Excavating ‘Mary, the Woman of Nazareth’ from the ‘Cult of Mary’: Post Vatican-II Marian Theology

inclusive feminism

Mary, as the Mother of Jesus - the axis around which the Christian religious traditions revolve, has always enjoyed deep reverence and respect amidst the people of all faiths especially Christians. Often she has been the point of criss-cross crawl across faiths. It is normal sight to find people of all faiths gathered in her shrines to obtain personal well-being. Traditional Catholic Mariology is responsible in building such this cult of Mary. With its titles ‘Mother of God’, ‘Queen of heaven and earth’, ‘Hail holy queen’, ‘Star of the Sea’, ‘Joy of Solace’, ‘Queen of angels and saints’ etc., the traditional catholic Mariology placed her juxtaposed to her son Jesus Christ. It made of her a mother goddess, gradually erected on the literal reading of scriptures and uncritical acceptance of the tradition.  This so developed that in the later years, nineteenth and twentieth centuries respectively, the Church proclaimed her as immaculate and free from any decay taken up into heaven body and soul. The devotion to her grew with new shrines and apparitions that confirmed this faith of the church. The opposition, from the Orthodox and the Protestant Churches to the exaggerated Marian piety, founded on the evidences in the scripture and history, during these years, were to no avail until Vatican II.

With the Second Vatican council the church gradually opened herself to the new insights in exegesis and the method in theology. These lead eventually to the fall of traditional Mariology. The foundations ones laid strong did not withstand the shift that occurred in Vatican II. The traditional Mariology which was typed on the triumphant Christology and Ecclesiology altered with the rise of the historic-critical exegesis, the developing hermeneutics and the existential method in theology.

Cecilia Heyen, in her article to show the spuriousness of the Scripture and Tradition on Mary - the foundations traditional Marian theology – writes,

Mary is mentioned in the scriptures but scantily. Paul doesn’t even mention her name, Luke and Matthew mention her in their infancy narratives. Biblical Scholars alert us to the fact that these narratives are by no means historical accounts but more along the lines of myths. In the Acts of the Apostles (1.14) Luke explicitly names Mary among the first believers assembled at Jerusalem, awaiting the coming of the Holy Spirit.  John gives prominence to her more as a theological reflection rather than a narrative account of Jesus’ life. The Didache (teachings of the twelve apostles in the early Christian community) makes no mention of her name. Views of Mary’s virginity (unbroken hymen and perpetual virginity) are first found in the Proto-evangelium of James (apocryphal infancy story dated AD 150). Her historical life remains a mystery that will probably never be solved; indeed a number of scholars have commented on the lack of information on which Mariology was built. Karl Rahner stated, “The Church does not know Mary’s life story.”

The earliest known artistic representation of Mary comes from a fresco of the virgin and child painted 150 AD […] first known prayer to Mary, Sub Tuum Praesidium, is dated from the late third to fourth century. The second century ‘Apostolic Fathers’ made no reference to Mary; however those who did write to Mary had Christological concerns. In 431 AD the Council of Ephesus gave Mary an ancient eastern title, Theotokos, or ‘the bearer of God’, to counter influences of Docetism (held that the human flesh is evil therefore Jesus passed through Mary’s body but not like a normal human being) and Gnosticism (Jesus’ birth did not pass the normal human process – emphasizing Jesus’ divinity). Maurice Hamington points out that the Theotokos title was commonly understood by Catholics to mean ‘The Mother of God’ and directly implied Mary’s divinity, thus giving more impetus to the growth of the Cult of Mary. [1]

Further in her article, she continues to show the allusion of virginity and then perpetual virginity to Mary in the Council of Chalcedon (451) and Fourth Lateran Council (649) following development of the doctrine of Original Sin by St. Augustine. Thereafter Mary is called as the New-Eve in contrast to the Eve who caused the fall of the human race. Heyen makes a note that the Augustine’s theory exerted major influence for the rise of later Marian dogmas, Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption.  The church has now began to see her as the first disciple and type of the church. Paul VI in his encyclical on Mary proposed an alternative Marian theology that views her from the perspective of the struggles of contemporary women. He called her ‘as the model disciple’. The journey in this direction gained momentum with the post-twentieth century theologies from the margins and the enthusiasm to extend collaboration with the other Churches.

Apart from these criticisms based on the factual/historical accuracy of the traditional conception of Mary, a major blow came from the feminist and liberation theologians. To name a few, Rosemary Radford Reuther, Elizabeth Johnson, Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Sallie McFague, Leonordo Boff, and Tissa Balasuriya. They critiqued traditional Mariology as patriarchal, feudal, capitalist, naive and andro-centric perpetuating slavery of the oppressed, domestication of women, injustice to the poor and inequality in society. Balasuriya for example, writes,

Mary has been made to fit into the tradition of the woman in feudalism and later on in capitalism. Throughout these ages the reflection on Mary has taken place mainly in the European countries and as far as the Catholics are concerned in South Western Europe. It has also been elaborated mainly by celibate clerics, monks and women religious. These have been largely cut off from the experiences and trails of the masses of the people. […] Throughout the centuries Mary has been presented as the ideal of Catholic womanhood that has had a position subordinate to that of the dominant male. Mary is seen as a the mother who stayed at home looking after the child and doing homely tasks. Even in her maternity there is no mention of a relationship to sex. She is the immaculate conception; born without any inclination of a carnal nature. She is said to have been a virgin before the birth of Jesus, in the birth of Jesus and after the birth of Jesus. Hence, Mary was presented as the ideal of womanhood that was not in any way tarnished by sexual relations.[2]

Feminist and liberation theologians pointed such portraits of Mary as a humble handmaiden, subservient further impoverished with dualistic understanding of God and the world, body-soul, matter-spirit, man-woman, rational-emotional etc., as wanting deconstruction. Besides, there is an extensive criticism of Eve-Mary parallelism that has demonized women as anything more than a seductive animal. Hence they envisaged a reconstruction of Mary that would present an authentic picture of Mary as the Jewish women of Nazareth, and relevant to the struggles of the women and poor of our times.  We find a sample in in Balasuriya’s Mary, A Mature Committed Woman. There are also extensive commentaries on the Magnificat attributed to her, in Luke from the perspective of the liberation of the suffering masses.This has been recognized as the new starting point of Marian theology which seeks the support of scriptures as interpreted by modern hermeneutics.  Thus there evolved new titles Mary, a Mature committed woman, Model for Women, a woman preoccupied with the Kingdom of God (liberative mission of Jesus). They project her as the critical symbol of compassionate love amid the struggles of history.  

Feminist theology further, has contributed to redeem the sexist/reductionist presentation of the divine. It aims to free Mary from the burden of being divine mother and goddess that we may know her as an exemplary human being,  a guide accompanying in our efforts to build the kingdom of God.

Final Note

A summary based on the course on Marian Theology by Sr. Margret Shanthi.

---

[1] Cecile Heyen, “The Place of Mary in Catholic Spirituality” http://ww.acu.edu.au/ren/HEYEN1.HTM accessed on  19/12/2002.

[2] Tissa Balasuriya, Mary, A Mature Committed Woman (Mumbai: Seva Niketan) 1-2.

AT THE FOOT OF THE MASTER On Inter-Religious Dialogue

Fr. M. Amaladoss

Position of the Church and Path for future

Loyola - IDCR Chennai had organised an evening session with Fr. M. Amaladoss sj to present the picture of the climate of inter-religious dialogue in the Catholic Church five decades after Vatican II on February 07, 2013. Dr. Israel Selvanayagam, Lutheran professor of religion, responded to the lecture enfleshing the protestant counterpart on the topic. At the outset, the event was a moment of learning in a cordial atmosphere of friendship, sharing, laughter, discussion and introspection. In his lecture, Fr. Amaladoss highlighted the general openness in the Catholic Church towards other religions of the world and its theological conviction about their contribution towards the well-being of the world at large under divine guidance  It contained a systematic presentation of its official beginning with the Vatican II and development down the centuries. There were direct quotes from Vatican II documents, Statements on the other religions (inter-religious dialogue) from FABC and CBCI to strengthen his thesis. However, he never failed to point the current recession in its openness with the arrival of the new Pope. It was interesting reminder from Fr. Amaladoss that the inter-religious dialogue began long before Vatican II in India.

Here are some salient points at random:

1.      No Indian theological denies the fact that Jesus Christ is the saviour of the world. But, there are quite many ways he chooses to reach the people other than church. On this point, we go by the previous Pope.

2.      Salvation is the work of God, through his son the second person of the trinity with the help of the Holy Spirit. Religions therefore are facilitators of the divine-human encounter. Church is one among them.

3.      We need therefore shift from Ecclesiocentrism to the Kingdom of God.

4.      The scriptures of other religions are inspired.

5.      We need to conceive baptism no more as a passport to salvation but as a call to live our commitment to Christ. We should, as a result, be least anxious about missionary work (saving the world) but open for freely willed conversions.

6.      Apart from intellectual and spiritual exchanges between religions, ‘daily life’ is the platform for dialogue.

7.      There is great openness and secularism in our country.  

8.      Hence there is a hope of continual exchange, peaceful co-existence and mutual enrichment.

In response, while everyone appreciated and welcomed his ideas, some were skeptical about, i) the relevance of religion in the world today, ii) the response from other religions, and iii) his position on evangelisation. Generally, there arose a consensus on joining hands with others. 

It was a great evening sitting at the feet of the Master on Inter-religious dialogue.  

SPIRITUALITY OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY

The Sample Case of Jon Sobrino

Liberation Theology remains a contentious issue in the Catholic Church. Traditionally, it is blamed as drifting from the sacred to the secular shore in its interpretation of faith, worship and life founded on the existential situation of the believing community. The central criticism is that it is mixing up sacred and the secular, religion with politics, faith with human sciences denying the immunity and supremacy of faith-tradition and scriptures to the historical milieu. It is guilty of giving birth to different versions of theology within catholic tradition like Feminist, Dalit, Asian, African and Black. Hence there has been a close supervision of Liberation theology, and its impetus for the re-narration of faith with historico-critical consciousness.  On the other hand, criticisms also mounted targeting lives styled upon this theological framework accusing them of activism, irreligious behaviour, superficiality, ‘social work’ against the pastoral care of the souls and illegal trespassing into secular affairs reserved for the laity. Among different reactions to the notifications and criticisms, the protagonists of liberation theology and their supporters, worked in response, to present the profound spiritual depth that has inspired this new method of theology and form of life.

This paper is based on such an attempt in “The Mystery of God and Compassion for the Poor: The Spiritual Basis for Theology”[1] by J. Matthew Ashley. Ashley responds to the Vatican Notification on the Christology of John Sobrino arguing that it would better understand him if it had an insight into his spirituality. In the article, Ashley begins from Hans Urs von Balthasar, Karl Rahner and Maria-Dominique Chenu the twentieth century theologians who re-emphazised the medieval wisdom of the internal causal relation between theology and spirituality. If every theology was an expression of its spirituality, liberation theology would be no exception. On this, he has recourse to Gustavo Gutierrez and Jon Sobrino as proofs.

From the recent writings of Gutierrez Ashley quotes, “Gutierrez writes simply, ‘Spirituality gives theology its most profound meaning’”.[2] In this respect, Ashley points Chenu to have had lasting impact on Gutierrez. He gives a sample but important quote of Chenu used by Gutierrez on the relation between theology and spirituality; Ashley writes,

In his essay on the study of St. Thomas Aquinas from the late 1930s, Chenu gave expression to this insistence in a way that had a lasting impact on liberation theologian Gustavo Gutierrez, who quoted his words [in his work We Drink from Our Own Wells: The Spiritual Journey of a People (1984) 147 n.2] almost half a century later: ‘The fact is that in the final analysis theological systems are simply the expressions of a spirituality. It is this that gives them their interest and their grandeur… One does not get to the heart of a system via the logical coherence of its structure or the plausibility of its conclusions. One gets to the heart by grasping it in its origins via that fundamental intuition that serves to guide as spiritual life and provides the intellectual regimen proper to that life’. [Emphasis mine][3]

In the case of Sobrino, Ashely quotes him as acknowledging the nexus between spirituality and theology.  He presents Sobrino as confident about that for every liberation theologian:

According to Jon Sobrino it [fundamental relationship between spirituality and theology] is generally held by liberation theologians as a group: ‘Liberation theology, therefore, has been gradually becoming more and more a spiritual theology too. Spirituality is a dimension that is as original and necessary for it as is liberation, and the two of them require one another. This is how many of us see things at present… We believe, furthermore, that spirituality is being understood not only as one dimension of theology but rather as an integrating dimension for the whole theology. [Emphasis mine] [4]

This way setting the foundation clear that liberation theology is a spiritual theology, and has spirituality as its source and inspiration. Ashley goes forward with his concern to present the spirituality of Sobrino, and places it as the ladder to perceive his controversial Christology notified by Vatican. Blaming the ignorance of Vatican about this relation, he promises a new light on Sobrino if Vatican would yield to his method of knowing the works of a theologian:

I have argued that there is, in fact, a “fundamental intuition” at work in Sobrino’s Christology, a spirituality. I suggested that on at least some of the issues named in the Notification we can understand what is at stake by considering this spirituality, which leads Sobrino to take his bearing on the normative sources of Scripture and tradition in novel ways. […] Of course, to say that a theology is inspired and formed by a particular spirituality does not in itself justify the particular approach a theology chooses and the conclusions it draws. It does, however, aid in understanding the theology better, and it opens up lines of dialogue with other theologies that are shaped by different spiritualities.[5]

Our interest lies in the section that lays out the spirituality of Sobrino. We summarize presenting it as a sample case against the doubts ascribed to the spiritual/doctrinal depth of liberation theology.

Spirituality: Jon Sobrino

Jon Sobrino

Sobrino understands by spirituality the animating nuclei of the human person that guides him to lead a good life. As a modern theologian, he disillusions any type of dualism that isolates spirituality, as living in/belonging to a celestial realm untouched by the mundane realities, from life in the world. On the contrary, he defines it as “simply the spirit of the subject – an individual or a group – in its relationship with the whole of reality”.[6] Spirituality manifests intertwined with the life of the person engaged with the reality in this world. The definition can be mistaken to reduce spirituality to anything that guides a person irrespective of its good or selfish concerns; in other words as casually pointing to character or life-style of a person engaged with reality.

Instead the definition refers to the spirit which guides everyone to lead an authentic life - ‘holy spirit/divine’. He has his foundations in the Pauline theology who explains authentic Christian life as ‘living according to the spirit’. He derives it from there. He would even word it as ‘being-human-with-spirit’. Spirituality, in the writings Sobrino therefore stands for the whole process of individuals or group who guided by the spirit strive to lead an authentic life i.e. to fulfill the fundamental vocation one has received as a human being.

Ignacio Ellacuria (1930-1989)

Borrowing from Ignacio Ellacuria his philosopher friend and collaborator Sobrino understands the distinctive vocation of human being as ‘to apprehend and engage with reality’. Therefore, Sobrino expands spirituality as ‘to engage with reality’.  Ellacuria denotes that the engagement involves the process of appropriation, participation, action and transformation of the reality:  “‘realizing the weight of the reality’, ‘shouldering reality’s weight’ and ‘tacking charge of the weight of reality’”.[7] Sobrino adapts them to form the three interrelated features of his idea of spirituality: “being honest with reality, being faithful to reality and allowing oneself to be carried by reality.”[8] Precisely here he places the role of the spirit as the inspirer, guide and support to carry out these threefold aspects of our engagement with reality.

First, ‘being honest with reality’. It means to apprehend reality in its truth and embrace it raw without any manipulation. We do this in contrast to a general inclination to perceive it to suit one’s life. Either, we hide/deny the truth or distort it to denude its challenges and those that go against our interests.  Being honest therefore, is to let reality be what it is. It is to enter into self-appropriation to purify the self of prejudices, interests and idealogies to be open in humility to apprehend the other horizons. Sobrino writes with certainty that such genuine engagement results in compassion, because one gets exposed to poverty, injustice and suffering on a massive scale systematically produced, maintained, covered over and tolerated. If this weren’t the case, he is quite bold in claiming that we haven’t had a genuine encounter with reality. He writes, “When we respond [to reality] with mercy, we are being honest with reality”.[9]

Our choice to continue to be committed to the suffering lot is what he phrases it as ‘being faithful to reality’. This involves individual acts of charity and broad initiatives to alter the unjust structures of society by fighting for justice. Since it presupposes struggles, challenges, disappointments and discouragement, Sobrino affirms that we are accompanied by hope in such moments. The hope, he would further explain it as more than subjective feeling but as a profound trust in the dynamism of reality that makes an upward evolution towards greater perfection. He would even present spirituality as precisely perceiving reality with such optimism. He writes, “This dimension of being-human-with-spirit – that responds to what there is in reality of crisis and promise and that unifies the different elements of this response to reality so that, when all is said and done reality is more promise than crisis – is what we call ‘spirituality’”[10]

This trust in the genuine goodness and abundance of reality makes one fully surrender to it. He calls this as ‘being carried by reality’. He writes,

There is a hope-filled, honest, loving current [in reality], which becomes a powerful invitation to us, and once we have entered it, we allow ourselves to be carried along by it. Just as there is a original sin that becomes a structural dimesion of reality, so also there is an original grace, which becomes a grace structure of reality... To accept that grace [emerging from reality] is to plunge headlong into reality and allow ourselves to be borne up on the ‘more’ with which reality is pregnant and which is offered to us freely again and again despite all.[11]

Our life as a result becomes characterized with dis-selfinterested totally available to the transformation of society. The three together are constitutive as they help us realize the end of our life, our ontological vocation as a human being. Since this applies to every human being, he calls it as fundamental spirituality. To put it, in theological language, Spirituality for Sobrino is spirit guided life that helps one to accomplish the will of God in one’s life. This involves the process of discernment, commitment and total surrender to the divine will. Hence these three constitute spirituality. In this regard Ashley finds in Sobrino echoes of Karl Rahner’s ‘hearer of the word’ and the four week spiritual exercises of Ignatian Spirituality.

Among many who accomplished it, Sobrino finds the perfect model in Christ. His incarnation, mission, death and resurrection are nothing but the three features – being honest with reality, being faithful and being carried away by the reality respectively - of our spirituality. Thus he makes it as a Christian spirituality, a following of Jesus. He writes, “Christian spirituality is no more and no less than a living of the fundamental spirituality that we have described, precisely in the concrete manner of Jesus and according to the spirit of Jesus. This is the following of Jesus.”[12] However, he notes that we shouldn’t blindly imitate him, instead should discern our vocation, thus able to make a creative contribution to reality.

Conclusion

Our aim in this paper was to present the spiritual inspiration of liberation theology and active participation in the struggles of social justice; as against the traditional accusation of it as activism and opposed to spirituality. From the article, we have argued that every theology is an expression of spirituality; liberation theology would be no exception. To present a sample case of the spirituality of liberation theology we have used Sobrino. Based on Sobrino we can summarize spirituality of liberation theology into the three axioms: (i) God continues to speak to us in and through every day events, hence there god is manifest in the world, he does not stand distant. (ii) A truly spiritual person discerns the will of God and commits to it till the last breath of his life. In their language, it is truly engaging with reality and being committed to it. Hence active participation in eradicating injustice, poverty through acts of charity or social struggle is founded on deep spiritual life. (iii) In leading such a life we fully follow Jesus, who has accomplished it long back. Hence it is Christian spirituality.

---

[1] Matthew J. Ashely, “The Mystery of God and Compassion for the Poor: The Spiritual Basis for Theology”, Hope and Solidarity: Jon Sobrino’s Challenge to Christian Theology, edited by Stephen J. Pope (New York: Orbis Books, 2008) 63-75.

[2] Gustoavo Gutierrez, “Memory and Prophecy,” The Option for the Poor in Christian Theology, ed. Daniel Groody (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007) 33 as cited in Ashley, 63.

[3] Ashley, 63

[4] Jon Sobrino, “Spirituality and Theology”, Spirituality of Liberation: Toward Political Holiness, trans. Robert R. Barr (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1988) 46 as cited in Ashley 63-64.

[5] Ashley, 73.

[6] Jon Sobrino, “Presuppositions and Foundations of Spirituality”, Spirituality of Liberation, 13 as cited in Ashley 65.

[7] Ashley, 65.

[8] Sobrino, Spirituality of Liberation 14-20; “Spirituality and Following of Jesus”, Mysterium Liberationis: Fundamental Concepts of Liberation Theology, eds. John Sobrino and Ignacio Ellacuria (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1994) 681-685 as cited in Ashley 66

[9] Sobrino, “Spirituality and Following of Jesus”, 683 as cited in Ashley, 66.

[10] Sobrino, “Spirituality and Following of Jesus”, 677 as cited in Ashley, 64.

[11] Sobrino, “Spirituality and Following of Jesus”, 685 as cited in Ashley, 67.

[12] Sobrino, “Spirituality and Following of Jesus”, 686 as cited in Ashley, 68.