O Virgin, Pure and Immaculate

Catholic anthropology is reasoned from two ideas found in the first chapter of Genesis. The first, when the inspired author states at the conclusion of the first creation story: "And God saw everything that He had made and behold it was very good"(Gen 1:31); and the other, when shortly before this in the same account, goodness seems to find its crowning manifestation in the making of man who is created in the image and likeness of God (c.f. Gen 1:26-27).

But, often enough, these truths (with the anthropology that emerges from them) can be difficult to swallow when we are reminded of how frequently we, as well as all those around us, stray from goodness in our daily lives. Sins ranging from such acts as murder, theft, and adultery to thoughts of wrath, envy, and lust are not hard to find in Adam's progeny. Does not man's tendency to think evil, do evil, be evil reign dominant in any attempt to define or assess his nature? Perhaps the Calvinists are right in attributing “total depravity” to the very idea of man[1] for, by simply observing his behavior, it would certainly seem more accurate to call him wicked rather than good.

Regardless of the apparent observable data however, the Catholic Church emphatically responds to this Calvinistic sentiment in the negative, for she refuses to ignore the first chapter of the Bible and subsequently see man as anything less than made in God’s image. For in her view, even in his fallen state, man remains a moral agent who is perennially oriented back toward his origin in God who is goodness Itself. Consequently, it is believed that from God man was initially sprung and to God he is to eventually return; hence, as his entire identity is found in God- indeed, because he bears the divine image in his very self- man is recognized inherently as “very good”.  

With this idea summed up thus, we can now turn our attention to another Catholic belief: the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Perhaps unexpectedly, it is this doctrine that I think most forcefully teaches the divinely centered focus of man's existence we have thus spoken of. Although this Marian dogma at first might seem peripheral to the more foundational theological point of creation’s inherent goodness (as it does not directly concern the whole of creation per se, but simply one creature within it) yet I argue that this belief is as equally important as the former- in fact the two fit as hand in glove. Indeed, belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary corroborates the exalted position of man in the created order we find in Genesis, which in turn, ensures believers of this latter Marian dogma that the message of the Bible’s first book is not some mythical story hollowed out of any real truth; rather, it is inspired truth that relays the actual state of things as God intended. Mary’s life is evidence of this precise point.

But, before we more deeply explore the meaning of this dogma which concerns the sinless conception and life of the Blessed Mother-[2] a woman whom the Church since at least the time of St. Irenaeus of Lyons in the 2^nd century has given the title of "Second Eve"- it is first necessary to look at that ideal Man, the One who became the “Second Adam” according to Pauline thought (c.f. Rom 5:12-17): Jesus Christ. It is "in Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28); indeed, it is apart from Him, we can do nothing (c.f. Jn15:5). Therefore, it seems appropriate to begin with Him.  

The church historian Jaroslav Pelikan called attention to the fact that from the time of St. Augustine in the 4^th and 5^th centuries the Church had not dealt with the doctrine of original sin in depth without first having an encounter with the Person of Christ. Indeed, the custom of contemporary theologians to first look to the human condition of sin and from there base all discussion of who man is and why he needs a savior from that prior perspective seems natural enough. But, historically speaking, we do not see the Church proceed in this order. Instead, as Pelikan proposes:

"The position of Jesus as the Son of God, the Logos, and the Cosmic Christ, had to be clarified first, before there could come a mature understanding of the human predicament. Rather than making the punishment fit the crime, Christian thought had to gauge the magnitude of the human crime by first taking measure of the one on whom the divine punishment of the cross had been imposed and thus (shifting to the original metaphor of salvation as health) making the diagnosis fit the prescription."[3]

In other words, Pelikan’s thought (which was certainly influenced by patristic tradition) posits that before man can see himself as fallen, he must first see a man who has not fallen and measure himself to that standard. Moreover, he must see to what length that unfallen Man, Jesus the Christ, had to go to heal the breach between God and man in order to reestablish that design by which God had originally made man. It is by first being administered the medicine of Christ's life, death, and resurrection that man becomes truly aware of the sickness of his fallen state and can then be subsequently healed from it. In Christ, we witness the Second Adam who reveals the original vocation of the first Adam and, in effect, the unique vocations of Adam's subsequent offspring- that is, we see humanity’s destiny revealed through Christ as being made up of wholly good, obedient sons to the Father. In the words of the Second Vatican Council: "Christ, the final Adam... fully reveals man to himself and makes his supreme calling clear."[4] Only from this standpoint then can a true Christian anthropology be situated in which man's call is to partake of the divine nature (c.f. 2 Pt 1:4) by being grafted into the human nature of Jesus Christ the ideal Man.

Yet, with such an optimistic view of man in place the temptation might arise to favor a more exalted view of man such as Rousseau’s “noble savage” or Locke's “blank slate” hypothesis. Both these ideas attribute to man an inherent goodness, or at least neutrality, which is only altered negatively or positively by a given situation an individual may find himself in. But the condition of the human person as presented by the Church seems entirely more complicated than this. She states that man is inherently good from his conception yet there is still a very real distortion in his orientation which inclines him towards evil. This bentness is so deep that not even a Pelagian view which envisions man as capable of picking himself up from his bootstraps is seen as a sufficient solution to the recurrent problem of sin. It is only with the model of Christ before our eyes that we can see the error of the opinions of Rousseau and Locke (and the error of Calvin highlighted above). Rather, what we see by the light that Christ’s life offers is a retrospective and simultaneously foreshadowing view of who man is meant to be and how he is to be restored to glory. This will assuredly come about, but it will only come about through Him and not by means of some natural tweaks of the moral environment that surrounds us.

Without this Christo-centric hope which is focused on man actually attaining his true calling though divine grace in a fallen world, perhaps an individual might be doomed think either man has no problem with evil in this world or, just as false, that sin is essential to humanity itself. In this regard, I think the latter more reasonable to assume, for, regardless of the fanciful opinions as purported by the philosophers mentioned above, we hear the loud lament of Calvin over man’s wickedness inevitably drown them out. The reality of sin does hit us in square in the face, we see it so clearly we deem it inextricable to our lives. But, notwithstanding the lived experience of sin within us, the Orthodox theologian Fr. John Manoussakis is compelled to ask in one of his ecumenical writings concerning the nature of sin:

"Is sin natural for humans? Is humanity's original state, as it was intended by its Creator, that which we know after the fall? If we answer these questions in the affirmative then everything is lost. Not only have we condemned humanity to sin, but we render divine grace, repentance, forgiveness, and salvation not only superfluous but monstrous. For if sin is part and parcel of being human, then our salvation implies nothing less than the undoing of our humanity, the abuse of humanity into becoming something else, something that we not only are not but also cannot be: sinless."[5]

Thus, if salvation is to mean anything good for man, it must restore what was once fundamental and natural to him- that is, his inherent goodness. And, lest man lose hope that the recovery of his original state (i.e. salvation, health, wholeness) paradoxically goes against his very God-given nature, or that this recovery is simply impossible for anyone inferior to the second Person of the Trinity, divine revelation puts forth before our eyes she who, though being a creature herself, is immersed in communion with Him who is to be her Son from the beginning of her existence and throughout the duration of her life. It is as if this woman, Mary, was to be the beginning of the end of this foreign entity’s reign over humanity (i.e. sin’s power over the human race). Even though all had sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (c.f. Rom 3:23), she would prove to be the one who, as Ronald Knox once imagined her in a sermon: "[was the] one traitress, by a noble treason to the sinful compact of her race, offered freely the only human help God deigned to use when He came to recover the allegiance of His rebels."[6]

Indeed, with what deeper meaning could the words of Scripture be applied to Mary beyond all others: "You are the exaltation of Jerusalem, you are the great glory of Israel, you are the great pride of our nation"(Judith 15:9) for sin does not have power over you! For Mary is the promise given to all men that the call to be untouched by the power of sin is meant for each of us if only we cling to that divine life, which we call grace.

Tolkien's mysterious figure of Tom Bombadil in The Fellowship of the Ring comes to life in the person of Mary- for just as jolly old Tom was the only creature who seemed  to walk about Middle-earth uninfluenced by the power of the Ring, so too is Mary wholly uninfluenced by the allurements of evil in this our world where all others are "under the power of sin" (Rm 3:9). No greater hope can be fostered in man than to see a simple maiden from a lowly village be utterly independent from that which is not of God by her lifelong fiat to the Father. By being so connected to God, this humble virgin is empowered to crush the ancient serpent's head who himself, at one time, had crushed humanity between his teeth.

Nevertheless, in spite of the angel Gabriel saluting Mary with high praise as being "full of grace" (c.f Lk 1:28); in spite of the evangelist Luke alluding to her being the New Ark of the Covenant before whom John the Baptist leapt for joy at the sound of her voice (c.f. Lk 1:41, 2 Sm 6); in spite of all subsequent generations after her calling her blessed in fulfillment of Mary’s of own words (c.f. Lk 1:48); in spite of John the Apostle exclusively referencing her as “woman” in his writings, thus connecting Mary to the woman of Genesis (c.f. Jn 2:4, 19:26, Rv 12:1); in spite of her being both the sign of Ahaz as the "virgin who shall conceive and bear a son" (Is 7:14) and the sign the Revelator saw in the heavens as one "clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet (Rv 12:1); in spite of all these references imbuing this woman with great significance in the New Testament, we hear it often retorted by some non-Catholic Christians who reject the Immaculate Conception that all this honor given to Mary is misdirected, for as the Apostle Paul writes:

"None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one" (Rm 3:10-12).

However, I reply to this: Christians must not ignore our own Scriptures that seem to raise up Mary as our hope to favor one understanding of a singular passage from Paul! This would be to jettison the practice of venerating a special woman whom the Church has- for a very long time- valued so highly. Let us then briefly look at these verses from Paul because they do warrant comment as they relate to our understanding of Mary’s role in salvation history.

In Romans 3:10-12, St. Paul is referencing two almost identical Psalms (Ps 14:1-3 and 53:1-3); hence, two things ought to be kept in mind while reading the great Apostle to the Gentiles: 1. The psalmist, whom Paul is quoting, begins both these Psalms with a reference to the fool who "says in his heart, 'There is no God,'" thus implying the statements that follow of being corrupt, abominable, and no good (c.f. verse 1 in both Psalms) are qualifications of the fool in his foolishness and not humanity in general. 2. But, even if these statements are to be interpreted as universal judgements of wickedness exempting no one in a quite literal fashion,[7] still the psalmist concludes both these Psalms in hope: "O that deliverance for Israel would come out of Zion! When the Lord restores the fortunes of His people, Jacob shall rejoice, Israel shall be glad" (Ps 14:7 and c.f. Ps 53:6). Hence, by thus ending each of these Psalms the psalmist reveals his inspired foreknowledge that humanity's fallen state of corruption will not reign indefinitely; rather, it would have an end when deliverance would come from on High, which would result in Israel’s subsequent rejoicing.

Therefore, the question that next arises for us is how does Mary partake of that deliverance if the Deliverer Himself had not yet come at the time of her own conception in the womb of her mother Anne? I think we need not “slavishly [follow] the logic of efficient causality”[8] by insisting Mary’s preservation from sin could not come before the Deliverer, for we could just as well answer the question of Mary’s sinlessness before the incarnation in the same way we answer a more fundamental question that comes prior in the chronology of God's unfolding salvific work: How did Adam come when there was simply no other human being before him?

The obvious answer to this is that it was through the direct intervention of God. God simply chose to create Adam out of something materially less than man (i.e. dust) and fundamentally create something new by breathing life into it. Similarly, I think it can be reasonably maintained that it was certainly not beyond the Godhead to manifest His will in preserving Mary pure in His image by the fullness of His grace- even while up until that time none had existed in like manner before her.[9] 

Even still, did not Mary need the Savior to bring all this about in her? The Catholic Church emphatically affirms she did, in part, basing her teaching on Mary’s own words in the Magnificat: “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Lk 1:47) Hence, Mary's salvation is to be recognized as a unique one in that she was not lifted from the pit of Original Sin after falling in (like all others who have been saved after baptism) but was simply prevented/saved from falling in it to begin with! The exceptional quality of Mary's salvation is found both in the early timing of her rescue and in the long-lasting persistence the effect of divine grace had in her. But, in the end, not because of her own merit was Mary given this extraordinary gift, for this would indeed empty the cross of Christ of its power (c.f. 1 Cor 1:17). Rather, the mysterious plan of God ordained that the existence of fallen Eve "made necessary the coming of Mary just as night must be followed by day."[10] God’s will for man to live in His grace would certainly not be thwarted by Eve’s sin!

Coming at this from another angle, as we return to chapter 3 of the epistle to the Romans, later we find Paul speak of the expiation by Christ's blood which brings about man’s redemption (c.f. Rm 3:24-25). I propose that it is by keeping this in mind we can then more fully see the propriety of God's intervention in the life of Mary.

For, it is in Christ's all-pure, all-innocent blood that man is redeemed. It is in His blood, as it was given to drink in sacrament (c.f. Jn 6:53, Lk 22:20, 1 Cor 11:25), as it was shed in suffering on the cross (c.f. Lk 22:44, Jn 19:34), as it was presented to the Father in heaven (c.f. Heb 9) that man is saved. But, it must also be remembered that Christ received the body through which His most precious blood flowed from his mother. For nine months her body and blood gave life to His own. O, little pondered fact that a mere woman was responsible for the life of the God-Man at his incipient beginnings!

Moreover, just as Eve had come from the side of Adam in the first creation of Genesis (c.f. Gen 2:21-23), in the ‘second creation’ announced in the Gospel, the Father has seen fit to recreate the world by reversing the process- now Adam comes from the side of Eve! Let us consider the force of Irenaeus’ words not long after the apostolic age:

"What was bound could not be untied without a reversal of the process of entanglement. The first bonds had to be untied by the second, so that the second might set free the first."[11] 

Bearing in mind this intimate relationship between mother and Son as the second Adam and the second Eve, ought we to think it unjust, unsuitable, or blasphemous to believe this woman is to be regarded as sinless- she who had such a central role in our own redemption as being the handmaid of the Lord, the Spouse of Holy Spirit, and the Mother of God? It is as if God had previously chosen to do something new in in bringing forth light when there was universal darkness (c.f. Gen 1:1-3) and now He has again chosen to do something new by bringing forth innocence when there was universal guilt. By so doing, God had simply jumpstarted the process in which men might become regenerate by becoming brothers to the First-born and sons to the Father. In the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Christ was simply priming the pump He was soon planning to use to reintroduce the flow of His grace in the dead corpse of fallen humanity. When "the time had fully come," the pump was finally ready to be turned on and the Lord could "send forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law so that we might receive adoption as sons" (Gal 4:4-5).

Truly, we cannot allow sin to have the final say regarding humanity- no less than the first say about it. As Christians we must hold fast to this truth because in it lies our own origin and end in being free to know and love God in an unobstructed union with Him, a union ordained from the beginning and destined into eternity. The possibility of our own fulfillment of this vocation, which is a vocation shared by all men, is found actualized in the sinless life of Mary who herself, "belongs to Christ more than to Adam."[12]

Ultimately then, without belief in the Immaculate Conception Christ's command to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect (c.f. Mt 5:48) shows itself to be an untenable command given by a God who demands more of us than we can give. On the contrary, we see in the life of Mary that we too can- by the power of the Holy Spirit- bring about "the perfect accomplishment of the good."[13]

As Pascal once put it: "Man is not worthy of God, but he is not incapable of being made worthy."[14] Fortunately for us, we have seen God choose to make man worthy of Himself once in the life of the Blessed Virgin. But he does not want to stop with her. Many times moreover He wills to repeat this process through the sacrament of baptism where the divine life given to an individual helps one in a sense ‘catch up’ to the holiness of those who have gone before- Mary herself being the preeminent model and paradigm of humanity recreated in grace.

Therefore, man must no longer be so comfortable with sin and imperfection so as to let it redefine who he is. The presence of evil in man, far from having any monopoly on his identity, must be recognized for what it is: an aberration, a failure to live up to what was God's original and still very real call to be molded in His all-pure image. Mary's life exposes this failure, but it does not do so without also offering Israel the “gladness of rejoicing” (c.f. Ps 14:7) in the light that comes from saying "Thy will be done" (c.f. Lk 1:38) in all things and in all moments. Thanks be to God for giving us Mary as our touchstone who shows us that nothing is impossible with God (c.f. Lk 1:37)- insofar as His grace has the final say on our lives.

[1] The total depravity of man is the first of the five core tenets of classical Calvinism. The acronym ‘TULIP’ is a helpful memory aid in recalling them- Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints.

[2] The dogma itself was defined with these words by Pope Pius IX in 1854: “The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by the singular grace and privilege of almighty God and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved immune from all stain of original sin.” (Ineffabilis Deus, in Denzinger, 2803). As a corollary to this, The Catechism of the Catholic Church further states: “By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.” (Paragraph 493). 

[3] Jaroslav Pelikan, Jesus Through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1985), 72. It is important to emphasize this point articulated by Pelikan as it relates to talk of the Immaculate Conception. The ‘late’ development of the doctrine of Original Sin in the early Church was caused by the Church’s insistence on first trying to understand the Person of Christ. In effect, St. John Henry Newman reasoned this was why there was not a great deal of discussion about Mary’s sinless conception in the early Church because this would be putting the cart before the horse. Consequently, one may not find early definitions of the Immaculate Conception precisely because Original Sin, a prerequisite for comprehending the Immaculate Conception, had not yet been fully articulated. However, one will find highly exalted language in Marian prayers in the early Church (e.g. The Sub Tuum Praesidium, possibly from as early as the 3^rd century and the Akathist attributed to St. Romanos the Melodist circa early 6^th century), thus demonstrating the classical theological principle of lex orandi, lex credendi- the rule of prayer becomes the rule of belief. In other words, definitions of doctrines come only after the Church has strived to best articulate more fundamental ones; nevertheless, the definitions do eventually flow from prior, seminal belief.    

[4] Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, in Denzinger, 4322.

[5] John Panteleimon Manoussakis, For the Unity of All: Contributions to the Theological Dialogue between East and West (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2015), 6.

[6] As quoted in Milton Walsh, Ronald Knox as Apologist: Wit, Laughter and the Popish Creed, 98.

[7] Although one would still need to reckon with the psalmist’s allusion to the “generation of the righteous” in the very same Psalm (14:5), thus implying some righteous people still exist amid sinners of the world. The extent to which these righteous people also sin is simply not articulated in this Psalm nor in Romans.

[8] Manoussakis, For the Unity of All: Contributions to the Theological Dialogue between East and West, 7.

[9] This is of course exempting Adam and Eve themselves whose beginnings were likewise ‘without sin’- thus demonstrating to us there is divine precedent for creating human beings without sin.

[10] Henri Daniel-Rops, The Book of Mary, trans. Alastair Guinan (New York, NY: Hawthorn Books, 1960), 89.

[11] From The Scandal of the Incarnation: Irenaeus Against the Heresies, ed. Hans Urs von Balthasar (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1990), 61.

[12] Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald, trans. Henry Taylor (San Francsico, CA: Ignatius Press, 2002), 304.

[13] John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, trans. Vatican (Boston, MA: St. Paul Books and Media, 1993),142.

[14] Pascal, Pensées, [#510].