I was tired beyond all imagining when I first thought this up, and so I couldn't think up a catchier name than that for it, but I've begun to suspect that a new corrolary to Godwin's law needs to be postulated. I base this suspicion on my recent debate with an atheistic commentator at my blog Robert.

And since, then, I've decided on a name: Hynek's Law.

As an online discussion about religion in which a Catholic is a participant grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving priests and paedophilia approaches one.

Apologies to any Catholic pundits who may have already coined this one. I imagine someone out there already has, because this sort of schtick is pretty common stuff to hear from atheists when they're talking to Catholics. I'll only make this tangential remark concerning what that suggests about the staleness of anything they have to say.

The same could be said for rabid fundamentalists, I observe.

And people wonder why I call it the False Witness Union?

I mean, let's consider. I proposed something which I thought was fairly reasonable: the idea that any Christian, gay or straight, was advocating for celibacy in a non-marital relationship was, to my way of thinking, a good thing, and an excellent example of witness. Moreover, I noted that in the end, whether it's a gay couple or a straight couple doing it, any form of sexual activity outside of marriage was wrong.

Because of that, if it is wrong for a gay person to expose himself to the temptation to sin by going on dates, the it must also be wrong for a straight person to expose himself to the temptation to sin by going on dates, no? Yes, a straight person can eventually marry, and so engage in sexual acts in a morally licit manner...but marriage is a long way off at the onset of dating. The attraction, however, is there in the immediate.

And straight men are no more immune from sexual temptation then are gay men, at least in my experience. And in the end, regardless of who sleeps with who, sex outside of marriage is wrong. If exposing yourself to the temptation to engage in sex outside of marriage is also wrong, and should be avoided, then heterosexuals should no more go on dates than homosexuals.

Seems to make sense, right?

Yet somehow, someone managed to miss that point.

The funny thing is, "Where's The Fruit D?" does not see any difference in a male dating a male and a male dating a female. He thinks that both are acceptable to the Lord.

I've heard more than a few Christians argue that dating at all is unacceptable, now that I think about it, but this wasn't really the point I was driving at. The point I was getting at is that if the members of the CWU really want to oppose Theo personally, they shouldn't attempt to do so by making generalized statements. Gay or straight doesn't really matter when the issue at hand is the sexual temptation that accompanies dating: being heterosexual doesn't make you immune, or in any way preserve you, from that temptation, nor does it preserve you from sin if you give in to it.

I might even suggest that a gay couple in a committed, celibate relationship is actually doing a better job of living out God's law than a Christian couple who, though unmarried, have elected to engage in a sexual relationship (as far too many do).

Apples to apples, celibate straight couple compared against celibate gay couple, I'm really not sure where the line is to be drawn. Arguably, a gay couple who elect to co-habit whilst remaining celibate are not actually committing any sinful act, are they? Indeed, they almost parallel a certain story in the early Old Testament (that of Ruth). Almost.

That's really the issue, though: where is the sin in all of this? Is the sin in the sexual acts? If so, then celibate homosexuals are not sinning. Is the sin in the sexual orientation? That's not defensible from Scripture, nor does it reflect reality. Is the sin in the act of dating? Then it doesn't really matter who is going on the date, does it -- any date which gives rise to sexual temptation in unmarried persons must be declared sinful, which means that all pre-marital dating is probably sinful.

Is it too much to expect consistent thought from people these days?

And, of course, they have to make it personal again:

Considering the history of the rampant homosexuality and pedophilia in the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church, and the devastation that that has visited on hundreds of thousand of innocent children, one would think that he would understand God's plan regarding males and females and the dangers of ignoring God's Word.

I love this polemic, because it is one of far too many examples of where militant atheists and "fundamentalist" Christians find common cause.

But more to the point, it's not exactly true either. Even the best statistics available put the number of abused children in the tens of thousands, and while that's still grossly high, one notes that it is about a tenth of the figure given above.

Equally, it should be noted that Catholic priests are far less likely to abuse children than are schoolteachers (in fact, teachers are about 100 times more likely to abuse kids in their charge). Protestant and evangelical ministers, meanwhile, are at least twice as likely to commit acts of sexual impropriety as are Catholic priests. In some surveys, evangelical pastors seemed to be as much as 10 times more likely to offend in this way.

So really, who has inflicted the most "devastation" on their respective flocks?

But more importantly: what does this have to do with the issue at hand? This is a smokescreen, a distraction, and a bit of sleight of hand intended to distract from the core issue here: the mistreatment of Theokhoth which was perpetrated by, among others, a CWU members, around whom the wagons are now being circled.

If such people as this would accuse Theo of giving poor witness, they might do well to look at themselves first. Dealing with the mote, whilst ignoring the log, is not the proper way to go about things.

I'm taking care of some other stuff on my main blog and on Flickr today, so I'll get back to the analysis of Marian theology tomorrow. And I want to chase this issue involving Theokhoth a bit more.

Coming up next: Mary's uniqueness in God's plan.

I would have to say that I am often tempted to sin in this particular way. The word 'fool' is not a kind one, though it is often so adequate to the need of a descriptive word that is at hand. But since I must refrain from its use, perhaps it will serve to quote instead the passage of text which tempts me so.

Were I allowed to join the False Witness Union, I'd respond to this therein. Since I'm not allowed to do as much, the blog is my only recourse.

Now I realize that this homosexual Christian has stated that he is celibate and does not have sex. Other professing Christians, like "Where's The Fruit D?" have even commended him for his decision of celibacy, even expressed admiration for him and his determination. No one has even suggested to him that his thread, as a professing Christian might be poor Christian testimony to a lost world.

Nor should they, if they honestly believe in Christian testimony. Putting aside the issue of homosexuality for a second, what was the content of the thread. A professing, faithful Christian declared, in the OT forums (not exactly a nest of tolerance where Christianity is concerned, no thanks to the efforts of the CWU), that it was his intent to abstain from sexual activity until such time as he was married to a woman.

Of course, he's homosexual, so what he was basically saying is that he is pledging himself to a life of celibacy, rather than fall into sexual sin. But really, the homosexuality is irrelevant here; had Theo been asking for advice in asking a girl on a date, he'd have admitted his commitment to remain abstinent until marriage as a condition of any resultant relationship.

How -- no, seriously, someone explain exactly how!!! -- is this poor Christian testimony?

I suggest that not only is this homosexual Christian putting himself in a situation that could lead to sin, but as a professing Christian, his thread could prevent a stumbling block to the lost in their coming to Christ.

Any person who dates another person, regardless of the gender of the people involved, puts him or herself into a situation that could lead to sin. Interestingly, a similar issue cropped up on the CWU forums a while back, and of the two people I would wager that Theo's approach to human sexuality is healthier and more Biblical. Yet Theo is condemned by the other person, and the other person is accepted.

Who is really being the stumbling block here? The gay man attempting to reconcile himself, morally and practically, to the law of God? Or the other Christians telling him that even his commitment to total celibacy (c.f. 1 Corinthians 7) is not good enough?

As Christians, we are called to present the truth of the Gospel and defend the truth of God's word in the face of error, not place potential stumbling blocks in the way of the lost by seeking our desires of the flesh. It would be just a bad for a professing Christian to seek help in securing drugs, or any other activity that could lead to sin or is sinful.

So it can be assumed, then, that none of the members of the CWU have any intention of dating, can it? Because if the person making this statement means it, 100%, then that is what must result. Because really...whether one is gay or straight, male or female, asking someone out on a date creates a situation in which a potential for sin exists. A back seat of a car works as well as an empty apartment for such things.

But nobody is talking about that, are they?

Over on the False Witness Union, they're having a go at GS user Theokhoth because of his homosexualty. The usual suspects are issuing the usual denunciations. Here's two choice examples:

I could care less what the guy does in his personal life, that is between him and the Lord, but for a professing Christian to start a thread like this is not good Christian testimony to those that do not know Christ. I would not describe it as being salt and light to a lost world. Did you also see who was in there defending this train of thought, "Where's The Fruit D?"?

Once again, I seem to be worth a mention, despite the fact that homosexuality and I are mutually exclusive topics. It is true that I came to Theo's defence in a thread in OT, and for good reason -- a fellow Christian was being set upon by several socially autistic evangelical atheists.

And why was this happening to him, in a thread where he only wanted advice on asking someone out (yes, another man, but bear with me...there's a point to this)?

Because he wanted a celibate relationship.

Christians attack Theo because he's gay -- one CWU member, in particular, said some rather hateful things indeed. Atheists attacked him, it seems, not because they had a problem with him being gay but because they had a problem with the idea that he intends to live out his life in a manner which is, for someone who is homosexual, consistent with the teachings of the Bible.

Theo believes that marriage is meant for one man and one woman, and he likewise believes that sexuality is morally impermissible outside the context of a valid marriage. To that end, he wants a relationship in which he and his partner remain celibate, and in which they express their love for each other through other means of a non-sexual nature.

This is wholly consistent with the Biblical message, especially 1 Corinthians 7.

And it's astoundingly good Christian testimony, moreover. Look, let it be said here and now: I think homosexual sex acts* are immoral, in exactly the same way I think that any sexual act performed outside the context of a valid marriage is immoral, and in the same way that I think any sexual act performed while using birth control is immoral (regardless of whether or not the couple is married). And I think any Christian -- gay or straight -- who chooses to make a conscious, solid point to abstain from sexual activity for as long he or she is not married to a person of the opposite sex is someone who has made a laudable decision indeed.

* Moreover, if there is one area in which Christians must be very careful to distinguish sinner from sin, it is this. Don't mistake my meaning: I repeat myself when I say that I think that homosexual sex acts are sinful. But being homosexual is not a function of who a person is sleeping with, and the state of being is not itself sinful. That's Biblically defensible as well; from Leviticus to Romans, what is condemned is always the act, not the state of being.

Theo wants to remain celibate; he chooses not to be mastered by his desires, but to master them in turn...and then out of his devotion to the Lord and His teachings! That is powerful Christian witness, and is why the hard-bitten atheists of the OT forums turned on him so viciously. It is unseemly and unbecoming that Christians would attempt to devour him in like manner.

I really dont get why people actually try to push gay habits, and they will say "whats wrong with me holding hands with another guy?" Well that is not the problem, the problem is this....

The genitalia was not made for you to put it in someone elses gluteous maximus..... Seriously

The thing is it causes other people to become homosexual, homosexuals dont ever decrease in number, more so they always have a tendacy to grow in numbers.

I don't pretend to have a full understanding of homosexuality or the reasons it expresses in some people. In a certain sense, I don't care; as a Christian, I believe that who we are is first and foremost a function of the choices we make, and especially how we choose to respond to the temptations we face. That's as true for me, regarding my natural attraction toward women, as it is for Theo regarding his attraction toward men. And in both our cases, there's a range of possible responses to each instance of attraction: some are sinful, some aren't. We choose.

I do know ignorance when I see it, though. And while I agree that the anus was not intended to be an entryway for the penis I must again point out that Theo's whole point, his main intention, has been to find a partner with whom he can remain celibate! Theo isn't advocating for his right to engage in anal sex; he's insisting on abstinence!

Christians are supposed to be wise! How is it that nobody seems to have noticed this? Why is it that the moment someone says gay all some Christians can think of is the worst excesses of pride parades and bathhouses?

It's almost enough to drive one batty. Almost. Fortunately, for both myself (who always seems to get mentioned in these things; the children must be worried) and for Theo, there is at least one other option presented to us on GS. But one does so hate to call in the moderators, and prefers it only as a last resort.

From the usual source:

The answer is simple – the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century (and following) church did not have the complete New Testament. Churches had portions of the New Testament, but the New Testament (and the full Bible) were not commonly available until after the invention of the printing press in A.D. 1440.

That would probably come as news to Jerome, who was the principal scholar responsible for the Vulgate (composed in the fifth century). It would probably also come as something of a surprise to the Church before that point, given that the canon of Scripture was first promulgated in 390 A.D.

But when did one ever expect honesty from anti-Catholic bigots?

The history itself is accurate. But absent context, simply listing off historical events is meaningless. And absent the context, what results is false witness in the cIassic mode of Uncle Screwtape: the truth becomes the lie.

It's all well and good to list off the history of the Church, but to do so absent any discussion of context -- to present it and let it stand as though simply having done so somehow argues against the Church itself -- is itself a form of false witness. Let's look at why, shall we?

431 Proclamation that infant baptism regenerates the soul.

I can only assume that this is a reference to the Council of Ephesus, held in 431 A.D., in which the final movements against the Pelagian heresy were made. Pelagius' erroneous teachings, incidentally, included the following dictats:

1. Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
2. Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
3. Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.
4. The whole human race neither dies through Adam's sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.
5. The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
6. Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin.

As I am sure the Christian Reader can appreciate, there is quite a bit wrong with Pelagius' thought here. And at the Council of Ephesus, the Church acted to shore up its doctrines against Pelagianism...rightly so!

Infant baptism was already practiced widely at this time (Augustine had written about its necessity in 412 A.D.). The Church did teach -- and continues to teach -- that there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and that in baptism -- outwardly symbolized by immersion in water -- Christ wipes away all the sins of the baptized (c.f. Acts 2:38, Eph 5:25, Acts 2:16, Ezekiel 36:25. It was not as though the Church did something brand new in declaring this doctrine.

Rather, they sought to turn an implicit teaching into a formal teaching, to prevent against a heresy which was teaching very erroneous things from spreading.

500 The Mass instituted as re-sacrifice of Jesus for the remission of sin

Actually, the Mass has always been idenfitied not as a re-sacrifice, but as a participation in the one sacrifice of Christ. And though in 500 A.D. the Mass was given its formal title (from the Latin missa, if memory serves -- a term used to send out the faithful to preach the Word), the practice of the Eucharist dates back to the days of the very early Church. Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 12, the apostle Paul describes the basic points of Eucharistic theology.

593 Declaration that sin need to be purged, established by Pope Gregory I

Most of these declarations tend to be in response to heresies, it should be noted...and as such are attempts by the Church to shore up the faith against those who would seek to undermine it in some way.

And while I can't actually find it in St. Gregory's history, I'd expect that this promulgation may have emerged in response to a false teaching being spread by others at the time. The early Church, like the Church today, believed that sin needed to be purged, in the sense that any who are to enter into salvation must be cleansed of the stain of their sins by the power of Christ. This can be understood, I would hope, from even a cursory reading of the Bible.

But heresies are funny things, and it stands to reason that if this concept was formally made doctrine under Pope Gregory, someone was probably going around teaching that sin did not need to be purged -- that is, that we did not need to seek forgiveness for our sins in Christ -- in order to be saved. Or...something like that. As noted, I can't find a reference to this promulgation in Pope Gregory's history...which should perhaps tell us something about the level of honesty of the source that brings up this point.

600 Prayers directed to Mary, dead saints, and angels.

Intercessory prayers, yes, in which we -- the supplicant Christian -- ask the saints, the angels, and/or Mary to join their prayers with our own in prayer unto the Lord.

786 Worship of cross, images, and relics authorized.

The images themselves aren't worshipped; God is worshipped. The Cross, the icons, and what-not give focus to the prayers -- we can kneel before the crucifix in a chapel and meditate on the sacrifice of Christ, for example.

Not necessary, you say? You'd be right. But that's not the point -- the point is that they are there if we want/need them, not because we have to make use of them. If you're fine reflecting on, e.g. the Annunciation, without needing to regard an image of Mary, good on ya. If not, that's cool too.

995 Canonization of dead people as saints initiated by Pope John XV.

The source is clearly polemical, and highly dishonest...and misses the point entirely that even though canonization became formal doctrine only in 995 A.D., the practice of canonization existed long before then. How, after all, could prayers to the saints be promulgated as doctrine if canonization of saints did not come along until nearly 400 years later?

Again, canonization and the idea of sanctity were concepts that already existed in the Church. That the Church felt the need to turn an implied doctrine into a formal doctrine probably indicates that yet another heresy had sprung up, causing the Church to find reason to re-state what it already taught in more formal terms. The belief that some of the dearly departed were instantly and assuredly welcomed into the heavenly Kingdom was not a new thing; the Church had practiced that aspect of faith all along.

1000 Attendance at Mass made mandatory under the penalty of mortal sin.

Yeah, that's one of our teachings. Given the reality of the Eucharist, it's a sensible one.

1079 Celibacy of priesthood, decreed by Pope Gregory VII.

Although if one reads 1 Corinthians 7, this kind of makes sense. This too was a tradition that was not just invented overnight -- in fact, it was quite common at the time it was promulgated as doctrine.

1090 Rosary, repetitious praying with beads, invented by Peter the Hermit.

The Rosary is just a counter, an assistive implement to help one establish a meditative pattern of prayer. The actual concept of medidative prayer, however, predated the Rosary by...oh...a good thousand years or so.

1184 The Inquisitions, instituted by the Council of Verona.

The Inquisitions weren't a great part of Church history, it's true...although it should be noted that they tended to be more lenient, and more fair, than secular courts at the time; many criminals preferred to be tried by the Inquisition, because the odds of being harsly punished were lower.

The Inquisitions were also a response to external threats against the Church, most notably from Islam. What's wrong with that?

1190 The sale of Indulgences established to reduce time in Purgatory.

A regrettable error, and one that was hastily corrected. Sadly, Luther had already broken away from the Church by then.

1215 Transubstantiation, proclaimed by Pope Innocent III.

But believed in by Christians since Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians. Aristotelean philosophy gave us the conceptual definition and the name, but it was Christ Himself who bade the bread and wine become His body and blood. Even a plain reading of John 6 confirms this.

1215 Confession of sin to priests, instituted by Pope Innocent III.

The actual practice of confession to a church official began when Christ sent out the apostles with the power and mandate to forgive, or retain, sins. It was made an official, rather than implicit, doctrine of the Church in response to false teachings against this ancient Christian practice.

1229 Bible placed on Index of Forbidden Books in Toulouse.

First: Toulouse was in 1129, not 1229. This simple mistake casts further doubt on the honesty of the source.

Second: the Bible itself was not placed on the Index, only those translations which were deemed to be erroneous. The Church had, in England for example, even passed a law mandating that every household should own a common-language Bible; the banning of certain translations was to prevent lay Catholics from being taken in by theological error. A blanket prohibition of the Bible was never issued.

1438 Purgatory elevated from doctrine to dogma by Council of Florence.

But again, the idea of purgatory was believed in by Christians since way before this point. The Church, again, didn't introduce a new teaching with this promulgation; it shored up an old, deeply held teaching against false and heritical notions.

1545 Tradition claimed equal in authority with the Bible by the Council of Trent.

But it should be noted that this was in response to the erroneous teaching called sola scriptura. Even Paul, as I have discussed in another article, instructs us to hold to the traditions by which we were taught (2 Thes 2:15), and to trust in the Church — the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) — to reveal the manifold wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10) according to those traditions.

(Update: since I see that this sole statement -- the rest of the discussion having been abandoned -- is now being twisted in its own unique way, I should note that the full issue of Biblical support for interpretation of Scripture in light of the traditions of the Church has been discussed already in greater detail).

So this was not a new thing either; rather, it was the Church confirming a basic truth that had been held by Christians since...well, since there have been Christians.

1546 Apocryphal Books declared canon by Council of Trent.

True, but they were included in the formal canon of Scripture in 390 A.D. This was again a response to Luther's errors.

1854 Immaculate Conception of Mary, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX.

A response to Protestant denunciations of the Blessed Virgin. The belief in Mary's sinless conception dates back the very early Church, before the Byzantine churches parted ways with Rome.

1870 Infallibility of the Pope, proclaimed by Vatican Council.

Even this was not a new thing, and changed nothing about the operation of the Church as concerned the promulgation of doctrine and teaching.

1922 Virgin Mary proclaimed co-redeemer with Jesus by Pope Benedict XV.

Without Mary, you don't have the Son. Mary's unique role in the salvation of humanity is right there in Scripture. But ultimately, her significance flows from Christ, and it is Christ who saves.

1950 Assumption of Virgin Mary into heaven, proclaimed by Pope Pius XII.

But believed in by Christians since...the early, early days of the Church.

I hate lists of lies like this, because they are nothing other than lists of lies. Oh, the events themselves are true...the lie comes in when the list-maker attempts to portray these things as instances of the Church suddenly and inexplicably teaching something new. In truth, nothing of the sort takes place: almost all of the above are instances of the Church making formal a teaching that was widely accepted for centuries beforehand.

In one or two cases, the list entries are just patently false. For the rest, an analysis of the historical context of each promulgation demonstrates a couple of things: 1) that the promulgated doctrine is actually in line with the Bible and the traditions of the early Church, and 2) that the promulgated doctrine is not a new, evolutionary leap in Church teaching.

To present and portray it as such is an act of false witness. And I think we know what the Bible says about that.

Closing thought: the degree to which Purgatory is a valid Christian belief is equal to the degree to which Hannukah is a valid Jewish festival. The degree to which Purgatory can be justified from the Bible is equal to the degree to which Hannukah can be justified from Jewish scripture.

No, seriously...why does every serious discussion in the False Witness Union eventually spiral down to making mention of, and taking cheap potshots at, me?

The thread seemed to begin innocuously enough; a user expresses his displeasure at the mistreatment of another GS user who identified himself as being homosexual, who has received several messages of an insulting and derogatory nature, including one from a member of the False Witness Union proper.

But what has it turned into? A circling of the wagons has occurred, and now the original poster is coming under fire. Moreover, he is being condemned for speaking out because a gay person was mistreated, when he did not speak out against the CU or against me, personally, when they and I said things that the CWU found disagreeable.

And so it goes. False witness piles upon false witness, and even when I say nothing I stand accused. And God help anyone in the CWU who steps out of line and breaks with orthodoxy therein, it seems.

Update: oh, this is made of WIN.

Just trust me, god is not all loving,

It's funny, to me, that I get condemned for being not a "true Christian" by people who then go on to say things like this.

Also: I hate being right. Sometimes. Have I mentioned that?

Update 2 - Electric Boogaloo: I see that the False Witness folks have decided to appoint me a new name: "Where's the Fruit D". Don't ask me what that means, O Reader...I haven't the foggiest.

I do so love watching how my portrayal in the words of various members of the CWU changes over time, both for its utter lack of charity (a high Christian virtue, I might point out) and for its utter pettiness. Yes, I use the polemical name "False Witness Union" on this blog, but note that there's a bit of a difference: I am describing an ongoing phenomenon by making a play on words, whereas the various permutations of my username that appear on the CWU seem intended only to mock and annoy.

Very...Christlike.

It's kind of cute that they think I'm so critical of them because of some imaginary success they are enjoying; I keep watching their "evangelistic" efforts and see only people becoming even more bitter toward Christ because of their participation in the discussion. And that's what makes me critical of them, more or less: the way they preach Christ tends to result in epic levels of FAIL! where actually getting the message heard is concerned.

This is especially true, I think, in the way they go after other Christians who do not follow the established orthodoxy of the CWU -- as evidenced, most recently, by the fact that it was a CWU member who delivered numerous insults to Theokhoth, as noted above, simply because of his homosexuality.

I've no problem with preaching the Word; I do it myself (as I am hopeful the Reader has been able to note all week). I do object to people who preach false doctrines (the five solas), and who preach from an incomplete canon (66 books is too few), and it is right and just to object to such falsehoods when they occur.

Just as it is right and just to object to those self-styIed evangelists who only end up driving a bigger wedge between Christ and the lost.

It's funny, to me, that I get mentioned so many times in the CWU, even in threads where there is basically no relation between the topic and myself. That was the case here. I could see myself maybe getting mentioned in a thread about Catholicism, but in a thread about how a certain CWU member treated a homosexual Christian? No, it doesn't make sense.

But there I am, mentioned again.

It's really quite telling. Something I'm saying must have those kids worried.

How have Christians throughout history regarded Mary, specifically in regard to her perpetual virginity? Is there a major difference in regard to Marian theology that is discernible along the historic Catholic/Protestant divide?

In the modern era, we might answer "yes" to such questions. Nestorianism seems to be making a bit of a return, in the form of modern Protestants and non-denominational Christians actively denying the ancient doctrine of the Church that Mary is the Theotokos, the God-bearer, the Mother of God. But historically, the answer is actually a resounding "no!"

Martin Luther didn't think the doctrine was critical to Christian faith, but maintained that "we should simply hold that (Mary) remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity." (c.f. 'That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew', Luther's Works, 1962, Concordia Publishing House)

Luther was insistent that Jesus was "the real and natural fruit" of Mary's womb, and that she "bore no children besides Him." Additionally, Luther fully agreed with interpretations of Scripture that identified the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus as being more distant relations (e.g. cousins).

Moreover, John Calvin also rejected the notion that the mention of the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus in the Bible were meant to refer to siblings born of Mary. John Wesley believed that Mary "continued a pure and unspotted virgin" after giving birth to Christ. (c.f. 'Letter to a Roman Catholic', 1749) Huldrych Zwingli likewise believed that Mary's virginity remained perpetually intact after Jesus was born. (c.f. 'Eini Predigt von der ewig reinen Magd Maria.', Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, 1905)

Diarmaid MacCulloch — a Reformation historian — noted the reason why the affirmation of Mary's virginity was almost wholly universal across all the major strains of Protestantism and its offshoots: by affirming the ongoing virginity of Mary, the Reformers (not unlike the Catholics) ensured themselves "the guarantee of the Incarnation of Christ." Sola Scriptura may have prevented the believe in Mary's virginity from being formally adopted as a doctrine in many (if any) of the churches which emerged out of the Reformation, and I suspect that this may have done a grave disservice to subsequent Protestant theologians where the issue of Mary was concerned, many of whom have since come to deny the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. (c.f. The Reformation: a History, 2003, Penguin Books)

And while it sounds like this should be a minor issue, look at where that denial has led us to: now we see again some Christians stumbling into false teachings like Nestorianism, and uttering denials of Mary as the Mother of God that they have no idea also necessarily imply that Christ was not fully human and fully divine all at once.

The Catholic Church obviously holds the belief that Mary was perpetually virginal, and has held that belief since…well, since the Church was still one denomination, way back when the year took less than four numbers to write out. The formal doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity was promulgated in about 533 A.D. (at the Council of Constantinople). That's not to say that Catholicism has not been marked by a few disagreements over the issue, though.

Tertulian, for example, believed that the virginity of Mary was not preserved by the act of giving birth. While he evidently felt this was a proper emphasis on the nature and reality of Jesus' human body, it should be noted that in reality, this position actually makes the very idea of a "virgin birth" (an integral part of Christian theology) impossible. Jovinian, who lived over a century later, set himself against Paul (c.f. 1 Corinthians 7) when he denied that virginity/celibacy was indeed a higher state than marriage. Helvidius repeated this commentary shortly thereafter, but was soundly denounced by, among others, Jerome.

And as was so ably noted by Mark Shea, "the Tradition of the Church in union with the biblical text [affirms that] Mary had no other children, a fact so commonly known throughout the early Church that when Jerome attacks Helvidius for suggesting otherwise, nobody makes a peep. In a Church quite capable of tearing itself to pieces over distinctions between homoousious and homoiousious, you hear the sound of crickets in response to Jerome, punctuated with the sound of other Fathers singing hymns to "Mary, Ever-Virgin." The early Church took it for granted and thought Helvidius as credible as Dan Brown."

And indeed, after Helvidius, no credible arguments were presented against the perpetual virginity of Mary until near-modern Protestantism jettisoned the doctrine.

Possible Objection #8: could not the early Church have been wrong? Could the early Church have mis-interpreted those passages from Scripture which make clear reference to the siblings of Jesus?

Response to Objection #8: it's possible, I suppose, that this could be the case. But to believe as much, we would have to believe that over 1700 years of Christian scholarship was wrong about this particular issue, that 1700 years' worth of Christian theologians and scholars had somehow remained ignorant of very commonly cited verses of Scripture, and that in 1700 years nobody had actually thought to read the original-language manuscripts in a proper context.

Which seems a bit…incredible. It makes more sense, I think, to assume that modern theologians who set themselves against the perpetual virginity of Mary have simply gone awry in their thinking, as did the Nestorians, as did Helvidius, and as did Tertulian.

So why does Mary matter to Catholics? Indeed, why should Mary matter to Christians, of any kind, at all? There is actually a very good reason, and it has quite a lot to do with Jesus' instruction to the beloved apostle at the foot of the Cross: "behold your mother." It also has a lot to do with Mary herself, and her role in God's plan of salvation. Because Mary is not just another human being — she is, for Christians, a special example, and also a marker.

Because Mary, you see, always points us to Christ. Mary glorifies Christ. And Satan is well aware of this, because historically, those heresies and false teachings which have sought to undermine the full divinity of Christ have often begun by attacking some aspect of the theology concerning Mary.

Let's begin, though, by considering an objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary advanced by some Christians.

It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus' mother Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Is this concept Biblical? Before we get into looking at specific Scriptures, it is important to understand why the Roman Catholic Church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Roman Catholic Church views Mary as "the Mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven." Catholics believe Mary to have an exalted place in Heaven, with the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. Such a concept is nowhere taught in Scripture. Further, even if Mary did occupy such an exalted position, her having sexual intercourse would not have prevented her from gaining such a position. Sex in marriage is not sinful. Mary would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual relations with Joseph her husband. The entire concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based on an unbiblical teaching, Mary as Queen of Heaven, and on an unbiblical understanding of sex.

The key thing here to which I wish to draw attention is the isolation of the belief in Mary as the Theotokos — the God-bearer, the Mother of God — as a solely Catholic belief. Note the implied rejection of the belief in Mary being the Mother of God on the grounds that it is apparently unbiblical.

We've addressed the matter of the above author's lack of understanding of sex in the Bible already, and nothing further needs to be said on that matter. But let's look at the rejection of the Catholic belief that Mary is the Theotokos, the Mother of God. This sounds like something fairly new, but it is actually a very old fallacy indeed.

As Mark Shea notes, "in the fifth century there arose (yet again) the question of just who Jesus is. It was a question repeated throughout antiquity and, in this case, an answer to the question was proposed by the Nestorians. They argued that the mortal man Jesus and the Logos, or Second Person of the Trinity, were more or less two persons occupying the same head. For this reason, they insisted that Mary could not be acclaimed (as she had been popularly acclaimed for a very long time) as Theotokos, or God bearer. Instead, she should only be called Christotokos, or Christ bearer. She was, they insisted, the Mother of Jesus, not of God."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? But consider, O Reader: Nestorianism was a heresy that the Church had to address fairly early on in its life (indeed, it happened not long after the formal canonization of Scripture!). Something goes awry when we reject Mary as the mother of God, as the concerned Christian above has done.

Shea continues: "The problem with this was that it threatened the very witness of the Church and could even lead logically to the notion that there were two Sons of God, the man Jesus and the Logos who was sharing a room with Him in His head. In short, it was a doorway to theological chaos over one of the most basic truths of the Faith: that the Word became flesh, died, and rose for our sins."

John 1 makes it very clear: the Logos (the Word) is God. Jesus is God. Only the es make the mistake of separating God and the Word, incorrectly modifying John 1 to read "the Word was a god." For all intents and purposes, all Christians today accept it as a basic article of faith that Jesus, the Word, is God, one in being with the Father and the Spirit in the blessed union that is the Holy Trinity, which God ultimately is.

And all the Gospels make it equally clear: Mary is the mother of Jesus, the Word (who is God) made flesh. It's right there in the Bible: Mary is the mother of God (the Word) made flesh; she is the Mother of God. And to deny this actually begins to deny the very divinity of the human person of Christ. And to this heresy, notes Shea, "the Church formulated its response. First, Jesus Christ is not two persons occupying the same head. He is one person possessing two natures, human and divine, joined in a hypostatic union. Second, it was appropriate to therefore call Mary Theotokos because she's the Mother of the God-Man. When the God-Man had His friends over for lunch, He didn't introduce Mary saying, "This is the mother of my human nature." He said, "This is my mother."

Why did the Church do this? Because, once again, Mary points to Jesus. The dogma of the Theotokos is a commentary on Jesus, a sort of "hedge" around the truth about Jesus articulated by the Church. Just as Nestorianism had tried to attack the orthodox teaching of Christ through Mary (by forbidding the veneration of her as Theotokos), now the Church protected that teaching about Christ by making Theotokos a dogma. That is a vital key to understanding Marian dogmas: They're always about some vital truth concerning Jesus, the nature of the Church, or the nature of the human person."

Jesus was fully human, and yet fully divine, and these two aspects of Him were, and remain, inseparable. He was born in a very human birth. He lived a very human life. He suffered through and died a very human death. And He rose again as a human, at all times the Word and flesh perfectly united, for the forgiveness of sins and the salvation of mankind.

It isn't easy, at first, to see the machinations of the devil in the Nestorian heresy, but we can see the devil's intent in looking at the implications of what seems, on the surface, to be a fairly innocuous teaching concerning a somewhat perplexing statement concerning Mary. For if we deny, as some Christians unfortunately continue to do (apparently in their zeal to condemn Catholicism), that Mary was the Mother of God, we must necessarily deny that she was not the mother of the Word, only of the flesh and blood in which the Word was clothed.

Which means that Jesus, the Logos, did not have a fully human birth.

Which means that Jesus, the Word, did not live a fully human life.

Which means that Jesus, the Christ who is God, did not suffer through and die a fully human death.

Which has, I submit to the Reader, disastrous implications for our salvation prospects as Christians. I believe Paul had something to say about us being most pitiable in just such a circumstance. And yet just such a circumstance arises out of what seems to be a straightforward rejection of a doctrine that doesn't even directly concern Christ! But that is the devil's cunning, for Satan knows that if the mother can be undermined, the Son can be undermined because of it.

Now, why is this important to Christians? Well, there's two reasons. The first, of course, is that we are told we are to defend the faith against false teachings, and it behooves us to do so. Denial of Mary's status as Theotokos is just one such false teaching, but it is a particularly vicious and odious one because of its far-reaching implications. But it is also important to us because we are commanded to honour our father and our mother. And that doesn't just apply to our blood parents either, I might point out. We are to honour our Father in Heaven as well…and likewise, our Mother.

Possible Objection #7: wait, what? Our Mother in Heaven???!!

Response to Objection #7: yes indeed.

The author of the Gospel of John notes that he did not record everything that transpired in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ word-for-word, nor did he include every event in his account of Jesus. In John 20, he disclaims his work:

[30] Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;

[31] but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

John is giving us a bit of a hint here: not everything about Jesus or His life was recorded in the Gospel, but enough of significance was recorded, that we might believe. The author is suggesting to us that everything within his account of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ has significance above and beyond simply being a relating of who Jesus was, and what He did — every event in John's Gospel has significant theological meaning.

So when Christ tells the beloved disciple "behold your Mother," John doesn't record it, as Mark Shea notes, "because he thought his readers might be curious about domestic arrangements for childless Jewish widows…For the Beloved Disciple is you and not merely John. Mary is your mother and you are her child. And so we are to look to her as mother and imitate her as she imitates Christ."

The whole of the Gospel of John is written in an odd perspective; though it has been long-held by almost all Christian theologians that the term "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is used, in John's Gospel, in a self-referential capacity, John's choice of phrasing has always been understood to mean that what is true for the beloved disciple is true for all whom Christ loves, and who follow Christ. When Jesus tells John, the beloved, "behold your mother," He tells us that as well. He entrusts care of Mary to us, and presents her to us as our mother, and our example.

In the normal family model, the mother is the principal example that children have to draw upon, especially at younger ages. Mom is the teacher, the witness, and the person whom young children should first begin to imitate when they begin to strive to behave morally. This is God's "very good" design in action, O Reader, and it comes as no surprise that Christ would, in His desire that humanity continue to learn of and draw near to Him, present His mother to us to be our mother, to be our example, and for us to imitate in her surrender to (and participation in) the will of God, and in God's salvific grace.

Because there is one thing Christ cannot do directly: he cannot show us what a follower of Christ looks like. And as Shea notes, "the first and best model of the disciple of Jesus is the one who said and lived "Yes!" to God, spontaneously and without even the benefit of years of training or the necessity of being knocked off a horse and blinded. And she continues to do so right through the agony of watching her Son die and the ecstasy of knowing Him raised again."