Blogging Daughter Zion. Part I.

I recently picked up the 1983 Ratzinger book Daughter Zion (Die Tochter Zion appeared in 1977), hoping it would be a quick read at only 82 pages.  I read about a quarter of it this morning over my eggs Havana and coffee, and can report that (for Ratzinger!) it's really very accessible. 

It helps that I'm familiar with the basics of Marian theology.  I haven't read nearly enough of his stuff, but my impression so far is that his great gift is in explaining very difficult concepts with clarity and precision.  Not that you don't need to think hard about what you're reading -- the concepts are, as I said, difficult -- but his language is so transparent that you don't have to waste any brainpower wondering what he meant by this or that.  (Maybe a little bit of brainpower is expended untangling sentences with many modifiers.  I suspect this of being an artifact of German.)

Anyway, Daughter Zion is subtitled Meditations on the Church's Marian Belief, but I wouldn't call it "meditations" at all.  That word calls to mind, at worst, "365 Daily Meditations" type books, and at best calls to mind lectio divina, the prayerful consideration of perhaps a very short passage in order to internalize its full depth.  This book is a theological explication that was originally a series of lectures.  However, I suppose that there are not very many Catholics -- or anybody else for that matter -- who will gladly pay $7.oo to be "lectured" by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger a.k.a. Benedict XVI.   Yes, I know you would.  So would I!   I'm assuming that Ignatius Press employs at least one reasonably foresighted person in Marketing.  The Pope Lectures You On Mary won't fly very far.

So what is Daughter Zion?

"This will not be a Mariology constructed piece by piece out of its New Testament components," says Ratzinger (p. 33).  Instead, in Daughter Zion he describes the "distinctive structures of the Marian dogmas" which, he says, "cannot be deduced from individal texts of the New Testament; instead they express the broad perspective embracing the unity of both Testaments."

When I am reading anything, I tend to mutter to myself.  For instance, wham! when I come across a phrase or sentence that hits me, so to speak.   Reading Ratzinger causes me to attract attention in restaurants if I'm not careful.  Anyway, I thought it would be fun to share some of the whams. 

Here's the first one, from page 13.

Marian piety and theology is fundamentally based upon the Old Testament's deeply anchored theology of woman, a theology indispensable to its entire structure.  Contrary to a widespread prejudice, the figure of woman occupies an irreplaceable place in the overall texture of Old Testament faith and piety.  Consequently, a one-sided reading of the Old Testament can open no door for an understanding of the Marian element in the Church of the New Testament.  Usually only one side is taken into consideration:  the prophets conducted a relentless battle for the uniqueness of God against the temptation to polytheism, and as matters then stood this was a battle against the goddess of heaven, a battle against the fertility religion, which imagined God to be man and woman.  In practice this was a resolute battle against the cultic representation of the divine woman in temple prostitution, a battle against a cult which celebrated fertility by imitating it in ritual fornication.

(This part I knew already:  the religion in the background, against which the Old Testament prophets were fighting to keep Israel's faith distinct.)

From this point of view, idolatry is usually referred to in the literature of the Old Testament as "fornication."  The rejection of these representations apparently led to the result that Israel's cult is primarily an affair of men, since the women certainly stay in the outer court of the temple.

That I didn't consider.  Interesting!  Ratzinger goes on to explain that one error that has arisen from this is the conclusion that "women had no role at all in the faith of the Old Testament... that there is and can be no theology of woman because the Old Testament's chief concern is to exclude woman from theo-logy, from the language of God.  This would then mean that Mariology de facto could only be seen as the infiltration of a non-biblical model."

If you or someone you know tends to think of Mariology as non-biblical, could it be because of this error?

Comments

[mrsdarwin]

Sounds like a great book to read, as soon as I finish Jesus of Nazareth. I love Benedict's (or Ratzinger's, depending on publication date) writings for the same reasons you give, but I can't read more than a few pages at a sitting because it's too rich to digest much more than that.