Marian Devotion, the Rosary, and the Scapular

Without definitively settling the question of knowing if the cultus of hyperdulia due to the Virgin Mary is unique in its degree and also in its kind, the conciliar and Papal Magisterium of the second half of the twentieth century was intent to recall in season and out of season that "among the saints of heaven, the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, is the recipient of a more exalted cultus" (Pius XII, Mediator Dei) (35), "special" and "absolutely unique" (LG 66), and whose specific character should not be attenuated (cf. Paul VI, Marialis Cultus 32). The cultus rendered to Mary "in East and West, identical in its motivation of faith but different in its expression, is a part of the great common patrimony of Catholics and Orthodox" (36), as Pope John Paul II loved to underscore. The hymns to the Mother of God of the Byzantine tradition beautifully evoke the mystery to be contemplated:

There is no doubt that it is truly right to bless and magnify the Mother of God. But what does it mean that it is truly necessary to do this and that this veneration is still more necessary than devotion to the other saints? If God does nothing by forced necessity, how can one speak of the "necessity" of Mary to God and to men?

Necessity of Marian Devotion

In his celebrated Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, St. Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort makes the following remarks:

Would this be a doctrine incompatible with that of the Second Vatican Council according to which "the Blessed Virgin’s saving influence on men originates not in any inner necessity but from the divine good pleasure. It flows from the superabundance of the merits of Christ" (LG 60)? As he himself had enunciated it briefly (cf. TD 39), the notion to which de Montfort has recourse is that of ex hypothesi. The French Mariologist Guillaume de Menthière provides a clear and well-founded explanation of this distinction:

It is precisely in this sense that some authors like St. Anselm of Canterbury (+1109) and St. Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort (+1716) speak of "hypothetical necessity" (40). This does not have to do, as St. Anselm well explains, with a necessity which increases or diminishes gratuitousness, in which case it would not have a place in the economy of Divine Revelation, but on the contrary of a "necessity," with regard to the end to be accomplished, which integrates and increases the gratuitousness. In his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas does not hesitate to use and even to specify the distinction between absolute necessity of nature and necessity of fittingness, which includes gratuitousness (41). We can then speak legitimately of the necessity (hypothetical, that is to say as a consequence of the divine will) of Mary to God and even still more to men, in the same way that the Doctor Magnificus affirmed the necessity of the Incarnation and of the Cross (42). To speak of the necessity of Marian devotion, like Grignion de Montfort who "highlights the ‘necessity of Mary’ in the great perspective of the necessity of the Incarnation, of the redemption and of grace" (43), has nothing in common then with low-level theological eccentricity, but corresponds very exactly to that which he himself in the line of Anselm qualifies as a "hypothetical necessity," an expression of the loving will of God. Thus, our observation is in profound harmony with the affirmation of the Second Vatican Council: "the Blessed Virgin’s saving influence on men originates not in any inner necessity but from the divine good pleasure" (LG 60).

Since it is so necessary, it would be surprising that the law of the Church should be silent on this subject, especially since Leo XIII had written that "Whoever considers the height of dignity to which God has raised the most august Virgin Mary will easily perceive how important it is, both for the public and private good, that devotion to her should be assiduously practiced and daily promoted more and more" (44).

The Code of Canon Law of 1983 contains exactly five canons which make explicit mention of the cultus or veneration of Mary. They are the following canons: 246.3; 276; 663.4; 1186 and 1246.1, which are distributed within Book II of the Code which treats of the "People of God" (canons 246, 276 and 663) and Book IV which concerns "The Church’s Office of Sanctification" (canons 1186 and 1246). From a simple quantitative point of view, this would seem to be very little material in a Code which counts 1752 canons. But this would be to gravely underestimate the importance of the existence and of the qualitative content of these canons which treat of Marian devotion.

In order to take the true measure of the effective extension of the canonical data on Marian devotion in the Church’s law, it is surely indispensable to make the comparison with the previous Code, namely that of 1917, from which we have already cited canon 1255. This comparison is particularly significant, since in the latter mention was made of Marian devotion in three canons only, namely canons 125.2 (45), 1255 (46), and 1276 (47), of which we indicate the Latin text at the bottom of the page.

Obviously the Code of 1983 has introduced new considerations as to the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Church, in particular when it is a question of the formation of seminarians (canon 246) and of members of institutes of consecrated life (canon 663). Before proceeding to a comprehensive reading of these canons which concern particular categories of the faithful, it is fitting to begin with canon 1186 which is addressed to all the faithful without any exception. We have chosen to consider the respective canons beginning with the last, namely canon 1186, before examining the three canons of Book II (246, 276, 663), in order thus to proceed from the general to the particular.

Canon 1186 Addressed to All the Faithful:

a) This canon contains elements already present in canons 1255 and 1276 of the Code of 1917 but also some altogether new elements which were not expressed previously: in particular the fact that the Virgin Mary is referred to not only as Mother of God but also as Mother of all men. It is difficult not to recognize here the "impact" of conciliar Mariology, as well as the teaching of the popes of the twentieth century and the influence of the eminent Mariologist by whom they were inspired.

Before the redaction and publication of the Code, such a Mariology had been presented and proposed by the Second Vatican Council (SC 103; LG 53, 66-67), and by the Apostolic Exhortations Signum Magnum (1967) and Marialis Cultus (1974) of Pope Paul VI, preceded by his discourse of November 21, 1964, during which the successor of Peter proclaimed Mary "Mother of the Church" (48). In canon 1186 of the Code an entirely preeminent place is given to Marian devotion in virtue of the very close bond of the Virgin Mary with the Son of God and his Church, and of her motherhood extended to all men.

b) If the Magisterium of the Church "recommends to the particular and filial veneration of the Christian faithful the Blessed Mary ever-Virgin, the Mother of God, whom Christ established as the Mother of the human race," this indicates that authentic Marian devotion is considered as a right which the faithful can freely and consciously exercise. Since the Code goes to the trouble of expressing such a recommendation in canonical language, it is because it is dealing with a legitimate right which deserves to be protected, knowing that the best way to indicate the value of such a right is to encourage its exercise "to foster the sanctification of the people of God."

Canon 1186 does not enunciate a juridical obligation nor a precept but a counsel, a recommendation which protects an inalienable right: that of an authentic Marian devotion as the expression of the relation of the faithful to her who is the Mother of God and Mother of the Church. Such a recommendation presupposes the existence and the recognition of this right, requires respect for it as an obligation, and fosters its expression by a spiritual counsel expressed by this canon. Here, Canon Law is at the service of the Marian dimension of the spiritual life of all the baptized. Alphonse David notes that the Code of 1917 counseled devotion to the saints but prescribed devotion to the Blessed Virgin (49): "It is good and useful to invoke the servants of God who reign with Christ and to venerate their relics and their images. But, above all the other saints, let the faithful surround the Blessed Virgin Mary with filial devotion" (canon 1276 of the Code of 1917).

Contrary to the Code of 1917, that of 1983 does not specify that this Marian devotion constitutes the cultus of hyperdulia, but this does not indicate in any way that the traditional qualification has lost any of its value.

Canons 246.3 and 276.2,5° (Seminarians and Clerics):

These two canons must be treated together because the first concerns seminarians and their guides in formation and the second all clerics (deacons, priests, bishops):

One ought to note first of all that canon 1367 of the Code of 1917 did not specifically cite Marian devotion among the means of sanctification whose practice ought to be encouraged in seminaries. This practice was certainly not absent from the teaching of the popes on the formation of seminarians, but canon law did not see a need to mention it. The Code of 1983 specifically names Marian devotion and the prayer of the Rosary as means to acquire the spirit of prayer and to confirm one’s vocation in canon 246.3. Did the disappearance of this precious means of sanctification in numerous seminaries during the immediate period after the council perhaps motivate this useful clarification during the redaction of the new Code? Whatever be the case, this Code is the canonical interpretation of the teaching of the last popes (cf. Menti Nostrae of Pius XII, Marialis Cultus of Paul VI) and also of the conciliar decree on the formation of priests (Optatam Totius 8): "Let them love and venerate with filial confidence the Blessed Virgin Mary, given as a Mother to the disciples by Christ Jesus dying on the Cross."

If Marian devotion, "including the Rosary," should thus be encouraged in all the seminary formation of future priests, this indicates that the Magisterium of the Church considers it a responsibility of formation guides to encourage the candidates in this regard. Even though the Rosary, despite the wishes of numerous Council Fathers, was not explicitly mentioned in chapter 8 of the Constitution Lumen Gentium, its mention is not lacking in the Code.

With regard to canon 276, the juridical translation of that which concerns the spiritual life of clerics, it takes up in some way what was already said in the Code of 1917 in canon 125, in order to specify the elements which determine the way of growing in holiness for deacons, priests and bishops. Beyond the sources already indicated (LG 66; MC) this canon is to be seen in relation with the conciliar decree Presbyterorum Ordinis:

Beyond the exterior practices which give expression to Marian devotion and the filial devotion of the priest, there is the Marian attitude of total adherence to the divine plan accepted in faith and with total availability, a dimension constitutive of the ministerial priesthood in the light of God, which is here proposed for the imitation of ordained ministers (50). It has to do with the invitation to conform oneself to the tota tua as it was lived by the Virgin Mary herself, the Mother of Christ, Aeternus Sacerdos, and Queen of the apostles. Everyone knows that this was the soul of the life, ministry and Magisterium of Pope John Paul II (51).