The Cult of the Virgin Mary

by Michael P. Carroll

Tracing devotion to Mary to psychological and historical processes that began in the fifth century, Michael Carroll answers intriguing questions: What explains the many reports of Marian apparitions over the centuries? Why is Mary both "Virgin" and "Mother" simultaneously? Why has the Marian cult always been stronger in certain geographical areas than in others? The first half of the book presents a psychoanalytic explanation for the most salient facts about the Marian cult and the second addresses the question of Marian apparitions.

Genres: History, Religion, Womens, Theology, Christianity

254 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 1986

Reviews

[Valéria]

-This review contains notes taken along the reading, it is not a concise summary of my thoughts but rather a collection of points noted along the way. (Just because something is written here it doesn’t necessarily mean that I agree with it, be it partially or in its totality, this is simply a bullet list of material within the book.)

Interesting introduction to the conceptualisation of the Virgin Mary within southern and eastern Christian movements, developing upon both Catholic and Orthodox perceptions of Mary's possible postpartum virginity, exploring the presence (or lack thereof) of indications towards Mary's possible divine status and different forms of worship between these varying sects.

Description of mainly Mediterranean female deities (also Sumerian, Akkadian and Babylonian) (quite outdated also) with motherly (/creational) facets to their being. Most of these divine variations also possess some element of sexual promiscuity which prevents the possibility of eventual transformation into the image of the Virgin Mary (possesses both the motherly, the divine but also the strictly virgin aspect).

Mary and the Mother Archetype: an exploration of Jung’s psychological theory of Archetypes as a predisposition for certain attributes and qualities to cluster together in the unconscious, not only influencing but also creating conscious images of said Archetypes (these conscious perceptions can have varying degrees of presence of each quality attributed to a certain Archetype). Mother Goddesses as different conscious apparitions of the unconscious Mother Archetype with varying degrees of each quality associated with the Archetype (for example, goodness, fertility, secrecy, seductiveness, etc…). Further exploration of the presence or absence of the quaternity within different religious systems (good male, bad male, good female, bad female). This theory offers analysis of characteristics but no explanation behind the ‘whys’ of the development of such qualities.

Mary and the Paleolithic Mother Goddess: exploration of the possibility of a link between Marian Cults and a hypothesized ‘Great Mother’ cult from the Paleolithic Period, such a cult would have been dominant throughout great geographical areas from modern Europe to Anatolia (the social and psychological environment necessary for the existence of such a cult would be a matrilineal and matriarchal society once thought to have existed during the Paleolithic period, most academics reject this notion today) being eventually replaced by a dual pantheon of a Sky-God/Earth-Goddess during Indo-European invasions. The existence of such an ancient cult was mainly based upon material evidence such as ‘Venuses’ statues that supposedly represent an ideal idea of fertility of high importance for these earlier human societies. The author rejects this notion, mentioning counter arguments related to the high diversity of fertility stages represented throughout these statues (impeding their previously divinely fertile status) and the lack of female figures (high percentage of animal figures) in Paleolithic religious art within well-known religious sites.

Earth Mother hypothesis: established connection between agricultural societies (within which the sustenance depends mainly upon agricultural produce) and the development of female Goddesses cults (mainly Mother Goddesses cults, due to some anecdotal relation between earth’s fertility and the cycle of human birth ). Also rejected by the author due to unclear connection between result and cause.

Brief analysis of the composition of the early Christian Church throughout the Roman Empire alongside a quick summary from the evolution of the Christian faith from a minority within rural environments of the empire to the official Religion of the state (alongside discussions of the eventual prohibition of sacrifices that composed crucial facets of the pagan cults/rituals practiced by the great majority of the population and the total prohibition of important military/senatorial positions to those that professed pagan faiths).

The main theory proposed by the author is that the initial majority of members of the early Christian church were what we would consider middle-class citizens (not necessarily aristocratic but perhaps people specialized in their craft/merchants, people capable of obtaining wealth paramount or even greater than that of the aristocracy). The author’s theory is filtered through a set of psychoanalytic lenses, where he analyzes the probable familial structure of both a middle-class and lower-class Roman family based upon modern research of the effects of poverty in our current world within the family structure due to the scarcity of ancient sources on the matter.

His main conclusion is that since it was more probable for the father figure within a poverty stricken family to fall within the ‘father-ineffective’ category, it would be this ineffectiveness that would lead to a strong but strongly repressed desire for the mother that would eventually materialize within the form of intense Marian devotion. Such a devotion strongly surges only after Christianity becomes the main religion of the empire, when it began to include not only a greater quantity of devotees but also a greater diversity of members coming from different social strata, bridging then also a greater range of psychological and social elements within the realm of the human perception in personal devotion. So instead of the sudden appearance of strong Marian devotion being due to the absorption of certain Christian religious sects (like other academics have theorized previously) into the main Church, this author theorizes that such an alteration was rather due to the inevitable integration of different social and economic classes within the faith. (The Great Transformation of the Church within the 4th century)

Historical debate (Council of Ephesus) upon the ancient titles for addressing Mary (Theotokos - Mother of God) (Christotokos - Mother of Christ) (maintaining Mary’s relatively high and important divine status within the Christian faith )

Connection between the cult of Cybelle with that of Mary for both receive their support from the same psychological wellspring.

[Peter Bradley · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Cult of the Virgin Mary by Michael P. Carroll

Have you ever said a Hail Mary?

If so, Sociologist Michael P. Carroll wants you to know that you probably want to have sex with your dominating mother.

At least, that’s if you are a male. If you are female, then you probably still want to sleep with your mother but you understood when you were younger than five years old that you lacked a penis, which meant that sleeping with your father was the way you could get a penis so that you could then sleep with your mother.

Carroll was a Freudian psychologist.[1] His explanation for the psychological origins of Marian devotion is thoroughly Freudian. Carroll cites Freud like he was citing holy text, which became progressively weirder in this book about demolishing other people’s delusions.

There is nothing wrong with writing a book from a Freudian perspective, or with writing a book that pulls no punches in attacking Catholic Marianism. Carroll offered me some details that I thought were worthwhile. On the whole, though, I was dissatisfied with the factual and logical foundations of his analysis.[2]

Before embarking into the murky world of the sexual fantasies of toddlers, Carroll starts with four observations allegedly premised on history: first, until the fourth century Marian devotion was virtually unknown, second, not every country or region shows the same level of Marian devotion, third, the cult of Mary is essentially unique in featuring a goddess that is a virginal mother and, four, Marian worship is masochistic.[3] Carroll uses these observations to create an explanatory model for Marian devotion. Based on his model, he explains that in the parts of Europe where Marian devotion is found, fathers are typically out of work, weak, and eclipsed by their more dominant and powerful wives. Thus, places like southern Italy, Spain, and even Poland are distinguished by a “father-ineffective family.” In contrast, less Marian parts of Europe, such as Germany, England, and the Nordic countries, have family structures typified by strong fathers who rule the household.

At this point, Freud can take over with sons in their toddler years, knowing that their fathers are ineffective, and therefore wanting to sleep with their mothers. Of course, later they feel guilty and want to be punished, and – voila!!! – They get to sublimate their icky incest fixation with worship of Mary in a practice that incorporates guilt-satisfying masochistic elements.

Catholic women are also involved in worshiping Mary. Do they want to sleep with their mothers? Dr. Freud says, “Yes.” But before 2018, women lacked penises. Accordingly, they were forcedto turn to their fathers for the penises they lacked. Of course, Dad can’t transfer a penis like that, so Catholic women in “father-ineffective” regions of Europe focused on the next best thing, i.e., getting a baby from Dad.

OK, that’s weird.

But it explains the Catholic woman’s fixation with the sexless mother goddess.

I kid you not.

Here is Dr. Carroll explaining the castration issue.

But in the eyes of his son, a father is no ordinary rival, but a giant associated with enormous power. Facing such an omnipotent rival, the son will come to fear that the father will retaliate against him for daring to want what the father also wants. When the son becomes aware of the anatomical difference between the sexes, he will suddenly know the likely form of this retaliation: someone will detach his penis just as someone had detached the penis of his mother and his sisters. Freud, somewhat misleadingly, used the term “castration anxiety” to describe the young son’s fear of “penis-detachment.”

Driven by this fear, the son will act to eliminate the perceived threat from his father by repressing his desire for his mother, that is, he will drive the sexual desire for his mother into his unconscious mind. This repressed desire for the mother will remain latent in the unconscious until puberty. At that time hormonal changes will energize all the son’s sexual desires, including those in the unconscious. The strength of the mother-son incest taboo (that is, the strong sense that intercourse with a mother is morally wrong) will insure that his sexual desire for the mother cannot enter his conscious mind directly, so it comes to consciousness in the form of a generalized desire for women.

Carroll, Michael P.. The Cult of the Virgin Mary: Psychological Origins (pp. 72-73). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

Here is his explanation about Catholic women:

The question we must ask ourselves, then, is why identification with the Virgin Mary would be of any value to females. The answer lies in Freud’s discussion of the Oedipal process for females.5 He argued that a daughter’s first sexual attachment, like that of the son, will be to the mother. But the daughter will very quickly become aware of the anatomical difference between the sexes. Because the genital region is so intimately associated with sexual stimulation and because the daughter (like all children) operates under a “bigger is better” principle, the daughter will feel generally inferior. The daughter then turns to the father in the hope that he can provide her with the wished-for penis. She quickly realizes that this is impossible, and so her “wish for a penis” from the father becomes a “wish for a baby” from the father. The daughter may not be fully cognizant of the nature of the reproductive act, but she will know that “making a baby” involves close physical contact between a man and a woman. Her desire for a baby from the father, then, inevitably brings along with it a desire for close contact with the father, which Freud calls a desire for sexual contact with the father.

We can now understand the value to females of identifying with the Virgin Mary. Remember Leach’s comment about Mary: she was a mere mortal with whom God the Father had a mystical relationship, and from whom she received a baby, Jesus Christ. That is, the Virgin Mary experienced what must be regarded as the ultimate fulfillment of every daughter’s Oedipal desires, to have intercourse with the father and receive from him a baby.

Carroll, Michael P.. The Cult of the Virgin Mary: Psychological Origins (p. 77-78). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

So, in the “father-deficient” parts of Europe, everyone idealized their mothers, and therefore idealized Mary.

Some of this has the ring of truth, such as the part about “idealizing mom.” However, this is true everywhere. Other parts seem like a Just-So story from a penis-obsessed academic.[4]

Carroll then applies his Freudian theory to explain why Marian devotion first appears in the 4th Century. He explains that, prior to the imperial approval of Christianity, it was mostly a project perpetuated by solid, bourgeois families. After Constantine, Christianity received an influx of poorer Romans with their “father-deficient” families. They naturally were looking for someone to sublimate their castration anxiety, so they moved Cybele over to Christianity.

QED.[5]

I think Carroll oversells the strengths of his observations. For example, there is an intercessory prayer to Mary that is conventionally dated to 250 AD[6], but although it may have been written later, the early dating cannot be ruled out.[7] Similarly, in the third century, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus applied the title “Mother of God” to Mary. [8] Similarly, in the third century, St. Irenaeus linked Mary to Jesus as the “new Eve” and the “new Adam.”[9] Mary has pride of place in early fresco paintings.

In the first century, there is a Marian devotional literature including the Protoevangelium of James. In addition:

The "Odes of Solomon" belong to this tradition of liturgical hymns. Ode XIX, 6-11 celebrates the Virgin Mary in the History of Salvation.

Melito of Sardis' famous homily Peri tou pascha (On Easter). The term "virgin" and particularly the expression "the Virgin" in this specific context designate the Mother of Jesus and have devotional nuance, i.e. a sense of veneration and stupor before the prodigy of the Blessed Virgin's divine and virginal motherhood.[10]

Mary is also depicted in artwork.[11]

In short, there is a lot more of a Marian cult than Carroll suggests. This should not be surprising. The idea that Marian devotion emerged suddenly with the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD is problematic. The early church adhered to the principle of “Lex Orandi, lex credenda,” which means that devotional practices encapsulate and form doctrines. It was the fact that Christians were already praying to Jesus as God that made the Arian heresy a non-starter with the laity, albeit it was not unpopular with the clerical class. Likewise, the definition of Mary as the Mother of God would have made no sense – and had little traction – apart from the fact that Christians were already calling Mary the Mother of God before Ephesus, and apparently, well back into the second and third centuries.

Carroll pays no attention to how other Christian doctrines developed over time, which is a significant flaw in his model.

Another major flaw is that he completely omits the most important issue of the fifth century, namely the development of Nestorianism. Carroll offers counter-causal factors for the development of a more visible form of Marianism in the fifth century, rejecting those explanations and leaving his “toddlers want to sleep with Mommy” explanation as the last man standing. He considers ideas that are marginal at best, such as the possible survival of Mother Goddess cults from the Neolithic period and “Mary as Goddess” cults, vaguely referenced in a few lines from Epiphanius’s catalogue of heresies.

But he completely misses Nestorianism, which was not shadowy or speculative but was a major player in the ancient world. Nestorianism was the largest form of Christianity that existed outside the Roman Empire. Nestorianism expressly and without question rejected the “Mother of God” title.

Given that a rival church says Mary is NOT the Mother of God, would it be surprising – would it take Freud – to realize that the Imperial Church might press the claims of Mary as a matter of ideological warfare against a rival? This is a standard part of human psychology that has been referred to as “schismogenesis.” We see schismogenesis everywhere, whenever one group maximizes a difference to distinguish itself from a rival. We can see schismogenesis in dietary practices – who eats pork? – circumcision, dress, etc.

Nestorianism was a big deal. It may have been the majority religion of the Persian Empire. It was the Christianity of Mesopotamia, India, and China.

Carroll mentions Nestorianism three times. In the first and second entries, he acknowledges Nestorianism:

Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, argued that the human and divine natures of Christ were “conjoined” within the framework of a single personality. The other faction, led by Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria (and supported by the Pope, Celestine), argued that the two natures of Christ were in fact merged in a “hypostatic union.” Cyril’s faction won out, and the Nestorians were defined as heretics. But it was a dispute over Mary that ignited the entire controversy. Increasingly, at least in the East, Mary had been called by the title Theotokos, which many people of the time interpreted as “Mother of God.” Nestorius objected to the use of this term on the grounds that it made little sense to suggest that a creation (like Mary) could be mother to her Creator. For Nestorius, Anthropotokos (Mother of the Man) or Christotokos (Mother of Christ) made more sense. It was the debate over the precise meaning of Theotokos, and over the appropriateness of this term as a Marian title, that gave rise to the debate over the relationship between Christ’s two natures.

Carroll, Michael P.. The Cult of the Virgin Mary: Psychological Origins (p. 107). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

The third entry likewise leaves the issue to the realm of theology:

The events surrounding the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. can be interpreted in a similar manner. Here again, the important theological issues debated were impeccably Christological. In reacting against Nestorianism, some Church leaders, led by the monk Eutyches, had argued that the Incarnate Christ had really only had a divine nature and had not possessed a human nature at all. At Chalcedon, this position was defined as heretical, and the conclusions at Ephesus concerning the two natures of Christ were reiterated. The reason that Chalcedon was important for the Mary cult lies in what is traditionally called the Tome of Leo. This is a collection of essays written by Pope Leo the Great, in which he set out the orthodox position regarding the two natures of Christ. It was by accepting this document that the Council of Chalcedon rejected the “divine nature only” arguments of Eutyches. Leo’s tome, however, was accepted in its entirety, and since Leo had touched upon Mary, however incidentally, his statements on Mary also became the official position of the Church. Leo had referred both to Mary’s in partu virginity and to her perpetual virginity. Although these two beliefs had been common in the early Church, they had never before been given official endorsement by the Church hierarchy meeting in council.

Carroll, Michael P.. The Cult of the Virgin Mary: Psychological Origins (p. 108). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.[12]

Carroll writes off the Nestorian issue before going in search of Neolithic fertility goddesses that have managed to survive underground for 8,000 years and Collyridian Mary worshippers, based on three lines of text that described 71 other heresies, on the grounds that, really, Nestorianism was just too hard for the average Christian to understand. He writes:

For most ordinary Christians in the empire, it seems doubtful that the Council’s decision to endorse Cyril’s notion of a “hypostatic union” would have had any impact at all. One modern commentator (Hardon, 1975: 136), trying to explain the concept to a lay audience, puts it thus: “It means that the two natures of Christ are united personally, in such a way that while the source from which the union was effected was two distinct natures, which remained essentially unchanged, the being in which the union was completed was one individual (in Greek, hypostasis), which individual was divine.” The difference between this view and the Nestorian view (which talked of “conjunction”) would almost certainly not have been understood by the mass of Christians throughout the empire. What would have been understood by most Christians, however, is that a bishop had tried to deny Mary a title ( Theotokos) that implied a close association between Mary and God, and that views of this bishop had been denounced by the official Church. In the eyes of most Christians, then, the only important result of the Council of Ephesus would have been that Mary’s relatively high status in the Christian pantheon was affirmed. Thus I suggest that at Ephesus the Church showed itself willing to make Mary a far more important goddess than she had previously been, and that this was a response to the fact that Mary was a figure who appealed to a large segment of the Church’s new constituency.

Carroll, Michael P.. The Cult of the Virgin Mary: Psychological Origins (pp. 107-108). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

This passage demonstrates that while Carroll may know Freud, he doesn’t know faith.

The average Christian might not have known the difference between a hypostasis and an ousia, but they knew their rituals. They knew that they prayed to Jesus as a God and that Mary was the Mother of God. When the Arians tried to demote Jesus from God to a creature, they knew they didn’t like that because that is not what they had been doing. Likewise, when they were told that some Patriarch in Constantinople wanted to have them deny that Mary was the Mother of God, they might have cared next to nothing about hypostases and natures. Still, they were not going to put up with slighting the Mother of God (who they had probably been directing intercessory prayers to for hundreds of years.)

In short, Ephesus was not a marketing technique to gain new customers; it was a recognition of what already existed.

In which case, when the Nestorians began to push the “Mother of Christ” nonsense, patriotic Christians were going to say the opposite.

This is human psychology. We can see it in this Chaldean Church that bears the name “Mother of God.”

The Chaldeans are in communion with the Catholic Church. They came from the Nestorian Assyrian Church of the East. Why do they have a church with the name “Mother of God.”


Is it because they want to sleep with their mothers?

Nonsense. They named their church as a matter of pride to show that they are members of the universal church and are no longer Nestorians (if they ever were).

That’s human nature.

An anti-Nestorian reaction is a better explanation for the open Marian devotion that Carroll says occurred in the fourth century than the questionable claim that “father-deficient” poor people flooded the church. There are several reasons to question that construct.

First, the distinction between sturdy Germans and feckless Italians is just a bit too much of a caricature to be taken seriously in this day and age. How does Carroll know that this was true throughout European history? To the contrary, national stereotypes reverse frequently. Prior to the French losing the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, the stereotype had always been that the French were the soldiers and the Germans were the poets.

Second, is it the case that the poor are always “father-deficient”? This seems like another stereotype.

Third, Carroll’s theory should predict a massive wave of Marian devotion from the African-American inner cities. Do we see that phenomenon?

Fourth, writing in the fourth century, Epiphanius defines sects that denied that Mary was the Mother of God as heretical.

Sadly, this stuff is obvious, which makes the question of why Carroll didn’t see it. It might have something do with his attitudes toward Catholicism generally, which can be inferred from analysis of the Rosay as an anal fixation and his constant statements that Catholics worship Mary as a goddess.

[Steve Wiggins · Rating 3 out of 5]

Freudian analysis of religious phenomena is inherently interesting, however, this book does show its age a bit. Much more is known of ancient goddesses and this calls into question a few of Carroll's early conclusions. Still, a very informative source on many Marian apparitions over time. More observations may be found on my blog: Sects and Violence in the Ancient World.

[Gord Higginson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting book by UWO professor about apparitions of the Virgin Mary and related miracles. Why do so many report visions of the Virgin Mary at Knock, Ireland, and other revered places such as the thousands who allegedly saw Mary on the roof of a church in Alexandria. Why? Mass hallucination? Carroll provides a psycho-analytic explanation.

[Shawn]

I have been told that is a book that a person either absolutely loves or absolutely hates.