Audio only:
The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was without sin her entire life. She was conceived without any stain of original sin, and she remained free from personal sin thereafter. Jimmy Akin holds and teaches this. What happens when someone who’s new to the Faith thinks he understands a complex, technical matter and then tries to publicly shame someone who’s much more experienced? Let’s find out!
Transcript:
Coming Up
What happens when someone who’s new to the Faith thinks he understands a complex, technical matter and then tries to publicly shame someone who’s much more experienced?
Let’s find out!
Let Me Tell You a Story . . .
Let me tell you a story. A while back, an Evangelical YouTuber named T.J. McCarty asked if he could interview me, and in that interview, he asked me this question.
CLIP: QUESTION
Now, I make it a policy to answer every question I get straight. I give an honest and accurate answer—even if I don’t like the answer I have to give. I do not slant the answer to favor my personal views.
And I’ll tell you right now that I am firmly of the opinion that Mary was completely without any sin—original or personal—throughout her entire earthly life. And she’s still sinless today in her heavenly life. So Mary was and is absolutely sinless.
But if I’m asked what the Church’s teaching is, what level of authority it has, and whether there is any possibility a person who disagreed could be a Catholic, I’m going to give them a straight answer. So I said . . .
CLIP: ANSWER 1
Now, I would have preferred to just insist that TJ believe in Mary’s complete sinlessness throughout her entire existence, but he didn’t ask me what my personal preference was. So I gave him a straight answer.
TJ was very happy with the exchange and said
CLIP: ANSWER 3—CHECK AS CLOSELY
And I’m afraid that’s true. Many do not check the sources as closely as I do.
At this point, a new character enters our story, and his name is Christian B. Wagner. He goes by the handle WalmartThomist on X, and he runs a channel on YouTube called Scholastic Answers under the handle MilitantThomist.
You may not have heard of him, so I’ll give you a brief background. Wagner is a young man. Based on how he looks and the fact that he may still be in college, I’d guess he’s in his 20s, though I could be mistaken.
In terms of his educational background, the website for The North American Anglican says that he did his undergraduate studies at Reformation Bible College, and that for his graduate studies he’s been a student studying classical Protestantism at Davenant Hall.
He was pursuing the priesthood in the Gulf Atlantic Diocese of the Anglican Church in North America, but in October of 2021 he announced that he was going to become Catholic the next month, or November 2021.
So that means that—at the time of recording—he’s been a Catholic for exactly 36 months. Congratulations to Christian B. Wagner on three-years of being a Catholic!
Today, in addition to running his YouTube channel, Christian also runs a website where he offers “Meetings and Tutoring” as one of his services. If you click on that link, you can book between a one-time, 20-minute meeting with him or get up to a 1-hour monthly tutoring session with him. So that’s quite the level of self-confidence for someone who’s only been Catholic for three years!
By contrast, I’ve been Catholic for the last 32 years—which, from what I can tell, may be longer than Christian has been alive. Under the auspices of Catholic Answers—not on my own—I’ve also worked as a professional apologist for 31 years, which is almost 12 times as long as he’s been a Catholic.
And I’ve made an intensive study of ecclesiology and—among many other works—I’ve authored a theological manual called Teaching With Authority that deals specifically with the Magisterium and how to evaluate the status of Church teachings.
So, given those differentials, you might think that Christian would hesitate to try to publicly shame me. I mean, if he was concerned about something I had said, he might contact me privately and ask me about it. But nope! Without contacting me, Christian has tried to shame me in public!
After my interview with TJ, Christian published a video called “Jimmy Akin is a Problem.” It featured a thumbnail that had an alarmed looking screen grab of my face next to the words “Beyond Shameful”—which is clear hyperbole.
That’s because shame is a terminal category, which ends with the shame experienced by souls in hell. There isn’t anything that is literally “beyond shameful.” But it’s clear that, here, Christian is trying to publicly shame me.
Back on his channel, TJ took note of this:
CLIP: TJ—JIMMY AKIN IS A PROBLEM
Christian then published another video called “Jimmy Akin Cannot Use This Excuse,” which featured a thumbnail that again featured my face—this time with the words “A Huge Error.”
And then he published a video called “Legendary Theologian Weighs in Against Akin” with a thumbnail that reads “He—meaning me—is wrong.” This video covered the opinion of a well-known theologian—Robert Fastiggi, who I am friends with—that has a different view than I do.
Given this trajectory, some might say that Christian is punching above his weight in order to get views for his channel—as someone who’s only been Catholic for 3 years and is taking on someone with much more experience than him—but I’ll let that pass.
What’s clear is that he is trying to publicly shame me.
So, he’s got a lot of self-confidence!
Now, normally, I don’t respond to my online critics. Doing so is an endless time sink. But if someone tries to publicly shame me, I may publicly defend myself.
This is particularly the case when a person is at the beginning of their career as a Catholic and they need to learn a few lessons. In that case, I may respond in order to help them learn the lessons that they need to have under their belt for their future. In other words, I want to help them despite their attacks on me.
And that is the case here. Christian is a young man who has been a Catholic for only 3 years, and there are several things he needs to learn to set him on a good course for the future. So please, take what I say in this video as an attempt to help him, not hurt him.
Christian makes a bunch of mistakes in his videos about me, but they are more than two hours long, so I won’t be able to address all of them. I need to keep things focused, so I’ll only be hitting some of the main points.
I’ll play you some clips of what Christian said and then respond to them. By the way, you may notice that in these clips Christian doesn’t look at his camera very often. He normally looks to one side. Someone asked him about this, and under his MilitantThomist handle, he replied, “Autism. Can’t help it.” So he may also be dealing with autism.
In any event, he has two major criticisms that he makes. One concerns what is known as the doctrinal note to be attached to Mary’s perpetual sinlessness. Is it an infallible teaching or not? And the other was the statement that—if something is not infallible—there are circumstances in which, as an exceptional case, one could disagree with it.
The latter is a general principle that applies to a lot of different situations, so we’ll deal with that one first.
Disagreement with Noninfallible Teaching
Let’s hear the charges Christian makes on this subject.
CLIP: YOU DON’T HAVE TO BELIEVE IT
So here Christian represents me as saying that if something isn’t infallibly defined that you don’t have to believe it. No further qualifications on that. You just don’t have to believe it.
He does the same thing here.
CLIP: DON’T HAVE TO BELIEVE IT
So Christian accuses me of saying that for beliefs that require religious submission of intellect and will, “that basically means that they don’t have to believe it.”
CLIP: SOMETHING MISUNDERSTOOD BY JIMMY
So Christian says that I think that non-heretical things deserve no censure and involve no sin against the Faith.
CLIP: WILLY NILLY
So Christian represents me a saying that if something requires religious submission of intellect and will that you can deny it willy nilly without sin.
CLIP: YOU DON’T SIN
So again Christian represents me as saying that if something is noninfallible that you don’t sin against the Faith if you deny it.
To review: Christian has represented me as saying that if something is noninfallible that you don’t have to believe it—full stop, with no further qualifications. They can be denied willy nilly without sin.
He also represents me as saying that things that aren’t heretical don’t deserve any censure, and that they involve no sin against the Faith.
Now—as a reminder—here’s what I actually said:
CLIP: ANSWER 1-B
Notice that I didn’t say that you can just deny a noninfallible teaching without reason or “willy nilly” in Christian’s words. Instead, I said that if you had really good reasons you could hypothetically disagree as an exceptional case.
I loaded up on qualifiers that Christian completely ignored and thus misrepresented me.
Further, I didn’t say anything about non-heretical teachings not deserving any censure. In fact, there’s a whole series of censures shy of heresy for problematic teachings.
And I said nothing at all about one not sinning if you disagreed with a noninfallible teaching. If you don’t have the serious reasons for disagreement, you do sin.
So Christian has fundamentally misrepresented me, and this clip was just a short summary. Earlier in the video—when I was asked about the subject of disagreeing for the first time—I gave a fuller summary.
CLIP: ANSWER—EARLIER
So I didn’t say or imply anything like what Christian represented me doing. In both cases, I stressed needing to have very serious reasons before disagreeing with a noninfallible teaching. I said that—because of the divine guidance given to the Church in the overall exercise of its Magisterium—we need to presume that even noninfallible teaching are true, and that disagreement with them can only be on an exceptional basis.
So Christian flatly misrepresented me. He did so repeatedly, and he owes me an apology.
He owes me an even bigger apology for this . . .
CLIP: PEOPLE LIKE JIMMY AKIN
Dude! I did not say any of those things! In fact, I have strongly defended the infallibility of the teaching on the impossibility of women’s ordination to the priesthood for literally decades—perhaps longer than Christian has been alive.
So this is flat-out slander, by which I mean the civil crime of slander—saying false things about me in public.
In ecclesiastical terms, he has committed calumny. The Catechism states:
He becomes guilty . . . of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them (CCC 2477).
Christian, you just did that. In fact, you do so repeatedly throughout your videos.
Now, in this particular case, I can imagine how you might defend yourself. You might say, “Well, I was describing a general class of people; I wasn’t saying that Jimmy Akin himself makes the claims I just named.”
That may be what you meant, but it’s not what you said. You said that people like Jimmy Akin make these claims about the noninfallibility of things, including women’s ordination.
So—Christian—I’m doing you a favor here. You need to learn to watch what you say more carefully so that you don’t open yourself to civil liability for the crime of slander and commit calumny before God.
The Church on Disagreement with Noninfallible Teaching
Now, where was I getting the position I articulated on the hypothetical possibility of disagreeing with a noninfallible teaching?
It’s been recognized throughout Church history, and is—in fact—found in numerous manuals of theology. For example, in The Way of the Lord Jesus, Germain Grisez writes of a selection of older theological manuals:
All admit the possibility that one might not be obliged to assent to certain teachings—those neither defined nor proposed infallibly by the ordinary magisterium (The Way of the Lord Jesus, vol. 1, p. 873).
He also writes:
Even teachings which are not proposed infallibly must be accepted with religious assent; this obligation admits of exception only if there is some superior theological source for a contrary judgment (The Way of the Lord Jesus, vol. 1, p. 871).
So—as Grisez summarizes—it has been the standard Catholic position that one may—on an exceptional basis—disagree with a noninfallible teaching that ordinarily requires religious submission of intellect and will if one has sufficient theological reasons.
This position was articulated by the Church itself in a 1990 magisterial document known as Donum Veritatis, which was released by the then-Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It stated:
The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable [meaning, noninfallible] must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions (Donum Veritatis 24).
So a theologian may raise questions about “even the contents” of magisterial texts—meaning, he may withhold assent from or disagree with them. The document goes on to state:
When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission (Donum Veritatis 24).
So the document acknowledges that certain types of noninfallible statements may not be free from all deficiencies. However, it says it would be a mistake to take a few particular instances where this has happened and conclude that the Magisterium can be “habitually mistaken,” because it enjoys divine assistance in the integral or overall exercise of its mission.
Therefore—just as I said—any disagreement with a noninfallible teaching must be an exception. The rule is that noninfallible teachings still require religious submissions of intellect and will because of the guidance God gives his Church.
What, then, could motivate such a disagreement? Donum Veritatis continues:
Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine (Donum Veritatis 28).
It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium’s teaching without hesitation, the theologian’s difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question (Donum Veritatis 31).
So not just any reason for disagreeing is sufficient. You can’t disagree with a doctrine just because you don’t like it or have slight evidence against it. You need to do a serious study of it, and disagreement is warranted afterward if, “at the conclusion of a serious study,” “the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive.” Thus my repeated emphasis on needing serious reasons to disagree.
So the Church itself acknowledges that one can disagree with noninfallible teachings for serious reasons on an exceptional basis, but not as a matter of personal whim or as a matter of course.
I found it interesting that—despite his criticism of me and the perfectly orthodox things I said on this subject—Christian and his guest Hassan went on to repeatedly justify disagreeing with noninfallible teachings by Pope Francis.
CLIP: NO TO FRANCIS
They also justified rejecting noninfallible teachings by Pope St. John Paul II. As Christian states in a follow up video:
CLIP: NO TO JP2
Hassan also acknowledged this:
CLIP: SERIOUS REASONS TO DIAGREE
They even tried to articulate one criterion that would justify such disagreement.
CLIP: OVERRULED BY A HIGHER AUTHORITY
So . . . you need serious reasons to disagree, like having a higher authority that says otherwise. Wow, you guys should be careful . . . because you’re sounding like Jimmy Akin.
In fact, in his follow up video, TJ himself noted:
CLIP: TJ—AGREEING THE WHOLE TIME
That’s what it sounds like to me!
It sounds like Christian and Hassan didn’t listen to me closely enough to understand what I was saying, and then they rushed out a video in which they falsely characterized me as saying that you just don’t have to believe noninfallible teachings, that you can deny them willy nilly, and that non-heretical things deserve no censure and involve no sin against faith.
When I didn’t say any of those things. No do I believe them.
Then, confronted with the issue of problematic noninfallible statements by their commenters, they then spent a lot of time justifying exactly such disagreements and inarticulately trying to express the circumstances under which they are justified.
Frankly, I did it more clearly than they did, and in line with Donum Veritatis.
So Christian, I’m trying to do you a favor. Do not do a half-baked job listening to what someone says and then start shooting off your mouth in public so that you completely misrepresent what they said—committing slander and calumny—and then end up agreeing with what they said yourself.
Mary Is Absolutely Sinless
Now let’s turn to the second issue where they took exception with me, which has to do with Mary’s sinlessness.
Allow me to state for the record that I am firmly of the view that she is perpetually free of all sin—both original and personal.
From the first moment of her conception, by a special privilege of God, the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from all stain of original sin. That was infallibly taught in 1854 as a dogma of the Faith by Bl. Pope Pius IX in his apostolic constitution Ineffibilis Deus.
Furthermore, the Church teaches that she remained free from all personal sin subsequent to her conception. I could cite numerous sources on this, but I will cite just one. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia) and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature.” By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long (CCC 493).
That’s what the Church teaches, and that’s what I believe.
That’s why I titled this video “Mary Was Absolutely Sinless.” She had no sin—of any kind—at any point in her life.
What the core of the disagreement on this point is is limited to the doctrinal note that should be assigned to the teaching. For those who may not be familiar, doctrinal notes are assessments given—usually by theologians—to what they consider the precise level of authority a teaching has.
There are different systems of doctrinal notes used by different theologians, but one of the distinctions is between those teachings that are infallible and those that aren’t. That’s all that’s being disputed here—what is the precise doctrinal note to be assigned to this teaching? The teaching itself is not under dispute. We both agree on the teaching; all that is in question is the doctrinal note it is to be assigned.
I firmly agree that Mary is perpetually sinless, and I agree that the Church teaches this. In fact, I hold that the Church has taught this in a very, very authoritative manner.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith holds that, in assessing the weight of a teaching, we need to look at three factors: the nature of the documents it appears in, the frequency with which it is repeated, and the language used to express it. On all three fronts, Mary’s perpetual sinlessness is taught in a highly authoritative manner.
The question is whether it is highly authoritative or whether it is infallible, and the Church has specific rules for determining the latter, as I wrote about in Teaching With Authority and as we’ll get into.
But I wholeheartedly affirm this highly authoritative and logical teaching. There should be no doubt about any of that.
Unfortunately, by falsely stating that I claim you can just deny Mary’s sinlessness, “willy nilly,” without censure and without sin, Christian B. Wagner has misled a bunch of people about what I believe, and I’ve been hearing from them.
Some have even been led to think that I deny the sinlessness of Mary.
For example, I recently did an interview on Cameron Bertuzzi’s Capturing Christianity channel—on a completely different topic—yet in the combox one user wrote:
Why aren’t more people freaking out about Jimmy Akin denying the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin Mary?
This kind of confusion is due to Christian’s misrepresentation of me. He made it appear that I was totally fine with people denying Mary’s ongoing sinlessness—as if there were no restrictions on any potential disagreement—and that led people like this gentleman to think that I actually denied it.
And I know this individual is not a troll, because I corrected him, he apologized, I accepted it, and he wrote:
I admire your magnanimity. I’ll try to emulate it, @JimmyAkin.
But this kind of misunderstanding is predictable if you produce an inflammatory “Beyond Shameful”-themed video and don’t stress the other person’s actual position, so Christian is responsible for the confusion he has caused people.
Church Teaching on Infallibility
Now let’s look at what the Church actually teaches regarding Mary’s ongoing sinlessness.
Our starting point is canon 749 of the Code of Canon Law. It says:
Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.
So the Pope is infallible when he teaches a matter of faith and morals “by definitive act.” This happens when the pope speaks ex cathedra.
- 2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively;
So the bishops also teach infallibly when they are gathered into an ecumenical council and teach that a matter of faith and morals “is to be held definitively.”
Section 2 of the canon goes on to say:
[The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching] when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.
This is what is known as the ordinary and universal Magisterium. This term is used different ways in different sources, but it is often used as a term of art referring to when the bishops—though they are not gathered in an ecumenical council—nevertheless teach that a matter of faith or morals “is to be held definitively.” Not just that it is to be held, but that it is to be held definitively.
Finally, section 3 of the canon establishes a regulation that must be used when evaluating the exercise of infallibility:
- 3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.
In Latin, “manifestly evident” is manifesto constiterit, and this is a high bar. It isn’t enough that it be evident that something meets the criteria for infallibility. It must be manifestly evident. To put that into idiomatic English, it must not just be obvious, it must be really obvious.
If it isn’t really obvious, the doctrine is not to be understood as infallibly defined, and this is where a lot of people go wrong in assessing infallibility. They want a doctrine to be infallible, and so they start fudging on whether it is manifestly evident or really obvious. They look at language that fails to meet the historic standards for infallibility and start arguing that lesser language is still infallible.
I should also make a note of a historical nature here. This regulation is recent. The concept was introduced in 1969, and it was codified in canon law in 1983. As a result, theologians before this period were not using it, and they were a lot freer in their assessments of what is infallible. But—under doctrinal development—the Church has realized the need for this regulation, because people were too freely claiming infallibility in the past. And since the 1983 Code of Canon Law was released, we have been required to use this regulation in assessing claims of infallibility.
Unfortunately, even today, many do not do so. They seemingly ignore the regulation or try to fudge their way around it, and this is especially common among those who are not experts in infallibility and do not regularly make assessments of whether doctrines have been infallibly taught.
Christian Wagner’s Views
How does Christian Wagner think the ongoing sinlessness of Mary has been defined?
He actually thinks that it’s been defined in all three ways: by a pope, by an ecumenical council, and by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church.
For example, here he responds to me:
CLIP: BY A COUNCIL AND A POPE
So Christian says that the teaching has been defined by both a council and a pope. As we’ll also hear, he thinks it has been defined by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
So let’s take a look at his evidence.
Defined by a Pope?
First, here he argues that it was defined by Bl. Pope Pius IX, and he bases this on the passage in the 1854 apostolic constitution Ineffibilis Deus that says:
CLIP: INEFFIBILIS DEUS
Christian, this is why you need to learn more before you start weighing in on issues like this, because if you knew more, you would have an idea how else this could be read. In fact, you would know how it should be read.
There is no question that Pius IX is teaching in this passage that Mary was absolutely sinless throughout her life. He says that she was “always and absolutely free from every stain of sin.”
The question is whether he is teaching that “by a definitive act,” and the answer is no. You can’t just read a document that contains an infallible definition and conclude that everything in the document is infallible.
The only parts of the document that are definitive are the parts where a pope uses language indicating definitiveness, which in this case is where the pope uses the verb define. Thus the definitive part of the document is found later on, where the pope says:
We declare, pronounce, and define: that the doctrine that maintains that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by the singular grace and privilege of almighty God and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved immune from all stain of original sin, is revealed by God (DS 2803).
As competent theologians universally agree, the only statement in Ineffibilis Deus that is taught under infallibility is the one where Pius IX defines the Immaculate Conception. Nothing else in the document is definitive, and so nothing else in the document is infallible.
This is the standard understanding of all competent theologians. And it isn’t just theologians who hold that. On June 12, 1996, Pope St. John Paul II gave a general audience in which he noted things that were part of the document but that were not infallibly defined. For example, he stated:
The text of the dogmatic definition does not expressly declare that Mary was redeemed, but the same bull Ineffabilis states elsewhere that “she was redeemed in the most sublime way” (Audience, June 12, 1996).
John Paul II thus distinguishes between what is contained in the dogmatic definition and what is written elsewhere in the document. The fact Mary is immaculately conceived is in the definition; the fact that she is redeemed is not. And it’s only the dogmatic definition that is dogmatically defined.
You thus can’t lift a statement from elsewhere in the document—like the teaching that Mary remained free from sin after her conception—and shove it into the definition. As Pope St. John Paul II went on to say the next week:
The definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception directly concerns only the first moment of Mary’s existence, from when she was “preserved free from every stain of original sin” (Audience, June 19, 1996).
The ongoing sinlessness of Mary thus flows from her Immaculate Conception, but it is not part of the definition. That’s why you don’t find competent people citing Ineffibilis Deus as infallibly defining this teaching. They do cite it as supporting the teaching—and it does—but it doesn’t infallibly define the teaching.
Defined by an Ecumenical Council?
Now let’s turn to the question of whether Mary’s ongoing sinlessness was defined by an ecumenical council. Here Christian says,
CLIP: TRENT
The passage that Christian is quoting is canon 23 from Trent’s Decree on Justification. Now, you’ll remember that—per canon 749 §3—“No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.” Consequently, to say that a council infallibly defined a teaching, it has to be manifestly evident that the council intended to define that teaching.
The standard rule among competent theologians is thus that only the point a council is trying to define is defined. Things mentioned in passing—or things that are obiter dicta, to use legal jargon—are not defined.
There have been some authors who have misread canon 23 as defining Mary’s ongoing sinlessness, but that’s not the point it’s trying to define. Here it is again:
If anyone says that a man once justified cannot sin again and cannot lose grace and that therefore the man who falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the contrary, says that a man once justified can avoid all sins, even venial ones, throughout his entire life, unless it be by a special privilege of God as the Church holds of the Blessed Virgin, let him be anathema (Decree on Justification, can. 23).
What the council is defining here is not about Mary. It’s about an ordinary man and things like whether he can avoid all sin. Mary is mentioned only in passing—or obiter dictum. The specific proposition being condemned in this case is
that a man once justified can avoid all sins, even venial ones,
throughout his entire life,
unless it be by a special privilege of God
as the Church holds of the Blessed Virgin
The council holds open the possibility that a man might avoid all sin—even venial—throughout his life if it is by a special privilege of God. And it notes that the Church holds this about the Blessed Virgin. But it’s not trying to define this about the Blessed Virgin. It’s only noting in passing that the Church “holds” this about her, which it does.
What we see in this canon is the same thing we saw in the previous session of the council, when it issued its Decree on Original Sin. There, after giving several anathemas about original sin, the council stated:
This same holy council declares that it is not its intention to include in this decree dealing with original sin the Blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God, but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV of blessed memory are to be observed under the penalties contained in those constitutions, which it renews (DS 1516).
The council is simply making it clear in the first decree that what it says about original sin is not meant to be applied to the Virgin Mary, and in the second decree that what it says about actual sin is not meant to be applied to her, either. In neither case is the council infallibly defining the matter.
And it’s not just me who says that. It’s also Pope St. John Paul II. In his audience of July 19, 1996, he quotes the same canon from Trent and then says:
Even the Christian transformed and renewed by grace is not spared the possibility of sinning. Grace does not preserve him from all sin throughout his whole life, unless, as the Council of Trent asserts, a special privilege guarantees this immunity from sin. And this is what happened with Mary.
The Council of Trent did not wish to define this privilege but stated that the Church vigorously affirms it: [in Latin] “Tenet,” that is, she firmly holds it (Audience, June 19, 1996).
And the Church does firmly hold it. But John Paul II is supporting me—and the other competent authors—who note that the council was not trying to define Mary’s ongoing sinlessness in this canon. It was defining points about the ordinary man and mentioning Mary in passing.
Incidentally, it’s at this point—in his follow up video—that Christian said:
CLIP: NO TO JP2
And technically speaking, you could disagree if—after a long and serious study—you concluded that you had serious reasons to reject it, since what he is saying here is a noninfallible teaching. However, I’m the one who’s thinking with the Church on this issue, and Christian is not.
I’d also note that—even though John Paul II raises the issue of the infallibility of Mary’s ongoing sinlessness in this audience—he nowhere cites Ineffabilis Deus. That underscores the fact that the document did not infallibly define Mary’s ongoing sinlessness.
It’s scarcely plausible that—having put the issue of infallibility on the table—he would say, “Well, Trent didn’t define it” and then fail to mention that Pius IX did do so. We thus have confirmation of the obvious fact that a pope didn’t define it, either.
The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium
Now we turn to the third way something can be taught infallibly, by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church. On this subject, Christian says:
CLIP: ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL
Here Christian makes several mistakes. First, I do not at all ignore the ordinary and universal Magisterium. In fact, I talk about it at length in my book Teaching With Authority. In fact, I consider infallible teaching by the ordinary and universal Magisterium before I consider infallible teaching by ecumenical councils and popes, and I go on about it for pages.
Second, Christian misunderstands the term ordinary. He says that—in his words—the “normal” or ordinary way the Church will teach infallibly is by the ordinary and universal Magisterium rather than by councils or popes.
This is another place where his lack of familiarity with this area shows. In this context, ordinary does not mean “normal” or “common.” It is the opposite of extraordinary, which for the bishops means “gathered in an ecumenical council.” The bishops exercise their extraordinary magisterium when they are gathered in a council, and the exercise their ordinary magisterium when they are not. The ordinary and universal magisterium happens when they are not gathered in a council and yet they teach that something is to be definitively held by the universal Church.
This tells us nothing about how normal or common it is for them to teach that way. You can’t infer from the word ordinary that this is the most common way of teaching infallibly. All you can infer from it is that they are teaching infallibly outside of an ecumenical council.
This brings us to the third misunderstanding Christian has. You’ll recall that he said,
CLIP: TO BE HELD
Christian is in error. It is not sufficient to trigger infallibility for the bishops to teach something “to be held.” You’ll recall that what canon 749 §2 said was:
[The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching] when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.
It isn’t sufficient that they teach that something be held. They must teach that it is to be held definitively. The same is taught in the Second Vatican Council document Lumen Gentium, which said:
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held (Lumen Gentium 25).
And this is where a lot of people go wrong on the ordinary and universal Magisterium. They note that the bishops have taught that something is to be held and conclude that it’s infallible. They may even note that the bishops have taught this for a long time, though that is not required for infallibility. The bishops may have only recently arrived at a consensus that something is to be held definitively, but it is that definitive holding that is required for infallibility.
Thus it isn’t sufficient that the bishops teach that something is to be held. They must teach that it is to be held definitively. And—per canon 749 §3—it must be manifestly evident that they have taught that it is to be held definitively.
Defined by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium?
So have the bishops of the world taught that it must be held definitively that Mary was always free of personal sin? Have they taught that in a way that is “manifestly evident.”
Christian doesn’t provide any support for that claim. He appears to misunderstand the criteria needed for infallibility in this case, and he doesn’t cite any sources at all in an attempt to show that the bishops have taught that it is to be held definitively.
What about others?
Well, there have been attempts, and on this theological opinion is mixed. That’s not surprising, because theological opinion is usually mixed, on almost any subject.
For example, in a follow up video, Christian focuses on an article written by Dr. Robert Fastiggi on this topic.
I happen to know Robert. I’ve spoken with him about this matter. I respect him, and he respects me. I would not accuse him of being a heretic, and he would not accuse me of being a heretic. We simply have a disagreement on this issue, and it would take an act of the Magisterium to settle it. Should such a clarification ever happen—which I would doubt happening in our lifetimes—both of us would instantly give it the religious submission of will and intellect that it is due. Which means that neither one of us is a heretic—since being a heretic requires obstinacy in the face of correction on a matter.
But thus far, that hasn’t happened. No such statement has been made on the topic, and it’s interesting the way that Robert begins his article. He writes:
I think a strong case can be made that Mary’s freedom from actual sin is infallible by virtue of the ordinary universal Magisterium.
Saying that “a strong case” can be made is not a statement of certainty, but that’s how Robert opened his article, and that suggests this is a matter that is in the realm of opinion. This is something that was noted by a user on X who read the article and wrote:
He said in the article “I think a strong case can be made that Mary’s freedom from actual sin is infallible by virtue of the ordinary universal Magisterium.” So apparently it’s a matter of opinion.
That’s correct. This is a matter of opinion.
You can read Robert’s article on Dave Armstrong’s Patheos site to hear his case, but I’ll only note a few things in passing.
First, it isn’t sufficient to show that there is a strong logical connection between a teaching and other, infallible teachings. Nor is it sufficient to show passages from popes or bishops teaching that we are to hold that Mary was always sinless—or that they have strongly taught this.
And to my mind, this is the category into which the sources that Robert cites go, so they’re not sufficient to show infallibility.
What you need to demonstrate is that—at some point in history—the bishops of the world, as a body, taught that the faithful must hold the matter definitively. And that is often very hard to do.
In fact, there is no way to do that in just a short article. If you want to demonstrate something has been taught in this way, you really need a book-length work that shows numerous sources from all over the episcopal college—over and over again teaching that something is to be held definitively.
That’s very hard to do, and—in fact—that’s the reason we have ecumenical council decisions where the bishops actually vote on a proposition, and it’s why we have ex cathedra statements from the pope in the first place. Because it isn’t clear whether the bishops of the world—as a body—have taught that something is to be held definitively.
Now, it’s true that we can get a magisterial clarification on this matter. For example, in 1994, Pope St. John Paul II issued the motu proprio Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which he said:
I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith later clarified that:
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (Responsum, Oct. 28, 1995).
Similarly, in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul made three clarifications like this: on the killing of innocent human beings, on abortion, and on euthanasia. First, he stated:
This doctrine [that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral], based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart, is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (Evangelium Vitae 57).
He also said:
This doctrine [that direct abortion always constitutes a grave moral disorder] is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (Evangelium Vitae 62).
And he said:
This doctrine [that euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God] is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (Evangelium Vitae 65).
So the Magisterium is perfectly capable of clarifying that something has been taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
But that hasn’t happened with the ongoing sinlessness of Mary. In fact, in his June 19, 1996 audience—after he raised the issue of the doctrine’s infallibility—John Paul II didn’t even mention the ordinary and universal Magisterium. That’s a sign that he didn’t consider it to have been defined by it, as he did these other issues.
He went on to cite other sources that did teach the doctrine—even strongly—but in none of them did he cite language indicating that it was to be held definitively, nor did he refer to it being taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium—just like he didn’t cite Pius IX as having defined it.
I thus conclude that it is not “manifestly evident” that this has been taught as something to be held definitively.
Other Theologians
As I mentioned, you’ll find theologians taking different positions on this. For example, in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott considers several propositions relating to Mary and sin.
First, he considers the proposition that Mary was conceived without stain of original sin and says it is de fide or “of the Faith.”
Second, he considers the proposition that from her conception Mary was free from all motions of concupiscence, and he considers it sententia communis or the common opinion of theologians.
And then third, he considers the proposition that interests us—that, in consequence of a special privilege of grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life, and he says that this one is sententia fidei proxima or “an opinion proximate to the Faith.”
It caused some confusion to Christian when I said that some Christians consider the teaching proximate to the Faith. He said,
CLIP: PROXIMATE TO THE FAITH
Well, it’s not weird that I would mention it, since Ludwig Ott’s manual is the most popular one that’s out there right now in English.
And Christian doesn’t understand what the term means as Ott is using it. It does not refer to something connected with something else that is de fide.
All you have to do is look it up in Ott. He provides an explanation of the theological notes he’s assigning to propositions. So what do we find when we do that?
First, he lists those propositions that require divine and catholic faith—in other words, they are dogmas—things that have been infallibly defined by the Magisterium as divinely revealed. He adds that “If truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the pope or of a general council, they are ‘de fide definita’” or having been defined as of the Faith. So this is his de fide category.
Second, he considers infallible teachings that have not been defined as part of divine revelation, so they only require catholic or ecclesiastical faith. He says:
- Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.
So Ott has two categories for infallible teachings—first, those that require divine and catholic faith, and second, those that require only catholic faith. Either way—and regardless of whether they are defined by a pope, a council, or the ordinary and universal Magisterium—those are all the infallible teachings there are.
Then third, Ott comes to the category that we’re interested in. He writes:
- A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.
So what Ott means by sententia fidei proxima or “an opinion proximate to the Faith” is that it is something that has not been “finally promulgated as [divinely revealed] by the Church.” In fact, it has not been taught infallibly—either as revealed or otherwise—otherwise it would go in one of the first two categories. And yet it is “regarded by theologians generally as a truth of revelation.”
In other words, it’s something that theologians generally regard as divinely revealed, even though the Church has not taught that it is to be held definitively. If the Church had infallibly taught it, it would go in Category 1 or Category 2, which he’s already named.
So this category refers to non-definitive matter that is generally considered by theologians to be part of divine revelation. In other words, most theologians believe it is revealed, though some might disagree.
So that’s Ott’s view of the ongoing sinlessness of Mary. He thinks it’s divinely revealed even though he thinks it hasn’t been infallibly defined.
Another theologian who takes a similar view is C. X. J. M. Friethoff, O.P. In his textbook, A Complete Mariology—which, like Ott’s book, carries an imprimatur from the pre-Vatican II period—he writes:
Holy Church’s teaching is however very clear on this point of Mary’s utter sinlessness: by a special divine privilege she avoided during her whole life all sin, even venial sins. The Church has not presented this truth as a doctrine revealed by God, but in the same anathema in which the 19th ecumenical council of Trent rejects such sinlessness for all other human beings, she permits it to be admitted for Mary. Thus, although this truth has not been solemnly given us by the Church as of divine revelation and is not yet a dogma in that sense, it belongs nevertheless to Catholic teaching (A Complete Mariology pp. 87-88).
So Friethoff says that this is not a dogma but is part of Church teaching, and he makes no mention of it being infallibly defined by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
Similarly, in his book The Glories of Mary, St. Alphonsus Liguori—a doctor of the Church!—wrote:
There are many doctors who maintain that Mary was even exempt from contracting the debt of sin. . . . Now this opinion is very probable; for if it is true that in the will of Adam, as head of the human race, were included the wills of all . . . it is also probable that Mary did not contract the debt of sin; for God having greatly distinguished her in the order of grace from the rest of mankind, it should be piously believed, that in the will of Adam, the will of Mary was not included (The Glories of Mary, p. 361).
Liguori goes on to say that he considered it certain that Mary was conceived immaculate, but he only assigns “very probable” to the proposition that she never contracted the debt of sin.
I could go on listing other authors who support the same view, but this will suffice.
As I mentioned, there are authors on the other side of this question, so this is a matter of theological opinion.
Personally, I think that those who favor it being infallible by the ordinary and universal Magisterium have simply not done the work needed to show this.
There are some teachings that are easy to show in this way. For example, the bishops clearly taught the facts that Jesus is the Christ and that Jesus is the Son of God are to be held definitively from the very first ages of the Church—long before they were ever dealt with by a council.
However, that isn’t the case with Mary’s perpetual sinlessness, because there were Church Fathers—including doctors of the Church like St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Cyril of Alexandria—who rejected this teaching and held that Mary committed at least venial sins. So the matter had not been infallibly defined in their day; otherwise, they would be considered heretics rather than doctors of the Church.
But the work just has not been done to show that the bishops of the world—teaching in union with the pope—have, as a body, held that this doctrine is to be held definitively.
It’s easy to show that they have taught it, and even that they have taught it strongly. It’s also easy to show that it has a logical connection with the Immaculate Conception. But none of these are what’s needed. What is needed is a survey of the body of the bishops that shows that—at least at some point in time—they have taught that it is to be held definitively.
This hasn’t been done, and so it is not “manifestly evident” that they have taught this, and so I am blocked by canon 749 from holding that the teaching is infallible. For as the canon says,
No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident (can. 749 §3).
Summary
To summarize, we have seen that it is possible—hypothetically, as an exceptional case, and only for very strong reasons—to disagree with a noninfallible Church teaching.
We have also seen that Pius IX did not infallibly define Mary’s ongoing sinlessness. He taught it, but he did not include it in the statement that he did define, as competent theologians recognize.
We have seen that the council of Trent did not infallibly define Mary’s ongoing sinlessness. It said that the Church holds this, but this was not the point being defined at the time, and Pope St. John Paul II confirmed that the council did not wish to define this.
And we have seen that—although some authors hold that the matter has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium—others do not. This is a matter of free theological opinion, and we must resist the temptation to bend the sources into saying what we want them to say.
Thus far, no one has done the work needed to show that the body of bishops—at least at some point in time—taught in union with the pope that Mary’s ongoing sinlessness is to be held definitively. It certainly is not “manifestly evident”—or really obvious—that they have done so, and thus canon law blocks those who read the documents carefully from regarding this teaching as infallible.
On the other hand, we have also seen that Christian Wagner has seriously misrepresented me. I in no way said that one can just disregard noninfallible Church teaching, that one can do so “willy nilly,” or that no censure is deserved for non-heretical teachings or that no sin is involved in refusing religious submission of intellect and will is due and one lacks sufficient reasons for withholding assent.
Remember, Christian represented my position by saying:
CLIP: SUMMARY
All of this seriously misrepresents my position. What Christian is saying is the opposite of what I said.
In fact, after misrepresenting me on these matters, Christian inarticulately backed his way into affirming my own position.
Furthermore, we have seen significant errors on his part illustrating that he lacks a proper understanding of what papal statements are infallible, what a council is defining, and how the ordinary and universal Magisterium works.
In all this, his attempt to publicly shame me fails, and it is ironic that he and his associate Hassan are themselves sensitive to people improperly speaking ill of them. Their first video contains this remark directed toward the commenters on their livestream:
CLIP: SPEECH ETHICS
And it is “so true.” But they have done exactly these things regarding me.
And it’s worth reviewing at least the basis of Catholic speech ethics. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
— of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
— of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
— of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them (CCC 2477).
Christian Wagner and his associate have committed both rash judgment regarding me and calumny regarding me.
By not understanding my position, misrepresenting it, and criticizing it as “Beyond Shameful,” they have committed rash judgment.
And by misrepresenting my position—which is making remarks contrary to the truth—they have sought to harm my reputation with others and given them the occasion of making false judgments concerning me.
So, as Hassan indicated, their words will be included in their judgment when they stand before Christ. Potentially including what may be careless words like this:
CLIP: PEOPLE WHO ARISE
Dude! This fundamentally misrepresents me. Now, taking a charitable interpretation, Christian may have meant to refer to a general category here without saying that I endorse the views he names, but—as phrased—this fundamentally misrepresents me.
I didn’t say any of the things he just named, and I’ve been on record for literally decades—perhaps, as I said, longer than Christian has been alive—affirming the infallibility of the decision on women’s ordination.
A Word to Christian B. Wagner
I’d like to conclude with a personal word to Christian Wagner.
Christian, you are a young guy with a lot of promise. But you are still quite young, and you’ve only been a Catholic for three years. In view of that, you need to cool your jets.
In your video, you acknowledge that you do not consider yourself a competent theologian on these categories. You say,
CLIP: I’M NOT IN THIS CATEGORY
So you shouldn’t be trying to publicly shame someone who is an expert on magisterial teaching and how it works. Actually, you should be very careful before trying to publicly shame anyone—whether out of a desire for more clicks and views or for whatever motive.
In my own work, it is rare that I criticize anyone by name—especially a fellow Catholic. Instead, I normally focus on issues rather than the individuals who support them. If people are circulating ideas that I think are false, I may well put something out explaining why I think the ideas are false, but I normally never mention the people supporting them, because there usually is no need to do that and because I want to avoid publicly criticizing fellow Catholics whenever possible.
If I do decide to criticize someone by name—whether they’re Catholic or not—I make extremely sure that I understand their position carefully and that I’m not misrepresenting it. Because if I do misrepresent it, it will blow up in my face and I’ll deserve every bit of clapback that I get.
I recommend this approach to you as well. Like I said, you’re a young guy in whom I see a lot of promise. If I didn’t think that, I wouldn’t have made this video. But you need to take a different approach. You need to learn some lessons here, and I’m trying to help you out. Because I guarantee that if you do to others what you did to me, many of them would not be nearly as professional and polite as I have been. I could have gone after you much harder than I have and really sought to embarrass you. For a start, I could have responded in kind and put up a thumbnail of you with an anxious expression on your face and the giant words “Beyond Shameless.”
But I’m trying to be kind and helpful because of the potential I see in you—and because this is the only time you’ve done this to me.
Also, if—as you mentioned in your combox—you do have autism, then you should develop relationships with several people who can advise you about how you may come off to those who have other communication styles. There are a lot of successful people, including successful communicators, who have Autism Spectrum Disorder, but it can require work.
Even for people with standard communication styles, it takes time and effort to learn how to communicate in the best way. I know that I used to be much more abrasive than I am now, but I have learned that it is better to be humble, charitable, and patient. As St. Paul says in Ephesians 4:15, we need to be speaking the truth in love.
So with that, Christian, I wish you well, and may God abundantly bless you.
* * *
If you like this content, you can help me out by liking, commenting, writing a review, sharing the podcast, and subscribing
If you’re watching on YouTube, be sure and hit the bell notification so that you always get notified when I have a new video
You can also support the podcast—and get early access to new episodes—by going to Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast
Thank you, and I’ll see you next time
God bless you always!