Immaculate Conception
- Christ and Mary, Lucas Cranach the Elder, 1515
Tomorrow's the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I should say from the beginning that I don't really like the idea of the immaculate conception, that the conception of the Virgin Marywas without any stain of original sin. My basic reason is given at the end of the post, but first let me say I'm not alone. As Wikipedia notes .....
It was rejected by St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Alexander of Hales, and St. Bonaventure (who, teaching at Paris, called it "this foreign doctrine," indicating its association with England), and by St. Thomas Aquinas who expressed questions about the subject, but said that he would accept the determination of the Church.
You can read what Bernard of Clairvaux had to say here in a blog post I came upon. It's from Bernard's Epistle 174 which I couldn't find online. Here's a bit - People say that one must revere the conception which preceded the glorious birth-giving; for if the conception had not preceded, the birth-giving also would not have been glorious. But what would one say if anyone for the same reason should demand the same kind of veneration of the father and mother of Holy Mary? One might equally demand the same for Her grandparents and great-grandparents, to infinity. Moreover, how can there not be sin in the place where there was concupiscence? All the more, let one not say that the Holy Virgin was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not of man.
Thomas Aquinas is not so clear in his stance, some say he changed his mind later, but you can read what he had to say here - Question 27. The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin - where he writes, in part, If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all.
And in a more modern vein, here's a reaction to the idea of the immaculate conception from a commenter on a post on the immaculate conception at dotCommonweal which echos many of my own thoughts .....
# Posted by Lisa Fullam
on December 7th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Thanks, Eric, for a thoughtful post. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (which my guy Thomas Aquinas did not hold, btw,) is in stark tension (though not a logical contradiction) with the Church’s denial of ordination to women. It never fails to amuse me that the magisterium occasionally feels the need to define (and delimit) women, our nature and vocation, (with or without any substantial input from actual women,) but oddly never feels the need to define (and delimit) the nature and appropriate roles of men, except by counterpoise in the documents on women. Why no masculine counterpart to “Mulieris Dignitatem”?
Of course, when women are contained, constricted and misdefined, so are men. If women are to be passive and receptive, that would seem to imply that men should not be–and anyone in a real relationship knows that such giving and receiving is mutual and reciprocal. When Mary is misread as passive, not the firebrand who shouted the jouful revolutionary anthem of the Magnificat, we downplay (or dismiss) the call for women to be audacious and active also–and the world loses out.
And the issue of women’s ordination remains a third rail in the Church. We’re told the issue is “settled,” so does not require further discussion. Can something so painful for so many be merely defined away? Can vocation be defined away? Justice? And of course we have L’Affaire Bourgeois, demonstrating that the hierarchy will respond with threats of the harshest penalty at its disposal should a priest act up in solidarity with women called to serve as priests in the Church. To put it mildly, the magisterium seems overly defensive on questions relating to women–why? ......
Despite all I've noted above, I guess my best reasons for not liking the idea of the immaculate conception really reat on two things - one is that I see no compelling evidence for it in the NT, and the other reason has to do with how I see Mary. What makes her special to me is not some assigned purity but that she, as flawed and vulnerable as the rest of us, gathered up the courage and trust to say "yes".
posted by crystal | 1:49 PM
26 Comments:
I agree with you Crystal! God was pleased by her faith. If Mary was perfect, why did Jesus have to come? She could have saved humanity . . . "For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God . . ." Romans 3:23 (NKJV)
Hi Dyan :)
Catholics explaining the Immaculate Conception these days usually say that Mary still needed a Savior, but that Jesus' death and resurrection were, retroactively as it were, applied to Mary's life from her first moment of existence.
The compelling reason in favor of the Immaculate Conception is not a direct Scripture reference, true. It is, ultimately, a respect for God's sanctity, I think. By definition, for Jesus to be truly human, he must get his humanness from a human parent. But Jesus is also Yahweh incarnate, the great I AM.
There is a fine (but real) line between loving a broken object and loving its brokenness. Jesus loves us so much that he empties himself to become human. But he does not adopt our sinfulness. He is not too high-and-mighty to be one of us, but he IS too High, too holy and sacred, to receive something which is broken. If Mary had not been perfect, then she would have passed on to Jesus a humanness that was broken.
And yes, that brings up the infinite-regression question. But to me, it makes sense. If Mary receives her humanness from Anne, but without original sin, this causes no question about whether Mary is *really* human or not. No one doubts Mary's humanity. But many have doubted Jesus' humanity, calling him God pretending to be human, and such. If Jesus had taken on anything less than the completeness of the humanness Mary had to offer, then those doubts would have some justification.
The Immaculate Conception is, therefore, the way to keep a respect for God's holiness without giving any basis for doubting Jesus' complete humanity.
Great Cranach image!
I'd be interested in kmowing what you think the scriptural evidence is for Original Sin.
The Immaculate Conception does not suggest that Mary didn't need redemption from Christ, who is one in union with, and co-eternal with the Father. She did. If the idea of the Immaculate Conception presents some with a redemption problem, there is another problem presented by the denial of the Immaculate Conception...
When was Mary full of grace? It doesn't seem fitting or proper to us that the body that conceived, carried and bore the Divinity was tainted by Original Sin. When was she made full of grace? At her conception? At the Annunciation? When she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit? When she was baptized (we don't have any evidence indicating that she was baptized)? When she "accepted Jesus Christ as her personal Lord and Savior?" The woman who reared and raised him?
All we are saying is that the special favor that was given to her was given to her at her conception, since she was chosen and singled out for all time.
Also, this is a happy and wonderful example of collegiality and the Sensus Fidelium at work. Despite what Bernard and Thomas said, it was declared a dogma by a pope because millions upon millions of the laity prayed over it and petitioned the pope to say that it was so.
The Immaculate Conception is awesome. Almost as awesome as indulgences and transubstantiation.
Salve Regina! :-)
Anna and Jeff,
Your affection for the immaculate conception is infectious :)
But ...
The fact that it was a grass roots idea doesn't seem compelling to me. If we get to have dogma based on a popular vote, then the Vatican should ok contraception, which is used by about 90% of Catholic couples :)
I don't know, of course, if Mary was without original sin or not. But the Church teaching seems like reverse-engineered conjecture and assumption, not based on scripture but on emotion and a kind of weird logic.
Original sin .... now there's a topic!
This comment has been removed by the author.
I have yet to be convinced that 90% of ALL Catholic couples use contraception. Sure, it's common enough among Americans, but 2/3 of Catholics live in the global South, and they tend to be more conservative about sexual ethics than Americans. (And, not surprisingly, more interested in poverty.)
I would say that the Immaculate Conception is not so much reverse-engineered conjecture as it is a natural development of doctrine. I mean, in the 300s or so, it wasn't even clear what was the Christian belief about who Jesus was. All that had to be sorted out first, and once the Church had some time to let the idea of Jesus' divinity and humanity simmer around for a few centuries or ten, the idea of the Immaculate Conception slowly but surely grew out of it as being the only conclusion which respected both sides of him.
Anna,
I understand what you mean, I think - the idea of Mary's immaculate conception makes sense. But there is no actual support for it other than specualtive thought and, I guess, Marian apparitions. That doesn't mean it's not true, just that I'd need more for belief.
Crystal,
I saw what you deleted, because I got the automatic email update; do you mind if I respond to it?
Jeff,
What do you think about original sin?
Crystal,
I guess, for me, that "something more" is the fact that the Church proclaims the truth of the Immaculate Conception, and generally claims to have done so infallibly. I know you have trouble believing in infallibility in general; but when it goes along with something that "makes sense", then that is a significant confirmation in my eyes. When it comes down to it, one of the reasons I believe in the Church's teaching authority in the first place is that every official, infallibly-defined doctrine is something that, after I have investigated and reflected on the logic thoroughly enough, DOES make sense to me.
Anna,
Is that where I mentioned that verse from Luke? Yes, what do you think?
Oh, well. Failed another proof-text test (sigh).
If we get to have dogma based on a popular vote, then the Vatican should ok contraception, which is used by about 90% of Catholic couples
What about that Arian controversy you were talking about earlier when you cited Newman?
The IC was a happy example of the Sensus Fidelium at work, but sadly, it's not been the norm.
On the other hand, out of those 90% you mention, have most bothered to pray over it or to write letters and petition the pope over it, or do they just simply ignore the teaching? The logic in Humanae Vitae may not be the most compelling in the world, but hardly anyone who practices birth control has even taken the time to read it.
Original sin? I believe in it, even though Augustine was working off a mistranslation of Romans 5:12. I don't believe like he did, however, that it is sexually transmitted. How about you?
Jeff,
I don't believe that original sin is a thing passed down to everyone from Adam and Eve because they ate the apple. But I do believe in it if it's defined as the human capacity to do really terrible things. I guess I think human nature is flawed and that even the best of people have at least the potential to be bad, so that's my version of original sin.
If Mary didn't have that capacity, she wouldn't have really been human, I think.
Yeah, I wasn't really serious about the contraception thing. It's true that I think, like Newman, that the layity should get to have a vote, but it's just that if a majority of people believing something made it so, the earth at one time would have been flat :)
Crystal,
Free will = ability to sin.
Concupiscence = tendency to sin (having it be easier to sin than not to).
Original sin = coming into the world not in a relationship with God.
Adam broke off our relationship with God through his sin. Perhaps you think it unjust for all of humanity to be responsible for one man's sin. But this is part of a pattern with God, that he treats us not only as individuals but as a whole race. He made us to be communal, to be a part of each other. This allows us to be stronger than we could be by ourselves, but it also makes us vulnerable to each other, and responsible for each other whether we choose to be or not.
So Adam's turning away from God broke off the relationship of all of humanity with God, not just himself. And something has to be *done* in order for us to come back into relationship with him. Jesus' death and resurrection made this possible; with our baptism, we die and rise with him and our relationship is restored.
I want to use some of today's readings to make some points. The first is from today's responsorial Psalm: "Sing to the Lord a new song, for he has done marvelous deeds." I think that the Immaculate Conception, when understood, is one of those "marvelous deeds" which we should be singing new songs to God for. It is a beautiful thing that he has done.
To get at some of this beauty, let me ask: Do you believe in the Real Presence? Whether you do or not, if it WAS true, what do you think God would think of us if we regularly used styrofoam cups or cheap, cracked plastic to hold His son in? If that was the best we had, sure, he would joyfully accept it. But if we were holding back something better, then we would be dishonoring God, like Cain did in Gen 4:3-7.
I see the Immaculate Conception this way. We use vessels of gold and beautiful glass to honor the body and blood of Jesus at Mass; it is fitting that she who held the body and blood of Jesus when he first came to earth was also a vessel without blemish or flaw. Mary is the best humanity has to offer; if she had been flawed, it would have been like God saying that we couldn't do any better than imperfect, that there was something so fundamentally wrong with us, that even the best of us is messed up. That would contradict the "And God saw that it was very good" when he made us. Mary's immaculate conception, then, is a validation of the goodness of mankind. He made Mary a beautiful, flawless vessel and poured himself into her. "Sing to the Lord a new song, for he has done marvelous deeds".
The other thing I wanted to address was the verses in Luke 11 that you brought up:
As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you."
He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."
The first point to make is that, on the surface, what Jesus says could appear to contradict Luke 1:48, where Mary says, "From now on all generations will call me blessed". So how do we reconcile them?
I think today's second reading can show us how. To quote:
Brothers and sisters:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavens, as he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him.
It is clear, isn't it, that we pick this reading for today because the teaching of the Immaculate Conception is that God "chose [Mary] in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him." But this verse isn't addressed to Mary; it's addressed to "brothers and sisters", to us. And that is because, what Mary received at her conception, we received at our baptism. Mary was conceived in a relationship with God; we are restored to a relationship with God through our baptism. This, I think, is Jesus' point in Luke 11, the great blessing we receive from hearing and obeying the word of God. (Which, in terms of effect on our lives, is generally more important than the blessings, such as the Immaculate Conception, that God granted to Mary.)
Does that make sense?
Anna,
I appreciate you explaining all that you did, and it does make sense, but there is just a huge gulf between the way you and I feel about all this stuff. I don't know if it's bride-able through discussion.
I am not sure if I believe in the real presence. Still thinking about that. But if I did, I still don't actiually think God cares about stuff like gold vessels. I don't think he cares about signs of respect other than what's in a person's heart. He made us and he said we were good. I don't think he would feel that Mary had to be made immaculate to be good enough to bear Jesus. And I guess I don't really believe Adam and Eve actually existed, per se, so the original sin passed on because of their actions doesn't make sense to me.
As you can see, I'm pretty excommunicatable :) I don't think I know the truth about all this stuff, but this is just what seems right to me at this time.
I asked on another blog and ask here:
What difference does it make in my practical Christian life whether the Immaculate Conception is fact or not?
The world is full of human misery, starvation,sickness, killing, torture etc; and you all are twitting about the IM. Is not helping ONE person more important than my intellectual beliefs about the IM?
This is the new church of clericalism. To hell with helping others--acting Christian--and in with only one real social justice doctrine and endless bleatings about arcane doctrines and turning the altar around. Just what the clerics want to marginalize the laity. Does no one see it? Jack
Jack,
It matters to me in that it seems to reflect a certain attitude the Church has toward women that does affect women Catholics today in questions like whether women ca be priests. But I see your point.
Crystal,
It's not that God cares about gold vessels for the sake of gold vessels. It's that, as you say, he cares about what is in the human heart. And one of the things in the human heart is that we want to give gifts to those we love. It varies from person to person how strong this desire is, but it is one fundamental way in which human beings express our love. (Ever read the book the Five Love Languages? I think it offers food for thought about how we express our love to God.)
When we are giving gifts, the more we love someone, the better, the more meaningful, we will want our gift to be. And God's first commandment is to love him with all our heart, with all our soul, and with all our mind.
I'm not saying that giving the best gift possible has to always be our top priority. But when our choice is between giving God something that we ourselves consider to be worth less, or giving him something worth more, and there is not some outside consideration in play, then the choice we make is an indication of our love for him.
That's how the whole Cain/Abel thing started. Cain offered "some" of his flock. Abel offered God the "best" of his flock. God accepted Abel's sacrifice, but not Cain's. Because he knew that Cain's choice represented a lack of whole-hearted love of God.
I don't know if it sounds sacriligeous or something this way, but it's sort of like God washing the dishes before he eats off of them. Would you expect him to eat off a dirty plate when he didn't need to? He washes all of us clean; he just did it with Mary a little earlier.
It's not so much that God felt Mary HAD to be immaculate to bear Jesus, but that it was right or fitting that she be so.
My view of the literalness of Adam and Eve can best be understood by reading this. They may not be so literal, but God didn't start us off in our current condition; things were better, until some early human(s) turned away from Him and messed things up for all of us.
How do you see the IC as contributing to women not being ordained? I would have thought that the elevation of Mary would have had the opposite effect?
Oh, and if it were up to me, I would not excommunicate you. You're not really being rebellious for the sake of being rebellious, that I can tell; you have honest issues.
Anna
Anna,
I think we have to stop talking about this because we are talking at cross purposes, sort of :)
The God who thought less of Cain because his gift wasn't good enough is a God I don't recognize. The best gift I can imagine giving God is my honesty and love that isn't required but truly seen as a gift. When I think of the cash spent on beautiful things like gold vessels by the Church that could instead be used instead to help people, I blanch.
About IC and women's ordination, it's just that the extreme desire to "clean Mary up" doesn't reflect, in my mind, a respect for her or for women, but shows how much the Church feels women aren't up to snuff.
I think we'll just never come to agree about all this stuff, but I appreciate your friendly kindness :)
Crystal,
Your comment that the church wanted "to clean May up" is exactly on target. I guess I'm the only one who understands the church in many respects as having some ideas based on its eversion of sex.
After all the church's position on abortion is based to a degree on "you can't have sex without consequences." All catholic girls, including my beloved wife Alice, were brought up with that axiom. Incidentally this was also the 'protestant' position. Jack
P.S. I know this is usually a 'thread stopper.
make that "Mary" not "May." Jack
Gads, "aversion." Well, you might do the same if you were 76. Jack
Crystal,
I can sympathise with the bit about wanting the Church to spend all its money on helping people instead of using some of it to make beautiful churches and all. I've had my share of thinking that too. But Jesus' words, in John 12:1-8, paint a different story.
On another level, I think we owe God everything we have. He may not force us to give it to him, but we can't hold anything back without disrespecting him and ourselves.
With Cain, it wasn't the quality of the gift itself that was at issue; it was Cain's heart, when he chose to withhold from God part of what he thought was his.
That's an interesting view of the IC. I figure the fact that Mary was the only human to be concieved that way gives her an honor that no male priest, bishop, or pope who ever lived received. More generically, the fact that Mary is the Queen of Heaven means that she outranks all the clergy, in terms of glory and authority in heaven.
Unlike Jack, I don't feel like discussing this is a bad thing or a waste of time. (Any more than talking about baseball is, Jack! :) ) If it bugs you though, I will try not to keep going. :)
It doesn't bug me but I think our views are so un-alike and so un-changeable that perhaps i we should just agree to disagree :)
Hi Anna,
So we meet again:).
The IC and the perpetual virginity of Mary are nothing other than an effort to "clean up Mary."
P.S. I hate baseball. Love football.
Jack
Post a Comment
<< Home