IF you actually want to know, read all that follows. Otherwise, skip this post.
I love, adore, revere, and in a sense worship Our Blessed Lady, who is the Mother of God and chief among the saints. I love her more than my own mother.
BECAUSE of this, I respect her and believe that we must speak the truth about her. All generations are to call her blessed! The issue of this thread, created by our Catholic friend IS EXACTLY THE POINT HERE: Is it distinctively loving and respectful to spread stories about someone if it is not substantiated that such is true? However well intended. However popular the rumor.
I realize that those in 3 denominations believe it IS true, of course they do. In fact, they insist that it is true to the very highest level of certainty and importance. Okay. I accept that they BELIEVE it is, just as Mormons believe some things about Joseph Smith and millions believe in Bigfoot and alien abductions - I'm NOT at all, in any way or to any degree, questioning anyone's sincerity here. It is a nearly universal characteristic of rumors that they are popularly held to be true. We all know that. So, the issue is singular: Is it TRUE (not, do many believe it is)?
The Catholic Catechism (correctly, I believe) states that to spread a rumor (a popularly held, often believed but unsubstantiated story or report) is a sin. It specifically lists spreading rumors as an common violation of the command: "Bear no false witness." My accompany book to the Catechism explains that rumors are often popular, usually believed and may be spread innocently BUT (it stresses) it is a horrible sin for it bears false witness - and the one doing so is aware that they story carries with it no substantiation. The RCC calls spreading rumors to be a SIN. IMHO, sinning against someone is not loving them. Do you agree? Do you follow me?
Now, IF we were talking about how many angels fit on the head of a pin, or even whether it is DOGMA that Bigfoot exists, maybe the rumor would be fairly "harmless" (can sin be harmless?). But this obsession about Mary's supremely private, extremely intimate, altogether personal "relationships" with her husband hardly seems harmless. It seems enormous in its potential to offend, hurt, embarrass and even anger. AND I know all the Catholics and Orthodox agree with me on this. No Catholic or Orthodox married person is posting that it is a matter of supreme importance for all 6.5 billion people on the planet (kids included) to KNOW to the highest degree of certainty how often they have sex with their spouse (if at all). The very thought of such causes them to reply with offense and perhaps anger, and perhaps with a "IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, BOZO!" And, I completely agree with them. I just wonder why they are SO sure, SO entirely certain - to the very highest level of certainty - that Mary has a 180 degree different feeling about this. And of course, they KNOW how often they have sex, they don't know how often Mary did, it's a rumor. Read the next paragraph.
When people ask, our of love and respect for Our Blessed Lady, how do you KNOW this to be true and what permission do you have to share this (VERY necessary questions), the odd thing is: no one replies. All we get is pages and pages of "The ones who believe it believe it!" Okay, that's typically how it is with rumors (which the RCC condemns as sin and thus unloving). Perhaps we get, "It's believed by lots of people!" Okay, that's typicially how it is with rumors (which the RCC condemns as sin and thus unloving) - and the same could be said of alien abductions or Bigfoot. Sometimes we get the "a wife sharing loving marital intimacies with her husband makes her defiled, sinful, horrible, dirty, impure - and Mary can't be those things." It doesn't substantiate a thing and reveals a pretty sexist, unbiblical view of women, marital intimacies and the Sacrament of Marriage. Occasionally one offers some Scriptures, but OBVIOUSLY they don't teach that Mary always remained a virgin, as all immediately notice. The view is simply IMPUTED into the texts - it is the INTERPETATION of the texts that "supports" the view, not the texts. All this is very obvious. Read on...
Now, we are speaking of faith here, not mathematics, so of course I don't expect a "bar" of proof. ALL I've asked for, ALL ANY PROTESTANT HERE HAS ASKED FOR, is "substantiation" of a nature and level that you'd accept from others. If I said, "It is dogma that Philothei has sex 2.6 times per week, on average" - what substantiation for that would YOU regard as sufficient to verify that statement to the level of dogma? Or if a Mormon says, "it is dogma that God has a Grandma" (It's not, although many Mormons do believe that - it probably does qualify as a Mormon rumor, just not dogma), what substantiation form that Mormon would you accept? Read on...
OF COURSE, you can (just like the Mormon) insist, "It's true because the one spreading the rumor says it is." And if you accept that from the Mormon, I'll accept it from you. But what you need to acknowledge is that this isn't substantiation at all, of any nature or level, it's just looking in the mirror. AGAIN, if we weren't talking about someone I so very much LOVE and RESPECT (the issues of this thread!), if this were about Bigfoot or whatever, I probably wouldn't care. But this is entirely about the surpremely private sex life of my Mother. The potential here for hurt, pain, anger, offense to Her and thus to Her Son is ENORMOUS!!!!!!!!! BECAUSE I love Our Blessed Lady, I think we need more than, "the one who is spreading the rumor about her says it's true." And it seems obvious, that's all you got.
IF you read this, I hope you better understand my perspective and "issue."
Pax
- Josiah
.
