"The Grammar of Freedom: Why We Are Misreading the Silence of Mary" by Carlo Coppola
The Grammar of Freedom: Why We Are Misreading the Silence of Mary
By Carlo Coppola
In the modern digital square, theology is increasingly a casualty of the "soundbite" culture. We witness a recurring phenomenon where complex religious thought is dragged into the vortex of media simplification, decontextualized, and eventually repurposed as misinformation.
The recent storm surrounding Archbishop Giuseppe Laterza, the Apostolic Nuncio, is a definitive example of this trend. He has become a target of criticism rooted not in a genuine dispute over doctrine, but in a partial, ideologically charged reading of his reflections on Mary’s obedience.
The Theological Misunderstanding
To the secular eye, "obedience" is often synonymous with "subjugation." However, Archbishop Laterza was not offering a regressive apology for passivity. He was standing firmly within a millennia-old tradition that views Mary’s Fiat—her "yes" to the Divine—as the ultimate realization of human agency.
Scripture presents Mary not as a puppet, but as a protagonist. Her response in Luke 1:38 (“Let it be done to me according to your word”) is a conscious, radical act. As the Second Vatican Council articulated in Lumen Gentium, Mary committed herself to the plan of God with "free faith."
"Mary conceived Christ in her heart before she conceived Him in her womb." — St. Augustine
This quote, central to the Archbishop’s perspective, highlights the intellectual and spiritual labor involved in her choice. She accepts because she loves, and she loves because she discerns. To frame this as "blind submission" is to fundamentally misunderstand the Christian distinction between evangelical obedience and servility.
A Victim of Crossfire
The controversy reveals a deeper cultural malaise: the weaponization of isolated phrases. On one side, secular commentators are eager to find "proof" of institutional misogyny; on the other, certain ultra-traditionalist circles are quick to dismiss the Archbishop’s words as part of a "Bergoglian" agenda they find unpalatable.
Theology, however, does not function through slogans. It is a language of analogy and symbol. To transform a meditation on the soul’s relationship with God into a political attack on the dignity of women is more than a mistake; it is a calculated manipulation of meaning.
Defending the Right to Religious Language
By defending Archbishop Laterza, we are defending the right of religious discourse to exist on its own terms. In a world characterized by "communicative superficiality," it is essential to protect the freedom of theological reflection from being flattened by ideological tribalism.
Archbishop Laterza spoke as a pastor and a scholar. His role was to remind the faithful of the model of the "authentic disciple"—one who listens, questions, and acts.
Truth is not found in the clamor of a Twitter thread but in the depth of the word. Mary, a woman of radical freedom, should not be used as a pawn in cultural battles that are alien to her. Those who, like Laterza, handle the core of the Gospel message with intellectual rigor deserve our attention, not a public pillory.
Theology belongs in the study and the heart, not in the "tribunal of the feed." Only by respecting its complexity can we understand that Mary’s obedience remains what it has always been: the supreme act of liberty.
