The Immaculate Conception

As we know, this phrase is incorrectly used to refer to Jesus’ conception and birth to a virgin. I am conflicted as to how to respond when I hear it used incorrectly; the pedant and faithful Catholic in me wants to correct them but, particularly with non-friends or at work, not get into a long discussion about it.

  1. Do I just accept that the phrase does not mean what people think it means, but that’s how it’s used and I know what they mean?

  2. Do I say something short like, oh, you mean the virgin birth?

  3. Do I say, that’s not what that means, it means…<explanation>

Does it matter if the person is Catholic and should know better?
The latest example was when we were talking about someone who had IE7 “self-install” on his computer. The debate was as to whether it could self-install with no action from the user, and the analogy was made to the Immaculate Conception. So, could IE7 install with no action from the user?

I usually correct people, but then, I usually only get that reference from people who are nominally Catholic. Some of them have been known to understand this as permission to ask me things like “what’s the difference between the Virgin Mary and any other saints” and “how do you know that is Our Lady of Guadalupe” (that’s got to be one of the most distinctive images ever); yes, that guy was nominally Catholic, but the religious teaching he’d had hadn’t been, ah, particularly good. I’m being polite to the priests, nuns and parents involved.

Former Catholic here. How is it wrong?, I missed something.

The Immaculate Conception is for Our Lady, who was born free of original sin. “Immaculate” means clean, not asexual.

I usually say 2, which generally leads to, “So, what is the Immaculate Conception?”, which generally leads to, “So, you guys worship Mary, right? You know that’s wrong?”.

And then I bang my head against a wall.

Oh, I tell them “no, what’s wrong is your idea that we worship Mary. We don’t.”

Got it, never thought of it that way.
So, how would you prefer the conception of Christ be referred as?

Virgin Birth, Virginal Birth, Virginal Conception.

It’s a common misconception which is encouraged in some Protestant denominations. I attended a private school run by Baptists. They taught that Catholics do worship Mary, along with other saints, and cited as evidence the Hail Mary. (Apparently, addressing prayer is the same as worship.)

They very sternly insisted that Mary was not worthy of any adultation. She was nothing special-- simply the vessel which was randomly selected to bring forth the Christ child.

It may have been Virginal, but was it also a Vaginal Birth?

Yeah, I’ve had those conversations quite a few times, including with theoretical Catholics. Those who won’t hear, don’t, and those who will hear find the notion of “they’re role models” very interesting and novel (I swear, the Church needs to get back to telling people about the lives of saints, some of them are incredibly cool). Then I continue with “the prayers to them are talking to someone who was in situations similar to yours in life so they’ll understand, and also sort of using them as a ‘phone line’ to God” and I get something like “so you do worship them!” “No, because any response I get is not powered by the Saint, it’s powered by God. The Saint is just the conduit, it’s like saying that I take the doorman at City Hall for the mayor.”

I like the way I heard the grandmother of a friend of mine put it, but not everybody “gets it” in the spirit in which it was intended: “aw, God’s busy with keeping the planets going and the sun burning, for the small stuff I just talk to the small people.”

Far as we know yes, Kalhoun. Given the general state of medicine at the time and the fact that she was around 30+ years later, I’d say a vaginal birth is a pretty safe bet.

Just to be perfectly clear, the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary in her mother’s womb, through sex between Mary’s parents. The distinction is she was conceived without original sin. It doesn’t refer to Christ at all, except in the sense that she was conceived that way in order to be pure to carry Christ.

And that’s the long explanation!

Actually, the way I was told it is “in order to be able to repeat the choice given to Adam and Eve, of following God’s request or not, without being burdened by original sin”. In theory she could have told the angel to take a hike.

I explained this once to a non-Catholic, and she told me what I said was blasphemy. That’s when I stopped explaining it…it’s not worth it in most cases!

I hate this; it bugs the crap out of me. It’s like the only choices in the minds of this stripe of (fundamentalist) Protestant are “Mary is worshipped as a goddess” or “Mary was nothing special.” If we don’t elevate her to godhood like those damn Papists do, then we have to consider her just some womb-for-hire who happened to birth the Son of God.

How about honoring her as the mother of God? Esteeming her as one of the very few positive female role models in the Bible? Recognizing that her indispensible part in the life and death of Christ serves to bring half of humanity – women – into closer communion with God? But no; they are Christians of the “women can’t minister, women can’t serve, women shouldn’t speak in church” variety, and the degradation of Mary is just another aspect of the philosophical demeaning of women. And it pisses me off. It’s one of the many reasons I could never be a fundamentalist Christian.

Of course, the IC isn’t Biblical (and neither is the Catholic belief in Mary’s perpetual virgininity), but I think the assertion that Mary could have been born without Original Sin does raise an interesting question for Catholic theology. If God could let Mary be born without sin, then why couldn’t he do the same for everybody else and skip the whole Jesus thing altogether?

She was never given a choice. In Matthew she was just “found with child by the Holy Spirit.” In Luke she is told what will happen but given no option to refuse.

I agree with what you say here, but do you find it ironic at all that the Catholic Church is the one that has elevated Mary to a position of respect, and they are so dogmatic when it comes to women’s roles in the Church? Of course, women are very involved now in just about every aspect but the priesthood, but overall, the Church is pretty sexist. (I’m not using “sexist” in a negative sense, necessarily, but more of a descriptive sense.)

May I skip answering this one, Diogenes? My concept of original sin diverges from the official one, so it’s the kind of stuff I prefer to discuss with theologians (but they’re not allowed to quote at me anything in German or Latin). Then again, I also have been known to argue with them about the official phrasing of the Virgin Birth.