MARY
THE SINNER
MARY’S MASSACRE OF THE INNOCENTS
In 1854, Pope Pius IX infallibly proclaimed that the Virgin Mary had been conceived without sin and lived without sin all her life. From that day, belief in the doctrine is binding on Catholics and they are obligated to believe in it and it is necessary for salvation. Infallibility only works if tradition states that the doctrine is true. But the closest tradition to Jesus and the apostles actually refutes the immaculate conception.
Tradition does not comfort
believers in Marian impeccability. There
was and is no evidence that it was taught by the apostles. The idea was first suggested by Gnostics who
regarded Mary as an incarnation of the wisdom of God and therefore sinless
(page 34, Traditional Doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church Examined). All the early fathers took the line that Mary
was conceived in original sin for she was born of sex (Vicars of Christ,
page 333). And reason said that if Jesus
needed a sinless mother to be born free from original sin that God could have
preserved him from it the way the pope said he did Mary. Pope Pius IX infallibly declared Mary to be
sinless at her conception. He was
guessing. He was not infallible.
Irenaeus said that Jesus had
to put his mother in her place for pressuring him to do something about the
wine shortage at the
Jesus might have chosen an exceptionally wicked woman to be his mother so that all who perceived his holiness would marvel at the grace of God that kept him from turning out like her.
Paul says that all sinned and
none avoids sin in Romans (3) and since he was speaking to a Church that was so
ignorant that it did not understand his foundational doctrine that faith alone
saves as in that grace is strongest where there is the most sin so all must
mean literally all except Jesus who Romans seems to say never sinned. That shows Paul would have expressly stated
that the Virgin Mary was exempt if she had been for when they did not know the
important doctrine they would have taken him to mean that Mary was declared
sinful too.
There is positive evidence against the notion that Mary was
never ever tainted with sin.
Most Christians think there is nobody like the “noble” Virgin Mary even
if they don’t pray to her.
Unfortunately for Roman
Catholicism, the author of Matthew’s gospel didn’t think much of her at
all. He told two stories to show her up
as cold and smug in the extreme.
Matthew called Joseph an
upright man though he wouldn’t turn Mary in to pay the penalty of the law when
he thought she was pregnant because of adultery (Matthew
Mary was also one for going
out of her way to lie. She married
Joseph. Marriage is for sex. The only thing that can invalidate marriage
if the vows were valid is non-consummation.
Marriage is the giving of body as well as heart and because the heart
can change it is more giving of the body.
By taking Joseph to be her lawful wedded spouse while intending not to
let him near her Mary was lying to the whole community merely by being at the
ceremony, to their families and possibly to her husband. Though women did not take vows as such, she
was making an oath to God merely by being present. She made an oath which she did not intend to
keep. If she really did contract a
mock-marriage with Joseph he would not have believed her when she said her baby
was fathered by the Holy Spirit because she was a deceitful person. She made it unlawful for Joseph to desire sex
with her for she refused him. It is a
sin to tantalise a man with unlawful sex.
By marrying Joseph and staying with him, Mary did that to him. Her cruelty and falseness are not great
credentials for her story of the annunciation which the Catholic Church says
could only have started with her. And
Joseph was no better than she was if he married her with his eyes open. His story of the angel telling him that Mary
had conceived by God is therefore dubious.
If Mary and Joseph agreed to
have relations at their wedding and subsequently changed their minds and took
vows of continence then we have them taking unlawful
vows for they broke the sacred promise of marriage. They turned it into deceit. Matthew termed the magi deceivers for
deciding to break their promise to Herod for a grave reason.
Mary should have broken off
her engagement to Joseph if she agreed to have God’s baby without a man if she
could not obtain his consent and approval.
Matthew says that Joseph did not know who the father was. She treated him as if he had no rights.
Mary was scared when the angel
Gabriel told her that she was highly favoured (Luke
Some think that, “Mary may or
may not have contradicted the angel after he told her that she would have a
baby when she asked him how she being a virgin could have one.” But she certainly contradicted him. If we don’t know for sure, is it right to be
as cocksure as a Catholic that she wouldn’t argue? Also Mary had never been told that she didn’t
need a man. The angel never said she
didn’t after this question strongly suggesting that she was being sarcastic for
there is no need to answer sarcasm that is expressed in such a way that you
know the person knows you are right. The
angel would still speak of the overshadowing and the descent of the Holy Spirit
making the child the holy Son of God which he did after, if Mary conceived by a
man for Son of God meant godly man. The
angel does not specify how she will get pregnant so we should take him to have
the normal way in mind. She was saying
no child of hers could be the holiest person ever.
But it is not cars we are talking
about but persons. She said that she was
honoured by the mother.
Mary told
Mary worried about Jesus when
she lost him in
Mark wrote that Jesus’ family
went to seize him thinking that he was mental.
Later he said that they arrived and that his mother was there. She was participating in a plan to silence
Jesus and discredit his ministry. It
would have been a terrible sin for Mary who knowing that Jesus was God’s son to
start calling him mental. Some say that
Mark was writing to people who knew that Mary was united in heart and soul with
Jesus and who knew not to include her when he wrote about Jesus’ family
violently opposing his ways. Mark is a
very simple gospel with very elementary doctrine. Does it really look like something that was
composed for experts in the Christian faith?
“Family” includes Mary.
In John 2, we read of the
famous wedding of
The gospels say the Jews hated Jesus. But in the Talmud and in Jewish tradition from the early Christian period before Mary was turned into a near-divinity, the Jews seemed interested beyond belief in portraying Jesus' mother as a dissolute bad girl when they could have spent the ink on attacking Jesus. They had no need to do that for many Christians would have thought that if Jesus' mother was bad that only shows how good Jesus was in resisting the bad influence. They picked on her for they knew what she was - bad news . The stories seem plausible. There is even some gospel support that Mary was a bad cookie.
The Jews had no problem believing Jesus' mother had illicit sex to produce him. If such accusations surfaced, it was easy for her to prove her virginity if she was indeed a virgin for life as the Catholic Church says. There were women appointed to check out women who claimed to be virgins. Jesus never denied that he was illegitimate. Christians say that he was legitimate because he had no human father. He did not expect anybody who knew his mother to believe that he was legitimate. What kind of woman must she have been?
Jesus experienced total desolation on the cross and felt abandoned by God and all his friends had abandoned him. He cried out that God had forsaken him. The gospels speak of the women who followed him standing watching at a distance. Psalm 22 where the man speaking in the person of Jesus according to the gospels says that all who see him mock and deride him would indicate that they were not there out of compassion. John alone says that Mary Jesus' mother was at the cross. It does not say she was there in any supportive sense. The Psalm and Jesus' desolation would indicate that she was not supportive at all but probably gloating.
Mary was a sinner. She must find
In the Gospel of Matthew we read that King Herod killed all the baby boys
of two and under in
Mary and Joseph and the baby
Jesus were in
The astrologers visited them
there and after they left the holy family went into hiding in
Herod’s soldiers invaded the
village and killed all boys two and under.
Interesting story!
* Mary and Joseph escaped to
Matthew infers that Mary and Joseph hid the
child and his identity all the time they were in
Mary and Joseph knew from the
magi that Herod and the city were disturbed at the news of the birth. They knew that Herod and
They should have left
They could have sent Herod a
letter that they were gone and not to bother sending his men if he wanted to do
that.
They could have told others that their baby
was the Messiah and left so that those people would be able to tell Herod and his
men that they were too late if they came looking.
Mary and Joseph could have told
the Magi to go back and tell Herod they had made a mistake and there was no
child. Herod only attacked the babies
because the magi were not coming back.
Joseph and Mary knew what Herod
was like. They knew that if he was going
to kill the infant Messiah that he would have to kill all the male infants for
nobody knew which was which. They knew
the paranoid beast would plot to kill their child that way for he couldn’t
stomach rivals. They didn’t care.
* It was only when Herod started to have
Mary and Joseph should have
warned the other villagers about Herod’s plan to kill the babies. Joseph had heard all about it in a dream. When they had such a good hiding place, telling
would not have led to their own destruction.
.
* Mary and Joseph or both could have stayed to stop the massacre
and sent the infant away with somebody else.
If they had told the soldiers about the visit of the magi who Herod had
also met they could have convinced them and averted the massacre.
Herod would not have been able
to tell from the
Mary and Joseph just didn’t
give a toss about the children who died so they were as hard-hearted as a
statue of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
They were worse than Herod for they knew they could get away with what
they wanted to happen better than even Herod could and the dirty work would be
Herod’s.
The story of the massacre is
incoherent. As paranoid as Herod was, he
was not going to get the people to go with him in a bid to eradicate a Messiah who
was only a baby with poor parents with no verifiable royal bloodline and who
might not have been in
But it remains true that Matthew was sure that Mary and Joseph were evil
people and guilty of what he accused them of.
If they did not cause a massacre then their movements could have caused
one. These movements could be
history. Matthew believed that they were
capable of tremendous frightful evil and that is the important thing even if
the story is legendary.
Conclusion
The Virgin Mary was not the best
woman ever. She committed lots of wrongs
or sins if you like.
ALL ROADS LEAD TO
ROME, Michael de Semlyen, Dorchester House Publications, Bucks, 1993
BORN
FUNDAMENTALIST, BORN-AGAIN CATHOLIC, David B Currie, Ignatius Press, San
Francisco, 1996
MAKING SAINTS,
Kenneth K Woodward, Chatto & Windus,
OBJECTIONS TO
ROMAN CATHOLICISM, Ed by Michael de la Bedoyere, Constable, London, 1964
POPE FICTION,
Patrick Madrid, Basilica Press,
REASON AND BELIEF, Bland Blanschard,
SERMONS OF ST
ALPHONSUS LIGUORI, Tan Books,
THE PRIMITIVE
FAITH AND ROMAN CATHOLIC DEVELOPMENTS, Rev John A F Gregg, BD, APCK,
THE VIRGIN, Geoffrey Ashe,
Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
WHY BE A
CATHOLIC? Fr David Jones OP, Incorporated Catholic Truth Society,
Sunday, 20 January 2008