This, friends, is what’s going on at the Amoris laetitia (chose your own translation of that) confab. Let this sink in. Then use a good emetic.
At the Vatican today, Sister Helen Alford, O.P. suggested that Jesus was initially “flirting” with the Samaritan woman at the well in the Gospel of John – a theory cooked up by “one of my Dominican brothers.”
She is the President of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. 🤡 https://t.co/IgGGxD08IL
— Mason-Dixon Latin Mass Society (@MDLatinMass) October 8, 2026
On the other hand… across the street (almost literally)…
On the first day of the ‘De Maria numquam satis’ (“Of Mary, one can never say enough”) conference at the Patristic Institute Augustinianum in Rome, the major dogmatic issues underpinning the veneration of the Mother of God were discussed, with particular emphasis on her cooperation in salvation.
Cardinal Raymond Burke opened the conference with a talk on ‘Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Reign of Christ the King: The Mission of the Co-Redemptrix and the Co-Redeemers’.
The cardinal emphasised that the event at Guadalupe in 1531 is not merely a local devotion, but a manifestation of Christ’s kingship which restores the proper created order. He then explored in depth the central theme of human cooperation in the Redemption. The absolute beginning and perfect model of this cooperation is the Virgin Mother, who, having participated in a wholly unique way in the mystery of the Incarnation and the Passion, is rightly called the Co-Redemptrix. Consequently, by uniting their own daily crosses with that of the Saviour, all the baptised are called to become co-redeemers.
Prof. Rev. Manfred Hauke spoke on ‘The Divine Motherhood of Mary: The Dogma of Ephesus and Its Significance’, refuting nineteenth-century historical theories that reduced the dogma to a syncretism with the pagan cults of Artemis or Isis. Hauke demonstrated the solid biblical and patristic foundation of the Theotokos, recalling that the Incarnation requires the active cooperation of the creature and that Mary expressed her consent at the Annunciation on behalf of the whole of human nature.
The morning session was brought to a close by Father Wojciech Giertych, OP, with a paper on ‘The Primacy of Virginal Love within Mary’s Maternal Love’. The Theologian of the Papal Household outlined a profound emotional and spiritual distinction between virginal love — characterized by awe, veneration and a total absence of possessiveness — and maternal love. The latter, if left unpurified, risks degenerating into selfish attachment, whereas in Mary the two dimensions merge perfectly, offering the Church the perfect model of spiritual fruitfulness that springs from grace and charity.
In the afternoon, following the recitation of the Holy Rosary and Eucharistic Adoration at the nearby Basilica of San Giovanni dei Fiorentini, the proceedings of the second session resumed in the auditorium of the Augustinianum.
Slovakian theologian Fr Ľubomír Urbančok presented ‘The Contribution of the Roman Theological School to the Definition of the Immaculate Conception’, demonstrating how the theologians Giovanni Perrone and Carlo Passaglia provided Pius IX with the framework for dogmatic development, starting from the factum Ecclesiae — that is, from the living faith of the Church.
Subsequently, Fr Joseph Hamilton addressed the topic ‘From the Dormition to the Assumption: Mary’s Eschatological Fulfilment in Eastern Apocryphal and Patristic Sources’, analysing Eastern texts on the Dormition and highlighting how the bodily Assumption of the Virgin represents the anthropological antidote par excellence against the disembodied excesses of transhumanism and artificial intelligence.
Finally, Mgr Rudolf Michael Schmitz presented a paper entitled ‘The Virgin Mary in the Sphere of the Incarnation’. Through a rigorous systematic exposition in ten theses, Mgr Schmitz clarified that Mary belongs to the hypostatic order “terminatively” and not formally: whilst remaining a creature and without multiplying the personal union in Christ, she constitutes the created point at which the Incarnation touches humanity, thereby indissolubly linking Mariology to Christology and ecclesiology.
The proceedings will resume tomorrow morningwith a session dedicated to ‘Mary in Worship, Devotion and History’. The organisers say over 400 scholars, religious and laypeople from all over the world are attending the conference.
— Edward Pentin (@EdwardPentin) October 7, 2026
THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY CO MEDIATRIX!
When a Doctrine of the faith is under attack…the Pope can Declare Pronounce and Define and make it a Dogma.
What do we do when the one attacking the Doctrine is the Pope?
She doesn’t strike me as the sharpest spoon in the drawer.
Devious theoreticians on one side of the street, devout theologians on the other… the former are certainly into flirtation – they flirt with the zeitgeist and take it for the Heilige Geist! Was Jesus “flirting” with the Devil on the Mount of Temptation? Or with the Pharisees? Or Pilate? Emetic indeed, this brand of baloney is rancid and must be purged!
Lord have mercy.
I am thankful to God for a profound signal grace to keep me in the Catholic Church. This kind of stuff used to deeply unsettle me.
These folks can’t seem to conceive of any meaningful relationship that doesn’t involve sexuality of some kind. It’s the “unifying principle” of all of their positions.
Test of Sister Helen’s full address can be found at https://www.amorislaetitia.va/content/dam/amorislaetitia/7-october/alford/07-10-2026-alford-eng-or-meditation.pdf
Her discussion of the hermeneutic of the flirt footnotes a paper which she co-authored with an M. Paluch (see FN 1). I suspect this co-author is the Polish Dominican theologian Father Michal Paluch, former Rector Magnificus of the Angelicum.
Perhaps Sister Helen should stick to her field of economics, and as for Father Michal…he might take a cold shower.
And Rome wonders why the SSPX, ICRSS, FSSP, Etc. continue to grow in numbers. Eventually the mental and spiritual onslaught gets to be too much for those who just want to be Catholic. Who just want to live a Catholic life.
It is scary just going to Mass in many places with kids. One never knows what is going to be taught from the pulpit. Do I want my kids to hear this? I know WHERE to go to NOT hear it.
I miss you Fr. Z. We knew what to expect from your homilies. The truth and words we needed for the time. May God bless you and keep you, wherever you are sent.
This is what happens when Rationalists interpret Scripture….Jesus is capable of vice, if not sin.
From a short article on GotQuestions that addresses the question, “What does the Bible say about flirting?:
“According to Merriam-Webster, flirting is “a) to behave amorously without serious intent, or b) to show superficial or casual interest or liking.” It is synonymous with the word trifle, which is something of little value. The next thing we should examine is what people are usually trying to accomplish when they flirt. Are they trying to get attention from others, whether it is negative or positive? Are they attempting to show sexual interest or attraction? Do they see it as “innocent fun,” even if they or the other person is involved with someone else, even married?… Although flirting is almost always described as “harmless,” it rarely, if ever, actually is. … Anyone who flirts may enjoy the attention, but the interest shown to that person is almost exclusively sexual and will probably lack any sense of respect.
“But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart. So if your eye – even if it is your good eye – causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.”
I guess they assume everyone is as bawdy as they are.
Anyone who spends any amount of time in academics will notice that one way to satisfy one’s ambitions is to show or demonstrate in a well-written paper that an idea long accepted is incorrect. (This is less likely in fields where there are a lot of unknowns, but even in the natural sciences this has occurred and we now accept that there are more than four basic elements and even what I learned in college chemistry about valences is apparently incorrect.) In the natural sciences this is way of progress, but in the social sciences this at times is the way of backwardness or simple idiocy. Jesus the Flirt instead Jesus the Christ just does not make, it but it probably is the result of academic ambition rather than a mechanism that can be used to learn something.
Being shy if a girl wanted to flirt with me, I found it nice, but I always saw it as a way to get to know someone a little better. That is, it serves an information-gathering purpose. It starts with small talk and can advance to a more substantive level. Maybe this is what the sister meant, but that is pretty damning because I don’t think Our Lord needs to gather information.
I can see how the “mediatrix of all graces” and “co-redemptrix” titles can be confusing.
Of course, Mary cannot do anything without Jesus, the Second Person of God. She would be the first to admit that, too. She didn’t bring herself into existence. She didn’t hold herself in being from moment to moment. God did all that for her. She did nothing for herself, everything was done for and to her. She was an important instrument in God’s plan of salvation.
God chose her and freed her from original sin, but it is ultimately the death and resurrection of Jesus, God made man, that saves mankind. His sacrifice and death on the cross was the single action that satisfied and continues to satisfy for the sins of man. Mary brought him into the world, but she did not even know the full plan of salvation at the time of her fiat. She is sinless, but she is not divine. Divinity belongs to the Trinity. We honor Mary, and we worship her Son.
I’m thinking mostly of the non-Catholics, who may already have difficulty accepting Mary’s special place in the Catholic faith. These titles may put people off and may require some further clarification regarding the truths of our faith. It is in these ways that they are not as helpful.
I have no real personal problem with either title, but it’s surprising that people get upset when someone simply says they don’t think one is a helpful title. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. Maybe it depends on the audience?