A Response to Anti-Marianism

Mary As "Unecumenical"

As an example of "ecumenical anti-Marianism," here is a statement made by Hans Kung at the time of Vatican II.

Decades after Vatican II, such "ecumenical anti-Marianism" continues to be very powerful within the Church.

What is wrong with "ecumenical anti-Marianism"? A variety of things. I believe I can list them under five main headings.

I. This so-called "ecumenical" attitude actually springs from false ecumenism, not from true ecumenism.

What attitude? The belief that charity demands that the Catholic Church avoid all free, significant statements on Mary because such statements might offend non-Catholics. (Free statements—those the Church is not absolutely required to make. Significant statements—those which stand out, and, therefore, might cause trouble).

Let us think this one out. The "ecumenists" say the Protestants would be offended by our Marian statements.

Why?

Presumably because they do not share our beliefs.

I see. Others do not have our beliefs. Therefore, it is uncharitable for us to have them. Or, at least, it is un-Christian for us to say we have them.

This "love me, love my doctrine" mentality—what is it but a subtle kind of religious bigotry? Well might we respond to such "ecumenists":

"If you loved us, you would not make us choose between conscience and friendship. You ecumenists say to us now: 'Those who love Protestants will avoid speaking of Mary as Mediatrix.' What in God's world does that have to do with love?"

Finally, if loving non-Catholics means I should forget about Mary as Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix, why shouldn't loving me mean they should forget about their objections to Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix and hold the doctrines?

II. While the 'ecumenists' think this way about Mary, they emphatically reject the identical attitude when applied to any subject they consider important.

At Vatican II, did these same "ecumenists" strip away references to Our Lord as Redeemer in order to be "ecumenical" to non-Christians?

As mentioned earlier, the thought would never have entered their minds. Yet this is exactly what they sought to do with regard to the Blessed Mother.

III. Thus, hidden behind an ecumenical smokescreen lies the true dividing point. Is Marian doctrine and devotion peripheral, secondary, optional? Many anti-Marianists presume the answer is yes.

For example, in the quote just presented from Hans Kung, note that he starts out with the assumption that any definition of a Marian dogma would be "useless." Everything else flows from that.

Therefore, while anti-Marian "ecumenists" say that they oppose talking of Mary as Mediatrix because of their concern for Protestants, this is only partially true. Such "ecumenists" actually oppose speaking of Mary as Mediatrix because they do not believe it is important to speak of Mary as Mediatrix (3).

They then apply this principle: "One should not do unimportant things which offend Protestants" (4). But if a person believes Marian doctrines are important, then love of Protestants can no more influence him to surrender these doctrines than it does the ecumenists to abandon what they believe to be essential.

IV. The ecumenists set no apparent limits on this policy

A) As to extent

B) As to time

In practice, the anti-Marian "ecumenists" oppose all free, significant expressions on Mary. Not only defining new Marian doctrines, but any important doctrine, devotion, title, gesture, or action of the Pope. At the time of Vatican II, for instance, even so personal a thing as John XXIII's private pilgrimage to Loreto was stigmatized as "highly unecumenical." (5)

Where does it all stop? Apparently, it does not, and that is another reason Marian devotion is endangered by the false ecumenists.

I can sacrifice lunch on Wednesday or dinner on Thursday without serious effects. But I cannot sacrifice lunch and dinner on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday without serious effects. What may be done in an isolated instance can be fatal as a policy.

And a policy, not an isolated action, is what the anti-Marian ecumenists are urging with regard to Church statements on Mary. It is not merely one particular occasion—let us say, the 7th of March, 1968—when they urge the Church to avoid a Marian action. No, they follow this course, not only for March 7, but for April 7, July 7, December 7, for 1969, 1989, 2009, etc. They apply it to every Marian situation (6).

Listen to the words of Robert McAfee Brown, presenting an anti-Marian "Protestant" position in his book An American Dialogue:

Dr. Brown emphasizes that the policy pursued by Catholic "ecumenists" will give little comfort to Protestants if it represents only a moratorium for a few decades. Non-Catholics must come to believe in it, not as a temporary tactical maneuver, but as a commitment for all time.

Which raises another question. The anti-Marian ecumenists are constantly explaining that the Pope must avoid defining Marian dogmas "at this time." What is meant by "at this time"?

Fifty years from now, will Catholics still be informed that the Pope must avoid Marian definitions "at this time"? Will the ecumenists of 2100 look back at today's Church and write: "Can we be less ecumenical than they? Dare we consider reversing the precedent our predecessors so happily established, breaking our implicit promise to the separated brethren, jeopardizing by a few unnecessary and rash acts all we have laboriously built up for centuries? No—we must avoid Marian dogmas at this time."

As I evaluate the arguments of the anti-Marian ecumenists, I am more and more convinced they are trans-temporal. The reasons they advance for avoiding Marian dogmas rest on nothing peculiarly confined to our age. In the centuries since the Protestant revolt, I can discover no moment in which one could not, with equal cogency, have urged the same arguments. More important, in the next four centuries, so far as can now be foreseen, can we envision any period in which the same arguments could not be made? To accept such an "ecumenical" policy now is to run the risk of making it a permanent policy for centuries.

V. Two problems with the "inconvenient" argument.

While some anti-Marianists will argue against a proposed Marian dogma by denying it, other anti-Marianists do not care about the truth or falsity or degree of development of a dogma, but oppose its proclamation because it is inconvenient.

The philosophy of this second group could be stated as follows: "Whether or not Our Lady is Mediatrix or Co-Redemptrix is not the question. Even if she were, for the Church to proclaim so at this time would be to multiply barriers to ecumenism."

I find two things wrong with this attitude. The first is that it attempts to out-God God.

Unity among Christians, if achieved, will be first and foremost a work of the Holy Spirit.

Assume now that a Marian doctrine is true and theologically mature. We would then face another activity of the Holy Spirit. Working in men, the Spirit has produced in His Church this insight at this time.

In effect, the ecumenists are telling us that we cannot achieve the first work of the Holy Spirit without ignoring the second.

Poor God! He has made a mistake. But we, clever creatures that we are, will correct it.

Just as Peter saved Christ from all that nonsense about suffering and dying.

Second, this position makes man the measure of God. God's Word is tailored to conform to man's desires, when it should be the other way around. Like Procrustes, the "ecumenists" achieve a perfect fit, but by shaping the man to the bed and not the bed to the man.

What are these people actually saying, these people who argue that, even if Mary be Mediatrix, to proclaim it would offend Protestants?

They are saying: "What Christ thinks about Mediatrix is not crucial. What is crucial is what Protestants like Barth and Tillich think about it."