What does it mean to say that the pope is infallible? Does this mean that he never makes any mistakes, never sins, or that he is perfect?

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility [1] was formally defined at the first Vatican council in 1870, but its roots run much deeper:

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:14-19).

We can trace in an unbroken line all of the popes, from Benedict XVI back to Peter the apostle; and just as we believe that the bishops are the successors of the apostles, we believe that the Pope, as earthly head of the Church, is the successor to the "head" apostle, Saint Peter. As such, he is the visible head of the Church on earth and the vicar of Christ, who Is the Head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23).

I'm still having troubles with the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Why does the Church insist on this dogma, and doesn't it contradict the Bible?

Recall that there are three common objections to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception which are made by modern Protestants in general and Evangelicals and Fundamentalists in particular:

• Only God is sinless. So if Catholics believe that Mary is sinless too, does that not mean that Catholics make Mary into God (or a god)? Jesus was sinless because He Is God.
• Isn't sin a part of human nature? Then how can Catholics believe that Mary was conceived without sin?
• Doesn't the Bible itself tell us that all of us are sinners—and so doesn't this belief necessarily contradict the Bible?

There may be a number of other less-frequent objections, but, as I have mentioned before, to treat every objection would require too much time for even a short series of posts (or RCIA sessions). In the previous installments of this short series, I considered in turn the doctrine of original sin and what the Church teaches concerning the Immaculate Conception, and then I replied to the first two objections. Today, I would like to wrap-up by considering a few of the Biblical verses concerning this doctrine.

I'm having troubles with the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Why does the Church insist on this dogma, and doesn't it contradict the Bible? Also, if Mary is sinless, then how is she not God (or at least a god)?

In talking a number of my friends who have converted from Protestantism—in particular, Baptist, Evangelical, or Fundamentalist forms of Protestantism—to Catholicism, I've found that there are certain doctrines or dogmas which are always last to be accepted. The Marian doctrines are always among these, and I suspect that if they had to name one doctrine which was hardest of those, it would be the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The objections aren't always the same, but many are similar:

• Only God is sinless. So if Catholics believe that Mary is sinless too, does that not mean that Catholics make Mary into God (or a god)? Jesus was sinless because He Is God.
• Isn't sin a part of human nature? Then how can Catholics believe that Mary was conceived without sin?
• Doesn't the Bible itself tell us that all of us are sinners—and so doesn't this belief necessarily contradict the Bible?

These are the main objections, though there are also a number of questions which get associated with these, and there are a number of "minor" objections held by different individuals which are no less potent (for those individuals) for not being widespread. Actually to deal extensively with these three "major" objections (let alone the "minor" ones) and to explain the meaning the of dogma, etc would be more than could be dealt with by one post or one RCIA session (etc.) [1].

Although I can't in a single post (or session) build an absolutely convincing case for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, I think I can give a brief reply to these objections—the first two today, and then the last one next time. It may be helpful to briefly review my short discussion of original sin.

With this explanation of original sin in mind, lets turn to the first two of the objections, each in turn. First, the objection that only God is sinless. Alternatively, being sinless means being perfect, and hence being God. This I would like to disprove by demonstration. First, unless I am horribly mistaken concerning Protestant doctrine (and, for that matter, Jewish belief on the matter), there ought to be no objection to the Catholic belief that sin requires an intellect and a will. This means that inanimate objects, not to mention plants, animals (excluding humans, who are endowed with both intellect and will), and "artificial intelligences" are without sin. Whatever may be its value as a bumper-sticker political slogan, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" is a reasonable description of how sin works. Guns, rocks, dogs, skyscrapers, robots, trees, etc: these are all sinless. Yet, none of them is thought by anyone to be "perfect," let alone to be God.

But that is a trivial explanation, almost a strawman [2]. Man has an intellect and a will, and is therefore a sinner if he is not God. I am not sure that this conclusion follows either. After all, the angels also have both intellect and will--and those in heaven are also without sin, are they not [3]? They are also not perfect in the absolute sense, though perhaps in the lesser sense of being "perfect angels," that is, in the sense pertaining to their own natures, which are certainly not divine. Therefore, sinlessness does not imply being God [4].

I'm having troubles with the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Why does the Church insist on this dogma, and doesn't it contradict the Bible? Also, if Mary is sinless, then how is she not God (or at least a god)?

In talking a number of my friends who have converted from Protestantism—in particular, Baptist, Evangelical, or Fundamentalist forms of Protestantism—to Catholicism, I've found that there are certain doctrines or dogmas which are always last to be accepted. The Marian doctrines are always among these, and I suspect that if they had to name one doctrine which was hardest of those, it would be the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The objections aren't always the same, but many are similar:

• Only God is sinless. So if Catholics believe that Mary is sinless too, does that not mean that Catholics make Mary into God (or a god)? Jesus was sinless because He Is God.
• Isn't sin a part of human nature? Then how can Catholics believe that Mary was conceived without sin?
• Doesn't the Bible itself tell us that all of us are sinners—and so doesn't this belief necessarily contradict the Bible?

These are the main objections, though there are also a number of questions which get associated with these, and there are a number of "minor" objections held by different individuals which are no less potent (for those individuals) for not being widespread. Actually to deal extensively with these three "major" objections (let alone the "minor" ones) and to explain the meaning the of dogma, etc would be more than could be dealt with by one post or one RCIA session (etc.) [1].

This is a continuation of my discussion of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, which is the one unforgivable sin (Matthew 12:31-32). In the previous part, I explained what it means to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. There are two meanings (at least) for this passage, the one being literal—that is, lying about God—and then a "practical" meaning, which is that there are six ways in which we can blaspheme the Holy Spirit. I left off by noting that the first four (despair, presumption, resisting/impugning the truth, and spiritual envy) lead to the last two (to obstinacy and, finally, to impenitence), and that these sins are ultimately unforgivable. This gives rise to a new question: why are these sins unforgivable?

To answer the question about what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is, I turned to the end of the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry about the Holy Spirit. I would like to begin here by returning there:

The sins against the Holy Ghost are said to be unpardonable, but the meaning of this assertion will vary very much according to which of the three explanations given above is accepted. As to final impenitence it is absolute; and this is easily understood, for even God cannot pardon where there is no repentance, and the moment of death is the fatal instant after which no mortal sin is remitted. It was because St. Augustine considered Christ's words to imply absolute unpardonableness that he held the sin against the Holy Ghost to be solely final impenitence. In the other two explanations, according to St. Thomas, the sin against the Holy Ghost is remiss-able — not absolutely and always, but inasmuch as (considered in itself) it has not the claims and extenuating circumstance, inclining towards a pardon, that might be alleged in the case of sins of weakness and ignorance. He who, from pure and deliberate malice, refuses to recognize the manifest work of God, or rejects the necessary means of salvation, acts exactly like a sick man who not only refuses all medicine and all food, but who does all in his power to increase his illness, and whose malady becomes incurable, due to his own action. It is true, that in either case, God could, by a miracle, overcome the evil; He could, by His omnipotent intervention, either nullify the natural causes of bodily death, or radically change the will of the stubborn sinner; but such intervention is not in accordance with His ordinary providence; and if he allows the secondary causes to act, if He offers the free human will of ordinary but sufficient grace, who shall seek cause of complaint? In a word, the irremissableness of the sins against the Holy Ghost is exclusively on the part of the sinner, on account of the sinner's act.

This isn't so much a question placed in the question box as a question which was brought up, briefly discussed, but never really resolved during our session about the Saints and Purgatory. What does it mean to blaspheme the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31-32)?

"Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matthew 12:31-32).

Given that we are told that blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the one unforgivable sin, it makes sense that we should want to know exactly what this means so that we can avoid doing it. I recall that a few years ago, there was this big atheist movement on YouTube in which people would make videos of themselves "blaspheming" the Holy Spirit, presumably as a way of saying "not only am I not a Christian now, but I intend to seal as not one ever, because I will sin in such a way that even should I be convinced that Christianity is true, it will be useless to me: I will have sinned so that I can not be forgiven." The videos were mostly of people saying bad things about the Holy Spirit: that He wasn't real, that He wasn't God, that He wasn't good but rather was evil etc.

There is some irony to be found in these videos. The folks involved wanted to be guilty of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and in a sense they are—but not for the reason that they believe. Sure, speaking ill of the Holy Spirit is a form of blasphemy, and especially attributing to God something which comes from Satan, or to Satan something which comes from God, is a very serious form of blasphemy. It most definitely can lead to scandal—deliberate confusion of people on a spiritual level. This is in and of itself bad (see Matthew 18:6, Luke 17:2, and Mark 9:42). This alone is a very grave sin.

"For surely anyone's love will grow feebler and cooler towards one whom, as he supposes, he will have to leave, whose truth and wisdom he will have to reject, and that after he has come to the full knowledge of them, according to his capacity, in the perfection of felicity. No one can love a human friend with loyalty if he knows that in the future he will be his enemy" (City of God, Book XII, Chapter 21).

The last couple of weeks, I've been discussing happiness as it relates to the good, and the good as it relates to love. This week, I would like to discuss love is it relates to God. So far, I've given a basic definition for happiness—namely that our lives are only truly happy if we spend them in pursuit of the Good, meaning that we pursue our greatest goods first and our other lesser goods only when these do not hinder our pursuit of the greater goods. Moreover, to love somebody means to desire that person's greatest happiness, which in turn means desiring that that person pursue and acquire or attain his highest goods. As for these goods, the highest goods of man are to know (or understand) and to love, but the greatest, perfect, and supreme Good is God. In other words, man should aspire to final union with God, even though this is achieved only after this life; but he should also attempt to love others, and to pursue not only knowledge about God, but also the so-called "secular" knowledge (e.g. Natural philosophy, science, etc).

Saint Anselm, in formulating his famous ontological argument, noted that God is defined as "that than which greater cannot be thought" ("GCNBT"). As I mentioned in the first part of this series,
In other words, this is what (or Who) God is, by definition (and regardless of whether or not St Anselm's proof itself holds), and it can be nicely combined with Divine Simplicity (the two seem to be naturally intertwined in the thought of St Augustine, for example), which is a tenet of Classical Theism and of the Catholic Faith. In other words, when a faithful Catholic refers to God, he is referring to GCNBT, whether or not St Anselm's argument works. In other words, whether He exists or not, God is the greatest Good of which we can conceive.

"For surely anyone's love will grow feebler and cooler towards one whom, as he supposes, he will have to leave, whose truth and wisdom he will have to reject, and that after he has come to the full knowledge of them, according to his capacity, in the perfection of felicity. No one can love a human friend with loyalty if he knows that in the future he will be his enemy" (City of God, Book XII, Chapter 21).

Last week, I discussed this passage from Saint Augustine's City of God in the context of happiness and God as the total, supreme, and perfect good--the Ultimate Good. Today I want to explore a little more about what this means with regard to love.

What does it mean to love? This needs to be answered before much else can be discussed. There are a great many opinions about what it means to love, and most of them are wrong. This should not be surprising, since these mistaken opinions are I believe related to the various mistaken opinions about what constitutes happiness and what constitutes good. The three things--the good, happiness, and love--are, after all, related to each other.

Note: This post is meant as a sort of "bridge" piece which ties together a few loose ends from other previous posts. Thus, it is in part a review of previous posts both here and on my other sites, in preparation for a series of three posts on a related subject.

In his book Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law, Professor J Budziszewski discusses happiness as understood by Aristotle and his disciples, and also by other philosophers. He begins by suggesting a few "wrong" answers, each of which has been held out as "true" happiness by one school of thought or another. Thus, happiness is not pleasure, it is not honor, it is not the acquisition of bodily or material goods (that is, health and wealth), nor is it even excellence of mind, body, or moral character (e.g. Knowledge [1], strength, or virtue). That is not to say that a happy person must eschew all of these things, but only that none of them lead to ultimate happiness. Rather, ultimate happiness is tied to the ultimate Good.

"We have been asking in what the good of the human soul lies; maybe we should make better progress by first asking in what we think the good of anything lies—the good of a racehorse, the good of a knife, the good of an eye or what have you. The good of a racehorse lies in racing, the good of a knife lies in cutting and the good of an eye lies in seeing; that’s easy. But do you see what we’ve done here? In each case we have defined the good of a thing as an activity; not as any old activity but as its proper work or function....the function of a human soul will be whatever a human soul can do that nothing else can do, or at least that nothing else can do as well...Christianity points out that the human soul seems designed for at least two things, not one—at least two activities are unique to it and belong to its proper work. One is to understand, the other is to love; the former employs the reason, the latter employs the will. Both are directed to God and neighbor. To the extent that love and understanding are connected, any defect in one implies a defect in the other, and any defect in the comprehension of one also implies a defect in the comprehension of the other."

We've instituted an anonymous question box for RCIA. Last week, we had our first question: Doesn't all this dogma and doctrine that the Church teaches get in the way of a "personal relationship" with God? [1]

In order to understand the answer to this question, you first need to know what the dogma and the doctrine of the Church really are. A doctrine just means a "teaching" and it expresses in some way the Church's understanding about either God, us, or the relationship between God and us. So, for example, a moral doctrine is a doctrine which expresses the Church's understanding about right living and right relationships: it is about how we should relate to each other, to ourselves, and even to God. A dogma is a special type of doctrine, in that the Church's dogma is what we believe to have been definitively revealed and to be definitively interpreted by the Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Another way of thinking about a dogma is to say that it is a conclusion, one of the actual "ends" of a doctrine: it's what a doctrine ultimately points or leads to, and what a doctrine should guide us to conclude. Since God does not change but our understanding does, this means that doctrines might develop, but that dogma are final.