Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:16:39.337Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Marian Tradition and the Reality of Women

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2014

Elizabeth A. Johnson
Elizabeth A. Johnson*
Affiliation:
Catholic University of America
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

After a brief explanation of the feminist theological perspective, this essay explores three critiques from that perspective of the marian tradition, highlighting ways in which the symbol of Mary has been used to the detriment of the full humanity and dignity of women. A reinterpretive move than examines three parallel possibilities for a new naming of Mary which would cohere with the full liberation of all human beings. No definitive resting point is arrived at, the conclusion being that a renewed theology of Mary will emerge only with renewed attitude and praxis regarding women in the churches.

Type
Articles
Information
Horizons , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , Spring 1985 , pp. 116 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © The College Theology Society 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lumen Gentium, ch. 8, in The Documents of Vatican II, ed. Abbott, Walter (New York: America Press, 1966).Google Scholar See commentaries by Semmelroth, Otto, Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed Vorgrimler, H. (New York: Herder and Herder, 1967), 1:285–96;Google Scholar and Laurentin, René, Pastoral Reform in Church Government, Concilium 8 (New York: Paulist, 1965), pp. 155–72.Google Scholar

2 See the papers of the World Council of Churches' Conference in Sheffield, England, 1981, entitled The Community of Women and Men in the Church, ed. Parvey, Constance (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983Google Scholar).

3 Carol, Juniper, Fundamentals of Mariology (New York: Benziger, 1956), p. 1.Google Scholar

4 Ruether, Rosemary Radford, “Christology and Feminism: Can a Male Savior Help Women?,” Occasional Papers (United Methodist Board of Higher Education and Ministry) 1/13 (1976), 5–6.Google Scholar

5 Ruether, Rosemary Radford, Sexism and God-talk; Toward a Feminist Theology (Boston: Beacon, 1983), p. 19.Google Scholar This work's first chapter treats of methodology, sources, and norms (pp. 12-46). For other descriptions of the tasks and goals of feminist theology, see Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler, “Feminist Theology as a Critical Theory of Liberation,” Theological Studies 36 (1975), 605–26;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Carr, Anne, “Is a Christian Feminist Theology Possible?,” Theological Studies 43 (1982), 279–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar A fine description of what is meant by “women's experience” is given by Plaskow, Judith, Sex, Sin, and Grace: Women's Experience and the Theologies of Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1980), pp. 9–50.Google Scholar

6 For example of distortion in theory, see Børresen, Kari Elisabeth, Subordination and Equivalence: The Nature and Hole of Woman in Augustine and Thomas Aquinas (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1981);Google Scholar for analysis of practice, see Daly, Mary, The Church and the Second Sex (New York: Harper & Row, 1975).Google Scholar

7 Tomko, Jozef, L'Osservatore Homano (English) 43 (October 26, 1981), 6.Google Scholar

8 Noone, Patricia, Mary for Today (Chicago: Thomas More, 1977), p. 12.Google Scholar

9 Børresen, Kari, “Mary in Catholic Theology,” in Mary in the Churches, Concilium 168, ed. Küng, H. and Moltmann, J. (New York: Seabury, 1983), pp. 54–55.Google Scholar

10 Daly, p. 61.

11 Fiorenza, pp. 620-24.

12 Gordon, Mary, “Coming to Terms with Mary, Commonweal 109 (January 15, 1982), 11.Google Scholar

13 Warner, Marina, Alone of All Her Sex (New York: Knopf, 1976), pp. 49, 338.Google Scholar

14 Marialis Cultus, E. T. Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, The Pope Speaks 19 (1974–1975), #34–37, 73–75.Google Scholar

15 Catholic Mind 72 (1974), #142, 60.Google Scholar

16 Noone, p. 12.

17 De cultu feminarum, libri duo I, 1, (PL I, 1418b-19a).

18 Warner, p. 58.

19 See Ruether, Rosemary Radford, “Misogynism and Virginal Feminism in the Fathers of the Church,” in Ruether, ed., Religion and Sexism: Images of Women in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974), pp. 150–83.Google Scholar

20 Summa Theologiae I, q. 92; passim; q. 96, art. 3, Corp.; q. 99, art. 2; ST III, q. 27, passim; q. 30, passim; q. 37, art. 4, corp.; ST Suppl., q. 52, passim; q. 81, passim. See Cole, William, “Thomas on Mary and Women: A Study in Contrasts,” University of Dayton Review 12 (1975–1976), 25–64.Google Scholar

21 Galot, Jean, L'église et la femme (Gemblour: J. Duculot, 1965), p. 57.Google Scholar

22 Dimock, Giles, “Mary, Model for the Church Today,” Aids in Ministry (1982), 8.Google Scholar

23 de Beauvoir, Simone, The Second Sex (New York: Knopf, 1953), p. 171.Google Scholar

24 Daly, Cahal, “Mary and the Vocation of Women: I,” The Furrow 25 (1974), 648.Google Scholar

25 Laurentin, René, “Mary and Womanhood in the Renewal of Christian Anthropology,” Marian Library Studies 1 (1969), 78.Google Scholar While positing equality of nature between men and women, Laurentin nevertheless argues for a “functional hierarchy” between them (p. 89).

26 Rahner, Karl, “Mary and the Apostolate” in his The Christian Commitment (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963 [1954]), p. 123.Google Scholar

27 Rahner, Karl, “Maria und das christliche Bild der Frau,” Stimmen der Zeit 193 (1975), 795–800.Google Scholar

28 Cahal Daly, “Mary and the Vocation of Women: II,” The Furrow

29 See Graef, Hilda, Mary; A History of Doctrine and Devotion (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963), 1: esp. chaps 4-6.Google Scholar

30 Gasslein, Bernadetter, “Images de Marie, image de la femme,” Supplement 127 (1978), 583–92.Google Scholar

31 Laurentin, René, The Question of Mary (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965), pp. 72ff.Google Scholar

32 See Halkes, Catharina, “Mary and Women” in Küng and Moltmann, eds., Mary, in the Churches, , pp. 66–67.Google Scholar

33 See, e.g., MacKenzie, Ross, “Mariology as an Ecumenical Problem,” Marian Studies 26 (1975), 204–20;Google Scholar and Visher, Lukas, “Mary—Symbol of the Church and Symbol of Humankind,” Mid-Stream 17 (1978), 1–12.Google Scholar

34 See Ruether, , Sexism and God-Talk, pp. 47–71;Google ScholarEngelsman, Joan Chamberlain, The Feminine Dimension of the Divine (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979);Google ScholarPagels, Elaine, “What Became of God the Mother?” in Christ, Carol and Plaskow, Judith, eds., Womanspirit Rising (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979), pp. 107–19;Google ScholarAshe, Geoffrey, The Virgin (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976).Google Scholar

35 See Brown, Raymondet al., eds. Mary in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars (Philadelphia: Fortress, and New York: Paulist, 1978).Google Scholar

36 Noone, p. 167. Noone's whole book does an effective job of resymbolization along the lines of this first proposal. See also Huws, Glenys and Robert, Clare Guzzo, “A New Image of Mary: Protestant, Catholic and Feminist Perspectives,” America 141 (1979), 403–06.Google Scholar

37 Ruether, Rosemary Radford, Mary—The Feminine Face of the Church (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), pp. 76–88.Google Scholar

38 Paul, VI, Marialis Cultus #35, 74.Google Scholar

39 See Brown, Raymond, “The Meaning of Modern New Testament Studies for Ecumenical Understanding of Mary” in his Biblical Reflections on Crises Facing the Church (New York: Paulist, 1975), pp. 84–108;Google ScholarBearsley, Patrick, “Mary the Perfect Disciple: A Paradigm for Mariology,” Theological Studies 41 (1980), 461–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 See Moltmann-Wendel, Elisabeth, “Motherhood or Friendship” in Küng, and Moltmann, , eds., Mary in the Churches, pp. 17–22;Google ScholarRuether, , Sexism and God-Talk, pp. 8–11;Google Scholar Schüssler Fiorenza, pp. 624-26. See also Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza's study of the discipleship of other women {not including Mary of Nazareth), In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983).Google Scholar

41 This is still a partial ideal for it omits reference to adult relationships which are constitutive for wholeness. For discussion, see Bruteau, Beatrice, “The Image of the Virgin Mother” in Plaskow, J. and Romero, J., eds., Women and Religion (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974), pp. 93–104.Google Scholar

42 Tillich, Paul, Theology of Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), pp. 54–58.Google Scholar

43 Rahner, Karl, “Maria und das christiliche Bild der Frau,” p. 800.Google Scholar