No. That’s not the official doctrine. Catholic doctrine (among others) states that humans are incapable of overcoming their sinful natures without divine intervention. In Matthew 19:25,26 Jesus himself says that it’s impossible.
Oh, geez…I shouldn’t have gotten into this, because I am a terrible apologist. But the Church teaches that Mary retained her free will. She was born without original sin, and therefore, the natural inclination that we as humans have to sin, but she could have sinned if she chose to. And those of us who DO have that natural inclination are capable of overcoming it, as well, and lead sinless lives, as gigi says.
Not according to Church doctrine, they can’t.
I’m not Catholic. I mean, technically I should be (both my parents were baptized/confirmed/whatevered Catholic) but I’m not.
However, I think a lot of the ignorance stemming from any Catholic-based religion (including those formed during the Reformation) is that people don’t learn enough about their own religions. I have a friend who very faithfully attends church every Sunday and Wednesday, and if we get into a discussion about the Bible, she’s clueless. I know what Immaculate Conception means, and I’m an atheist, but she does not, and she’s a Lutheran, and even considered going to seminary.
I think that a lot of it also has to do with how a lot of Protestant religions dislike Catholicisim. Luckily, her church gets along with most of the other churches in the area (the Lutheran pastor and the Catholic priest in this town do golf every week, and there are always community potlucks for the churches going on) so I don’t have to worry about them teaching her messed-up things about the other religions. But unfortunately, a lot of people are woefully ignorant of their own religions (incidentally, it was quite refreshing to read the opinions of people who do, indeed, know their own faith system).
Reading this thread made me remember how someone grafitti’d my car with God messages (I had a joke bumper sticker that said “SATAN LOVES ME” on it). They misspelled “Holy Spirit” as “Holy Spirt.”
I’ve never been able to look at Mary and Jesus the same since then.
~Tasha
Kind of yes and no on the examplar thing when it comes to Catholics. Catholic girls have been instructed for generations to strive to be like Mary in everything they do. My mom has an awesome book that she received as a teen that uses that very premise to instruct young women on how to prepare themsevles mentally for having sex (after they get married) so that they can produce the next Catholic generation. Of course, the word “sex” is never mentioned, but it’s one of those things where after you finish this book about living like Mary, you have a light bulb moment and say “Hey, I think this book is about sex!”
And Mary is tied to the role that women have in the church – she’s like the ultimate helpmeet for God. She’s quiet and goes along with the plan. This continues to be a topic for homilies at church.
I agree with Tashabot. I have a coworker who’s nominally Catholic and would be terribly insulted if you tried to imply she isn’t. Nevertheless, she couldn’t understand why some other coworkers and I didn’t think her scheduling the company Easter Party on Good Friday was appropriate.
In Catholic, Episcopal, and several Protestant tradition, Good Friday is a day of mourning and sorrow. The church I grew up in didn’t even have music on Good Friday. Celebrating the resurrection was the last thing you were supposed to do.
Do you mean they couldn’t *before *Jesus or they still can’t? Seems like he himself was that Divine intervention he spoke of, and that **Sarahfeena **and **gigi **might be theoretically capable of living without sin ever (now that Jesus took care of their Original Sin thing through his sacrifice), but that people born before Jesus couldn’t.
Either original sin is necessary for free will or it isn’t. If she still had free will, then it isn’t necessary.
But that’s the whole point. If God can allow one person (Mary) to be born without original sin, then he can allow everybody to be born without original sin and Jesus isn’t necessary for anybody. My question is why didn’t God just remove original sin for all the way he did with Mary and totally skip the need for a sacrifice?
Oh, I should probably answer the OP. I almost always take option #1 – I know what they mean so whatever. The only time I would bother to go into the whole thing is if someone makes a direct statement about what Catholics (are supposed to) believe. If it’s a metaphor for something else (like in your example), and especially at work, I let it go unremarked. Do I want to have a conversation about religion with my coworkers? The answer is always no.
The ones I’ve heard tend to phrase it as she followed God’s will in spite of fear and uncertainty (not quiet but strong) and so is a role model for courage and trust in God. Not so passive.
I am thinking about this, because Adam & Eve did not have original sin either, but they chose to sin. So, my theology is obviously not clear here. This is why I didn’t want to get into this conversation, and never should have posted what I did, because I am about the worst Catholic in the world (for someone who considers themselves Catholic), and being a more practical-minded person than philosophical, have trouble with these complex issues!
Because He’s leaving us free to choose Him despite the condition of the world. He has given us everything we need to be sinless if we so choose, but only through His grace, not our own power.
So Mary was not free to choose?
I would say she’s quiet AND strong, and that quiet strength is a good thing. I’m all for Mary. I’m also for an expanded role for women in our Church. If I’m understanding Jodi correctly, she is pointing out that one might guess Catholics would have expanded the role of women because of the important role played by Mary. I’m saying that Mary’s role is just as easily (actually, more easily) interpreted as one of quiet faith and steadfastedness (is that a word?) even in the face of fear, as opposed to one of bold leadership. Both things are important, but only one of them is (traditionally) associated with Mary.
The immaculate reception occured before I was made aware of the immacuate conception. Forget about the immaculate deception.
Raised a protestant, it never occured to me that the immaculate conception referred to anything else but the conception of Jesus until I arrived to this board. After all, would a Catholic dispute that the term could apply to the conception of Jesus as well?
Well now I know. Even Scotus approved the concept, backed by Pope Pius IX in 1854 . 
Noooooo, trust me, you aren’t.
I considered myself Catholic even though I didn’t believe in Jesus. I think few people can beat that record for self-deception. 
Yep, and so even was Christ.
You’re contradicting yourself. Before you said that God allowed people to retain original sin
Now you’re saying that People CAN be born without original sin and still choose God. If that’s the case, then why not remove it for everybody the same as it was done for Mary?
The doctrine is that original sin is what makes it impossible for humans to be sinless without divine intervention. The crucifixion was supposedly that intervention, but the IC doctrine contradicts the necessity of the crucifixion.
By the way, the statement that we can be sinless but only through “grace” is a self-negating assertion. It’s exactly the same as saying we can’t be sinless.
Truer words are rarely spoken.
I was once involved in a debate on another board with a woman who was shocked and very upset when I explained to her that Protestant sects had grown out of the Catholic Church. She refused to believe it, preferring the notion that Baptists and Apostolics had been there since the death of Jesus as the “real” version of Christianity.
Of course, this is the type of person who cites Bible verses to back up their opinions but has never read the verse above or below it.