In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF MARY'S QUEENSIDP EVER since 1954, when an ailing Pontiff devoted some of his failing energy to adding one-more star to Mary's crown with the Encyclical Letter, Ad Caeli Reginam, there has been no doubt in the minds of Catholics that Mary, the Mother of God, is Queen of the Universe. This letter marked a climax in the deep and chivalric devotion of the people of God to the Lady Mary. While not a solemn definition , the Encyclical may well be taken as Pope Pius XII's witness to the age-old and ordinary teaching of the Church; certainly,. the fact that Mary is Queen of the Universe is solemnly definable. Even the slightest acquaintance with the theological literature that has appeared since 1954 makes it evident that two major problems remain open for discussion by those who hold firmly to the fact of Mary's Queenship. The first problem is concerned with the exact nature of the queenship to be attributed to Mary. In what way do we build up the analogy of queenship so that it will be verified of her? Especially, may we, must we, attribute royal power to Mary? If so, to what extent? The second problem, though intimately linked with the first, is formally distinct from it: in the exercise of her queenly role, does Mary enjoy only moral power, or does she also serve as a physical instrumental cause? Discussion of this second problem will not engage us in this paper. We are concerned rather with a possible solution to the first; hence the subjectthe unique character of Ma:cy's Queenship. Some aspects of this Queenship are admitted by all. It has been pointed out many times that the title " Queen " belongs to Mary, as the title "King" belongs to Christ, in a metaphorical sense. This is in accord with the custom of recognizing excellence in any field by imposing the titles " king " or " queen " on its possessor; so the lion is the " king " of beasts; ~98 294 JAMES M:. EGAN· the moon is the " queen " of the night; there are " home .run kings" and" queens of beauty." In this line, Our Lord and Our Lady, because of their supreme perfection in the order of grace and of nature, are most fittingly called the King and Queen of Creation. While it is most important to acknowledge the ineffable preeminence of Christ and Mary in the whole order of creation, the concern here is with the proper or literal sense of these titles. All agree also that there is no question of Mary's being a queen regnant, as Queen Elizabeth II of England or Queen Juliana of the Netherlands. These are" kings" who happen to be women and hence are called" queens"; whatever there is of royal power left in England or Holland it is in their hands. But that Mary is· Queen in the kingdom of which Christ is King must never be forgotten. It is commonly agreed that Mary is Queen Mother, and in a very special way. Ordinarily, the "queen mother" is the woman who gave birth to a child who eventually becomes king. She is not his queen. Now Mary gave birth to one who is king by that very birth. The Church does not hesitate to accommodate to Christ the words of Sacred Scripture concerning Solomon: " He was crown~d by his own mother." The focus here is on Christ's kingship as man. As man, he becomes king first of all by birth right, by his birth from the Virgin Mother. It was theoretically possible that God would ask no more of Mary than to be the mother of her Divine Son. Clearly, all he asked of Joseph was to be the husband of Mary and the foster-father of Jesus. This function was confined to the early years of Our Lord's life; this is why Joseph is no longer on the scene when Jesus begins his public ministry (and his heavenly Father makes his appearance). If Mary's task had been confined to that of mother, she too, in all probability, would have disappeared from this earth before Jesus...

pdf

Share