Some
Comments on the Statement
Regarding
the Devotion to Our Lady of
America of May 7, 2020
By
Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades
and
Five Other Ordinaries
Bishop Kevn C. Rhoades, Bishop of
Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, and five other ordinaries of Dioceses
issued a
statement on May 7th, 2020 on the alleged apparitions “Our
Lady of
America”. The other five bishops were ordinaries of the dioceses where
Sister
Mary Ephrem (baptized Mildred) Neuzil (1914-2000) had lived and hence
these
bishops have the right and obligation to make a judgment about the
alleged
apparitions and locutions that took place in their jurisdictions. Here
is an
explanatory part of their statement.
“In November 2017, His
Eminence, Daniel Cardinal DiNardo, then USCCB President, received
instructions
from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that the competent
ecclesiastical
authority for conducting the investigation should be the local bishop
of the
diocese where the alleged apparitions and private revelations occurred,
or
another bishop who demonstrates such competence. The lead bishop who
conducts
the investigation was to arrive at a first conclusion. In doing so, he
was
instructed to call upon whatever assistance was deemed necessary,
although the
enlistment of one or two experts in Mariology, along with experts in
the field
of spiritual theology, was highly encouraged, so the authenticity of
the
presumed mystical phenomena could be established.
“Given the supra-diocesan
nature of this case, moreover, the Congregation observed that the
bishop
designated to lead the examination could involve the bishops of the
other
dioceses in whose territories the apparitions and private revelations
have
allegedly occurred.
“In accord with these
instructions, the other five diocesan bishops where the apparitions and
private
revelations were said to have occurred requested that Bishop Kevin
Rhoades of
the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend serve as the lead bishop, since
the
purported apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary allegedly began on
September
25, 1956 at Rome City, Indiana, in the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South
Bend, where
people still gather and pray for the Blessed Mother’s intercession
under the
title, “Our Lady of America.” Bishop Rhoades agreed to the request of
the other
five bishops to conduct the investigation and formed a commission of
theological and canonical experts to assist in evaluating the evidence,
including personal interviews with witnesses who knew Sister Neuzil
personally.”
In their first two numbered
statements they declare that there is no reason to doubt the integrity
of the
person or honesty of Sister Neuzil and that there is some evidence of
good
spiritual fruits that came from these revelations although they “cannot
conclude that any of these events are conclusive enough to warrant
certification as miracles.”
1. In their third numbered
statement the Bishops pass over in complete silence all the messages
given by
the Lord, Our Lady and Saint Joseph, Saints Michael and Gabriel in
their call
for the conversion of America, for the reign of holy purity, which the
Holy
Family represent in their persons, for the adoration of the indwelling
Trinity
and all the other elements of these revelations. Without any
theological
analysis they simply declare: “Regarding the alleged revelations
themselves,
much of what is expressed does not contain any doctrinal error.” I find
this
amazingly patronizing and dismissive. They refuse to take seriously
what is
being asked of the Bishops and the faithful of the United States.
2. They then go on to state: “However,
there is a claim regarding Saint Joseph which has never been expressed
as
Catholic doctrine and must be seen as an error, namely, that he was a
‘co-redeemer’
with Christ for the salvation of the world.” On this matter, however, I
submit
that their collective Excellencies and their experts have made a
statement in
crass ignorance. First let us cite the statement that they call an
error:
In
early October, 1956, about a week after Our Lady’s first appearance,
St.
Joseph, though I did not see him at this time, spoke to me the
following words:
“It
is true my daughter, that immediately after my conception, I was,
through the
future merits of Jesus and because of my exceptional role of future
Virgin-Father, cleansed from the stain of original sin.
“I
was from that moment confirmed in grace and never had the slightest
stain on my
soul. This is my unique privilege among men.
“My
pure heart also was from the first moment of existence inflamed with
love for
God. Immediately, at the moment when my soul was cleansed from original
sin,
grace was infused into it in such abundance that, excluding my holy
spouse, I
surpassed the holiness of the highest angel in the angelic choir.
“My
heart suffered with the Hearts of Jesus and Mary. Mine was a silent
suffering,
for it was my special vocation to hide and shield as long as God
willed, the
Virgin Mother and Son from the malice and hatred of men.
“The
most painful of my sorrows was that I knew beforehand of their passion,
yet
would not be there to console them.
“Their
future suffering was ever present to me and became my daily cross. I
became, in
union with my holy spouse, co-redemptor of the human race. Through
compassion
for the sufferings of Jesus and Mary I co-operated, as no other, in the
salvation of the world.”
1. The Principle of Collaboration in the Work of
Redemption
in Mary and in Us
Let me cite again what the
bishops state:
the “claim regarding Saint Joseph … namely, that he was a ‘co-redeemer’
with
Christ for the salvation of the world … has never been expressed as
Catholic
doctrine and must be seen as an error.” I contend that this is simply
not so.
I begin my defense with a
citation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The cross is
the unique sacrifice of Christ, the “one mediator between God and men”
(1 Tim.
2:5). But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some
way united
himself to every man, “the possibility of being made partners, in a way
known
to God, in the paschal mystery” is offered to all men (Gaudium et
Spes
22 #5; cf. #2). He calls his disciples to “take up [their] cross
and
follow (him)” (Mt. 16:24), for “Christ also suffered for (us),
leaving
(us) an example so that (we) should follow in his steps (I Pt.
2:21).” In
fact, Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who
were to
be its first beneficiaries (Cf. Mk. 10:39; Jn. 21:18-19; Col.
1:24). This
is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated
more
intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive
suffering
(Cf. Lk. 2:35). Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by
which we
may get to heaven.
Now let us take
note that all Christians are called to be associated with Jesus’
redeeming
sacrifice and that this call was especially accepted by “his mother,
who was
associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his
redemptive suffering.” This is what is witnessed to by describing Mary
as
Coredemptrix. This is not in any way to deny that Jesus is the “one
mediator between God and men” (1 Tim. 2:5); he is our only Redeemer. As
Pope
Saint John Paul II put it in #24 of Salvifici Doloris, his
Apostolic
Letter on the Christian Meaning of Suffering of 11 February 1984:
The sufferings
of Christ created the good of the world’s redemption. This good in
itself is
inexhaustible and infinite. No man can add anything to it. But at the
same
time, in the mystery of the Church as his Body, Christ has in a sense
opened
his own redemptive suffering to all human suffering. In so far as man
becomes a
sharer in Christ’s sufferings – in any part of the world and at any
time in
history – to that extent he in his own way completes the
suffering
through which Christ accomplished the Redemption of the world (Cf. Col.
1:24).
What Jesus did on
the cross, then, was all-sufficient for our salvation, but as the Catechism
teaches us he: “desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those
who
were to be its first beneficiaries (Cf. Mk. 10:39; Jn. 21:18-19; Col.
1:24). In
commenting on 1 Tim. 2:5, Pope Leo XIII put it this way in his
Encyclical
Letter Fidentem Piumque:
And yet, as the Angelic Doctor teaches: “There is no
reason why certain
others should not be called, in a certain way, mediators between God
and man,
that is to say in so far as they cooperate by predisposing and
ministering in
the union of man with God” (ST III, q. 26, a. 1). Such are the
angels
and saints, the prophets and priests of both Testaments, but
especially has the
Blessed Virgin a claim to the glory of this title. For no single
individual can
even be imagined who has ever contributed or ever will contribute so
much
toward reconciling man with God. To mankind heading for eternal
ruin, she
offered a Savior when she received the announcement of the mystery
brought to
this earth by the Angel, and in giving her consent gave it “in the name
of the
whole human race” (ST III, q. 30, a. 1). She is from whom Jesus
is born;
she is therefore truly His Mother and for this reason a worthy and
acceptable
“Mediatrix to the Mediator”.
Although
the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council were prohibited for
ecumenical motives
from using the word “Coredemptrix” in what eventually became chapter
eight of Lumen
Gentium, the prohibition acknowledged that the word Coredemptrix
and
similar terms were absolutely true in themselves (verissime in se).
The fact is the doctrine that Mary collaborated “in a wholly singular
way” in
the work of our salvation is clearly and amply taught in Lumen
Gentium #56-58
and #60-62 with the important understanding that
Mary’s
function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique
mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed
Virgin’s
salutary influence on men originates not in any inner necessity but in
the
disposition of God. It flows forth from the superabundance of the
merits of
Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all
its power
from it. It does not hinder in any way the immediate union of the
faithful with
Christ but on the contrary fosters it.
The ordinary
magisterium of Pope Saint John Paul II developed the understanding of
Marian
Coredemption very notably.
In
his
Marian Catechesis of 9 April 1997 Pope Saint John Paul II made this
statement
about Mary’s collaboration in our salvation “in a wholly singular way”:
Down the
centuries the Church has reflected on Mary’s cooperation in the work of
salvation, deepening the analysis of her association with Christ’s
redemptive
sacrifice. St. Augustine already gave the Blessed Virgin the title
“cooperator”
in the Redemption (cf. De Sancta Virginitate, 6; PL 40,
399), a
title which emphasizes Mary’s joint but subordinate action with Christ
the
Redeemer.
Reflection
has developed along these lines, particularly since the 15th
century. Some feared there might be a desire to put Mary on the same
level as
Christ. Actually, the Church’s teaching makes a clear distinction
between
the Mother and the Son in the work of salvation, explaining the Blessed
Virgin’s subordination, as cooperator, to the one Redeemer.
Moreover,
when the Apostle Paul says: “For we are God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor.
3:9), he
maintains the real possibility for man to cooperate with God. The
collaboration
of believers, which obviously excludes any equality with him, is
expressed in
the proclamation of the Gospel and in their personal contribution to
its taking
root in human hearts.
#2. However,
applied to Mary, the term “cooperator” acquires a specific meaning. The
collaboration of Christians in salvation takes place after the Calvary
event,
whose fruits they endeavor to spread by prayer and sacrifice. Mary,
instead,
cooperated during the event itself and in the role of mother; thus, her
cooperation embraces the whole of Christ’s saving work. She alone was
associated in this way with the redemptive sacrifice that merited the
salvation
of all mankind. In union with Christ and in submission to him, she
collaborated
in obtaining the grace of salvation for all humanity.
In these few sentences
John Paul II clarified that Mary’s collaboration in the work of our
salvation
is totally subordinate to that of Christ, but also totally unique in
that she “cooperated
during the event itself and in the role of mother”. Our cooperation, on
the
other hand “is expressed in the proclamation of the Gospel and in [our]
personal contribution to its taking root in human hearts.” Our
“collaboration …
in salvation takes place after the Calvary event, whose fruits [we]
endeavor to
spread by prayer and sacrifice.” The Catholic Church teaches that all
of her
children must cooperate in the work of our redemption by our prayer and
sacrifice, by living according to the Gospel. Mary’s cooperation,
however, took
place as the New Eve at the side of Christ, the New Adam.
Turning once
again to Salvifici Doloris, in which John Paul II comments at
length on
Saint Paul’s statement in Col. 1:24 “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for
your
sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s
afflictions for
the sake of his body, that is, the Church,” he says
It is
especially
consoling to note – and also accurate in accordance with the Gospel and
history
– that at the side of Christ, in the first and most exalted place,
there is
always His Mother through the exemplary testimony that she bears by
her
whole life to this particular Gospel of suffering. In her, the
many and
intense sufferings were amassed in such an interconnected way that they
were
not only a proof of her unshakable faith but also a contribution to the
Redemption of all. …
And again, after
the events of her Son’s hidden and public life, events which she must
have
shared with acute sensitivity, it was on Calvary that Mary’s
suffering,
beside the suffering of Jesus, reached an intensity which can hardly be
imagined from a human point of view but which was mysteriously and
supernaturally fruitful for the Redemption of the world. Her ascent of
Calvary
and her standing at the foot of the cross together with the beloved
disciple
were a special sort of sharing in the redeeming death of her Son.
And the
words which she heard from His lips were a kind of solemn handing-over
of this
Gospel of suffering so that it could be proclaimed to the whole
community of
believers.
As a witness to her
Son’s passion by her presence, and as a sharer in it by her compassion,
Mary offered a unique contribution to the Gospel of suffering, by
embodying in
anticipation the expression of St. Paul which was quoted at the
beginning. She
truly has a special title to be able to claim that she “completes in
her flesh”
– as already in her heart – “what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.”
In the light of the
unmatched example of Christ, reflected with singular clarity in the
life of His
Mother, the Gospel of suffering, through the experience and words of
the
Apostles, becomes an inexhaustible source for the ever new
generations
that succeed one another in the history of the Church. The Gospel of
suffering
signifies not only the presence of suffering in the Gospel, as one of
the
themes of the Good News, but also the revelation of the salvific
power and
salvific significance of suffering in Christ's messianic mission
and,
subsequently, in the mission and vocation of the Church.
We note here the pope’s insistence
that Mary’s sufferings were” a
contribution to the Redemption of all” [verum etiam ad redemptionem
omnium
conferrent];
“mysteriously and supernaturally fruitful for the Redemption of the
world” [arcana
fuit et supernaturali
ratione fecunda pro
universali redemptione].
This is
completely consistent with the teaching of previous pontiffs.
2. The Claim
for Saint Joseph’s
Collaboration in the Work of Redemption
Now let us recall once again the
claim of the bishops in their statement: “[T]here is a claim regarding
Saint Joseph
[in the alleged apparitions] which has never been expressed as Catholic
doctrine and must be seen as an error, namely, that he [Saint Joseph]
was a ‘co-redeemer’
with Christ for the salvation of the world.”
The
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had proposed that the
Bishops might
consider engaging a Mariologist in their study of the apparitions of
Our Lady
of America. It is a pity that they did not also engage a Josephologist
as well
or at least a Mariologist knowledgeable of Josephology, which is a
relatively
modern theological science. Devotion to Saint Joseph has developed
notably over
the past five centuries and doctrine even more recently in the papal
magisterium. Just as the development of doctrine in Mariology in the
Church, so
also can the development of doctrine in Josephology. On this matter
Pope Saint
John Paul II contributed to that development in a particular way in his
Apostolic Exhortation Redemptoris Custos of 15 August 1989,
which was written
to commemorate the centenary of Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Epistle on
Saint
Joseph entitled Quamquam Pluries. In that Apostolic Exhortation
John
Paul II carefully alludes to the ongoing development of doctrine on St.
Joseph
in this way:
17. One must
come to understand
this truth [that Joseph was a “just man” (Mt. 1:19)], for it contains one
of
the most important testimonies concerning man and his vocation. Through
many generations the Church has read this testimony with ever greater
attention
and with deeper understanding, drawing, as it were, “what is new and
what is
old” (Mt. 13:52) from the storehouse of the noble figure of Joseph.
[Eandem
oportet quis sciat recte legere veritatem quoniam in ea residet una
quaedam
ex praestantissimis de viro ipso eiusque munere testificationibus. Volventibus
porro aetatibus attentior usque ac magis conscia Ecclesia hoc perlegit
testimonium, tamquam si ex thesauro huius singularis figura e « nova et
vetera
» (Mt 13, 52) proferat.]
Continuing the line of
papal teaching on Saint Joseph developed by Blessed Pope Pius IX, who
declared
Saint Joseph Patron of the Universal Church in 1870, and of
Pope Leo XIII, Pope
Pius XI made this striking statement about Saint Joseph on his feastday
in
1928, after having spoken on the mission of Saint John the Baptist and
that of
Saint Peter:
Between these two
missions there appears that of St. Joseph, one of recollection and
silence, one
almost unnoticed and destined to be lit up only many centuries
afterwards, a
silence which would become a resounding hymn of glory, but only after
many
years. But where the mystery is deepest it is there precisely that the
mission
is highest and that a more brilliant cortège of virtues is required
with their
corresponding echo of merits. It was a unique and sublime mission, that
of
guarding that the Son of God, the King of the world, that of protecting
the
virginity of Mary, that of entering into participation in the
mystery hidden
from the eyes of ages and so to cooperate in the Incarnation and the
Redemption.
[E
tra queste due missioni appare quella di San Giuseppe che passa invece
raccolta, tacita, quasi inavvertita, sconosciuta, nell’umiltà, nel
silenzio, un
silenzio che non doveva illuminarsi se non dopo qualche secolo, un
silenzio a
cui ben doveva succedere e veramente alto, il grido, la voce della
gloria dopo
secoli. Eppure dove più profondo è il mistero, dove più fitta la più
notte che
lo copre, dove più profondo il silenzio, è proprio lì che più alta è la
missione, più ricco è il corredo delle virtù che per essa si richiedono
e del
merito che doveva per felice necessità corrisponderle.
Questa missione
unica, grandiosa, la missione di custodire il Figlio di Dio, il Re del
mondo,
la missione di custodire la verginità, la santità di Maria, la
missione di
cooperare, unico chiamato a partecipare alla consapevolezza del grande
mistero
nascosto ai secoli, alla Incarnazione divina ed alla salvezza del
genere umano.]
This is a very noteworthy
statement: that the mission of Saint Joseph was to participate in the
knowledge
of the great mystery hidden from the ages, to participate in the
Incarnation
and the salvation of the human race.
Now,
let us consider some of John Paul II’s very important statements about
Saint
Joseph’s collaboration in the work of Redemption:
1. This is
precisely the
mystery in which Joseph of Nazareth “shared” like no other human being
except
Mary, the Mother of the Incarnate Word. He shared in it with her;
he was
involved in the same salvific event; he was the guardian of the
same love,
through the power of which the eternal Father “destined us to be his
sons
through Jesus Christ” (Eph. 1:5). [Velut alius
omnino nemo homo, Verbi Incarnati excepta Matre
Maria, hoc plane arcanum « communicavit » Iosephus Nazarethanus. Is
sane
ipse particeps ibidem cum illa simul fuit, in veritatem eiusdem
insertus
salvifici eventus atque eiusdem etiam custos amoris, cuius virtute
Pater
aeternus « praedestinavit nos in adoptionem filiorum per Iesum Christum
» (Eph
1, 5)].
8. St.
Joseph was
called by God to serve the person and mission of Jesus directly through
the
exercise of his fatherhood. It is precisely in this way that, as
the Church’s
Liturgy teaches, he “cooperated in the fullness of time in the
great mystery
of salvation” and is truly a “minister of salvation.” His fatherhood is
expressed concretely “in his having made his life a service, a
sacrifice to the
mystery of the Incarnation and to the redemptive mission connected with
it.”
[A Deo
est Sanctus Iosephus arcessitus ut Iesu recta via munerique eius per
suae
paternitatis exsecutionem famularetur: eo ipso prorsus modo ille in
temporis
plenitudine magno redemptionis mysterio adiutricem praestitit
operam reque
vera «
salutis
minister » exsistit. Concreta autem ratione paternitas illius
inde declarata
est « quod. sua ex vita ministerium effecit ac sacrificium ipsi
incarnationis
mysterio necnon redimendi officio ei inhaerenti.]
14.
Just as
Israel had followed the path of the exodus “from the condition of
slavery” in
order to begin the Old Covenant, so Joseph, guardian and cooperator
in the
providential mystery of God, even in exile watched over the one who
brings
about the New Covenant. [Quem ad modum Israel exodi sive egressionis
viam «
de domo servitutis » arripuit ut Foedus Vetus iniret, ita plane Iosephus,
sequester ac providentiae Dei mysterii adiutor, in exsilio eum
aequabiliter
tuetur qui Novum Foedus in actum deducit.]
20. “It is
certain that the
dignity of the Mother of God is so exalted that nothing could be more
sublime;
yet because Mary was united to Joseph by the bond of marriage, there
can be no doubt but that Joseph approached as no other person ever
could that
eminent dignity whereby the Mother of God towers above all creatures.
Since
marriage is the highest degree of association and friendship involving
by its
very nature a communion of goods, it follows that God, by giving
Joseph to
the Virgin, did not give him to her only as a companion for life, a
witness of
her virginity and protector of her honor: he also gave Joseph to Mary
in order
that he might share, through the marriage pact, in her own sublime
greatness. [«
Certe matris Dei tam in Excelso dignitas est, ut nihil fieri maius
queat. Sed
tamen quia intercessit Iosepho cum Virgine beatissima maritale
vinculum, ad
illam praestantissimam dignitatem, qua naturis creatis omnibus
longissime
Deipara antecellit, non est dubium quin accesserit ipse, ut nemo magis.
Est
enim coniugium societas necessitudoque omnium maxima, quae natura sua
adiunctam
habet bonorum unius cum altero communicationem. Quocirca si sponsum
Virgini
Deus Iosephum dedit, dedit profecto non modo vitae socium, virginitatis
testem,
tutorem honestatis, sed etiam excelsae dignitatis eius ipso coniugali
foedere
participem ».]
While it is true
that John Paul II did not
explicitly teach that Saint Joseph was a co-redeemer, he certainly laid
the
groundwork for such an understanding. Even more, of all the popes, he
was the
first to make the most definite declarations in this regard by stating
that
Joseph was involved with Mary in the same salvific event; indeed, the
Latin can
even be translated that he was “inserted” into this event. Thus, by
virtue of
his being the head of the Holy Family Joseph was inserted into the
hypostatic order.
About this relation to the hypostatic order, let us quote from the
famous
canonist Prosper Lambertini [the future Benedict XIV (1675-1758)]:
There are other
ministries
which refer to the order of the hypostatic union, which is itself the
most
perfect, as we have said on speaking of the dignity of the Mother of
God; and
in this order I believe that St. Joseph’s ministry holds the lowest
place.
But being included in the highest order, it exceeds all other
ministries of
other orders. The office of the holy Patriarch does not belong to
either the
Old or the New Testament, but to the Author of both and the Cornerstone
which
made them one.
In fact, Prosper
Lambertini’s recognition
of Joseph as belonging to the order of the hypostatic union was first
enunciated, insofar as far as we know, by the great Jesuit philosopher
and
theologian Francisco Suarez (1548-1617) from whom Lambertini borrowed.
Here is
a summary of the position of Suarez by the late Opus Dei theologian Joachín
Ferrer Arellano
(1931-2017) whom I had the happiness of knowing:
There
are certain ministries
which pertain precisely to the order of sanctifying grace, and in this
order, I
see that the apostles occupy the place of highest dignity, and that in
such a
place, gifts of grace are necessary (above all of wisdom and of grace: gratis
data) superior to the gifts of others. There are, however, other
ministries
found within the order of the hypostatic union (an order of itself more
perfect, as we have said elsewhere, treating of the dignity of the
Mother of
God) and, in my opinion, it is within this order that the ministry of
St.
Joseph must be situated, even if it occupies the lowest place there;
and for
this reason, his is a dignity superior to the highest in other orders
because
he is in a higher order.
Calling Joseph a
“minister of salvation”
in paragraph 8 is a very strong statement and so is “his having
made his
life a service, a sacrifice to the mystery of the Incarnation and to
the
redemptive mission connected with it.” Further, Joseph is called a cooperator
in the providential mystery of God. Finally, Leo XIII and John Paul
II both
assert that Joseph shares through the marriage pact, in [Mary’s]
own
sublime greatness. Lumen Gentium, clearly teaches that Mary
genuinely collaborated in the work of Redemption in a way that is
totally
secondary, subordinate and dependent on Jesus. Since this is so, is it not
reasonable that Joseph collaborated in our Redemption, in a way that is
secondary and subordinate to Mary’s collaboration, even as Mary’s
collaboration
is secondary, subordinate and totally dependent on Jesus as the
Redeemer? These
statements of Leo XIII, Pius XI and John Paul II clearly speak of Saint
Joseph’s participation in the Redemption of the human race, even if
they do not
employ the term “Co-redeemer”.
4. It is a commonplace
that devotion and sound theology precede the magisterium, which by its
very
nature must be conservative and cautious. That was and is surely the
case with
the devotion to and doctrine about Saint Joseph. By the time Blessed
Pope Pius
IX declared Saint Joseph Patron of the Universal Church through the
Decree Quemadmodum
Deus issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on 8 December 1870,
the
piety of saints, mystics and the faithful had already prepared the way
along
with significant theological treatises. This, in turn, spurred on
further
theological research and treatises on Josephology.
5. Almost all modern
authors on Saint Joseph treat of his sorrows and joys. It should be
noted in
particular that the first three of the seven sorrows traditionally
ascribed to
Our Lady – the presentation of the infant Jesus in the temple, the
flight into
Egypt and the finding in the temple – are also sorrows of Joseph. In the
account of the third sorrow Mary asks Jesus “Son, why have you treated
us so?
Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in sorrow” (Lk.
2:48). As
the husband of Mary and the virginal father of Jesus, Joseph obviously
shared
intimately in her joys and sorrows. Saints and mystics often give us
profound
insights into the sufferings of these holy spouses, assuming, not
without good
reason, that Joseph, like Mary had profound intuitions and knowledge about the
suffering and death of Jesus, at least from the time of the prophecy of
Simeon
(Lk. 2:34-35). In his meditations for the Month of Saint Joseph
Saint
Peter Julian Eymard (1811-1868) wrote about this:
From the day the
aged Simeon had
predicted Christ’s Passion, never a moment elapsed when that Passion
was not
present to the mind of Saint Joseph.
The
Scriptures showed it to
him in figure, while Jesus spoke to him of it continually. For Jesus
loved His
father too much to deprive him of the grace of suffering the Passion
with Him
and of sharing beforehand in its merits. …
To draw
Saint Joseph into
intimate union with Himself and grant him the merit of the whole
Passion, our
Lord had to show it to him in all its details and with all its
bitterness …
Further,
Saint Joseph foresaw
Mary’s tears and misery. He would have desired to stay by her side, and
he must
have begged Jesus to be allowed to remain on earth that he might climb
Calvary
and sustain Mary. Poor Saint Joseph! He had to submit to death and
leave behind
him Jesus and Mary: Jesus to be crucified and abandoned by His people;
Mary to
suffer alone, unassisted. How his love for them was crucified!
All this
is very true. It was
only right that Saint Joseph should not be deprived of suffering, a
grace
granted to all the saints. He was to have a fuller chalice of pain than
all the
rest because our Lord loved him more than all of them except Mary. Our
Lord
owed it to the love He bore Saint Joseph.
This beautiful
text of Saint Peter Julian
Eymard assumes that Joseph was aware of the Passion of Jesus in
advance, as we
also find in the works of many authors and theologians throughout the
centuries.
Thus, the sorrows of Saint Joseph, the living of Mary’s sorrows in
union with
her and the desire to be united with Jesus in his Passion would have
constituted the basis for which Saint Joseph could be considered a
Co-redeemer
with Christ, but to a lesser extent than Mary who participated directly
in the
Passion of Christ.
6. In fact, the Servite
Cardinal Alexis Henry Lépicier, O.S.M. (1863-1936) argued at length in
his two
major works on Josephology, the Latin treatise of 1907 and the more
popularized
French volume in 1932, that Saint Joseph can rightly be described as a
co-redeemer with Christ.
As far as I have been able to determine, he was the first theologian of
note to
do so. Not only was he a notable theologian, but he also served in
important
posts for the Holy See, in his own order and in the Roman Curia. He was
ordained in 1885 and already in 1894 “he was appointed to the Chair of
Mariology [at the Pontifical Academy Propaganda Fide], the first
erected in the
Catholic world.”
In 1901 he began
the series of
his theological, scriptural, philosophical, ascetical, Marian and
literary
publications. He started with the treatise De Beatissima Maria
Matre Dei,
which was rightfully deemed the most beautiful theological work put out
on Our
Lady up to that time and which has had many editions.
Let us consider
now some of Lépicier’s
interconnected arguments. He begins by speaking of the sorrows of Saint
Joseph:
It is by these
immense sorrows,
so patiently borne, that the holy Patriarch merited for himself the
glorious
title of Co-redeemer, in the sense in which we call Mary herself
Coredemptrix,
even though in a lesser degree.
In order
to understand this
point well, one must keep before one’s eyes not only the greatness of
these
sufferings of Saint Joseph, but above all their reason, or as one says
in
theological language their formal object or ultimate cause.
The
greatness of the sorrows
of Saint Joseph can be measured by two causes: the material cause and
the
efficient cause. The material cause was the very soul of the holy
Patriarch,
which, by reason of the perfection that it possessed, a perfection
enhanced by
the absence of all actual sin,
functioned like the soul of his holy Spouse, which was of such an
exceptional
sensibility that suffering and sadness, like other movements of the
sensible
appetite, called “animal” passions, were imprinted very easily and very
profoundly in her.
But above
all it is the final
cause or reason for which Joseph suffered, which confers on his
sufferings
their nobility and efficacy. As in the case of his holy Spouse, Saint
Joseph
did not suffer for himself, never having committed any sin; his
sufferings were
entirely for the salvation of the world; and it is precisely this
consideration
that confers on him the beautiful title of Co-redeemer, which we claim
for him.
…
[After
giving the examples of
the sorrows of Saint Joseph he continues] Saint Joseph never ceased
cooperating
in the most efficacious way, in union with his Spouse, in the salvation
of the
human race: in these circumstances he well merited to be called our
Co-redeemer.
Moreover,
a Catholic would
never mistake the sense in which this title should be understood. He
knows
perfectly well that we have only one Redeemer, who has paid the total
price of
our salvation and has paid it with superabundant merits. But because
our divine
Savior did not disdain to associate with himself rational creatures
according
to the words of Saint Paul: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your
sake, and
in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the
sake of
his body, that is, the church” (Col. 1:24), one can justly give the
name of
co-redeemer to those especially who have cooperated under Christ and
with
Christ for the salvation of the human race.
Moreover,
in the order of
ideas the very first place belongs to Mary Immaculate, who offered the
divine
Victim of Calvary in a more fully and perfect way than any other
creature,
suffered for Jesus and with Jesus, without thinking in any way of
benefitting
herself, for the forgiveness of the sins committed by the human race.
After
Mary it is to Saint Joseph that belongs that glorious title for having
nourished and watched over the same Victim in view of the sacrifice of
the
Cross by having offered Him, in anticipation in the Temple, as one who
rightly
belonged to him, and for having endured these sorrows of which the
satisfactory
merit has gone entirely to the profit of the human race purchased by
the blood
of Jesus Christ.
Cardinal
Lépicier’s position on
Saint Joseph’s active collaboration in the work of Redemption, namely
his role
as Co-redeemer, was subsequently upheld by other authors. The most
sustained and carefully argued treatment of this topic was done by the
late
Opus Dei numerary, Don Joachín Ferrer Arellano in his book San José Nuestro
Padre y Señor: La
Trinidad de la Tierra – Teología y Espiritualidad Josefina and in his
lengthy essay, “St.
Joseph and Soteriology: The Singular Participation of the Virgin
Father, St.
Joseph, with the Immaculate Coredemptrix in the Work of Our Redemption”.
In these works he
follows the indications of Saint Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer
(1902-1975), the founder of Opus Dei, who was a
friend of Joachín Ferrer Arellano and who always invoked Saint Joseph
as
“Father and Lord” [Padre
y Señor]. It
would require much more space to analyze his work, but it should be
noted that
both the Spanish work and the English essay received the Imprimatur.
I wish to make a further comment
here. There has been much controversy in the Catholic theological world
about
Marian Coredemption and much bias against it even though many excellent
studies
have been produced in the course of the past twenty-five years. I have
been a
part of the effort to promote a positive understanding of Our Lady’s
role as
Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. It is obvious that there is
opposition at
very high levels in the Church and it would seem obvious that the claim
that
Saint Joseph, too, is a Co-redeemer on a level below Mary could be
considered a
“slam dunk”. I would simply point out here that Cardinal Lépicier began writing
about Saint Joseph as a
Co-redeemer a good fifty years before Sister Neuzil reported this
statement and
that she had no higher education in theology. The Bishops’
statement that “Saint
Joseph was a Co-redeemer with Christ must be seen as an error” is
erroneous
itself and betrays a profound ignorance of Josephology in the papal
magisterium
and in theology as it has developed in the course of the last 150 years.
7. In their fourth numbered statement the Bishops
declare “Looking at the nature and quality of the experiences
themselves, we
find that they are more to be described as subjective inner religious
experiences rather than objective external visions and revelations.” In
their
fifth numbered statement they state again
we find that her experiences
were of a type where her own imagination and intellect were involved in
the
formation of the events. It seems that these were authentically graced
moments,
even perhaps of a spiritual quality beyond what most people experience,
but
subjective ones in which her own imagination and intellect were
constitutively
engaged, putting form to inner spiritual movements. However, we do not
find
evidence that these were objective visions and revelations of the type
seen at
Guadalupe, Fatima, and Lourdes.
The Bishops do not tell us the
criteria on which they
have based their judgment. I find what they state here very vague. In
the case
of any vision quidquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur;
whatever is received is necessarily received according to the capacity
of the
receiver. It is difficult for me to grasp how the imagination and
intellect of
a visionary could not be constitutively engaged in a vision and the
classical
theology of the spiritual life seems to support this. It describes
three kinds
of visions, which have been distinguished by theologians of the
spiritual life
since St. Augustine: (1) corporeal visions in which the bodily
eyes
perceive an object normally invisible; (2) imaginative visions
in which
the representation of an image is supernaturally produced on the
imagination
and (3) intellectual visions which are a simple intuitive
knowledge
supernaturally effected without the aid of any sensible image or
impressed
species in the internal or external senses.
How do these Bishops and their “experts” know that Sister Neuzil’s
visions were
not “objective external visions”? Are those required in order for a
revelation
to be recognized as valid?
My evaluation is that at least
some of the visions described by Sister Neuzil were corporeal. She went
into
detail, describing colors, form, etc. This feature does not disqualify
them.
The statement of the Bishops that “we do not find evidence that these
were
objective visions and revelations of the type seen at Guadalupe,
Fatima, and
Lourdes” simply begs the question. They offer no supporting evidence
for why
they make such a gratuitous and unsubstantiated statement.
I regret to submit my conclusion
that the Bishops’ statement of 7 May 2020 is a profoundly flawed
document and
ought to be withdrawn.
Monsignor
Arthur Burton Calkins, S.T.D.
21
December 2020