December 10, 2006
Sunday

Most people know that a lot of what we think we know about the birth of Christ is derived from myth and tradition rather than history. Even those who accept scripture as literal truth will acknowledge that the narratives of the birth and infancy of Jesus are very thin on detail. There’s no grumpy innkeeper turning the weary travelers away, merely a mention that the inn was full. The visitors who bring gold, frankincense, and myrrh are identified as wise men or astrologers, not as kings, and they are neither named nor limited in number to three. (There aren’t any camels, either.) And if you want your crèche to appear accurate, you shouldn’t place these figures there alongside the shepherds and the angel choir. We love these familiar elements, but they need not (indeed, must not) get in the way of understanding what it is we ponder in Advent and celebrate on Christmas Day — the extravagant gift of the Word made flesh to dwell among us and show us the way, the truth, and the life.

This morning the local newspaper, the Harrisburg Patriot-News, began its annual series called “Twelve Days of Caring.” Each day a different social service agency is highlighted, usually a small one that serves a niche need and might be overlooked by traditional funding sources in favor of larger, more well-known charities. Today’s article featured the Silence of Mary Home, a facility founded and run by two dedicated lay people (Sue and Vern Rudy, a married couple) who offer the stability of a “family home” (not a conventional group home nor a shelter) to castaway, runaway, and some adjudicated youth. They operate on a shoestring budget and depend on contributions and the help of volunteers to keep things going.

The writer of the article is Mary Klaus, who writes often for this newspaper about religion. She gives an explanation for the name of the place. “As for the name, Silence of Mary refers to how out of fear Mary initially kept silent about her immaculate conception of Jesus, [Sue] Rudy said. Troubled teens many times keep silent about the hardships they face, she said.”

Ouch! I wrote to the newspaper’s “letters to the editor” address and to the reporter directly:

The Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the Roman Catholic church proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854: “The Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, . . . preserved immune from all stain of original sin.” The phrase “immaculate conception” refers to the belief that Mary, conceived in the normal way by her parents, was, from that very moment, blessed more than any other created person with an entirely unique holiness. The phrase makes no reference at all to the conception of Jesus by the action of the Holy Spirit, nor to the virgin birth.

Scripture tells us that, rather than keeping silent and living in fear, Mary accepted with humility the news announced to her by the angel: “Then Mary said, Here I am, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.” (Luke 1:38)

I have already heard from the reporter, who indicated in her signature line that she works four to midnight, Sunday through Thursday. She identifies herself as a devout Catholic and the sister of a priest, who had attended Mass on Friday, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (as it was in my childhood, a holy day of obligation for US Catholics). She acknowledged that I was right, and that she knew the dogma, but “That’s what Sue said.”

This confusion of the two doctrines always irritates me. If people think that the conception of Jesus is “immaculate” because it was not accomplished by an act of human intercourse, does that make the other conceptions (such as mine and yours and those of our beautiful children conceived in love and joy) “un-immaculate,” or dirty somehow? The reporter indicates that she is Catholic, and from information given in the story about the Rudys, I would conclude that they are as well. I certainly don’t think that only Catholics should know the difference between the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth (my daughter, who has been raised Lutheran, knows). But of all people, a Catholic journalist and a Catholic woman of charitable bent should know.

I’m not a journalist. But if I were writing the piece, I’d have written around the error pronounced by the home’s founder, or eliminated the reference altogether. Actually, had I done the the interview, it would have been hard for me not to lecture this sincere but poorly informed woman that Mary, rather than living in silent fear, accepted the role God chose her for and thus became for us a model of grace and servanthood.

To be included on the notify list, e-mail me:
margaretdeangelis [at] gmail [dot] com (replace the brackets with @ and a period)