal” in its language, centralizing in fact. It’s not surprising, in this sense, that the document was challenged even during its presentation, even by lay people. However, suppose synodality is assimilated to a democratic process, in which everyone can and must have a say and in which everyone’s voice counts equally.

In that case, we end up with these distortions, with lay people seeking to replace doctrinal bodies, and with debates that become valid simply because they are debated.

Was this document necessary?

Probably not, just as there was no need for the document blessing irregular couples—when have priests ever denied a simple sign of the cross on the forehead to anyone?—nor was there a need for Traditionis custodes, which severely restricted the celebration of Mass and other liturgical rites according to ancient usage. These are all divisive documents, neither adding to nor subtracting from the debate, but all tending to truncate discussion through the exercise of raw governing power.

That, in short, is why they have the effect of alienating people from the faith.

In his homily for the dedication of the Lateran basilica on Sunday Nov. 9, Leo spoke of the Church as a construction site. At this point, Pope Leo XIV must decide what kind of Church he wants to build. It remains unclear whether the Pope intends first to incorporate all of Francis’s decisions and then proceed with his own adjustments or new choices. If this were the strategy, he would still be dealing with a cumbersome legacy and a pontificate that has yet to begin.

A news broke that the Pope is summoning an extraordinary consistory of cardinals on Jan. 7-8, 2026. No agenda has been provided for the meeting. So, it seems that the Pope will finish up all Pope Francis’ work until the end of the Jubilee on Jan.6.

If Leo XIV begins to assemble his own governing team, it may then become possible to assess the pontiff’s performance accurately.

However, for the government to be effective, it must be comprised of individuals who are committed to its success. Adjustments to Francis’s reforms will be necessary, as will clear language on some significant issues. The document on monogamy will be a test case.

Meanwhile, we wonder what happened to the document on slavery announced by Fernandez. That was the document most at risk of controversy, if only because of Fernandez’s particular view—a very Latin American one —on the Church’s attitude toward slavery.

Each document, however, is a test for the new Pope. Will he passively accept the decisions made? Or will he react to the guardians of the Francis Revolution who have surrounded him since the first day of his pontificate?

We are facing a long pontificate, which still cannot be fully deciphered. And yet, these questions are burning today.