Nuptial Emplacement: The Marian Theo-logic of Priesthood and the Conquest of Activism
By Fr. John Nepil STD, vice-rector and Professor of Theology at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado
“We can only be saved … when we renounce the madness of autonomy and self-sufficiency. We can only be saved—that is, become ourselves, when we engage in the proper relationship. But our interpersonal relationships occur in the context of our utter creatureliness.”[1]
In a world of technocratic activism, these words of Joseph Ratzinger, given nearly 50 years ago, resound with ever greater urgency and resonance. The call to salvation in Jesus Christ hinges first on the renunciation of all forms of “autonomy and self-sufficiency.” But it is not merely a negative or pejorative call; it is a harkening to a renewed commitment to interpersonal relationship. And this arises out of our foundations in the creative love of God, from which is renewed a living sense of our creatureliness.
Like all Christians, priests must heed this Ratzingerian call to “become ourselves.” An ever-decreasing band of brothers, laden more and more with the infinite demands of the Church, are finding it harder and harder to understand and live according to the truth of their being. Like all states in life, the deepest source of priestly identity is found in its trinitarian-christological foundations. But when we examine the priestly state of life from an ecclesiological perspective, what in fact do we see? Oftentimes the search for priestly identity is myopically confined to the hierarchical dimension of the Church. To truly see its grandeur and full significance, priests must see themselves first in relationship to the all-expansive and comprehensive Marian reality which is the Church. For he is a man, and only through his relationship with woman can he recover the fullness of his identity and truly “become himself.”
From this vantage point, we see the following. First, priesthood is, by its very nature, representational. But to see this, it must be contrasted by Mary, the non-representational (and indeed priestly) reality of the Church. Placing the priesthood back in relationship with Mary does not replace or displace the significance of the hierarchical priesthood. Borrowing a term from Margaret Turek, it creates a kind of “emplacement”¾a placing back within the proper context of the Church.[2]And given the spousal relationship of Mary-Church to Christ, priestly emplacement is a nuptial mystery. According to this Marian theo-logic, the priest rediscovers his ontological depths as a relational being. And now that the creaturely limitations of his representational existence are emplaced, he becomes free of the de-ontologized work known as activism.
I. Mary as Socia and Adiutorium: A Non-Representational Priesthood
The first words we hear about woman in Scripture are that she is socia (Gen. 3:12, companion) and adiutorium (Gen. 2:18-20, helpmate). These biblical grounds provide the first insights into the nature and reality that is woman, as she stands in an intrinsic and dyadic unity with man. Something of the essence of woman is expressed in the concepts of “companion” and “helpmate,” which though originating in Eve, come to full light only in the life of the New Eve, Mary the Mother of God.
In a preeminent way, Mary is a christological reality¾her entire personhood exists in and for her mission as the theotokos, the Mother of God. This specific fact of her existence plays out in the unity of her person and mission, an effect enveloped within the singular grace of her Immaculate Conception. Already from the moment of the Incarnation, Mary’s fiat (or subjective response to the objectivity of grace) provides the archetype of the feminine’s being-in-act. Her response of “be it done unto me according to thy word” (Lk. 1:38) is not only the descriptive essence of the feminine, but also of the whole Church, and, indeed, of all of creation.
What is significant for our purposes is that at the moment of the Incarnation, Mary does not represent the Church as bride¾she is the bridal Church. As the Incarnation is drawn into the redemption, the truth of Mary as socia and adiutorium comes to light with new clarity: she will cooperate so intimately in the event of his cross that the Church Fathers will see in her the full presence of the New Eve (called from the 15th century onward the co-Redemptrix).[3]Arnold of Chartres († 1160), a contemporary of St. Bernard, will express this in deeply sacrificial language: the Atonement occurs on “'two altars: one in Mary's heart, the other in Christ's body. Christ sacrificed his flesh, Mary her soul."[4] We can thus speak of a priesthood of Mary, which, unlike the representative priesthood of the newly founded hierarchy, exists in eminent union with the working of her Son.[5] Given this mystery, we cannot separate Mary from the Atonement of Christ; she is the co-atoner par excellence. And only in relation to this reality can we come to understand what is decisive of the ministerial priesthood of the male-only apostolic college. As Von Balthasar notes:
Mary, under the Cross, does not have to represent the love of the Father, as does the Son, but stands only for the creature, which, together with all other creatures, she is. It is therefore unthinkable that Mary could exercise ministerial office in the Church.[6]
Mary’s priestly participation arises out of the unique way in which she manifests and bears the entirety of creation. As St. Thomas aptly writes, she offers her yes on behalf of all creation, because she is truly the mother of all the living.[7] Mary has a priesthood that is rooted in the reality itself, not representing another reality such as Christ, or the Father; hers is a deeper priesthood, one that is hidden and interiorized according to her feminine nature.
Thus, the outward priesthood of Christ’s representatives and the inward priesthood of the Marian mystery are truly inseparable and mutually dependent on one another. As Von Balthasar argues, because the ordained priesthood “implies a total expropriation for the sake of the Church and humanity,” a priestly representative will “again and again have to rely on Mary in order to perform his ministerial service of Christ and God in the fullness of the Church.”[8]
Along these lines, von Balthasar calls for a “salutary relativization of the hierarchy.”[9] By salutary, he insists this is one that helps the Petrine, or hierarchical, ministry flourish; and by relativization, he means a relocation, or re-contextualization. Following the theo-logic of representation, this salutary relativization can be called a “nuptial emplacement.” In other words, when the priestly office is relocated in the reality of the Marian Church, it is not displaced, but emplaced, and thus restored to its proper locus in the Church.
II. The Conquest of Activism: The Re-Ontologization of Priestly Life and Work
If the basic identity of the priest is the sacramental representation of the atoning Christ, emplaced as it is within the reality of the Marian Church, then a central (if not the central) obstacle to a healthy vision of priestly life and work is activism. Activism, in its essence, is a-representational¾a mode of action that is contrary to the vision established above. Because priestly spirituality is “not primarily a form of action,” activism has been called “one of the most insidious threats to the life of a priest.”[10]
Additionally, activism can be described as de-ontologized work. It collapses the ontological grounds of priestly existence and enfolds them into a kind of a-metaphysical vision of life and work. And this is all the more magnified in a technological age, where work is functionalized, materially reduced, and ultimately godless. The words of St. Paul now come to bear on the activistic priest: “For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all [ἐργαζομένους], but are busybodies [περιεργαζομένους]” (2 Thess 3:11 KJV).
Furthermore, priests find themselves today ministering in a consumer society. This means that Catholic life, in particular sacramental life, can take on the unfortunate character of consumerism. As Pope St. John Paul II warns, this consumer society is “dominated and imprisoned by an individualistic, materialistic and hedonistic interpretation of human existence.”[11] This all-concerning drive for material well-being supplants the primacy of being and engenders a kind of anti-sacrificial mentality, and there is nothing more contrary to the Marian fiat than the consumer’s denial of self-surrender. With this materialistic vision of reality goes the spiritual vision of things¾something which activism categorically assumes. This has been amplified in a post-conciliar Church, too often espousing a functionalistic understanding of priesthood in its excessive reliance on bureaucracy. But the temptation towards activism runs deeper, informed as it is by a kind of anti-staurological zeitgeist. In the words of von Balthasar, “activism comes from a certain fear of the poverty of love, of the Cross. It is a flight from the inescapability of being offered.”[12]
To re-ontologize his life and work, the priest must begin by retrieving his representational existence in Christ. And this retrieval must totally inform his priestly spirituality. As Leo Scheffczyk writes:
The question here is not primarily about actions, about doing or technology, but about being convinced of the truth regarding the reality of representation, for it is by representation that Christ gives an important structure to the life of the priest. The priest needs to have the conviction that he is there for others and that with his whole life he stands in the place of the other, meaning that he is able to relieve him of his burden, his guilt, and his sins.[13]
The concept of representation thus serves as a kind of ballast to priestly existence. Stability is restored as the ontological grounds are re-established. But something more occurs¾the theo-logic of representation helps to “paternalize” priestly life. The deep current of divine paternal love, which informed the Son’s act of atonement, comes to bear directly on the priest himself. Now, he understands his own life and work as itself a patrogenetic process.
Emplaced within the Marian Church, the priest is likewise freed from what Gertrud von le Fort called “the specifically masculine madness of our secularized age.”[14] In relation to the feminine, priestly life recovers its creaturely form. In the face of infinite demand, he can now embrace his finite gift of self. If the root of sin is the attempt to self-divinize, then a re-ontologized identity brings forth finitude, dependence and limitations as the existential parameters of his priestly life. Salvation in Christ, “far from denying creaturehood,” is in fact “an absolutely humiliating embrace of creaturehood.”[15]As for dependence, we speak here not just of the ontological dependence of a creature, but of the specifically priestly dependence of a representative. This follows from the representational love of the Son’s atoning logic:
As the Father lets himself be dependent on Christ’ free cooperation in accomplishing the work of atonement¾even as the Father engenders the cooperation he seeks¾so Christ in turn lets himself be dependent on our personal and free cooperation in bringing his work of atonement to completion¾even as Christ enables us, through the gift of his Spirit, to cooperate with him and in him.[16]
In the recovery of creaturehood, the priest’s propensity towards activism begins to dissolve; and through a robust ontological vision of representation, he can circumnavigate activism’s two tragic destinations of resignation and titanism.[17] Representation restores the primacy of relationships, and thus reaffirms the primacy of being. Drawn out from the specter-like existence of an activistic functionary, the priest begins to pick up once again on the theo-logic of representation and restore what he is¾a co-atoning father engendering co-atoning sons and daughters in the Son.
III. Conclusion
In the great metanarrative of salvation, man is only half the story. Only in light of woman can he find himself and begin to understand the distinctiveness of his masculine identity. This applies directly to the male-only priesthood of the Church, whose renewed vision cannot be complete apart from this context of a dyadic and sexually differentiated humanity. It is for this reason that we have “emplaced” the representative and masculine priesthood within the greater, comprehensive context of the Marian¾indeed, totally feminine¾reality of the Church.
Mary-Church is not just the socia of the God-man; she is likewise the priest’s. Emplaced within and in relationship to her, the priest is ennobled to represent the eucharistic form of the atoning Son. According to these ontological grounds, he sees his life as merely representational and finds freedom from the deceits of activism. The theo-logic of God’s atoning sacrifice may be priestly; but it is first and foremost, Marian. In her, and her alone, do we “become ourselves.”
[1] J. Ratzinger, In the Beginning ... A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1986, 73-74.
[2] Cf. M. Turek. Atonement: Soundings in Biblical, Trinitarian, and Spiritual Theology, Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 2022, 158.
[3] For the history of this term, cf. M. Hauke, Introduction to Mariology, CUA Press: Washington DC, 2021, 320.
[4] As referenced in Hauke, Mariology, 314.
[5] Hauke, Mariology, 315.
[6] H.U. von Balthasar, “Thoughts on the Priesthood of Women,” in Communio 23 (Winter 1996), 708.
[7] Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, q. 30, a. 1.
[8] Von Balthasar, “Thoughts on the Priesthood of Women,” 709.
[9] H.U. von Balthasar, “The Marian Principle,” in Communio 15 (Spring 1988), 128.
[10] L. Scheffczyk, “The Idea of Representation and the Mission of the Priest,” in Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly, (2016/3), XXXIX, 23-29.27; M. Camisasca, Father: Will there still be priests in the future? Human Adventure Books, 2012, 13: “Activism is one of the most insidious threats to the life of a priest, because it can be easily confused with generosity.”
[11] John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, Apostolic Exhortation (March 15, 1992), n. 8.
[12] H.U. von Balthasar, “Spirit and Fire: An Interview,” in Communio 32 (Spring 2005), 587.
[13] Scheffczyk, “The Idea of Representation,” 27-28.
[14] G. von le Fort, The Eternal Woman: The Timeless Meaning of the Feminine, Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 2010, 18.
[15] R. Gawronski, “Salvation in the Blood of the Lamb,” in Nova et Vetera 9 (Winter 2011), 116.
[16] Turek, Atonement, 227.
[17] Cf. von Balthasar, The Christian State of Life, Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1984, 134.