Question of the Day for Friday, January 25, 2008

Was Mary Magdalene a Prostitute?

Q. Where in the Bible does it explain that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute?  If it is Sacred Tradition that leads us to this, how was it developed and handed down?

R.F., via email

A. This question was addressed a couple of years ago in an article in TCA by contributor Carl Olsen. Here’s his response:

The four Gospels contain at least a dozen references to Mary from Magdala, a town on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. She is described as a woman who had suffered from demonic possession and from whom Jesus had expelled seven demons (Mk 16:9; Lk 8:2).

She is also prominently mentioned as one of the women who accompanied Jesus in His ministry (Lk 8:2) — a witness of the crucifixion (Matt 27:56; Jn 19:25), of Jesus’ burial (Mt 27:61; Mk 15:47), and of the empty tomb (Mt 28:1–10; Mk 16:1–8; Lk 24:10). After His resurrection, Jesus appeared to her alone at the tomb (Mk 16:9; Jn 20:1–18).

In the Western tradition, Mary Magdalene eventually became identified with the sinful woman of Luke 7:37-50 as well as Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha and Lazarus (Luke 10:38–42; John 11). However, in the Eastern tradition the three women were identified separately, with feast days on March 21 (the unnamed sinner), March 18 (Mary of Bethany), and July 22 (Mary Magdalene).

Many feminists and critics such as Dan Brown claim that the Catholic Church, alarmed by Mary’s supposed position as Jesus’ chief apostle, slandered and “defamed” her by labeling her a prostitute. They say this was due to “the Vatican’s” desire to silence the “truth” about Mary Magdalene, including her marriage to Jesus and her position of authority in the early Church. Such a tale of conspiracy and misogyny is attractive to those questioning the role of women in the Catholic Church and the Church’s teachings about sexual mores. But is it accurate?

 If the early Christians were intent upon destroying the memory of Mary Magdalene, they did a poor job of it. In Christian Scripture and Tradition she is given a prominent role as witness to the Resurrection, a remarkable fact considering that the testimony of women had little value in first-century Jewish society.

Feminist critics often portray the early Church fathers as villains in this matter. The prime suspect in the alleged crime against women is Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 540–604). The pope once said in a homily: “She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark.”

Why did St. Gregory make this identification?
First, the passage about the “sinful woman” in Luke 7:37–50 immediately precedes the description of “Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out” in Luke 8:2. He apparently harmonized the two descriptions, perhaps because the woman who anointed Jesus (Lk 7:37–50) is described as a “sinner,” and Mary Magdalene had been possessed by seven demons — an indication to some that she was that sinner.

A second reason for Gregory’s identification of the two women is the Magdalene’s birthplace. By the sixth century, the biblical city of Magdala had acquired a reputation of depravity and godlessness.

Third, John 11:1–2 identifies the woman who anointed Christ and dried His feet with her hair as Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus. St. Gregory may have assumed that the two accounts of a woman anointing our Lord referred to the same event and the same woman.

Probably the most important reason, however, that Gregory identified Magdalene with the “sinful woman” is that his preferred way of interpreting the biblical text was to focus on its moral implications. He believed that the seven demons that had once possessed Mary Magdalene, though literal demons, also represented the seven deadly sins.

At the time of this homily, Rome was undergoing famine and the turmoil of war. So the pope was taking this opportunity to encourage Christians to repent of their sins.

  St. Gregory’s creation of a single Mary out of three different women is arguably not supported by the text. Most Catholic Scripture scholars agree with the Eastern tradition that the three women are separate persons. The revised 1969 Roman calendar no longer classifies Mary Magdalene as a penitent, indicating that Rome no longer considers her a reformed harlot.

Nevertheless, even if St. Gregory’s act was factually flawed, it wasn’t outrageous and it certainly wasn’t malicious. As a pastor and a man of holiness, the great pope held up Mary Magdalene as an exemplar of repentance, humility and devotion. She was a symbol of hope for sinners.

Though his facts may not have been accurate, Gregory was not attempting to destroy Mary Magdalene, but to praise her. In the meantime, we should note that however great the authority of Pope Gregory, his teaching about Mary Magdalene was not infallible, nor was it issued in an encyclical or a papal bull. It was never defined as Catholic dogma nor upheld as sacred doctrine by an ecumenical council.

Contrary to feminist criticisms and the unfounded assertions of “The Da Vinci Code,” Mary Magdalene has been openly celebrated by Catholics for many centuries. Described by some Church fathers as the “apostle to the apostles,” she was a brave disciple of Jesus who stood at His cross; she was also a witness to the resurrected Christ.

Far from being pilloried or slandered, Mary of Magdala is rightly recognized by the Church as a model of faithfulness, devotion and loyalty to the truth of the Gospel of her Master and Lord.

Question of the Day for Thursday, January 24, 2008

Novus Ordo in Latin?

Q. Is the Novus Ordo liturgy celebrated in Latin? I believe that I have attended Mass when traveling where that was the case.

K. W., via email

A. The Novus Ordo Missae (literally, “New Order of the Mass”) is the one that is most commonly celebrated today, promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969 (and published in 1970). Yes, it is sometimes celebrated in Latin.

This “Ordinary Form” of the Mass (as opposed to the “Extraordinary Form,” the older, Traditional Latin Mass) is most often heard in the vernacular languages. But the official text on which these vernacular translations are based is itself in Latin, and this text is used whenever the Novus Ordo is celebrated in Latin.

 The Latin text of the Novus Ordo Missae can be found here.

Question of the Day for Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Host Instead of Bread?

Q. When did the Holy Host replace the bread and wine? Jesus used bread and wine. Why did the Church change it?

C. W., via email

A. The Church has never changed from using bread and wine as Jesus did.

The Host is bread before it is consecrated to become Our Lord’s Body, even though it more closely resembles what has come in our time to be called a “wafer.” This bread is made simply of wheat flour and natural water that has been mixed and baked.

The first Eucharist, at which Our Lord Jesus presided, was a Passover meal. This means the bread He used was unleavened — that is, flat, without yeast to make it rise, like the matzoh used by observant Jews during Passover even today. Given this precedent, Christians in the West have continued to use unleavened bread, though it has taken on various shapes, sizes and thicknesses throughout the Church’s history. Some historical evidence suggests that as early as the sixth century, Hosts were being used that are as small and thin as they are now.

In the East, on the other hand, Christians have tended to use leavened bread, which in that regard looks more like the common bread we eat today.

As for wine: The priest does in fact still consecrate wine and consume Our Lord’s precious Blood at every Mass, even at those times when the cup is not shared with the others assembled. So the Church continues, as she always has, to consecrate bread and wine for the Eucharist.

For more details about the fascinating history of the Host, see the Catholic Encyclopedia online article here.

Question of the Day for Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Pro-Life Day of Penance?

Q. A friend told me that her priest announced from the pulpit last Sunday that January 22 is a day of penance for Catholics. What’s that about?
 L. M., San Francisco, Calif.

A. Today, January 22, is of course the thirty-fifth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the tragic U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in this country. As an act of reparation on behalf of our nation, all American Catholics are called by the Church to pray and do penance today. Here’s what the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) says:

“In all the dioceses of the United States of America, January 22 (or January 23, when January 22 falls on a Sunday) shall be observed as a particular day of penance for violations to the dignity of the human person committed through acts of abortion, and of prayer for the full restoration of the legal guarantee of the right to life. The Mass ‘For Peace and Justice’ (no. 22 of the ‘Masses for Various Needs’) should be celebrated with violet vestments as an appropriate liturgical observance for this day (no. 373).”

Let’s all observe this day as the Church has requested. And let’s renew our efforts to bring about an end to legalized abortion and a deeper, more widespread respect for human life.

Note about a question from last week: I received a reply to my query last week (click here) [entry for Tuesday, Jan 15] about whether Singapore has a patron saint. According to a representative of that archdiocese, Singapore has no officially designated patron saint. As we noted last week, however, St. Thomas the Apostle and St. Francis Xavier are both considered patrons of the East Indies, which in the broad sense of the term refers to all Southeast Asia, including Singapore.

Question of the Day for Monday, January 21, 2008

Debating Non-Catholics

Q. As a convert to the Catholic faith, I like to engage non-Catholic Christians and non-believers in discussion about the Church’s teachings. There’s one particular person I know, however, who was a ministry associate of mine before I became Catholic and who is strongly anti-Catholic. My correspondence with her on this subject seems to have been fruitless.
What should I do? On the one hand I feel called to share the gospel with her because if I do not, then who will? On the other hand, I am a bit tired of debating with those who have so much animosity towards the Catholic Church. Could you give me some advice?

 M.T., via email

A. My experience suggests that when someone is so thoroughly hostile to the Church, there’s not much we can do at that point except pray for him or her. That’s even more the case when the person has an emotional investment in us and has viewed our entering the Catholic Church as a personal betrayal. Attempts to debate in that environment lead only to deeper division.

This is not to say that unity is to be desired above truth. It’s simply to say that the path to truth may for the moment be blocked by anger, confusion and the sense of betrayal. The lenses of a person’s intellectual “eyeglasses” are fogged up with emotion, not to mention the debris of misinformation that typically circulates about the Catholic Church.

 Most of the apologetic work I’ve done over the years after my own conversion to the Catholic faith has been largely aimed at two audiences. The first is Catholics who need help understanding the biblical, historical and intellectual foundations of their faith so that they won’t be led astray by opponents of the Church. The second is non-Catholics with an open mind who are curious about those same foundations of our faith. Sometimes God uses me to help convince the diehard opponents as well, but that’s rare. Those folks I simply must leave in the hands of God.

 I find that it helps to keep the big picture in mind: God will send along others to aid those who are sincerely seeking the truth. Your coming into the Church planted a seed inside this acquaintance. Now it will probably be the role of someone else to water the seed. If she cooperates with God’s grace, someone else will most likely have the privilege of reaping the spiritual harvest (see St. Paul’s remarks in 1 Cor 3:6-7).

In other words, the whole burden of testimony doesn’t rest on you. The most important witness you could have given her, you did in fact give: You entered the Catholic Church, despite the great personal sacrifices involved. Now someone else will probably have to take it from there.

Think of your conversion as a grain of sand in the “oyster” of her soul. It is most certainly an irritant to her. But eventually, if she finds the grace to respond to this divine provocation, it will form a treasure inside her.

In any case, that’s how it’s been for me.
You might be amazed at what God can use to plow up the soil of a soul so that the seeds of faith can grow there. It may be some kind of adversity that requires a response that her present concept of God, faith and the Church cannot adequately provide. It may be the repeated experience of knowing people who become Catholic, forcing her to recognize that something is going on here beyond a single individual’s “error.”

It could be a “chance” encounter with a priest or member of a religious order who breaks a stereotype. It might even be a book. The Holy Spirit is able to use occasions such as these to achieve surprising results. I’ll be praying for your friend.