Beyond that, we are left with only increasingly weak attempts to argue for Mary\u2019s sinfulness from increasing frail evidence. One argument, oddly enough, accepts that Mary is the woman of Revelation 12 after all. However, since Revelation says the woman was \u201cwith child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery\u201d (Rev. 12:2) then (the claim goes) she must be sinful since this is the punishment prescribed for Eve after the fall:<\/p>\n
To the woman he said,
\u201cI will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children (Gen. 3:16).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Even to me, who had deeply assumed there was something in Scripture contradicting the Immaculate Conception, this was an exceedingly weak claim. By the logic of this argument, it would also be possible to indict Jesus as a sinner since he suffered, toiled, sweated, and died, just like Adam (cf. Gen. 3:17-19).<\/p>\n
But more fundamentally, there\u2019s a peculiar tone-deafness to the argument. It\u2019s like saying, \u201cOkay! I grant that Mary is the Cosmic Queen of the Universe, crowned with twelve stars, clothed with the majesty of the sun, and treading the moon under her feet with the awesome glory that God has bestowed upon her! But what\u2019s this? Is that a thread I spy hanging loose on her garments that outshine the sun?\u201d It\u2019s a very silly argument, particularly since the language used by Revelation is so close to the imagery of the \u201cbirth pangs of the kingdom\u201d (Matt. 24:8) used by her Son and can easily be taken to refer to the \u201csword\u201d that pierced her soul at the Passion, not to physical labor pains.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
You can get the whole trilogy here<\/a>.<\/p>\n