Catholicism

So in my rhetoric class at OU, we've been analyzing a number of arguments written by others to identify various forms of logical fallacies. Really quite interesting stuff. And it got me thinking about this one piece of email I received from a fellow who holds a "Pontifical Doctorate in Systematic Theology", that was in response to a blog entry of mine a while back where I brought up some issues I found with a few doctrines held by the Catholic Church, particularly, the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Papal Infallability.

Despite this fellow's seemingly prestigious title, his longwinded email was so intertwined with logical fallacies, fear-mongering, and ideological elitism that I barely knew what do do with it. I mean, after all, it's usually not best to encourage these kinds of people, right?

But the more I thought about it, the more I saw that it would be worth my time to address his argument's numerous flaws. I've omitted the name for now to spare him the embarrassment.

"Blessings and grace to you in Jesus Christ through the Immaculate Conception.
This is Dr. ___________.
I am Emailing to respond to your recent blog."

Interestingly, he starts off by wrapping criticism of my argument in the form of a "blessing". In my blog entry, I clearly stated that I took issue with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and yet he begins with a "blessing" based on this doctrine. How nice.

"I appreciate that you might have questions about certain details of Church teaching, and I am glad to respond. But, I also want to request that you reconsider how you are questioning. It is one thing to question how a doctrine might be true or to ask for more understanding regarding a doctrine. But, it is altogether different to doubt and to be skeptical concerning a doctrine of faith."

I completely disagree. If you don't question why you believe something, then it has no meaning. He's basically saying "it's okay to ask for more information, as long as you don't doubt a doctrine of faith." He draws the line at this notion of immutable doctrine, and contends that thats where we should stop any skepticism or analysis. I take issue with this, because for my faith to make sense, I have to step back and objectively evaluate it. Plain and simple. Don't get me wrong, I'm fully prepared to take some things on faith, but I can't just blindly believe something because I'm told "that's just the way it is". I try to be more thoughtful than that.

"The first is part of being human and often leads to a deepening of faith and understanding. The second is a grave sin for the faithful of the Church and removes us from communion with the Church, cutting us off from grace."

I'm not "cut off from grace" because I have a different understanding of certain aspects of faith than what the Catholic Church teaches. Who are you to say what I believe is wrong? I don't care how many degrees you have, you don't dictate what I or anyone else believes. There are many paths to, and understandings of the the Father. This "my way or the highway" attitude of yours flies in the face of the concept of a personal God.

"Further, the issue of speaking in such a way publicly or to others openly may also be a form of scandal. I ask that you change your blog immediately."

What your saying hearkens back to the scare tactics used during the Inquisition, one of the lowest points in the history of the Roman Catholic Church.

It is my right to have an honest, open discussion about faith, and you have no right to silence it just because you don't agree. How dare you, sir.

"To answer your concerns --
 
Mary is a human being. She has all that pertains to our nature, including free will. Mary's nature is without the stain of Original Sin from the moment of her conception because she was chosen to be the Mother of God. She was in need of Redemption -- Mary was redeemed by Jesus at the moment of her conception by a singular unique grace given her from Christ on the Cross Trans-historically outside of time. In other words, the grace of Christ won for all on the Cross was given to Mary at the moment of her conception."

I take issue with this paradoxical scenario, not simply because it makes so sense whatsoever, but because it has no real foundation in scripture.

It seems to me to be a human fabrication to answer the question of "how could God be born to a human." To solve this, medieval theologians pretty much said "oh, I know, let's have Mary be immaculately conceived. Then she gets to be this special 'container' for Jesus to be born in!"

Okay, the problem I have with this is the concept of free will. Let's define for a moment what to be "sinless" entails. God is pure good. What he does is the diametric opposite of sin. Therefore, the only being, with free will, that can be truly sinless is God. This concept is found in Mark 10:18 when Jesus say "no one is good, except God alone." This wouldn't prevent God from creating a being that was incapable of sin, but this would mean that they would have no free will. And I like to think of Mary as being more than a sinless automaton! The very fact that she chose to follow God is what makes her a role model for humanity.

"Mary was chosen precisely because she always said yes to God's will. She was chosen because God in His Providence knew that she would always say yes to His will, and thus in this sense, she merited the fullness of grace she received. It is a both/and situation -- Mary was given the fullness of grace from her conception, and God knew she would always say yes to His divine Will, and at the same time, she had the fullness of grace to always say yes to God's Will."

I have no issue with the idea that Mary never actually sinned. I take issue with the fact that this was by design, and not as a result of her own choice. Because way the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is structured seems to indicate to me the former.

This is essentially an argument between determinism and free will. The way I try to reconcile those two opposing ideas is pretty much the following: We have free will. God is omniscient and knows the choices that we will make. But he leaves it up to us to make that choice. He doesn't decide for us what we will do. Sure, your genetics, your surroundings, your upbringing all have an impact on what choice you are more likely to make, but when you get down to it, you always have that choice. That free will is the essence of the human soul. And if, as you contend, Mary's will was totally predetermined, then this goes against the idea that she had free will. And if you extend this idea of predestination to all of humanity, then it challenges the very essence of morality and the human soul.

"So, when Mary is greeted by the Archangel Gabriel, she says "Let it be done to me according to your Word." This fiat of her at this moment was simply an expression of the fiat she had been saying at every moment of her life and would say at every moment of her life. When the Angel says to Mary: “Hail, full of grace,” this phrase in the original Greek of Luke’s Gospel is “kacheritomene” which can only mean that she is perpetually full of grace, from conception to end of life. So, in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the Church is simply declaring what is already found in the Bible."

The usage of this word simply means that she was favored by God as a result of her actions. Caritow means "favored", the prefix ke indicates perfect tense, so "has been favored", and mene means that someone had favored her, this someone being God. This being "favored" means that she was favored as a result of making the choice to follow God's plan. And when you read usage of this word in the context of the scripture, it's pretty clear that it was indicating that God was pleased by her actions, not declaring that she was always without sin because she was made that way.

"Now, Jesus was conceived and born of the sinless Mary.... If she would have had sin, then His body would have been corrupted through her...He Who is the sinless One had to have come from she who was sinless."

Wait, you say "His body would have been corrupted through her"? If this is true, then you're saying that God is corruptable! By saying this, you are essentially placing limitations on God!

"He took His flesh and blood from Mary's body. He Who is God took His humanity from Mary. His DNA in His humanity is from Mary, all His nourishment for the first years of His earthly life is from Mary."

If Jesus got his DNA solely from Mary, then where did the Y-chromosome come from? From a logical standpoint, it's clear that not every aspect of Jesus' humanity could have originated from Mary.

"Contrary to your opinion, the Immaculate Conception is not a new idea for the Church. It is part of the Deposit of Faith of God's Revelation, given to the Church through the Apostles."

"Contrary to my opinion"? Try "contrary to fact".  Just which of the apostles, exactly came up with the idea of the Immaculate Conception?

"In other words, the Church has taught and believed this truth about Mary from the beginning of the Church."

Once again, a total fabrication. The feast of the Conception of Mary originated as a tradition amongst Anglo-Saxon priests in the 9th century. Mary had always been a revered figure in Christianity, and rightly so. But the new idea of this feast day was that she was "immaculate" since she was originally conceived.

This idea was actually the subject of great controversy at the time. St. Thomas Aquinas is said to have problems with this idea. "His great difficulty appears to have arisen from the doubt as to how she could have been redeemed if she had not sinned." And he wasn't alone in this belief. St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Bonaventure, St. Peter Damian, Peter the Lombard, Alexander of Hales, and St. Albert the Great, were all among the theologians at the time who had serious doubts about the idea of the Immaculate Conception.

And while the feast of the Immaculate Conception was praised by Pope Sixtus IV in 1477, he stopped short of defining it as actual dogma. When the Council of Trent came about several decades later, they were still undecided about the idea, saying "it was not the intention of this Holy Synod to include in the decree which concerns original sin the Blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary Mother of God." They pretty much said, "we aren't sure...so we're not going to touch this one."

It wasn't until nearly four-hundred years later, that Pius IX declared the Immaculate Conception to be dogma. It is interesting to note that Pius IX wasn't actually considered a conservative Pope until he was disposed as ruler of the Papal States in during the Revolutions of 1848. It was only after this that Pius began to use his powers to declare not only the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, but also the dogma of Papal Infallability, perhaps as a way to increase his own relevance, after having been marginalized politically.

(Source: Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII
Nihil Obstat: Remy Latfort S.T.D, Imprimatur: Archbishop John Cardinal Farley)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

"The Church has never, nor will she ever, add or take away a truth of Faith."

It would appear that I just demonstrated the Catholic Church does, in fact, add truths of faith.

"All the truths of God have been revealed, and God’s Revelation ended with the death of John the Apostle."

If divine revelation ended with the death of John the Apostle, and the concept of the Immaculate Conception didn't pop up until the 9th century, then by your own "logic", this isn't part of God's revelation.

"But, the Church's teaching authority does grow in her understanding of the truths revealed by Christ over the centuries, as guided by the Holy Spirit of truth and protected by the charism of infallibility."

Humans are never infallible. Yes, there are certain truths of faith, but not some mystical "charism of infallibility" that spans across changing perceptions of those truths over two millenia. That is, quite simply, an arrogant and diluted notion.

"Interestingly, a few years before this event took place, in Paris, Our Lady appeared from Heaven to St. Catherine Laboure to reveal to her the image of the Miraculous Medal (1830), and the medal was to say 'O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to you.' So, in this apparition, Heaven was wanting to call the Church's attention to the truth of faith concerning Mary. And many miracles come to those who wear this medal with devotion, as Mary promised. Then, just 4 years after the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was declared by the Church, Our Lady came again from Heaven to St. Bernadette at Lourdes (1858), to once again confirm BOTH the newly declared dogma of the Immaculate Conception AND papal infallibility, saying: 'I am the Immaculate Conception.'"

And people also claim to see Mary on toasted sandwiches and on highway underpasses.

I am incredibly skeptical of the 1830 and 1858 incidents, because it seems to me that this is the kind of mysticism this church needed to back up an otherwise shaky doctrine. The idea that Mary would come and say, "hey, make this medal that says I was conceived without sin!" is dubious at best.

"Mary is the Immaculate Conception, and I surely rest my salvation on this truth, and on the truth of the Church’s papal infallibility. In other words, I rest my salvation on these truths, and gladly do so. With theological faith, I know for certainty that these truths are true."

You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. Just as I am free to believe what I believe.

"The Church has two dimensions -- both a human dimension as the People of God and a divine dimension as the Body of Christ. About the latter, this is why Jesus says to Saul/Paul in Acts when he is rounding up Christians to be killed -- 'Why are you persecuting ME?' You must be careful about disrespecting the Church and speaking of her in such a flippant way, for as you speak of the Church, so are you speaking of Christ."

The Catholic Church is not the same thing as Jesus Christ. We are the "Body of Christ" in a spiritual sense, but we do not share his perfect understanding of spiritual truth. We are imperfect. So when I speak of the human institution of the Church, I am perfectly justified in criticism.

"The Church is the Bride of Christ, and thus One with Him in all things."

No, the Catholic Church is not "One with Him in all things". The Catholic Church was not "One with Him" when they condemned Galileo for his heliocentric model of the solar system. It was not "One with Him" when they tortured and killed heretics during the Inquisition, and it was not "One with Him" when they initiated one of the bloodiest periods in European history during the Crusades. These are just a few examples of how the church has gravely misused religion to propagate conflict and strife. Our goal should be to be "One with Him in all things", but to say that it has always kept true to the actual teachings of Jesus, to the point where the church actually is Jesus, is just wrong. You are elevating this human institution to the position of "God on earth", which I would contend to be blasphemous.

"The Church has members, and even popes, who are sinners, and also saints, but when the Church teaches definitively, it is Christ Who is teaching through her."

The sense of the word "definitively" is so nebulous and vague, that it allows you to personally demarcate when the Church was acting "One with Him" and when the it was not. Which is a convenient way for you to get around the fact that the Catholic Church has not always been "One with Him in all things".

"The charism of papal infallibility covers ALL of the Church's doctrines, every doctrine in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the Bible."

Wow, you don't even know the stuff that you went to school for.

"It is important to recognize that only two doctrines have actually been defined ex cathedra by popes and thus considered infallible. One is the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the other is the Assumption of Mary."

(Source: The Catholic Church: Journey, Wisdom, and Mission
Nihil Obstat: Rev. William T. Magee, Imprimatur: †Most Rev. John G. Vlazny, DD)

Isn't it interesting that Papal Infallability was only invoked on these two pieces of doctrine? And isn't it interesting that Papal Infallability and the Immaculate Conception were defined as doctrine at virtually the same time? Was the concept of the Immaculate Conception so shaky that Pius IX needed to make another dogma at the same time saying that he can't be wrong? Seems just a bit fishy to me.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to minimize the importance of Mary. Quite the opposite actually. The way the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is set up, it makes Mary's decision to say yes to God easy, because if she was deemed sinless, she couldn't have said no! So what I'm saying actually gives Mary the respect she deserves, rather than just treating her as a "container" for Jesus to be born into. Because it was Mary's decision to say yes to God that makes her such a role model for the rest of humanity.

"As Jesus said to Peter, the first Pope: 'What you bind on earth is bound in Heaven and what you loose on earth is loose in Heaven.'  Every doctrine of the Church is truth, and calls for the obedience of the faithful, for their salvation and true happiness."

I don't think that the Catholic Church is the only way to "salvation and true happiness". People of other faiths don't have an understanding of faith that is incorrect, they have an understanding that is just different. It's like many children in a family. Each one has a unique relationship with their father. None of them are more "correct" than any of the others. So for you to invoke lack of "salvation and true happiness" as a scare tactic for not following lock-step with what your saying is not only against what the Catholic Church teaches about ecumenism, but it's just plain wrong, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Besides, when we get to heaven, God isn't going to care what denomination you were, what doctrines you held to be true, how many Our Father's you said, or even if you were of a different faith all together. God is going to look at your heart. Were you a loving person? Did you treat people with kindness and respect? Did you help others? This is what religion is about. Not quibbling over doctrine, but how you actually reflect the teachings of Jesus in your everyday life.