Dickens' "Carol Philosophy"

But I am sure I have always thought of Christmas
time, when it has come round -- apart from the
veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything
belonging to it can be apart from that -- as a
good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant
time: the only time I know of, in the long calendar
of the year, when men and women seem by one consent
to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think
of people below them as if they really were
fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race
of creatures bound on other journeys. And therefore,
uncle, though it has never put a scrap of gold or
silver in my pocket, I believe that it has done me
good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless it!

This is what Dickens referred to as the "Carol Philosophy" and we would do well to adhere to it. Dickens was often written off as overly sentimental and A Christmas Carol may seem to some a perfect example of this. Even many Christians may be inclined to consider the 'Carol Philosophy' an overly 'bourgeois' conception, failing to address the deep horror of sin in the world and thus failing to recognise the immensity of its "sacred origin": a God descending into the midst of the world in order to be crucified for our sins. Perhaps Dickens' optimism clouds this from view, perhaps A Christmas Carol is simply a 'feel-good' story that warms our hearts without us having to stare too deeply into the misery of the world and realise the radical social changes necessary to bring about greater justice.

Yet such thoughts would be, in my view, mistaken. Of course, the vast scale of poverty on earth requires more than just almsgiving and charitable interventions at Christmas time. But if we focus only on grand-scale achievements it is all too easy to neglect the possibilities we have to exercise charity in the here and now, in our very own spheres of life.

A Christmas Carol is not a mere 'feel-good' narrative at all. It mirrors the Christian belief that for man to be redeemed, a supernatural intervention is necessary. No less than the visitation of the three spirits could redeem Scrooge. Without the spirits it would be inconceivable that Scrooge should undergo the massive change of heart which occurs at the end of the story. A man like Scrooge, who has cut himself off from fellowship with humankind and hardened his heart against joy needs a tremendous 'jolt'. And this is precisely what Christianity proclaims: metanoia, a complete turning of one's whole being, is possible only through grace.

To close oneself off from the source of all love and joy is to condemn oneself to the hellish misery of those spirits who find themselves condemned to walk abroad in death as they failed to do in life."It is required of every man," the ghost returned, "that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide; and, if that spirit goes not forth in life, it is condemned to do so after death". The agony they endure as in the afterlife is a direct consequence of their failures to be charitable towards their fellow man in this life: "the misery with them all was, clearly, that they sought to interfere, for good, in human matters, and had lost the power for ever." This is a stark warning for us all not to waste our opportunities in the here and now to truly love our neighbour. This does not mean we need to embark on grandiose plans to 'save the world'. As Dickens puts it through the medium of Jacob Marley: "any Christian spirit working kindly in its little sphere, whatever it may be, will find its mortal life too short for its vast means of usefulness."

So we would all do well to heed the message that A Christmas Carol imparts. And, in whatever sphere of life we find ourselves in, to endeavour to be kind and charitable to our neighbours - our friends, family, workmates, all those we encounter in our daily lives - and know that even should we do this for the rest of our lives, it would still not exhaust our capacity for good. Let us then "honour Christmas in [our] hearts, and try to keep it all the year."

Merry Christmas.

Aquinas' Mariology (2)

From the earlier post looking at Aquinas’ and the popular view of Mary, significant differences will already have been noticed. Indeed one can sense Aquinas’ impatience with the popular views prevailing during his time in certain of his words. One such example can be found in Aquinas’ discussion of whether Mary was cleansed completely from the ‘inflammation of sin’ (she was not says Aquinas, though its effects were rendered harmless), when he remarks: “We can, then, ascribe to the blessed Virgin perfect virtue and grace’s full intensity without having to claim for her every occasion of perfect virtue.”(S.T. 3a, 27, q.3) Aquinas keeps the scriptural accounts of Mary always in view, and all the grace given to her is always given to her in such a way that its use is always “consonant with her way of life.” (S.T. 3a, 27, q.5) Thus Aquinas is clearly not representative of the popular view which would attribute to Mary every possible “occasion of perfect virtue” such as describing her as full of Biblical knowledge and so forth, in fact regarding this point, Aquinas expressly states that she did not have the use of wisdom as regards teaching for this did not befit her female sex (!). (S.T. 3a, 27, q. 5) Aquinas' 'sexism' (in scare quotes because it's a bit of an anachronism) notwithstanding, the principle feature of his Mariology is that he does not wish to attribute anything to Mary which would not accord with her own admission that she is but a “lowly handmaid” of the Lord.

A reply given to a certain Friar Gerard when asked whether it was true that the Blessed Virgin repeated the words “a sword will pierce my heart” is characteristic of Aquinas’ attitude to what he saw as the excessive Marian devotion of his time: “In my opinion such frivolities ought not to be preached, seeing there are so many subjects for preaching that are absolutely true.” (quoted in H. Graef, 'Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion') Aquinas follows his teacher St. Albert the Great whose Mariology represented the authentic tradition and who maintained the close link between Mariology and Christology: “the cause of her veneration, of her glorification, is not her own person, but Christ.” (quoted in Graef) In this Aquinas differs greatly from the popular view which increasingly developed an emphasis on Mary as an individual with no attention paid to either her union with Christ or with the Church. On the other hand, whilst Aquinas’ Mariology clearly differed significantly from the popular view there are certain points of contact between them. His Mariology may have been far more restrained but he certainly had a strong devotion to her. He had no problem placing her above the angels and would surely have been happy to call her the ‘Queen of Angels’ and ‘Mother of Mercy’. She was ‘in some way’ Mediatrix of all graces and one could profitably pray to her to intercede on one’s behalf.

Having surveyed both Aquinas’ Mariology and the popular view, typical in his time and perhaps paralleling the excesses of Marian devotion that Protestants so fear, it is clear that Aquinas cannot be said to be a representative of the latter. He did not share the popular enthusiasm for the various myths and legends associated with the person of Mary and he was theologically far more reticent about Mary’s role in salvation, always wishing to maintain the union with Christ that gave Mary her significance. The popular view on the other hand concentrated more and more on Mary as an individual in her own right, to the extent that she appeared at times to take on a role of equivalent value to that of Jesus Christ. It might not be going to far to say that had Aquinas’ more sober approach been able to better infiltrate the popular mindset, the Reformers’ backlash against what they saw as the excessive and unbiblical attention given to Mary may not have been so great, and may not have caused them to abandon Mariology altogether as they eventually occurred in the Protestant tradition (Luther at least, had quite a 'high' Mariology). Aquinas’ entire attitude towards Mariology is encapsulated perfectly in his closing sentence from his lecture in Naples: “So therefore is the Virgin blessed, but far more blessed is the fruit of her womb.” (Exposition of the Angelic Salutation)

A Sober Mariology: Thomas' view of Mary (1)

Medieval man’s attitude towards Mary was one of great devotion, she was seen as the ‘Mother of Mercy’ and mediator between them and Christ. It was felt that they could unreservedly commend themselves to her as their advocate. This view of Mary as the Mother of Mercy arose in part due to the emphasis on Jesus as judge, who was often portrayed as stern and unyielding in regard to sinners. This notion grew to such an extent that Mary was apparently seen as, having power over the bestowal of divine Mercy itself, as is shown in the 13th century Mappa Mundi in Hereford Cathedral. In fact, Mary was held in such high esteem that she was considered second in dignity only to God himself. With the growth of the Marian cult it is not surprising that various myths should have grown up around her. The rather scant account of her one can find in the canonical gospels was supplemented by various other stories which were taken from such works as the Book of James.

One can find far fuller accounts of her life in works such as The Golden Legend by Jacobus de Voragine. These accounts present Mary’s life in such a way as to parallel certain gospel narratives. This can be seen in the account given of Mary’s parents Anne and Joachim. Joachim receives an ‘annunciation’ of his own with an Angel telling him that his wife shall bear a child and that “she will be consecrated to the Lord from infancy and filled with the Holy Spirit from her mother’s womb.” Popular belief in Mary’s Immaculate Conception was unequivocal. Some theologians such as Aquinas rejected it, as had others including St. Anselm and even St. Bernard of Clairvaux who was otherwise renowned for his Marian devotion. Thus a popular legend arose sometime after the death of Bernard of Clairvaux that after his death there appeared upon him a black mark and it was widely believed that he was in Purgatory for having, in this case, spoken ill of the Virgin Mary. There are also tales of Mary’s childhood which of course does not feature at all in the New Testament: at the age of three she was presented at the temple and was able to mount “to the top without help from anyone, as if she were already fully grown up” and thereafter remained at the temple and had daily divine visions and visitations from angels. Mary had every possible perfection attributed her, despite there being no scriptural warrant for the myths that grew around her. During her life too, Mary excelled in every way and was even considered a great teacher of wisdom, proficient in knowledge of the Bible.

As well as the various stories about her life, there were also myriad stories about miracles that had been worked by the Blessed Virgin which fit in with the popular view of her as the ultimate intercessor. One such tale is that of a thief who had a deep devotion to the Blessed Mary and was miraculously kept from execution by the Virgin, after having being caught red-handed. Upon being released he is said to have entered a monastery and lived out his life in service to her. It is not surprising that such a tale would evoke a great sense of trust in Mary as Intercessor, seeing as she goes to the aid even of criminals who show devotion to her. In these folktales and miracle stories, however, it can be seen that Mary “undeniably usurps the unique privileges of Christ.” (Maria Warner, Alone of All Her Sex). These tales about Mary infiltrated the popular imagination, in particular through the medium of art, the visual image being readily accessible to all people regardless of education. The Scrovegni Chapel in Padua, Italy features various frescos by Giotto which detail the story of Mary and her infancy as elaborated in The Golden Legend.

This sort of hyper-mariology is of course one which many protestants tend to attribute to Catholics. Of course, nowadays, Marian devotion has decreased a great deal, but it isn't difficult to find protestant polemics which focus on such excesses and it must be said that it is probable that some Catholics do in fact tend towards superstition when it comes to Mary.

In this sense then, it is fruitful to look at Thomas' Mariology as a paradigm for Catholic views on the Mother of God: one which is always christocentric.

Aquinas’ Mariology is planted firmly within the context of his Christology - there is no separate section devoted exclusively to Mary – and is to be found in the Tertia Pars of the Summa. This in itself is a significant factor which points the way to an understanding of his entire Mariological outlook. Aquinas’ treatment of the theological importance of Mary cannot be divorced from his Christology – Mary is never spoken of other than in terms of what relation such and such a doctrine about her has to Christ. His Mariology is also based firmly on the accounts of Mary given by the Evangelists, and the opinion of Church Fathers, he does not look to apocryphal accounts of Mary in order to supplement his work.

Perhaps the best known aspect of Aquinas’ Mariology is his rejection of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It was a much debated issue during the thirteenth century as it was not yet a dogmatically defined article of faith for Catholic believers. It was of course dogmatically defined in 1854 by Pope Pius IX. Aquinas rejects the doctrine that Mary was sanctified from the very moment of her conception and was instead sanctified whilst still in the womb (S.T. 3a, 27, 1) Now, at first sight it may seem that it matters little whether she was sanctified from the moment of conception or whether this took place a short time after, and indeed the controversy of the time was sometimes characterised as a 'controversy about a few moments' (Karl Rahner). The issue at stake, however, was indeed one of importance. Aquinas’ difficulty lay in his inability to see how if Mary was indeed sanctified from the moment of conception, she could still be said to have been redeemed by Christ. If she had never been subject to original sin, she could not be said to have been liberated from it. This, Aquinas felt, would “derogate from the dignity of Christ” who is the universal Saviour. (S.T. 3a, 27, 3) Likewise in his discussion over whether Mary was completely cleansed from the ‘inflammation of sin’ he objects on the grounds that whilst this assertion may seem to be part of the dignity of Mary it is somewhat demeaning to Christ, for only he can be declared to be completely free from sin. (He does state, however, that whilst it was not wholly removed, it was rendered harmless.)(S.T. 3a, 27, 3)

Whilst Aquinas was unable to see how Mary, despite being immaculately conceived, could still be said to have been redeemed (It was the Franciscan John Duns Scotus who championed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, arguing that the Blessed Virgin Mary was indeed redeemed by Christ and in fact could be said to have been the person most radically redeemed of all for to prevent someone from falling is better than to pick them up once they have fallen), he nevertheless asserted without hesitation that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin whether mortal or venial. Aquinas also states that she received a greater fullness of grace than all others and also argues that Mary was Mediatrix of all graces insofar as “by giving birth to him she brought, in a certain way, grace to all.” (S.T. 3a, 27, 5) In this minimal sense, I don't think many could have serious problems with the notion of Mary as mediatrix of grace.

Aquinas’ Exposition of the Angelic Salutation (Ave Maria), a Lenten Sermon probably dating from 1273, also helps illuminate our understanding of his Mariology. Aquinas states that the Angel’s salutation reveals her to exceed even the angels in fullness of grace, purity and familiarity with God. Mary is also said to be above all other saints for “she performed the works of all virtues whereas the saints exhibit particular ones.” Aquinas’ discussion of Mary’s virginity also reflects his Christological concerns and one of his principle arguments for Mary’s virginity is that it is fitting that Christ should be born of a virgin. He holds that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Christ and also in partu (during the actual birth of Christ) and this is because it was appropriate that it should be so when one considers whose birth is in question, and because to lose her virginity would lessen the honour due to the Mother of God. Mary is also held to have remained a virgin throughout the rest of her life.

The whole discussion concerning Mary’s virginity shows clearly Aquinas’ concern to place Mary within a Christological context, that she was a virgin throughout her life has more to do with her being the Mother of God than with any considerations about her own person and any ‘honour’ due to her, although this too is taken into account. Aquinas states that it was fitting that Mary should have been espoused and that she truly was married against those who would claim otherwise. His final section on Mariology concerns the Annunciation to the Blessed Virgin, wherein he tells us that the Annunciation was made to inform Mary so that her free consent “which was petitioned during the course of the announcement” should stand “for the consent of all men.” (S.T, 3a, 30, 1) Mary is seen here as acting on behalf of the whole of mankind, not acting in her own right, so to speak. Aquinas can be seen to hold a ‘high’ view of the Blessed Virgin Mary, but it remains strictly within Biblical bounds and he makes sure always to subject her to Christ, who is the Universal Redeemer.