Marco Tosatti
Dear StilumCuriali, a priest friend sent us these reflections on the recent controversy over Mary’s role in redemption. Enjoy reading and meditating on them.
§§§
The Pope and the “dispute” over Co-redemption
A few days after the presentation of the document “Mater Populi Fidelis,” a friend of mine was discussing business matters with some Pentecostal pastors. At the end of the conversation, one of the pastors, knowing that his interlocutor was Catholic, said to him excitedly: “Did you see the latest? The Pope has finally put Mary in her place!”… However, this joy on the part of the Protestants, was not shared by Catholics. Quite the contrary! In their pastoral work, priests have witnessed the confusion, sadness, and displeasure of a huge number of children of the Church. The question these pastoral experiences raise is: quid prodest? Who benefited from the recent document on Mary’s Co-redemption and Universal Mediation? Did it confirm the faith of the sheep of the Peter’s flock? Or rather did it consolidate those who were already hostile to her in their error?
Anyone truly committed to pastoral work can demonstrate this reality. It led me to formulate a sincere and straightforward opinion on a factor that seems to be at the root of all the dust raised by the document: the fact that the Holy Father signed it. This is an innovative gesture that has never before been used in a doctrinal note, thus elevating the text to the level of ordinary pontifical magisterium. As Leo XIV is the Pope of unity, as his episcopal motto “in Illo uno unum” clearly proclaims, I believe that it would have been more prudent to leave sensitive issues with scandalous repercussions for a moment of maturity that has not yet been reached.
I wish to now offer some theological and pastoral insights into why I believe the Pope would have done well neither signing nor allowing the publication of the document in its current form.
First of all, let us recall what is well known. Many children of the Church consider it inappropriate that the Holy Father has signed a document on Our Lady authored by Cardinal Fernández, who is the infamous author of two publications containing inappropriate and crudely erotic content that scandalized a multitude of the faithful. The law of the flesh is opposed to the law of the spirit (cf. Gal 5:17), so it is offensive, for those who revere the ever-Virgin Mary, the Immaculate Queen of celestial purity, to see her the subject of commentary by someone so familiar with the basest animal instincts. In this respect, Mary Most Holy and Fernández appear to the eyes of the baptized as two antagonistic realities to the extent that, as the French say, “ils urlent de se trouver ensemble” (They scream upon encountering each other). No one can touch Our Mother, least of all someone who specializes in what some have called “porno-theology.”
From a theological standpoint, as well, this same Cardinal lacks the necessary assurance and seriousness to serve the Supreme Pontiff, whose role is to confirm his brothers in the faith. His ambiguous and confusing style easily obstructs the manifestation of the truth, which should be clear, beautiful, and luminous, not to mention the controversy surrounding his orthodoxy. Throughout the previous pontificate, his interventions showed his ability to “make trouble,” both pastorally and doctrinally. It is striking and perhaps alarming that Pope Leo did not take this into account. Who could forget the endless discussions and divisions that followed the publication of Amoris Laetitia and Fiducia Supplicans? If a tree is known by its fruit, how could Fernández be entrusted with a document on such a sensitive subject without expecting it to cause confusion, sadness, and disappointment? This is precisely what happened, as evidenced by the flood of negative and dissenting comments on social media. To promote and confirm unity in the Church ⎼ which is so polarized today ⎼ and to use Fernández as a trusted theologian is paradoxical.
***
The preceding two observations are public knowledge and have been widely discussed online. However, it was deemed essential to summarize them before proceeding. The next step is to outline some reasons related to the text that strongly advise against the Pope’s signature and the publication of the text itself.
***
Regarding the title of Co-redemptrix, the “note” is more direct than when discussing Mary’s mediation. It is Marian co-redemption that we will address first.
Paragraph 22 expresses the judgment issued against the title of Co-redemptrix: “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. 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.”
Before analyzing the text, it is necessary to mention three citations that were omitted from the “note,”: the first is biblical, the second patristic and the third magisterial. While such omissions could be justified by the need to limit the text’s length, given the extensive language used to discredit the title of “universal mediatrix of all graces,” the question arises as to whether the omission was not caused by a bias in the selection of sources, which is characteristic of Fernández’s sophistical-theological “skating.” The “forgotten” texts would indeed have caused the author of the “note” great discomfiture, like a spoke in the wheel of his desire to advise against the term Co-redemptrix (because in the end it has not been proscribed or condemned but only advised against from a prudential point of view).
As we know, the theology of co-redemption has its oldest and deepest roots in Pauline theology (Col 1:24): “Nunc gaudeo in passionibus pro vobis et adimpleo, ea quae desunt passionum Christi in carne mea pro corpore eius, quod est ecclesia,” in the Latin version of the Neovulgate. In English: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of His body, that is, the Church.” This text from Scripture is inexplicably absent from Fernández’s doctrinal note ⎼ the biblical reference is only cited once in conferetur ⎼ and requires a correct theological exegesis to achieve a harmonious understanding of the truth revealed by St. Paul on the co-redemption of the faithful, in light of the unique redemption wrought by Christ, which is also affirmed by Scripture in an indisputable manner. At first glance, this may seem like an unsolvable puzzle, but it is not. We must start from the fact that the unique redemption of Christ and the cooperation of Christians in His redemptive work are both revealed truths of equal respectability.
In reality, Jesus, the one true Redeemer, did not choose to carry out His salvific work alone. Instead, He called men to the vocation of associating themselves with it, and both realities are recorded in Revelation. Therefore, theology and the magisterium must affirm the unique redemption of Christ, and guide minds in understanding how the faithful, in general, and Mary Most Holy in particular, cooperate in Christ’s Redemption, as authentic co-redeemers ⎼ the prefix “co-” being understood, as defined in dictionaries, as “together with” or simply “with.” In a future publication, we will revisit this Pauline pericope as revealed fact of manifest importance for the topic of co-redemption.
This biblical presupposition forms the basis of the bold patristic intuition regarding Mary’s mission in the redemption of Eve’s guilt and that of the entire human race. Prominent figures such as St. Justin, Tertullian, and St. Irenaeus considered the Mother of Christ to be the New Eve. In particular, the Bishop of Lyon, declared a Doctor of the Church by Pope Bergoglio, and considered the father of systematic theology by Benedict XVI, was explicit and conclusive in determining her co-redemptive attributes. Here are his words:
“In correspondence we also find Mary the Virgin obedient when she says: ‘Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word’ (Lk 1:38); But Eve was disobedient, for she did not obey when she was as yet a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless yet a virgin […] having disobeyed, became the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man as her husband and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, became the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race (Heb 5:9). […] The Lord, having been the firstborn from the dead (Col 1:18), and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live (Col 1:18), as Adam became the beginning of those who die. […] Thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by the obedience of Mary; for what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, the Virgin Mary set free through her faith. (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus haereses, III, 22, 4: PG 7/1, 959C-960A)
The title “causa salutis” attributed by St. Irenaeus to the Virgin Mary in relation to herself and the whole of the human race, as the new Eve, that is, the true mother of those who live in Christ, as recognized by many Church Fathers, is striking. The expression “causa salutis,” in Greek aítios sōtērías (αἴτιος σωτηρίας), is also used by the Epistle to the Hebrews in reference to Jesus, who “brought to perfection, became, for all who obey Him, the cause of eternal salvation” (Heb 5:9). This makes it clear to what extent St. Irenaeus considers there to be a common and inseparable causality – albeit subordinate on Mary’s part – in the work of salvation by Jesus and Mary. Both are causes of salvation just as Adam and Eve were both causes of ruin.
Conversely, this doctrine of Irenaeus and the title “Causa Salutis” were appropriately “magisterialized” by the conciliar fathers in Lumen Gentium: “The Holy Fathers think that Mary was not a purely passive instrument in the hands of God, but cooperated in the salvation of men with free faith and obedience. As St. Irenaeus says, She “being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race’” (LG, 56).
This title, thus enshrined in the tradition and magisterium of the Church, was surprisingly omitted from the “note,” which nevertheless refers to the Mariology of the Bishop of Lyon in footnote 11. There, doctrine is summarized and, somewhat inaccurately, attributed to a group of Church Fathers: “if Eve brought perdition, Mary’s faith brought us salvation” (doctrinal note, note 11). Readers should note the significant difference between “bringing salvation” and being “the cause of salvation,” just as anyone can bring water from the fountain, but only the fountain is the cause of the water reaching everyone. Next, let us try to ascertain, the reason for this glaring “lapsus.”
In number 20 of the doctrinal note, Fernández vaguely references Ratzinger, without providing direct quotation or conferetur, and makes him say, or Fernández says as if Ratzinger were speaking: “The then Cardinal Ratzinger referred to the Letters to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, where the vocabulary and the theological dynamism of the hymns present the unique redemptive centrality of the incarnate Son in such a way as to leave no room to add any other form of mediation.” The note, in the same paragraph, adds that the biblical texts cited to confirm the preceding assertion, regarding the uniqueness of Christ’s Redemption, invite us “to situate every creature in a clearly receptive position in relation to him and to exercise careful, reverent caution whenever proposing any form of possible cooperation with him in the realm of Redemption.” This obscure and contradictory paragraph, is typical of Fernández’s sophistical-theological style: the possibility is first denied, and then caution is recommended in the face of possible cooperation by the faithful in the realm of Redemption. However, in the first place, the initial denial alleged is erroneous in light of the doctrines of St. Paul and St. Irenaeus, the latter sealed magisterially by Lumen Gentium, and the subsequent recommendation regarding “careful, reverent caution” is superfluous, as no known Catholic Mariologist has ever discussed Marian co-redemption without first making sure to situate the Virgin’s cooperation as dependent on and shared with that of Christ, in accordance with Col 1:24.
It should be noted that this confusing paragraph contains the only theological argument ⎼ if such it can be called ⎼ adduced by the Note to disqualify the term “co-redemptrix”; the other reasons are circumstantial, prudential or based on supposed authority. What theological consistency, then, does the disqualification of the term “Co-redemptrix” have? The answer is clear: none. It may be due to prudential reasons, but never theological ones.
Even with regard to the aforementioned circumstantial or prudential arguments, or those based on supposed authority, there are, on the one hand, those alleged by Ratzinger in his now-revealed secret ballot, which were rather prudential in nature. We will return to these in a future publication. To these must be added the reasons alleged by the “note” itself, which attempts to summarize the aforementioned prudential arguments. However, there are also some quotations from Francis, one of which could be adduced as an argument from authority. Indeed, Bergoglio said: “Christ is the only Redeemer: there are no co-redeemers with Christ.” If we take this literally, and discount the typical imprecision of an uneducated man’s spoken language, how can we interpret the theology of Irenaeus’ regarding Mary’s saving role and the title he coined, “causa salutis”? But what explanation could the affirmation of St. Paul in Col 1:24 possibly have? If Mary was the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race, how can we deny that she in some manner redeemed with Christ? If St. Paul completed what was lacking in the Lord’s Passion on behalf of the Church, how can we deny her a co-redemptive role? These questions become even more pressing if we consider the Papal Magisterium, especially the statement of Benedict XV in his Letter Inter Sodalicia, also omitted by Fernández: “[Mary], in communion with her suffering and agonizing Son, endured pain and almost death; She abdicated her rights as mother over her Son to achieve the salvation of men and, to appease divine justice, as far as it depended on her, she immolated her Son, so that it can rightly be said that she redeemed the human race with Christ” (BENEDICT XV, Litterae Apostolicae, Inter Sodalicia, March 22, 1918, AAS 10, 1918, 182).
According to sound redemptive logic, if She redeemed the human race, She can be considered a redeemer with Christ. According to dictionaries, a redeemer is one who redeems. If the term co-redemptor means “redeemer together with” or “redeemer with,” and if Mary redeemed the human race with Christ, how can we deny her the title of “co-redemptrix”? It would be a basic linguistic error… And if Mary is co-redemptive in the full force of the term, how can we deny the existence of other co-redeemers with Christ? In this sense, it is worth asking whether Francis and his theologian Fernández would be in communion with St. Paul, St. Irenaeus, and Benedict XV? A positive answer would more than temerity. Therefore, we conclude that there are no valid authoritative reasons to disqualify the title “Co-redemptrix” as “inappropriate”; rather, there are well-founded theological and authoritative reasons for admitting it. These reasons remain valid, as we shall have occasion to show.
It is now necessary to consider the pastoral value of the term “inappropriate.” Indeed, from this point of view, the fateful qualifier should not even be taken into consideration given St. Paul’s teaching in 2 Timothy: “praedica verbum, insta opportune, importune, argue, increpa, obsecra in omni longanimitate et doctrina” (2 Tim 4:2). If a doctrine and the title that represents it are good in themselves, they must clearly be insisted upon opportunely and inopportunely ⎼ this is the word of God. Conversely, the “inappropriateness” with which the title of Co-redemptrix is sought to be disqualified is solely the word of Fernández.
Therefore, it is possible to conclude that the qualifier “inappropriate” is neither theological nor pastoral, but merely prudential. And if it is prudential in a way that is neither theological nor pastoral, what kind of prudence is it?
However, if we go back to the etymological roots of the term, which still determine its meaning in everyday language, “inappropriate” means “occurring outside the appropriate time.” To say that the title of Co-redemptrix is inappropriate is to suggest that it is being used outside the appropriate time. This does not affect the title itself, but rather the occasion on which it is used. This occasion is by nature mutable, since it refers to time, and as Ecclesiastes (3:1-2) reminds us, times change: “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born, a time to die.” In this sense, asserting that the title Co-redemptrix is “always inappropriate,” as the doctrinal note does, is blatant contradiction and conspicuous pretention, as if Fernández had foreknowledge of all times past, present and future. This is particularly the case given that many Popes, in the exercise of their teaching function, used the title. Were they also inappropriate?
To conclude this first article on a subject that still requires much discussion, it would be fitting to recall a maxim that, so to say, branded the true members of the Vatican curia: “nunquam inducere in errorem Summum Pontificem.” For this very reason, the former collaborators of the Popes studied the subjects carefully, reviewing them with the utmost attention, all to prevent the Pope from making mistakes because of his assistants. As we have seen and as we will see again, Fernández does not apply this maxim rigorously. His text, signed by Leo XIV, is marred by confusion, imprecision, partiality, inconsistent wording, glaring omissions, and reckless disregard for magisterial and theological tradition, which we will analyze in more detail in the next publication.
We must continue to implore the Blessed Virgin Mary, Causa Salutis and Redeemer of the human race alongside Jesus, to enlighten the Pope in his choice of collaborators, particularly those responsible for defending the Doctrine of the Faith, because true ecclesial unity is built around this. In these divisive times, when there is talk of two confronting churches, the Pope of “in Illo uno unum” was initially seen as a promise of peace. However, the unusual and unnecessary signature on Fernández’s “note” has been for many the first disappointment. The lack of caution on the part of a Pope who is not versed in theology, who in his first steps takes a less than benevolent stance toward the Virgin Mary, must be promptly remedied. Only in this way will he regain the trust of the people.
Fr. Miguel Guzmán
Doctor of Theology
Postscript: This article was finished when we learned of Fernández’s recent interview with Diane Montagna, in which the controversial cardinal “reinterprets” the text of Mater Populi Fidelis with regard to the criterion “always inappropriate” with which the title of Co-Redemptrix is disqualified.
First of all, he claims that the phrase “always inappropriate” was used exclusively in reference to the present moment (sic!). And he attributes to the adverb “always” a meaning that does not appear in any dictionary, saying that in the “note” it comes to mean “from now on” (sic!!). Fernández continues his nonsense by claiming that “at the heart of that word [Co-redemptrix], there are elements that can be accepted and continue to be defended.” Despite this, he continues, the “expression [Co-redemptrix] will not be used either in the liturgy, that is, in liturgical texts, or in official documents of the Holy See.” Finally, he states that many Mariologists were consulted, thus contradicting previous statements by Fr. Maurizio Gronchi, consultant to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who assured that “no collaborating Mariologist could be found” to work on the document. This latest information has been confirmed to us by internal sources within the Congregation.
Let us quickly analyze this series of absurdities.
The first is linguistic and proves the supine ignorance of the supposed theologian Fernández. To claim that “always” means “from now on” goes beyond fiction. The adverb “always” comes from Latin (semper) and means in any dictionary “at all times,” therefore encompassing the past, present, and future. Fernández tries to backtrack out of it, explaining the inexplicable. This is serious. If he does not know the meaning of words in his mother tongue, how can he dare to sign such a serious text on such a sensitive subject? Moreover, how can he claim to be the Pope’s theologian? It is as if a painter did not know the difference between a brush and a spatula ⎼ appalling! But Fernández not only dares to write, not only feigns to do theology, but also induces the Pope to error by having him sign an equivocal, highly controversial document, which has also discredited him in the eyes of the people on the basis of a misused term. If this is the Pope’s theologian-friend… deliver him, Lord, from his friends!
Secondly: the shamelessness of saying the opposite of his advisor… One says that they did not consult any Mariologists, the other that they consulted “many, many.” Which of the two is at odds with the truth? This contradiction speaks to us of a disunited, disorganized, and dishonest team, which in all likelihood has presented a document on the Virgin without the cooperation or support of the most competent Mariological authorities in the Church… And are these the defenders of the faith, the theological references of Pope Leo?
Thirdly, the embarrassment caused to poor Pope Leo. Indeed, “quod scripsi, scripsi,” what is written is written, as Pilate said. The document states “always inappropriate,” and a falsified interpretation by Fernández given in an interview cannot correct that error. With that “always,” Pope Leo is disqualifying his predecessors and a significant current of Catholic theology. It has been a reckless gesture on the part of the current Pontiff, without a doubt, and also quite unseemly since, as has been said, he is not a theologian, nor a prominent intellectual, and, moreover, he has just arrived.
Fourthly, it confirms what was stated in the article, namely the flood of reactions against the document. If this were not the case, Fernández would not have backtracked, at least partially. The person responsible for the Pope’s discredit is now ineptly attempting to resolve the crisis, making it even worse. The remedy has been worse than the illness, as the saying goes.
In short, Fernández’s recent interview only confirms the main idea of this article: the sophist-theologian from La Plata is not competent, either as a writer or as a theologian and has had the audacity to induce the Pope to error, cover him in discredit, and is now trying to douse the fire by claiming the impossible, that is, by turning the term “always” into a linguistic lie. Intolerable. May God grant that this sovereign blunder cost Fernández his position; it would be for his own good and that of the whole Church.
§§§
Aiutate Stilum Curiae
IBAN: IT79N0200805319000400690898
BIC/SWIFT: UNCRITM1E35
***
