Mary: The true face of woman

When we speak of women within Western culture, it is common to associate the feminine with Mary; however, as Saint Paul VI states: *”The Church, when considering the long history of Marian piety, rejoices in noting the continuity of the cultic fact. But it does not get caught up in representative schemes of various cultural eras or in the particular anthropological concepts underlying them. Furthermore, it is well aware that some expressions of this cult, perfectly valid in themselves, are less suitable for men from different times and civilizations. Finally, we wish to emphasize that our era, no less than previous ones, is called upon to weigh its own understanding of reality against the Word of God and, with regard to our subject, to confront its anthropological concepts and the issues arising from them with the figure of the Virgin Mary as presented in the Gospel. Thus, a reading of Sacred Scripture, under the influence of the Holy Spirit and taking into account human sciences and contemporary world situations, will lead to discovering that Mary can well serve as a model for what men of our time aspire to.”* (Marialis Cultus nn. 36-37)Therefore, by looking at the face most akin to God’s face, we can see in the Gospel Virgin the mirror of womanhood for our culture.Mary, a Hebrew woman who is an integral part of a people dominated by the Roman Empire, presents herself today as the most influential woman in the world, both within and outside Christianity. In contemporary Christianity, expressions to speak of Mary’s femininity are condensed as ‘archetypal essence of womanhood’ (Ratzinger), where in her feminine form we recognize ‘the femininity of faith’ and even the ‘personal synthesis of the Woman principle’. We ask: can we speak of Mariology without speaking of femininity, and vice versa? To answer negatively, we must resist a current trend: the elimination of the female element from the Christian message. Contemporary global culture is marked by male activism in which, with the abolition of spatial barriers, global manufacturing planning negates the possibility of creation, even reducing common good choices to ‘mathematics of reality’. In this context, the Western male principle is challenged by the feminine principle inspired by the Marian mystery.In the Catholic mariological perspective, the reciprocity between woman and faith is revealed when we affirm Mary as the first disciple, the mystagogus, and teacher of the Apostles. However, the title of ’emancipated woman’ gains ground when seeking to assert that Mother of Jesus freely and consciously opposed a male-dominated culture. Let us be wounded by this affirmation and build the foundations that may eventually lead to deeper conclusions. The feminine vision of Mary is based on difference and relation. When we read Gen 2:24-25, we encounter the sexual difference that shapes our understanding of creation as the Creator’s will. This imperative asserts the diversity in active and reciprocal collaboration between man and woman. The duality of sexes as creation contrasts sharply with the elimination of diversity, for women cannot be understood as equal subjects to men and treated as inferior. Alternatively, emphasize the condition of subordination of women in such a way to create a contestation where the antagonist, the opposition of the feminine is the male. This view targets men, masculinity as the subject of contention rather than placing structural social sin as the oppressive agent. Woman is not the opposition of man but a reciprocal collaborator. When we align ourselves with St. Paul as in Gal 3:27ss, we find a transcendence of rivalry, opposition, and enmity in Christ, not an annulment of masculinity or femininity. The mariological culture of difference and cooperation has offered a more balanced horizon in a world of contrasts. The criterion for woman is not the opposition to man but collaboration that does not allow the dissolution of specificities in equality.Another element disturbing the balance between man and woman is the attempt at liberation from biological conditionalities aiming to remove differences between sexes, placing them as mere effects of historical-cultural conditioning. Reducing men and women to a uniform mass where biological difference holds no significant impact is an ideology that distorts even the ‘feminine genius’. Man and Woman are ontologically, psychologically, and physically diverse in the relational ‘uniduality’. We must emphasize that we speak of feminine and masculine not as watertight compartments but as bridges of reciprocal contribution that does not homogenize but enriches the common good of God’s first commandment: “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28).While we do not wish to challenge the free development of women’s presence in the world, including the theological realm, complementarity finds its realization in the mystery of Mary that transcends motherhood. The maternal healing of Mary, within Mariology, reflects the law of humility that bears the fruit of the Word. The implications of this law are later developed in the affirmations of the Church Fathers when speaking of the maternal mystery of the earth. This vision of Mary, now very important in the concept of the common home, guides us towards a feminine view that consumes itself so that the earth may bear fruit. Although this contrasts with certain claims, it remains an element to consider when discussing the construction of female personality. Without reducing women to motherhood, we cannot deny that the potential femininity of motherhood structures female personality deeply. This almost innate capacity ‘to be for another’ is rooted in biblical Mariology in the view of women as ‘companions of men’. The male principle of activity and self-determination is balanced by passive renunciation of herself in favor of another. We do not suggest here an annulment of feminine possibilities but complementarity within unity, for only thus does subordinacy not become servile. The question of female and male identity has been present throughout the history of Christianity. It is neither entirely innovative nor free from conceptual history: *ratio* and *emotio*. These elements view Mary as a celestial Mother, as the heart of heaven, and, though initially an anachronism, today they contrast with the rationalizing and puritanical activism that permeates social media. If these concepts were born to elevate Christianity’s rationalization by stripping its center of emotion, we now witness, in opposition, the rejection of radical Enlightenment rationalization that seeks to dominate Western culture by stripping Christian social fabric of its unity between faith and reason, for a one-sided view does not permit balance.Being a woman is not the opposite of not being a man. The biblical complementarity affirmed is found in the mediation women perform, as mothers, between the world and the child. Female authority is deduced from the relationship between various family elements with their center of unity, which is typically the woman. The Mariological vision of the difference between man and woman and their complementarity is necessarily comprehensive. We intend to affirm that only a view of broader relationships can illustrate a female perspective that is not deprived of a horizon of totality, typical of solipsism.Can a woman from Galilee in the first century be considered a model of femininity today? An affirmative answer will hinge on the anthropological vision of Mariology proposed for the third millennium: Mary offered an active and responsible consent to God’s plan, which is pivotal to human history. In this sense, the Christian woman finds in Mary a model for participating in community decisions. Mary made a courageous choice (Lk 1:38) that entailed embracing marital values that remained paradoxical to her virginity but were part of God’s call. This balances religious life. By proclaiming the Magnificat, Mary remembers God who brings down the mighty from their thrones and glorifies the lowly and oppressed. Thus, Mary is in opposition to passive resignation and religious alienation. The experience of dispossession (poverty) and suffering contrasts with a view of weakness, especially psychological, masked by medication, as it presents as a model the strong woman who does not give up on fulfilling her calling. The expansion of Mary’s motherhood (Jn 19:25-27) over the disciples positions her as a secure point of support amidst misunderstanding and at the same time the female capacity to embrace the different in her Son (Acts 1:14). In summary, Mary is Woman, Virgin, Wife, and Mother where resides the archetype of women’s personal dignity, regenerating with her life in the light of faith the view of women as weak, passive, dominated, or servile. The anthropological depth of Mary’s figure continues to bear fruit, recreating generations of women who, throughout history on their pilgrimage of faith, find understanding in Her, whom the disciples called Mother.