Alright, I read that part of Summa Theologiae regarding Immaculate Conception and I have two major things to say about it.

1. It makes sense (to an extent) logically that Mary would need to be sinless in order to give birth to Jesus, who was also sinless. Looking at it from the standpoint of original sin, it almost appears to be a logical necessity. This isn't just random made up crap like some would have you believe...they did indeed think heavily on the topic in light of existing scripture. Also, I noted that almost no scripture was directly referenced in regards to the immaculate conception, so I definitely get the feeling that it was a logical necessity, but not necessarily a scriptural necessity (wasn't directly mentioned). The reason I say it is almost logically necessary is the second thing I want to say...

2. I believe it is not 100% necessary for Mary to be sinless for two reasons. On the topic of original sin, I believe that God created Jesus as a perfect being and that even a flawed vessel could carry him. My reasoning is logical, as well as Poetic in nature. God could not have brought Jesus to earth in any more poetic of a nature then through an imperfect vessel. Jesus, son of God and sinless, carried to term by the very flawed vessels he came to save. Live was given to Jesus by God and God choose Mary as that vessel. The second half of my argument is found in science. What we now know today that was not known when this docrtine was developed is the details of child development in the womb. A mother's blood never mixes with the Child's blood...oxygen is carried across a membrane instead of having direct blood contact. This is important to know because it can explain how a body stained with original sin could bear a perfect child. Mary's blood never intermingled with Jesus' blood, so the concern about Mary's original sin somehow moving over to him due to being a flawed vessel is an impossibility. I believe Jesus' DNA was from God solely, so the only thing provided to him in the womb was oxygen and nutrients. The only reason I mention this is because I think that there is a lot of tradition based upon the blood (the Bible contains lots of this). Knowing that their blood never mixed reinforces in my mind the idea that Mary could have been imperfect and had some sin, yet carried a perfect being.

This was just my mental wanderings as I read Summa Theologiae. In the end, I don't think this doctrine is a requirement for salvation, so believing in it and also not believing in it is fine in my opinion. It does offer some more logical explanation for the whys regarding Jesus' birth then some Churches provide. It is definitely a deeper look into the topic for sure. Most flavors say Jesus was perfect, the end. Instead, it is discussed in depth and deeply thought about, which gives more fullness to the story found in the Bible.

what ever floats yer boat i reckon. i just find many beliefs create singular thought. beliefs are best left to the individual as too many people flocking creates its own set of issues.

religion is defined by me and i believe God loves me that way

but its always entertaining listening to the stories