MASCULINITY is virtually extinct in “Catholic” parishes today. But what can you expect? When a man has heard “On Eagle’s Wings”or a nun with a crewcut pounding out “I Am the Bread of Life” often enough, he’s all but had a sex change operation.

However, Bishop Salvatore Matano of the Diocese of Rochester has set a bold example of masculine leadership, one at odds with the feminist zeitgeist, in ending that diocese’s extraordinarily outrageous practice of allowing lay homilists, most of whom were women. This has made some unhappy.

According to The Democrat and Chronicle:

“It really enriched me, and I have to say I’m struggling with it,” said Diane Porcelli of Gates, who did not preach but is active at St. Mary’s Church in downtown Rochester. “It’s challenging my faith and I’m struggling with the exclusion.”

— Comments —

James P. writes:

How common is this practice of women giving the homily?

I have never seen such a thing. Was it peculiar to Rochester?

At our church, women may read a passage from the scripture, but a priest always gives the homily.

Laura writes:

I have never encountered it before. It has been going on in Rochester for some 40 years.

Mary writes:

The title of the article is “Catholic Diocese Upends Custom on Homilies.” The last line of the article reads:

 “[Lay people preaching is] a 40-year-old custom that’s been part of the tradition of our local church, and people are saddened, people are frustrated and people are asking, ‘Why can’t you do this?’ ” DeRycke said. “They’re not satisfied with saying, ‘Because it’s the law.’ “

It seems a stretch to defend the radical practice of lay people preaching in place of a priest using the words “custom” and “tradition.” Ravaged catechesis is to be blamed and also life in a world where the deconstruction of many institutions and of authority in general was/is commonplace. So these women feel the sting of the reversion of a mere 40-year-old tradition back to Church law; but this cannot compare to pain and heartache from which their tradition emerged: the abandonment of the Tridentine Mass. Alas, many still believe that the Church began anew then, that it was a springtime in Church history. Many hearts broken, many souls lost as a result. Kudos to Bishop Matano.

Paul writes:

It’s about time.  We already have a powerful female and mother to adore and to listen to, the Blessed Virgin.  The Trinity, the Bible, and Mary can satisfy any Catholic.  Her power is illustrated in John 2 et seq.  At a wedding, she tells Jesus, “They have no wine.”  And Jesus says, “What wouldst thou have me do woman?”  Mary tells the attendants, “Do whatever he tells you to.”  And Jesus turns water into wine.  But because the evil ideal of nondiscrimination has infected Christianity for hundreds of years, many Catholics think they need a female equal to Christ.

This is reflected in the ridiculous idea of Mary being a co-redemptrix to Christ.  Christ, not Mary, turned the water into wine.  Where will the nondiscrimination end?  Why stop with Mary?  Did not the Angel Gabriel deliver notice to Mary that she was “full of grace” in Luke 1:28?  Why not St. Paul too?  Instead of the Trinity, we could have a long list of people whom we could advocate as redemptors.  Have we become so enlightened after two thousand years of discrimination that we shall now have the Quadrinity?

Jon D. writes:

The Protestant churches have been run by women for years. Here in Portland, homosexuality is praised and celebrated. In fact, Christian is someone who approves of divorce, abortion and homosexuality.

Mary writes:

The title of Mary as Co-Redemptrix is not a modern concept promoting nondiscrimination of women but an ancient debate, one which is commonly misunderstood to suggest equality with Christ. While the prefix “co-“ often means “together”, it can also imply a subordinate relationship, which is this case here. A co-pilot is not the equal of the pilot; we are called as parents to be co-creators with God, but not as His equals. And so it is with Mary. Whether it should be made into doctrine is debatable, but there is no fear with this concept, if properly understood, that Mary would be thought of as Christ’s equal.

“Why stop with Mary?”

It is easy to stop with Mary because she simply has no equal in the community of saints: she was created to be the Mother of God, for she alone is the Immaculate Conception. She was assumed into heaven and crowned its Queen. She participated in the Incarnation: from her body the Word made flesh was brought forth. God created her as the answer to Eve: she will crush the head of Satan under her heel. She was fully joined through her suffering and anguish at the foot of the Cross to Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary. Not St. Paul, not the Angel Gabriel, she alone, after her Son, is “exalted by divine grace above all angels and men”.

Laura writes:

Thank you for clarifying that.

Paul writes:

Mary’s comments are food for thought.

I did not say the concept of Mary as co-redeemer is a modern concept.  I said the idea has been around for hundreds of years.

Mary’s status as co-redeemer has not been accepted by the Church for two thousand years.  One can argue every which way one wants, but that fact is indisputable.  The Blessed Virgin is not a co-redeemer if one accepts Catholic Magisterium.

“Mary has no equal” among other saints does not prove she is a co-redeemer.  It is a statement of opinion, as I evidenced earlier.  (I did find a cite below that seems to say Mary is above men.)  There has been no evidence about when and why the number of redeemers ends.  What about St. Peter?  Jesus said, “And I say to thee, thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gate of hell shall not prevail against it.  And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven . . . .”  Matthew 16:18-19.  Are we now going to have a Pentad?  Big organizations like to use words such as Quad and Pentad to pretend equality, as though they are fooling anyone about who is in charge, not that you are trying to fool anyone.  I don’t think you are.

Mary is not in charge.  Mary cannot forgive sins, as far as I know.  But a male priest can.  How can one become a redeemer without the ability to forgive sin?

Unless one is slipping into nominalism, one cannot misunderstand the meaning of equal?

I am not trying to win an argument here.  I am using the Socratic method to study an issue.  I try to be rigorous, which my profession requires and I admittedly enjoy.  So Mary teach me more, if you have the free time.  Too bad we are not in a pub, where one can become engrossed (over Diet Coke or beer) in friendly conversation about highly sensitive issues with people that disagree with you.  Of course, one needs an indefinable quality that many people lack.

For example, here is a formidable list of seemingly Biblical references to support your idea.  I have not checked the cites because they are too long and don’t cite the authors.  Therefore I cannot rebut them.  But there must be reasons why thousands of years of Magisterium has not elevated Mary to the status of co-redeemer.  Your idea would be a major change in doctrine.

What with all the confusion caused by Pope Frances, I don’t know what will result.  Is He going to be influenced by the evil ideal of nondiscrimination, as I fear, and declare Mary as a co-redeemer for the wrong reason?  What credibility will that carry considering the many perplexing statements by Him?

Finally, one must question one’s motives in arguing for change that has been rejected for two thousand years by smart and holy people.

 Laura writes:

I do not know much about the history of this concept of Mary as Co-Redemptrix, but it does seem to contradict much of Catholic theology.

Mary writes:

While writing my response I will crack open a Diet Coke in homage to pub visits and friendly argument, two of life’s real pleasures  ; )

I fear I have given the impression that I am more knowledgeable on the subject of Mary as Co-Redemptrix than I intended; my apologies. My understanding of Mary’s role has deepened quite a bit over the last few years but even so I don’t yet feel compelled to desire this teaching to become dogma, but that is not the same thing as rejecting the idea out of hand. I do agree with Paul’s very good point about Pope Francis, who tends to muddy waters effortlessly. Alas, I can’t offer Paul the facts he desires – he deserves a more worthy teacher than I – but maybe my thoughts and ideas on this matter will help in some small way. It helps me to write them down, at any rate.

My information on this teaching is limited to hearing, over the years, this topic discussed now and then by some extremely traditional friends and relatives. For the sake of disseminating good information I checked with one of these people last night and was told in no uncertain terms that a) Catholics are compelled to believe in this teaching; b) that it is not opinion but settled fact; and c) that if not for being derailed by Vatican II it would now be dogma (this person is not known for mincing words). And I have been made aware that the dogma of the Assumption was defined a mere 60 years ago by Pius XII (which in my mind ends the argument that if it hasn’t been brought about by smart and holy people yet it shouldn’t happen).

Poking around I found this quote from MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS (40, Pope Pius XII, 1950): “Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination, immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.”

This passage does not directly promote Mary as Co-Redemptrix but sheds light on a view of her not truly understood or discussed often in our age of Hallmark sentiments (yes, even in the Church): of her unfathomably profound position in God’s Kingdom as the Mother of His Son, who was told at the Presentation that her soul would also be pierced by a sword, which she knew and expected all His life even to the foot of the Cross, so completely joined in His Passion was she. Note Pius XII’s wording: glory, splendor, divine motherhood, perfect virgin, immaculate in her conception. These are not descriptions for the faint of heart.

One intention of my previous comment was to help put to bed the notion that the title Co-Redemptrix implies equality with Christ; nothing of the kind. I reiterate that Co-Redemptrix means that she participates in the work of redemption as His subordinate, or if you prefer, co-pilot. Someone twisting the meaning to push an agenda of nondiscrimination doesn’t change this fact.

I also wrote to correct the idea that St. Paul, or the Angel Gabriel, or even St. Peter – who denied Christ three times, for heaven’s sake! –  can ever be put on the same level with the Blessed Mother, who was at His side from birth until death on the Cross even when the Apostles fled (excepting John). There is simply no comparison. I’m afraid over the years we have lost a sense of the natural conclusions that can be drawn from the fact that God chose her alone in all humanity to be conceived without stain of original sin; to conceive by the Holy Ghost; to carry the Son of God in her womb; to remain “a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood”: to what other conclusion can we be led but the one God obviously had drawn us to? And don’t misunderstand, I’m not meaning Mary as Co-Redemptrix here but Mary as “above all angels and men”. This cannot be disputed unless one misunderstands the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the Nativity, etc. (and then the problem is not limited to the question of Mary as Co-Redemptrix).

Whether or not one believes in Mary as Co-Redemptrix we must have a deep understanding of the role of the Blessed Mother and God has given us the information we need for this understanding; unfortunately our chaotic modern condition makes it harder to see His way for us clearly. My gratefulness to the Blessed Mother continues to grow; she is our intercessor and “most gracious advocate” in all our desires; she is the gateway to Christ. Beware too strong a desire for facts. God leads us where we need to go if we pray and listen and ask. The mysteries of the Church are not fully fathomable; God designed them to be inexhaustible so as not to leave one soul without a chance at everlasting life in heaven. Not to get preachy : -)

Paul writes:

Hahaha.  I buy DietCoke by the two-liter bottle.

Thanks for passing on the commenter Mary’s many thoughtful comments and her information about the idea of Mary being considered a co-redeemer in most Catholic circles.  I am shocked.  I hear otherwise on Catholic radio, though I have heard Johnnette Benkovic on EWTN TV lobby for the idea.

It is inappropriate and illogical to create and to label a mystery as Catholic to justify a mystery.  We can create as many mysteries as there are ideas.  Catholic evidence is Biblically-based and Magisterially-based argument.  C.S. Lewis observed: “If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it isn’t. We can’t compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We’re dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about!” Mere Christianity.  

The Blessed Virgin still does not appear in the Nicene Creed as one that can forgive sin.  To the contrary, the Creed states, “I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”  And John 3:5 provides in part, “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”  Mary has not been declared a member of the Holy Trinity.

Again, the Trinity is sufficient.  Why create controversy?  For example, there are potential consequences from the idea: female priests.

Mary can have the last word.

 Laura writes:

Please try to cut back on the Diet Coke. I know it’s refreshing, but unsweetened iced tea is better for you.

I’m going to stay out of this discussion for the moment because this is a subject I have not studied. However, I will say that Paul’s suggestion that it is somehow a feminist idea is wrong. Also, the concept does not mean that the Blessed Mother has the same powers as Christ.

Laura adds:

When I say, “This is a subject I have not studied,” I am referring to the label of “Co-Redemptrix” — not to Mary’s role in history and salvation.

Mary writes:

Paul is putting me through my paces!

“…the idea of Mary being considered a co-redeemer in most Catholic circles…”

Just to clarify – when I referred to my friends and relatives who believed in this teaching I described them as “extremely traditional” (i.e. Tridentine Mass goers) assuming it would be understood that their number is very small. I would guess most Catholics have never even heard of this idea before.

“It is inappropriate and illogical to create and to label a mystery as Catholic to justify a mystery.  We can create as many mysteries as there are ideas. Catholic evidence is Biblically-based and Magisterially-based argument. ”

I fear Paul thinks I was attempting to label “Mary as Co-Redemptrix” as one of the mysteries of the Church; emphatically no, as I said before I am not promoting this teaching. He also seems uncomfortable with the idea of mystery in general as opposed to facts and evidence, and says the Trinity alone is sufficient for Catholics – when the Trinity itself is a great mystery! According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them.” (234). C.S. Lewis may have written: “If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it isn’t,” – but the fact that Catholicism is not invented does not preclude the existence of mysteries, which come directly from God in His wisdom. But that is another subject altogether.

I will now continue on my quest  J  to clarify for Paul the unique role of the Blessed Mother in Catholicism, a role not in competition for a top spot, not as confessor, or infringing on the Holy Trinity (simply impossible anyway) or displacing saints, but as an example not of anything manly but of womanly and maternal perfection. I would like to help him see that when progressive forces in the Church agitate for this or that outrage (women priests etc) she is needed more than ever as our advocate. She is strengthening. She is an enhancement to our understanding of Christ; of suffering; of humility; of motherly devotion; of sinlessness. She was created to bring Christ to us bodily, and now from heaven helps us meet Him spiritually. What love she has for us and what good she wants for us. The Mother of God. What a title!

I’m afraid of repeating myself but will add that Pius XII’s description of her as “joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ” can be seen throughout her life and is the path that God has set before us if we choose to follow it: she was quietly present at great times, requiring no attention in her humility and meekness: she prompted Christ to perform His first miracle; she was present during the Descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles; at His birth and at His death. Her blood runs through His veins. The more we know her the more we know Him: our precious Mother doesn’t shout to us for attention, we must seek her out, her “hidden way”, for it is in that seeking that we find her and in turn Him, which is truly her only goal for us.

Don’t let feminists, or Protestant misconceptions – which have hindered Catholic devotion to Mary since at least the 60’s – prevent you from getting to know the sweet Mother of God, Mary Most Holy.

Please follow and like us: