Mary Co-redemptrix: A Response to 7 Common Objections
Dr. Mark Miravalle
Objection 6: On a more speculative
theological level, it appears that Mary cannot participate in the acquisition of the graces of redemption (or “objective redemption”) as the Co-redemptrix when
she herself needed to be redeemed. If she did cooperate in objective redemption, it is because without her objective
redemption has not been accomplished. But if objective redemption has indeed not been accomplished, then she herself
cannot benefit from it personally. This would be to accept that at the same time objective redemption is in the
act of being accomplished and has already been accomplished, which would be a contradiction.
This apparent contradiction is removed with the proper understanding of how Mary received what is called “preservative redemption” in light of the foreseen merits of
Jesus Christ on the cross.
It is true that Mary needed to be “redeemed”
in order to actively participate in the process of Redemption as the sinless partner, the New Eve, with and under
Jesus Christ, the New Adam. To have original sin or its effects would not allow Mary to be completely united with
the Redeemer and at “enmity” or complete opposition
to Satan and his seed of sin and its effects (cf. Gen. 3:15)
in the redeeming process of “buying back” the
human family from Satan and restoring grace to humanity. Any sin on Mary’s part would attribute to her a “double-agency,” in being in some part united both to the Redeemer
and to Satan. Therefore Mary, as a daughter of Adam and Eve by virtue of her humanity, needed to be redeemed in
the form of being preserved from sin and its effects in order to rightly perform the task of Co-redemptrix with
the Redeemer in the process of universal objective redemption.
In the papal definition of Mary’s Immaculate Conception by Bl. Pope Pius IX in 1854, it states that Mary, from
the first instant of her conception was freed from original sin and all its effects “in
view of the merits of Jesus Christ.”  This refers to the higher or “more sublime manner” in which Mary was redeemed, beyond all other children of Adam and Eve. In Mary’s redemption, she did
not have to suffer the experience of original sin and its effects, but rather through the foreseen merits of Jesus
Christ at Calvary, was preserved from any experience or effect of original sin, and is thereby redeemed in a more
sublime manner (and consequently, for this reason, owes more to her saving Son’s redemption than any other redeemed
How then specifically is Mary’s redemption in the higher form of preservation from sin enacted so as to allow her
to historically participate in objective redemption? This more sublime manner of redemption takes place at Calvary
in the fact that the first intention of the redemptive
sacrifice of Jesus Christ,  according to the
providential plan of the Father, was to redeem his own mother (accomplished in view of the redemption and co-redemption
which would then ransom from Satan and sin the rest of the human family).
This first intention of the Redeemer to redeem Mary is in itself another manifestation of the higher and more sublime
manner of Mary’s redemption. The graces of this first intention of the Redeemer are then applied to Mary at the
moment of her Immaculate
Conception, allowing her then to become the sinless Coredemptrix, the historical New Eve, in the objective
historic redemption of Jesus Christ at Calvary. Jesus Christ first redeemed his own mother (at the moment of her
conception, preserving her from sin) and then with her active co-redemption the rest of humanity at Calvary.
Therefore there is no contradiction in the historic role of the Co-redemptrix in the objective redemption at Calvary
and Mary’s own personal need and receipt of the graces of redemption. In virtue of her Immaculate Conception (redemptive
graces applied to her at conception in view of the future merits of Jesus Christ at Calvary), and as the first
intention of Jesus Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, Mary was then able to uniquely participate in the historic redemption
of the rest of humanity with her Redeemer Son. As Fr. Galot well summarizes:
The first intention of the redemptive sacrifice was concerned, according to
the divine plan, with the ransom of Mary, accomplished in view of our ransom.... Thus, while she was associated
in the sacrifice of Calvary, Mary already benefited, in advance, from the fruits of the sacrifice and acted in
the capacity of a ransomed creature. But she truly cooperated in the objective redemption, in the acquisition of
the graces of salvation for all of mankind. Her redemption was purchased before that of other human beings. Mary
was ransomed only by Christ, so that mankind could be ransomed with the collaboration of his mother....
Hence there is no contradiction: Marian co-redemption implies the foreseen redemption of Mary, but not the foreseen
fulfillment of the redemption of mankind; it expresses the unique situation of the mother who, while having received
a singular grace from her own Son, cooperates with Him in the attainment of salvation for all. 
Still other theological schools prefer to distinguish the general notion of redemption into the
two categories of “preservation” and “ransoming.” Since Mary was never technically under the slavery
of Satan’s bondage, since she never experienced sin, the term “ransom” is less accurate for her, as it infers returning someone from a previous slavery. Hence the term “preservation” or preservative redemption may more accurately
distinguish the uniqueness of Mary’s need to be redeemed by Christ first as a daughter of Adam and Eve, but does
not infer that she was ever under Satan’s slavery of sin, illustrative of her higher form of preservative redemption
and her subsequent participation in the true “ransoming” of the rest of humanity. 
Does this primordial intention of Jesus Christ to redeem his mother and then, as subsequent intention, the rest
of humanity violate the “one sacrifice” of Jesus
Christ offered for all as discussed in Hebrews (cf Heb. 10:10)? It does not, as the redemption remains one, although its intentions and efficacious applications are
twofold. The one redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary does not constitute “two redemptions,” but one sublime redemption with two saving applications:
the first application effecting the Immaculate Conception of Mary and thus preparing her to be the Co-redemptrix
in her cooperation in objective redemption; the second application effecting the redemption of the human family
accomplished with the Co-redemptrix. 
In his homily on the Feast of Immaculate Conception in the cathedral in Krakow, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla (the present
pontiff) well summarized this Marian truth: “In order to be the Coredemptrix,
she was first the Immaculate Conception.” 
Objection 7: While
granting the legitimacy of Mary Goredemptrix and its corresponding doctrine of co-redemption, there are no
substantial reasons or fruits for its papal definition at this time, and in fact such a definition would cause
serious division within the Church.
It must be stated from the outset that such a position regarding a potential papal definition
of Mary Co-redemptrix is certainly an acceptable position by a faithful member of the Catholic Church. Notwithstanding,
let us explore, in a brief summary format, some of the numerous contemporary reasons presently being offered in
support of the appropriateness and consequent positive fruits of a formal papal definition of Mary Co-redemptrix.
1. Greater theological clarity to an area of present misunderstanding.
When Bl. Pius IX raised the Church doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to the level of dogma in 1854, he stated
that the fruits of such definition would be to “bring to perfection” the doctrine, adding greater clarity and light for the benefit of all:
The Church labors hard to polish the previous teachings, to bring to perfection
their formulation in such a way that these older dogmas of the heavenly doctrine receive proof, light, distinction,
while keeping their fullness, their integrity, their own character.... 
In light of the substantial contemporary confusion concerning precisely what the Catholic Church
means to convey in the doctrine of Marian co-redemption (as evidenced by the recent The
New York Times piece and its reaction), it would seem most beneficial to have a precise
statement, scripturally formulated in light of Christian Tradition, from the highest authority of the Catholic
Church, ensuring its doctrinal precision and authenticity.
Ecumenical benefits in an authentic Catholic expression of doctrinal dialogue
Rather than its perception as being against the imperative of working for Christian unity, a precise formulation
of what Catholics believe regarding Mary Co-redemptrix, and at the same time what they do not believe (i.e., equality
with Jesus Christ, divinity of Mary, etc.) will only serve authentic ecumenical dialogue based on integrity and
truth as to what is already a Catholic doctrinal teaching.
The late Cardinal John O’Connor of New York referred to this potential ecumenical fruit in his letter of endorsement
for the papal definition of Mary Co-redemptrix:
“Clearly, a formal papal definition would be articulated in such precise terminology
that other Christians would lose their anxiety that we do not distinguish adequately between Mary’s unique association
with Christ and the redemptive power exercised by Christ alone.”
Such a definition would help avoid the dangerous tendency to present in ecumenical dialogue only
those doctrinal elements Christians share together, rather than the difficult but necessary aspect of sharing those
doctrinal elements Christians do not hold in common. Such integrity in ecumenical doctrinal exchange is critically
necessary in eventually arriving at any true Christian unity.
Proper development of Marian doctrine
The existing four Marian Dogmas, the Motherhood of God (431), the Perpetual Virginity (649), the Immaculate Conception
(1854), and the Assumption (1950), all deal with the attributes or qualities of Mary’s earthly life, but none directly
refer to the Mother of Jesus in relation to the human family.
It is interesting to note historically that only one month following the papal definition of Mary’s Assumption
in November 1950, the International Mariological Congress formally petitioned Pope Pius XII for the papal definition
of Mary’s universal mediation as a logical progression following the definition of the Assumption. 
After the early life and attributes of Mary have received their respective “perfections
of doctrine” in solemn dogmatic definitions, so too it would seem appropriate that Mary’s
heavenly prerogative as spiritual mother of all peoples in the order of grace, inclusive of and founded upon her
unique co-redemption, would also receive its doctrinal perfecting in the form of a dogmatic definition.
4. Affirmation of the dignity of the human person and human freedom
One of the world’s leading contemporary personalist philosophers (from the philosophical school focusing upon the
dignity of the human person), Professor Dr. Josef Seifert  argues that a dogma of Mary Co-redemptrix would constitute a supreme confirmation of the dignity and freedom
of the human person:
A dogma that declares Mary Co-redemptrix would give unique witness to the
full freedom of the human person and to God’s respect for human freedom. This dogma would recognize in an ultimate
way that a free decision of
the human person of Mary, who was not even to become the Mother of God without her free fiat — a decision which
was not exclusively caused by divine grace but was also the fruit of her own personal choice — was necessary for our salvation, or played an indispensable
part in the concrete way of our redemption chosen by God.
In our age, in which a personalist philosophy was developed more deeply than ever before in the history of mankind,
and in which at the same time terrible anti-personalist ideologies reign, such a dogma would rightfully be perceived
as a supreme confirmation of the dignity of the human person.
In all of this I would see a crucial value and significance of this dogma being proclaimed in our time in which
both a new awareness of personal dignity arose and in which the person has been more humiliated in action and denied
in theory than ever before. 
5. Re-affirmation of the dignity of woman
In the contemporary discussion of feminism and the nature of woman, the papal proclamation of Mary Co-redemptrix
would underscore what could properly be identified as God’s radical love and respect for woman. According to Christian
Scripture, the entire providential plan of God the Father to send his Son for the redemption of the world
was contingent upon the free fiat of a woman (cf. Lk. 1:38; Gal. 4:4). What “trust” God the Father has in
woman in the person of Mary that He would make the coming of the Redeemer of the entire human family conditional
upon this woman’s free consent.
As Dr. Seifert again points out:
This new declaration of the traditional doctrine would therefore show anew
a perpetual truth about Mary and about woman, a truth which was always held by the Church but never clearly and indubitably stated: the greatest deed of God’s gracious love — the Redemption of mankind and our salvation
— is in some real sense also the consequence of a free act of a woman and thus also the gift of a woman to humanity. 
This dogma would express the dignity
of a woman’s action which exceeds in activeness, sublimity and effectiveness the deeds of all pure creatures and
men: of all kings and politicians, thinkers, scientists, philosophers, artists and craftsmen from the beginning
of the world to the end.... 
The fully defined revelation and role of Mary Co-redemptrix could thereby be offered as an exemplary
foundation for better understanding the unique contribution of feminism to humanity and, as such, constitute a
foundational anthropological basis for authentic Christian feminism.
6. Re-emphasis of the Christian need to cooperate with God's grace for salvation
Anglican Oxford scholar Dr. John Macquarrie states that the role of Mary Co-redemptrix provides a concrete expression
of the human necessity to freely and actively cooperate with God’s grace for salvation. He moreover sees the Christian
truth of Mary Coredemptrix as a corrective for theologies that remove such dignity to the person, and in
consequence, put forth an undesirable image of Christianity itself. As synthesized by Dr. Macquarrie in this extended
In some forms of teaching, it is even believed that human beings can be saved
without even knowing that salvation is taking place. It has all taken place already through the once-for-all redeeming
work of Christ. It is a fact, whether anyone recognizes it or not.... For Barth, the [subjective] Redemption is
a purely objective act, already finished ‘outside of us, without us, even against us....’ Redemption is not,
in his view, to be considered as an ongoing process in which we have some part, but as the once-for-all act of
God long before we were born....
Now if one conceded Barth’s point, then I think one would have to say that he is indeed treating human beings like
sheep or cattle or even marionettes, not as unique beings that they are, spiritual beings made in the image of
God and entrusted with a measure of freedom and responsibility.... It is understandable that Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche
and a whole galaxy of modern thinkers came to believe that Christianity alienates them from a genuine humanity....
Let us now come back to the consideration of Mary as Co-redemptrix. Perhaps we do have to acknowledge that Barth
and others have been correct in believing that the place given to Mary in Catholic theology is a threat to the
doctrine of sola gratia (grace
alone), but I think this is the case only when the doctrine of sola gratia
is interpreted in its extreme form, when this doctrine itself becomes
a threat to a genuinely personal and biblical view of the human being... a being still capable of responding to
God in the work of building up creation. This hopeful view of the human race is personified and enshrined in Mary.
In the glimpses of Mary that we have in the gospels, her standing at the cross beside her Son, and her prayers
and intercessions with the apostles, are particularly striking ways in which Mary shared and supported the work
of Christ... it is Mary who has come to symbolize the perfect harmony between the divine will and the human response,
so that it is she who gives meaning to the expression Coredemptrix. 
Mary Co-redemptrix and its new proclamation would serve to protect human freedom,
dignity, and the human imperative to freely cooperate with grace for salvation.
7. “Suffering is Redemptive” and the “Culture of Death”
A solemn definition of Mary Co-redemptrix would be a Christian proclamation to the world that “suffering is redemptive.” The Christian example of the Co-redemptrix
manifests to the world that to accept the providentially permitted crosses of our human existence is not a valueless
waste to be avoided at all costs, including intrinsic evils such as euthanasia and abortion. But rather that the
patient endurance of all human hardships are of supernatural value when united with the sufferings of Jesus Christ,
a participation in the distribution of the redemptive graces of Calvary, both for ourselves and for others (cf. Col. 1:24).
Even the example of Mary’s “yes” to unborn life,
in circumstances which could foster undue judgement and ridicule from people surrounding her, is an example of
a co-redemptive “yes” that all people should
say in response to the event of unborn life, regardless the circumstance.
John Paul II describes the present “Culture of Death”
as a “cultural climate which fails to perceive any meaning or value in
suffering, but rather considers suffering to be the epitome of evil, to be eliminated at all cost. This is especially
the case in the absence of a religious outlook which could help provide a positive understanding of the mystery
of suffering.” 
The concrete example of Mary Co-redemptrix offers to the Church and the world the positive Christian message that
“suffering is redemptive” in all possible circumstances,
from Christian persecution, to terminal cancer, to “unwanted” pregnancy, to the ordinary crosses of daily life.
8. Unity through papal charism within the Catholic Church
From a Catholic perspective, the charism (or gift of the Holy Spirit) that is given to St. Peter and his successors,
the subsequent popes (cf. Mt. 16:15-20), is a source
of unity in doctrine and in life for the members of the Church. When the specific papal charism of infallibility
is used in a preservation from error by the Holy Spirit on matters of faith and morals, such exercise of this papal
charism safeguards and properly reinforces a Catholic unity in life based on a unity in faith, truth and doctrine.
The same benefit of unity which comes with the exercise of the papal charism would also be given in the case of
a solemn papal definition of Mary Co-redemptrix.
It is sometimes objected that such a definition on Marian coredemption would “cause
division” within the Church. It is imperative to be clear on this point: Christian truth by its nature unites; it is only the rejection of Christian truth that divides. The same would hold true for a potential definition of Mary Co-redemptrix.
In the first case, it is already a doctrinal teaching of the Church and thereby should already be accepted by the
Catholic faithful with a religious assent of mind and will.  Secondly as was just stated, an exercise of the papal charism of infallibility in the service of Christian
truth and as guided by the Holy Spirit in itself brings with it the grace of unity of hearts based on unity of
truth and faith. But as was true for Jesus Christ, the “sign of contradiction” (cf. Lk. 2:35), so would be true of
the rejection of the truth concerning the Mother of the “Sign of Contradiction.”
Therefore any division within the Church in response to a papal infallible definition of the Co-redemptrix doctrine
would not constitute, nor accurately be perceived as, a true and valid component of the papal definition
itself, but only its unfortunate rejection.
saints and Co-redemptrix
One possible indication of the maturity of the Co-redemptrix doctrine and its potential definability is the modem
testimony and teaching of this Marian truth by a great number of contemporary canonized saints and blesseds. The
generous appreciation by recent saints and blesseds of Marian co-redemption indicates its spiritual ripeness in
the hearts of heroic sanctity within the Body of Christ today.
Those particularly vocal in their appreciation of Marian coredemption, both as a Marian doctrine and as a
model of Christian spiritual life, include St. Therese of Liseux, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Pope Pius X, St. Francis
Xavier Cabrini, St. Gemina Galgani, St. Leopold Mandic, Bl. Elizabeth of the Trinity, St. Edith Stein, Bl. Jose
Maria Escriva, Blessed Padre Pio, and numerous others. 
Even though not as yet officially beatified, it nonetheless seems appropriate to quote the late Mother Teresa’s
endorsement for the papal definition of Mary Co-redemptrix: “The papal
definition of Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate will bring great graces to the Church.
All for Jesus through Mary.” 
of the Fatima-prophesied Triumph of the Immaculate Heart
A significant number of contemporary Marian authors and thinkers worldwide  also see in the papal proclamation of Mary Co-redemptrix, along with her subsequent spiritual roles as
Mediatrix of all graces and Advocate, what has been referred to as the definitive “initiation” or beginning of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as prophesied in the 1917 Apparition of
Mary at Fatima, Portugal.
The particular notion of the “Triumph of the Immaculate Heart” comes from the words of the Church-approved apparitions of Mary at Fatima to the young Portuguese children
seers, who after prophesying such upcoming events such as the rise of atheistic communism, persecutions for the
Church and the Holy Father, a potential second world war, and the annihilation of various nations, then stated,
“In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph...." 
The Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is hence foreseen as a dramatic influx of supernatural grace upon the
world, mediated to the world by the Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate, and leading to a period of spiritual
peace for humanity.
The role of the papal proclamation of Mary Co-redemptrix in the prophesied Triumph of the Immaculate Heart would
be seen by some Marian contemporaries as the official recognition by the pope, as the highest Church authority,
exercising the required freedom on the part of humanity to allow the full mediational and intercessory power of
Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate to be released in the distribution of the redemptive graces of Calvary
to the contemporary world.
God does not force his grace upon us, but awaits the free consent of humanity. With the official papal definition
of Mary Coredemptrix by the highest human authority’s exercise of free will on behalf of humanity, this free
act would “release” the Coredemptrix to
most fully distribute the graces of Calvary in a new outpouring of graces of the Holy Spirit for the world. As
explained by former Vatican Ambassador Howard Dee of the Philippines:
Two thousand years ago, during the First Advent, the Holy Spirit came upon
Mary, and when the power of the Most High overshadowed her, she conceived Jesus, Son of God. Now, during this New
Advent, it is the Mother of All Peoples, Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate, who will accompany
her Spouse to descend into our hearts and our souls and recreate in each of us — if we give our fiat — into the
likeness of Jesus.... The proclamation of the Fifth Dogma is no longer our prerogative; it is our duty. 
As such, the papal proclamation of Mary Co-redemptrix would effect a historic release of spiritual
grace upon the world by the full exercise of the spiritual mother of all peoples in her most generous exercise
of her roles as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all grace and Advocate. 
It is to be hoped that some light has been shed upon the principal questions concerning the present discussion
of the issue of Mary Co-redemptrix in itself and, at least by way of introduction, in discussing the specific aspect
of a potential papal definition of the Coredemptrix doctrine.
In regards to any future potential definition of Co-redemptrix from a Catholic perspective, peace and trust in
the guidance of the Church by the pontiff in matters of faith and morals should ultimately reign supreme in the
Catholic faithful’s mind and heart, regardless of present legitimate personal opinions of diversity on the issue.
From the general Christian perspective regarding the doctrine of Mary Co-redemptrix and other doctrines which presently
divide us, let us keep faith in the eventual fulfillment of the prayer of Jesus Christ for Christian unity at the
Last Supper that, “. . . they may all be one, even as thou, Father art
in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou has sent me” (Jn. 17:2 1). Apart from temporary historical
advances or setbacks, Christians must have faith in an ultimate Christian unity of heart, which will blossom into
a unity of mind, truth, and faith based on the one Jesus Christ, who is “the
Way, the Truth, the Life” (Jn. 14:6).
Dr. Mark Miravalle
Professor of Theology and Mariology
Franciscan University of Steubenville
March 25, 2001
65. Bl. Pope Pius IX, Dogmatic Bull, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854.
66. For an extended treatment, cf. J. B. Carol, “Our Lady’s Co-redemption,” in
Mariology, Vol. II, Bruce, 1958; Friethoff, A Complete Mariology, Blackfriars
Pub., London, 1985, p.182; Galot, S.J., “Maria: Mediatrice o Madre
Universale?”, Civilta Cattolica, 1996, I, 232-244.
67. Galot, S.J., “Maria Corredentnce: Controversie e problemi dottrinali,” Civilta Cattolica, 1994, III, p. 218.
68. Cf. Friethoff, op. cit.
69. Cf. J.B. Carol, op. cit.
70. Karol Cardinal Wojtyla, Homily on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 8, 1973.
71. Bl. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus,
December 8, 1854, DS 2802.
72. John Cardinal O’Connor, Endorsement Letter For Papal Definition of Mary, Co-redemptrix,
Mediatrix, Advocate, February 14, 1994.
73. Alma Socia Christi, Proceedings
of the Rome International Mariological Congress, 1950. p. 234.
74. Dr. Josef Seifert is Rector of the International Academy of Philosophy in Liechtenstein and member of the Pontifical
Council For Life.
75. Seifert, “Mary as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces — Philosophical and Personalist
Foundations of a Marian Doctrine”, in Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate, Theological
Foundations II, p. 166.
76. Seifert, op. cit., p.168.
78. J. Macquarrie, “Mary Co-redemptrix and Disputes over Justification and Grace” in Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate, Theological Foundations II, p.
79. John Paul II, 1995 Encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, n.l5
80. Again cf. Lumen Gentium, n. 25.
81. For a more comprehensive treatment of modern hagiography on Marian co-redemption, cf.
Stefano Manelli, FF1, “Twentieth Century Hagiography on Marian Co-redemption” in Mary
at the Foot of the Cross, Acts of the England Symposium
on Marian Co-redemption, 1999.
82. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Endorsement Letter for the Fifth Marian Dogma, August 14, 1993.
83. For a sample of such thought, cf. In Miravalle, ed., Contemporary Insights
on a Fifth Marian Dogma, Theological Foundations III, Queenship, 2000, the following essays: Ambassador Howard Dee, “Our Lady’s Ambassador, John Paul
II, Fatima, and the Fifth Marian Dogma”; Dr. Bartholomew, “A Scientist Explores Mary, Co-redemptrix”; Calkins,
“The Messages of the Lady of All Nations”.
84. Memoirs of Sr. Lucia of Fatima, July 13, 1917.
85. Ambassador Howard Dee, “Our Lady’s Ambassador, John Paul II, Fatima, and the Fifth Marian Dogma,” in
Contemporary Insights on a Filth Marian Dogma, Queenship,
2000, p. 12-13.
86. For an extended treatment, cf. Miravalle, The Dogma and
the Triumph, Queenship, 1998.
For copies of the above text (as a booklet) and other materials on the International Catholic
Movement Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici, seeking the papal definition of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Co-redemptrix,
Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate; please contact:
Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici
P.O. Box 220
Goleta, CA 93116
Phone: (800) 647-9882
Fax: (805) 967-5843
The above is reproduced with the kind permission of Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici.
Version: 17th September 2001