A Priest Life ((((,,)))): The “co-redemptrix” controversy: Using public office in the Church to personal theological programs

Friday, November 21, 2025

The “co-redemptrix” controversy: Using public office in the Church to personal theological programs

“Just a couple of quick notes on the title of co-redemptrix in the Marian document releasted by the DDF today.

1. I've gone on the record as saying that I find the term unhelpful, because it creates more confusion than clarity. (I suggested the traditional title, "Companion of the Redeemer" -- which is already used in the "Masses of the BVM book).

However, I don't think that it is pastorally prudent to prohibit the use of the title at this point, because, frankly, the toothpaste is already out of the tube on this. It's a title that is not limited to excessive popular devotion, but it has been very carefully discussed and explained in all kinds of popular and scholarly theological works, and even used by a number of Popes. So, to prohibit it at this point just creates needless disruption and confusion with the faithful. It's going to be awkward for people who read entirely mainstream theology books, or see statements from the Pope that employ the term, but to also be told that it is wrong to use the term.

The document presents its position as the position of Cardinal Ratzinger. But you will notice that this is not exactly true. Cardinal Ratzinger was opposing a magisterial definition of the term, which he rejected, saying that the term was confusing and the theology behind it was underdeveloped. (I don't think it is, because the Church has already spoken magisterially on that theology, but anyways...). Ratzinger did not take the stronger step of trying to ban its use.

The problem here is Cardinal Fernandez inability to see the need for a kind of "stare decisis" when it comes to the sensus fidelium and theologial consensus. He uses his office to press forward with his own theological program, without worrying about what it upends. I don't think that this is how a person who occupies a public office in the Church is supposed to exercise a public office; its occupant rather should see himself as the steward of the common good. Pope Leo seems to see his papal mission as bringing stability and peace to the Church, so I was kind of hoping that he would put the damper on this kind of partisan behavior from his officials.

2. The statements of Pope Francis in paragraph 21 probably should have been omitted, because they don't really support the argument that the document is trying to make; they just make Pope Francis look out of his depth. The document probably should have  reverentially passed over these statements and not quoted them.

3. The actual explanation of Mary's role in our objective redemption is kind of incomplete, because it doesn't actually focus on that or explain what it means. It kind of jumps around to all sorts of other issues, and doesn't actually give a complete description of what the Magisterium has taught on this issue.

So, the document quotes Lumen Gentium 55, as an example of Magisterial teaching: "“rightly, therefore, the holy Fathers see Mary not merely as a passive instrument in the hands of God, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience.”

It gives footnotes to more instances of the teaching, but the text itself does not get at the key idea, which is also taught in Vatican II, and probably should have been quoted, in order to convey the teaching completely:

"faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan,grieving exceedingly with her only begotten Son, uniting herself with a maternal heart with His sacrifice, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth." (LG 58)

3. One improvement in this document, however, is that it gives the historical background for things more, so we have vectors for how to interpret its assertions better.”