So if we say something of Mary which someone thinks is objectionable, it ought to be possible, if not easy, to show what's wrong with it.
For example. Nobody is saying Mary is a tree, really. But she is like a tree in that she bears fruit, namely Jesus. And Jesus gives life to the dying world, so he is a fruit of life. Therefore the tree that bears him is the tree of life.
What steps in that "constructive" are wrong? I GET that the conclusion seems to trespass on the glory of God, but I would say that if the "constructive" is sound, it is the perception of trespass that is awry.
I disagree.
Humans have an infinite capacity
to ‘CONSTRUCTive’ ENDLESSLY
. . . to RATIONALIZE . . . as CONSTRUCTIVE . . .
all manner of evil results.
I would say something like . . .
The logic steps one uses to arrive at
MARY = A TREE OF LIFE
Though I suspect many RC’s end up saying
MARY = THE TREE OF LIFE
THOSE STEPS ARE IRRELEVANT.
WHEN THE END RESULT IS ENCROACHING ON THE SANCTITY OF GOD—that thing which Ferraro cites that Mary ‘naturally’ has part in as, essentially, Jr part of the GOD QUARTET . . .
WHEN that’s the end result—it does not matter how one arrives there.
The young man has wonderful reasons for the nice dinner date, the flowers, the perfume, the jewelry, the artistic motivations to view his etchings . . . the unmarried pregnancy is still wrong.