| [ 
EN -
ES - IT - 
PT ] Cardinal Víctor Manuel FernándezPrefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith
   A Tribute to Pope Francis: “In the Footsteps of a Father” Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández in Dialogue with the Doctrinal Section of the Dicastery
 11 June 2025   Question: Can you share your testimony about what you, who were especially close to Pope 
Francis, consider to be the heart of his thought and, in some way, also his 
legacy for the Church? Prefect: Pope Francis’s thought can, of course, be understood through the texts he has 
left us. What we can do is offer a general guide for reading them.  One point that was very important to him was that doctrine should be clear. He 
always thought this. It is not true, as some say, that he wanted to create 
doctrinal confusion, that theological depth was unimportant to him, or that he 
did not want to get to the bottom of issues. He valued clear thinking; 
however—and this is the key point—in his view, everything plays out in people’s 
concrete lives. I am not talking about situational ethics, which is something 
quite different, but about the real life each person lives, where the history of 
their salvation and the mystery of salvation unfold. For this reason, 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.  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.  These are two small examples that Pope Francis sometimes used in order to show 
that you can say something very clear and orthodox, but you must also ask how 
the other person perceives it, what impact it has on their life and God’s plan 
of salvation for them, how they will react, what effect it will have on the 
development of their personal journey, and so on. This seems to me the most 
important point for understanding many of the things Pope Francis said.  Another important point related to this is the conviction that there are many 
truths within the Church’s theology and teachings; however, there is a core, 
which is the kerygma, and this is fundamental to people’s lives. This 
theme has been present in Pope Francis’s teachings from the beginning, as he 
demonstrated in his catechesis and in his simplest, most everyday speeches, 
where he constantly returned to the love of God and to Christ who embraces us, 
walks with us, bends down to our sufferings, and unites them to himself. All of 
these are simply the kerygma itself expressed in plain words, but 
repeated in different ways for various circumstances. For Pope Francis, this was 
the heart of the revealed truth. The greatest risk is not communicating this 
heart but becoming fixated on secondary issues, which are also beautiful and 
true, but which might not bring the saving heart of the Gospel message to real 
people’s lives. This is what changes lives and truly fosters conversion and 
growth in the Christian life.  So, (1) attention to the lives of real people and (2) the kerygma: these are the 
two points I have heard from him for as long as I can remember, even before he 
was a bishop, and which he already held back then. When he became Archbishop, I 
was already the Rector of the Catholic University, and I had many opportunities 
to meet him, during which I sensed he had the same emphases, which he continued 
to have even after becoming Pope. Many other things could be said, but I think 
this is the key to understanding Pope Francis’s thinking.  On these issues, Pope Leo XIV is in the same line of thinking. Of course, this 
is not a new development, but something he has held since he was a Cardinal. 
During recent audiences, the Holy Father told me that the direction the 
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has taken in recent years will continue 
to be the same. He even mentioned this during the Ordinary Session of the 
Dicastery for Bishops, regarding the criteria for choosing bishops. Pope Leo 
emphasized that bishops must proclaim the kerygma, be close to the 
people, understand their anxieties, and have the good of all at heart. At the 
beginning of the meeting, he read a list of points I felt I had heard before. He 
then clarified where they came from: they were the same points Pope Francis 
requested. We can say that there is certainly a difference in style and nuance 
between Leo and Francis—but ultimately, it is better this way since the Church 
is enriched by each Pontiff. Nevertheless, there is an underlying continuity 
that is important to understand because it also guides our work at the Dicastery 
for the Doctrine of the Faith. Question: Could you also give us an account of your meeting with Pope Francis? You once 
referred to it when presenting 
Dignitas Infinita, saying that your 
meeting with him helped you rediscover your own dignity. Prefect: Yes, and this was thanks to Pope Francis’s firm and deep belief in the dignity 
of every person. You could see this when he made decisions that affected 
someone. You might have a different opinion, but he would listen to you and show 
great respect. And he would never ask anyone to do something without that 
person’s free and clear acceptance. In fact, he asked me to do several things in 
my life; I initially refused some, but I later agreed. 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. Many others also shared this experience; it was not 
something only I felt, as it reflected his deep conviction, which he also 
expressed in his words about the poor, about suffering, economic issues, and 
many other matters. Ultimately, it is simply an evangelical conviction. Question: I would like to pose a question, but it is more out of curiosity. In our 
discussions with you, we have sensed Pope Francis’s strong support for this 
Dicastery—his genuine closeness and support. Sometimes, however, when Pope 
Francis talked about theology, he used words that I found a little severe, as if 
he had been somewhat hurt by the teachings he received. To put it briefly, he 
said several times: “Theology is just Denzinger.” Early in his pontificate, I 
translated some of his works and saw him more as a philosopher in his mindset 
than as a theologian, because when he spoke or wrote, he sometimes talked about 
theology as if it were merely a constant comparison with Denzinger. So, it was 
not always easy for me to understand his deep conviction about theology as a 
discipline. Prefect: This is a very sincere and concrete question. Thank you. 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. Of course, one might also think that, when he was a student, he could have had 
teachers who were too “scholastic.” However, he appreciated his theology and 
philosophy teachers, so I can assure you it was not a personal problem or one 
related to his own history. Instead, it was that unease I mentioned earlier, 
especially because these people—who constantly sought to condemn others—spoke 
with great confidence, as if they had all the truth in their heads, without even 
needing to study because they already knew everything. I believe it was this 
situation that prompted Pope Francis to make certain remarks about theology. Question: What you are saying now reminds me of Pope Francis’s visit to the Dicastery, 
where the first thing he told us was precisely this. And it surprised me because 
he said, and I quote: “Let’s be careful because I have often met people in my 
life who almost enjoyed torturing, punishing, or persecuting others.” He also 
told us that these individuals usually join the military or the clergy.  
 Prefect: All joking aside, one could say that it was precisely this that gave rise to 
another point Pope Francis typically insisted on: that if you can help someone, 
you must do so. 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. At the 
center of our work must be, above all, a commitment to fostering that which is 
good. This is a tangible aspect of our work on the various issues we handle. And 
then, when it comes to theological decisions: “in dubio pro reo”. This is 
a classical principle.  Question: In Latin America, did the two “Popes,” Francis and Leo, ever have the 
opportunity to meet? Prefect: Yes, except that where Pope Leo was Bishop [i.e., the Diocese of Chiclayo, Peru] 
is very far from Buenos Aires. So, it was very difficult for them to meet since 
the journey between the two is long and complicated. They met occasionally at 
some bishops’ meetings on certain issues, but they did not have close contact. 
Of course, they knew each other, and Pope Francis appreciated his work as bishop 
in Chiclayo. For this reason, and also because of what he had heard, he brought 
him here to the Vatican. Question: Pope Francis has put great emphasis on the “peripheries.” Sometimes, it seemed 
like this represented a bit of a polemic against the “center,” in the sense that 
things can be seen better from more peripheral realities—possibly because he had 
some firsthand experience of this. Or in the sense that, from his point of view, 
perhaps the “center” does not see clearly, or even at all, what is happening in 
the peripheries. Prefect: This aspect of Pope Francis’s thinking originates from an Argentine philosopher 
named Amelia Podetti (1928-1979), who was closely associated with another, 
perhaps slightly better-known philosopher, Günter Rodolfo Kusch (1922-1979), who 
spoke of the so-called “deeper America.” In Kusch’s thinking, there is a 
“superficial” America and a “deeper” America, and that deeper, popular America 
is a humus: a humus of good soil where many things can grow, many 
beautiful things, even many lights for understanding reality itself. Yet, this 
“deeper” level remains little explored by those who stay on the “surface.” 
Podetti, who was close to this line of thinking, developed the idea that some 
things can be seen from the center, but many other things cannot be seen from 
there since they can only be perceived from the periphery. This philosopher also 
had some connection with Gadamer, who spoke of the importance of one’s 
background in understanding reality, and that, when it comes to understanding 
something, there is never a tabula rasa; one always starts from some life 
experience. This background forms “prejudices,” which, however, Gadamer believed 
should not be understood in a negative sense, such as “this is a prejudice, so 
we must remove it to see the truth more clearly.” Gadamer disagreed and argued 
exactly the contrary: that “prejudice” is the possibility I have for accessing 
at least some aspects of the truth, a possibility that perhaps someone else does 
not have because they see things from a different perspective.  A concrete example of this can be found in the Bedouins in the desert. If you go 
to the desert, all you would see is an ocean of sand, and you find it very 
boring. You might say that it is impossible to find anything interesting there 
or that it’s just sand, and so on. However, for the Bedouin, who was born and 
raised there, the desert is full of beauty, life, and variety. If you spend a 
day with the Bedouins, they will help you understand this by saying, “Look at 
the shadows, look over there, wait half an hour, and you will see how the color 
changes, see this insect, etc.” In other words, they will help you discover a 
world in the desert that you cannot see on your own. We can say that this 
“background,” these prejudices, are a source of wealth for the Bedouins, helping 
them access aspects of the truth that others cannot see. So, as Amelia Podetti 
said, these different perspectives allow us to gain richness and a broader, more 
complete understanding of the same truth, which in itself does not change. This 
helps us understand that in our work at the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the 
Faith, it is very important to listen to the opinions of those living in 
different contexts, who enrich our vision. So, Bergoglio developed his discourse on the peripheries starting from this 
Latin American philosopher in dialogue with Kusch, who was an important author, 
but also in dialogue with a European like Gadamer, because he loved to read and 
listen to thinkers and philosophers, and he was in constant dialogue with them. 
Perhaps this fact may have given the impression that he cared more about 
philosophy than theology. Indeed, he was very attached to philosophical thought, 
but it is also true that he dedicated a lot of time to literature and Sacred 
Scripture and greatly appreciated the work of biblical scholars.  Well, even beyond Pope Francis, I think all these things can serve as a useful 
guide for our future work as well.   |