Most of the world has lived five centuries since the 16th Century. Some professional anti-Catholics, however, have merely lived the 16th Century five times and are now heading into their sixth century of barren, clueless, pedantic disputations. In the course of this, they have managed to work themselves into a curious state wherein they carefully scrutinize the Catholic tradition for any loopholes they can find, while almost completely missing the forest for the trees. A great deal of this is due to the fact that they continually attribute to \u201cRome\u201d ideas which are all over the place in the apostolic teaching, including in Churches that have not been in communion with Rome for a thousand years (for instance, the sinlessness of Mary and her Assumption (or Dormition as our Eastern brethren call it)). Working on the bizarre notion that the Catholic Church is a sort of spiritual totalitarian police state where that which is not forbidden is compulsory, all ideas found within that tradition are prefaced with the simple declarative state \u201cRome teaches\u201d, as though the entire Catholic faith consists of a series of bulletins issued by the Pope, which the faithful read, salute smartly, and march out in ranks and rows to proclaim. The notion that there could be broadly believed ideas which the faithful understand in varying ways, talk about, wonder over, and which Rome \u201cteaches\u201d only in the sense that she recognizes as part of the mind of the faithful for many long aeons\u2026. none of that seems to be present to the ardent anti-Catholic. It\u2019s all a world of binary dogmas delivered by fiat from the Chair of Peter.<\/p>\n
Case in point: the birth pangs of Mary (or not). A broad tradition has always existed in Catholic circles which holds that our Lady experienced no labor pains. One can see the tradition reflected in sundry sources and attested by luminaries like St. Thomas. It is certainly generally regarded as a pious opinion and is certain compatible with the Church\u2019s dogmatic teaching. You can find a nice discussion of it here.<\/a> But as the carefully worded language of the Catechism (quoted in the combox) makes clear, the Church doesn\u2019t go to the mat on this question.<\/p>\n However, for the \u201cthat which is not forbidden is compulsory\u201d anti-Catholic all of this goes for nought. Aquinas held the classical opinion<\/a>, that makes it \u201cRoman Catholic doctrine\u201d (because everything Aquinas ever said is Roman Catholic doctrine), therefore \u201cRome teaches<\/a>\u201d that Mary did not suffer labor. From that flat-footed reading of the Tradition, it\u2019s a short hop on one flat foot to an equally flat-footed reading of Scripture in which \u201cRome contradicts herself\u201d since the woman of Revelation 12 suffers birth pangs. Gotcha! How unutterably clever! The Church is in ruins!<\/p>\n It\u2019s like talking to somebody who says Burns contradicts himself since love, an incorporeal emotion, cannot be like a red, red rose due to the fact that roses are physical objects composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, whereas chemical analysis of love is objectively impossible. Burns completely contradicts himself! Gotcha!<\/p>\n Whoa! Totally dude! Only a fool could see in the image of birth pangs an image of the anguish Mary endured watching her Son die as he brought the kingdom to birth in his passion. What a crazy connection to make. Catholic faith is totally disproved!<\/p>\n