The Logic of Mary

In the past week I've found myself stuck watching "Praise the Lord" on Trinity Broadcasting Network. They've had on the best of 2004 and it's been good stuff. Every now and then I venture up a channel and see what's going on on EWTN.

Last night was a discussion on St Louis de Montfort and his Mary devotion. I once thought about about becoming a Monfortian (I bet you didn't know they existed), so I was interested.

A couple of things struck me. First off, I make no bones that my Marian beliefs are down right heretical . . . fine, call Mr Torquemada Gonzales if you like. The first thing is that Marian devotion is simply indefensible. You believe in Mary because you choose to believe in Mary. I was chuckling throughout the show because talk like that is precisely what drives Protestants crazy: where on earth, they ask, do you get all this stuff? Montfort calls Mary the spouse of the Holy Spirit and talks about to get more of the Holy Spirit, one should get more of Mary. Also to get more of Jesus, you need more of Mary. But why? There is simply no scriptural precendent for that, especially if it is that important, the Protestant mind will ask.

The other thing that struck me is the Montfort passage and all this talk of Mary in herself is nothing, but since God chose her she is who she is now. That's like saying if I did not exist then I could not possibly have existed. . . if that makes any sense. I find it striking that Mary enthusiasts always feel like they have to defend their devotion by declaring that she in herself is nothing, but is what she is by God's grace. Do you realize that we could say the same about the man Jesus? The contingency and finite constriction of his human existence does not diminish the fact that he is God.

This excusing Mary's perfection is what leads to this whole unfortunate line of theology that Mary was "pre-saved." The architect of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Bl Duns Scotus was, IMO, forced into this whole "nonsense" so as to placate the children of Augustine and Aquinas who view everything in terms of sin.

My view of Mary is that she is a reflection of a divine process such as Jesus, the man, is a reflection of a divine process. So there is something essential about that particular woman's being that belongs in the story of God the Son. So it is not true that she is nothing in herself, etc.

BTW, I laugh at the folly of the Catholic Right who insist that one can only be a George Bush voter (my loose paraphrase of Fr. Fox) to care about Mary.

Going back to the issue of Mariology being indefensible. I think the challenge of Mary is similar to the challenge of Christ in his time. Jesus equated himself with God and called for belief in his person, which was tantamount to heresy. At the same time, there were a very significant number of Jews who felt the spirit of the whole message made sense, even if it violated the letter of the law. Their firmness of faith in Jesus had nothing to do with logical lock, but firmness of experience. "how can anyone who does these things not be from God?" That's the same thing with Mary, there is no logic that defends the full extent of Marian belief, it simply is a function of experience with her at some level. I think, just as the man, Christ, was a stumbling block in his day, Mary is a similar stumbling block, because that is one area in which Catholicism just flats out goes in a "crazy" direction.