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].

What is "original sin," and what do Catholics mean by saying that Saint Mary was preserved from the stains of original sin?

There are two kinds of sin: original and actual [1]. Original sin is the direct effect of the fall—we are all "born this way"--and it is normally remitted through the waters of baptism. Actual sins are any sins which we ourselves commit [2]. Anything which you have done which is evil, or anything which you should have done which was good and chose not to do is an actual sin. These sins are normally remitted through confession. It is ultimately Christ's suffering and death which atone for both kinds of sin, and through His resurrection that we are able to be reconciled with God; thanks to these things we may be justified before God (BC2 Q102; see [0]).

So what is original sin, and what are its effects? Original sin is the state into which we come into being at our conception as a result of the fall. It basically means that we have fallen from the state of preternatural grace into which our first parents were created. It is not something which we acquire directly through our own personal fault, but rather is something which is transmitted to us though our parents (and to them though their parents, and so on). The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains original sin thus:
"Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle" (CCC 405).

What is "original sin," and what do Catholics mean by saying that Saint Mary was preserved from the stains of original sin?

There are two kinds of sin: original and actual [1]. Original sin is the direct effect of the fall—we are all "born this way"--and it is normally remitted through the waters of baptism. Actual sins are any sins which we ourselves commit [2]. Anything which you have done which is evil, or anything which you should have done which was good and chose not to do is an actual sin. These sins are normally remitted through confession. It is ultimately Christ's suffering and death which atone for both kinds of sin, and through His resurrection that we are able to be reconciled with God; thanks to these things we may be justified before God (BC2 Q102; see [0]).

So what is original sin, and what are its effects? Original sin is the state into which we come into being at our conception as a result of the fall. It basically means that we have fallen from the state of preternatural grace into which our first parents were created. It is not something which we acquire directly through our own personal fault, but rather is something which is transmitted to us though our parents (and to them though their parents, and so on). The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains original sin thus:
"Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle" (CCC 405).

I understand "contrition" means "to feel remorse or guilt," but what does the "act" of contrition mean? Is it to confess your wrongdoing?

"O my God! I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell; but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, who art all-good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life" (Traditional form of the Act of Contrition as found in the Baltimore Catechism no. 3 and the Penny Catechism). [see footnote 1]

When we talk about an "act," we often mean something which we do—an action. Thus, an "act of kindness" means something which we have done for somebody else out of kindness. But now think about this again: an "act" of kindness is often thought of as "small." An act of mercy is certainly something small which we've done, or we might call it rather a "work" of mercy. Thus, instructing the ignorant is a work of spiritual mercy, or feeding the hungry a corporal work of mercy; they take effort and commitment. Raising children is a "work" of love—but merely kissing your child goodnight is by contrast an "act" of love.

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.

Would a practicing homosexual be welcomed into the Church? Would a practicing thief be welcomed into the Church? Would a practicing idolator be welcomed into the Church?

I'd first like to re-phrase the question to get to the gist of it, then return to these three specifics. "Would a practicing and unrepentant sinner be welcomed into the Church?"

There are several ways in which we can welcome a person. We can, for example, invite him to come attend Mass with us or invite him to an outing (say, a Church picnic). One need not be a Catholic to do either of these things, nor really to recognize them as forms of being made welcome.

There is another form of welcome, which is "would this person who is unrepentant of his grave sins be welcome to receive the sacraments?" The answer to this questions is "no, he would not." As pertaining to the sacraments in general, this is because the Church tries to respect where a person is on his faith journey, whether he himself does or not.