So that's why Mary isn't special in any way...

This from a reader, an Evangelical of some sort, eager to explain why (in his words) "there is no need for Mary to be seen as anyone special.":

At the root of the modern conflict over devotion to the Virgin Mary is a different understanding of how the miracle of the Virgin Birth occurred. This may seem like a "straw man" but I am merely pondering the roots.

In the early centuries of the Christian era, and until rather recently, human reproduction was not understood. Most people believed this is how reproduction worked. The semen (not sperm) enters the woman and rests in it. The semen is nourished there and grows into the child. The child is so seen as the "flesh of the man" literally.

So, the early Catholics think about the Virgin Birth. The Holy Spirit overflowed the flesh of Mary. Jesus' flesh grew out her womb. The flesh of Jesus is the flesh of Mary. Since the flesh of Jesus is sinless, so must Mary. Add 2000 years of popular sentiment, and we get what we have today. Though rooted in bad science, it has too much momentum to die down.

The MODERN evangelical view is this. This is how reproduction works. The sperm from the man enters the egg of the woman. The child has its own unique flesh. (If it did not abortion would just.)

So, this how the Virgin Birth worked. The Holy Spirit overshadowed the WOMB of Mary. One of her eggs was miraculously modified, a Y-chromosome was created and the genetic problems which usually harm such embryos eliminated. Instantaneously, the Word of God became enfleshed in that embryo. The only further miracle necessary is one of protection from enemies. There is no need for Mary to be seen as anyone special.

This is why even the most Catholic-friendly evangelicals are annoyed at Marian veneration, whether we know it or not. The Resurrection of any crucified man, let alone Jesus Christ our Savior is a much more beyond nature than His birth.

It's impressive, in a sad way, that someone could make so many strange, incorrect, and outrageous statements in such a short space. I'm especially puzzled by the assertion (if I understand correctly) that Jesus is not "of Mary," per se, but merely hung out in her womb for nine months after the Holy Spirit used one of her eggs. So does this mean, as a Fundamentalist once told me, that Mary was just a "biological vessel"? Bizarre.

Comments

[fr richard]

Carl,
You get the most bizarre emails.

All I get are emails from Africans who want to share millions of dollars with me.

Is it wrong to hold out for the best offer?

[Carl Olson]

Fr. Richard: I would hold out for $6,666,666, plus free, daily Starbucks delivered to your door.

[Mary Frances Smith]

Carl,

A few years back I read an article about the exchange of stem cells between mother and child that occurs during pregnancy. The scientific thinking in the article was that said cells apparently remain for life. As I was reading, my first thought was how that would make Our Lady even more special since she is the only person who literally may have had Jesus, in all His aspects (physical as well as spiritual), within her throughout life! In light of new scientific possibilities, how could anyone say she isn't special?

I don't remember the exact article, but I did find a similar one which you (and any evangelicals who might read this) can check out at the address below. This article mentions some possible negative aspects of lingering fetal stem cells that the original one I read did not, but still that could lead to pondering the reality of the effects of original sin on the body and how that wouldn't come into play with the physical bodies of Jesus and Mary since both were free of original sin.

Of course I realize there are non-Catholics who do not believe that Mary was sinless, that she was not preserved from original sin, but this kind of new research might just get them thinking about that. If a person carried Jesus, in all His aspects including His physicality, within herself, wouldn't the possibility of sinning be pretty nil? Anyway, as science advances, maybe things will be made more obvious to those who do not see the truth - or at least give them more to ponder.

God bless,
Mary Frances

http://nasw.org/users/ccmorton/globesamplemay2001.html

[Eric Giunta]

This seems to be a popular teaching among many Fundamentalists, and also Jehovah's Witnesses.

The JWs tell me that Jesus' body was specially created be God, and then placed in the Virgin Mary. So Jesus is not Mary's biological son; she was a surogate mother.

The rationale behind this is that Jesus is the Second Adam, and so like Adam his flesh was directly created by God, and so did not inherit man's fallen condition.

I have to say that this sems like it could make some sense. How exactly do we refute this?

[Faith]

The angel told Mary she was full of Grace and Blessed among women. Jesus was to come from David's lineage, which eliminates most of us from the running. This is all in the Old and New Testaments, and for those who claim to know and follow the Bible exclusively, were these sections part of what King James had removed when he condensed the Bible and had it named after himself? Or is it an oversight? Look again, it should all be there.

[Teresa Polk]

Faith is correct about Scriptures about Mary. The Biblical passages include Luke 1:26-35, especially verse 31, in which the angel Gabriel told Mary that she would conceive. Luke 1:28 is mentioned by Faith. Luke 3:23, which begins the genealogy, says of Jesus "being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph." Thus, Luke's Gospel is clear that Jesus was not physically the son of Joseph. Nowhere does the Bible say anything similar about Mary. Rather, Mary is always described as being in fact Jesus's mother. John's Gospel mentions how Jesus told John to take Mary as his mother from the time of the crucifixion (John 19:25-27), so that it is clear that she remained with the Apostles after the crucifixion and was not as far from the center of the Church as some Protestants believe.

Moreover, the King James Bible does include all of the books that are in the Roman Catholic Bible, plus 3 books that were rejected at the Council of Trent. It is still possible to find the King James Bible with the Apocrypha, as it existed in 1611. It was then known as the "Authorized Version" (a name still sometimes used), and it only later came to be known as the King James Bible. If you look at the Names and Order of the Books of the Old Testament, near the front of the Ignatius Bible, you will see that 3 books are listed as "Not Included." Those are the three books from the Greek Bible that are included in the King James and the Revised Standard Version, and are not included in Roman Catholic Bibles. The idea of taking all of the Apocrypha and deuterocanonical books out of the Bible altogether, and not reading them for any purpose, was not something that the King James translators wanted.