In my RCIA readings (I apologize that I don’t know from what book, these are printed handouts discussing the 5 doctrines of Mary) it says, "She [Mary] was given a sinless nature so that she could then give a sinless nature to her Son Jesus as a true human mother."
I believe this statement is an oversimplification meant as a springboard for deeper inquiry. It does not explain the fullness of the Immaculate Conception, which you may or may not be covering in RCIA. If you don’t cover it in any sort of depth, you should read what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about it.
To me, it sounds like this implies that to successfully raise a sinless child to adulthood, one must have a sinless nature, since one hand’s their nature to their child.
There was no necessity for Mary to be sinless herself to “raise a sinless child”. Joseph was not sinless and yet he did a very good job of rearing the Child Jesus to adulthood. So, this premise is faulty and so not true–which takes care of objection #1.
The quote uses this as justification to why Mary was sinless for Jesus. But why does this logic not apply, necessarily, to Mary?
If you mean why didn’t Mary’s parents have to be perfect in order to rear a perfect child, I believe I covered that above. If, otoh you mean how does the statement in the pamphlet apply to Mary, it doesn’t apply as you are extrapolating so far (with you question/objection about imperfect parents rearing a perfect child).
That is, why are we not concerned about Mary’s parent’s handing a sinless nature to her, all the while, we are concerned about it with Jesus?
Because the Immaculate Conception is about a special grace afforded to Mary, to cleanse her of the stain of original sin from the moment she was conceived. It says nothing about her parents “perfection”, which is not really what the Immaculate Conception is describing in any case.
If handing a sinless nature is important for sinless children, why isn’t this a requirement for the child Mary?
If you mean why didn’t Mary’s parents have to be sinless, I covered that in my last explanation above.
Okay, I’ve stated my question in three different ways to better outline what I’m trying to get answered.
What you have asked in the form of objections are common enough misunderstandings as to what the Immaculate Conception is, and what it isn’t. The statement in the pamphlet does not explain the IC very well–and I suspect it wasn’t meant to do so, but only whet one’s interest in it–to inspire thought and discussion.
What the statement is trying to do is condense a very complex teaching into a single, digestible sentence. But like all such attempts it failed to satisfy since it doesn’t say enough and what it does say it says too vaguely.
A better way to state it might be, but certainly isn’t so succinct, is: “Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin by a special grace of God so that her flesh and nature would be pure, thus giving to Jesus a pure nature and pure flesh so that he could be the perfect offering for our sin.”
Why wouldn’t Mary’s parents need to be thus conceived? Because they did not bear the flesh of Christ of their own flesh, only Mary did that, and so only Mary was given that grace, so that she would be fit in all ways to be the Mother of God (the Son).
A couple of links to help you: from the search engine of the online CCC:
Immaculate Conception, and the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Immaculate Conception.
