On November 7, the Italian news outlet La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana published an interview with Mariologist Fr. Manfred Hauke on the subject of the new DDF document Mater populi fidelis, a Doctrinal Note on Marian titles.
Writer Luisella Scrosati presented the questions.
Is coredemption “unsuitable”? You’re rebuking saints and doctors of the church
For the director of the German Society for Mariology the title of Coredemptrix does not create ambiguity about the unique salvific mediation of Christ. If it had done so, the Church would have to criticize the writings of Newman and John Paul II.
We asked Fr. Manfred Hauke, professor of dogmatic theology at the Theological Faculty of Lugano, member of the Pontifical International Marian Academy, and director of the German Society for Mariology, for an opinion on some critical points of the Doctrinal Note Mater populi fidelis.
Q: The main concern of the Note seems focused on the fact that some Marian titles, such as those of Coredemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces, might obscure the uniqueness of Christ’s salvific mediation. In your view, does this danger really exist?
In my opinion this danger does not exist in a healthy catechetical and theological context. Who could accuse, for example, St. John Paul II, who various times used the two titles mentioned, of lacking balance? The Note itself recalls that he used the title Coredemptrix “on at least seven occasions” (n. 18). Would we have to take away the title “Doctor of the Church” from Cardinal John Henry Newman, who was declared a Doctor this first of November, because the English convert defended the title of Coredemptrix against the Anglican Edward Pusey? Or criticize the writings of St. Alphonsus de Liguori, also a Doctor of the Church? Or go against numerous saints, including St. Edith Stein and St. Teresa of Calcutta? The Marian titles “second Eve”, “Mother of life”, and “Mother of God”, according to Newman, are much stronger than the title under criticism (Letter to Pusey). Or would we perhaps have to rebuke Pope Leo XIII, who has been praised by the reigning Supreme Pontiff with the choice of his pontifical name: Leo XIII who granted the indulgence for a prayer with the Marian title (in Italian) “Coredemptrix of the World” (Acta Sanctæ Sedis 18, 93)?
Rather, it is easier for them to be misunderstood in the Protestant world, which denies the cooperation of man in salvation with the principle of sola gratia. For this reason the Theological Commission of Vatican II omitted
some expressions and terms used by the Supreme Pontiffs, which, while being most true in themselves, could be made comprehensible only with difficulty to the separated brethren [in this case Protestants]. Among the other terms … “Coredemptrix of the human race” [Acta synodalia, I, 99].
Is it right to sacrifice an expression that is “most true” in itself for ecumenical reasons? Anyway, for Protestants there is not only the problem of the term, but also the doctrine taught by Vatican II on the singular cooperation of Mary in the Redemption. A false ecumenism can damage the Catholic doctrine professed in all its richness. If the Church had to remove all the expressions disliked by the Protestants, she would also have to eliminate the title of Mother of God (Theotokos) mentioned in the Note (nn. 9, 11, 15). Here too we would have to give force to possible misunderstandings of such a title by people who are not well catechized.
Q.: By now almost all the journalistic reports, even in Catholic publications, bear a headline that Mary is not Coredemptrix. One remains somewhat astonished to read that a title such as that of Coredemptrix, which has in fact become part of the vocabulary of theology, as it has also entered into the teachings of Popes, is being unexpectedly declared “inappropriate” and “unsuitable” by the Note.
The title “Coredemptrix” is the shortest expression to express the singular cooperation of Mary in the Redemption. The misunderstanding that Mary would be set on the same level as Jesus is avoided by clarifying that the cooperation of Mary depends totally on Christ and is subordinate to Him. To forbid a brief title that expresses a central truth taught with great clarity by Vatican II would be rather difficult. Moreover, we make note of Cardinal Fernández’ explanation in the opening presentation:
The piety of the faithful People of God … is not contemplated here to correct it ….
The expression “Coredemptrix of the human race” has spread among the faithful, for example in the Appeal of the Message of Fatima by the Venerable Servant of God Sister Lucia; and more so, “Mediatrix of all graces”. This last invocation makes use of the title of the liturgical feast introduced by Pope Benedict XV in 1921 and was even used by Popes Benedict XVI (his Letter of January 10, 2013 to Archbishop Sigismondo Zimowski) and Francis:
One of the ancient titles with which Christians have invoked the Virgin Mary is in fact “Mediatrix of all graces”. Entrust to her your aspirations and good intentions guarded in your hearts; may She infect you with the joy of following Christ and serving him in humble and docile fashion in the Church ….
[Message to Archbishop Gian Franco Saba of Sassari, Sardinia, May 13, 2023]
Q: In your view, did the Note intend to reject only the title of Coredemptrix, or also some important aspects of the singular cooperation of Mary in the work of the Redemption?
Despite the critical observations on the two titles, the Note presents the doctrine of the conciliar and pontifical magisterium (nn. 4-15), especially regarding the “singular cooperation of Mary in the plan of salvation” (n. 3; see also n. 36f and 42). The document also cites the clearest text on this point, the Marian catechesis of St. John Paul II on April 9, 1997, which distinguishes the participation of Mary in the objective Redemption wrought by Christ on earth from our cooperation in the process of salvation (nn. 3, 37b).
Q: St. Pius X (Ad diem illum) taught that the Most Holy Virgin, by virtue of her singular holiness and association with the work of the Redemption,
merits for us de congruo [for the sake of fittingness], in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us de condigno [for the sake of justice]
In the Note itself there seems to be a hesitation, if not a reversal, when it affirms that “Only the merits of Jesus Christ, … are applied to us for our justification” [n. 47]. What do you think of it?
The important distinction by Pius X is not cited, but it seems that a hint is being made – even if it is somewhat hidden – at the distinction between the merit de condigno by Christ and the merit de congruo by Mary (n. 47f). In order to speak of a universal extension of the maternal mediation of Mary in Christ it is indispensable to recall this type of merit.
Q: In the concluding paragraphs of the Note, an often discussed theme is taken up, namely that Mary Most Holy, in the words of Pope Francis, “is more disciple than mother” (n. 73). What is true in this expression and what pitfalls are there?
According to St. Augustine, Mary conceived the Word of God first in her heart and then in her womb (Sermon 215, 4). On the other hand, it is not possible to separate in Mary being a disciple and being Mother of God, in addition to being “Mother of the faithful people”. The specific dignity of Mary comes precisely from her mission of being the Mother of God, she who generated the human nature of the Savior. The basis for all her salvific cooperation also stands here.