I will never forget, years ago, when I was asked this question on Catholic Answers Live by a nine-year-old boy: “If Mary had to be without sin in order for her to carry Jesus in her womb, how could Jesus have come into a world where there is so much sin?” That’s quite a question, coming from a nine-year-old!
Along these same lines, many will ask, “If Mary had to be without sin in order to carry God in her womb, wouldn’t Mary’s mother have to be without sin in order to carry a sin-free Mary in her womb . . . and wouldn’t the same be true for her mother . . . and her mother, etc.?”
This same question was asked in the twelfth century, by no less a luminary than St. Bernard of Clairvaux. Although he understood Mary to be completely free of all personal sins whatsoever, he had a problem with the idea of the Immaculate Conception. And at that time, the dogma had not been defined. I say that to point out that this question is not one to be scoffed at.
In answering these two questions, it is important for us to remember—and this is true of all the Marian dogmas—that we are not talking about strict necessity with any of them. In other words, Mary did not have to be immaculately conceived in order to give birth to the Messiah. Jesus could have been born of a sinful woman if God had so willed it. For that matter, God did not have to become incarnate in the world at all in order to save us. He could have saved us in any number of ways. He is all-powerful. The Catechism of the Catholic Church rightly uses the language of “fittingness” (722) when it speaks of the Immaculate Conception. And in Lumen Gentium, the fathers of Vatican II provide the following:
All the salvific influence of the Blessed Virgin on men originates, not from some inner necessity, but from the divine pleasure. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it. In no way does it impede, but rather does it foster the immediate union of the faithful with Christ (60).
What does the Church mean by fitting, or from the divine good pleasure? Think of it this way: if the president of the United States came to your hometown, it would not be a matter of strict necessity that there be television cameras, a parade, dignitaries, Secret Service agents, etc. The president could simply come to your town without any of the normal accompaniments. He is fully capable of it. However, it would not be fitting (and it might be dangerous). When the president comes to a town on an official visit, we expect to see a big to-do. Why? Because of the dignity of his office.
So it is with Mary. Her vocation is immeasurably greater than that of any king, president, or prime minister. She is the Mother of God. Hence, it was fitting that she be immaculately conceived in order to bring to the world “the King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19:16).
But what about the claim that Mary’s mother—St. Anne—had to be sinless in order to bear a sinless Mary in her womb? Or what about the entire world needing to be untouched by sin in order for Jesus to live in it? There would obviously be no strict necessity in those cases, either. But there are two points to be made for clarity’s sake.
First, though there is no natural necessity here, we do clearly see in Scripture and Tradition, as understood by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, the fact that the divine disposition in this matter has been revealed. Mary was, in fact, immaculately conceived, so any argument attempted against this revealed truth, through either a misuse of Scripture or reason, can be shown to be deficient. And in this case, the deficiency is obvious, because we can argue that Jesus’ relationship with the world—by virtue of being in it—is far removed from the intimacy of his relationship with Mary, his mother.[1] That intimacy increases the fittingness of Mary’s immaculate conception and sinlessness.
Moreover, there is an essential and infinite gap between Jesus and Mary that didn’t exist between Mary and her mother. Jesus was not just without sin; Jesus was God. Anne did not bear God in her womb, but Mary did; hence, Mary’s preparation by God was fittingly—and radically—different from Anne’s.
If, having dispelled the objections as given above, the apologist has more time to continue the discussion, I would recommend he become acquainted with what I presented in my book, Behold Your Mother, as eight biblical reasons for Mary’s immaculate conception. And though it has always been hard for me to say which is the most compelling of the eight, number one is a strong contender. It’s also St. John Henry Cardinal Newman’s favorite: the New Eve.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, writing in Against Heresies ca. A.D. 177, gives us a window into the early Church’s understanding of this profound truth with what I would say is a deft usage of Luke 1:37-38:
Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless yet a virgin . . . having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, became the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. . . . And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the Virgin Mary set free through faith.
Irenaeus emphasizes the fundamental link between Mary as “the New Eve” and her central role in God’s plan of salvation. But if we consider what most scholars—Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox—will agree upon, that Old Testament types are necessarily and always inferior to their New Testament fulfillments, it would certainly be fitting to say—indeed, I argue it follows necessarily according to the revelation we have been given—that the New Eve would be conceived without sin. If she were conceived in sin, Mary would be inferior to the first Eve, who was created without sin.
Moreover, a true understanding of the New Eve renders null and void any thought of Mary ever having committed actual sins. Just as Eve’s sinfulness led to the death of all her children, as Irenaeus said, it would be Mary’s obedience, or sinlessness, that would lead to life for all of her children.
Couldn’t Mary have sinned after having obeyed God and conceived Jesus? It doesn’t seem fitting that she would have. Just as the New Adam, Jesus, never fell into sin, as Adam did, it is fitting that Mary would likewise repair the old Eve’s sin with perfect obedience. Even a single sin from the Mother of God would represent a much greater fall than Eve’s, because she was given so much more grace. That would be unthinkable.
Also, when we consider the manifold gifts in Mary’s life that go beyond what I can include in this brief article, such as her being everything from the “Mother of God,” “full of grace,” and “Ark of the New Covenant” to the “beginning of the New Creation” and more we could consider, and now “the New Eve,” we can see how each reveals in its own way the Immaculate Conception, via the plenitude of grace in Mary’s life. St. Augustine’s famous words from On Nature and Grace come to mind:
We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear him who undoubtedly had no sin.
And remember: it was not just Irenaeus who taught Mary to be the New Eve. The Fathers of the Church were unanimous on this point. That of itself is compelling. But when you look into the reasons for this belief among the Fathers, you quickly find its foundation deeply rooted in Scripture—and Scripture that goes far beyond Luke 1:37-38. Irenaeus quite deftly imvoked Luke 1:37-38 and the Incarnation to make his point, as we saw above, but the Scriptures are replete with examples. These go beyond what I can do here, but they end up providing overwhelming evidence for the Immaculate Conception.
[1] Recall Mary as the Ark of the Covenant. The Old Covenant Ark was certainly in our world of sin, but remember what happened when sinful men touched it or even dared gaze upon its inner contents? It is not just proximity that is involved here, but the intimate nature of the contact with the sacred thing or person that makes the difference of whether something is acceptable or not.