Part Five: Prof. Felix Otten, O.P. and C.F. Pauwels, O.P.

Editor’s Note: This article continues the series of straightforward responses to frequently-encountered questions and objections concerning the Catholic Faith. The questions and answers are adapted from Professor Felix Otten, O.P. and C.F. Pauwels, O.P.’s The Most Frequently Encountered Difficulties, published originally in Dutch in 1939.

It is said that Mary never sinned and could not even sin. But the Evangelist Mark indicates that Mary doubted Christ’s mission. Wasn’t that a sin?

Mary has certainly remained free from various temptations as a result of her Immaculate Conception. Therefore there was no evil lust in her, which is the result of Original Sin, and which consists in the broken balance between the higher and the lower. With us the body is often an agent of sin, for it draws down the mind and often rebels against the higher powers of the soul. And of course, there was no such thing with Mary, because she had not been contaminated with Original Sin as a result of which that balance was broken. So, she could not be tempted by a desire of the lower forces against the higher. She could, however, be tempted in the higher powers of her soul, in her mind and will, as even Christ was tempted by the devil.

But being tempted and sinning is quite distinct. That Mary never actually committed a sin is absolutely clear to Catholic theologians, even though the Church has never officially spoken out about it. Mary, as they say, was without sin. But was Mary also un-sinful, that is, could she not commit sin?

That is of course a completely different issue. Most theologians hold that Mary could not sin. The reason is not that she was free from Original Sin, for even Adam and Eve themselves were not contaminated with Original Sin, and yet they sinned. We must seek the reason in the fullness of grace with which God endowed her for the sake of her divine motherhood. By this, and therefore by God’s special assistance, it was effected that the will of Mary always chose the good.

And now as to the story of the Evangelist Mark: He does not say at all that Mary would have doubted Christ. He first announces, in the third chapter, verse 21, that Christ’s relatives “went out to take Jesus, for they said, He is mad.” So apparently there were relatives of Christ who did not believe in His mission. Who they were is not mentioned; they may have been uncles, cousins, and perhaps further relatives. Then we are told something completely different, namely that Jesus entered a debate with scribes from Jerusalem about exorcisms. And then it said at the end of the chapter, “Then came His mother and brethren; they stood outside and called Him.” Whether they talked to Him and what about, we are not told.

It is not certain that this conclusion is connected with the beginning of the chapter which mentions the disbelief of some of Christ’s relatives. And so, it is not certain why Christ’s mother and brothers came. But even if it were true that Mary had gone with unbelieving relatives to Christ, it does not follow that she also shared their unbelief. Such infidelity on Mary’s part contends with everything else we know about her. Why should we accept such a conclusion from an arguably ambiguous text?

Mary’s Assumption is a Catholic dogma even though the Bible says nothing about it. Has the Church concluded that the Assumption must be true based on what it teaches concerning the Immaculate Conception?

The Catholic Church speaks of Mary’s Assumption into Heaven in contrast with Christ›s Ascension. By using different language to label these events, the Church wants to indicate clearly that Mary did not ascend to Heaven with soul and body by her own power. Rather, Mary’s Assumption is a special privilege, conferred by the power of God, that she be taken up into Heaven in both soul and body. This doctrine, long accepted by Catholics, was not called a dogma in a strict sense for centuries because it was not solemnly formulated, established, and promulgated by the infallible Magisterium, as the doctrine on Mary’s Immaculate Conception, for example. 

However, on November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Before this, the Assumption was presented to Catholics by the ordinary magisterium of the Church, which Catholics cannot oppose. The historic recognition of the Assumption is confirmed by the longstanding feast day given to this event on August 15, and the fact that this feast was celebrated by Greek and Syriac Christians during the earliest centuries of the Church.

Undoubtedly it is true that Mary’s Ascension into Heaven is not mentioned in the Bible. But the Catholic Church also teaches that there are two sources from which it draws God’s revelation, namely the written word of God, the Holy Scriptures, and next Holy Tradition. The Church knows of Mary’s Assumption from Tradition.

It cannot be said, certainly in the strict sense, that the Assumption is a consequence of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, even though this special grace gave her a unique dignity among all who have or shall ever live. A comparison has been made with the condition in which the first humans lived before the fall, but that comparison does not hold. For Adam and Eve had been created in a state of sanctifying grace, but their privilege of being free from suffering and death and being taken up to Heaven without dying did not follow as a consequence of the possession of this sanctifying grace. 

And although it can be said that Mary was gifted what the first people had lost for all their descendants, namely that she was conceived without Original Sin and immediately possessed sanctifying grace, she did not receive all of the supernatural gifts that Adam and Eve possessed. After all, she was not free from suffering during her earthly life.

Of course, Mary’s death was not a punishment for her sins, because she had never sinned; it was a normal result of her body wearing out and her strength diminishing. God did not arrange for Mary to be withdrawn or exempted from this law of nature. Why? We do not know for sure. It is, however, probable that in her suffering and death Mary might reflect the patient suffering of her Son, and thus be an example for us.