June 2006 – Jimmy Akin

Prayer Intentions?

A reader writes:

Would you please consider having a weekly prayer intentions post? Your blog is so well visited that it could only be a good thing couldn’t it? The com box could be open for visitors to leave their own intentions and prayer requests. I know it’s none of my business what you do with your blog, just thought I’d offer the suggestion 🙂

I’m open to doing this. I don’t know if weekly is the right frequency, though if I did I’d probably do it as the final post on Fridays (like this one, for example) so that the intentions folks posted would be on people’s minds going into the weekend and Sunday.

I’d hesitate to do this too frequently, because others have established prayer ministries, and what I’m doing here is different, but prayer is an important part of the Christian life, and my blog is a pretty diverse place, so I’d like to hear what readers think about this idea and how often it should be done.

Feel free to change your handle if you feel the need to do so to give your opinion (though let’s not have a dozen different anonymous commenters, okay?).

If we do do it, I’d encourage folks to be careful what private information they reveal about themselves. They might want to change their handles–particularly if they’re using their real names as handles–when they post prayer requests.

So whadda y’all think?

The Nature Of Hell

A reader writes:

I’m currently lutheran, seeking the Catholic Church. But there is one thing that’s bothering me; the definition of hell. I have allways found the orthodox understanding, that hell is the presence of God, or of the truth and light of God, and that heaven and hell is the same "place." While listening to a talk called "Time and Eternity," Peter Kreeft explained some of it. He said:

"[The truth of God] is the esential nature of both heaven and hell. Heaven is truth embraced, hell is truth refused. Thus we could even say that heaven and hell are the same objective reality, experienced in opposite subjective ways. Metaphoracally, heaven and hell are the same place. Think of the dwarfs at the end of The Last Battle [the seventh Narnia-book]. Or think of a rocker and a opera buff sitting side by side at a rock concert or an opera. What is hell to one, is heaven to the other. So the very fires of hell may consist of the eternal truth and goodness and love of God, that is ultimate reality; every creature’s ultimate other. Those wo have cultivated what Lewis calls «the taste for the other,» love it when it finally appears. Those who have supressed and resented this taste are shocked and squashed by the other. Like Sartre, in «No Exit,» proclaiming the presice creed of the damned; «hell is the others.»"

My question is: what is the position of the Catholic church? Would I be considered a "heretic" for believing this?

You wouldn’t be considered a heretic because the precise nature of hell has not been infallibly defined, and without an infallible definition there is no heresy.

That being said, the language that Peter uses in his explanation is at least different in tone than that which the Church conventionally uses. For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

At first glance, this makes it sound like the opposite of what you are talking about: Hell as being removed from God’s presence rather than being confronted unpleasantly by God’s presence.

But the two are not necessarily incompatible. Apart from the Incarnation, God does not have a bodily, physical form from which one can be absent or present. It seems to me that speaking of being separated from God here refers to spiritual separation from him–some form of eternal opposition toward God rather than being in union with him in our hearts.

If the eternal separation of hell is understood this way then it could be compatible to say that all are ultimately confronted with the reality of God and, for those who are spiritually united (in harmony) with him it is a wonderful, glorious experience, while for those who are spiritually separated (in opposition) from him it is an unpleasant, painful experience.

I would therefore put the kind of thing that you and Peter are articulating in the category of permitted speculation about the nature of hell. It is one way of trying to envision and understand hell.

It does run against the grain of the language that the Church has traditionally used–which is based on Jesus’ language about the damned being thrown out into the darkness and thus shut out of the presence of the King–but this language is likely to contain a significant element of metaphor to help us have a feel for realities that go beyond our present ability to comprehend.

Hope this helps!

Read A Little Closer, James

A reader called my attention to the fact that James White has posted another piece involving me.

YOU CAN READ IT HERE.

In it, White complains about some ad copy for The Bible Answerman Debate referring to his ministry as a Fundamentalist one.

This is a fair complaint, and I’ll talk to the sales and marketing department about changing that.

He also refers to an article that I pointed him to concerning the types of formal debates that I accept.

Unfortunately, White followed what seems to be his frequent practice of not linking to the things that he’s talking about, which has the effect that it’s harder for his readers to read it for themselves and see if he’s handling it accurately.

That’s particularly unfortunate in this case because White is handling the article in a demonstrably inaccurate fashion. He complains about our exchange on The Bible Answerman being referred to as a debate and writes:

I would also say that if he [Akin] took his own writing [in the article in question] seriously he would stop calling his BAM appearance a "debate" of any kind. He demands equal time for a debate, rightly so. Nobody gets equal time on a call-in radio program. He demands a clear thesis that is debatable, rightfully so. Just what was the clear thesis statement on BAM again? Uh…right.

Sorry, James. You need to read a little more closely.

As my readers can see from the link I provided above to the article, the opening of the piece reads:

Debates are fun. They can be stimulating, challenging, and informative. No wonder many people find them the most exciting form of apologetics.

I am often asked whether I have any debates scheduled. The usual answer is no, as far as formal debates are concerned. My schedule is packed, and doing a formal debate takes a lot of preparation. I still do a good number of informal radio and television debates (they take far less preparation), but these aren’t as apologetically interesting. They don’t bring the same focus to a subject as a formal debate.

Over time I have developed my own guidelines for when and how to do formal debates. I’ve shared these with individuals who have asked for them, but putting them in print could benefit individuals who haven’t yet ventured into the world of debating but are contemplating it.

White has missed the fact that I clearly distinguish between formal debates (ones that have guaranteed equal time, thesis statements, etc.) and informal ones of the type that occur on radio and television, including such popular shows as . . . say . . . Hannity & Colmes, which has the word "DEBATE" featured prominently in its opening credits without, so far as I know, FoxNews getting a lot of viewers claiming that the guests on that show don’t debate issues.

That’s not saying that it’s good debating or helpful debating, but it’s debating.

St. Paul debated with folks in his day, but I severely doubt that he ever did anything in Lincoln-Douglas style.

So . . . I take what I’ve written quite seriously, James.

I just don’t hold that a debate has to have the kind of formal structure that is used by debating societies before it is worthy of the august name "debate."

Next time you want to publicly accuse me of being inconsistent with what I’ve written, try to make sure that I’m actually . . . y’know . . . being inconsistent.

Star Trek: Reboot The Universe

Yesterday I did a couple of posts about efforts by fans and now, possibly, by J. J. Abrams, to re-cast the characters of the original Star Trek series in order to allow new stories to be told about them more easily.

I did so to build up to this:

A PROPOSAL BY JOE STRACZYNSKI AND BRYCE ZABEL FOR THEIR VISION OF HOW STAR TREK SHOULD BE REJUVENATED.
(CHT to the readre who e-mailed!)

They sent this proposal to Paramount back in 2004 and . . . well . . . nothing came of it. But it’s an interesting proposal.

Basically, they propose rebooting the Star Trek universe so that the writers won’t be boxed in by all the massive continuity recent Star Trek writers have been burdened with. Giving the universe a fresh start would allow them to take the exciting, interesting things about the series that made it popular, without having to be constrained in the stories they can tell by all the material that later followed.

It would also let them re-cast the characters so that we could have new stories involving Kirk, Spock, and McCoy–the triumvirate at the heart of the original series.

The basic idea was to offer another take on the original five-year mission–this time giving it a definite story arc and retelling classic tales in a new way, while supplementing them with entirely new stories.

What they had in mind is quite interesting–putting a significant mystery at the heart of the series in a way that would tie it toghether. They write:

As noted above and as established in television history, Kirk was the youngest starship
captain in the Federation…but what led to this? We know that the Enterprise was sent out
to explore where no human had gone before…but if you stop and think about it for a
moment, isn’t that an odd assignment…to take one of the finest ships in the fleet, give it to
the youngest captain in the Federation, and tell them to just go drive around and see what
they can find?

It’s peculiar…until you allow for the possibility that they were looking for something
specific…something they had to keep a secret even from the rest of the crew.

The series treatment gives you a pretty good idea of what Straczynski and Zabel intended the secret to be, and it would have been interesting to see them get the chance to do it.

I found reading the series treatment quite interesting from a
literary perspective. Not only did they have to do a lot of
salesmanship as part of their attempt to convince network execs to give
them a chance, they also spent a surprising amount of time explaining
the concept of a reboot and how it would work. I guess studio execs in 2004 couldn’t be expected to be familiar with such concepts and had to be given a "let me lead you by the hand" explanation. (Probably not a bad idea. JMS tells horror stories about his initial attempts to get studio execs to understand the idea of Babylon 5 having rotational gravity.) Now you could just point to Battlestar Galactica, tho.

On his blog, where Dark Skies creator Bryce Zabel posted the treatment, he indicated that they also held back a lot of what they had in mind from the treatment, indicating that they had in mind a reboot somewhat like the Battlestar Galactica reboot that Ron Moore did, which would have resulted in a much grittier, edgier, and (frankly) interesting series than the kind of clean-as-a-whistle, formal, polyester kind of series that we got in Voyager (for example).

He also mentions that he’s had a whole new set of thoughts about how Star Trek could be revived since the 2004 proposal.

So be sure to

READ THE POST.

Star Trek XI

Ever since Star Trek Enterprise went and got itself cancelled (due to the bad decisions of its producers, such as not focusing on the Earth-Romulan War, and despite the much better fourth season that came too late to save it), Star Trek fans have had no new Star Trek to watch–except for fan productions like Star Trek New Voyages.

Now it looks like they may.

When Enterprise was cancelled it was stated (a) that there would indeed be future Star Trek productions (Paramount would be foolish to simply let the franchise die) but (b) there would be no new TV show for some time (Paramount would be foolish to put a new one on too soon, before the demand for one had had a chance to build again) and (c) the most likely next installment of the franchise would be a movie.

Rumors circulated around Hollywood for some time about what this movie might be about–possibly the Earth-Romulan War . . . possibly the story of how Kirk and Spock first met (these being the most logical two stories to try to tell next).

Now Paramount has officially announced the movie.

And it’s signed major talent to oversee it: J. J. Abrams, the guy behind Lost and Alias and Mission Impossible III.

Of course, the movie–or Abrams involvement in it–may not work out. Hollywood is a notoriously entropic place, meaning that deals have a tendency to fall apart there.

It sounds, at present, like Abrams and his team are currently thinking about doing the Kirk-Spock story, using new actors to play the young characters.

Which is why I mentioned New Voyages earlier: The New Voyages folks have decided that these characters are iconic enough in our culture that they should not be forever tied to the particular actors who originated them, the way Hamlet or MacBeth or the Mikado are not tied to the actors who originally played those parts.

In other words: Fans should learn to disassociate the characters from the actors.

This would allow the franchise to tell new stories about established and interesting characters and not have to invent and then sell to the fans a whole new cast every time one cast needed to retire.

Y’know: The way James Bond and Sherlock Holmes have been played by something like fifty guys each.

And there’s a reason I mention Star Trek XI and its possible recasting of major parts.

Star Trek New Voyages

I assume from various pieces of evidence I’ve encountered that there are a bunch of Star Trek fans out there making their own fan films based on the franchise.

I further assume that most of these are pretty lousy.

But I don’t know, because I haven’t seen them.

One fan-produced Star Trek effort has stood out, though, and I have actually seen some of it (though not enough to do a full review at this point).

The series is called Star Trek New Voyages, and it has managed to achieve unprecedented success.

The idea is that the series will use modern amateur film techniques (which are getting quite good) to produce the episodes that would have been needed to fill out the remaining two years of the original Enterprise’s "five year mission" (y’know: the two years they didn’t get to film because they got cancelled after season 3) and these episodes will be released direct-to-web.

The show thus features the original series cast of characters, though with different actors playing them (usually).

What makes the series unusual is the degree of quality that the folks behind it are trying to put into it. Their sets, for example, are virtually identical to those used on the original series–so identical, in fact, that when Star Trek Enterprise needed a copy of Mr. Sulu’s extendible console viewer thingie (as seen here) for their Mirror Universe episodes and the prop department didn’t have it any more, the producers of the TV show called the New Voyages folks to borrow the fans’ version of the prop rather than make their own.

The level of quality that they’re trying to put into the show has been so great (relative to other fan productions operating on a shoestring) that they’ve been able to get numerous professionals connected with the TV series to participate in New Voyages as well. This includes not only Gene Roddenberry’s son and actors who had minor roles in the original series but also writers from the original series, Next Gen, and Deep Space 9, including such noteables as D. C. Fontana and David Gerrold.

And now some of the main cast from the original series is getting into the act.

This September they’ll be releasing an episode in which Walter Koenig reprises his role as Checkov (an older version of himself who meets the younger version normally on New Voyages), and I’m anticipating that this episode will be used as Koenig’s swan song for the character (i.e., I’m expecting the older Checkov to die in it and thus tie up his character arc).

George Takei is also going to be reprising his role as Sulu in an upcoming episode.

Unfortunately, they’re only making one of these a year at present, so they may have to re-cast all the parts once again before they get to the end of the fifth year (if they get that far), but it’s interesting to note the success they’ve had thus far.

ABOUT THE PROJECT.

VISIT THE OFFICIAL WEB SITE.

Now, there’s a specific reason I mention all this.

Jimmy’s Roadside Science Experiments #1

Okay, I don’t really have a #2 planned for this series, but you never know.

Here’s what happened:

On my roadtrip to Texas last week, I took along some low-carb food in case I had trouble finding it on the road (in the sense of restaurants; I’m not talking about roadkill!). Among the things I took was a carton of low carb milk that I had opened and didn’t want to go to waste. I could take this because the carton in question had a screw top cap and so wouldn’t leak all over the place.

So, over the next day, I finished the container of low carb milk and tossed it to one side, figuring I’d throw it away the next time I stopped at a motel.

But before I did so, I noticed that something had happened to the milk carton: It had swelled up and now looked like this:
What had caused it to swell up? I wondered.

It couldn’t be the few remaining drops of milk in the carton releasing gasses, I thought. There weren’t enough of them to produce this kind of dramatic swelling.

Then I realized: I’m in an area where the elevations are above 4,000 feet. I bet that’s the reason why the carton bulked up so much.

The air in it from when I finished drinking the milk was put in at a lower altitude and then trapped in there when I sealed the carton.

But the air at that lower elevation was denser and there was more pressure on the outside of the carton from the air surrounding it. Now that I was at a higher elevation, the surrounding air pressure was lower and the carton was expanding due to the pressure of the denser air inside of it.

Or that was my hypothesis.

So I decided to do a little science experiment.

Instead of throwing the carton away, I kept it for another night and looked at it again in Dallas, which has an altitude of less than 500 feet. If my thesis was right then the drop of 3500 feet should cause the carton to de-inflate.

The next night the carton looked like this:

As you can see, it’s un-swelled itself considerably!

In fact, its sides are a bit sucked in now, and this was without opening it or doing anything to release the pressure in it.

In case it’s easier to see the difference, here’s a side-by-side comparison of the two:

So there you have it! Science is all around us–even when you don’t expect it!

There’s also a bit of relevance here to humans: It ain’t just milk cartons that expand or contract based on the air pressures found at different altitudes. Humans do, too. Our respiratory system is largely open since we’re breathing in and out all the time. Unless we’re holding our breath, our lungs won’t swell up or swell down this way based on rapid changes in air pressure, but other systems in our body aren’t so open: Our circulatory system, for example contains a certain volume of blood that is relatively constant and is used to operating at a particular level of pressure, and the fluids in our tissues don’t go in and out of us as quickly as air does when we breathe in and out. So the blood and other fluids in our bodies will be subject to at least some expansion and contraction the way the air in this milk carton was.

I assume that’s at least part of what’s going on when folks experience

ALTITUDE SICKNESS.

The Oil Of Gladness

A reader writes:

Have you heard of the ‘oil of gladness’? Someone told us that it is a non-sacramental oil used by lay people. My friend’s mother has been asked to administer it at school on the the feast of St. Peter & St. Paul to those recently confirmed and she’s a bit suspicious about it.

Firstly, what is this oil? Secondly, can a layperson administer it? (and if so, what would be the point in administering it if it is non-sacramental?)

Oh, if it makes any difference, we live in England!

I have to say that I haven’t heard of anyone using the phrase "oil of gladness" in this way. The phrase originally comes from the Old Testament. In Psalm 45:7, we read:

Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

This is in a Messianic Psalm whose literal signification originally applied to the king in Jerusalem but which also applies to Christ, so the same verse gets quoted in reference to Jesus in Hebrews 1:9.

In these passages, "the oil of gladness" might refer to anointing oil used on kings of Israel at their coronation or it may refer more generally to the anointing oils that were used as part of daily Israelite culture and hygeine. These oils were often scented and putting them on could symbolize gladness in something like the way putting on perfume or cologne does in our culture.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the phrase "oil of gladness" turned up in some of the Church’s rites for blessing various oils, but I am not aware of any oil specifically called "the oil of gladness," though the term does show up in a non-technical sense (i.e., not as a literal name) in some church documents (see here).

That being said, it also wouldn’t surprise me if some folks had taken to calling particular oils "the oil of gladness." Folk Catholicism often generates unusual names for things.

As to whether laity can perform non-sacramental anointings with oil, this was addressed in the 1997 Instruction on Colaboration, where we read:

Article 9

The Apostolate to the Sick

§ 1. In this area, the non-ordained faithful can often provide valuable collaboration. Innumerable works of charity to the sick are constantly provided by the non-ordained faithful either individually or through community apostolates. These constitute an important Christian presence to sick and suffering of the greatest importance. The non-ordained faithful particularly assist the sick by being with them in difficult moments, encouraging them to receive the Sacraments of Penance and the Anointing of the Sick, by helping them to have the disposition to make a good individual confession as well as to prepare them to receive the Anointing of the Sick. In using sacramentals, the non-ordained faithful should ensure that these are in no way regarded as sacraments whose administration is proper and exclusive to the Bishop and to the priest. Since they are not priests, in no instance may the non-ordained perform anointings either with the Oil of the Sick or ony other oil [SOURCE].

This is a rather sweeping statement, and since it has been the custom of lay people to perform at least some non-sacramental blessings with oil (at least on themselves) in Catholic history, there is some question in my mind about whether the Holy See meant the boldface statement above as a reference to non-sacramental anointings of sick people (given the fact that this is under the head of the apostolate to the sick) or whether they meant it to refer to anointings in general.

What I would do if I were your friend is this:

Here in America we have a book known as the Book of Blessings which contains many of the Church’s rites for the administration of sacramentals. Some of these are approved for laypeople to perform, and if this situation were occurring in America the first thing I would do is check the Book of Blessings to see what it says.

That’s an American document and wouldn’t apply in England, but there’s sure to be a British equivalent, so what I would do is ask to see a copy of the official ritual that she has been asked to perform. Then I would check it out to make sure that it really is an official ritual approved for use in the your country and not something that somebody just made up.

If it checks out–if it has the proper approvals from your conference of bishops and Rome–then I would feel comfortable in going ahead and performing the rite. Otherwise, I’d start asking more questions and would say that your friend’s concern about participating in the rite is warranted.

Hope this helps!

Mystery Photo Revealed

The mystery photo I published earlier today was of the site of President Kennedy’s assassination.

The X on the pavement marks the spot where the fatal headshot occurred.

I visited Dealey Plaza recently during my trip to Dallas to give a talk on The Da Vinci Code.

During the talk, I explained that in the novel Dan Brown portrays the Catholic Church as conducting the largest conspiracy in world history.

Then I added, "Now, I don’t know if y’all have had much experience with conspiracy theories . . . here in Dallas . . . but I’m here to tell you about Dan Brown’s."

The audience appreciated the line a lot since Dallas has been the epicenter of conspiracy theories for the last 40 years as a result of the Kennedy assassination.

The last time I was in the area, I got to visit the 6th Floor Museum of the former Texas School Book Depository (where Lee Harvey Oswald is alleged to have shot the president from) and which presents the Warren Commission version of events.

This time I got to go to another, rival museum a couple of blocks away: the Conspiracy Museum, which presents or tries to present . . . well . . . every other side.

It also has displays on other alleged conspiracies, including the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Abraham Lincoln (the last of which is known for certain to have been an actual conspiracy, though the question of who was behind it is still debated).

I also got some better pictures of Dealey Plaza than those I posted last time, so I hope to post those soon.

In addition, I took a number of other photos on the trip and will be posting some new mystery photos soon.

Ever Virgin

Hey, Tim Jones, here.

Several days ago, while commenting on Jimmy’s post entitled James White Responds, I replied to a Catholic-basher who wrote –

"You hold to gnosticism by saying that Mary’s hyman remained intact during and after the birth of Christ. By agreeing with that ancient heresy, you guys are by implication sayin that Christ didn’t have a real human body…"

Now, I knew this was bunk. In my 14 years as a Catholic, I have never heard this taught by anyone. So, I replied-

"Catholics believe no such thing. That is NOT what is meant by Mary’s perpetual virginity.".

And I wasn’t alone. Another commenter replied

"Nobody in the Catholic church is required to believe this.".

… which is certainly my understanding.

I admit that, though I studied well enough on my way to becoming a Catholic, and though I feel I have a good grasp of the fundamentals (thanks to folks like Ludwig Ott and Jimmy Akin), I am no apologist. I am not widely read, and there are doubtless a number of ancillary topics of which I know little or nothing. I am familiar with the Catechism (and have taught CCD classes, as well as Confirmation prep and RCIA), but I have not delved very deeply into either theology or Church history (the councils and the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church).

So, I was very interested to see a later commenter write –

"Actually, Free Grace is close to the mark on the perpetual virginity thing… the dogma of the perpetual virginity states that Mary remained a virgin before, *during*, and after Jesus’ birth, and the "during" is taken to refer to the retaining of the physical sign of Mary’s virginity…"

He went on to give THIS LINK to an article on the subject, by Fr. John Saward.

I followed the link and read the article. The commenter was right that a good number of Fathers and Doctors of the Church believed and taught that Mary remained physically intact (no disruption of the birth canal) even during Jesus birth. According to the article –

"It is of divine faith for Catholics to hold that our Lady not only conceived the divine Word as man "without seed, by the Holy Spirit" but also gave birth to Him "without corruption."."

The article continues –

"According to the Church’s Doctors, this freedom from corruption means that the God-Man leaves His Mother’s womb without opening it (utero clauso vel obsignato), without inflicting any injury to her bodily virginity (sine violatione claustri virginalis), and therefore without causing her any pain.".

So it appears that I was wrong in asserting that "Catholics believe no such thing"… some Catholics do. But can this be called the teaching of the Church on this point? Is it, in fact, defined doctrine?

The Church does indeed maintain that Mary remained a virgin before, during and after Jesus’ birth, giving birth to Christ "without corruption"… but what does this really mean? I am certainly open to the idea that Jesus was born in a miraculous way that was unlike natural childbirth… something like the way he could appear and disappear at will after his resurrection, seeming to move through walls.

But opinion has not been unanimous on the subject. The following are from Father Saward’s footnotes to the article;

"…St John Chrysostom, for example, is content to assert the fact of the miraculous preservation of our Lady’s virginity during childbirth and refuses to delve into the details; "…Although I know that a virgin this day gave birth, and I believe that God was begotten before all time, yet the manner of this generation I have learnt to venerate in silence, and I accept that this is not to be probed too curiously with wordy speech.".

"…Quite a few of the Fathers asked for an unambiguous declaration not only to affirm the Virginal Conception of Jesus—which the Christian faith has never doubted—but also fully to safeguard the aphorism Virgo ante partum, in partu et post partum. The Council thought that the terminology it employed could suffice for this end, without going into biological details. "

"…St Thomas says that the hymen pertains to virginity only per accidens, and that its rupture by any means other than sexual pleasure is no more destructive of virginity than the loss of a hand or foot (cf. ST 2a2ae q. 152, a. I, ad 3). However, he also holds that bodily integrity belongs to the perfection of virginity."

So, it appears to me that, though the council had the opportunity to affirm Mary’s virginal integrity through childbirth in clearly physical terms, they chose not to do so.

Also, some saints and doctors of the Church (like St. John Chrysostom, above), while holding that Mary remained always a virgin, were reluctant to delve too deeply into the exact mode of Jesus’ birth.

Perhaps for many, or even most, of the early Church Fathers and saints, it might have been impossible to imagine that a woman could be called a virgin once her female parts had been opened, either in the act of sex, or in the act of childbirth. They might, therefore, have been culturally conditioned to understand Mary’s virginal purity through childbirth in physical terms (just as we may be culturally conditioned to be skeptical of miraculous explanations).

In modern times, we have a narrower understanding of virginity that means merely "never having had sex". Indeed, if most of us today knew of a young woman who had conceived and given birth without the benefit of any male participation (no sex, no male seed to fertilize the egg) we would surely have no problem describing this as a "virgin birth", even though mother and child had experienced normal and natural childbirth. I would certainly never maintain that the woman could no longer truly call herself a virgin.

It seems to me, then, that Catholics, while they must uphold that the Blessed Virgin was truly "Ever Virgin", are free to believe either that,

1) Jesus slipped from his mother’s womb in some miraculous way that preserved her from any bodily disruption (in other words, without opening her womb).

or that,

2) Jesus experienced a natural childbirth, but that this in no way disqualifies Mary from the title "virgin".

or some combination of the two (like perhaps it was a natural childbirth, but Mary was miraculously preserved from its physical effects).

This is all new to me, but my understanding at present is that Catholics are not required to believe that Jesus slipped out of the womb like a vapor, or that Mary was physically unaltered through the birth process. I am open to either explanation, and can even see a certain poetic symmetry to the assertion, but I am not ready to say that it is anything like a dogma of the Church.