A Marian Minimalism in Accordance with Mater Populi Fidelis:
The Case of Cardinal Müller
The saddening doctrinal note Mater Populi Fidelis, promulgated a year ago by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Leo XIV, belittles the greatness of the Blessed Virgin by denying her Coredemption — that is, her participation in the acquisition of the graces of our salvation through the merits of her Compassion — as well as her universal mediation in the dispensation of graces. No one is surprised that Cardinal Fernández denies this traditional doctrine, given the lack of doctrinal credibility and moral authority of the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, despite the holy office he holds. On the other hand, more than a few Catholics will be surprised to learn that Cardinal Müller, who in recent years has acquired a reputation as a defender of the faith for certain praiseworthy positions on other subjects, has made remarks about the Blessed Virgin that are not in keeping with the perennial teaching of the Magisterium. He has clearly declared himself against the doctrine of Mary's Coredemption, and has written ambiguous pages on the dogma of her Perpetual Virginity.
Does Asserting That Mary Is Our Coredemptrix Entail "Falsely Exaggerating Per Excessum"?
In a book published in 2017, Cardinal Müller, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, rejects the title of Coredemptrix on account of the doctrine on which it is based:
"Theologians and preachers should especially avoid two risks: on the one hand, that of falsely exaggerating per excessum*, attributing to the Virgin what is not attributable to her (for example, the Church, despite Mary's privileged position on the work of salvation, does not call her 'co-redeemer,' because the only Redeemer is Christ and she herself has been redeemed* sublimiori modo*, as* Lumen Gentium [n. 53] says, and serves this redemption wrought exclusively by Christ); and on the other hand, to deny her per defectum the unique privileges that are due her by divine decision ( Lumen Gentium*, n. 67) — that is, dogmas such as her Immaculate Conception, her divine maternity, her perpetual virginity, and her Assumption, body and soul, to heavenly glory."*
According to Cardinal Müller, the title of Coredemptrix cannot be granted to the Blessed Virgin, because that would be to sin by excess. The doctrine that justifies it would be opposed to the unicity of salvation in Jesus Christ, the sole Redeemer who alone accomplishes the redemption of the human race, and would be irreconcilable with the dogmatic truth that Mary herself was redeemed by Christ, albeit in a more sublime way — through her Immaculate Conception. He therefore explicitly denies the doctrine of her Coredemption, since it would imply an exaggeration, and it is for this reason, according to him, that this title would not be authorized by the Church.
Cardinal Müller's reasons for rejecting this title are hardly different from those alleged by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in Mater Populi Fidelis, and the criticisms that can be leveled at this doctrinal note apply equally well to the Cardinal. Mater Populi Fidelis also claims that to attribute this title to Mary would be opposed to the unicity of salvation in Jesus Christ (cf. nos. 47–48), and likewise alleges that her own redemption, although unique, would imply that she cannot contribute through her merits to the redemption of others (cf. nos. 33 and 67).
And yet, the fact that the unicity of salvation in Jesus Christ is in no way called into question by the privilege of her Coredemption is clear from the teaching of the Magisterium: "Mary merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world… and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption; she merits for us de congruo*, in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us* de condigno*, and she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces."* (Saint Pius X, Ad Diem Illum). In other words, if Christ alone, by his Passion, merited our salvation in strict justice (de condigno), this in no way prevents the divine bounty from granting a meritorious value of congruity (de congruo) to the ineffable charity which his Mother exercised in her Compassion in the work of our redemption. It is this notion of merit of fittingness — clearly taught by Saint Pius X — that is missing from Cardinal Müller's remarks as well as from Mater Populi Fidelis. This same magisterial teaching was also omitted from chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium, which deals with Our Lady's unique cooperation in the work of our salvation; and since Cardinal Müller adheres to the letter and spirit of the Council, as do the authors of Mater Populi Fidelis, it is hardly surprising that there is agreement between them on this question. But how can one truly affirm "Mary's privileged position on the work of salvation" while at the same time consigning to oblivion this notion of merit of congruity on the part of the Mother of God in the work of our redemption?
Moreover, the perennial teaching of the Magisterium teaches us that the Immaculate Conception, by which Mary was uniquely redeemed, in no way prevents her from being able to contribute by her merits to the redemption of the rest of humanity. On the contrary, the privilege of the Immaculate Conception was granted to her precisely so that her merits could be associated with those of Christ in the work of our redemption. This raison d'être of her Immaculate Conception is implied by Saint Pius X: "The Virgin was kept the more free from all stain of original sin because she was to be the Mother of Christ; and she was the Mother of Christ that the hope of everlasting happiness might be born again in our souls." (Ad Diem Illum). And this purpose is expressed even more clearly by Pius XII:
"It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall… Thus, she who, according to the flesh, was the mother of our Head, through the added title of pain and glory became, according to the Spirit, the mother of all His members." (Mystici Corporis)
Mary was redeemed in a more sublime way in order to be not only the worthy Mother of God, but also the Mother of mankind — that is, our Coredemptrix, "so that it can be said appropriately that she has, together with Christ, redeemed the human race" (Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia). In opposing this teaching, Cardinal Müller agrees, here again, with Mater Populi Fidelis: in both is omitted the distinction — however crucial — between the grace of the Immaculate Conception, which Mary did not merit, and the salvific graces which, through her merits of congruity, she was subsequently able to obtain for the rest of the human race. However, to admit the fact of her Immaculate Conception while omitting its raison d'être — is this not "to deny her per defectum" the finality which God had in mind in granting her this unique privilege, which is none other than her divine and coredemptive Motherhood?
Does Affirming Mary's Virginity In Partu Stricto Sensu Entail "Falsely Exaggerating Per Excessum"?
If Cardinal Müller's statement on Mary's cooperation in the work of salvation is objectionable, there are still other subjects of concern in his Marian doctrine. More serious than his denial of Mary's Co-Redemption — a doctrine taught but not yet solemnly defined by the Magisterium — are his words on her Perpetual Virginity, which is a dogma of faith. The Magisterium, however, clearly teaches that her virginity is perpetual precisely in that it remains intact and inviolate before, during, and after the birth of our Savior.
And yet, here are some troubling words from Cardinal Müller that concern precisely the virginity of Mary in partu, during the birth of Jesus:
"It is not about anomalous physiological peculiarities in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not being opened, the hymen not being broken, and the absence of birth pangs), but rather about the healing and saving influence of the Redeemer's grace on human nature, which had been 'wounded' by original sin… The content of the faith statement, therefore, does not refer to physiologically and empirically verifiable somatic details."
Charity leads us to qualify this statement merely as highly ambiguous. But Cardinal Müller does seem to suggest that Mary's physical integrity during childbirth — described as a mere "somatic detail" — is not an article of faith. Would it then be enough to give only a purely metaphorical meaning to her virginity during the birth of Jesus? Cardinal Müller does seem to be saying so. Immediately afterward he affirms that "Karl Rahner interprets the faith-content of Mary's virginitas in partu strikingly," and quotes him: "'This sentence (which in itself is comprehensible, however) does not make it possible for us to derive from it, in a manner that is certain and obligatory for everyone, statements about specific details of this process.'" Cardinal Müller thus relies on Rahner as a reliable authority; for the latter, however, adherence to the dogma does not imply the affirmation of Mary's physical integrity during the birth of Jesus. That Rahner dares to question the obvious meaning of the terms "bodily integrity" is clear in this other passage:
"The question arises once more: what is really included in the concept of 'bodily integrity' and what does it imply?… Is, for instance, the normal expansion of the genital passages in a completely healthy birth to be considered a breach of 'bodily integrity'? Will anyone have the courage to maintain this categorically?"
The answer to this question on the part of the Fathers of the Church — Saint Ambrose, Saint Athanasius, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Saint Jerome, Saint Hilary, Saint Augustine, and others — is clear: they did indeed have the courage to maintain categorically, and stricto sensu, the bodily integrity of Mary during childbirth. Her virginity in partu undoubtedly possesses a spiritual meaning for these Fathers, but this is grounded in the literal and obvious meaning, which for them is not the least in doubt.
Saint Bernard, Doctor of the Church, in order to express this inviolate virginity during childbirth — this bodily integrity understood stricto sensu, this miraculous birth — uses a beautiful image: "The name of Mary designates the star of the sea: it is indeed with much accuracy that she is compared to a star, because as the star emits the ray of its breast without experiencing any alteration, so the Virgin gave birth to a son without damage to her virginity." Finally, the Magisterium is clear on this subject, since the Lateran Council of 649 declares:
"If anyone does not confess, in a proper and true sense, that the virgin Mary is the Mother of God, since she conceived from the Holy Spirit the Word itself, without seed, and gave birth to it without corruption, her virginity remaining unaltered also after childbirth, let him be condemned."
Her bodily integrity must therefore be believed "in a proper and true sense," and it is difficult to conceive how to reconcile with this statement the position of Rahner — and of Cardinal Müller in his wake. What can be said except that only the modernist perfidy of a Rahner — on whom Cardinal Müller regrettably relies — can have the audacity to claim to adhere to the dogma of Our Lady's Perpetual Virginity while rejecting the obvious meaning of the doctrine of the Fathers and the Magisterium's declarations on her virginity in partu.
Given his comments on "Mary's privileged position on the work of salvation" — which exclude the privilege of her Coredemption — and on her bodily integrity in childbirth, treated as a mere "somatic detail" which would not be an object of faith for want of being "physiologically and empirically verifiable," it seems clear — unless there is a clear retraction, which he has not made to this day — that Cardinal Müller cannot serve as a pillar of faith in the Virgin Mary.
We find, on the other hand, a solid pillar in Saint Bernard, to whom the adage is attributed: De Maria numquam satis — of Mary, one can never say enough. To express the greatness of the privileges that God grants her in order to make her a worthy Mother of God, this saint does not find adequate words. This adage does not mean that her perfections are without measure — which belongs to God alone — but that they must be measured by her dignity as Mother of God, which demands a holiness so great, says Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus, that "outside of God, no mind can succeed in measuring its greatness." Obviously, this famous saying does not sit well with the fear of "exaggerating falsely per excessum" by honoring her with the title of Coredemptrix and by affirming her Perpetual Virginity as the Church has always understood it. On the contrary, it is to be feared that the motto more in keeping with the Marian doctrine of Cardinal Müller would rather be: De Maria ne quid nimis — of Mary, nothing in excess. Yet, beneath the appearance of moderation the Cardinal gives himself, there is in reality a dreary minimalism, a doctrinal obfuscation. In truth, attributing to Our Lady the title of Coredemptrix is by no means excessive, but harmonizes with the perennial doctrine of the Magisterium; and to profess in the full sense her unalterable virginal integrity is in no way excessive, but is nothing other than the dogmatic integrity valiantly defended by the Fathers and clearly defined by the Magisterium.
