MR. EVELYN WAUGH, I am glad to see, now confines
my boobydom to theology, but on this particular theological point I venture to think I am being fairly sensible. Mr. Waugh writes that 'the doctrine of Mary's co-Redeemership does not approximate to deification in any sense reconcilable with the Christian creeds.' Of course, as I said last week, in any defini- tion of the dogma Mary would not be proclaimed a god; tech- nically and theologically she would be said to be human. But the fact remains that the dogma would be attributing to Mary what historically has always been regarded as a Divine func- tion. 'There is one Mediator between God and men,' said St. Paul, 'the man Christ Jesus.' No doubt in view of this text Mary would be made a Redemptress on a lower level than Christ. Still, when you make a creature a co-Redeemer with God, I should have thought that you are in a real sense deify- ing that creature, even if at the same time as you so exalt her you emphasise her humanity. And many Roman Catholics, even worse theologians than I am, will regard Mary in effect as divine. The Abbot of Downside recently wondered if 'Catho- lics should ask themselves whether the agitation for still further dogmatic definition in [Mariology] is entirely free from spiritual self-seeking.' That seems to me an odd way of putting it, but its meaning is clear. Perhaps Mr. Waugh will take the hint and lead an agitation against further Mariological definitions. After all in Munificentissimus Deus the Pope referred at some length to the requests and petitions of the faithful for the definition of the dogma of the Assumption, and there is, presumably, similar scope for counter-movements.
Previous page
