Open to Life: Asking Protestants to Ponder Mary

CatholicExchange.com ^ | 12-07-06 | Pete Vere

[Salvation]

Pete Vere, JCL	Other Articles by Pete Vere, JCL Printer Friendly Version
Open to Life: Asking Protestants to Ponder Mary

---

December 7, 2006

Like many pro-life writers, I spend my fair share of time interacting with the evangelical Protestant community. I find them zealous when it comes to combating abortion. In fact, their zeal is what usually tips me off about Christmas's approach. The first candle is barely lit on the Advent wreath when our evangelical brethren begin publishing a barrage of articles, reflections and sermons on the theme, "What if Mary had aborted Jesus?"

The question, of course, is rhetorical. One could not imagine Mother Mary aborting Baby Jesus. Such an action would have changed the course of salvation history for the worse, in that salvation would have become impossible without Christ to bridge the gap between God and man.

Thus our evangelical brethren mean no disrespect toward the Blessed Mother. They are simply pointing out the obvious: Mary was in a position not unlike that of many young single mothers, yet in choosing life, her actions greatly benefited mankind. Hence one should acknowledge that there is always the opportunity for an opening to God's grace whenever a woman finds herself with child.

Although the above argument originates from evangelical Protestants, I can accept it as a Catholic. Yet the majority of Evangelicals who I know - including those within the pro-life movement - promote contraception as permissible to Christians. Dr. Tim LaHaye, for example, is a founder of the US Moral Majority and the co-author of the popular evangelical apocalyptic Left Behind series. He is also a well-known example of an Evangelical who promotes contraception among married couples while claiming to be a pro-life Christian.

Nevertheless, whenever I encounter Evangelicals within the pro-life movement, I try to correct their erroneous view of contraception. These are often the same Evangelicals whom I watch debate abortion with mainline Protestants. I have seen them pop the "Would Mary have aborted Jesus?" argument during these intra-Protestant debates. With Christmas approaching, I knew they would be sharing reflections on our pro-life internet forum that ask the same question.

This got me thinking as we debated the morality of contraception: "What would have happened if Mary had contracepted Jesus?" The answer was obvious: the same as what evangelical Protestants propose would have happened if Mary had aborted Jesus. There would have been no Christmas morning. And without Christmas there would have been no Easter, no crucifixion and resurrection, and no salvation history. [Editor's note: The point here is not to contend that a "barrier method" would have prevented Mary conceiving Christ, but that fundamentally, contraception says "no" to God.]

In light of the similar outcome, I thought the Evangelicals with whom I debate would see the folly of their pro-contraception position. With one exception, however, my question was met first with stunned silence and then with outrage from our evangelical brethren. How dare I suggest that contraception was forbidden to Christians. "Where does the Bible condemn contraception?"

I found this last question strange, given that during a simultaneous debate with their mainline Protestant counterparts, the same evangelicals were asking: "Where does the Bible promote abortion?" Of course this was after the mainliners had pointed out that nowhere in the King James translation does one find the word "abortion".

As an aside, this taught me a valuable lesson about Protestants. When they oppose a practice as ungodly, they ask "Where does the Bible teach this practice?" When they favor a similar practice, the question changes to, "Where does the Bible condemn this practice?" Thus the Evangelical can say, "the Bible does not condemn contraception" while the Anglican states, "the Bible makes no mention of abortion."

Some Things Really Are Abominable

To be fair to Evangelicals and to mainline Protestants, they are both wrong. Holy Scripture clearly and explicitly condemns these abominable practices against the culture of life. While you never read the words "contraception" and "abortion" in the Bible, the early Church fathers understood these practices to be sorcery and witchcraft, which are mentioned.

The noted Jesuit catechist Fr. John A. Hardon, in his essay "Contraception: Fatal to the Faith and to Eternal Life," wrote:

In the Roman Empire of the first century of the Christian era, contraception was universally approved and practiced by the people.... In the language of the day, contraceptive practice was referred to as "using magic" and "using drugs." It was in this sense that the first century Teaching of the Twelve Apostles [Didiche] warns Christians in four successive precepts: "You shall not use magic." "You shall not use drugs." "You shall not procure abortion." "You shall not destroy an unborn child."

"The sequence of those prohibitions is significant," Father Hardon continues. "We know from the record of those times that women would first try some magical rites or use sorcery to avoid conception. If this failed, they would take one or another of then known seventeen medically approved contraceptives. If a woman still became pregnant, she would try to abort. And if even this failed, she and her male partner could always resort to infanticide, which was approved by Roman law."

"Christians were warned not to follow the example of their pagan contemporaries, who walked in darkness and the shadow of death," Father Hardon concludes. "Christians were absolutely forbidden to practice contraception, which leads to abortion, which leads to infanticide."

Not surprising, as Catholics prepare to celebrate the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Church of England, to quote one Anglican news source, "has joined one of Britain's royal medical colleges in calling for legal euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies...." This is the same Anglican Church that first accepted contraception as permissible to Christians. The rest of Protestantism soon followed. The Anglican Church then accepted abortion under certain extreme circumstances, and for the most part Protestantism has followed.

So where would we be if Mary had practiced contraception? As we prepare for Advent and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ - as we prepare to celebrate the Gift that came through Mary's openness to life - I ask my evangelical Protestant brethren to ponder this question.

Pete Vere is a canon lawyer and a Catholic author. He recently co-authored Surprised by Canon Law: 150 Questions Catholics Ask About Canon Law (Servant Books) with Michael Trueman and More Catholic Than the Pope (Our Sunday Visitor) with Patrick Madrid. He lives in Sault Ste. Marie, Canada.

This article originally appeared in Challenge magazine and is used by permission of the author.

[JockoManning]

Good morning.

Thanks for the article.

I am a Protestant, but never ever would I think or speak of Mary executing the Babe, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father.

Some pro-lifers can be crude. I think such does more harm than good to the cause.

As for women out there who have had abortions, some aren't sorry. Some are very sorry: I think that must be an horrific burden to carry.

There's forgiveness for those who have aborted their child. Jesus WILL forgive you, ask Him. If you still struggle, don't give up. Find a warmhearted godly person and share this with them. Keep seeking till you get relief, true relief, freeing joyful freedom and healing in your heart and your soul. Help is out there for you.

You might contact Focus on the Family, ask them for help. http://www.family.org/

For those who face such "choices" in the future, choose adoption, NOT abortion. There's a precious soul at stake, a sweet little baby.

If you have a friend who is pregnant and considering such, pray for them to have the mind of the Lord on this. Pray for them to know the Truth and not be deceived. Get them in touch with Birthright. Contact your local crisis pregnancy ministry for help.

Love and mercy to us all.
jm

[Ottofire]

Perhaps they were led by false traditions. We do not hold our past leaders up as anything other than inspired in faith, but not impeccable in doctrine. Doctrine, if not led by the Scripture is false.

You must remember that Luther, Calvin and Zwingli were of the Catholic culture, so I am sure they carried much traditional baggage.

[Ottofire]

--Not when God spoke to Mary and she said "Yes" to God.

Luk1: 38And Mary said, "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

Nope. No yes; just submission to the will of God, much like the faith as described in Sola Fide of the 5 Solas. We are touched by Gods grace, and it changes our will to His. It is not of our choice, as we could not even imagine it prior to His gracious gift. Mary was a human, of the line of Adam, with all her being tainted by sin.

I just love Mary's reaction to the angel:

Luke :28 And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."
29 But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was.

IF Mary was 'special', untouched by sin, such as Adam pre-fall, and Jesus, all her faculties would be pure. She would be enlightened beyond our capabilities as fallen man. She would not be perplexed as her will, untouched by sin, would be naturally parallel to Gods, and she would not need a Savior as stated in the Magnificat.

Luke 1:48When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You."
49 And He said to them, "Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father's house?"
50 But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them.

Nor would Mary get anxious, as that shows lack of faith in the Lord. He would not take care of His only begotten Son?

And this old chestnut, which is so contested by the Traditions of the RCC, but it must still valid.

Matthew 1: 24And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

And in the translation, the Greek word translated as UNTIL is used consistently as such in all other instances of the word in the scripture. Unless you are trying to force the Greek to fit your doctrine, in which case you are now firmly in the same boat with the Mormons and the JWs.

Just as the phrase sons of Mary can be seen as cousins, except when it is used in the same sentence with the word that is definitely cousin in Greek. THEN it must mean sons, and is translated that way consistently throughout the bible. Again, if you wish to translate it differently, you are changing Scripture to fit your beliefs, and that is a big no-no.

[Captain Gates]

While I AM a protestant, I am on board here with the contraception point that you make. Oral contraception is as 'effective' and efficient at keeping those unwanted 'pests'(children) away because it has a 'backup' abortifacient mechanism. All hormonal contraception works this way. In fact, the 'morning after pill' is just a hefty dose of levonorgestrel.... a very popular component in many birth control products.

So what am I saying? In the name of convenience my brothers.... you are allowing the killing of genetically whole individuals... fertilized eggs... zygotes hoping to find nourishment within the womb of the mother... and you are allowing these individuals to be flushed..... especially convenient because you aren't aware of when it happens, and most people aren't even aware of HOW it happens.... because you have been deceived.

Doesn't 99% effectiveness seem 'too good to be true'? It is.

There is blood on the hands of many who proclaim Christ and abort His creations in the name of convenience. May God help us all.


Aaron Gates, Pharm.D.
CPT USA

[Diva]

I see NO discernable; certainly NO SIGNIFICANT difference in the BEHAVIORS AND ATTITUDES

Well there is always the interior difference but we will leave that and speak only of the differences in visible attitude and behavior. As a Catholic I would never genuflect to a statue of the blessed mother, she is not God in the Flesh on earth as the Eucharist is fully God in Human Flesh on earth on the altar. Unfortunately, many Catholics have forgotten this in recent times because of changes brought about by those trying to appease the sensibilities of the popular culture, i.e. Protestants and non-Christians. I'm speaking here of architecture mostly (where the Tabernacle is located).

I have to leave to go to work but will continue in another post given the time. Just understand that Catholics are not required to believe in apparitions approved or not, and you will always find Catholics willing to go overboard in their veneration of the blessed mother. But then, you will find Protestants just as willing to worship the Bible.

[Quix]

It is

CONCEIVABLE--though HIGHLY doubtful--to me . . . that

Given God's enormous compassion and graciousness, He MIGHT OCCASIONALLY condescend to communicate through an image of Mary to some faithful. But I highly doubt it.

HE IS ALMIGHTY GOD. He has set things up HIS WAY. He has chosen part of Himself--THE LIVING WORD

followed by HIS HOLY SPIRIT

as His sources routes of communication . . . though He will also use angels and occasionally donkey's etc.

But the WHOLE OF SCRIPTURE--OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS records many, many exhortations about seeking truth--foundational, core cosmological spiritual truth from else than God alone.

AND, similarly, exhortations are quite stern about adoring, revering, else than God alone in any "godly" way. Angels deplored such motions and manners toward them exhorting sternly that they are but servants also--as Mary characterized herself.

And, yes, sadly certainly, many Protestants forsake a dynamic, moment by momenty dialogue with God via His Spirit for worship of ink on the sheets of wood/vegetable pulp.

[Marysecretary]

Mary may pray for us, but only God through His son, Jesus Christ, answers those prayers.

[Marysecretary]

Having a mother isn't the problem, Biggirl. We know that. But she's not number One and a lot of Catholics believe she's got the same power as Jesus has. She was his blessed mother and she doesn't answer our prayers or intercedes on our behalf like only Jesus can. We respect her for her obedience to God and for the life she led and the faith she had.

[Marysecretary]

We had a teaching on that this week in our end times study. If I'm not mistaken, it was Israel the dragon was trying to destroy and make war with the rest of her offspring (Christians and Messianic Jews). I always thought it was Mary, too, but apparently, according to our teacher, it is Israel that the devil is trying to annihilate.

[EternalHope]

I'm a Christian first, and a protestant a distant second.

Speaking from the Protestant side of the aisle, I would like to thank the Catholic Church of today for doing a much better job of holding the line for true faith than almost all of the "main line" Protestant churches.

On the Catholic side of the aisle, it would be nice to see a little less hyper-sensitivity. I have read many Catholic threads and appreciate the insight they often contain. But I have learned not to post (this thread being a perhaps ill advised exception). The simple fact that I am a Protestant has led many Catholics to ask me to go away, regardless of what I may have to say.

I expect to find many Christians in Heaven, including both Protestants and Catholics. ALL of us will have been sinners on earth, ALL of us will have needed to repent, and ALL of us will have needed the forgiveness and redemption of Jesus Christ. We will ALL have received that incredible gift! Compared to that, our petty differences on earth will seem pretty trivial.

[hosepipe]

[ The Chruch is the Bride of Christ. GOD ALONE HAS SOLE CLAIM on ALL our adoration. ANYTHING AND ANYONE that displaces ANY of His adoration to ANY degree IS, at best, GROSSLY suspect and most likely to have some level of idolatry involved. ]

Or worse... most of the main pagan religions have always had "the Queen of Heaven" as godlike personalities.. especially mid-eastern religions.. i.e. Buddhists, Hindus, Egypt, Babylon, Persians, Amalekites.. etc.. The Queen of Heaven is foreign to the Bible.. Repeating droning repetitive prayers is also common to pagan religions..

Are those lifting Mary to assume godlike status Pagan-istic?.. Maybe, maybe not.. The very names of the days of the week we all recount are pagan Gods.. As are many of the names we name our children.. Heck "Jesus" is not Jesus name and "Jehova" is not Jehovas name.. The Jews language(Hebrew) has no "J's"..

So what is correct and what is incorrect?..
If you know it to be wrong then it is.. if not, it still may be wrong, but Jesus blood covered and covers it.. He didn't die on the cross for nothing.. How else could the Body of Christ be ONE.. and it is.. even NOW..

[huldah1776]

I have a problem with always taking everything literally. Can't do it with prophecy. I figured she represented something in addition to the literal, and I will study further to see if it fits. If it doesn't, it will be disregarded. Thanks!

[Quix]

Wise words.

Thx

[Marysecretary]

Just keep an open mind. I've certainly had to and am still learning so much. There's always something more...

[Marysecretary]

Ooh, good one, Eternal Hope. We're all the Body of Christ when He's King of our lives.

[Salvation]

I'mgoing to be doing a Bible study on Revelation in a few weeks. I'll let you know about this. (If you don't hear from me, give me a ping.) LOL! Similariry to Ring, makes me laugh.

[Salvation]

Thanks for the link to Focus on the Family.

[Salvation]

In my mind that is a "Yes" to God. You certainly couldn't say she said NO, could you?

[Salvation]

**There is blood on the hands of many who proclaim Christ and abort His creations in the name of convenience. May God help us all.**

Amen to your prayer.

[Salvation]

What about the vision of Our Lady of Guadalupe St. Juan Diego. Are you saying that the Blessed Virgin never gave him roses? That when he presented them to the bishop and dumped them out of his tilma, there was an image of Our Lady of Guadlupe?

Are you saying that in the Old Testament, because Christ was not there, that God could work no miracles by himself? What about the flood? The burning bush? Moses? Abraham?

Are you saying that through the Holy Spirit miracles can't be worked? Christ told the disciples, "Go forth and preach the Gospel to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the HOLY SPIRIT.

Your argument doesn't hold water. It is a complete sieve.