INTRODUCTION

1. From Rome, where we are celebrating our 208th General Chapter, we wish to address first of all the brothers and sisters of the Order who share with us the grace and the joy of being called to be Servants of Mary. We also respectfully address ourselves to the local Churches where our Order is present and in which it offers its service in cooperation with the bishops, priests and laity, bearing its specific witness. For a number of reasons which we shal1 mention shortly, we would like to establish a dialogue most particularly with the dozens of religious families of men and women who live their consecration to Christ looking to Mary as the example which guides their lives. Finally, we wish to include in our dialogue any disciple of Jesus who, like ourselves, venerates in the Blessed Virgin the “Mother of the Lord” (Lk 1:43 ) and any man or woman, believer or non-believer, who acknowledges Mary of Nazareth to be a “great protagonist of history” 1 because of the breadth and value of her “presence” in human civilisation. All of you can offer us the enlightenment of your faith or the witness of your culture, and in return, our humble words can be an opportunity for renewed attention to the Mother of Jesus.

3. In this letter we do not intend to treat of the person and mission of Our Lady in the history of salvation in an organic and doctrinal way. This is not the place, and we are not qualified to do so. But presupposing a correct reading of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent magisterium of the popes, particularly the Apostolic Exhortation Marialis cultus, and taking account of the most well-founded findings of modern Mariological research, we should like only to hold a cordial dialogue with you on a number of duties which, in our view, await religious institutes and local Churches in relation to promoting devotion to the Mother of the Lord.

THE NATURE AND AMBIT OF THE CRISIS IN MARIAN DEVOTION

4. In order to identify and better understand these duties we feel it necessary to examine the recent crisis which has manifested itself in the area of Marian devotion and which has been felt to varying degrees within our institutes and local Churches. It began toward the end of the 1950's and in 1975, the Holy Year of Reconciliation, a solution was in sight.

5. If we take a dispassionate look at that period, we see that as far as the magisterium of the Church was concerned, there was no crisis or lack of attention to Marian devotion. Indeed, it was during those years that the Second Vatican Council (1962- 1965), Paul VI (1963-1978) and several episcopal conferences produced some of the finest and most important Marian documents in the history of the Church. 6 Neither was there a crisis in the liturgical field because, as Paul VI himself affirmed, “the post-conciliar renewal has...properly considered the Blessed Virgin in the mystery of Christ and, in harmony with tradition, has recognised the singular place that belongs to her in Christian worship as the holy Mother of God and the worthy Associate of the Redeemer.” 7 Neither was there a crisis in the devotional attitudes of the majority of the faithful, who continued to lovingly revere the Mother of Christ, and to appeal with confidence to her motherly intercession.
      It is important to emphasise that there was no crisis or lessening of Marian devotion in the Eastern Churches; any proposal that their ancient and intense veneration of the glorious Theotokos should be in any way minimised in theory or in practice would rather have caused surprise and astonishment.

6. This crisis was above all intellectual in character. It was also a kind of “rejection crisis”: the progress that had been made in biblical and patristic research, the emphasis placed on certain aspects of Mariology (anthropological, ecumenical, ecclesiological and pneumatological) as well as the change in some ways of approaching the figure of the Blessed Virgin, such as the preference given to service rather than privilege, to considering her as a member of a community rather than as an individual, were not always properly understood and applied. In not a few cases, this led to a rejection of authentic “Marian values” which were over-hastily deemed to be outmoded and stale. We believe that all that was needed for these “values” to take on renewed splendour would have been to place them in a renewed theological framework. The lack of any calm and thoughtful bridge between the critical reflections of scholars and the immediate expectations of pastors gave rise to many painful consequences in the field of worship. For example:

      — The danger of doctrinal maximation was rightly denounced, even by the Supreme Pontiffs,8 but this only led many to neglect the truths of the faith concerning the Blessed Virgin and thus made them incapable of perceiving that “having entered deeply into the history of salvation, Mary...unites in her person and re-echoes the most important doctrines of the faith.” 9 This denunciation led to a doctrinal and practical minimalism which was wholly sterile for the life of the spirit.

      — Also denounced were the risks inherent in any change regarding the central axis of Christian worship namely, to the Father through Christ in the Spirit. This led many people to the idea that devotion to the Blessed Virgin was a marginal matter, or even a more or less evident deviation from genuine Christian piety. Such people did not perceive that devotion to Mary, the woman open to the Spirit, the faithful disciple of Christ, ever ready to do the Father's will, finds its true significance and genuine expression only within the context of “Christian worship”; neither did they grasp the fact that Marian devotion, because of the Blessed Virgin's radical involvement in the event of the Incarnation of the Word and in the Paschal Mystery, is not only not a marginal matter, but is an intrinsic element of worship, as Paul VI declared.10

      — Many shortcomings were pointed out in the expressions of Marian devotion which are inevitably subject to the wear and tear of time and changes in the cultural environment; but with very few exceptions, little was done to replace the outmoded forms with more effective and contemporary ones. With regard to pious Marian prayer forms, expressions of liturgical piety and those of popular piety were set up in contradiction to one another rather than harmonised;11 devotional practices and exercises that still contained perennial values were abandoned on account of their formal deficiencies. It is not an exaggeration to say that in this field, there has been uprooting without planting, pulling down without building up.

      — Stress was placed on the need to face up to the most urgent needs of the modern world, even in terms of worship and according to its own structures: the evangelisation of peoples and working for peace, the struggle against all forms of oppression and injustice, illiteracy and poverty, unemployment and hunger, racism and the alienation of women, the iniquitous discrepancies between rich and poor nations, and the exploitation of poor countries by wealthier ones. Justly, emphasis was placed on the fact that genuine Christianity cannot fail to heed the groans of the suffering and the cries of the oppressed. But some wrongly took this to mean that devotion to the Mother of the Lord distracted the Christian from these primary commitments; that is to say, they failed, at least initially, to grasp the prophetic value of the figure of the Blessed Virgin in relation to the Church's commitment to the authentic liberation and development of all people.

7. Because of its intellectual nature, the crisis in devotion to the Blessed Virgin also affected the religious institutes with a Marian tradition and spirituality, sometimes quite seriously. The Marian features of the tradition of the various institutes were inevitably caught in the crosscurrents of criticism that we have already mentioned: devotional exercises that often dated back to the origins of the institutes were questioned, currents of spirituality that had guided the life of generations of religious were challenged on the grounds that they did not fit in, it was said, with the ideas expressed in the Council's documents; the “Marian character” of apostolic action became less incisive and sermons on the Blessed Virgin less frequent; exhortations to imitate Our Lady's example and manifestations of joy at the realisation of being her children were more restrained. Some smirked at the “Marian practices” that gave a rhythm to the life of the community and supported the personal piety of individual members. Sometimes the very name of the institute was rejected because it was considered too “ devotional.” Other examples could be given.
      Not all of these criticisms were without foundation, but often no way was found to confront the rightful claims of tradition and the demands of renewal. This led to tensions, created a malaise, caused many religious to become discouraged and in some cases even provoked an identity crisis.

Overcoming the crisis.
Mary at the heart of the Christian mystery.

8. We have already pointed out that the difficulties relating to Marian devotion did not affect the vital structures of the Church: the magisterium, the liturgy, the feelings of the faithful. The powerful opposition of these structures to the onslaught of the crisis was confirmation of how firmly rooted was the ancient and vital insight of the Church according to which the figure of Mary, while not the centre of Christianity, is central to it: she is at the very heart of the mystery of the Incarnation and at the heart of the Hour of the Paschal Mystery. This, not in virtue of self-persuasion on the part of Christians, but because of the Father's omniscient plan and Christ's own desire.

She stands at the heart of the Incarnation

9. The doctrine is well known. In the Constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium, we read: “The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation shonld be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in bringing about death, so also a woman should contribute to life. This is preeminently true of the Mother of Jesus, who gave to the world the Life that renews all things.”12 There is no other Christ the Saviour but the Word-made-flesh, Jesus of Nazareth, born of Mary through the work of the Spirit. The Christ who rules over history, who has brought peace between heaven and earth through his blood shed on the cross (see Col 1:20) and who “shall come to judge the living and the dead” when he last appears,13 was born of woman (see Gal 4:4): a true man who, like every other man, must thank his mother for the gift of life on earth.
      This is why Paul VI, reflecting on the mystery of the Incarnation, was able to speak the following grave and seemingly bold words: “If we really wish to be Christians, we must be Marian. In other words, we have to acknowledge the essential, vital and providential relationship that unites Our Lady to Jesus and which opens up for us the path that leads to him.”14 These remarks were in reply to a precise question: “How did Christ come among us?”15 This was asked after having made the point, in harmony with the Bible, that he “came to us from Mary; we have received him from her...! He is a man like us; he is our brother through the ministry of the motherhood of Mary” 16 and after having examined the nature and the importance of the fiat of the Blessed Virgin who was not a purely passive instrument in God's hands, but cooperated in the salvation of humanity with a free faith and obedience.17 If we examine these words carefully, they are not so much praise of the Blessed Virgin as they are a warning to believers not to subvert the facts of the Father's plan of salvation, not to detach the blessed Fruit from the holy Root, and not to separate the eternal Word from the womb which accepted it and from the heart that sheltered it.
      Because of her radical participation in the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word, the Blessed Virgin is intimately related to the whole history of salvation. As the holy monk John Damascene wrote, “Just the name, Theotokos, Mother of God, sums up the whole mystery of salvation.”18

She stands at the heart
of the Hour of the Paschal Mystery

10. The Gospel account is well-known to all of us: when Jesus was on the point of leaving this world to return to the Father (see Jn 13:1) he said to his Mother who stood at the foot of the cross, “Woman, behold your son” (Jn 19:26b). Then addressing the beloved disciple who represented all the disciples, he said, “Behold your mother” (Jn 19:27a). With these words, forming part of a typical “revelation scheme,” Jesus proclaimed that his mother was also our mother. From that Hour, the Hour of the Paschal Mystery, the disciple accepted the Mother of Jesus “among his own,” as the Greek original states. That is, he received Mary not only to offer her lodging in his home, but above all because he saw in her one of the “values” of his own faith, one of the paramount spiritual “goods” which the love of the Master had bequeathed to the community of disciples.
      During the past thirty years, biblical exegesis has often dwelt on this passage from St. John's Gospel, and has placed great stress on its ecclesial relevance. But this had already been highlighted by a living tradition which since at least the third century19 has been gradually enriched down to the present day.20 Many sources could be quoted in this connection, but we limit ourselves to the words of St.Sophronius of Jerusalem (+683): “The great [disciple] took the sinless Mother of God into his home as his own mother...he became the son of the Mother of God!21
      The organic bond which unites the Church to Mary was authoritatively restated by the Second Vatican Council when it decided to place the treatise on the doctrine of the Blessed Virgin as the conclusion and crowning touch to its reflection on the Church in the famous Chapter VIII of Lumen gentium. The Council's choice in itself allows us to conclude that the Church does not exist without Mary, and conversely, that Mary cannot be properly understood except “in the mystery of Christ and the Church,” as the very title of Chapter VIII of Lumen gentium expressed it.

11. In our view, the ultimate reason why the crisis in Marian devotion has been overcome lies in the respect which the Church owes to God's free, omniscient plan. The Church cannot add or subtract anything from the action of divine grace in Mary; the Church must only adore God's merciful design for the woman who is “blessed among women” (Lk 1:42). It can only proclaim her unconquerable faith (see Lk 1:45) and acknowledge that the Most High has wrought “great things” in her (see Lk 1:49) because of Christ and the community of the faithful and rejoice in the fact that God has placed her in the Church as the mater misericordiae 22 and ministra pietatis 23

Overcoming the crisis in religious institutes

12. Just as happened in the Church in general so also religious institutes have now to a great extent overcome the crisis in Marian devotion, for they have managed to face and respond to the problems of devotion to the Blessed Virgin, drawing on their own tradition and on the renewal started by the Council.
      Following the specific instructions of the Apostolic See religious institutes have undertaken a far-reaching revision of their constitutions in the years since the Council. To carry out this revision, the Council provided them with a benchmark of paramount importance: the “supreme rule” is to follow Christ as proposed by the gospel.24 This meant the institutes had to compare themselves with the gospel, and from this living contact they were given an abundant new outpouring of genuine religious spirit. The process of revision undertaken in obedience to the Church by these men and women united in the name of the Lord Jesus has to be seen as the work of the Spirit.
      With regard to Marian devotion, this work of revision provided a reflective pause and consequently a clearer vision. It thus enabled religious to distinguish the truly valid criticisms of Marian devotion from unfounded objections.
      But revision proved to be providential for another reason: since it involved a great deal of archival research, the publication of sources and monographic studies, wide ranging consultation and detailed enquiries, it enabled the institutes to describe with greater security their original charism, to distinguish the essential elements of their Marian spirituality from secondary and derived aspects, and to learn the living tradition or sensus of their institutes in relation to their specific Marian piety based on reliable evidence.

13. The outcome of this process of revision is consoling. In nearly every instance, a comparison of the texts reveals that the renewed constitutions contain more numerous and significant Marian elements than the preconciliar ones. The main thrusts of the institutes' Marian spirituality are now set out more clearly and in much broader terms; they are supported by a much more rigorous biblical foundation and are documented with appropriate references to original sources.
      We do not feel that enough has been made of this fact which has vast ecclesial implications. A great many institutes have joyfully confirmed the “Marian character” of their specific way of following Christ and of being religious in the Church.
      The “Marian character” has generally been very clearly and boldly expressed in the constitutional texts with an amazing variety of content. Just to cite a few examples, the Blessed Virgin is described in her relationship to religious as a loving Mother caring for her sons and daughters, and a Sister who shares with us the human condition and discipleship; she is Teacher of the spiritual life and Model of the evangelical virtues; the Guide leading towards the heights of holiness, and the shining Image who in herself anticipates the reality of grace which the consecrated life seeks; the Custodian of the great gospel values, and the Inspiration for new forms of consecrated life, being the one who, trusting in God, faced up to new and highly hazardous situations; the Patron who defends and protects the institute and its individual members, the Queen and Lady to whose service of love religious consecrate themselves in order to conform themselves more fully to Christ.

14. But because of the bonds of communion and friendship which unite religious to the laity, when the constitutions were drawn up the religious often reflected on the significance of the figure of Mary for the brothers and sisters who follow Christ as lay persons. Reading these new legislative texts, one can see the commitment to foster Marian devotion among the faithful, or the intention to help them discover in Mary's responses to God's plan the “gospel responses” most appropriate to their life, or the desire to celebrate Mary's feasts with them. In general, since the Marian devotion of religious almost always has its roots in their home backgrounds, one can at times see the intention of learning from lay persons the example of a devotion to the Blessed Virgin which is simple yet strong, tempered by self-denial and suffering.

15. Reflection on the wealth of Marian elements in many renewed constitutions has led us to two preliminary conclusions:

      — With few exceptions, the complaint which is still heard at times that the new legislative texts pay less attention to the figure of the Blessed Virgin is simply the result of a lack of information. This is often said, perhaps subconsciously, more because of a nostalgia for former historical, social, and ecclesial situations than because of genuine zeal for devotion to the Blessed Virgin. This attitude also reveals an inability to grasp the deep-seated reasons for sound renewal and to accept the new things which the Spirit raises up in the Church. Lastly, there is the risk that this become a negative attitude, belittling the work so seriously done in obedience to the Apostolic See which has set its seal of approval on it.

      — The “Marian elements” set forth in these various legislative texts, taken as a whole, form a considerable summa of “Marian experiences,” and a kind of compendium of valid guidelines and effective stimuli for the progress of the members of our institutes along a path of life which is itself a holy sacrifice and spiritual worship acceptable to God (see Rom 12: 1), animated by a profound apostolic commitment, and permeated by the thirst for God and the quest for holiness. What we are trying to say is this: our founders and foundresses, men and women guided by the Spirit, sensed and experienced within themselves that the Virgin Mary, because of the purity and intensity of her response to God and because of the role she plays in the Church, is a most effective and many facetted point of reference in living under the sign of perfect consecration to the Lord and generous self-giving to our brothers and sisters.

16. In the “Marian elements” contained in their constitutions, religious institutes today have at their disposal an immense wealth of stimuli for the sanctification of their members and their apostolic ministry. If we endeavour to put into practice what we have committed ourselves to do, devotion to Mary of Nazareth will become an urgent and welcome opportunity to become, every day more consciously, genuine worshippers of the Father in Spirit and Truth (see Jn 4:23-24), men and women of a joyful and responsible fiat repeated day by day (see Lk 1:39). The same devotion will be an opportunity to proclaim the Good News “with haste” (see Lk 1:39) and bring Christ, generated and borne in our hearts, to our brothers and sisters and plead for the gift of the Spirit in communion with the bishops and the brothers and sisters of the Lord scattered throughout the world (see Acts 1:14), so that Pentecost may reign forever in the Church.