Commenting on Mary’s role in the atonement and sufferings of Jesus Christ, Jesuit priest and theologian, John Hardon (1914-2000) wrote the following:
The Atonement of Christ—and Mary. When we speak of Christ’s mediation and of Mary’s subordinate co-operation with him, we are talking abstractly about what the Redemption means concretely. It was through the Redemption that the Savior exercised his mediatorial reconciliation, and that his mother shares in the process.
Yet the redemptive action of Jesus Christ may be conceived from two vantage points: It may be understood negatively in terms of remission from sins, and then it coincides with the atonement; or it may be seen positively, as the bestowal of grace that leads to heaven, which is properly justification through the merits of the Redeemer.
As Catholic Tradition understands it, “atonement” means reparation of any wrong or injury, either material (as the loss of something valuable) or oral (which is an injury or offense). Material harm requires restitution; moral injury calls for satisfaction, which is nothing else than compensation for some wrong done to another.
After man had sinned, he was obliged to repair the injustice committed against God, which God took upon himself to expiate in the person of Jesus Christ. Our interest here is not to recapitulate what the Church has always held, that Christ by his sufferings and death rendered vicarious atonement to God for the sins of men. We wish to see how Vatican II viewed the Mother of Christ in op-operating with the atonement. Most of the difficulties center on this delicate question.
Her supporting role is stated in a single sentence: “The Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully preserved 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 he herself had brought forth” (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, VIII, 60).
Mary’s title to mediatrix-in-atonement rests on the pain she freely underwent in union with her Son. The sins of men called for suffering from the God-man, and he wished his mother to share in the pain as she was the one whom he loved most and whose sympathy for him was the sin source of her own distress. (John A. Hardon, The Catholic Catechism: A Contemporary Catechism of the Teaching of the Catholic Church [New York: Image Books, 1981], 168-69, emphasis added)
In other words, Mary’s suffering at the foot of the cross, as well as her consent, plays a role in the atonement of Christ and redemption. Elsewhere, under the heading of “Christ the Source of All Grace—and Mary,” Hardon wrote:
Alongside her Son, Mary has become part of this plan by contributing her share to the justification of the human race, beginning with herself and extending to everyone ever justified. Her contribution is part of the mystery of merit, and is no more surprising than how anyone can deserve a reward before God, when the very freedom we exercise is a divine gift and the grace with which co-operate is another favor from on high. Mary was more instrumental than any other creature in thus “comeriting” with Christ, and subordinate to him as only a creature can be subordinate to its Maker.
What makes her unique is not the altruistic merit she gained by leading a holy life, and now in heaven continues interceding effectively as a reward of her virtue. All the saints did and do as much. Her singularity lies in the exalted sanctity she enjoyed as one full of grace, holier than the angels, and therefore as much more influential with God as the holiest of beings is more pleading to him than any of his lesser creatures. (ibid., 169-70)
Such a view is the predominant view of Catholic theologians today. Indeed, sections 967-970 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church explicates Mary as co-redemptrix, co-mediatrix, and advocate (the so-called “Fifth Marian Dogma”):
967 By her complete adherence to the Father's will, to his Son's redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church's model of faith and charity. Thus she is a "preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church"; indeed, she is the "exemplary realization" (typus) of the Church.
968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace."
969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."
970 "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 . . . 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." "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."
I bring such up for a number of reasons: I have said for a number of years now that what Rome teaches about the person and work of Mary is the greatest disproof of her claim to be the true Church of Christ. Furthermore, it does show the impossible position Latter-day Saints who wish to engage in theological ecumenism with Rome are in—one would have to ignore and/or compromise, and thus themselves fall prey to a false gospel (cf. Gal 1:6-9 [I stress theological ecumenism as I do believe it is proper to stand together with Roman Catholics and others on social issues, such as opposing the modern Holocaust of abortion]). Finally, it does show the world’s desperate need to rediscover the true Mary, the errant but inspiring disciple of Christ (I have tried to do this on my blog and elsewhere, such as a fireside in January 2017, Behold, the Mother of My Lord: Towards a “Mormon Mariology”)
