By Msgr. Richard C. Antall
Crisis Magazine
November 17, 2025
An old priest once used a metaphor to describe how the higher-ups in the Church sometimes were out of touch with the faithful: "They have no idea of how that works when you're in the trenches. Their desks are too far away from the line of fire."
I recalled the priest's words when I heard about the recent doctrinal note regarding some Marian titles. Specifically, the note deals with the title of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. The issue came up in the class for our adults seeking the sacraments of initiation. This was a surprise because the people involved are Hispanics whose families either neglected their religious upbringing, are intending to marry Catholics, or have a Pentecostal background. None of them had heard of the phrase Co-Redemptrix, but they were curious about Mary's intercession, which they felt was somehow downgraded by the Vatican statement.
Do the people who work with the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith have contact with ordinary believers? The note refers to many different inquiries about the titles of Mary in "recent decades," and it is said that this particular doctrinal "clarification" was prepared before the death of Pope Francis.
If so, it reflects some of the style of his personal magisterium and some of the problems of his language-and, especially, how it was translated. Specifically, the paragraph that is key to the issue is an example:
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, 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.
The Spanish original did not say "inappropriate," which does not seem to be a category of doctrinal judgment. It read inoportuno. "Appropriate" is a social worker kind of description. To say something is not opportune implies a context of possible misunderstanding. This was apparently the objection of Cardinal Ratzinger, who nevertheless, as the note admits, "did not deny that there were good intentions and valuable aspects in the proposal to use this title." St. John Henry Newman thought something like this about papal infallibility, with due respect, of course.
The note in the original did not say "always," either, an adverb that seems like an egregious interpretation. There is an air of casualness about this note. It doesn't bear the weight of a pondered reply about the maturity of the idea as Co-Redemptrix. After mentioning that St. John Paul had spoken about Mary as Co-Redemptrix (enough for me to be convinced) the note says Pope Francis was "opposed" to the title, as if that assurance was a theological argument.
There is much written in the note that is solid and edifying Mariology, but I was expecting something about how all Marian theology has to do with the humanity of Christ. The Incarnation is the reason we see the involvement of Mary in the work of Redemption. My priestly ministry is a gift of God and not my mother's doing, but it would be impossible if she had not collaborated with God in my coming to be.
The other gap I felt in the discussion was Colossians 1:24, where Paul says, "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church." Christ made it so that we could participate in His work of Redemption-not because His sufferings were not sufficient but as a sign of our sharing with Him in the life of grace. Paul was a cooperator in the Redemption, how much more was Mary?
Was the note just clearing the desk of the Dicastery of Pope Francis' agenda? I agree with Fr. Perricone's recent article wondering about the mind of Pope Leo. I was at a Jubilee audience recently (October 25) where the Holy Father referred to Nicholas of Cusa.
I am curious about the reference, especially because Nicholas was a great defender of the unity of the Church and the papacy after the Council of Constance. He was an apologist especially important in speaking to the leaders of the Northern European countries, which then seemed on the edge of schism (déjà vu all over again). But what the pope said in a rhetorical flourish confuses me:
Nicholas of Cusa spoke of a "learned ignorance," a sign of intelligence. The protagonist of some of his writings is a curious figure: the idiot. He is a simple person, who had not studied, and he asks scholars basic questions that challenge their certainties. This is also true in the Church today. How many questions challenge our teaching! Questions from young people, questions from the poor, questions from women, questions from those who have been silenced or condemned because they are different from the majority. We are in a blessed time: so many questions! The Church becomes an expert in humanity if she walks with humanity and has the echo of its questions in her heart.
The Church may have the echoes of questions in her heart, but she also has the timeless answers. They must be articulated in a way that our contemporaries can understand-but not to the prejudice of doctrine. That is my basic objection to so much language about "synodality." It seems to be relativistic, like there is a democracy of doctrine, a free market of ideas competing for expression. The questions are to reformulate received tradition, not to change it according to current climatic conditions, intellectual and emotional.
The note seems of a piece with some of the rigmarole of "synodality" because it has a tone not of studied theological reasoning (like what Cardinal Ratzinger said about the "maturity" of the idea's formulation) but almost of political correctness. Instead, it is: "We don't talk that way. It is inappropriate." Inappropriate would be like mentioning in a eulogy that the deceased owed you money. (It might also be inopportune, and inconvenient-another and better word in the note-but that is not to deny there was a debt.)
Further, the adverb "always inappropriate," in (only) the English version, which seems interpretative, seems more like Emily Post. Instead of saying something is "incorrect," we have the "opposition" of a former pope (in contrast to one of his sainted predecessors). Instead of saying we are unable to make this expression a de fide declaration, we hear that we should "never" say that.
All of this might be a twist on what Nicholas of Cusa said about "learned ignorance," but I think he meant intellectual humility, not what is called virtue signaling.
This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.