Catholics have always made certain Saints into "patrons" of a certain area or for a certain cause. Typically it is tied very closely with how the Saint lived their life or the issues they had. For example, St. Peregrine is the patron saint of cancer patients since he suffered with the ailment (and was miraculously cured) while on earth.
And countries are no different. The Americas have a single patron saint: Our Lady of Guadalupe. Our Lady of Guadalupe refers to the Blessed Virgin Mary's appearance in Guadalupe. Because of the interest shown for the Americas, she naturally became the patron saint for our area. On the 4th of July, we take time to ask for her prayers for our country in a special way, since she is our patron (as well as the patron of other areas). Here's the prayer:
Prayer to Our Lady of Guadalupe
How kind you were, O Mary,
to appear to an Indian convert in Mexico,
leaving on his cloak as a credential
a permanent image of yourself.
You thereby won many for Christ
and naturally became the patroness of Mexico and the Americas,
and especially of the poor,
May more and more people through your intercession
accept your dear Son as their Lord.
God bless,
Jay
Jay and Burnt;
The Virgin of Guadalupe – this is where Roman Catholicism loses me. I see a great flaw in Roman Catholic practices when it comes to “La Virgen de Guadalupe.”
Unfortunately, I believe that Christianity in Mexico is weak. There seems to be many more chapels dedicated to “La Virgen” than those dedicated directly to Christ. In Catholic Mexico, “La Virgen” takes the leading role, despite the theological argument that She brings believers closer to Christ. Mexicans I know have a close, intimate relationship with the Virgin of Guadalupe, but their relationship to Christ seems distant and foreign – again, irregardless of your high theological justification. They pray to the Virgin for miracles, and give credit to Her when a miracle is performed.
Too many Mexicans honor “La Virgen” without recognizing Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Pope John Paul II loved visiting the people of Mexico, but I don’t see Mexico as a place to which I want my children to be exposed at lenth, as its brand of Christianity seems weak and susceptible to manipulation due to its tremendous focus on “La Virgen de Guadalupe” and not on the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Numerous Protestant churches are making inroads into Mexico, just as in Guatemala, because Christians are looking for a more direct, pure road to Christ.
In general, I believe the Virgin of Guadalupe has become a separate entity in Mexico, being a God-sort person distinct from the Mary of Nazareth – I think most Mexican do not associate one with the other – high Roman theology doesn’t justify their views.
Sadly, praying to Christ is a foreign concept to the majority of Catholic Mexicans.
Michael O.
Michael O,
Having never been to Mexico, I will defer to your assessment of the situation on the assumption that you yourself have been to Mexico and observed what you have described.
Supposing that such abuses have crept in, this may have occurred despite the best efforts of the clergy to keep things on the straight and narrow. Also, I would think we should judge a practice by its noble practitioners rather than its traitors. We evaluate the Christian message based on the conduct of Jesus and the eleven faithful disciplies rather than on the conduct of Judas. If things have gone off track, then do we try to redeem the practice or do we just throw it away? The general answer to this question may bring us insight on the historical pattern of differences between Calvinism and Roman Catholicism.
I think it is easy to see the faults of Catholicism as practiced in Mexico and a little harder to see them as practiced in Canada. I've never confronted someone over cohabiting before marriage, I've never confronted someone over receiving communion after a civil divorce, I've never attempted to educate someone on their belief that their anullment was just a "catholic divorce". Likewise, no one has ever confronted me on my inaction (though I've been confronted on all sorts of other issues).
Given how blind we tend to be to the "close to home" faults, I'm not sure Mexico deviates from the Catholic faith more than we do up north. Our politicians use their power and influence to promote abortion, call themselves devout Catholics, and receive communion. Less than 20 bishops out of hundred in North America have said they would deny communion to pro-abortion politicians. South America and Mexico is doing much better than we are in that regard.
Another thing to keep in mind is that despite all the problems, the presence of Our Lady of Guadelupe may actually be mitigating the problems rather than being the cause of the problems. For example, we all know people who go to Church every Sunday but show less kindness to others than people who watch football instead do. One might then conclude that going to Church makes you mean and nasty when the truth is that the sour faces would probably be even more sour if they stopped going to Church.
Before Our Lady of Guadelupe came to Mexico, infant sacrifice was at atrocious levels. This stopped completely within a generation of her appearances. Meanwhile in the North Americas, our practice of abortion makes what went on in the South Americas look tame and reserved.
Again, I have no issue with your criticisms of the faith in Mexico. But just as I would hesitate to blame unkindness and meddling on Church attendance, I would also hesitate to blame idolatry on devotion to Our Lady of Guadelupe. I would even venture to guess that removing the apparent cause of the problems would only make them worse. Our history books are full of people removing apparent causes of problems only to make the situation worse.
By the way, how did you form your opinion of the faith in Mexico? Did you visit the place yourself or is this just what you hear from others who already believe devotion to Mary is idolatrous? From what I hear of Canada through the media, I would think that over half of Canadians want abortion and gay marraige and that over half of priests are pedophile. The truth is far from the perceived reality.
That being said, I have personally read and heard what I consider borderline heretical teachings on Mary from prominent Catholic sources - so I am willing to believe that this is the case in the South Americas. Though I am trying to discern whether it is my beliefs that are borderline heretical or those that I am hearing. I have come across some materials that appear to corroborate my conjectures - but I'll save that for later.
Burnt,
You're right in that the Mexicans shouldn't be judged too harshly. I realize that in North America many Catholic, Evangelical, Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, etc. Christians are straying from the wisdom found in doctrine and long-held values. Southern Baptists support Zionism to the point that they encourage the slaughter of fellow Christians in Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, and Lebanon. Most Presbyterians support the practice of gay marriage, want homosexual ministers and church leaders, and push the general liberalization of Christianity into a soft, world-acceptable, way of living. Evangelicals support most anything their prolific, bouncy, best-selling pastors may tell them.
I have heard no Catholic priest criticize those who pray exclusively to The Virgin of Guadalupe, which I find disturbing. I have heard internal criticisms of all the practices listed above, but none in regard to the grotesque over emphases on “La Virgen de Guadalupe.” I was fortunate to live in Mexico for a few years and attended numerous churches. I found many very to be Christian and doctrinal, but many I found to be foreign, non-Christian, and freaky. It’s like Sun worshipers turning to the Moon to worship as their source of energy and power.
Maybe this pales in comparison to encouraging savage Israeli attacks on Christian neighborhoods in southern Lebanon, but at least we are able to criticize. Within the Catholic Church, is there room for criticism of Church practices? John Paul II visited Mexico on numerous occasions, and I don’t know if he found anything to be out of the ordinary.
It still seems strange to me that, upon his being shot in Rome, John Paul II’s first reaction was to pray – not to Christ – but to Mary. It’s as if he believed that Mary had the bigger, more understanding heart. I believe that when uneducated people see this type of example, they begin to think that they share more in common with the more sympathetic Mary than with Christ, hence the over-emphases on the Mother of Our Lord.
Michael O, you raise an excellent point:
While the problems of abortion, unjust warfare in Iraq, liberation theology and others are arguably more important for the Catholic Church to deal with, priests and bishops have at least spoken out and made their message clear to those with ears. So that while we are far from solution we at least have clarity and can work towards solution.
But on the issue of the possibility of excesses in devotion to Our Lady, I must confess I do not have sufficient clarity to answer you confidently. As a Catholic responding to your challenge on excesses, I have two options. One is to defend the practice as a legitimate part of the Catholic and Christian faith (for example restricting ordination to men) and the other is to denounce the practice as having to place in the authentic expression of Catholicism and Christianity (for example the widespread mistaken belief the Catholics deny salvation by God's grace).
That I am unsure which of the two paths to take is already cause for concern in of itself. I will share with you my speculations and conjectures on the understanding that I may be skating on very thin ice. I would also welcome any corrections from Matthew, Jay, Joe, WWWO etc...
Like you, I have almost never heard little if any internal criticism along the lines of excess devotion to Our Lady. I did find a few cautions against "maximalist tendencies" tucked away in some obscure theological texts when I was writing a paper (I took an introductory course in Catholic theology and did not do very well at all). I also twice came across some liturgical guidelines instructing choirs to keep "Marian hymns" out of the Sunday liturgy. On each of these occasions, the advice was ignored and the Marian hymns were sung. I believe the liturgical guidelines still acknowledged a place for Marian hymns outside of Sunday Mass (a Protestant equivalent might be "Joshua fought the Battle of Jericho" which rarely shows up on Sundays but often shows up at Christian camps).
What to make of the apparent silence? I would argue that the silence cannot be used to make a conclusion either way. The clergy rarely mentions contraception but the practice has no place in the life of a Catholic believer. But the clergy rarely mentions praying for the souls in purgatory and this practice is still considered fruitful and worthy.
I have run into issues that I consider abuses: The most offensive of which is the idea that Mary is more loving, generous, and merciful than Our Lord.
It has been explained to me that if a child wants a shiny new bike and asks Dad, and the Dad says no, then one can ask Mom and she'll manipulate Dad into saying yes (like Tula trying to go to college in My Big Fat Greek Wedding). I refuse to attribute even minor dysfunction in the families of this world to Our Lord.
I do, however, accept the idea that my generous Savior who wishes to shower me with blessing also wishes to use Mary as an instrument of his peace and foster a relationship of love and tenderness between us. I do this with my own children. I will often direct a younger child with a request to an older child so as to foster their relationship with one another. The biblical precedent for God acting upon the intercession human agents to deliver his mercy and blessing abounds. (The centurion with a sick servant, Moses interceding for Israel, and God telling Job's friends that they need Job to intercede for them)
I was reading some material in the Church library that I found nearly blasphemous. It told a supposedly "edifying tale" of a man who denounced Our Lord in exchange for gifts from the devil. The devil then asked the man to denounce the blessed virgin (since it was a lesser evil) but the man refused. Years later the man repented and asked forgiveness from Our Lord. Our Lord "of course" refused and turned his back on the penitent.
But the Blessed Virgin pleaded his case in solidarity with the poor soul before the back Our Lord. And like a reluctant son bearing the onslaught of a nagging mother, Our Lord relents and listens to his mother. I don't find this story edifying - I consider it an insult to the mercy of Our Lord. Though upon reflection, I suppose it does bear parallel with the story of Moses interceding for Israel or Zipporah doing a quick circumcision to prevent the Our Lord from slaying Moses.
If I were to write the ending, I would have Our Lord pouring his precious blood into a cup to prepare a remedy for the penitent soul. I would then depict Our Lord explaining that although he would gladly shed his last drop of blood for the lost soul, the lost soul flees from him because of ignorant and misplaced fear which knows nothing of the mercy of God. He could then pass the cup to Mary and instruct her to bring it to the man as he will not run from her. Mary would then bring the lost man the precious blood of Our Lord, explain how it was intentionally shed by her son for him, and lead him out of his ignorance.
I would say that at best the medieval devotions have been badly misunderstood and require much reinterpretation to remain edifying today. Then again that could be said of much of Saint Thomas' Aquinas writings particularly on the role of women and paying "the marriage debt".
MO and Burnt
I remember when I was in school, I was involved with a Marian group that was really encourged by the diocesan priest.
The older Fransiscans were very concerned about our growing fervor (I think they were all named Michael O) and discouraged the group as the diocesan was promoted out of that parish. Not once did I question my relationship with Jesus but I did have growth in my relationship with Mary. Out of obedience we allowed the group to fade realizing that the well intended Franciscans had a better feel for spiritual growth than we did.
I've visited Mexico but never lived there. I can believe that there are some faithful of any faith that take different journeys to the cross. I can believe Mike that some may appear to have "too much" Marian fervor but I guarantee you that if you ask those devout Marians who endured the passion and resurrection for our sins they would all answer emphatically Jesus Christ.
In Love
when we were one
Burnt, Wwwo (a.k.a. Pre-Pentecost),
Thanks for your answers. I find it encouraging that you've experienced some sort of limitation from priests regarding devotion to Our Lady. If I recall correctly, I've read that Martin Luther had stated that those who pray the rosary had to be of the strongest faith, as he thought many Christians were straying from the fundamentals of the Christianity via their focus on Our Lady.
There is no more rewarding relationship that that of a human being to Jesus Christ; that direct relationship needs no additional element to quench our thirst for the Truth. This is what I want future Christian generations to remember and experience. There is no need to fill in the holes left by one’s relationship to Christ, as Christ fills all.
That being said, I feel more of a devotion to Our Lady each passing day. I appreciate more her role in the ministry of Christ, His passion, and the Churches start here on earth.
Michael O.
Michael O,
Just for the record, I do remember reading material that roundly condemned the idea that the Blessed Virgin, unlike Our Lord, did not find sins offensive and that. It denounced as blasphemy the idea that with the aid of Mary we could find favor with God without repenting of our sins because they did not offend her.
That this was written presumes that some abuses must have taken place. Though like you I find it odd that in almost every area of our devotional life (prayer, scripture reading, mass, preaching, taking the sacraments etc...) we are encouraged both practically and theoretically to keep things in balance, look out for the dangers or excess on either side, and to otherwise scrutinize our ways.
But when it comes to Marian devotion, there is almost no call to scrutinize our ways and undertake the difficult task of discerning and maintaining proper balance. We warn our parishoners about "making bad confessions" or "attending mass poorly" or "receiving communion unworthily". But no warnings whatsoever when it comes to Marian devotions - almost as if the possibility of abuse does not exist.
I've yet to meet personally a Catholic who warned about the dangers of excess in Marian devotion - so I tend to keep my concerns to myself. Though I would suspect that any practice which is "a priori" treated as above and beyond criticism runs risk of falling into excess on one side or another.
Protestants of course issue plenty of warnings against excess - but I would suspect that most Protestants (and many Catholics as well) could pray the rosary three times a day without even coming close to risking danger. They might even be surprised at how much of it comes directly from the scriptures (about 90%). This makes it more "scriptural" than most Protestant sermons!
I cannot speak for South America but I would guess that in North America, worrying about excess Marian devotion would be like Pentecostals worrying about over-intellectualizing the faith or Bible Scholars worrying about making the faith overly emotional. Highly unneccessary and all too common.
Though I do share your concern that Marian devotion seems to be above and beyond all practical scrutiny. Considering a practice beyond scrutiny is after all what tripped up the Pharisees.
After reading my post and contemplating the past, I realize that the older Franciscans didn't directly tell me that the Marian group was out of sorts. This was relayed to me by other members so I'm not certain of the validity of the opinion.
In Love
when we were one
In Mexico people arent foreign to praying to Christ himself its just that in Latin American countries women are very important and without The Virgin Mary there would not be Christ. Should she not get some recogniztion?
Andrea,
Of course Our Blessed Mother should get recognition. All generations will and should call her blessed. We should credit her with our salvation at least as much as we blame Eve for our troubles.
What I object to is devotional materials suggesting that Our Blessed Mother is more loving and merciful than Our Lord. I object to the unofficial suggesttions that Our Lord ignores our prayers because we are sinful but that we can still get what we want through the Blessed Virgin without needing to repent of our sins. Is the Lord less concerned with our welfare than his Mother?
I wholeheartedly embrace the idea that Our Lord wishes to work through Mary as an instrument of his grace and mercy and is greatly pleased when we express thankfulness for the work he does through her.
But I do object to the idea that devotions to Mary are beyond the need for scrutiny. In all other areas of our life we are encouraged to subject our actions to scrutiny. Even in our devotion to Our Lord, Pope Benedict XVI cautions (in his first encyclical) that if we attempt to love God without loving our neighbor as well, we run the risk of living a faith which is merely correct but not kind or charitable.
As Michael O puts it, excesses in Marian devotion probably pales in comparison to other problems in the Church but in those areas we are at least allowed to point them out and repent.
I see almost no calls to reign in imbalances in this area - which suggests there are either no problems or that they are being ignored. In almost all other areas of Church life, the faithful call to reign in imbalances and issues get dealt with though it may take time.
That being said, I think there at least a dozen more important issues in the North American Church that need dealing with.
Andrea,
Yes, I agree with you Mary should be recognized for her great humility and service to God and all mankind. However, I disagree with your assertion "...without The Virgin Mary there would not be Christ." Andrea you must understand that Jesus did not HAVE to be born to Mary, but God CHOSE to use her in that way, and Mary submitted her will to God's. Because God chose to honor her so should we...just as we should our own mothers. I think the concern in general is that there are excesses to which some tend to minimize the mercy of Christ in contrast to Mary. We have to remember that any prayers or petitions to Mary on our behalf are only possible because of Christ's mediation. Other than that I think that great love and honor should be shown toward Mary as she is the ark that God chose to carry our Savior. She is definitely set apart, by God's grace, and serves as a model for us as we "work out our salvation with fear and trembling."
In Christ,
Matthew
Matthew
Now how would Jesus be born if there was no Mary?
In Love
when we were one
Michael O wrote:
That being said, I feel more of a devotion to Our Lady each passing day. I appreciate more her role in the ministry of Christ, His passion, and the Churches start here on earth.
You might find want to check out 20 meditations on the mysteries of the Rosary that I posted on another blog over the course of a month. The aim was to provide reflections that would be accessible to an Evangelical Protestant. I don't know if I succeeded in the attempt though.
About the "concern" that Catholics from the Latin Americas might have a weaker faith because of an excess devotion to the Blessed Virgin rather than towards Our Lord, I offer the following piece of (admittedly anecdotal) evidence.
My children go to Catholic school. I rarely see any of their classmates or teachers at Mass with any kind of consistency, except for...
(drum roll please)
The family that immigrated from Venezuela. I see them quite regularly.