Pope Benedict delivered this sermon on August 15th, which is the feast day of Mary's Assumption into Heaven.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

The Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the oldest Marian Feast, returns every year in the heart of summer. It is an opportunity to rise with Mary to the heights of the spirit where one breathes the pure air of supernatural life and contemplates the most authentic beauty, the beauty of holiness. The atmosphere of today's celebration is steeped in paschal joy.

"Today", the antiphon of the Magnificat says, "the Virgin Mary was taken up to Heaven. Rejoice, for she reigns with Christ for ever. Alleluia".

This proclamation speaks to us of an event that is utterly unique and extraordinary, yet destined to fill the heart of every human being with hope and happiness. Mary is indeed the first fruit of the new humanity, the creature in whom the mystery of Christ - his Incarnation, death, Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven - has already fully taken effect, redeeming her from death and conveying her, body and soul, to the Kingdom of immortal life.

For this reason, as the Second Vatican Council recalls, the Virgin Mary is a sign of certain hope and comfort to us (cf. Lumen Gentium, n. 68).

Today's feast impels us to lift our gaze to Heaven; not to a heaven consisting of abstract ideas or even an imaginary heaven created by art, but the Heaven of true reality which is God himself. God is Heaven. He is our destination, the destination and the eternal dwelling place from which we come and for which we are striving.

St Germanus, Bishop of Constantinople in the eighth century, in a homily given on the Feast of the Assumption, addressing the heavenly Mother of God said: "You are the One who through your immaculate flesh reunited the Christian people with Christ.... Just as all who thirst hasten to the fountain, so every soul hastens to you, the Fountain of love, and as every man aspires to live, to see the light that never fades, so every Christian longs to enter the light of the Most Blessed Trinity where you already are".

Mary follows Jesus to God'sglory

It is these same sentiments that inspire us today as we contemplate Mary in God's glory. In fact, when she fell asleep in this world to reawaken in Heaven, she simply followed her Son Jesus for the last time, on his longest and most crucial journey, his passage "from this world to the Father" (cf. Jn 13:1).

Like him, together with him, she departed this world to return "to the Father's House" (cf. Jn 14:2). And all this is not remote from us as it might seem at first sight, because we are all children of the Father, God; we are all brothers and sisters of Jesus and we are all also children of Mary, our Mother.

And we all aspire to happiness. And the happiness to which we all aspire is God, so we are all journeying on toward this happiness we call Heaven which in reality is God. And Mary helps us, she encourages us to ensure that every moment of our life is a step forward on this exodus, on this journey toward God.

May she help us in this way to make the reality of heaven, God's greatness, also present in the life of our world. Is this not basically the paschal dynamism of the human being, of every person who wants to become heavenly, perfectly happy, by virtue of Christ's Resurrection?
And might this not be the beginning and anticipation of a movement that involves every human being and the entire cosmos? She, from whom God took his flesh and whose soul was pierced by a sword on Calvary, was associated first and uniquely in the mystery of this transformation for which we, also often pierced by the sword of suffering in this world, are all striving.

The new Eve followed the new Adam in suffering, in the Passion, and so too in definitive joy. Christ is the first fruits but his risen flesh is inseparable from that of his earthly Mother, Mary. In Mary all humanity is involved in the Assumption to God, and together with her all creation, whose groans and sufferings, St Paul tells us, are the birth-pangs of the new humanity.

Thus are born the new Heaven and the new earth in which death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more (cf. Rv 21:1-4).

Christ conquered death with love

What a great mystery of love is presented to us once again today for our contemplation! Christ triumphed over death with the omnipotence of his love. Love alone is omnipotent. This love impelled Christ to die for us and thus to overcome death. Yes, love alone gives access to the Kingdom of life! And Mary entered after her Son, associated with his Glory, after being associated with his Passion.

She entered it with an uncontainable force, keeping the way behind her open to us all. And for this reason we invoke her today as "Gate of Heaven", "Queen of Angels" and "Refuge of sinners". It is certainly not reasoning that will make us understand this reality which is so sublime, but rather simple, forthright faith and the silence of prayer that puts us in touch with the Mystery that infinitely exceeds us. Prayer helps us speak with God and hear how the Lord speaks to our heart.

Let us ask Mary today to make us the gift of her faith, that faith which enables us already to live in the dimension between finite and infinite, that faith which also transforms the sentiment of time and the passing of our existence, that faith in which we are profoundly aware that our life is not retracted by the past but attracted towards the future, towards God, where Christ, and behind him Mary, has preceded us.

By looking at Mary's Assumption into Heaven we understand better that even though our daily life may be marked by trials and difficulties, it flows like a river to the divine ocean, to the fullness of joy and peace. We understand that our death is not the end but rather the entrance into life that knows no death. Our setting on the horizon of this world is our rising at the dawn of the new world, the dawn of the eternal day.

"Mary, while you accompany us in the toil of our daily living and dying, keep us constantly oriented to the true homeland of bliss. Help us to do as you did".

Dear brothers and sisters, dear friends who are taking part in this celebration this morning, let us pray this prayer to Mary together. In the face of the sad spectacle of all the false joy and at the same time of all the anguished suffering which is spreading through the world, we must learn from her to become ourselves signs of hope and comfort; we must proclaim with our own lives Christ's Resurrection.

"Help us, Mother, bright Gate of Heaven, Mother of Mercy, source through whom came Jesus Christ, our life and our joy. Amen".

The Pope also noted the following, after leading the Angelus:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Today, in the heart of what Latin-speakers called the "feriae Augusti", the August holidays, from which the Italian term "ferragosto" derives - the Church celebrates the Assumption into Heaven of the Virgin Mary, body and soul.

The last reference to her earthly life in the Bible is found at the beginning in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, which presents Mary gathered in prayer with the disciples in the Upper Room, waiting for the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:14).

Subsequently a double tradition - in Jerusalem and in Ephesus - attests to her "Dormition", as Eastern-rite believers say, that is, her "falling asleep" in God. This was the event that preceded her passing from this earth to Heaven, professed by the uninterrupted faith of the Church.
In theeighthcentury,byestablishing a direct relationship between the "Dormition" of Mary and Jesus' death, for example, John Damascene, renowned doctor of the Eastern Church, explicitly affirms thetruthof herbodily assumption.

In a famous homily he wrote: "She who nursed her Creator as an infant at her breast, had a right to be in the divine tabernacles" (Sermon II: On the Assumption, 14, PG 96, 741B).

As is well known, this strong conviction of the Church culminated in the dogmatic definition of the Assumption affirmed by my venerable Predecessor Pius XII in the year 1950.

As the Second Vatican Council teaches, Mary Most Holy should always be seen in the mystery of Christ and of the Church. In this perspective: "the Mother of Jesus in the glory which she possesses in body and soul in heaven is the image and beginning of the Church as it is to be perfected in the world to come. Likewise she shines forth on earth, until the day of the Lord shall come (cf. 2 Pt 3:10)" (Lumen Gentium, n. 68).

From Paradise, especially in difficult times of tribulation, Our Lady always continues to watch over her children whomJesushimselfentrustedtoher from the Cross before dying. How many are the testimonies of this motherly concern foundinvisitingshrinesdedicatedto her!

At this moment I think especially of the unique citadel of life and hope that is Lourdes. I shall be going there in a month's time, please God, to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Marian apparitions that took place there.

Mary assumed into Heaven points out to us the final destination of our earthly pilgrimage. She reminds us that our whole being - spirit, soul and body - is destined for fullness of life; that those who live and die in love of God and of their neighbour will be transfigured in the image of the glorious Body of the Risen Christ; that the Lord will cast down the proud and exalt the humble (cf. Lk 1:51-52).

With the mystery of her Assumption Our Lady proclaims this eternally. May you be praised for ever, O Virgin Mary! Pray the Lord for us.

Reposted here given its relevance to other topics under discussion. Are not the fruits of the promises of the Lord made so wonderfully manifest when we contemplate the Blessed Virgin?

Note: how long, O Reader, do you think it will be before another GS user posts a blog entry about how Mary a) wasn't perpetually virginal, b) wasn't the Mother of God, AND/OR c) was not assumed, bodily, into Heaven? Two hours? Three, tops?

Update: two and a half hours. Subject: "Mariology." Called it like a third strike with two down in the bottom of the ninth!

For reasons that are unclear, many Protestants — and especially Evangelicals — find it important to argue against Marian theology, including her perpetual virginity and Assumption. Some argue that to elevate Mary in the way that Marian theology does "detracts from that simple faith and devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ." But this charge is absurd on its face; as noted, Mary always points us toward Jesus. Indeed, it is pointless to acknowledge the Blessed Mother without first noting her divine Son, the Logos and second person of the Holy Trinity.

I previously noted that, absent Mary, we would not have received Christ from God, and would not have had the Gospel to preach. This remains true. But only the most ignorant person would be unable to recognize that this same statement implies something far greater about Christ (even here, Mary points us to Christ). Mary is significant, above all other human beings, but she is significant because of Christ. She is the Mother of the Son because the Son was born of her, and she is the Mother of the Son by the power of the Son she bore.

Exactly what in such teaching is worth such vitriolic opposition, I am not sure, but it is perhaps one of the most curious examples (apart from the rejection of Eucharistic theology and the plain meaning of John 6) of anti-Biblical thinking in non-Catholic Christian theological thought.

We've looked, already, at Mary's perpetual virginity. Now let's look at her assumption, just briefly. One main objection, from Protestants and Evangelicals, to the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary is that it is not taught in Scripture. This is true.

I'll say that again: it is true that the Assumption is not taught in Scripture; Mary appears for the final time in the first chapter of Acts, and nothing more in Scripture tells us what fate ultimately befell her. But that's a blade that cuts both ways; Scripture does not profess to us that Mary was assumed, bodily, into Heaven, but neither does it tell us that she suffered and died a mortal death. Ultimately, whatever conclusion we draw about Mary is an act of faith, which we must justify with other (and then indirect) evidence.

So, we have to ask: is there indirect evidence in Scripture that points toward Mary's assumption?

The answer: yes, and then quite a lot of it.

John Henry Cardinal Newman, even before his conversion from Anglicanism, noted that the holiness of Mary was implied from Scripture: "Who can estimate the holiness and perfection of her, who was chosen to be the Mother of Christ? If to him that hath, more is given, and holiness and Divine favour go together (and this we are expressly told), what must have been the transcendent purity of her, whom the Creator Spirit condescended to overshadow with His miraculous presence? What must have been her gifts, who was chosen to be the only near earthly relative of the Son of God, the only one whom He was bound by nature to revere and look up to; the one appointed to train and educate Him, to instruct Him day by day, as He grew in wisdom and stature? This contemplation runs to a higher subject, did we dare follow it; for what, think you, was the sanctified state of that human nature, of which God formed His sinless Son; knowing as we do, 'that which is born of the flesh is flesh' (1 Jn 3:6), and that 'none can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?' (Job 14:4)."

The Church, from a very early stage, has believed in the sinlessness of Mary. St. Athanasius, in the year 106, observed to the Virgin that "truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides." St. Ephraem, in the year 201, made two telling observations. First, he noted the relationship between Mary and Eve, "two people without guilt, two simple people, were identical. Later, however, one became the cause of our death, the other the cause of our life." He also noted, unto the Lord, that "thou and thy mother are the only ones who are totally beautiful in every respect; for in thee, O Lord, there is no spot, and in thy Mother no stain."

Put more plainly: the belief in Mary's sinlessness can be found in the teaching of the Church in every age, starting within its first century of existence.

Now, a common objection to this is to note that Mary, being human, would still have struggled with concupiscence, and would have needed Christ as her Lord and Saviour; thus, she must still have been a sinner. Catholics do not dispute Mary's need for the Lord as the means of her salvation, for all people do indeed need the Lord as the means of salvation. But consider. If I fall into a pit, and am pulled out, I will thank my rescuer for saving me. But suppose I am caught at the last moment before I fall into the pit. I haven't fallen in…but still, I have been saved, haven't I?

In like manner, Mary's sinlessness flows from the power of Christ, and because she was the Mother of the Son. For as Cardinal Newman pointed out, with reference to Job: none can bring a clean thing out of an unclean.

One Protestant objection, in part to Mary's Assumption and in part to her sinless nature, is based on the greeting of the angel in Luke 1:28 — in which Mary is called favoured of God, or full of grace. "Bodily assumption is said to be the natural effect of being highly favoured or full of grace. However, the same word translated "full of grace" (Greek, charitoo) is applied to all believers in Ephesians 1:6. Yet, no-one suggests that every believer should be assumed bodily into heaven soon after death!"

This is quite correct: nobody suggests that every believer in Christ is assumed bodily into Heaven.

But then, there is a problem with the Protestant's argument itself, and not with the Catholic belief. The variant of charitoo that appears in Luke 1:28 is kecharitomene, which means 'endued with grace.' In Ephesians 1:6, the variant of charitoo that appears is echaritosen, which concerns the reality of Christ's grace being freely bestowed (one notes that in Greek, "thank you" is a permutation of echaritosen).

In other words, though the word 'grace' appears in both places, it is used in vastly different contexts; in Luke, it refers to an internal quality, while in Ephesians it refers to grace bestowed…and which believers must choose to accept or reject (so it cannot be referring to an internal quality as yet).

Now, Catholics like to point to Revelation 12, and to the woman clothed with the Sun, as evidence that confirms Mary's bodily Assumption. Protestants rightly point out that this is somewhat incorrect: "[they] wrongly assume…that this 'woman' is Mary and ignore…the problems of such interpretation. For example, the woman of Revelation, 'being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered' (Revelation 12:2); whereas Catholics believe that Mary 'gave birth to her Son without pain' (Pope Alexander III)."

Jimmy Akin, however, notes that Catholic teaching (the opinions of lay Catholics nonwithstanding) does not specifically equate the woman in Revelation only with Mary.'

Unfortunately, most of the debate over what the Woman represents is misdirected because it does not take into account the way that Revelation uses symbolism.

The vision contains "fusion imagery," in which one symbol is composed of elements from several different things. For example, the four living creatures John sees around God's throne (4:6–8) are a fusion of elements from the cherubim seen in Ezekiel (Ezek. 10:1–14) and the seraphim seen in Isaiah (Isa. 6:1–5).

…The Woman in Revelation 12 is part of the fusion imagery/polyvalent symbolism that is found in the book. She has four referents: Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary.

She is Israel because she is associated with the sun, the moon, and twelve stars. These symbols are drawn from Genesis 37:9–11, in which the patriarch Joseph has a dream of the sun and moon (symbolizing his father and mother) and stars (representing his brothers), which bow down to him. Taken together, the sun, moon, and twelve stars symbolize the people of Israel.

The Woman is the Church because, as 12:17 tells us, "the rest of her offspring" are those who bear witness to Jesus, making them Christians.

The Woman is Eve because she is part of the three-way conflict also involving her Seed and the Dragon, who is identified with the ancient serpent (the one from Eden) in 20:2. This mirrors the conflict in Genesis 3:15 between Eve, the serpent, and her unborn seed — which in turn is a symbol of the conflict between Mary, Satan, and Jesus.

Finally, the Woman is Mary because she is the mother of Jesus, the child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (19:11–16).

Because the Woman is a four-way symbol, different aspects of the narrative apply to different referents. Like Mary, she is pictured as being in heaven and she flies (mirroring Mary's Assumption). Like the Church, she is persecuted by the Devil after the Ascension of Christ. Like Israel, she experiences great trauma as the Messiah is brought forth (figuratively) from the nation. And like Eve, it is her (distant) seed with which the serpent has his primary conflict.

Conversely, portions of the narrative do not apply to each referent. Mary did not experience literal pain when bringing forth the Messiah, but she suffered figuratively (the prophecy that a sword would pierce her heart at the Crucifixion). Eve did not ascend to heaven. And the Church did not bring forth the Messiah (rather, the Messiah brought forth his Church).

So let us pause to review what we have covered for a moment. Mary was assuredly the Mother of the Son, was assuredly a virgin until the end of her days, and was assuredly free from sin all the days of her life — all by the power of Christ. She was, in all these respects, unique among human beings, far more unique than even the apostle Paul. Shall we assume that God forgot His first and most willing servant?

Of course not; given what Christians believe about God, we cannot assume that. So what became of Mary, after she disappeared from the Biblical narrative?

Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong noted an interesting Biblical parallel, which is relevant here, in his book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism:

Lest one think that a bodily ascent to heaven (of a creature, as opposed to Jesus) is impossible and "biblically unthinkable," Holy Scripture contains the examples of Enoch (Hebrews 11:5; cf. Genesis 5:24), Elijah (2 Kings 2:1,11), St. Paul's being caught up to the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2-4), possibly bodily, and events during the Second Coming (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17), believed by many evangelicals to constitute the "Rapture," an additional return of Christ for believers only. All these occur by virtue of the power of God, not the intrinsic ability of the persons.

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin flows of necessity from the Immaculate Conception and Mary's actual sinlessness. Bodily death and decay are the result of sin and the Fall (Genesis 3:19, Psalm 16:10). Thus, the absence of actual and original sin "breaks the chain" and allows for instant bodily resurrection and also immortality, just as God intended for all human beings.

…Jesus' Resurrection brings forth the possibility of universal resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:13,16), which is why He is called the "first fruits" (1 Corinthians 15:20-23). Mary's Assumption is the "first fruits," sign, and type of the general resurrection of all mankind, so that she represents the age to come, in which death and sin will be conquered once and for all (1 Corinthians 15:26). The Assumption is, therefore, directly the result of Christ's own victory over sin and death. It, too, has a Christocentric meaning, in the same way as the Immaculate Conception and the designation Theotokos.

The Protestant objector might protest that "[Christ's] resurrection is the sure sign of Messiah's triumph over the Devil. Together with all Christians, Mary would also benefit from Christ's victory according to God's plan of salvation at the "resurrection of life." That is still a future event." And Catholics would agree. Look again at what Armstrong had to say, above.

Putting Armstrong's words more plainly, Mary — in the end of her days upon the Earth — served for us the same purpose that she served in giving her assent to being the mother of the Christ child; she is the foremost example of a Christian and disciple of Christ. She began that role with her unfailing devotion to the will of God; it is fitting that she should complete that role (in this world) by being our example of the fulfilled promise of Christ. In her sinless beauty, she was not subject to death and decay, as all the rest of us must endure, but was instead immediately glorified in the hereafter, caught up bodily in the glory and salvation of Christ.

It is true that Mary's Assumption is a tradition that the Church inherited not from her first fathers, but from the Byzantines. It is true that those denounced as heretics, in the 4th and 5th centuries, were also the first to teach the Assumption of Mary (but it should be noted that while the Transitus was rejected as heretical, this does not imply that all the teachings within it were seen as heretical by the Church; a portion of them certainly were, but that is all we can be certain of).

But all of this doesn't argue against the validity of the teaching. Nor does it in any way undermine the fact, as Alan Schreck noted, that "in the hundred years before Pope Pius' declaration, the popes had received petitions from 113 cardinals, 250 bishops, 32,000 priests and religious brothers, 50,000 religious women, and 8 million lay people, all requesting that the Assumption be recognized officially as a Catholic teaching. Apparently, the pope discerned that the Holy Spirit was speaking through the people of God on this matter."

Minor note: some objectors are a bit late to the party; this has been addressed already, here and in other postings. But it's nice to know that I now seem to be able to influence another blogger's editorial policy.

...how some GS users evidently feel that while leaving comments is beneath them, they've no problem whatsoever making use of the little "disagree" button on the comments that are left?

Okay, granted, a number of GS users are probably just hitting puberty. It's still kind of cowardly, don't you think?

Mind you: at least I allow comments.

I wouldn't call it fuming.

I'd call it laughing at a steaming bucket of fail.

As Mark Shea notes, the theological gap between Catholics and Protestants is, in one particular regard, quite wide. Whereas Protestant — especially evangelical — theology tends to focus on Scripture, verbal confession of faith, and the action of the Spirit, Catholic Theology tends to focus on contemplation, the human person, and (of course) Eucharist. To an evangelical, prayer is supposed to be a means of achieving something. To a Catholic, prayer is meant to draw us closer into unity with God.

And in a certain way, the difference between Catholics and Protestants can be abstracted in the difference between women and men. Evangelicalism and Protestantism0 tend to be a more masculine expression of faith, while Catholicism tends toward the feminine (no doubt inspired by the Biblical image of the Church as the bride of Christ). The misunderstandings we have of each other tend to follow the same lines.

Perhaps it's no surprise, then, that while Protestants and evangelicals tend to favour St. Paul as their example of witness, Catholics tend to favour Mary as the ideal Christian model (remember: Jesus can't show us how to be a disciple of Jesus; only a follower of Jesus can do that). And of course, at the heart of the Marian example is her assent to God's plan in her saying "let it be done to me" to the angel, when the angel announced that she was to bear the Son of God.

I think we can all accept it to be true that, were it not for Paul's considerable efforts, the Gospels would never have reached the Gentiles. No earnest Christian could disagree with this statement. But far too many Christians disagree with another equally reasonable statement: that without Mary, Christ would not have been born; the Gospels, then would never even have come to Earth!

I've heard all manner of responses to this before, most of which tend to be variants on "oh, God would have just chosen someone else." To such a speaker, Mary is merely a life-support system for her uterus, a hot-swappable piece of hardware that can be disposed of at a later date when no longer necessary.

It is odd to hear such a view espoused by supposedly "Biblical" Christians, because such a view plainly contradicts Scripture. We come back to Luke 1 again:

[26] In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,

[27] to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
[28] And he came to her and said, "Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!"

Again, it serves to note that the term "o favoured one" is often translated as "full of grace", and denotes that Mary herself was possessed of the sanctifying grace of the Lord at the outset. The specific term translated from Greek — kecharitomene — is the "passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6,…The Vulgate gratiae plena "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow'". The translation of this word is undisputed across the broad spectrum of Christian denominations, and is a part of all common extant translations of the Bible.

In other words, we all agree on one thing, at least: Mary was indeed full of grace, and highly favoured of God. But the specific kind of grace she was endowed with was sanctifying grace, the salvific grace of God that is the basis of justification (c.f. Romans 5:20-21). We might thus construct a logical analysis thusly:

Premise: The Bible teaches that we are saved by the grace of God alone.
Premise: To be full of the grace of God is, thus, to be saved

Observation: Mary was full of the grace of God (c.f. Luke 1:28)

Conclusion: Mary, being full of grace (premise #1) is thus in a state of salvific sanctification (premise #2).

What does this mean? Well, for starters, it speaks to the uniqueness of Mary in God's plan, and why no other woman would do. Mary was appointed, by God, for the task of bearing the Son. She was preserved from all sin by the sanctifying grace of God. And yet she was not an automoton; to the last moment, God left the decision as to whether or not she would bear the son in Mary's hands; the angel appeared to announce the news to her, yes, but also to receive her consent (Luke 1:38).

And absent the consent of Mary, absent her saying "behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word," we don't have Christ. Not in the flesh, at any rate. We do have the Logos, the Word, the second person of the Holy Trinity. But we don't have Jesus, the man who lived and who died, and who rose again to fulfill the Scriptures and bring salvation to all the nations.

Would God have simply chosen another, had Mary not given her assent? Is that to say, then, that another young, virginal woman existed who was already full of the sanctifying grace of the Lord? No, the very suggestion is absurd on its face, and the angel's greeting makes it very clear that Mary has been chosen and called by name. Moreover, in the Magnificat (the name given to Mary's testimony to Elizabeth, later in Luke 1), Mary confesses:

[46] And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord,
[47] and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
[48] for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
[49] for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.

The Spirit desired us to know that Mary is blessed of God, and (moreover) that Mary is to be seen as, and called, "blessed" by every Christian. This is no interchangeable uterus-support system we are talking about here: this is a unique woman, solely chosen of God to give birth to the Saviour. Had she refused, there was no other.

Mary's "yes" to God was the first participation of a human being in the salvific plan of God, and was the first step by which our salvation was secured. She was the Mother of the Son. Mary, alone amongst all women, gave us Jesus, and only Mary, alone amongst all women, could have given us Jesus.

Had she refused the angel, we would likely all still be living under the Old Covenant. Food for thought.

Anti-Catholicism is now a stickied, official policy of the False Witness Union.

Good show, good show. Satan must be dancing with glee.

Update: this was already addressed, by me, here. As for the statements themselves, it's all about context, which they are utterly devoid of in the aforementioned sticked posting.

Its the finest tradition of Uncle Screwtape: use pieces of the truth to tell a more malicious lie.

I can't think of any other reason for this sort of obsession. I mean, yes, I know the Church is amazing...were it not, there's no way I'd have chosen to stay part of it. But there's no need to be envious, people.

Look, it's really simple: if you want in on the Eucharist, RCIA cIasses begin at 7 PM on Wednesdays.

Update: it's not that I don't feel tempted to respond. I do. My lack of response does not imply an inability to respond, however. There are, I think, four main reasons why I am going to let it alone, however.

1) I've responded to it before. Or at least, I have responded to a goodly part of it before, as even a cursory examination of my past blog posts will reveal. And where I have not done so, others have. Actually, more than just one resource exists (although the first link has much better page design).

Why repeat what I and others have already covered? These resources exist for the concerned Reader to investigate. If, after investigating, the Reader still has questions, I will be happy to answer them. But I see little reason to waste precious hours on what would basically be a listing of previously-written answers.

2) the person posting the rather obsessively long list of anti-Catholic rhetoric is just quoting from other sources. Had he bothered to do his own thinking, as I tend to do (see my Marian articles), exceprting from those other sources but filling in his own reasoning between statements, I might be tempted to engage. But I see no need to go batting a parrot about the rhetorical head and neck.

3) the sources quoted are not exactly objective -- for the most part, they are explicitly anti-Catholic in their outlook, which is a little like arguing against eating meat by quoting only PETA web resources.

One also notes that the statements that are quoted from Catholic authors and sources are not actually doctrinal statement (though the sources treat them as such), but are in fact just examples of personal opinion. For the most part, at any rate. Occasionally, snippets of actual doctrine do appear in the listings given, but it should be noted that pretty much every quote in the entire obsession-ridden posting is taken grossly out of context.

It's easy to make something mean exactly what you want it to mean when you snip out half the words, plus the surrounding sentences.

4) Most importantly: this is just a distraction from the original topic. Let's examine how we got here, shall we (I will attempt to summarize)?

* * *

CWU Member #1: I'm really off-put at how some of us have apparently treated Theokhoth over the issue of his homosexuality.

CWU Member #2: What did I say that was so bad? Homosexuals are dogs...it's right there in the Bible. God is not all loving.

CWU Member #3: Member #1, who are you to complain? Where are you when we evangelize in OT? Where were you when the CU was attacking us? Where were you when WtF Dragon began to criticize us on his blog?

Me: Now isn't this just predictable? Instead of listening to reason and correcting the errant one in their own midst, the CWU has chosen to shoot the messenger, and to somehow drag my name into the fracas. Also: "God is not all loving," is he? MADE of FAIL.

CWU Member #3: Don't listen to "Where's the Fruit D"...he's just a Catholic, and you know how they are. Here's a list of Catholic doctrines over the years.

Me: The list is irrelevant and its entries are grossly out of context. There is almost nothing in the list that is anti-Biblical, and the one entry in it that is obviously an error has long been rectified.

CWU Member #2: Gay sex is icky, and Hitler was a homosexual. You see? Evil.

Me: This is kind of getting absurd. Theokhoth has repeatedly stated that he will not act on his homosexual inclinations, but will opt for a celibate life rather than commit sin. That seems a very Christian thing to do, if have read Corinthians correctly.

CWU Member #3: But for Theokhoth to date another man would be sinful, because it would be tempting.

Me: No more tempting than it would be when a man dates a woman. If the temptation that is inherent in the dating process is the only argument against Theokhoth one can come up with, then one should probably also argue that men and women ought not to date.

CWU Member #3: But a man dating a man is different than a man dating a woman.

Me: Granted. But I was talking about the core logic of the statement against Theokhoth's dating as it had been made. That is, I was saying that if the only logic propping up the proscription against dating is that dating causes sexual temptation, heterosexual dating must also be disallowed.

CWU Member #3: Yeah, well, you know how Catholics are where homosexuals are concerned...what with the priests and all. Is the abuse of young children another sacred Catholic "tradition"?

* * *

Do you see it, O Reader? It's rather obvious, so I hope that you do.

What had transpired, exactly? Though I'm summarizing, I think it's fairly clear that I made a logical counterpoint to something that was said on the False Witness Union. And instead of acknowledging the point made and changing the argument (which I would have accepted, assuming that the argument was more sensible), and instead of saying "okay, yes, one of us needs to tone back the rhetoric a bit," in regard to the CWU member who wrote such nasty things to Theokhoth, the CWU elected to take this approach.

And then Satan stepped in.

Satan loves discord between Christians, you see; he knows, as well as Christ knew, that a house divided against itself cannot stand. So Satan seeks to undermine the relationship between Christians, and distractions of this nature are a perfect vehicle for doing so. Satan also hates truth, and seeks to distract any intense theological discussion which comes too close to making someone realize they've been wrong about something.

So what does Satan do? He inspires a distraction. And in this case, he acted to transform the discussion from one about homosexuality, 1 Corinthians 7, and proper modes of Christian witness...into a Catholic bash of epic proportions.

So that's the main reason why I won't respond point for point to this latest lengthy article. It wouldn't be good witness, and it would be playing right into the devil's hands. And as much as it chagrins me to see other Christians doing just that, I think I'd rather leave them to do so, whilst I move on to more important topics.

From his work The City of God, pages 42-43:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

More than any other thing, this is what I find so cringe-worthy where the False Witness Union's evangelistic efforts are concerned. And the effects are exactly as Augustine predicted they would be: people who otherwise wouldn't be bothered to talk about Christ (not a good thing in and of itself, but let's set that aside for a moment) are motivated, by the sheer ignorance of their would-be evangelists, to actively mock the Lord (that's way worse, in case anyone is counting).

...they hate 'cause they jealous.

(Note: it's not that I've nothing else to say; it's that I've already said it, so why shouldn't I have some fun with it?)

Update: finally, something to respond to.

No remorse, no concern for the victims, no outrage at the abuse by priests that are supposed to be serving God, no outrage at the cover-up by the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church which allowed the abuse to continue, no concern about the outrage to the Lord.

I was outraged when outrage was due. Indeed, I knew one priest personally who was charged for abuses that happened...back in the 70s, if memory serves. Truth be told, he wasn't the best pastor to begin with, and the charges evidently proved to be true. I think he was defrocked. I also, however, knew another priest who was all but ruined by false charges brought against him...that taught me a valuable lesson about critical thinking.

So yes, at one point, years ago, I was outraged. That time has passed; I am instead glad that the current Pope was also the man who wanted harsher punishments -- including defrocking -- leveled against those priests found guilty of abuses. I am instead glad that the Church has taken a more pro-active role in making reparations and penance for the actions of a relatively small sub-section of its priesthood (less than 2%, I should point out). I am instead glad that the Church is now the organization with the most pro-active response policy regarding cases of sexual abuse, at least in the U.S. if not elsewhere in the world as well.

And yes, I'm glad that these priests are being brought to justice. Is that justice late in coming? Yes, in the secular sense -- God's justice will, of course, bide its time, and that is what really counts. But it's good that something is happening in the temporal realm as well.

I might point out, too, that I have now pointed out, more than once, that non-Catholic Christian pastors are much more likely to be sexual abusers than are Catholic priests; about 1.7% of priests in the U.S. have been implicated in abuse scandals, while upwards of 10% of Protestant/non-denominational pastors have similarly been implicated.

And here's the rub: most of those ministers are also still in ministerial roles, and have not been disciplined. Nor has this particular scandal had much attention in the media. Nor have many of the perpetrators been brought to justice. If the False Witness Union wants to feel outrage at something, maybe it could spare an hour's outrage for those pastors, and an hour of remorse for their victims.

Only an ad hominen attack for daring to point out the truth. No "Where's The Fruit D?", no one is jealous of pedophile priests, we are saddened by their abuse and hypocrisy.

If this were really a truthful statement, the person making it would be working to draw attention to, and in due season clean, the numerous grape juice stains on his own house's white living room carpet, rather than commenting about the unkempt appearance of my house's doormat.

As it is, though, I was talking about Eucharist.

They claim the power to forgive sins while participation this horrible sin.

Again, about 1.7% of priests in the U.S. have been implicated in an abuse scandal of one kind or another. Yet recent statistical evidence suggests that between 10% and 23% of all clergy, of every denominational stripe, has engaged in sexual impropriety of one form or another.

23% of evangelical ministers admitted to sexually inappropriate behaviour during the course of their ministry, and 12% admitted to sexual intercourse with someone other than their spouse (Christianity Today USA "Conduct Unbecoming to a Preacher" - 10 Feb 1992). Tim LaHaye noted a survey that showed 33% of evangelical ministers admitting to sexually inappropriate behaviour, with 13% admitting to intercourse with a parishioner(LaHaye, Tim "If Ministers Fail, Can They Be Restored?" - Zondervan, USA, 1990).

Seventy percent of Southern Baptist ministers in 1993 knew of other ministers who had sexual contact with someone in their church. Twelve percent of Protestant ministers surveyed in 1988 had had intercourse outside of marriage, and 30% of those relationships were with someone in the congregation. Nearly 40% of the ministers surveyed by the Fuller Seminary in 1984 reported that they had had sexual contact with a church member. Nearly 13% confessed to sexual intercourse with a congregant. This behavior is so widespread that Church Mutual Insurance Co., the leading insurer of worship centers in America, receives on average of four or five claims of clergy abuse a week. (Centre for Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence, Seattle).

So tell me...2-5% (total rates for Catholic priest sexual misconduct reported) versus 40%. Or let's compare apples to apples: 1.7% of Catholic priests accused of abusing a minor, versus 10% of Protestant/evangelical ministers. Who is really leading their flocks, and who is really victimizing them? And where's the outrage, I ask?

And note that these stats are from objective, third-party agencies, not agencies with axes to grind, staffed by "former Catholic priests" making silly claims about 50% of Catholic clergy breaking their celibate commitment.

"Where's The Fruit D?"

His words and attitude reveal his heart.

We could do a survey...but I don't think I can post polls on this blog here.

Whatever. I try and approach each issue, each discussion, with faithfulness and wisdom. I try and leverage both in the pursuit of what is genuinely true. Sometimes people respond to that, sometimes they don't, and all I can hope is that I do not give in to temptation or fall into error. I'm not always as humble as I could be, but neither do I claim to be able to arbitrate between who is Christian and who is not, or between who is saved and who is not. I claim no knowledge about the inner workings of the heart of any other GS user...unlike some others.

And tellingly, if I want to address a user directly, I call him by his own name, or a short permutation thereof, rather than invent a string of successively less meaningful pseudonyms for him.

I also seem to have taken on the role of "punching bag" to a certain extent; it would appear that the CWU has all but forgotten Theo, in favour of venting their frustrations at me. I like that; Theo needs the break, and I certainly don't mind the heat.

Also, I allow comments. That's a measure or two more brave than some people I could name.

Score one for the Church. The Curt Jester makes an excellent find.

Irate Letter Writer:Comparing child sexual abuse in public schools with what happened in our church "borders on ridiculous."

Archbishop Harry J. Flynn: Your view is not supported by the independent facts and analysis. The Associated Press study makes this precise point, which I reported. Let me quote the CNN story describing the AP study:

"The findings draw obvious comparisons to sex abuse scandals in other institutions, among them the Roman Catholic Church. A review by America's Catholic bishops found that about 4,400 of 110,000 priests were accused of molesting minors from 1950 through 2002."

Clergy abuse is part of the national consciousness after a string of highly publicized cases. But, until now, there's been little sense of the extent of educator abuse.

Beyond the horror of individual crimes, the larger shame is the institutions that govern education have only sporadically addressed a problem that's been apparent for years.

A copy of the CNN article is also enclosed for your own review.

In May 2002, the National Public Radio program "All Things Considered" host, Claudio Sanchez, reported that "concerns about sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church have disturbing echoes in the public school system. In some cases, school employees accused of abuse have been able to keep their jobs for years." Again, I have included a printout of this show from the NPR Web site. You can access this program by going to the Web site and listening.

Irate letter writer: When public school students are sexually abused at least "the family has their faith and the law for comfort and justice," and "can you guess what would happen to a couple of school principals that entered a conspiracy to pass perverted teachers from school district to school district?"

Archbishop Harry J. Flynn: Your opinion is not supported by independent facts and analysis. Only one in 10 public school students report sexual abuse. Again, to quote the CNN story on the detailed AP study:

"Most of the abuse never gets reported. Those cases reported often end with no action. Cases investigated sometimes can't be proven, and many abusers have several victims.

"And no one - not the schools, not the courts, not the state or federal governments - has found a surefire way to keep molesting teachers out of cIassooms."

….

". . . Another problem: Because teachers are often allowed to resign without losing their credentials, many never show up on the list. 'They might deal with it internally, suspending the person or having the person move on. So their license is never investigated,' says Charol Shakeshaft, a leading expert in educator sex abuse who heads the educational leadership department at Virginia Commonwealth UniverÂsity.

"It's a dynamic so common it has its own nicknames - 'passing the trash' or the 'mobile molester.'"

Irate letter writer: If the Boston Globe had not covered the sexual abuse crisis in Boston, would any bishop have had the moral courage to blow the whistle? Based on history, I think not.

Archbishop Harry J. Flynn: Responsible media coverage of the tragic issue of child sexual abuse within the church and within society at large has played, and continues to play, an important role. At the same time, we cannot forget the damage done by irresponsible journalism that has caused much harm to many innocent people.

For example, the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago faced public scandal by a false allegation of abuse that was widely reported in the media and subsequently debunked in its entirety. I trust you wrote letters to CNN and other media outlets that covered that story in an irresponsible manner.

Today, the U.S. Catholic Church is in the vanguard of protecting children from sexual abuse. It is a simple and stubborn fact that is indisputable. No other institution in the U.S. - public or private - has corrected its policies and procedures in any way, shape or form similar to our church. If you can identify such an institution, I would be pleased to learn of it.

No doubt, it has been a difficult journey for the victims and their families and for the vast majority of priests who are fine men who love Jesus and try to serve his people day in and day out. It has been a difficult journey for the whole church. I have said on many occasions that our church is mother to both sinners and saints alike.

And again, let's not let the fundamentalists have all the fun, shall we? Nothing much gets said about the fact that teachers are on the order of 100 times more likely to abuse a young charge than are priests. Equally, nothing ever gets said about the fact that evangelical pastors are on the order of 2 to 10 times more likely than are priests to be involved in acts of sexual impropriety. To hear fundamentalists talk about it, you'd think that nobody who wasn't a Catholic priest ever abused a kid.

They're kind of cute that way. Like atheists.