| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The traditional Catholic motto,
“To Jesus through Mary,” can be paraphrased today
as “To Love through Life.”
Mary and the gospel of life
By Stephen F. Brett
Ten years after the close of Vatican II, Pope Paul VI declared in Evangelii Nuntiandi that “evangelization is the grace and vocation proper to the Church, her deepest identity. She exists in order to evangelize.”1 The date of promulgation for this 1975 apostolic letter on evangelization was December the 8th, the feast of the Immaculate Conception. Of Mary also it can be said that her deepest identity is to give flesh to the Word of God. We can draw the inference easily enough that the very origin of Mary’s life coincides with the very beginning of her mission to evangelize.
It is rightly and often said that (though perhaps not often enough!) that Humanae Vitae has proven to be the decisive, prophetic flashpoint in this season of the Church. In recognizing that no acceptable definition of marriage and family could exclude children, Pope Paul VI anticipated by decades a movement to redefine marriage by making children expendable and by rendering even sexual differentiation itself irrelevant.
It can also be said that Paul VI’s vision of evangelization—its urgency and necessity—was unquestionably prophetic. One could argue that if the message of Evangelii Nuntiandi had been heeded, there would have been no need for another papal letter, Evangelium Vitae, twenty years later, and likewise promulgated on a Marian feast, March 25, 1995, the solemnity of the Annunciation. A genuine proclamation of the Gospel will always have at its core the sanctity of human life. When Paul VI warned of the threat to the meaning and reverence of life posed by contraception, he was logically and prophetically consistent in warning of the failure to proclaim the Gospel through evangelization, personal witness, and the life of virtue—in short, the development of a civilization of love.
The encyclical The Gospel of Life describes evangelization as “an all-embracing, progressive activity through which the Church participates in the prophetic, priestly and royal mission of the Lord Jesus.”2 Mary is unique in the drama of salvation history precisely because she has participated most intimately in the prophetic, priestly and royal mission of Our Lord.
Whereas the great prophets of the Old Testament proclaimed the Word of God by way of anticipation, she witnessed to the Word of God in his very presence. By giving her entire self, unencumbered by sin or its consequences, to the sacrifice of her son, and sharing, poignantly and powerfully, in its unspeakable human sorrow, she participates in an exemplary fashion in his priestly ministry. The Letter to the Hebrews teaches that “it was not Christ who glorified himself in becoming high priest, but rather the one who said to him: ‘You are my son; this day I have begotten you.’”3 In the same way the soul of Mary proclaims the greatness of the Lord, deflecting any claim of glory from herself to the mission and ministry of Jesus. When the earthly life of Mary was over and she was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory, she began a reign as Queen over all, “that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of Lords.”4 This means that her participation in the royal mission of Christ transcends space and time, life and death. It reminds us that witnessing to and preparing for the Kingdom of God is the focus of all evangelization. Perhaps one reason that evangelization has not been a priority for the entire Church is the fact that its link with the Kingdom is not sufficiently perceived. At stake is not merely the number of faithful in the pews on Sunday but the fire of discipleship in the lives of the faithful on Monday morning. Like the Kingdom of God the Gospel of life “is growing and producing abundant fruit.”5 As the Church becomes truly Marian in the cause of evangelization she will bear the fruit of eternal life.
Mary received the Word of God in her heart at the message of the angel and gave Life to the World. She received the Word of Life as a gift, consenting fully to the gift of divine life, and brought this Word to a sinful world as a gift. It is precisely this identity of gift that seems most difficult for a sinful world to grasp as the essence of human life. There is a greater willingness to discern mystery in things than in human lives. Our society is far more inclined to give thanks for the Internet than for the Incarnation. A child conceived triggers an agenda of alternatives—lethal, cruel and uncaring. Only those who are disposed, like Mary, to see the mystery in God’s plan—unfathomable and lifelong—will be able to welcome all human life and discover that the mystery of love experienced in sexuality is rooted in the sacrament of marriage.
The radical nature of Mary’s consent to God’s plan of salvation stands as the most noble display of reverence for human life, especially that which is most fragile, in all of human history. “She is aware that she is called to offer Christ to the world, giving men and women new birth into God’s own life.”6 As she prepares to become the mother of the One who is unconditional love, she consents to his being and birth with unconditional love. Only love can sustain through hardship; only love can generate a desire to evangelize in times of trouble. Mary’s love is a testimony to the sacredness of life. Christians can be effective champions of life only when we offer Christ to the world, giving the Gospel a new birth through our own fidelity to its fundamental reorientation of our lives.
This radical gift of self found in Mary’s fiat corresponds with the radical self-gift that all morally authentic sexual activity must embody. If this truly Marian, truly nuptial sense is missing from expressions of love, there is no gift of love, nor will there be an awareness that life itself is a gift.
The desire to contracept is the exact antithesis of Mary’s fiat. In one instance there is a choice to limit life and avoid risk; in the second instance there is a choice to give life and bear risk in the confidence that God’s providence will prevail. Mary’s gift of herself to God’s plan stands in stark contrast to a mindset that exalts self-fulfillment as the key to life. Those who see sex as self-fulfillment rather than self-gift will miss out on the mystery of life. A calculus of choices will replace a character of caring.
Recognizing the differences of nature and moral gravity between contraception and abortion, The Gospel of Life nevertheless notes that they are closely connected, calling them “fruits of the same tree.”7 This recognition of the link between two anti-life choices is essential to the enormous task today of catechesis and evangelization. Far too many well-disposed individuals acknowledge the necessity of being anti-abortion but because they do not yet appreciate the significance of a contraceptive choice as inherently anti-life, having the same roots and giving rise to the same ultimate deadening of body and soul as abortion.
Mary’s Magnificat attests to the beauty of human life lived in consonance with God’s will. There is largeness of spirit, joy, the shattering of barriers between high and low, a praise and connection with God and humanity, a keen awareness of the power of mercy, the satisfaction of hunger and solidarity with all generations. By contrast the enormity of an anti-life choice—whether contraception, abortion, or euthanasia—possesses all of the attributes of a blasphemous perversion of Mary’s Magnificat as an assertion of right replaces a disposition to love: My will proclaims the greatness of my choice, my spirit no longer needs God as Savior. I choose never to take a risk that might require lowly service. Today I declare blessing on myself, independent of future generations; the Almighty expects me to do great things for me, and holy is my choice. We are too self-sufficient as to require mercy; we have shown the strength of our technology and are proud of our achievements. We aim to be mighty upon the throne, distinguishing our status from that of the lowly. We are no longer hungry but have good things, even though our riches leave us feeling empty. We are masters, not servants, and will be merciful to those who acknowledge our autonomy. We have come of age and no longer believe in promises made to our fathers and we are free to have or not, as we choose, children forever. Such is the awful counterfeit that passes for spiritual sophistication today. It is the agenda of the Prince of Darkness, his game plan for countering the Gospel of Life.
The mere recitation of such an anti-prayer shows the absolute contradiction of good and evil. The Gospel of Life does not shrink from this contrast:
-
The hostility of the powers of evil is, in fact, an insidious opposition which, before affecting the disciples of Jesus, is directed against his mother. To save the life of her Son from those who fear him as a dangerous threat, Mary has to flee with Joseph and the Child into Egypt.8
There are two specific areas where those who study theology (and especially those who do so in response to the call of priesthood) should be alert to the importance of Mary in establishing a culture of life. First, the tendency to split the various branches of theology into independent subdivisions has the effect of obscuring the mystery of the Incarnation. Servais Pinckaers, O.P., has written at length about the unhappy result of the manualist tradition rigidly separating theology into systematic, moral, spiritual, sacramental and scriptural components.10 While the distinction of disciplines is always to be made, such a distinction can never come at the expense of the fundamental unity of the theological enterprise. It is after all an inquiry, rooted in belief, about God assuming human flesh. The differences between the various branches of theology are correctly recognized in academic catalogues, but when those differences harden, becoming absolute and unyielding, the coherence of theological discourse is gravely compromised. Truths that support and explain in an interdependent way are fractured. Instead of confident proclamation there is divisive splintering. Theology is not alone in this respect. Secular disciplines have discovered that the specialization of knowledge can come at a great cost where one field lacks the means to communicate with another. As the study of the God of all life, theology can least afford the luxury of pitting one branch against another. If we divide our disciplines, it is no wonder that we see division in our Church.
All Christians rejoice in a common allegiance to Mary as our Mother. She is not merely the Mother of those who are majoring in systematic or spiritual theology. She is the mother of us all! Vatican II paid Mary the ultimate compliment by incorporating consideration of her life and witness in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church rather than in a separate document. The moral issues raised in the encyclical cannot be understood, let alone resolved, apart from the confluence of systematic, moral, spiritual, sacramental and scriptural theology. These studies are different tributaries from the same source, the Incarnate Word. As Mother of the Incarnate Word, Mary is truly the Mother of Life. It is eminently fitting, indeed indispensable that we approach all moral issues in a Marian light.
A second issue that a Marian focus directs us to address is the reality of suffering. The consequences of splitting theology into separate disciplines are apparent here as well. Do believers approach the experience of suffering from the standpoint of moral theology or spiritual theology, scripture or sacrament? The answer can only be from all in unison! In reminding us that the reality of Mary is coterminous with the reality of the Church, Vatican II also suggests that suffering as an aspect of discipleship, so apparent in the life of our Mater dolorosa, must be understood through the union rather than the division of disciplines.
Much of our contemporary world considers suffering to be an affront to modernity. No one welcomes suffering any more than Our Lord does in Gethsemane or Mary at Calvary. The question is, however, whether we have the spiritual strength to contend with suffering when it inevitably finds us? The growing movement in furtherance of physician-assisted suicide stems from an aversion to suffering that refuses to connect it with the Cross of Calvary or the passage to eternal life. When life becomes cheap, suffering becomes intolerable. If the life of another causes me inconvenience, I must regard that inconvenience as nothing less than suffering and now consider the choice of ending the life that causes “suffering.” This is the foundation for a credo of guilt-free killing: suffering limits autonomy, hence any cause of suffering is wrong, need not be tolerated, and can be terminated.
The life of Mary is a thunderous acclamation that God’s mercy delivers those who suffer as part of their faithfulness to the Kingdom. There is not a trace of neurosis in Mary’s encounter with suffering. Rather, a spirit devoted to life and love is so manifest that it ultimately dwarfs the effects of the suffering that she endured. The unfailing proximity of Mary to the Lord, at every stage of his earthly life, is the key to understanding her triumph over the human toll exacted by suffering. The concreteness of Mary’s suffering—Herod’s infanticide, public ridicule, acute betrayal, spiritual isolation and physical brutality to her own flesh and blood—reminds us that suffering can never be experienced as an abstraction. It is concrete and often monstrous. But it is not unique to us. Mary has been there first. Raising children is a time-consuming, daily experience; caring for the dying is a time-consuming, daily experience. Both have aspects of sacrifice and suffering, but they can both be paths to solidarity with other human beings and steps consciously taken toward a share in Christ’s redemption.
Many today, because they have separated Mary from Christ, even as they have separated the various disciplines of theology, have missed the point that a theology of suffering is indispensable to the tasks of evangelizing. Several concrete observations occur here:
- A theology of the cross is necessary to understand and accept all human suffering;
- The faith of Mary in the closeness of her relationship to Christ is paradigmatic for all believers; a response to the faith of Mary, the Mother of the Church, is not an optional devotion;
- Any spirituality disconnected from specific moral norms is seriously deficient;
- Genuine compassion can never encompass choices that destroy innocent life.
As members of the Church who are evangelized by the reality of Mary and who are entrusted with the task of evangelizing others in fidelity to her witness, we can pray collectively “To Jesus through Mary.” In looking at the perverse and unending moral challenges facing our culture today, we can only respond, “to love through life.”
- Paul VI, Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975), n. 14.
- John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), n. 78 (hereafter EV).
- Hebrews 5:5
- Lumen Gentium n. 59.
- EV n. 100; Mark 4:26-29.
- EV n. 103.
- EV n. 13.
- EV n. 104.
- Lumen Gentium n. 53; CCC n. 963; cf. St Augustine, De virg. 6: PL 40, 399.
- Servais Pinckaers, O.P., The Sources of Christian Ethics. Translated from the third edition by Sr. Mary Thomas Noble, O.P., (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1995).
Reverend Stephen F. Brett, S.S.J., teaches moral theology at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Philadelphia, Pa. He is also the Chairman of the Department of Moral Theology, and a member of the bar in the District of Columbia. His last article in HPR appeared in October 1994.
Back to Homiletic & Pastoral Review Table of Contents October 2000