In an excellently written pastoral letter entitled Ang Mahal na Birhen, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines in 1975 commented about popular Marian devotions, “What is needed is renewal, not suppression.” This call is further elaborated by the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines in a paragraph about popular religious practices. It states that there is a need that these practices do not become superficial forms of worship. Instead, these practices must serve the cause of “full human development, justice, peace and the integrity of creation.”
I am reminded of these quotes when Archbishop Alberto Uy commented while I shared table with him. He expressed admiration for these practices but added, “What is needed is purification.”
My thoughts about popular religious practices have been with me for a time. But they were rekindled by two recent events. One was the visit of the pilgrim image of Our Lady of Guadalupe from Mexico. The other is the annual feast of the Birthday of the Virgin Mary. In the first event, thousands of pilgrims from far-flung towns of the province visited the Parish and Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe. On the feast of the birth of Mary, all roads led to Simala, Sibonga. Yet, it was not just a case of numbers. The religious fervor is authentically unquantifiable.
But sadly, the popular devotion to Mary stands side by side with social inequality, lack of accountability and so much environmental degradation. We are not suggesting that there is a causal link. Nevertheless, we still ask whether popular religiosity be an instrument for social change.
I believe that one area in our Marian devotion that can be purified is the tendency to exalt the Blessed Virgin in a manner that is unrelated to our own struggles in life. Take the case of the litany of the Blessed Virgin. We gave her titles which I find difficult to relate, even unfathomable, like Mary as the house of gold. We also call her mother undefiled. Does this imply that our own mothers were defiled?
I would prefer titles which are simpler and more biblically based. For instance some litanies call her the mother of migrants. In view of the phenomenon of migration, the title can be relatable. Furthermore, the Bible narrates to us that indeed the holy family migrated temporarily to Egypt for security reasons. While we are at this, why not call her the mother of victims? After all, her son was victimized by the powerful Roman Empire who connived with the Jewish temple establishment. We can also highlight that she was the first to whom the good news was relayed, through the angel Gabriel.
I prefer to picture the Blessed Virgin as someone who struggled to grasp the radical message of her son, but who nevertheless followed him all the way to his death and resurrection. She could not have possibly understood everything but she made that leap of faith and love in following her beloved Son. It is even plausible to imagine that Mary must have heard some comments from neighbours, “Should she not be telling her son to get married and live a more normal life? Otherwise, he is putting himself in danger.” These comments may surely have hurt the feelings of a mother but they did not stop Mary from following Jesus.
She can be seen as a woman of peasant birth who longed for justice. How else can we interpret her proclamation of God who brings down the powerful from their thrones and lifts up the lowly, who fills the hungry with good things and sends the rich empty away?
In the stories of her apparitions, she surely easily identified herself with simple people like Juan Diego, Bernadette, Jacinta, Lucia and Francisco.
Mary shared our struggles. She is one of us.
