Blog of Unification Theological Seminary
The veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus, has been around for as long as the early Apostles. It emerged in conjunction with the understanding of the dual roles of Jesus Christ, as both fully human and fully divine. As the “Mother of God,” naturally Mary’s position was elevated. In order to be a sanctified vessel for the Son of God to be born, Mary needed to be recognized as having exceptional qualities, similar to Jesus.
The qualities of perpetual virginity, being immaculately conceived herself, and her bodily assumption into heaven were implemented within Roman Catholic Church doctrine from the 16th century. Mariology is the theological study of Mary through written accounts and the subsequent doctrines associated with her throughout the history of Christianity. It is distinct from, albeit related to, the practice of veneration and devotion to Mary.
Here, I explore the underlying circumstances for the prominence of devotion to Mary, especially in the Roman Catholic Church, how it became official dogma, and how official statements about Mary have been somewhat problematic for women of the Church in particular. I also explore how the Unification Movement addresses such issues attributed to Marian devotion, through the current leadership of co-founder, Dr. Hak Ja Han Moon, and how she is trailblazing a new view on feminine value which may ultimately help reform and encourage women leadership in the Church.
Historical background of the veneration of Mary
Given that so little is said about Mary in the Bible, it is amazing how the church as a whole, and Roman Catholic Church in particular, adores Mary. The rise of Mary came naturally as a consequence of the church developing its Christology, and the idea of Jesus being both fully human and fully divine. The term Theotokos, meaning “God-bearer,” was ascribed to Mary by the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 CE.
This was in contrast to the idea of Mary as Christotokos, or “Christ-bearer,” meaning Mary was the mother of Christ only in the sense of his body, but not his divine nature. Theotokos was not to make the assumption that from Mary’s body came the Word of God, but rather, as theologian Raymond Potgieter notes, Mary “was the vessel through which the eternal Word was incarnated in [the holy body of] Jesus Christ.” At the Council at Ephesus, Mary’s special role, not only as divine mother, but divine virgin mother, became clear.
Eventually the church credited her with titles like Mistress of the World, Queen of Heaven, and Mother of God. The early church historian and apologist, Irenaeus, called her the “New Eve,” as her son, Jesus, was the “New Adam.” Mary “obeyed” God, “whereas ‘the virgin’ Eve, did not.” Additional theological statements pertaining to Mary began from the 4th century, with church fathers such as Jerome and Origen promoting the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity. The Council of Chalcedon, which reaffirmed Mary’s status as Theotokos, did not address the issue of her perpetual virginity, but by that time it was accepted within the larger ecclesial tradition. It was only a matter of time for the idea of the virgin Mary to be sinless.
Mary’s devotion and reverence took on differing degrees of significance as the church continued to develop, fracture and reform itself. (The Eastern Orthodox Church does not worship the Virgin Mary, but rather holds her in high esteem and gives her the honor and reverence as a role model for all Christians.) Following the Protestant Reformation, and rejection of the Catholic Church’s traditions and rules of faith in favor of looking to the authority of scripture over the authority of the Pope and bishops, devotion to Mary by Protestants became restricted to her historical significance as the mother of Jesus.
While Protestants do not dispute the importance of honoring Mary, they have not felt that she should be given exceptional status. Rather, the predominant idea among Protestants is that Mary’s contribution was part of a plan predestined by God. In other words, Mary was chosen to fulfill the responsibility to be the Mother of God; it was her destiny and she followed her due course.
With the reformation of the Catholic Church and the Council of Trent beginning in 1546, Pope Pius IX’s declaration of Mary’s sinlessness in 1854 reflected popular sentiments towards Mary by the masses. In 1950, Pope Pius XII, after consulting the bishops, declared the assumption of Mary as dogma. The purpose of this declaration may have been to assure believers of their own resurrection through Jesus Christ, since the Mother of God shared fully in the resurrection of her son.
Mary’s status continued to be elevated to that of co-redeemer, and was incorporated into the Second Vatican Council in 1964. In an effort to uphold and maintain Jesus’ position, however, which can be seen as a frequent issue in dealing with Mary, Pope Francis refused to add “co-redemptrix” to Mary’s titles in December 2019.
Mariology and its impact on women of the Church
The Catholic Church has continued to show its reverence for Mary. However, one of the challenges of honoring Mary is that in an effort to maintain her “place” as Jesus’ mother, her value is effectively capped by her role, which reinforces a common notion of women in the Bible as simply being valued either for their womb or their righteousness under extreme conditions, and never truly for their womanhood.
Women of the church have continually faced the difficulty of not having a female figure with whom they could emulate. The trinitarian view of God is a perfect example, which holds that all aspects of God are masculine, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. “In the end,” according to Ye Jin Moon, eldest daughter of Unification Church founder Rev. Sun Myung Moon, “Christianity may have elevated Mary, [but] her fundamental purpose was to serve Jesus. She was in no way understood in equal terms as the daughter of God, as Jesus was the Son.”
Another aspect of Mary’s veneration that is contradictory for women is that Mary is both mother and virgin, which effectively negates the reality and beauty of sexuality, along with the essence of Mary’s own contribution to the creation of Jesus. Instead, the church became hyper-focused on Mary’s womb and the need to keep it purified and holy. Again, according to Ye Jin Moon, “Greek and Latin Christianity in particular had strong desire to pursue such idealized vision of Mary, as they had been heavily influenced by Platonic spirituality which devalues physical bodily love as a lower form compared to spiritual love, which they believed could reach a higher ideal. The logic of the argument was that if Jesus is divine, his mother could not have been flawed by the low love of human sexuality, which is, according to St. Augustine, mainly necessary for the ‘procreation of children.’”
Veneration of Mary by the traditional patriarchal church elevates her status and piety so greatly that it creates a disconnect for women in general to come even remotely close to attaining it. An example of this reality is its effect on women seeking the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church. Women are denied the ability to give the sacraments because they are not in the “personhood of Christ,” i.e., they are not male, like Jesus was. This was made clear in the 1976 Vatican declaration Inter Insigniores, and describes the role of the priest as “in persona Christi, taking the role of Christ, to the point of being his very image, when he pronounces the words of consecration.” This further elucidates the reality of women as “a weaker, but honored vessel.”
Implications of veneration of Mary for Unificationism
In terms of Unification faith, it is instructive to consider the veneration of Mary and compare it to Unification Church co-founder, Hak Ja Han Moon (Mother Moon), understood to be the Only Begotten Daughter of God. Since the passing of her late husband, Rev. Moon, Mother Moon has declared a new age for the Unification Movement, which includes her messianic position along with the idea of God as Heavenly Parent, or the perfect union of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.
Prior to her declaration, the Unification Church operated on a similar patriarchal foundation as Christianity, although it aligned more closely with Protestantism than Catholicism. In some ways, it is advantageous that Protestantism did not delve too deeply in the veneration of Mary. This would seem to make a transition to the idea of a divine Son and Daughter possibly easier than the dogmas of Mother Mary by the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, the role of Mary in the Roman Catholic faith continues to be dynamic and in process, which opens the possibility of a different outlook on its impact for women as well.
Ultimately, the issue at hand behind Mary’s elevated — but not too elevated — stature as the “Mother of God” has to do with human value and gender equality, which is where Mother Moon’s leadership offers clear guidance. One of the greatest benefits of the Unification view of Mother Moon and the idea of Heavenly Mother, is it makes it possible for women to have a unique and personal relationship with the feminine aspect of God. This understanding of Mother Moon, in her salvific capacity as the Only Begotten Daughter and True Eve, has also profoundly opened a way for women to realize their original, sinless value as God’s daughters in a way never before possible by traditional Christian faith standards. Women now have an example of their own, which embodies the fullest experience of womanhood, including the beauty of sexuality and familial roles of daughter, sister, wife, and mother.
Nevertheless, the actual reality and manifestation of such an age in the Unification Movement, on an organizational level at least, seems to be lagging behind. Despite the Movement using phrases like the “Age of Women” time and again, there have not been very many women in the forefront of leadership able to stand together with Mother Moon. This has been a painful reality, especially for elder “first generation” women, who spent many years of loyal devotion and investment to the Movement.
In the years since her husband’s passing, Mother Moon has often shared how lonely the work has been, continuing the path of God’s providence. It has been no secret she has not often felt supported nor understood by those around her. As a result, it is imperative to ask ourselves whether we are truly adopting this new age as quickly as Mother Moon would like us to.
Several very important questions stand out, including whether women have genuinely been given opportunities of leadership in the Movement and if so, do we currently see so few women leaders because of their negative experiences, particularly with their male counterparts? Also, there has been an understanding in some respects, that during the Age of Restoration, and in particular the need for the restoration of the role of women, perhaps women were unable to assume leadership positions before because Mother Moon was not herself able to stand in that position. It may be that the Age of Restoration was a time of predominantly masculine leadership, where there was a requisite need for furthering the Will in an organized and strategic fashion, and that perhaps, as we now transition out of that Age, the Movement can settle into a time of greater feminine leadership than before.
Of course, to be clear, it is less about the need for increased leadership roles for women as it is ultimately a matter of demonstrating a real acknowledgement and reverence for the true worth of men and women of God equally in the precious work needed for God’s providence ahead of us. Ultimately, an increase in women leadership ought to naturally occur as a reflection of such accepted values. At the same time, it will be interesting to also see the subsequent evolution of the devotion to Mary, as truly a devoted woman of God in her own right, and how the Christian Church shifts its own patriarchal views towards women as a result as well.♦
Mika Deshotel has been a secondary school educator for 13 years. She earned her B.A. in biology from Clark University, an M.A. in education from the University of Bridgeport, and is currently pursuing her D.Min. from Unification Theological Seminary. She also is the Associate Dean of Student Life at UTS. She served as FFWPU District Pastor of New England and State Pastor of Connecticut for the past seven years. Mika lives in Bridgeport, CT, with her husband and four children.