A Response to Anti-Marianism

Have we meditated on the effrontery involved in suggesting to God that His Word may spoil our efforts? That we have decided things for Him, and, even if He chooses to speak, we are not prepared to listen?

When pressed on the subject, the anti-Marian ecumenists often stress how peripheral Marian doctrines are. They appear to be arguing that it doesn't matter whether the Spirit is speaking. He may be, but if He is, He's wasting His time. (Perhaps He's taking a coffee-break from communicating important stuff, idling away a few hours with tiddly-winks.) We can safely overlook Him on this subject.

Gerard Morrissey is the pen name used by a priest who has promoted devotion to Our Lady for more than thirty years. This article was excerpted from For the Love of Mary: Defending the Church from Anti-Marianism, Americans United for the Pope, 1999.

Notes

(1) Perhaps a word about method is in order here. This particular section will repeat a couple of times (although in a slightly different form) the refutation of anti-Marianism that was already touched on in the first section. The reason for such repetition is that the anti-Marian mentality, like any prejudice, is not easily rooted out. One can logically refute it on page 5 and page 10, only to find, on page 15 that it is still psychologically in possession of the field.

Furthermore, the anti-Marianists will constantly be repeating their principal themes (Mary as "rival," "unecumenical," etc.). This means that those who want to defend devotion to Mary must be prepared to re-state their pro-Marian defense In fact, they should repeat their defense as often as "the other side" repeats its attack.

I believe that this section can help pro-Marian people to do this. However, if any readers find the repetition involved to be either unnecessary or irritating, then I would urge them to skip this section and go on to the next.

In summary, anti-Marianism is a prejudice. Battling a prejudice is something like flattening a sturdy oak door with a battering ram—one backs up, attacks, and then has to repeat the same action many times until, hopefully, the barrier finally falls.

(2) But such a logical refutation can be of great value in keeping Christians from falling into anti-Marianism in the first place.

(3) To confirm this, let us look again at this quotation Fr. Kung takes from St. Paul: "I will eat flesh no more forever (an unimportant activity, since a man's vegetarianism in no way lessens his Christianity) lest I scandalize my brother"

So Fr. Kung is right. His quotation is perfectly applicable—assuming only that proclaiming Mary as Mediatrix has roughly the same relevance to Christian life as consuming a pound of round-steak chopped.

(4) The anti-Marian "ecumenist" Fr. Gregory Baum illustrates well this attitude. An influential voice at Vatican II, Fr. Baum gave an interview that appeared in The Sign of November 1963. Fr. Baum states:

"There is no doubt that Mariology, or the Catholic teaching on Mary, is a tremendous obstacle to the ecumenical movement, because it developed since the Reformation. The two Marian dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are obstacles, because they are new and concern a subject not directly connected with our salvation and also because they are the only doctrines defined by the pope alone" (p. 21).

He later tells us: "There cannot be any ecumenical movement, in the Christian sense of the word, with Jews, because it is the person of Christ about which we disagree. Nevertheless there can be a great deal gained through discussion with Jews about human values and our understanding of the role of men and society in the world" (p. 23).

Fr. Baum makes two things clear:

1) We must engage in ecumenical dialogue with Protestants, and, in this dialogue, our Marian dogmas are enormous obstacles.

2) But, whatever ecumenical dialogue is, it is something we cannot hold with Jews. Why? Because with Jews it is on Christ we differ, and Christ is central.

Ecumenical dialogue, therefore, cannot be synonymous with loving our brethren, talking with them, appreciating their insights. For this type of activity could, and should, be employed with Jews.

Nor can ecumenical dialogue mean explaining our doctrines in terms that would avoid false interpretations, while in no way lessening their importance. If this were all, then things central could be included (in fact, precisely because of their significance, one would demand that things central be included). Who could object to eliminating references to Christ as Redeemer if another term could be substituted which would clear up difficulties while preserving the doctrine's full meaning and importance? Who could oppose attempts, not to reduce Christ's mediation, but to present it in such fashion that Jews would realize it contained no threat to the Father?

Father Baum, however, will not allow ecumenical dialogue on Our Lord precisely because of the importance of Jesus. On the other hand, one of the reasons why Marian dogmas are tremendous obstacles to the ecumenical movement is that they "concern a subject not directly connected with our salvation."

Now why must one eliminate the central from dialogue? Only if ecumenical dialogue (as opposed to the type Fr. Baum would allow with Jews) concerns more than clearer statements or different phrases. Only if it involves the real possibility of doctrinal concessions, either on the dogma itself or on its importance. Only if ecumenism means, "I will eat flesh no more forever . . ."

(5) One who objected to such intolerance was the Protestant observer, Dr. George A. Lindbeck (Cf. his letter to Commonweal—issue of January 22, 1965, p. 550). Lindbeck wrote:

"This is but another instance of how easily we deny to others the very things we seek for ourselves. A successful revolution for freedom can quickly turn intolerant and deny freedom to all who would question its least whim. And this ruthless suppression will be carried out in the name of freedom! Or, as we have here, a movement to respect the consciences of other Christians ends up in a condescending frown at the journey of an old man to a church!"

In addition to the foregoing, there is another incident involving Pope John XXIII that is applicable to our present discussion of "false ecumenism." According to the December 1989 edition of 30 Days, Pope John XXIII's secretary, Msgr. Luigi Capovilla, recalled an occasion when John XXIII was approached by "an eminent prelate" who was also a well-known theologian. This prelate-theologian advised the Pope to leave out a prayer to guardian angels that the Pope was planning to read to the Catholic faithful. John XXIII later remarked: "A fine fellow, this theologian! In order to please him, I'm supposed to snub my guardian angel!" Similarly, in order to please them, the "false ecumenists" are insisting that the Popes (and all the rest of us) take steps that amount to public snubs of the Blessed Virgin Mary!

(6) The way in which anti-Marian "ecumenists" catalogue past papal actions as terrible barriers confirms this impression. Had their standards of ecumenism prevailed in the past, one can safely say we would have had no Church action on the Immaculate Conception in 1854, no definition of the Assumption in 1950, no Marian year in 1954, etc. (After all, if a private pilgrimage of the Pope is taboo, what of these actions?).

(7) Pp. 100-101, Anchor Books edition (New York: 1961).