Editor's Note: To submit a faith question to Catholic Exchange, email href=”mailto:jtaylor@catholicexchange.com”>jtaylor@catholicexchange.com. Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange becomes the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.
Dear Editors of Catholic Exchange:
A very devout friend of my family e-mailed me a copy of the article Ancient Link to Jesus, by Deal W. Hudson about the “James” box that was discovered in the Holy Land. While I agree that the ossuary provides an intriguing link to the story of Jesus of Nazareth, I think Hudson’s focus and that of other Catholic writers and theologians is somewhat misplaced. Rather than asking Catholics worldwide the quintessential question—how does this challenge our beliefs, and what we can learn from it— many of the Church’s official “voices” have instead chosen to go “on the defensive”; a reaction that is so commonplace in the Church it is has become almost laughable.
To use a metaphor from the Bible, a house build on sand will not last. The same can be said of arguments—no matter how much one tries to “patch up” the leaks to provide a temporary feeling of security. Without a solid foundation, repeated deluges will eventually cause it to collapse. In this case, officials are willing to “patch up” Church doctrine with all sorts of temporary supports, such as: James was Jesus’ cousin, not brother; James was Joseph’s son by a previous marriage (never mind the fact that James was the youngest of the disciples); and if all of this won’t work to keep the Church’s doctrinal foundation secure, we can always ignore what’s on the box and take refuge in what isn’t on the box, the name “Mary” which appears nowhere on the ossuary (not that any other woman’s or maternal name appears on it, either).
Thus Catholicism greatest “sacred cow” is preserved—in reality, it doesn’t matter to the officials what relationship James bore to Jesus; they only care that James is shown to have no relationship to Mary. To place James in connection with Mary would mean that Catholics would have to accept what all other Christian denominations have acknowledged for a long time and something to which the Bible makes reference: a) that Mary had other children besides Jesus; b) that she was, in short, a flesh and blood woman who went through the entire gamut of feelings, bodily changes and sensations that all women do even into our present day. To acknowledge that Joseph and Mary had other children is to see Mary as a woman sometimes frazzled, a woman who “drove car pool” so to speak and a woman who potentially lost her temper at times. In other words, to acknowledge a full-woman image of Mary is to remove her from the ethereal realm of the untouchable virgin, which is, by the way, not an acknowledgment that denies Mary her goodness or her spirituality, but one that makes her all the stronger for having had to accomplish everything she did without any “special” graces, like an Immaculate Conception.
In short, findings like the James box should provide unique opportunities to explore, expand, and examine our faith. Such instances should not been seen as yet another attempt to insulate ourselves against the deluge which may ultimately provide us with enlightening truth.
Yours in Faith,
Prof. Tammy L. Szafranski
Dear Prof. Szafranski,
Peace in Christ! You began by saying that rather than being open to all the wonderful things the ossuary of James can teach us, Catholics have gone “on the defensive” once more. We would agree with you in part. There are always those who live in a constant “defense mode.” This being the case, however, the question is not addressed as to whether they have solid arguments compelling them. Not everything that has been written by Catholics about the James Box should be reduced to “defensive.” (See, for example, CUF President Leon J. Suprenant’s article Thinking Outside the 'Jesus Box', which appeared in the National Catholic Register. You also said this defensive reaction is “laughable.” Rather than characterize it as laughable, we would instead focus on the reason for the reaction. As Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. Though the occasion for the objections to Catholic teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity change, the content of the objections seems not to. Moreover, a reasonable explanation for the Catholic position to answer these objections is already found in Catholic teaching on the issue.
Though your letter characterizes Catholics in different ways, such as being defensive (a flaw in personality perhaps), it did not indicate that you have considered the Church’s teaching. You mentioned a couple of theories about how James and Jesus were related, but you don’t consider any of these arguments. Instead, you chose to characterize Catholic viewpoints as attempts to “patch up” leaks or use “temporary supports.” One of these “temporary” supports, that James was a son of Joseph from a previous marriage, dates back to the beginning of the second century, as Deal Hudson noted in his article. You may not find the Catholic position fully convincing, but after some consideration you might be willing to admit that it is at least reasonable.
In his article, Deal Hudson notes that the notion that Mary and James had any sort of relation to one another “can’t be extrapolated from the information provided.” You characterize this by saying that Catholics are ignoring what’s on the box and are instead taking “refuge in what isn’t on the box,” that is, Mary’s name. First, most of the articles I have read by Catholics put a good deal of emphasis on what’s on the box, especially as it provides more evidence of Jesus’ historical existence and, with regard to Mary, narrows down which of the various theories put forth over the centuries about the brothers and sisters of Jesus is most likely. Second, if you look more closely at what Mr. Hudson is saying, you will note that he is arguing from the same premise as yourself. Namely, one cannot argue from the absence of Mary’s name. It would indeed be baseless for a Catholic to assert that the absence of Mary’s name proves she was not the mother of James. But this is not what Mr. Hudson said. He said, “from the information provided” (i.e., what’s on the box), one cannot assert a relationship between James and Mary. In other words, if someone says that the ossuary proves that Mary had children, the assertion is as baseless as the Catholic who would assert that the absence of Mary’s name proved her perpetual virginity.
You also say that the majority of Christian denominations hold that Mary had other children besides Jesus (not all, however, such as the Orthodox Churches). Does the fact that all of these other Christians believe it make the proposition true? Should Catholics (who are Christians, and the largest majority of them) change their beliefs for this reason alone? When the majority of Christians held that Mary was ever-virgin (including Luther and Calvin, just to mention a couple of big players), was she then, but not now, because the majority view has changed?
Moreover, it does not follow, as you assert, that Mary having other children makes her a real “flesh and blood woman, went through the entire gamut of feelings, bodily changes,” etc. Nor does the Catholic doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity take any of these things away from her. Most people probably know plenty of women who have never had children or sexual relations, but would not deny them their womanhood because of it. Catholic teaching does not dehumanize Mary. Neither does it place her in some “ethereal realm of the untouchable virgin.” Rather, Mary as the “eschatological icon of the Church” (Catechism, no. 972) is a sign of hope to the world about the full potential of humanity, blessed with the grace of God. Though it is human to be “frazzled” from time to time, Mary is just as human whether she was ever “frazzled” or not. The Church has never taught, or implied, that the singular grace given Mary was to preserve her from being “frazzled,” but from the stain of original sin. That doesn’t make her less human.
You posit that Mary is somehow “all the stronger” for accomplishing what she did without “special” graces. What you have against grace is unclear, but this sounds rather close to Pelagianism. “Special graces” given to Mary for her task does not mean that Mary doesn’t get credit for what she did, just because she had the help of God. “Special graces” in no way reduce her or make her weak. Even on a natural level, everyone needs a little help from time to time. There is no reason to think Mary should be respected more if she did it “all by herself.”
There is no sense of gift and mystery in your analysis. Each breath that sustains life is a gift of God at every moment. Those special graces given Mary were particular to her role in God’s plan to redeem us. Analogously, each and every person has a special vocation in life that is particular to God’s relationship with them and God gives special graces to each person to fulfill their role. Somehow in the everydayness of life, God moves upon us. How true this is in the life of Mary, a young, Jewish girl whom God chose be the bearer of the Incarnate One! The graces of God do not negate the everydayness of life, but help us see the beauty of that everydayness.
Finally, we agree that the finding of the ossuary of James “should provide unique opportunities to explore, expand, and examine our faith.” Instead, there are those who skipped that part and went right on the offensive with the question, “What does this imply for the Catholic Church’s belief in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity?” The Catholic reply: “Nothing at all.” If one gives attention to what the Church has taught officially and to the various theological explanations regarding the brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in the Scriptures, this should be plain enough. The ossuary offers no proof either for or against Catholic teaching on Mary. So for Catholics not to jettison the two-thousand year-old teaching on its account can hardly be characterized as “yet another attempt to insulate ourselves against the deluge which may ultimately provide us with enlightening truth.”
To help you understand the Catholic position better, see a previous reply that I wrote on the subject, which also includes links to our FAITH FACTS concerning the same.
If you have further questions on this or would like more information about Catholics United for the Faith, please contact us at 1-800-MY-FAITH (693-2484). Please keep us in your prayers as we endeavor to “support, defend, and advance the efforts of the teaching Church.”
United in the Faith,
David E. Utsler
Information Specialist
Catholics United for the Faith
827 North Fourth Street
Steubenville, OH 43952
800-MY-FAITH (800-693-2484)
