Dear Christis,

I am in my sixth year as Catholic chaplain on campus and this is the first time that I have felt obliged to write to Christis despite at times having strong disagreement with some of the ways in which the Church I belong to has been portrayed in its pages.

In issue 72 you publish an article entitled In Defence of Mary by Michael Puljic which, having discussed it with Michael, I know to have been written in good faith.

Obviously he is quite free to express his personal faith as he sees fit and had the article been billed as this I would have had no problem. It claims, however, to “have clarified catholic teaching”. This being the case I believe that I have to say as Catholic chaplain that this article does not express in any clear fashion the belief of the Catholic Church with regard to Mary.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Lester

Dear Christis,

Both of us have roots in the Evangelical Protestant tradition, and know for ourselves how the theologies of other churches and traditions are easily misunderstood or misrepresented when people have little first-hand experience of the great variety there is inside Christianity. We also both have a small acquaintance with the history and theology of Catholicism and Catholics, from a mixture of friendship, reading and research. This being so, we were concerned that comments in the article In Defence Of Mary, made in good faith by the author, might lead to a misunderstanding of official Catholicism by those who have similar origins to ourselves.

Whilst agreeing with the opening and closing remarks of the article — implying that Catholicism is often misrepresented as engaging in “Mary Worship” — we were concerned by the bulk of the article’s relationship with both official Catholic doctrine and conventional readings of the Bible. Readers may have paid scant attention to the author’s declaration that this was only his own opinion, and more to the sub-titular promises of “Truth”. This could easily lead to some misconceptions.

Firstly, we were surprised to see little mention in the article, of that text in Christian scripture that is probably most important for coming to an understanding of Mary and her status in Christian tradition; The “Magnificat” or song of Mary (Luke 1:26–56). It is here that references to Mary as someone favoured by God must surely stem from, and it is strange to not find it mentioned in the article. Also, there was no mention in the article of the title for Mary used by the theologians and preachers of the early Roman church, and still used today in Catholicism and Orthodoxy — this is Theotokos, or “God-Bearer”. This highlights the fact that, as far as we understand it, any attempt to talk about Mary must mention that she only has importance to Christians as far as she plays a role in the life of Jesus, both God and Saviour.

The two roles for Mary advanced in the article (“Co-redemptorix” and “Mediator of all graces”), did not appear in any authoritative discussion of Catholic theology that we could find. We know that the use of these will cause dismay to both our Catholic friends and a range of other Christians from different traditions. The writer himself protests on a number of occasions that he does not mean to use them to imply Mary’s equality with Jesus. Whilst we believe him to be sincere, both are dangerously close to implying some sort of status for Mary that is far removed from an “ordinary” saint or biblical figure, and neither are condoned by official doctrine or biblical evidence.

The references to Mary as “sinless” and the “New Eve” also caused us some confusion and bible study. These we know from the Catholic Catechism to be based on official doctrine, though not given particular emphasis in any of our previous encounters with Catholicism. We can understand references to Mary as being among the first to receive the revelation and forgiveness of God, but much of the rest is a long way from our (admittedly limited) understanding of theology. We would note, however, that these teachings are drawn from aspects of early church teaching (and from the same early church Fathers who later inspired Luther and Calvin in some cases), rather than being something on which the entire early church agreed.

Lastly, the issue of prayer may concern some. Some (but not all) Catholics do pray to Mary, as they may occasionally to other saints and biblical figures. This practice is again strange to many brought up in the Protestant tradition, but need not be considered as an immediate prelude to getting hot and toasty in the afterlife. Perhaps the best way of trying to understand this practice is in view of the Jewish practice of personally associating yourself, through re-enactment, with a scriptural event as part of an act of worship. This is embodied in the celebration of the Passover, and continues into the Christian faith with the celebration of Communion. A focus on the life of Mary, viewed in this light, may help Christians to discover ways of focusing on Jesus, but surely it is not (and should not be considered as) an end in itself?

Ultimately, we are concerned that Christis readers should not immediately jump to conclusions about what is a vast, global Church on the basis of this, or any other individual opinion (least of all ours). More unbiased explanation and research is always needed to gain a true, overall picture. In this particular case, we feel Christians should make efforts to avoid any discussion where Mary is made a symbol or idealised theological trophy, rather than recognised as a real, ordinary human being, who became part of the extraordinary story of salvation, as we all can be.

Yours sincerely,

Hilary Lonsdale and Matt Campbell

Dear Christis,

I would like to comment on Michael Puljic’s Issue 72 article, In Defence of Mary, not only as a former Christis contributor, but as a Catholic, who feels misrepresented by Michael’s statements of the “true” teachings of the Catholic church on Mary.

Michael’s article — whilst no doubt written from good motives, and with some forethought — seems romantic rather than precise and analytically clear. Rather than achieving his stated aim of clarifying the misconceptions surrounding Catholic belief about Mary, I feel Michael has sadly added to them, by writing an article that seems to speak for all Catholic Christians, rather than for himself (editorial out-takes did not help clarify this, by the way!)

The authentic teaching of the Catholic Church does not call Mary “mediator of all graces”, as Michael states. Instead, it makes clear that we need no mediator with Christ, who is himself our mediator with his Father. Veneration of the saints, and the requesting of their prayers are fine, but not necessary. As the church declared at the Second Vatican Council (1962–65), Christ is “the one Mediator” for all (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, n. 62).

Neither does the Catholic Church call Mary “co-redemptrix”. Indeed, the current pope — devoted to Mary as he is — has definitively refused to refer to her as such. I in no way wish to diminish the significance and unique role of the Virgin. However, nor do I wish to raise her to levels of adulation which she herself would find idolatrous. The Catholic Church’s understanding of the Bible makes it clear that redemption only comes from Christ’s unique and all-sufficient sacrifice on the cross. Mary was certainly involved in God’s plans, but only a person who was both God and man could bring about mankind’s (and womankind’s!) redemption. Labelling Mary as “co-redemptrix” is confusing and unhelpful, and thus it was entirely emitted from the teachings of the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s, the latest ecumenical (whole-church) statement of the Catholic teaching.

Contrary to what Michael says, the Catholic Church does not state that Mary did not die — it has no policy on the matter. The bull Munificentissimus Deus, which defined the dogma of the Assumption, deliberately left the matter out, because the church is unsure. The Orthodox churches instead refer to her “Dormition”, that is, her falling asleep, before her assumption body and soul (together, not separately!) into heaven, as one day all Christians shall experience. Indeed, Mary’s importance to Christians lies in the fact that she only went before where we too will one day follow.

I came across Michael’s article on the Internet. At the risk of sounding presumptuous, might I advise your readers to look at a previous contribution to Christis (Issue 55: Hail, Full of Grace!) on exactly the same topic, also available through the web-archive?

No doubt Michael has written his article in good faith, but it is a branch of the faith I cannot identify with. I would not wish to discourage him, or anyone else, from writing challenging articles. However, for the promotion of truth, the facts should be checked out first.

Yours sincerely in Christ,

Johan Bergstrom-Allen

Dear Christis,

During one of Jesus’ last nights with his disciples before his crucifixion, Jesus spent a considerable time talking to his friends about various key issues. His followers were beginning to understand that one of them will betray him, although they still did not understand what exactly will happen or why. At one point, Jesus tells them that he will go away from them; Thomas wants to know how they can follow him there when they do not know where he is going. Jesus replies;

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 14:6

This idea is central to the whole New Testament; that Jesus is the only way to get to God. In this article I want to suggest that the views clearly laid out by Michael Puljic in his article In Defence of Mary in the last issue of Christis are not biblical, and could even move Jesus from the centre stage position he deserves. I realise that those opinions may not be shared by everyone calling themselves a Catholic, and I am not trying to personally ‘get at’ Michael or anyone else at all, but I believe that John 14:6 is a fundamental truth of Christianity and should not be clouded by any other teaching.

It was suggested in the article that the reason Catholics pray to Mary is to ask her to intercede for us as our advocate before God. It is true that in the Old Testament, figures like Moses acted as an advocate between God and man, but this was a function made redundant when Jesus came to be the ultimate intercessor and advocate. Hebrews 7:23–28 describes it well;

Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.

Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. There is no need for us to have a mediator to get to Jesus; we are told to approach the throne of grace “with confidence” because he can sympathise with our weaknesses, having himself been tempted in every way (Hebrews 4:15–6). So why should we complicate coming to God with prayer to Mary? Surely, if we do this, we in danger of undermining Jesus’ role and the completeness of his sacrifice. Jesus came into the world “that they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10). The problem human beings have had for thousands of years is the problem of sin, caused in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve first disobeyed God. So Jesus was coming to sort this problem out; in that respect, he was the ‘new Adam’ (an idea described in Romans 5). According to the article, Catholics believe that there needed to be a new Eve as well, and Mary fulfilled this requirement Eve sinned, but Mary was sinless; Eve died, Mary did not succumb to death; Eve was the mother of fallen humanity, Mary was a mother figure for all Christians. However, none of these assertions stand up to the Bible, and in my view, seem to detract from Jesus’ role. For a start there is not one reference to the ‘new Eve’ in the Bible. Secondly, I can’t see that Mary’s obedience to God’s will in being the mother of Jesus cancels out Eve’s disobedience to God’s will in the Garden of Eden, as the view put forward by Michael suggests. Surely Jesus, and Jesus alone, cancelled out all the problems of sin on the cross.

I believe that Jesus didn’t sin throughout his whole life (see Hebrews 4:15), but nowhere does the bible record Mary achieving a similar feat. The bible does not give us an obvious example of her sin, but assures us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” (Romans 3:23) which applies to all of us, including Mary. Why would there be another sinless person when Jesus is the one perfect sacrifice? In addition, I don’t understand the basis for the argument that Mary did not die normally, but ascended into heaven. I can find no biblical evidence for this, and I somehow think such an important event would have been recorded if it did happen. Similarly, I also think that we might be reading too much into the bible to say that because Jesus told John to look after his mother, Jesus has given his mother to all Christians. I am not sure saying “I believe … in the resurrection of the body” in the Apostle’s Creed has got anything to do with Mary’s supposed ascension, as has been suggested. However, I don’t think that there are many Christians who are not guilty of reading too much into parts of the Bible (and ignoring others) and I personally think that it is more important to see Jesus as the only way to get to the Father than worrying about whether we’ve been ‘given’ Mary or not.

I agree that Mary played a fairly large role in the redemption of mankind, in the sense that she gave birth to Jesus. But in the same way, we could argue that Mary’s mother played a fairly large role in the redemption of mankind, because she gave birth to Mary; in fact, we could extend the argument to Adam, Noah or any of Jesus’ ancestors. But to repeat Jesus words: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) I appreciate that when Mary is called the coredemptorix, she is not being put on a par with Jesus, but it seems logical to me that God is the one we ought to be thankful to and pay homage to; it was his idea. I can understand that if you have been taught that Mary was sinless, played an important role in the redemption of mankind and did not die, but ascended to heaven, you will want to venerate her. But for anyone who believes in the truth of all scripture, I do not see that these things can be seen as true. If you call yourself a Christian, no matter what other denominational labels you might attach, then you ought to read and believe the Bible — and take that and nothing else to be the truth about our faith. Mary is by no means a bad role model, as one who was obedient to God, but I don’t think we should pray to or venerate anyone except Jesus Christ, who is, after all, the only way to the Father.

Yours sincerely,

Naomi Coleman