A Response to Anti-Marianism

The primary purpose of this article will be to refute two principal elements of anti-Marianism: Mary as the rival to Christ and Marian devotion as unecumenical.

Let us begin with Mary as "the rival." Underlying this element of anti-Marianism is a fundamental presupposition: devotion to Christ is one thing (let us call it A), and devotion to Mary is another thing (let us call it B).

This assumption rapidly evolves into a psychological compartmentalization. Since they are all "B," and, therefore, not "A," the "Marian" things—Marian devotion, Marian dogmas, etc.—are filed in Compartment B. The "Christian" things are put into Compartment A. Separate residences having been established; it is remarkable how quickly the question of compatibility arises.

This Compartment A-Compartment B split is not a conclusion, not something to which a person affected by anti-Marianism reasons, but, rather, the automatic assumption from which he (or she) reasons.

For example, I have in my files the statements of five dissenting theologians who were prominent at the time of Vatican II.

The first theologian (Rev. Hans Kung) is irate because he is absolutely certain that devotion to Our Lady is "swamping the thought of Christ." Such thinking clearly depends on the two-compartment theory. In Fr. Kung's mentality, there is this room on my left called "devotion to Our Lady"—there is that other room down the hall on my right known as "the thought of Christ." Having assumed the two separate compartments, Fr. Kung is annoyed with those who are emphasizing Our Lady (Room B). Such people, in his view cannot care about Jesus—because Kung "knows" that Jesus is not in Room B but down the hall in Room A.

As with Fr. Kung, so with the others. Theologian 2 emphasizes that catechists must give priority to Compartment C, where the Holy Spirit is, and not to Compartment B, where the Blessed Virgin is (and where, apparently, the Holy Spirit is not). Theologian 3 informs us that many in the Church do not understand the value of Compartment A. As a result, seeking some compartment, they gravitate toward Compartment B. (In other words, if they did grasp the value of Compartment A, they wouldn't come so often to Compartment B.) Theologian 4 warns us that the very process of explicating the advantages of Compartment B can be quite dangerous to Compartment A. Finally, theologian 5 (Rev. Gregory Baum) contends that the "B" things emphasized by the Church in recent years are, after all, not in the main body of the house, but in a wing—the "not directly connected with our salvation" wing, wherever that is.

Presupposing the Compartment A-Compartment B split, the anti-Marian mentality deduces an air-tight case. The crime—not enough "Compartment A-ism." The criminal—too much "Compartment B-ism." All right. Let us accept this challenge. In a moment we will test how "air-tight" that case actually is, by presuming that Marian devotion is different from Christian devotion and proceeding from there.

But, before we start, it is crucial to realize how important this question of presupposing is. It is easily 90% of the game.

To demonstrate this point, let us compose a complete speech. (1) While making all else (facts, logic, etc.) identical with the case the anti-Marian mentality presents on devotion to Mary, we will select a situation in which no follower of Jesus will assume that A and B are different compartments. Instead, all orthodox Christians presuppose the opposite. Much as the traditional viewpoint does on Mary, they will, on this topic, assume that Compartment A and Compartment B are the same. For that reason, faithful Christians must of necessity reject the following statement:

"A Warning from a Non-Christian 'Ecumenist'"

Danger!

The dangers of devotion to Jesus Christ are clear. Excesses and exaggerations abound on all sides. How should we account for the extraordinary growth of the cult of Christ among the faithful? Can we not discover at its root a pernicious conception of the Father? God the Father loves us—but do the masses understand this love? No—on the contrary, they fear the Father. For them He lurks in the night as a shadowy, sinister figure, puffed up with wrath and vengeance.

Once we meditate on this distorted "God" image, we immediately apprehend the reason for the enormous growth of the Christ cult. The masses naturally seek a figure of love, a Mediator, to save them from the figure of wrath. Therefore, they gravitate to this other "love" figure, this human whom they can see, to protect them from the God they cannot see.

Look around us—everywhere we uncover evidence that the over-emphasis on Christ is swamping devotion to the Father. The name of Jesus is constantly invoked by the people—but how often do they mention the Father? Visit any "Christian" Church—you will be immediately confronted by a statue or a crucifix or some representation of Christ, ornately decorated and enthroned in the prominent place. Then search for, not a prominent place, but any place where the Father is depicted. How often will you find it?

Down through the ages we encounter the same story. How frequently in medieval times did artists paint pictures of the merciful Christ wresting our salvation from that ogre, the Father? How many stories to the same effect—the fierce God would have destroyed us, but the loving Christ held back that hand of wrath?

Such is the inevitable result of the pernicious devotion that Christ is our Savior. Christ is not our Savior—God is our Savior. The difference between us and the others may be summed up in one sentence. We say "God"; they say "God and Christ." Those two little words "and Christ," which they invariably add, contain a threat to the primacy and transcendence of God that we cannot ignore. The others try to justify themselves by claiming that "God and Christ" actually means "God through Christ," but this latter formula is, if anything, more dangerous than the first. For the doctrine of Mediator necessarily places a third person between God and His people, and implies that this third person is closer to us and loves us more than the Father Himself. It is the ultimate in anthropomorphism, the glorification of the created over the Creator.

Such glorification we can never condone. But we do realize that devotion to Christ is useful in its proper place. Christ Himself was a faithful servant of God. He would have been the first to repudiate the excesses now performed in his name. Did he not humbly exclaim, "The Father is greater than I"? (A passage explained away by modern Christians, who, while claiming to follow Christ, do not follow him in this belief.)

We should honor Christ, but we must exercise eternal vigilance lest his cult usurp the primacy of God, and we must realize that the very process of formulating statements about Christ can encourage such neglect of the Father.

In this connection, the dawn of the ecumenical age brings encouraging signs. In seeking reunion with the Jewish people, Christian ecumenists are publicly recognizing what a tremendous barrier and obstacle to reunion the Church has erected in its dogmas on Christ. Such ecumenists are increasingly desirous of showing us that their Church, too, is anchored in the fundamental belief in God, our Father. It used to be the fashion for Christian apologists (and perhaps the day will come when the very name "Christian" will be replaced by one emphasizing the more fundamental belief they hold)—it used to be their fashion to deny that devotion to Christ could distract from devotion to the Father. Increasingly, this is no longer the case. We appreciate this candor, and we extend our best wishes to Christian ecumenists as they battle against the erection of further obstacles. To them we suggest that a clear-cut warning on the dangers of devotion to Christ, especially if coupled with an emphatic proclamation of Christ's total subordination to the Father, would constitute a significant advance along the ecumenical road on which all followers of God now seek to travel. But in all charity we must also advise our brothers that any re-emphasis on Christ as Mediator or Savior, whether it comes now or in a hundred years, can only mark the end of dialogue."

How should Christians respond to this statement?

While admitting the existence of superficial and sentimental devotion to Christ, admitting also that some Christians may neglect the First Person of the Blessed Trinity, the followers of Jesus should consider the speech a disturbing one. Why? Because it associates emphasis on the Father with de-emphasis on Christ, whereas Christians associate emphasis on the Father with emphasis on Christ.

What about the evils being perpetrated in the name of Christ? We reply that the hypocrisies and fanaticisms spring from an inadequate devotion to Christ.

The danger comes from the lack of commitment in the hearts of men, not from the fact that "Lord, Lord" is on their lips. Far from decreasing the number of times one calls on the Lord, we must increase the number of times one calls on Him and means it. For we believe with St. Paul that there is only one name in which we are saved.

Now let us step back for a moment. Do we really expect these arguments to convince our non-Christian "ecumenist"? Perhaps, for they convince us. If we do, however, we are in for a shock. Barring a miracle of God's grace, they will have little positive impact.

Why?

Not because of any lack of intellectual ability, but because of our different a priori categories.

So it is with Mary. On the plane of cold, objective logic, there is no more reason to fear devotion to her as a threat to the primacy of Christ than to fear devotion to Christ as a threat to the primacy of the Father. In both cases, if—and that is the operative word—if one approaches the problem with a two-compartment psychology, if his mind identifies deficiencies with excesses and superficiality on the part of the subject with too much attention given to the object, then he can deduce a million reasons to confirm his suspicions.

The tendency of the mind to split into two compartments and then to view Compartment B as a rival to Compartment A is by no means confined to Compartment Christ versus Compartment God or Compartment Mary versus Compartment Christ. Throughout the ages the Church has battled it in a thousand forms. Depending on historical and cultural conditions, the compartments have varied—emphasis on the Church versus emphasis on Christ, devotion to the Scriptures versus devotion to the Church, the Old Testament versus the New Testament, love of God versus love of man, the desire to know God through the intellect versus the desire to love God through the will, etc.

In every one of these instances, grant us only the two-compartment psychology and we can construct a line of argument paralleling the one that so dominates the consciousness of today's anti-Marianists.

Since logic is not really at stake, a logical refutation may be of limited value in convincing anti-Marianists to change their outlook (2). An argument can be debated. But how in the world do you debate a fear or even, as it seems in some cases, a nightmare? To paraphrase an epigram, for the two-compartment man no defense is possible; for the one-compartment man no defense is necessary.

The fact that the basic division is pre-logical can make communication between "one-compartment" and "two-compartment" people very difficult.

For example, suppose a Protestant inquires of an orthodox Catholic: "In approaching truth, which is more important for you— the voice of your conscience or the voice of your Church as expressed in her official teaching?" The Protestant considers that to be a valid question because for him there are two compartments involved—conscience (in Compartment A) and the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (in Compartment B).

But for the orthodox Catholic, the terms of the Protestant's question force him to choose between alternatives that for him are not alternatives. Realizing his Protestant friend is expressing a fear that Catholics neglect the importance of conscience, the Catholic may evade the actual query and emphasize the sacredness of the individual's conscience. In other words, he judges the true question to be "Do Catholics surrender their consciences?" or "Is the individual conscience important in Catholicism?" But, were he to respond directly, he could only say, "For the Catholic, conscience and the teaching of his Church conform. That's why he's a Catholic."

In the same way, when someone asks me, "Shouldn't we emphasize devotion to Christ more than devotion to Mary?," I know no response.

If I seem to evade the question, I may multiply his fears of a threat to Christ's primacy. But, if I reply "yes," I have said what actually I do not believe, for I have accepted two-compartmentism and confirmed the rivalry image.

Today that question is repeatedly put to orthodox Catholics by two-compartment anti-Marianists. Proposed (often sincerely) in a thousand different forms, it remains the same question, and it runs through all their statements.

I can give no answer to such anti-Marianists except this one—that, in my heart, I know no devotion to Mary except devotion to Christ, and I know no devotion to Christ that is divorced from a deep, conscious love of the one who remains always His Mother.