Contra Jack Chick

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Contra Jack Chick's [u]Why Is Mary Crying?[/u]

Practicing Catholics hear it frequently enough; Catholics who are especially proud of their religion tend to hear it even more often—that question which often comes unreservedly from the more radical Catholic-bashers: "Why do you worship Mary?"
Few questions can upset devout Catholic ears more and even fewer can lead to such a debate as commonly follows. Why do Catholics worship Mary? Well...they don’t, of course.
Unfortunately, this usually doesn’t quell the argument.
Chick Publications (www.chick.com) has been an avid opponent of the Church on various (and perhaps all) matters of Catholic doctrine. Jack T. Chick has been known to publish comic strips, among them one in which Satan tempts Church leaders into creating the concept of the Eucharist (which Chick irreverently calls "The Death Cookie"), another in which a very stereotypical Irish Catholic cop named Murph must decide between Catholicism and Fundamentalist Protestantism on his deathbed, and finally another in which Mary is lamenting over all the Catholics who foolishly worship her instead of her Son. It is this statement and this tract from which I wish to defend Mother Church.
In this last tract (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0040/0040_01.asp), Chick aims his anti-Catholicism toward the Blessed Virgin by using ideas of her maternity which are common to Catholic Tradition, particularly her pity for mankind. The comic tract starts with the image of Mary crying, upset that so many Catholics are worshipping her instead of her Son (although she will later deny that she is the Mother of God). Almost immediately, the tract brings up the fact that Mary herself said she was in need of a Savior in the Magnificat, "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior" (Luke 1:46-47), in an attempt to undermine the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
The Catholic Church, however, has never denied that Mary was without need of a Savior. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined recently in history, in 1854, by Pope Pius IX in the document Ineffabilis Deus. The Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes the document thus:
"The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved from all stain of original sin." (491)

It is clear from this quote that the Catholic Church recognizes the actions of Jesus’ death on the cross in Mary’s purity. Mary was preserved from sin because Jesus, her Savior, preserved her from it. God, knowing all things before they happen (because He is outside the realm of time, which is a creation), foresaw that Christ would die on the Cross and that Mary would not succumb to sin. He therefore extended to her the honor of being created free of sin from her very beginning. But why, one might ask, does the Church believe this?
The answers are both logical and biblical. First, however, we must understand the effects of original sin. As traditionally taught, they are: a corrupted human nature, a darkened understanding, a weakened will, and a strong inclination to do evil (Klein, 86). It is particularly the third of these which would have been most detrimental to God’s plan of salvation. Mary had to decide to give birth to the Savior with the complete freedom of an unfallen will. Mary, the New Eve, needed the same amount of willpower to choose good clearly that her predecessor had to choose evil clearly. The Bible also affirms the idea of Mary’s purity, both directly and indirectly. In the Old Testament, we are told that the Israelites were to make the Ark of the Covenant, which is a prefigurement of Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, and to "plate it inside and outside with pure gold, and put a molding of gold around the top of it" (Exodus 25:11). We are also told by an angel that Mary is pure: "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The original Greek text for "favored one" is "kecharitomene" meaning "you who have been shown grace". It is also important to notice that an angel, which is higher than mankind, greets Mary, a human, in such a fashion.
After the tract’s faulty claim that Catholics believe Mary to have been without need of a Savior, it begins to attack Catholics for bowing to statues of Mary. An important thing to say when this objection is raised is to ask whether the objector kneels when he reads his Bible. Many Christians kneel at the foot of their beds and read the Bible in such a way. This does not mean that they are worshipping the Bible, but only that they are honoring the scriptures and what is behind the scriptures, namely God.
Chick continues this facet of his attack with a reference to the ten commandments, saying:
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth...thou shalt not bow down thyself to them..." Exodus 20:4,5

It is important to analyze the context of this statement before deciding what God must have meant by this instruction. God knew that the people below, still in the desert, were building a golden calf out of their impatience with God and their hardness of hearts. It is clear also that God meant for images not to be made for worship. Note that Catholics place this passage with the first commandment ("I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. You shall not have other gods besides me." Exodus 20:2-3), while Protestants have a different numbering of the Ten Commandments and separate our first commandment into two. We therefore attribute the command against images to be a part of the command to worship God alone. Images can be made for purposes other than worship and, in fact, God instructs the Israelites to build to golden cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant. These images are not idols to be worshipped, rather, as are statues of Mary, they are intended to remind men of the glory of God and to cause them to worship Him and Him alone. God also commanded Moses in Numbers 21:8-9 to make a bronze serpent and to place it on a pole, so that whenever an Israelite would look upon it, he would be healed from the bites of the snakes sent by God as punishment. Also, in 1 Kings 6-7, we read hear descriptions of the temple with carved images of cherubim, plants, and beasts.
Next, the tract moves on to say that "Mary sheds tears because men call her ‘The Mother of God’" (Chick). Mary then goes on to explain that he is not truly the Mother of God, because God preceded her. Here it becomes essential to define the term "mother". What is a mother? A mother is a woman who births and cares for her child or children. Every other mother is older than her children, but Mary was not. Nonetheless, she was born before He was, which makes it entirely possible to be the Mother of God. The early Christians knew this. From the earliest days of the Church, Mary was called the "Theotokos" ("Godbearer") in the East. That she is the Mother of God was defined dogmatically at the Council of Ephesus in only 431 (Kellmeyer). One of the earliest bishops, St. Gregory Nazianzen, in his Letter to Cledonius the Priest, condemns those who deny Mary’s motherhood of Christ, "In anyone does not agree that Holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead" (Madrid, 83). The scriptures also reveal that Mary truly is the Mother of God and is rightly called so. When Mary goes to greet Elizabeth, her cousin, she is greeted, "And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke 1:43. In those times, it was considered irreverent to speak the name of God an the word "Kurios" is often used in the original Greek of the Gospels in place of "Yahweh". There is also John 2:1, "On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there." If Jesus is God, and Mary is the mother of Jesus, then Mary is the Mother of God.
After this, the tract returns briefly to mention that Mary is not sinless, this time using Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." However, even as Chick uses this passage, it would have to imply that Jesus Himself had sin, since he became one of us, which would conflict with other passages in the Bible. Rather, the word "all" refers to mankind in general, not to each individual.
Chick moves on to say that Mary is not Mediatrix, but that only Christ is Mediator, using the passage 1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." The Church’s teaching on Mary’s title of Mediatrix, however, is not in conflict with the Bible. There is one Mediator, Christ, and many sub-mediators in Christ. The Catechism is very clear in its teaching on the matter:
"Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . 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." "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source." (970)

Following this, Chick makes a brief summary and continues with one of his most common and most infamous types of pseudo-evangelization: a comparison between Catholicism and Babylonian Mythology. He alludes to the Babylonian goddess Semiramis, who was the mother and wife of her own son. This in itself should show a flaw in Chick’s tract, as incest is clearly condemned by the Catholic Church and no such thing is believed to have happened. Chick claims, without any proof, of course, that Satan found this beautiful witch-goddess Semiramis and conspired with her and her child to appear as an image of a mother and son which would spread to many religions and infiltrate them, turning them toward Babylonian worship (Chick also offhandedly remarks that they invented the confessional and celibate priesthood, both of which are supported by the Bible and by reason). It is important to notice that it is a common situation in any culture for a mother and child to be honored; for their bond to be considered sacred. A mother was where people came from. A mother was seen as a source of life. It is to be considered highly probable then that every pagan religion, with or without the alleged help of Semiramis, would have produced a goddess who was a mother representing life and fertility. It is also probable, since every mother as a son, that every pagan religion would fabricate a son for such goddess, a god in his own right, with many powers of his own. To show the greatness of the mother, the god would likely be very important to the religion as well. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that other religions would have these characteristics and it is folly to assume that because they do, it must have been a plan carried out by a Babylonian witch-goddess and her son, who in all likelihood are not even remotely based on real people.
It is good to mention that Chick also attacks the various titles of Mary and shows their relationships to the names of Semiramis, but many of these names are generic and could refer to any mother (some even to any woman, mother or not) and all of these names could apply to any of the many mother goddesses worldwide. For instance, Chick makes a point of translating the title of Semiramis, "Baalti", as "Madonna", but the word "Madonna" is only Old Italian for "Madame" or "My Lady" and could easily refer to any woman (American).
Finally, in this grand, but flawed, scheme of Satan, the Catholic Church comes into the picture. Chick claims that to get more pagan converts, the Church had to find a compromise between God and Semiramis, and thus it slowly diverted attention and worship onto Mary and made her into a goddess. The Church does Christianize Pagan customs; this is true. But the Bible supports it. We do not retain those parts of these customs which violate Christianity, but instead, we take them and make them Christian. St. Paul writes in the First Letter to the Corinthians:
"Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law--though I myself am not under the law--to win over those under the law. To those outside the law I became like one outside the law--though I am not outside God's law but within the law of Christ--to win over those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some. All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a share in it." 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

St. Paul took on the attributes he could from those whom he was trying to convert. In another passage, this from the Old Testament, it becomes clear that certain things from Pagan religions can be restructured in a way that is honorable in the sight of God:
"That same night the LORD said to him, ‘Take the seven-year-old spare bullock and destroy your father's altar to Baal and cut down the sacred pole that is by it. You shall build, instead, the proper kind of altar to the LORD, your God, on top of this stronghold. Then take the spare bullock and offer it as a holocaust on the wood from the sacred pole you have cut down.’" Judges 6:25-26

The old altar is destroyed and pieces from it are used to build a new altar. In the same way, a Pagan custom is destroyed and certain pieces from it, which do not go against God, are used to help our worship of God.
As a final offense, Chick claims that in the Babylonian mythology, Semiramis was the only person who could control her son and that this is why Catholics believe that Mary is the only woman who can control her Son. But who is in control in the relationship between Christ and Mary? Mary follows her Son completely; she is sinless. If she tried consciously to disagree with her Son and tell Him what to do, that would be contradictory to her impeccability. However, she still asks her son to do things which are already in accordance with His will. It is as C.S. Lewis wrote in "The Magician’s Nephew" when Aslan (a talking lion symbolic of Christ) had sent on a quest three characters who noticed that they were without food:
"Well, I do think someone might have arranged about our meals," said Digory.
"I’m sure Aslan would have, if you’d asked him," said Fledge.
"Wouldn’t he know without being asked?" said Polly.
"I’ve no doubt he would," said the Horse [Fledge] (still with his mouth full [of grass]). "But I’ve a sort of idea he likes to be asked." (150)

Chick includes a closing thought:
"Beloved, Catholic families have been betrayed for centuries. Jesus Christ Himself said: ‘Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.’ Revelation 18:4"

Of course, this is a loaded passage, and the only reason Chick sees it as relevant is that he is predisposed to think that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon.
Jack Chick and his productions company have been smearing falsities about Catholicism from his headquarters in Ontario, California and has reached many people with his lies. He, of course, prefers to say that he has been "publishing Gospel literature for over 40 years". The fact of the matter is, however, that they have tried to pass on lies, heresy, apostasy, and pseudo-gospel literature for over 40 years. The true Gospel of Jesus Christ is to love God and neighbor, but Chick instead speaks falsely against his neighbors and even fabricates elaborate stories in comic books to trick the gullible into his self-righteous, fundamentalist sect. I encourage everyone to study their apologetics and come to the defense of the faith from the likes of Jack Chick, as St. Peter instructs us:
"Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame." 1 Peter 3:15-16


Works Cited

Note: All Bible passages in this defense, unless contained within quote from Jack Chick or the Catechism of the Catholic Church, are from the New American Bible.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
(2000). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

The Holy See. (1995). The Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Image,
Doubleday.

Chick, Jack T. [url="http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0040/0040_01.asp"]http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0040/0040_01.asp[/url]

Kellmeyer, Steve. (2000). Bible Basics. Steubenville: Basilica Press.

Klein, Rev. Peter. (1990). Catholic Source Book. Dubuque: Brown-Roa, Harcourt Brace
& Company

Lewis, Clive Staples. (1955). The Magician’s Nephew. New York: Collier Books.

Madrid, Patrick. (2002). Why is That in Tradition?. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor
Publishing Division.

[phatcatholic]

raphael, did you write this?

[StColette]

I believe he did phat He and I were talking about tract ideas last night and he mentioned Refuting Chick

Awesome Job Micah great to see you in the Apologetics Phorum

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 24 2004, 01:47 PM'] raphael, did you write this? [/quote]
Yeah, I wrote this for Kiddkapps in January for a PM article, but it was too long.

[phatcatholic]

awesome, good job Raphael

[Thy Geekdom Come]

*takes a bow*

All this stuff was in the debate table from my rare posts just picking up dust. I thought I would post it here.

[phatcatholic]

that's the point of the "Tracts by Phatmasser" thread, to ensure that none of our awesome work over the years ever collects dust

[ironman]

Jack Chick's days are over........

[MC Just]

awesome!

[musturde]

I dont think Jack Chick does any of this for any religious reasons. I'd rather believe he was dedicating all of his works to making some sucky fictional novel.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]Then again there's always the possibility that he's insane.[/quote]

I like them odds.

How could a man who thinks the Jesuits are an order of Vatican assassins out to get him be anything but insane?

[musturde]

I edited the post cuz I thought I took it too far by saying he's insane but I guess I was too late