MARY THE MOTHER OF GOD ... WHY IS THIS TITLE AT ALL CONTROVERSIAL???

[Deleted member]

You are quite right, evangelicals and fundamentalists are not necessarily one and the same. One could say that all fundamentalists are evangelicals, but not all evangelicals are fundamentalists.

My frame of reference is small-town and rural life in a broad area of the Southern and Midwestern United States (really on the edges of both areas, they tend to overlap in places). For most, religion is not really a scholarly thing, it is more "getting saved" by "accepting Jesus as your Lord and personal Savior". It's all about that radical change in one's life, and about, as they see it, the plain words of the Bible. Much of it is about feelings, and emotions, and lived experience. It's something that may be hard to understand unless you've lived among these people, as I have.

An explanation -
"Fundamentalists seem to be a smaller share and not representative by theological teaching either (like a deviation from Luther and Calvins original intent, since both of them valued writings from early church fathers to interpret the bible)"
Saying that protestants have problems with the term "Mother of God" is not accurate, because fundamentalists do not represent the majority of protestants. I wrote it to clarify, the thread has been confusing because of the statement.
It is not complain, in the process of understanding the intention of the posting, I got to know more about a group of people.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

An explanation -
"Fundamentalists seem to be a smaller share and not representative by theological teaching either (like a deviation from Luther and Calvins original intent, since both of them valued writings from early church fathers to interpret the bible)"
Saying that protestants have problems with the term "Mother of God" is not accurate, because fundamentalists do not represent the majority of protestants. I wrote it to clarify, the thread has been confusing because of the statement.
It is not complain, in the process of understanding the intention of the posting, I got to know more about a group of people.

I do not have figures on how many people adhere to the various flavors of Protestantism, nor to their actual practice. I can just speak from my own experience and what I've heard and observed.

And the reaction to the term "Mother of God" (the term itself, not the syllogisms that would lead any logically-minded person to see how true it is) might vary with the individual believer. Again, pick any Baptist church on a Sunday morning, go up and approach someone at random, and ask them what they think of the term "Mother of God", and assuming they're not flabbergasted by a stranger approaching them and asking such a question, I have to think the first words out of their mouth would be something like "that sounds like Catholic idol worship [sic], Mary didn't make God". They really don't think about Mary all that much except as a holy woman, who married Joseph and had several other children afterwards, occasioned Jesus's first miracle, and grieved at the foot of the cross. That's it.

 

[Deleted member]

I do not have figures on how many people adhere to the various flavors of Protestantism, nor to their actual practice. I can just speak from my own experience and what I've heard and observed.

And the reaction to the term "Mother of God" (the term itself, not the syllogisms that would lead any logically-minded person to see how true it is) might vary with the individual believer. Again, pick any Baptist church on a Sunday morning, go up and approach someone at random, and ask them what they think of the term "Mother of God", and assuming they're not flabbergasted by a stranger approaching them and asking such a question, I have to think the first words out of their mouth would be something like "that sounds like Catholic idol worship [sic], Mary didn't make God". They really don't think about Mary all that much except as a holy woman, who married Joseph and had several other children afterwards, occasioned Jesus's first miracle, and grieved at the foot of the cross. That's it.

From the research I did, It seems, that it would be controversial only for the fundamentalists .
All the rest of Christian believers (including Baptists and Methodists, which have the highest share of believers in the US) name her as the mother of God.
For example from the Missouri Baptist Convention: https://mbcpathway.com/2013/12/24/do-you-believe-that-mary-is-the-mother-of-god/
It is very much in line with Calvin's letter: we (the educated) believe she is, but we do not want to stress it in sermons as to not foment idolatry or superstition.
After reading the article, I think Baptists might react very defensively if a random stranger asks them on a Sunday "Is Mary the mother of God?", because they would not want to be accused of idolatry. However, in the safety of bible school, and with a leader they trust, they would say yes. the author, Benjamin Hawkins, states:
"Therefore, rejecting these claims about Jesus, early Christians answered their question with a resounding, “Yes. Mary is the mother of God.” Now, this did not mean that Mary was somehow divine, worthy of worship, or the appropriate object of our prayers. Rather, this answer was meant to affirm that, in the person of Jesus, God became man. From his conception in Mary’s womb, the one person of Jesus Christ was wholly and perfectly both God and man. Godhood and manhood were united in him. "

The astonishment of The Reginator ("why would it be controversial") is confirmed by the fact that most Christians do not think it is controversial - this thread has been confusing.

The Pew Research Center collects data on the religious landscape- https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/religious-landscape-study-executive-summary/
They estimated fundamentalists at about 0.3% of the US population (page 25 in the PDF version, Section 4 "Religious Switching" on the online version)

This interview, which talks about President Bush's faith (United Methodist-defined as mainline protestant) gives an overview of the differences between mainline protestants, evangelicals, and fundamentalists (and how the lines can blur)

Interviews - John Green | The Jesus Factor | FRONTLINE | PBS

From it, I would highlight as relevant to this thread "Another difference between fundamentalists and evangelicals is the degree of separatism that they practice. Both fundamentalists and evangelicals believe that conservative Christians should separate themselves from the world in many important ways. But fundamentalists are much stricter in that separation, and they would extend it to religion as well."
This tendency to isolate - in line with the description of your experience growing up- would point to the difficulty in understanding a point of view, which is a little bit different from what was discussed in their Sunday school, even when it overlaps with the beliefs of main group - here the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention). Would these Baptists neighbors of your childhood be less defensive if they travel to Missouri to a retreat with Benjamin Hawkins? Would their community get a deeper and richer understanding of their faith if they travel to other areas and exchange views?

I can see this is a huge difference to my upbringing, sharing a school desk with Lutherans, and both freely conversing on theological issues, with complete freedom and mutual respect. Exchanging ideas with a non-Catholic did not make me less Catholic, but increased my knowledge of it, as well as gaining insights on other views.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Everything you say about this makes sense, I can only refer to gut-level reactions from those who are not scholars (and that would probably be most people who attend fundamentalist churches). For those less sophisticated and worldly, they might never even have heard the Catholic term "Mother of God", and wouldn't immediately associate it with Catholicism. If you said "Mother of the Lord", that might make more sense to them, it'd be hard for them to have an issue with that.

 

[Deleted member]

Everything you say about this makes sense, I can only refer to gut-level reactions from those who are not scholars (and that would probably be most people who attend fundamentalist churches). For those less sophisticated and worldly, they might never even have heard the Catholic term "Mother of God", and wouldn't immediately associate it with Catholicism. If you said "Mother of the Lord", that might make more sense to them, it'd be hard for them to have an issue with that.

thank you for the response. Who is "them"?("If you said "Mother of the Lord", that might make more sense to them,"
Evangelical fundamentalists? IFB (independent Fundamentalist Baptist)? It is very confusing because on one hand you say you do not know about protestants beyond the experience growing up with your aunts and grandmother, on the other you felt comfortable enough with the knowledge of protestants to say "pick any Baptist Church on Sunday". Well I sort of did: I picked Mr. Benjamin Hawkins from the SBC who said "Yes. Mary is the mother of God." and very fast he qualified "Now, this did not mean that Mary was somehow divine, worthy of worship, or the appropriate object of our prayers."

This thread is very confusing. I do not know if we have answered the question "Why is the title (Mother of God) at all controversial?"- meaning, it is not controversial if it is properly qualified (" does not mean Mary is somehow divine, nor has a role interceding for us").
Because most protestants have no issue with that, perhaps the controversy that The Reginator referred to was Marian adoration and intercession. The content of his blog pointed to that rather then Theotokos.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

thank you for the response. Who is "them"?("If you said "Mother of the Lord", that might make more sense to them,"
Evangelical fundamentalists? IFB (independent Fundamentalist Baptist)? It is very confusing because on one hand you say you do not know about protestants beyond the experience growing up with your aunts and grandmother, on the other you felt comfortable enough with the knowledge of protestants to say "pick any Baptist Church on Sunday". Well I sort of did: I picked Mr. Benjamin Hawkins from the SBC who said "Yes. Mary is the mother of God." and very fast he qualified "Now, this did not mean that Mary was somehow divine, worthy of worship, or the appropriate object of our prayers."

This thread is very confusing. I do not know if we have answered the question "Why is the title (Mother of God) at all controversial?"- meaning, it is not controversial if it is properly qualified (" does not mean Mary is somehow divine, nor has a role interceding for us").
Because most protestants have no issue with that, perhaps the controversy that The Reginator referred to was Marian adoration and intercession. The content of his blog pointed to that rather then Theotokos.

"Them" = simple, unsophisticated, unworldly, run-of-the mill evangelical fundamentalists chosen at random. This Mr Hawkins would be far from what I'm describing, he is a very well-educated man (BA/MA/PhD), and presumably a calm, reasonable, and rational one.

Yes, if you sit down, go through the syllogism, make it clear that there's no question of idolatry here, or of elevating Mary to some kind of position equal to, or even above, Almighty God, the term "Mother of God" shouldn't be problematical to anyone. But that's not where a lot of people are. They are wrong, but very often you have to meet people where they are, not where they should be.

I have had a lot of experience dealing with all kinds of Protestants, from Catholic-adjacent 1928 BCP Anglicans who call their liturgy "Mass", to a simple fundamentalist lady who told me "I don't go with anything except what's in that Bible" (never mind that the godhood of Jesus and the maternity of Mary are right there in black and white). I think I have a pretty good handle on what makes them tick.

 

[Deleted member]

"Them" = simple, unsophisticated, unworldly, run-of-the mill evangelical fundamentalists chosen at random. This Mr Hawkins would be far from what I'm describing, he is a very well-educated man (BA/MA/PhD), and presumably a calm, reasonable, and rational one.

Yes, if you sit down, go through the syllogism, make it clear that there's no question of idolatry here, or of elevating Mary to some kind of position equal to, or even above, Almighty God, the term "Mother of God" shouldn't be problematical to anyone. But that's not where a lot of people are. They are wrong, but very often you have to meet people where they are, not where they should be.

I do not venture opinions without proper information/data. We do not really know where people (protestants or catholics) are or how wrong they are. For example, we do not have polls to see how well Catholics understands their Catechism. Marian adoration is probably frequent in all churches, so they would be familiar with the basics, but I would not go beyond that to venture an opinion.
The Pew Research Center does not do have detailed polls.
Is it a good measure for the Forum to keep comments as factual as possible? We can speculate all kinds of things, but we search for truth, that would limit what we can actually say. (Remember the post citing the scientist mind from the book "Think Again, the power of knowing what you don't know) .
We do have information on what the different denominations teach - in this case, except for fundamentalists, all teach that Mary is the mother of God. We do not have information on how well believers understand the teaching.

I have had a lot of experience dealing with all kinds of Protestants, from Catholic-adjacent 1928 BCP Anglicans who call their liturgy "Mass", to a simple fundamentalist lady who told me "I don't go with anything except what's in that Bible" (never mind that the godhood of Jesus and the maternity of Mary are right there in black and white). I think I have a pretty good handle on what makes them tick.

The example you are giving is fundamentalist. Yes, the bible does not use "Mother of God", but Mother of the Lord or Mother of Jesus - so the lady was true to he teaching by taking the bible literally. But fundamentalists are a very small part of Protestants.

Taking the scientist approach "I think I have a pretty good handle on what makes them tick." might be correct in that you have a good gut feeling regarding how to lead a conversation with the person that you are interacting with. That interaction is not, however a representative sample of the population. The people we meet form a biased sample: the selection is not random. We tend to have a previous association that makes those people we come across and interact with more probable to be chosen. We can make incorrect inferences from our personal experience about people, and that could lead as to be unjust. (Think Again )


I am not sure I understand the focus of this thread. Is The Reginator talking about personal experience? - Did he met many people that were not clear on the teaching (Mary mother of God)? Or did he found it controversial when he shared about Marian adoration (which seems to be the focus in the blog) with non-Catholics? This last one would be predictable.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I don't know, and I can't guess why the OP asked this question or used that particular verbiage. I would look to him for clarification.

I can't predict, if someone were to commission a Pew survey or Gallup poll on a question something like "do you find the expression 'Mother of God' to refer to Mary troubling?", how it would rattle out. I just deal with real people in the real world, what I observe from their words and behavior, and what I might be able to extrapolate from what I see and hear. It's admittedly unscientific, but it's all I have with which to work. I am presently working on the genesis of a book, or possibly an extended essay or series of essays, on the response of Catholics to the Church's teaching on birth control as expressed in Humanae vitae and elsewhere. I am considering speaking with various people about this, and getting their sense, similar to how Studs Terkel did about jobs and occupations in his book Working, though this is a subject that people tend to treat as highly personal, and such discussions might not be easy to conduct. It was surely a masterstroke of the evil one, to persuade what may be the vast majority of Catholics in the developed world, that the Church is wrong on a subject that some see as creepy and prurient for someone to delve into, leading people into mortally sinful behavior while at the same time making it cringy to discuss in hopes of leading them to repentance and reform of their lives, "putting them under conviction", as Protestants would say. This combination of prudishness and brazen defiance of Church teaching is quite the Gordian knot, and nobody so far seems to be willing to try and cut it.

But not to digress. I merely mean that not all shades of belief, or even practice, can be distilled down into an opinion poll. We might be able to start by noting that the term "Mother of God" isn't something Protestants generally go around using, and then asking what they would make of it, if someone brought it up to them and asked them what they make of it.

 

[Deleted member]

I don't know, and I can't guess why the OP asked this question or used that particular verbiage. I would look to him for clarification.

I can't predict, if someone were to commission a Pew survey or Gallup poll on a question something like "do you find the expression 'Mother of God' to refer to Mary troubling?", how it would rattle out. I just deal with real people in the real world, what I observe from their words and behavior, and what I might be able to extrapolate from what I see and hear. It's admittedly unscientific, but it's all I have with which to work. I am presently working on the genesis of a book, or possibly an extended essay or series of essays, on the response of Catholics to the Church's teaching on birth control as expressed in Humanae vitae and elsewhere. I am considering speaking with various people about this, and getting their sense, similar to how Studs Terkel did about jobs and occupations in his book Working, though this is a subject that people tend to treat as highly personal, and such discussions might not be easy to conduct. It was surely a masterstroke of the evil one, to persuade what may be the vast majority of Catholics in the developed world, that the Church is wrong on a subject that some see as creepy and prurient for someone to delve into, leading people into mortally sinful behavior while at the same time making it cringy to discuss in hopes of leading them to repentance and reform of their lives, "putting them under conviction", as Protestants would say. This combination of prudishness and brazen defiance of Church teaching is quite the Gordian knot, and nobody so far seems to be willing to try and cut it.

But not to digress. I merely mean that not all shades of belief, or even practice, can be distilled down into an opinion poll. We might be able to start by noting that the term "Mother of God" isn't something Protestants generally go around using, and then asking what they would make of it, if someone brought it up to them and asked them what they make of it.

Please let's stop the thread to consider what you just wrote.
"but it's all I have to work (with)" ? If you do not have proper information, you can not do the work. Work? What type of work? You can actually end up doing harm.

That is another reason I write here. Governor Cox just blamed social media for the radicalization of people. It is very easy to pour opinions that have little foundation in the internet, then algorithms that pairs similar views create echo chambers that perpetuate false beliefs. How much have you read about it?
A serious forum, needs discipline, both to have accurate content and proper civil discussion that would elicit a good exchange and promote truth searching.

About random samples (survey data) to gather information. Opinion polls are gathered fast and often and are different from academic research geared to establish facts properly. For its nature, the type of questions you can ask in an opinion poll is limited. In an academic research you can test deep and sensitive issues.
I think the Pew Research center does not do opinion polls. It has good reputation for the seriousness of their work. Doing research to estimate how much people understand from the teachings is extremely expensive. I do not know about such study.

There are effective ways of gathering information on "soft" issues that are sensitive. Often it means organizing groups and a professional leads a conversation in an atmosphere in which participants feel safe to share. (most definitely would not stop a person on his wayt o church to ask a question about a deeper theological teaching like "do you think Mary is the Mother of God")

It takes training to understand why we need to do it that way and how to do it well. It needs on the job training in a good practice to become good at it.
We have make huge advance in the area of data analysis, it has come with increased training. There is no way around it, people need to have the skills and training to properly talk about it. If you are interested, I have some materials to share and references. The book "Think Again (The Power of Knowing what You Don't Know") is a good start. I got it from the public library.

There is a lot of conversations about Humanae Vitae. Hard data is simple: the average Catholic family has about 2.2 children (again, that comes from Pew Research Center landscape study https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/religion-fertility-and-child-rearing/) (it is in line with mainline Protestans and below evangelicals - 2.3)
Considering how unreliable natural birth control sanctioned by the encyclical letter is, we can suspect that most Catholics in the US use contraceptives not sanctioned by Humanae Vitae. The average is still lower in Europe, and possible higher in developing countries. The Vatican is most probably aware of it. In the least, they have data on baptisms and marriages in their parishes all over the world.

Studs Terkel talked with a lot of people, across socio-economic strata and geographical areas to write his books documenting oral history. It is a full time job, It probably took years of research - you need large samples if you want to say something relevant. His work inspired people that do serious research, especially in the area of "case studies". His journalism work is respected and has inspired data research.

Pople Leo XIV first formal interview may give light to the pressing issues for his papacy- wage inequality is at the top. Here I want to share a work on data analysis which echoes Studs Terkel history of the Depression. https://press.princeton.edu/books/h...Wk8yIAMtFdFpj2o2M_4OdGOxMTZRF1cZpgID9AN9qnG_K
Anne Case and Angus Deaton coined the term "Deaths of Despair"
The research of Deaton, for which he got a Nobel prize, took years of research, with good data. It is worth reading about it to get a sense of the effort it takes to be able to make such statements in an accurate proper way. Yet, when you get to it, the statement can be most effective- Pope Leo XIV is listening.

The severity of the issue is probably one that has kept the use of contraceptives out of the priority agenda in the Catholic Church (this is my subjective educated guess - an hypothesis to be tested). Families are struggling, and they do not want to go back to Dickensian times in which parents left children that they could not support in orphanages.

Returning to the thread, I quite agree that protestants do not often talk about Mary. I said it several times, in different contexts. Marian adoration is strictly Catholic. Protestants, although their core teaching calls Mary mother of God, are guarded about possible misinterpretations that would lead their flock to "Catholic superstition" (in the words of Calvin). If we are in agreement, why do you make an issue about it? Am I missing something?

 

[vz71]

perhaps the controversy that The Reginator referred to was Marian adoration and intercession.

Practical experience here.

Protestant wife - until fairly recently believed we worshipped Mary. The title of "Mother of God" said much more to her then actually is intended.

Protestant Mother in Law - when introduced to Marian doctrine of any type turns extremely hostile. She wants to believe Mary was "just like me" and refuses to see any logic in any other reasoning. In her case, any reference to Mary as anything other then a vessel God used is too far.
References within the Bible to Mary as having a role beyond just being used she cannot see. These references can be shown to her; they can be read aloud to her. And moments later she has no recollection of the reference. It is selective hearing taken to a whole new level.

The position is so entrenched I fear this woman, that otherwise loves Jesus, would walk away from God rather then accept that Mary has a special place.

Given this practical experience, Mary as "Mother of God" is a bridge too far for many protestants.

It is the same illogic that says we shouldn't have any type of religious icons, but trots out the nativity scene every year.

 

[Deleted member]

Practical experience here.

Protestant wife - until fairly recently believed we worshipped Mary. The title of "Mother of God" said much more to her then actually is intended.

Protestant Mother in Law - when introduced to Marian doctrine of any type turns extremely hostile. She wants to believe Mary was "just like me" and refuses to see any logic in any other reasoning. In her case, any reference to Mary as anything other then a vessel God used is too far.
References within the Bible to Mary as having a role beyond just being used she cannot see. These references can be shown to her; they can be read aloud to her. And moments later she has no recollection of the reference. It is selective hearing taken to a whole new level.

The position is so entrenched I fear this woman, that otherwise loves Jesus, would walk away from God rather then accept that Mary has a special place.

Given this practical experience, Mary as "Mother of God" is a bridge too far for many protestants.

It is the same illogic that says we shouldn't have any type of religious icons, but trots out the nativity scene every year.

"It is the same illogic that says we shouldn't have any type of religious icons, but trots out the nativity scene every year."
This is golden! a good example of how people can have problems with it.
I think even Catholics that are exposed to Marian adoration (there is a renewed effort from the Vatican to have Parishes do weekly adorations), might have wholes or blind spots in their understanding.
The nativity scene has been transformed into almost a pagan tradition- together with the photos with Santa at the mall.
In the context of The Reginator post- in which he asks about non-Catholics really believe that Mary is the mother of God (the core teaching is they do)- we can add this perspective- which affects both Catholics and non-catholic Christians: how the lighter, commercialized, observation of the holiday might be affecting the understanding or our teachings.
Yet, with all that is said, we need to keep an open mind- context affects people's answers. What the wife says in a conversation at home might be quite different from what she says inspired by a good class in Sunday school. That the effect of the class might wear off with the day to day routine, is a reason why protestants tend to go to bible class every week.

Having said all this, I agree with HomeshoolDad that Protestant churches across the spectrum, would not frequently have classes focused on Mary.
But the answer to the simple question- do non-Catholics (as a theology) believe that Mary is the mother of God, is a simple yes (all of them except fundamentalists have this core belief). When this thread started I was not sure about the extension of that core belief-(I thought it was only mainline protestants) I know better now. That is reality, when you search the facts with honesty quite often we are surprised in our preconceptions.
There are studies that show that some professionals (I know one with teachers)- do adjust their prejudices fast when confronted with reliable data that proves them wrong. Teachers (like therapists) are probably more receptive than the average person, but it goes to show that education can gave an effect on how our mind works.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Please let's stop the thread to consider what you just wrote.
"but it's all I have to work (with)" ? If you do not have proper information, you can not do the work. Work? What type of work? You can actually end up doing harm.

That is another reason I write here. Governor Cox just blamed social media for the radicalization of people. It is very easy to pour opinions that have little foundation in the internet, then algorithms that pairs similar views create echo chambers that perpetuate false beliefs. How much have you read about it?
A serious forum, needs discipline, both to have accurate content and proper civil discussion that would elicit a good exchange and promote truth searching.

About random samples (survey data) to gather information. Opinion polls are gathered fast and often and are different from academic research geared to establish facts properly. For its nature, the type of questions you can ask in an opinion poll is limited. In an academic research you can test deep and sensitive issues.
I think the Pew Research center does not do opinion polls. It has good reputation for the seriousness of their work. Doing research to estimate how much people understand from the teachings is extremely expensive. I do not know about such study.

There are effective ways of gathering information on "soft" issues that are sensitive. Often it means organizing groups and a professional leads a conversation in an atmosphere in which participants feel safe to share. (most definitely would not stop a person on his wayt o church to ask a question about a deeper theological teaching like "do you think Mary is the Mother of God")

It takes training to understand why we need to do it that way and how to do it well. It needs on the job training in a good practice to become good at it.
We have make huge advance in the area of data analysis, it has come with increased training. There is no way around it, people need to have the skills and training to properly talk about it. If you are interested, I have some materials to share and references. The book "Think Again (The Power of Knowing what You Don't Know") is a good start. I got it from the public library.

There is a lot of conversations about Humanae Vitae. Hard data is simple: the average Catholic family has about 2.2 children (again, that comes from Pew Research Center landscape study https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/religion-fertility-and-child-rearing/) (it is in line with mainline Protestans and below evangelicals - 2.3)
Considering how unreliable natural birth control sanctioned by the encyclical letter is, we can suspect that most Catholics in the US use contraceptives not sanctioned by Humanae Vitae. The average is still lower in Europe, and possible higher in developing countries. The Vatican is most probably aware of it. In the least, they have data on baptisms and marriages in their parishes all over the world.

Studs Terkel talked with a lot of people, across socio-economic strata and geographical areas to write his books documenting oral history. It is a full time job, It probably took years of research - you need large samples if you want to say something relevant. His work inspired people that do serious research, especially in the area of "case studies". His journalism work is respected and has inspired data research.

Pople Leo XIV first formal interview may give light to the pressing issues for his papacy- wage inequality is at the top. Here I want to share a work on data analysis which echoes Studs Terkel history of the Depression. https://press.princeton.edu/books/h...Wk8yIAMtFdFpj2o2M_4OdGOxMTZRF1cZpgID9AN9qnG_K
Anne Case and Angus Deaton coined the term "Deaths of Despair"
The research of Deaton, for which he got a Nobel prize, took years of research, with good data. It is worth reading about it to get a sense of the effort it takes to be able to make such statements in an accurate proper way. Yet, when you get to it, the statement can be most effective- Pope Leo XIV is listening.

The severity of the issue is probably one that has kept the use of contraceptives out of the priority agenda in the Catholic Church (this is my subjective educated guess - an hypothesis to be tested). Families are struggling, and they do not want to go back to Dickensian times in which parents left children that they could not support in orphanages.

Returning to the thread, I quite agree that protestants do not often talk about Mary. I said it several times, in different contexts. Marian adoration is strictly Catholic. Protestants, although their core teaching calls Mary mother of God, are guarded about possible misinterpretations that would lead their flock to "Catholic superstition" (in the words of Calvin). If we are in agreement, why do you make an issue about it? Am I missing something?

The book (or series of essays, or however it turns out) that I am contemplating will not be a rigorous analysis of how many people dissent from Humanae vitae, how many people may acknowledge the teaching but sin against it out of weakness or desperation, and so on. I intend for it to be a persuasive work, to bring people to conviction, repentance, and reform of their lives, and even to rethink whether marriage is their vocation after all (if they are single). If it helps even one couple to move from sin to virtue, or even one person to choose not to marry when faced with a difficult marriage fully open to life versus an easy "fun" marriage where number and timing of children can be assured through sinful artificial means (or even abortion when contraception fails, and don't forget that some methods of contraception are abortifacient), and then perhaps get one of the spouses "fixed" when the desired number of children has been reached, then it will have been worth it.

The polls suggest that vast majorities of Catholics, at least in developed countries, reject the teaching, but those polls don't speak to things such as cognitive dissonance and that three-o'clock-in-the-morning feeling that maybe, just maybe, the Church is right and they are wrong. I'd like to see the same people who break their necks to "meet their Sunday obligation" (an instance of canon law, not divine law), and who scrupulously avoid meat on Fridays of Lent (ditto), be similarly assiduous about accepting the Church's teaching (on a matter of immutable divine and natural law) and living by it. So many people are woefully misinformed, many of them no doubt having been told by some priest or catechist "it's up to your conscience", and that's the last thought they ever gave the matter. I hope to disrupt that. (I might even end up like Charlie Kirk. As long as I can be in the state of grace, and see that my young son is provided for, that'd be cool, I'd rather die like that, than die of the slow and horrible wasting death that took my father from us four years ago. You have no idea.)

 

[Deleted member]

The book (or series of essays, or however it turns out) that I am contemplating will not be a rigorous analysis of how many people dissent from Humanae vitae, how many people may acknowledge the teaching but sin against it out of weakness or desperation, and so on. I intend for it to be a persuasive work, to bring people to conviction, repentance, and reform of their lives, and even to rethink whether marriage is their vocation after all (if they are single). If it helps even one couple to move from sin to virtue, or even one person to choose not to marry when faced with a difficult marriage fully open to life versus an easy "fun" marriage where number and timing of children can be assured through sinful artificial means (or even abortion when contraception fails, and don't forget that some methods of contraception are abortifacient), and then perhaps get one of the spouses "fixed" when the desired number of children has been reached, then it will have been worth it.

The polls suggest that vast majorities of Catholics, at least in developed countries, reject the teaching, but those polls don't speak to things such as cognitive dissonance and that three-o'clock-in-the-morning feeling that maybe, just maybe, the Church is right and they are wrong. I'd like to see the same people who break their necks to "meet their Sunday obligation" (an instance of canon law, not divine law), and who scrupulously avoid meat on Fridays of Lent (ditto), be similarly assiduous about accepting the Church's teaching (on a matter of immutable divine and natural law) and living by it. So many people are woefully misinformed, many of them no doubt having been told by some priest or catechist "it's up to your conscience", and that's the last thought they ever gave the matter. I hope to disrupt that. (I might even end up like Charlie Kirk. As long as I can be in the state of grace, and see that my young son is provided for, that'd be cool, I'd rather die like that, than die of the slow and horrible wasting death that took my father from us four years ago. You have no idea.)

It seems that you have an agenda- you want to demonstrate your point of view. If it is a philosophical point of view, it belongs in theology, you may have some writings - like cannon law, divine law. etc.) and make a philosophical point.
However, if it is practical, you can not start with a point you want to proof- that would be an exercise in confirmation bias.
You are assuming that you know why people are making the decisions and that is the incorrect approach. You have to learn it from them listening with compassion.
In a great sermon, that made a huge difference in my life, the priest said - "sin is anything and everything that separate us from God". We have no idea. Sometimes we think we are doing great, and then we realize we did not. Humility, live with humility. You know way less than you think you know.
In the sermon in the mountain we are called to do better than to follow some rules, we are call to live them with compassion and to be aware that we will fail a thousand times, and that is why Jesus was there to tell us about God's mercy.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

It seems that you have an agenda- you want to demonstrate your point of view. If it is a philosophical point of view, it belongs in theology, you may have some writings - like cannon law, divine law. etc.) and make a philosophical point.
However, if it is practical, you can not start with a point you want to proof- that would be an exercise in confirmation bias.
You are assuming that you know why people are making the decisions and that is the incorrect approach. You have to learn it from them listening with compassion.
In a great sermon, that made a huge difference in my life, the priest said - "sin is anything and everything that separate us from God". We have no idea. Sometimes we think we are doing great, and then we realize we did not. Humility, live with humility. You know way less than you think you know.
In the sermon in the mountain we are called to do better than to follow some rules, we are call to live them with compassion and to be aware that we will fail a thousand times, and that is why Jesus was there to tell us about God's mercy.

My point of view is simply the Church's teaching, more to the point:

• This is a mortal sin.
• If you don't know that, you need to be told.
• You need to conform your mind to that of the Church.
• You need to stop it if you're doing it.
• Here's how.

It's no more complicated than that. You can never have a good enough "reason" to commit mortal sin.

 

[Deleted member]

My point of view is simply the Church's teaching, more to the point:

• This is a mortal sin.
• If you don't know that, you need to be told.
• You need to conform your mind to that of the Church,
• You need to stop it if you're doing it.
• Here's how.

It's no more complicated than that. You can never have a good enough "reason" to commit mortal sin.

there is no reason to commit a sin. Yet we fail, and sometimes when we least expect it.
What is infinitely complicated is to know God- that by definition of God: who is infinite in time, love, mercy and knowledge (did I forget attributes?)
One may think that he/she is doing great avoiding a sin- a mortal one, and then find out that in that process another one was committed.
The Jesuit priest, who was my spiritual advisor told me to listen to God, to let him show me. Confession with him was about that- to let God show me where I had fail.
He was a great admirer of Padre Pio- you know people stood hours in line to confess with him, because Padre Pio had the charism to see their sins and tell them-

 

[HomeschoolDad]

there is no reason to commit a sin. Yet we fail, and sometimes when we least expect it.
What is infinitely complicated is to know God- that by definition of God: who is infinite in time, love, mercy and knowledge (did I forget attributes?)
One may think that he/she is doing great avoiding a sin- a mortal one, and then find out that in that process another one was committed.
The Jesuit priest, who was my spiritual advisor told me to listen to God, to let him show me. Confession with him was about that- to let God show me where I had fail.
He was a great admirer of Padre Pio- you know people stood hours in line to confess with him, because Padre Pio had the charism to see their sins and tell them-

No quarrel with a word you say here. Actually, my far greater concern is with the people who have told themselves (or been told by someone to whom they were willing to listen) that contraception is no sin. Being told "you will not die" is as old as Eve in the garden with the serpent (who, to be fair, told Adam the same thing). And look what happened. When people yield to temptation, and resort to such means out of desperation, to avoid a child in the here and now while admitting the truth of the teaching, that's bad enough, but to anesthetize one's conscience, or merely to be in misguided good faith and think it is no sin because some priest or catechist told you so, doesn't even leave room for repentance and amendment of one's life.

One of my goals in writing such a work, in response to the assertion "it is no sin", is to say "oh yes it is".

 

[Deleted member]

No quarrel with a word you say here. Actually, my far greater concern is with the people who have told themselves (or been told by someone to whom they were willing to listen) that contraception is no sin. Being told "you will not die" is as old as Eve in the garden with the serpent (who, to be fair, told Adam the same thing). And look what happened. When people yield to temptation, and resort to such means out of desperation, to avoid a child in the here and now while admitting the truth of the teaching, that's bad enough, but to anesthetize one's conscience, or merely to be in misguided good faith and think it is no sin because some priest or catechist told you so, doesn't even leave room for repentance and amendment of one's life.

One of my goals in writing such a work, in response to the assertion "it is no sin", is to say "oh yes it is".

The complication there is that you need to explain what sin is- and that is complex. As I said- i love the statement: sin is what keeps as far from God. It is ultimately about God, not about sin. In knowing God, in wanting to be with him, we might become better people.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The complication there is that you need to explain what sin is- and that is complex. As I said- i love the statement: sin is what keeps as far from God. It is ultimately about God, not about sin. In knowing God, in wanting to be with him, we might become better people.

Traditional moral theology manuals, such as Jone and McHugh/Callan (there are others) start off by explaining the very nature of sin. I for one find this very comforting, because when you drill down into it, seeing sin (or at least the personal culpability aspect of it) as, first of all, a human act and an act of the will, then sin, whether mortal or venial, is not lurking around every corner waiting to do us in.

This said, the Church makes it very clear that some acts are sinful, even gravely (mortally) so, and if it is a gravely (mortally) sinful act, and we commit it with sufficient reflection (knowing that it is sinful, and how sinful it is, there is such a thing as parvity of matter) and full consent of the will, "one's eyes wide open", you could say, then we do sin mortally, and lose the state of grace. This is not complicated.

 

[Deleted member]

Traditional moral theology manuals, such as Jone and McHugh/Callan (there are others) start off by explaining the very nature of sin. I for one find this very comforting, because when you drill down into it, seeing sin (or at least the personal culpability aspect of it) as, first of all, a human act and an act of the will, then sin, whether mortal or venial, is not lurking around every corner waiting to do us in.

This said, the Church makes it very clear that some acts are sinful, even gravely (mortally) so, and if it is a gravely (mortally) sinful act, and we commit it with sufficient reflection (knowing that it is sinful, and how sinful it is, there is such a thing as parvity of matter) and full consent of the will, "one's eyes wide open", you could say, then we do sin mortally, and lose the state of grace. This is not complicated.

Actually I think it is complicated- parvity of matter- that is God's call. How can I tell what is in someones heart - intentions, actions, thoughts, intense anger.
As a child I broke a pool cue on my cousin's head. She was older and twice my size. She was about to hit me with it. Scared, I reacted fast taking it away from her hands with such strength that I surprised myself. I hit her (probably) in self defense. She run crying to tell on me. I was not punished- nobody believed her, as I was small and thin. When our parents came into the room, I just looked scared, which I truly was. It did not matter what people thought, I knew I was wrong. Perhaps once I had the stick I should have thrown it away and run, or done something else. I knew I did bad because I know how angry I got, not matter the self defense argument. I never again reacted with such rage in my life.
I have no idea how that ranks in the hierarchy of sins, and granted I was very young- but to me- it was a lesson I never forgot and marked me for life - God showed me.
Calvin called it sensus divinitais- I could feel God was there and he was looking.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Actually I think it is complicated- parvity of matter- that is God's call. How can I tell what is in someones heart - intentions, actions, thoughts, intense anger.
As a child I broke a pool cue on my cousin's head. She was older and twice my size. She was about to hit me with it. Scared, I reacted fast taking it away from her hands with such strength that I surprised myself. I hit her (probably) in self defense. She run crying to tell on me. I was not punished- nobody believed her, as I was small and thin. When our parents came into the room, I just looked scared, which I truly was. It did not matter what people thought, I knew I was wrong. Perhaps once I had the stick I should have thrown it away and run, or done something else. I knew I did bad because I know how angry I got, not matter the self defense argument. I never again reacted with such rage in my life.
I have no idea how that ranks in the hierarchy of sins, and granted I was very young- but to me- it was a lesson I never forgot and marked me for life - God showed me.
Calvin called it sensus divinitais- I could feel God was there and he was looking.

Parvity of matter speaks only to the act itself, and not to any subjective dispositions. If it was in legitimate self-defense, with proportionate force, there would be no sin whatsoever. I am assuming you hit her with the pool cue and not with something else (such as your hand). Keep in mind too that it all happened very fast, and that you were a child. The best thing to do, would be just to confess it and be done with it. A pool cue, hard to say, but if it had been a chopstick or a pencil, even if done with full deliberation, probably not grave matter. Moral theology manuals are very useful in determining parvity of matter, and separating mortal sin from venial sin.

A sin such as deliberately sought and premeditated contraception is always by its very nature grave matter, and intrinsically evil on top of that. It is hard to imagine how it could not be committed with sufficient reflection (unless the person was in true ignorance about the gravity of the matter, or whether it was sinful at all), and most of all, full consent of the will. It takes considerable premeditation to go to the pharmacy or to the doctor's office.