The pope’s unintended conflation of words or
concepts takes place in his use of the word “saint” which means
“holy.” So it’s easy to conclude that the pope thinks that Mary’s
ultimate holiness or saintliness was not present from the very beginning.
In fact, following the reporting of the Pope’s statement, many blogs and social
media postings began criticizing Pope Francis that his statement was a
contradiction to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception which proclaims Mary’s
holiness from the point of conception.
By his controversial statement, I really
do not think Pope Francis was trying to disassemble a deep Marian dogma by
implication or intention. Looking at the entirety of Francis’ homily for that
day, I concluded that what the holy father is trying to say is that Mary faced many
and grave challenges to her holiness throughout her life, from the time she was
a child, through her encounter with the angel Gabriel, through her pregnancy
and early relationship with St. Joseph, and throughout the rest of her life
inclusive of the passion and death of her son.
What is not as clear in the Pope’s
comments are the solid truths that her life experience in the world was somehow
mysteriously guarded by God's special favor to her allowing her to
overcome those challenges. While we may not be born “full of grace” as in Mary’s case, I do believe that we indeed are
born "innocent," albeit with our inheritance of "original
sin" or our tendencies to concupiscence. After all, don’t we celebrate the
Feast of the Holy Innocents – the children slaughtered by King Herod to prevent
the entrée of the newly born King of the Jews that we read about in the Gospel
of Matthew? Although born innocent, (free of intentional sin), nevertheless, Mary
was different than us in the sense that we have not been granted the special
favor she was graced with. This is the mystery of the meaning of “chaire kekaritomine,” that special
address of the angel directly to Mary at the annunciation of the conception of
Jesus, the anointed one. (Luke 1:28)
I won’t explicate this deep
theological mystery here; but, suffice it to say it is important to try to
understand the following thoughts relative to specific aspects of the Angel
Gabriel’s greeting and which the English translations do not reveal. Firstly, the meaning of the Greek, in
consideration of the implications of the dual meaning of the greeting “Chaire,” can be used as “Hail,” a simple
salutation. The English “hail” does not reveal the subtleties of the high
status of the person being greeted as do the Greek or Latin. “Chaire” was translated into Latin by St.
Jerome as the higher form of the more vernacular word “Ave,” instead of “Salve.”
“Ave” was the form always reserved
for greeting royalty or persons of high stature. But “chaire’s” other meaning is deeper, and not really translated fully
to the Latin or other subsequent languages. That is, that it means “Rejoice” which is also an imperative
verb. According to the Greek biblical codices,
Luke followed the salutation with the verb “kekaritomine,”
(κεχαριτωμένη -kecharitōménē ) which is comprised of the Greek verb “charitoo,” meaning to put a person or thing into the very state
indicated by the noun root which is “charis”
– grace or high favor. This form is then compounded with the prefix “ke, rendering it as “ke-aritomine” which
is a Greek perfect tense prefix indicating a perfected or completed present
state as a result of a past action. (Ref: Fr. John Echert, ewtn.com) I
labor you through this brief explanation because the words of the English
translation, “full of grace,” or “highly favored one,” do not properly express
the depth of the Gospel writer’s testimony.
All of this is advanced in order
that we understand that there is no challenge by Pope Francis or anyone else to
the dogmatic formulations over centuries that eventuated in the proclamation of
the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854.
But to Pope Francis’ main point, undoubtedly
Mary faced obstacles in her life. In the human sense, she had to mature. Indeed
there were even challenges to her holiness. Nevertheless, her holiness was not
to be overcome because she was “full of grace,” in the fullest sense of the
concept. Albeit that Mary was not born an adult, and had to develop into a
"mature" person in the human sense (i.e. learn to speak, learn to
eat, learn manners, learn to read, learn to cook, learn to organize, learn to
pray), when presented with her life choices, she had a kind of prescience
incorporated within her conscience that allowed her to see clearly the
consequences of certain options. I would even argue that Mary had a prophetic
gift of vision beyond that of all the Old Testament prophets combined. In that
sense, Mary was the Zion of the Old Testament psalms as well as the virgin in
Isaiah’s pronouncement. Even so, among her own gifts was an ability to receive
her own prescience and visions which she pondered and considered as she matured.
The theological question is:
"Could Mary have lost her grace in confronting her challenges while
maturing?" The answer is “no,” because of the peculiar approach God used
in granting her salvation was a “once saved-always saved” unique set of
circumstances meant for her alone. After all, she was not only to bear the
anointed one; she was to “take up her own cross” and follow him as the first
disciple. (Matt 16:24)
This is a grand mystery with an
answer beyond our human understanding. If God favored Mary so much
("highly favored one"), could Mary have been prevented from losing
her grace or favor during her lifetime? Is this supernatural gift an
insurmountable block on or in ultimate contradiction to Mary's free will? The
answer to the first question is "yes" because as the Angel told Mary,
“with God all things are possible.” (Luke 1:37 and Luke 18:24-43)
The answer to the second question
is: "No!" Mary, was given the blessing of freedom in the same way
that all creatures of God are given that blessing in the context of their
make and kind. Mary dealt with challenges to her grace, but was not restricted
in the way she dealt with those challenges except that a truly sinful choice
(while being in the spectrum of all her free options) would be a choice that would
have been so clearly wrong that her grace filled conscience would have
pronounced to her the long term consequences including a diminished
relationship with God which would have horrified her.
Mary did in life what Eve did not
do. Part of Mary’s “grace filled-ness”
included a silent “prescience” fueled by her espousal to the Holy Spirit who
manifested Himself like the Shekinah ( שכן ) (Hebrew – God’s
manifested glory); this was the “glory” cloud described in the Book of Exodus
that was present over the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple indicating the
presence of God in time and space. (Psalm 132) God’s very presence within the
soul of Mary gave her “prescience” as well as prophetic wisdom.
These were the moments in Mary’s
life when “human prescience” and “God’s presence” became one. This phenomena is
demonstrated by the many instances in her life in which she freely decided to
choose to trust God. Mary always trusted God in spite of the cacophony of
circumstances that urged her to deny the very grace within her being. These
were the moments in which she, like all human beings, are tempted to meander the
dark places when an inner unseen light is begging us to trust that there is
light at the end of the tunnel. These are the moments when our wills are
overwhelmed by the surrounding feelings of fear, anger, resentment, and death
and darkness override the reality of the unseen destiny of resurrection,
renewal and light. An unthinkable denial
of the “charitoo” that was present in
her soul at her conception would have resulted in a self-negation, a kind of
self-annihilation, which would not have been possible given the reality of the
words of the proto-evangelion. (Genesis 3:15) Thus, the great conundrum: The
challenges to Mary’s holiness were not effective nor was her freedom of will
denied. At stake in her decision-making was her relationship with God. That was
the non-negotiable for Mary albeit that in theory, she could have made
decisions that would have diminished that relationship with God. Unlike us,
Mary could see consequences clearly.
Here are some decisions within
circumstances that challenged her holiness and in which that holiness prevailed:
· Mary challenged to
accept the proposal from God (Luke 1:26-38)
· Mary faced with
divorce or worse, faced with single motherhood, and rejection by her community
(Matt 1:19)
· Mary faced with the
birth of her son in a cave (Luke 2:12)
· Mary faced with the
prophecy of Simeon (Luke 2:34)
· Mary faced with
threats to the life of her son and family and escape to Egypt (Matt 2:13-23)
· Mary faced with the
crisis of a lost son and his response to her and Joseph in the Temple. (Luke
2:41)
· Mary faced with
intercession at Cana (John 2:1-12)
· Mary faced with a
perceived denial of her mother by her son (Matt 12:46-50)
· Mary faced with her
son’s rejection in Nazareth and violence against him (Luke 4: 16-30)
· Mary faced with her
son’s developing reputation of cavorting with sinners (Luke 7:36-50)
· Mary faced with her
son’s arrest, trial, scourging, condemnation, and the denials by Judas, Peter
and the cowardice of the other apostles except John. (John 18; Luke 22:47-23;
Matt 26:14-16; Mark 15)
· Mary faced with her
son’s crucifixion, death and burial (Matt 27:32-56; Mark 15:21-41; Luke 23:
26-49; John 19: 17-42)
In view of these vivid examples
from scripture there must have been many more instances like these challenges
to holiness which Mary “pondered and held
close to her heart.” (Luke 2:19, 51) So Mary matured and developed as does
all of humanity. What makes her different is the prescient grace and a steadfast conscience in tune with the will and
presence of God that the rest of us
do not have so solidly. We must imitate that aspect of Mary until we get it
right so that we can have a vision of ourselves in tune with God’s vision of
his desired destiny for us. I think this is what Pope Francis was attempting to
elucidate.
Contemplating Mary’s enigmatic
example, she grew from an intrinsic “fullness”
to an extrinsic “fuller-ness;” Mary
was focused upon her growth and maturity from God’s perspective, and not on the
restrictive limitations of human vision. Mary was focused on growing from the human
limitations of destination to the
freedom of God-desired destiny.
It is in light of those
considerations it is fair to address free will or “freedom to choose” in within
the context of today’s societal realities. The “devil’s advance” of a straw
“choice” that we be tempted to be like gods, has raised its ugly head. (Genesis
3:5) His advance is the basis of all challenges to our sacred destiny of
holiness. It remains the same as we live
in a world where we face challenges that confront our attempts to achieve
holiness. There is no starker example of this “choice” conundrum as occurs with
respect to the issue of abortion and its proffered opposite, “choice.”
The recent
example of a mother in Great Britain who was counseled by her doctor to abort
one of her three triplets comes to mind. She was shocked by the doctor’s advice.
The doctor advised that all of her unborn triplets would be at risk unless one
or two of them were aborted. A 12-week ultrasound scan revealed that the
triplets were not sharing the placenta equally and that one baby was getting
less sustenance than the others. In the end, the family and mother refused to
consider aborting any of their unborn babies. All three were born healthy and
continue to thrive. It was the mother’s decision
of a life time – a decision of four lifetimes.
The choices given her were stark.
But in a mother’s mind must come the point in which she must ask: “Is this
really my choice to make?” She was advised without any moral predisposition on
the doctor’s part. At some point thousands of women believe that for a full
spectrum of reasons ranging from health to life planning, they have the freedom
to terminate one or more of the children. Nevertheless, this particular woman’s
reference point was something deeper than her personal convenience, or the challenges
to motherhood such as the possibility of difficulties in raising children with
disabilities. Her reference point was deeper than even the specter of the
possibility that there might be harm done to one of the children by not
terminating the other children in the womb.
In
such a real example is the secret of understanding “choice.” We indeed have
free will which was given to us, or rather entrusted to us. The word “entrust”
places a whole new dimension upon the object of a gift. God entrusts to us His own
sacred trust which is ancient and unchanging. In an entrustment, God is a stake
holder in a mother’s decision because He is the very cause of a conception as we are the means of conception. So why
would we sully
that sacred trust by going in our own direction -- thereby undoing the God
hoped-for outcome entrusted to his creation? If choice is understood in the
context of an entrusted God's will, (i.e., His choice as manifest in
conception), then our choice to rebel against our very cause, or our
cooperation with our very cause presents surprising clarity. The devil’s
selfish advance obfuscates that clarity with intrusion, illusion, and finally,
delusion. The devil’s selfish advance
tries to keep us from sensing the clarity of consequence and blurs our
conscience with a narcissistic reflection of our own convenience and personal
welfare. This advance works upon our emotions that pull us away from the
intellect wherein our will resides.
The outcomes of the ensuing
decision can be either cataclysmic or
epiphanismic. When abortion takes place, it is a spit in God's face. It
is a cataclysm. We put ourselves at war with God. We declare war on God. Why
would that seem to anyone's advantage? A mother who chooses to cooperate with
God regardless of her circumstances imitates Mary. The life that is protected
and fostered is one small aspect of the "life of God Himself" that
surrounds His own image and likeness in the child (ikonosma - εικόνισμα) which precedes the birth, and succeeds the birth becoming
an epiphany of the child and the God of whom the child represents the image and
likeness of Yahweh.
Then we must include the life of
the whole world, the “ecosystem” surrounding the actions of protecting and
fostering for this and every child icon of God. The life of the child must also
be considered within the context of the surrounding the life of the family and community.
Even in those difficult cases when no family or community safety-net are
present, the child icon contains the seed of a divine "hope" that the
child experience in the future his or her destiny. This is a hoped for destiny
in the face of every and all challenges
to God's hoped for destiny for the child. In effect, the Holy Family
experienced such starkly cold surroundings and environment of oppression that
they faced the challenge of developing and maturing in this context. In the
end, Mary becomes the clearest purely human North Star or reference point for
these circumstances. The devil’s great advance that we move in a direction toward
a false destiny attempts to obscure any and all reference points of clarity in
our decision making. The devil always moves in the grays, and the subtleties of
our consciousness and subconsciousness gently pushing us toward the broad and
gently sloping plains of disappointment, hopelessness, confusion, and despair.
The serpent’s advance moves us to the false conclusion that death is the final
victor and that we were random and had no purpose to our existence. and man’s
failure to keep God as his reference point are the causes for despair and
movement away from our sacred destiny. All of this is contrasted with the
presence of God in Mary, her prescience regardless of her predicament and her
constant movement always toward the God she loved as she loved her own child.
As in the cases where Mary
faced decision-making challenges, we have to ask: Do our decisions advance our
saintly God intended destiny? Or do our choices sully our chances for achieving
God’s hoped for outcome if even at the moment before death? Mary remains the
strongest witness to the fact that “with God all things are possible.” I
believe this is ultimately what Pope Francis was trying to say: Face challenges
always with the constant reference point of holiness and that can more easily
be done by looking at the example of those holy ones who succeeded. Mary is the
clearest of these.
Comments
Post a Comment