CNA Staff, Dec 24, 2024 / 07:00 am (CNA).
Earlier this month, the pro-abortion group “Catholics for Choice” stirred controversy online when it wrote in a tweet: “This holiday season, remember that Mary had a choice, and you should, too.”
The explicit pro-abortion message is meant to equate Mary’s choice to be the mother of God with a mother’s “choice” to have an abortion. “By explicitly seeking definitive consent from Mary to conceive of Christ, God empowered and uplifted her bodily autonomy,” the group claims on its website. “It’s clear that reproductive choice is God’s will.”
The Catholic Church, of course, has since its ancient beginnings forbidden abortion on the grounds that it constitutes homicide.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law” (No. 2271).
Catholics for Choice, meanwhile, has been strongly criticized by Church leadership for its explicitly un-Catholic advocacy: Cardinal Timothy Dolan several years ago said the group “is not affiliated with the Catholic Church in any way,” does “not speak for the faithful,” and is “funded by powerful private foundations to promote abortion as a method of population control.”
Yet the group’s misleading advocacy inadvertently underscored a key aspect of Catholic doctrine, one that has been part of the Catholic faith since it began 2,000 years ago: that Mary did indeed have a choice to assent to God’s will and become the “Theotokos,” the mother of God.
‘Absolutely free’
Mark Miravalle, who holds the St. John Paul II Chair of Mariology at Franciscan University of Steubenville, told CNA that Mary was “absolutely free” in exercising the decision to become God’s mother on Earth.
“She was free in exercising God’s greatest gift of free will,” he said. To suggest otherwise, he said, would be to imply that “she was somehow coerced or that it was some form of predestination, one that doesn’t allow for the expression of what makes us human, which is our freedom.”
The theologian noted that it was “a malicious equivocation” for Catholics for Choice to “imply that Mary’s ‘yes’ choice to bring our Redeemer into the world bears any similarity or moral equivalence to the tragic ‘no’ choice of a woman that leads to the direct killing of an innocent human being.”
“Mary’s choice brings life and salvation,” he said. “The choice for abortion brings death and destruction. Morally, these two choices could not be more diametrically opposed, and thereby can never be honestly referred to as justification for the devastating evil of abortion.”
Marian theologian Father Edward Looney, who serves in the Diocese of Green Bay, Wisconsin, said the question of Mary’s freedom to choose could arise from the nature of the Immaculate Conception.
“Since she was chosen by God and God already had acted in her life with a prevenient grace, sparing her from original choice, one could rightly ask, did Mary have free choice?” he said.
Yet the Blessed Mother did indeed have free will to choose, Looney said.
“Her life was aligned with God to that extent that what God wanted for her she wanted,” he pointed out. “Aligning oneself with the will of God does not imply that one lacks free choice; rather it shows one wishes to cooperate with God and carry out his plan and will.”
“God’s ways are better than our ways,” he added. “Mary wanted to remain a virgin. She was willing to remain a virgin and yet be a mother.”
Catholic theologians have long cited Mary’s freely chosen assent as a model for all Catholics. Then-Pope Benedict XVI said in a 2006 homily that “in being loved, in receiving the gift of God, Mary is fully active, because she accepts with personal generosity the wave of God’s love poured out upon her.”
“In this too, she is the perfect disciple of her son, who realizes the fullness of his freedom and thus exercises the freedom through obedience to the Father,” the pope pointed out.
That theme can be seen over the centuries: St. Augustine of Hippo, for instance, wrote that Mary effectively served as the mother of the Church, “because she cooperated by her charity, so that faithful Christians … might be born in the Church.”
Looney, meanwhile, cited the homily “In Praise of the Virgin Mother” by St. Bernard. In it, the 10th-century priest summed up the Virgin Mother’s response to the angel by imploring her: “Answer quickly, O Virgin. Reply in haste to the angel or rather through the angel to the Lord.”
“Answer with a word, receive the Word of God,” Bernard wrote. “Speak your own word, conceive the divine Word. Breath a passing word, embrace the eternal Word.”
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
The BVM didn’t just happen upon the Annunciation, rather, like her Saviour her life from its earliest expressions, was always growing in grace and stature. Our actions are meant to be inextricable with merit and for her it came as perfection in humility and ever-enveloping strength; ever mounting up on eagle’s wings. So much of what our Lord proclaimed, she exemplified, as when He promised, for those who have, more will be given to them.
May I take the opportunity to wish CWR Merry Christmas and a fervent New Year 2025 and say thank you for allowing me such easy access to your great discussion forum. May God bless you with an even deeper wisdom and please keep me in your prayers.
“like the coolness of snow in the heat of the harvest, is the faithful messenger for the one who sends him. He refreshes the soul of his master.” – Prov. 25:13
The free will that God gave us does not preclude pushing strangers in front of subway trains, given the requisite circumstances, and ultimately suffering the consequences of doing so.
The law just ensures that some of those consequences will be suffered earlier rather than later, to deter some, and prevent others from repeating the choice. I rather doubt that the people arguing for the legal freedom to murder children would be happy to have that freedom extended to those who would murder them – God-given free will or no.
This comes down to a point I made multiple times: freedom is not indifference between good and evil but the ability to make THE good MY good. Mary chose in the sense of accepting and embracing the good God asked of her as her own but she would not have chosen (not because she lacked “free will” but just as any person in love “would not” commit adultery because her choice was deeper) to reject God’s will. That is not “freedom.” The First Eve found that out the hard way.
Of course I also welcome theologians far better and learned and solid than me to correct my view of freedom.
From my reading, the angel’s message to Mary and her fiat both have the Incarnation as a future event that had yet to occur. This would mean that Mary was not pregnant when she gave her fiat to the Incarnation. In order for the Incarnation to be a loving act it needed Mary’s free will consent through her fiat.