On November 4 (last Tuesday), the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith promulgated Mater Populi Fidelis, that is, Doctrinal Note on Some Marian Titles Regarding Mary’s Cooperation in the Work of Salvation. As is often the case, rumors preceded its promulgation.
In the first place, I remind you that I am not the Magisterium of the Church. Nor am I a bishop; nor am I an accomplished theologian. I have been a Protestant – I reject the Protestant premise in principle, I adjure its errors, and I have no intention to make myself the arbiter of Catholic truth. Therefore, what follows is neither apologia nor criticism; it is the furthest thing from a so-called filial correction; it is the reaction of a simple parish priest, offered not in a spirit of polemics, but out of genuine pastoral concern for the faithful, anticipating their confusion and consternation.
In the first place, I appreciated the document’s exposition of the origin and history of certain Marian titles. It was enlightening to see when and why certain titles were accorded to Our Lady, and how the Church historically explained their use. However, I found a number of points in the document confusing, especially in the section titled Co-redemptrix.
This title has a long and esteemed pedigree. It is found going back to at least the tenth century, under the simpler Redemptrix. Some centuries later, popular usage revised this to Co-redemptrix, in order to make more clear the truth of Our Lady’s position in the hierarchy of the redemptive activity of Our Lord. It is his activity, by means of the Paschal mystery, and his grace, which is primary and necessary. By his dispositive will, he chooses to include his creatures in his own redemptive work. Their participation in this work always remains secondary and, as the document states, “expansive.”
For the most part, the document contents itself to explaining the history and doctrine of certain Marian titles that have been popularized by the devotion of the faithful and reinforced by the consistent use of the Magisterium. However, at several points it departs from the strictly doctrinal and into the prudential and pastoral, and it seems that these are the areas that are giving rise to confusion.
I should note that the impetus for the document does not seem to lie with any lack of doctrinal clarity in the historical usage of such titles, but rather with their promotion (without nuance or theological precision) by several large, popular movements, often associated with unapproved and dubious Marian apparitions. They include: Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici, the Marian Movement of Priests, devotees of the so-called “Lady of All Nations” apparitions, the Countdown to the Kingdom Network, and promoters of Medjugorje. I had been unaware of these movements and I am grateful to Fr. Franco who has done extensive research in this sphere.
I further note that the document sets strict limits for itself in its prudential admonitions. In the opening paragraphs, we read, “The piety of the faithful People of God — who find in Mary refuge, strength, tenderness, and hope — is not contemplated here to correct it but, above all, to appreciate, admire, and encourage it.” And again, “Rather than proposing limits, the present Note seeks to accompany and sustain the love of Mary and trust in her maternal intercession” (emphases mine).
Returning to the title of Co-redemptrix in particular, the document concludes, “Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role in the work of Redemption, it would not be appropriate to use the title ‘Co-redemptrix’ to define Mary’s cooperation. This title risks obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation and can therefore create confusion and an imbalance in the harmony of the truths of the Christian faith, for ‘there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved’ (Acts 4:12). When an expression requires many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful” (#22, emphases in original).
Here is my point of confusion: this is a prudential judgment, put forward in the midst of a doctrinal document. However, the document does not seem to make this distinction clear. Furthermore, this judgment does not seem to be consistent with the limits set by the document itself earlier in its own opening paragraphs. Finally, terms like “inappropriate” or “inadmissible” lack theological precision and create moral questions regarding our responsibility to them. As a parish priest that regularly engages with the faithful, with potential converts, and with people in the world, this title would not seem to require “many, repeated explanations.” In any case, the Scriptures themselves often require explanation, sometimes on this very issue (the subordinate and participatory activity of creatures in the redemptive work of Christ). One example that leaps to mind is from St. Paul’s Letter to the Colossians, in which he states, “In my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.” In my experience, the title Co-redemptrix has often provided rich ground to explore with the faithful the paternal solicitude of Almighty God, who, as any good father, wishes to include his children in his work. Understood correctly, we all co-redeem with Christ, just as we shall co-reign with Christ (cf. 1 Tim 2:12) and co-judge with Christ (1 Cor 6:3). Mary, given her singular holiness and her unique relationship to the Incarnate Lord, simply participates in these roles in a preeminent way, differing from Our Lord always in kind, but from us in degree.
