Ever Virgin

174 thoughts on “Ever Virgin”

1. Tim. Great post. I waited quietly on this one, as I went through the same eye-opening sequences that you did. A large number of the Fathers do hold that Mary’s perpetual virginity is physical as well, and we moderns are too quick to assume it refered only to a conception-event. We know that matter in some states passes an intact hymen, so why not in other states? Anyway, very solid reform post.

2. I could go either way. God told Eve, in response to her sin: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children.” (Gen. 3:16)
   On the one hand, it would make sense that the New Eve, without Original Sin, would be spared this result of Original Sin (more painful childbirth) – although this might not have anything to say about the intactness issue.
   On the other hand, God didn’t spare His son suffering, and He was perfectly sinless. Mary was no stranger to suffering – she suffered much on her son’s account. Childbirth could have been one of the first of those occasions.

3. Considering that she rode a donkey all the way to Bethlehem, it’s doubtful that her hymen would remain intact, even before Jesus’ birth.
   The physical integrity of the hymen is not what makes a virgin.

4. I’m inclined to point 1 myself if only because the Church only ever bestows the title of virgin to women. If the definition they used for virgin was “never having sexual intercourse” then it seems that the title could be given to men and women yet the church only gives the title to women.
   “she suffered much on her son’s account. Childbirth could have been one of the first of those occasions.”
   But remember, she doesn’t have original sin, so she isn’t under the whole “birth pangs being increased” promise.

5. Oops, sorry Leah, I skipped a sentence when reading, ignore my point on your quoted text then.
   Also,
   I too was suprised when someone told me this a few years ago. So I looked up some info on wikipedia and it turns out that although sexual intercourse will rupture a hymen, typically it is only childbirth that completely removes it. So it would seem that if you want to use the phrase “virgin birth” you would be implying that Jesus was born in a manner that did not remove the hymen. Which for a guy who walks through locked doors, slips through murderous crowds and is present in what looks like bread and wine isn’t that unusual at all.

6. This is not the first time I’ve heard of this. I’d always understood, actually, that Mary – being conceived without sin – did not suffer the pains of birth and that Christ left her body in a way similar to the way he appeared in one place or another (ala the upper room).
   I’m glad this wasn’t some original idea my teacher at the time cooked up.
   –Ann

7. Tim J.,
   Very solid post. I for one am thankful for the mysteries God has given us to contemplate.
   Take care and God bless,
   Inocencio
   J+M+J

8. One priest compared the virgin birth with light passing through a window. I don’t know where he got that idea, but it sounded interesting. I still don’t get it, but I like St. John Chrysostom’s idea. Maybe I don’t need to “get it.”

9. Tim,
   Unless you accept the traditional teaching of the Church, “virginity in partu” has no meaning. Do you really think the Church teaching means only that Mary didn’t have intercourse during the birth of Jesus, or that she didn’t experience sexual pleasure during the birth of Jesus? It would be nonsensical and unnecessary to say that.
   I suggest you consult works of Catholic dogmatic theology written before our present era of Modernism. Perhaps a solid pre-conciliar Latin text. Or any classical work of Mariology. You may not have heard about Catholic teaching on predestination either. At some point I’d be happy to give you the authorities for why this is a teaching to adhere to, and not just a pious opinion.

10. As you correctly pointed out, Tim, this is theological speculation. It may be true, it may not be. We are free to believe either, or just admit we don’t know.

11. There is a helpful (but short) article on this issue here http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DURBIRTH.HTM which notes the Church’s affirmation of Mary’s virginity before (virginitas ante partum), during ( virginitas in partu)and after (virginitas post partum) the birth of Christ but adds the claim that “the Church never has authoritatively ruled on the interpretation or specifics of virginitas in partu.”

12. A link to consider. Note the directive from the Holy Office condemning the new theories that sought to contradict to the traditional teaching of the Church. See also the ecumenical councils and papal teaching backing up this teaching.
    http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/VIRBIR.TXT
    There is always more to learn about the teaching of the Church, and growing up as we do in an impoverished theological environment, it’s easy for us to unintentionally imbibe the errors of the day. I only had to read the Syllabus of Modernist errors to see how much of my religious education was shot through with condemned propositions. Rather than starting from a perspective of doubting the teaching of theologians, councils, fathers, and doctors, perhaps the Catholic spirit is to begin with acceptance of the teaching, and then an inquiry? Fides quarens intellectum?

13. This is not an issue for theological speculation. That’s the voice of modernism speaking. Consult the authorities quoted.

14. A catena of binding authorities for the traditional teaching. Notice the emphasis on “integrity,” a physical word.
    http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=189

15. “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.”
    Lousy Modernists!

16. Breier-
    “Unless you accept the traditional teaching of the Church, “virginity in partu” has no meaning.”
    Not so. It can mean that even if Mary’s womb was opened by the birth of the Savior, this in no way affected her virginal purity.
    This was not the view at those periods in history when there was far more attention paid to the condition of the hymen in realtion to a woman’s bona fide status as a virgin.
    Families were required to give assurance, and sometimes even to furnish evidence(?) of the intact hymen in order to contract a marriage. If the hymen was broken by any means at all, this had serious consequences for the woman and her family. For many, this meant that the girl could no longer be considered a virgin, regardless of what had caused the physical disruption.
    This is why I said “They might, therefore, have been culturally conditioned to understand Mary’s virginal purity through childbirth in physical terms”.
    Please understand, though, that I am open, and perhaps even favorable, to what you call the traditional teaching of the Church on this. It’s just that I have only begun to look at the question. I sure don’t care what the modernists think. I am aware of my own vulnerability to cultural conditioning, as well.

17. Breier,
    “by reason of their serious responsibility to watch over the sacred deposit of Catholic doctrine, to see to it that for the future the publication of such dissertations on this problem be prohibited.”
    What would you suggest is the problem?
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J
    

18. “Notice the emphasis on “integrity,” a physical word.’
    Sorry, I don’t see “integrity” as being necessarily a physical term, at all.

19. Bill,
    The Lateran Council did explicitly address this question, as you’ll see from the link provided. St. John Chrosostom is being misinterpreted to support a flagrant deviation from the traditional teaching of the Church. Reluctance to talk about the details of the female anatomy is not a denial of Church teaching. Reluctance to talk about *how* Mary’s integrity was preserved is distinct from denying that it was preserved.
    What does “virginity during birth” mean for you, if not the traditional teaching of the Church? It’s liquidated of meaning otherwise.
    The question here is whether Mary maintained her physical integrity during birth. Because “integrity” is the physical word the Latern Council chose. I don’t understand the reluctance here. Are people afraid to admit miracles?

20. oops

21. Tim,
    What relationship does opening of the womb have to virginal purity, if not to the physical signs of virginity? You remark:
    “It can mean that even if Mary’s womb was opened by the birth of the Savior, this in no way affected her virginal purity.”
    Assume that Mary didn’t have virginity during birth. What would be different under this reading? Nothing!
    People in ancient times knew that sexual intercourse caused pregnancy, and they understood the difference between physical virginity and moral virginity.
    We’re bound to accept dogmas teachings of the Church is the traditional sense in which they were held, not reinterpret them to mean the opposite of their previous sense.
    As for the term, perhaps if you looked at the Latin, and the underlying Greek word, you would change your mind. Look at the article.
    Innocencio,
    The problem is how Mary’s physical integrity was actually preserved. It’s easy to be crude in addressing this question. For example, did Christ pass through Mary like light through a glass? Or did Mary’s womb open in some painless elastic manner and then return to its original state? Did she experience any of the pains of childbirth? Etc.
    I can understand if you’ve never heard this before, and if all you’ve read is a bunch of new books you may be inclided to relativize or historicize the traditional teaching away. I just ask that you look at some older texts on dogmatic theology, mariology, and look at the multitude of sources that show that the traditional teaching means exactly what it says.
    And to have a problem with this, I can only conclude that the idea of maintaining physical virginity is somehow seen as repugnant, or too mideval, or primative, etc. Hence the remarks about how the primitive Church fathers thought one way, but how we moderns know that virginity just means no sex.
    And I’m not even addressing the minimalistic attitude of: “If it isn’t defined, I have no moral obligation to adhere to it as true.” That is certainly not the case. What of the ordinary magisterium? What of catechisms? What of the universal teaching of theologians about what this doctrine means? We can’t so cavalierly reinterpret a fundamental teaching of our faith. Humility!

22. I’ll stand with my fellow “modernist” St. John Chrysostom and admit I don’t know.

23. Yes, Breier, Humility.
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J

24. There seems to be a whole lot of carnal mindedness going on.
    Why is it that Catholics can’t possibly conceive that Jesus didn’t embody the Logos until later in life. That’s the traditional path. Why did Mary have to give birth to it carnally?
    The only mystery to the virgin birth is how anyone can espouse such a bold-faced deception.

25. A literal virginal conception is A-OK, but a literal virgin birth causes doubts?
    Here’s the catechism, entry 499:
    The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.”155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin.”156

26. The only mystery to the virgin birth is how anyone can espouse such a bold-faced deception.
    Well that was easily asserted.

27. Breier,
    I don’t think it’s so much that people are embarrassed by the idea of physical virginity as that people aren’t sure how relevant it is.
    One clear meaning, it seems to me, in asserting that Mary remained a virgin during the birth of Christ is that it seems important to be clear that virginity was something that Mary retained, not something which God ‘magically’ returned or repaired. Thus, in whatever sense we are meant to take the term ‘virgin’ (either moral, or moral and physical) this virginity was Mary’s own and was not in any sense given back to her or repaired. She retained it.
    In this sense, it seems important to say that she remained a virgin before, during and after childbirth either way.
    Oddly enough, I had the exact opposite reaction as you when I went back and read the Syllibus of Errors a couple months ago. Given the billing it often receives online, I’d expected to find all sorts of incredibly controversial stuff, yet I not only found myself agreeing with pretty much all of it, but indeed found myself agreeing with most of it in a “duh, of course” kind of way, not a “wow, this goes against everything I’ve been taught” kind of way. I was almost a bit disappointed…

28. It is, as has been pointed out, Catholic teaching that Mary was a virgin, “ante partem, in partu, post partem, semper Virgo.”
    I don’t think we can simply ignore or dance around the meaning of “in partu” just because we haven’t heard of it or it makes us uncomfortable.
    We need to ask, first, what was the consensus of the Fathers and Doctors as to its meaning? And second, if it doesn’t mean Virgo Intacta, what does it mean?
    The question is not, Can we imagine another meaning for that phrase (though, can you, without making it so unimportant as to wonder why it was included in the list?). The question is, What could the people who used it have meant by it? Why did they consider it important? It means what it was designed to mean, not what 20th century guessers think it might mean when they are unfamiliar with the whole frame of mind.
    As for “defined teaching,” remember: Lots of undefined teaching is Infallible. It’s called the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium. If this was commonly taught as “of the faith” for centuries and centuries, then it’s probably binding on Catholics. We don’t need a document.
    That’s what JPII pointed out in the doc on the ordination of women. He didn’t define the principle infallibly himself. He merely told us that it was infallible under the Ordinary Magisterium.
    I think that Intact Physical Virginity is probably infallible and binding Catholic teaching. Many, many Fathers and great Masters of theology have taught that it was. I was surprised and uncomfortable when I found this out, too, believe me! But I think that’s the only honest answer.

29. When I say, “honest answer,” I mean, I’d be very happy to believe an alternative, but when I propose it to myself, it doesn’t pass the smell test with ME.
    I don’t mean anyone who disagrees is a liar.
    But I think people should think really carefully about what the standards for determining questions like these is IN THE ABSTRACT, before tackling one like this that seems surprising and makes them uncomfortable. Because we are all apt to fall prey to wishful thinking.

30. There seems to be a whole lot of carnal mindedness going on.
    Why is it that Catholics can’t possibly conceive that Jesus didn’t embody the Logos until later in life. That’s the traditional path. Why did Mary have to give birth to it carnally?
    Wow, an honest-to-goodness Gnostic! I’d say you don’t see that every day, but in fact, you do see the same substantive beliefs every day (ECUSA being well along their way, for example). Most folks just aren’t as straightforward as this commenter in admitting their homage to the past in that regard (the “traditional path” in this case being the Gnostic tradition).
    For Christians, the Logos is not an “it.” He’s a Person, fully God and fully man, eternally begotten of the Father before all the ages and born of the Virgin Mary. He is not “embodied” in Apollinarian fashion; neither does He somehow become the Son of God according to the heresy of the Adoptionists. He assumes human nature in its entirety, body AND soul. Mary gave birth to Him, not it, and He has a body.

31. I think the best way to look at it is probably not so much that Jesus did something miraculous (though, duh, He was fully capable of it) as that the Father willed that Mary remain virgin as Jesus was born.
    Light through a window, teleportation, atoms moving aside and back again — all very easy for God to do in whatever Person. If the Holy Spirit wanted to be the obstetrician, or Jesus, or Whoever… well, it would be done.
    But other than the bare fact that Mary remained virgin, I don’t think I’m particularly concerned about the how. Not really my business.
    Similarly, if God wanted to spare Mary childbirth pangs, she was spared them as the new Eve. If not, then she shared in her son’s embrace of human suffering despite being unstained with original sin. Either way, it wasn’t me who carried Jesus for nine months, so it’s probably not any of my beeswax.

32. Hmm. I’ve got a lot of difficulty with ideas about Jesus “teleporting” out of the womb rather than experiencing an ordinary, material birth. As far as we know, he didn’t start appearing and disappearing from places until after the Resurrection — that seemed to be a special property of his post-Resurrection body.
    If we’re talking about miracles, though, Intact Physical Virginity needn’t imply that specifically. I think one could simply suppose, for example, that the relevent anatomy was miraculously rendered sufficiently elastic to escape damage. So if the “teleportation” idea bothers you, remember that it’s not the only possible means.
    But like Maureen says, it’s probably not that helpful to overly worry about the how. After all, we’re dealing with a situation that is an exception to the ordinary natural order in so many other ways already.

33. I see Sophia is back.
    She is indeed a Gnostic, as well as a Troll, so I encourage everyone not to respond to her posts further, unless you relish the idea of every JA.O post dissolving into a tit-for-tat squabble focusing on responding to Sophia as she accuses the Church of lying about everything, all the time.
    She is from a different planet, and calls into question every teaching of the Church, so a constructive rapproachment is impossible.
    In the words of Confucius, “He who goes to work on a different strand destroys the whole fabric”.
    Let her pass.

34. “Let her pass.”
    As you wish. I was just shocked to see an admitted Gnostic, as opposed to the closet Gnostics you often see. Mea culpa for nourishing the troll. 🙂

35. Jonathan-
    No problem, I hope I didn’t come off as pushy. You are certainly free to engage Sophia, or any other troll, but I have been down that road with her and found out it was NOT a road, but one of those hamster wheels. Great if you like the exercise, but it really won’t go anywhere.
    I just hate to see another interesting thread degenerate into a debate about Gnosticism. We have some genuinely fruitful discussion going on, and I’d hate to get sidetracked.

36. Jonathan, Check out the post “A Very Naughty Historian” from May 11, 2006, and you’ll see what Tim means.

37. “I suggest you consult works of Catholic dogmatic theology written before our present era of Modernism.”
    Not Ott apparently, who states that the in partu teaching is de fide, but not any explicit physiological understanding of it. Which texts would you recommend?

38. Breier –
    I will be very happy to read anything you can recommend on the subject, as long as I can find it on the web.

39. Goings,
    Ott is a single German theologian. I think the reason he gets so much press is that his is one of the few works translated into English. His work is of value as a compression, not as something of profound and individual genius. English is a language deprived of great works of orthodox theology. We scrape by with what we can get.
    There are a lot of works better than Otts, but people fawn over that work because its all we have.
    As for that passage in Fundamentals, it is incoherent, and contradicts itself. Notice all the evidence piled up for the traditional teaching afterwards, after its been denied.
    Jeff has it right, to understand the coherence of “virginity in birth,” we have to take a broader notion of virginity than simple absence of the sex-act. It refers to physical integrity.
    Ott’s work was published and translated at a time when the traditional teaching was being doubted, and before the 1960 monitum of the Holy Office condemning deviations from the traditional teaching. It reflects the strengths and faults of its age. The 1950s were strong, but there was a strong uncurrent of the forces which were unleashed in the postconciliar period.
    As for a competing basic reference, how about the superbly annotated Sacra Theologiae Summa, the four volume Latin text published by BAC from the Jesuit fathers of Salamanca?
    Or the basic books used to teach priests, like the Latin texts of Tanqueray? Juniper Carol’s books on Mary are also very valuable.

40. For a modern book on Mary that’s very good, check out Theotokos by Michael O’Carroll.

41. sometimes even to furnish evidence(?)
    Midwives checked.
    St. Augustine, arguing that rape victims were not obliged to kill themselves, pointed out that sometimes midwives destroyed virginities while checking them, and even the pagans agreed that did not affect even the bodily virtue.

42. furnish evidence? More wide-spread was the post-marital display of the bedsheet used on the wedding night. the ruptured hymen would leave a blood stain.
    Do you think our blessed Mother really wants us spending our time talking about her hymen? It’s a non-issue now, so why fight about it, just because it’s one more thing to pit the VaticanII haters against the rest of us?

43. “If the definition they used for virgin was “never having sexual intercourse” then it seems that the title could be given to men and women yet the church only gives the title to women.”
    Aren’t Memores Domini referred to as consecrated lay-virgins? Memores Domini are both women and men.

44. Serious question:
    Other than as supporting evidence that Jesus was the Son of God (fulfillment of prophesies in the OT), why does the virginity of Mary MATTER?
    Does belief in Mary’s virginity (pre-, post- or during) get you into Heaven?
    My understanding is that faith in Jesus and His promise of redemption was the key… all of this speculation about Mary seems a moot point in personal salvation. Why the heated debate?
    Meretrice

45. I think, April, that you will find that Catholic teaching says you have to believe ALL the teaching of the Catholic Church or you go to Hell. UNLESS you are invincibly ignorant.
    That’s why, when Bl. Pius IX defines the Immaculate Conception, for example, he places the Curse of the Church–“Anathema Sit!”–on anyone who even doubts it and tells them that if they do, they have made shipwreck of the Catholic Faith.
    That’s what we mean by de fide, of the Faith. If you don’t believe it, you’ve lost your faith. No one on this list, I don’t think, would doubt for a minute that we MUST believe that Mary was a Virgin after Christ’s birth in order to be saved. It’s part of the Catholic Faith. But WHY it’s so important–well, opinions may differ on that.
    Why should these things be that important? Why should they be connected so intimately with our salvation? I’m not sure! There are lots of answers, some more, some less convincing.
    But the Church is and always has been Dogmatic, though that scandalizes some people. The trick is: Trust and Accept. The Church is wiser than we and She speaks with the Voice of Him Who sent Her and Whose Body She is.
    I may never understand why it’s so important to believe in Transsubstantiation rather than Consubstantiation. And the more I study it the less I may be sure of what it all even means! But I submit nevertheless, in perfect confidence, no matter how opaque or even silly it might seem on occasion.

46. Here’s an interesting quote:
    “Magisterium: 1) Lateran Council, Oct, 649, DS 503: “If anyone does not in
    accord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the holy and ever virgin and
    immaculate Mary was really and truly the Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in
    the fullness of time,and without seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God in
    the Word Himself, who before all time was born of God the Father, and
    without loss of integrity brought Him forth, and after His birth preserved
    her virginity inviolate, let him be condemned.”
    COMMENT: It is important to note the word integrity, which means
    the state of being untouched, and so is a physical word. It
    rules out lesions, blood and similar things. The Greek text,
    which is of equal authority, has “aphthoros,” without
    corruption.
    It was not a General Council, but the Pope was present and approving, hence
    the teaching under anathema makes it equivalent to that of a general
    council.”
    Link to Discussion of Virgitas in Partu
    Now, I submit that you simply can’t come up with a definition of the word “integrity” in Latin or Greek in this context that can mean anything coherent except “no loss of the physical signs of virginity, i.e, hymen, and no physical harm, i.e., loss of blood.
    And this is not the only local council that defined a heresy bindingly. Any classical list of heresies includes “Semi-Pelagianism” which was condemned under anathema in union with the Pope and has always been considered heretical teaching meriting condemnation.
    Now, I can see being surprised and disturbed by this doctrine and not seeing the point of it. But I do really think that it is de fide Catholic teaching.

47. Sorry, Semi-Pelagianism was condemned under anathema not by an ecumenical council, but by the local Council of Orange. However, since it condemned that heresy in union with the Pope, Semi-Pelagianism is a heresy true and proper and is always held so to be.

48. Ezekiel ch. 44 –

    “Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, facing the east, but it was closed. He said to me: This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed. Only the prince may sit down in it to eat his meal in the presence of the Lord. He must enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and leave by the same way .

    According to the John Martignoni on most recent Q&A 6/27/06 on Catholic Answers Live, manay of the Church fathers saw this as a reference to Mary. You’d have to write him for the references. His site is at biblechristiansociety.com. If the Church Fathers are correct, then Jesus left the same way He got there, through the “gate”. My observation is, note also that only the prince may sit down IN it. Not on it, not within it, but IN it, according to this NAB version anyway.
    Another point I’d like to add is that not all women are born with hymens, and some are even born with very elastic ones which do not tear. A smaller baby can certainly facilitate this. (Indeed, this lack of proof of a tearing was occasion for scandal on many a wedding night in some cultures where proof of virginity must be presented the night after the wedding in the form of stained sheets).
    These two possibilities might apply to Mary. Even if one is adamant about the whole hymen idea, there are exceptions.
    But as to the assumption that Jesus wouldn’t have been fully human if Mary didn’t tear: I don’t get it how that follows. How does that impact Jesus’ humanity at all in the first place? If we have a woman in the situation above, bearing a child with no tears in her hymen, does that mean she didn’t just bear a human child? What else would you call it? I take issue with that assumption because it doesn’t make sense. Is it because it is assumed that Catholics would have to necessarily believe that Christ wasn’t birthed through the birth canal, and to be fully human is to be birthed through a birth canal? If you want to say that, why not extend it to say that he wasn’t fully human since his conception didn’t occur as a result of human actions like all other conceptions do?

49. “…without inflicting any injury to her bodily virginity (sine violatione claustri virginalis), and therefore without causing her any pain.”.
    What about this passage from Revelation?
    A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Rev 12:1-2

50. “Other than as supporting evidence that Jesus was the Son of God (fulfillment of prophesies in the OT), why does the virginity of Mary MATTER?”
    Well, Meretrice, you’ve asked why Mary’s virginity is important EXCLUDING the two greatest reasons why it is important.
    It’s like asking “Other than the fact that we will die without it, why is breathing such a big deal?”.
    If true, Mary’s virginity is proof of the divine nature of Jesus Christ, it establishes Jesus as the God-Man. God did not merely inhabit a human body, like a tent, or control a human body, like a puppet – but actually and truly became one of us. He is kin.
    The fulfillment of prophecy established Jesus as the Messiah of the Jewish faith. He was the One who was to come. He was “The root and the offspring of David”.
    Now, it is not necessary to anyone’s salvation to know about Jesus’ role as the Jewish Messiah, but to believe in Jesus as truly God and truly man IS essential.
    One could be saved without knowing about the virgin birth, but it is a very significant indication of Who Jesus Is, and is therefore very important.

51. Good post, Tim; your reaction when I first raised the issue was the same as many of my students when I discuss it. Thanks for elaborating on your thoughts.

52. “Do you think our blessed Mother really wants us spending our time talking about her hymen? ”
    Well, I was a bit reluctant to post on the subject, but we are all adults, here. It is a topic that I have not seen addressed online before and that a combox Catholic basher caught me flat-footed on.
    If it is the kind of thing that is likely to be taken out of context, grossly misunderstood or intentionally twisted by opponents of the Church, then it is something that needs thinking through, at least for the sake of apologetics.
    The anti-Catholic in question took the belief in Mary’s intact physical virginity and used it to accuse Catholics of promoting the Gnostic heresy that Christ had no real physical body.
    This is bunk, but hard to respond to convincingly if you are not familiar with the whole question. For this sreason, I considered it worthy of a post.

53. The perpetual physical integrity of our Lady is conveyed in Western religious art by the frequent depiction of a glazed window. In Eastern iconography, the BVM always appears wearing a maphorion bearing exactly THREE stars (one over each shoulder and one on the forehead), specifically to remind the viewer of her virginity before, during, and after the birth our the Lord. It’s always been my understanding that this Marian doctrine is beyond dispute.

54. Joy,
    Thank you, I was thinking of that passage myself, which most understand to be symbolizing Mary. Also, what about the significance of first-born males who open the womb so important to the Jews?

55. Breier –
    You said, “Hence the remarks about how the primitive Church fathers thought one way, but how we moderns know that virginity just means no sex…”.
    To be fair, I never said that. I pointed out that our understanding may be different from theirs, I never implied that ours was the correct understanding.
    Jeff –
    You said, “I don’t think we can simply ignore or dance around the meaning of “in partu” just because we haven’t heard of it or it makes us uncomfortable.”.
    My intention is not to dance around anything, but to get a clear sense of just what we should affirm that we believe in this instance. The idea of Jesus having a miraculous birth to go along with His miraculous conception does not make me uncomfortable in the slightest.
    If I can believe in one, I am glad to leave room for the other.

56. Joy asked “What about this passage from Revelation?” – I am posting from my phone so I can’t comment in detail but see this short article by Jimmy

57. Joy asked “What about this passage from Revelation?” – I am posting from my phone so I can’t comment in detail but see this short article by Jimmy

58. Guys. And gals. TIME OUT.
    I can speak authoritatively here and I’m sick of watching this train wreck. I can tell you all that not all women have this tearing and bleeding. IT. DOESN’T. ALWAYS. HAPPEN. So quit insisting that 1.) every woman’s born with a hymen 2.) which ruptures at some point. JUST STOP, IT’S BUGGING ME IMMENSELY.

59. P.S. Why am I an authority? I’m still “intact” and have this technical “physical proof”, which according to you, would pass me off as a virgin–although I’ve been married for some years! Never bled, never tore. It just stretched. I can’t believe I’m writing this but maybe this will save you all some time.

60. “…quit insisting that 1.) every woman’s born with a hymen 2.) which ruptures at some point. JUST STOP, IT’S BUGGING ME IMMENSELY.”
    Ummm… nobody said either of those things at any time. I think you may have missed the point of the post, so you might want to go back and re-read it.
    Or not.
    Obviously the topic gets you all heated up, so maybe it’s better to sit this one out.

61. Tim –
    I don’t dispute Mary’s virginity at the time Christ was conceived. I’m on the same page with you guys on this one.
    What I am trying to find out is why it is an issue whether she was a virgin during birth (which frankly, I am scandalized that people even came to think about the mechanics of that one) and afterwards?
    In the eyes of the Catholic church, am I in trouble because I don’t think Mary was a virgin all her living days? And that I don’t think it is even *relevent* if she was a virgin following Christ’s birth?
    FYI — I come to this from a Protestant point of view. I have never understood Catholicism’s fascination with Mary, and as others have put it so amusingly, her hyman. 🙂
    Meretrice

62. Tim:
    I wasn’t accusing you of “dancing around.” It was a general comment, addressed to myself primarily, and secondarily, in general to people who might be tempted to rationalize, or interpet an old Latin word in a modern English sense, because of discomfort with the concepts.
    I think that your post and comments are beautiful modest and faithful and open. A model of those three things, in fact.
    I hope you’ll look into the quote from the Lateran Council and the question of infallibility raised in the EWTN link I posted above.

63. Aargh:
    I think the point is not that it is “physically impossible” for a woman to give birth and keep, what would normally be, “signs of virginity.”
    It’s also not the point that it might be physically possible for a woman to conceive, naturally or artificially, without the assistance of a man.
    The point is that the Fathers taught and it looks like the Church teaches that the physical signs associated with Mary remained. Was that a miracle? Who knows?
    But it is one true thing about Mary. After all, it wasn’t a miracle that she was a virgin after the birth of Christ, always a virgin. But that’s a truth of the Faith.

64. Tim:
    “One could be saved without knowing about the virgin birth’
    This is true. One could also be saved if one knew nothing about Jesus.
    But one CANNOT be saved if one DENIES the Virgin Birth and is a Catholic in a position to know it is a dogma of the Faith.

65. April,
    “And that I don’t think it is even *relevent* if she was a virgin following Christ’s birth?”
    Have you ever heard of our Blessed Mother Mary referred to as the Ark of the Covenant?
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J

66. Inocenzio,
    “Have you ever heard of our Blessed Mother Mary referred to as the Ark of the Covenant?”
    Nope.
    April

67. Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant
    Parallels between the Ark of the Old Covenant and Mary, as the Ark of the New Covenant, as shown in her visit to Elizabeth.
    Inside the Arks of the Old and New Covenants.
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J

68. Meretrice –
    Obviously, on the face of it upholding Catholic teaching is far more vital for Catholics than for non-Catholics. From your perspective, this may appear as a secondary truth, at best, but to a Catholic, all Truth is one thing, and we uphold it or not.
    In this way, even Truth is Catholic (in the sense of being all of one piece, or “universal”).
    So, I would say first that it is terribly important to be Catholic, and THEN it is vital to uphold Catholic teaching. Outside of the One Apostolic Faith, the urgency to uphold Mary’s perpetual virginity (or any other doctrine, in the long run) dissipates, because the doctrine isn’t part of this great continent of Truth any longer, but is just another island in the sea.
    So, did God have to do it this way in order to secure our salvation? Of course not. I none the less believe that this is what He in fact DID do, and so I think there must be some colossally important reason for it, perhaps more important than I could comfortably imagine.
    If God saw fit to fill John the Baptist (Jesus’ cousin) with the Holy Spirit from birth, and to make him a consecrated virgin and for the sake of proclaiming the Messiah, then how much more might God do for Jesus’ own Mother? Why WOULDN’T Mary be sinless? Why WOULDN’T she be a consecrated vessel for the Messiah? And God has taught us through His Old Testament law that the very definition of a consecrated vessel is that it is NOT for common use.
    For you, Mary’s perpetual virginity may seem to be neither here nor there, but for a Catholic, to NOT accept this is to actively reject the truth, which is a different bag of ‘taters.
    Hope this helps.

69. Apologies for the instances of ALL CAPS, above, but I am too lazy to do the html thing for italics.

70. Thanks for your answer Tim, that clears some things up for me. I got into a lengthy discussion with my sister (maybe you know her? *wink*) about this last night and she explained things somewhat also.
    Final comment from me, “Why wouldn’t Mary be [this or that]?” I don’t know. Maybe she was. Maybe she wasn’t. I wasn’t there. But the Bible doesn’t say she was sinless or a virgin all her live-long days, so either it 1) wasn’t important enough to write down, or 2) it wasn’t true. That’s my take on it.
    Meretrice

71. “Hail, Full of Grace!” To be *full* of grace is to be sinless.

72. April-
    The fact that it was, in your view, not “important enough” to write down, doesn’t mean it was not handed down.
    It is part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church… something that has always been understood and believed by the faithful, but is not explicitly present in scripture.
    Guidelines for the liturgy in the Bible are extremely sketchy… and yet, the Church had this vital and definite structure to it’s worship since the beginning (not that it hasn’t developed a lot). Much of this structure along with the prayers and hymns was “extra biblical” and was handed down through the living tradition of faithful. The fact that it was not printed in the Bible did not mean that it was not authentically Apostolic, or that the liturgy was “unimportant”.

73. April,
    Can you point to where the Holy Bible says it contains all the Truth a person needs to know?
    Especially since the canon of Sacred Scripture was not set for over 350 years after our Blessed Lord’s Ascension into heaven.
    Because John 21:25 makes it clear Sacred Scripture dosen’t contain everything:
    But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
    Or do you think God Incarnate did things that were not important enough to write down?
    Food for thought, what does the Sacred Scripture say is the pillar and bulwark of Truth (1 Tim 3:15) and even makes the wisdom of God known to angels (Eph 3:10)? The House of the Living God the Church He established (Matt 16:18).
    And if you and I disagree how are we to settle the matter? Discuss it privately, then with others and then take it to the Church, if some one will not hear the Church he is like a heathen and publican (Matt. 18:17).
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J

74. bill912: Are you suggesting that having intercourse with your lawful spouse (as in, Mary with Joseph) is a sin?
    Inocencio:
    In context, 1 Tim 3:15 is discussing the conduct expected of leaders (bishops and deacons) of the church (which included them having one wife and keeping their children in order! but that’s another debate). In Eph 3:10, Paul is wishing that the *church* would know of heaven (and the angels), not the other way around. In Matt 16:18, Jesus did establish Peter as a leader of his church, I am sure you can see that I do not think the Catholic church is that same one. (No offense intended, but I am Protestant after all)
    I agree with Jesus in Matthew 18:17 in which He establishes a pattern for resolving *trespasses* (not disagreements) between men. I don’t take spiritual matters to the Catholic church, its priests or Mary; I take them to God and Jesus through solemn prayer.
    This is getting a little off-topic. I was just seeking to learn why the Catholic church would establish as dogma Mary’s perpetual virginity, which is doubtful at best, when her virginity after giving birth has nothing to do with the message and mission of Jesus. I still don’t understand what the big deal is, although I have my own theories which I don’t think would be appreciated by this audience.
    Meretrice
    http://www.meretrice.com
    Meretrice

75. No, April. How did you make that leap of illogic?
    1Tim 3:15 says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

76. bill912:
    ‘”Hail, Full of Grace!” To be *full* of grace is to be sinless.’
    This is one of the addresses in the adoration of Mary, right? This whole debate is whether or not Mary ever had intercourse, following the birth of Jesus. You seem to be implying that if she had sex with her husband, Mary wouldn’t be considered “sinless”/”full of grace”
    If that was what you are trying so say, my question still stands: “Are you suggesting that having intercourse with your lawful spouse (as in, Mary with Joseph) is a sin?”
    Meretrice

77. “I was just seeking to learn why the Catholic church would establish as dogma Mary’s perpetual virginity, which is doubtful at best…”
    Actually, this is a belief that was held by the faithful since the earliest days of the Church. The Catholic Church did not invent this teaching, but affirmed it as dogma. The teaching was always there.
    “…when her virginity after giving birth has nothing to do with the message and mission of Jesus…”
    Ummm… I don’t know how confidently I would assert that, if I were you… that being a huge negative statement with no evidence to support it. You might be surprised.
    “…although I have my own theories which I don’t think would be appreciated by this audience.”.
    I also have my own theories about why people would like to REJECT this teaching, but those probably wouldn’t be appreciated, either.

78. “No, April.”(as I posted above). I was countering your statement “But the Bible doesn’t state she was sinless…” I still can’t follow your leap to: “Are you suggesting that having intersourse with you lwaful spouse (as in, Mary with Joseph) is a sin?”

79. “How can this be, since I know not man?” If Mary did not expect to remain a virgin, her question makes no sense.

80. bill912: “How can this be, since I know not man?” If Mary did not expect to remain a virgin, her question makes no sense.
    LOL! C’mon now… she was speaking in the present tense. That isn’t a difficult piece of scripture to understand unless you are actively trying, as hard as you can, to read something more into it.
    Why would Mary expect to remain a virgin when she was engaged to Joseph? This is just getting silly to me.
    Meretrice

81. “Why would Mary expect to remain a virgin when she was engaged to Joseph?”
    Well, they were engaged and then something NEITHER of them expected sort of rearranged their lives. Giving birth to the SON OF GOD might very plausibly have that effect on people.
    It was not the quiet life I’m sure they were planning.
    Besides, as I said, this was the belief from the earliest times… on what basis do you reject the witness of all those early Christians?

82. April,
    Think it through.
    In the OT, God promised Abraham and Sarah a child. Did that mean that Sarah conceived immediately? No, the promise wasn’t fulfilled for years and years.
    Now think about Mary’s situation. Try to prescind for a moment from what you know about the virgin birth. Assume for the moment that Mary is an ordinary Jewish bride-to-be looking forward to bearing her husband’s children.
    Suddenly, an angel appears to her and announces that she’s going to have a son!
    What’s her response?
    “Blessed be the Lord! Our marriage will be blessed with children!”
    No: “How shall this be? For I know not a man.”
    That is really an extraordinary response when you think about it.
    What on earth could possibly make Mary think the angel meant “not as a result of your coming marriage, but before [or at least apart from] that?”
    I mean, that’s just crazy. Mary knows perfectly well where babies come from, and if the angel says she’s going to have a baby, you’d think it would be perfectly obvious to her what the angel “must” mean.
    Certainly nothing the angel said indicated that he meant “right now” or “before/apart from your coming marriage.” The “obvious” meaning should be, well, obvious.
    Yet somehow Mary was sure that the angel meant no such thing.
    Immediately rejecting what would seem to be the most plausible interpretation of the angel’s words — “Like Sarah, I bring you a promise of future children in years to come” — Mary immediately realizes that the angel must be speaking of a great wonder — a wonder that has nothing to do with the ordinary means of procreation.
    In a word, she knows that the angel cannot possibly be talking about her future children with Joseph.
    Because she knows that she and Joseph won’t be having any children.
    Because “I know not a man” doesn’t just mean “I’m still a virgin at the moment, I’m not married yet.” It means something that poses a more formidable difficulty to the angel’s words, or to their “obvious” interpretation.

83. Let me imagine a situation where someone who has access to future knowledge says to me, “Nick, you will have tobacco-stained teeth.”
    Then I respond, in surprise, “How can this be? I do not smoke.”
    In this example, present tense verbs indicate a present tense that is expected to continue into the future.

84. on what basis do you reject the witness of all those early Christians?
    The Bible is the inspired Word of God. Everything after that is not. While writings of the early Christians may contain wisdom and interpretations worth reading, they are not the Word of God. The Word of God says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. It never says that Mary was a virgin forever. If the early Christians dispute the Word of God, then I must reject them.
    As I have said before, it is Mary’s unending virginity is a nonsensical (to me) teaching that has nothing to do with Christ’s message or mission, so what is the point of it?
    It is my personal opinion that the early Christians grew more and more sexist and determined to exclude women from the church. Hence, Mary’s eternal virginity sets ordinary women up against a standard in which they will invariably fail, thus creating the Madonna/Whore symdrome.
    Sex is normal and a blessing within marriage. The Catholic church with its dogma that Mary must have been a virgin her whole life, despite being married, says to me that the Catholic church has a real problem with sexuality specifically (a shout out to all the priests and nuns in the room!), and women’s sexuality in particular. God created sex, and no church I would be interested in would demonize it to the extent that it is unacceptable even within marriage.
    Meretrice

85. April,
    No comment on John 21:25? And what translation are you reading of Ephesians? You have to “twist the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16) to come up with wishing the church know of heaven.
    8: To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
    9: and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; 10: that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. 11: This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord
    “I don’t take spiritual matters to the Catholic church, its priests or Mary; I take them to God and Jesus through solemn prayer.”
    But if your brother sins against you the Church has the authority of Christ to settle the matter.
    17: If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18: Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
    Ignore the Sacred Scriptures if you wish but don’t pretend that they say the Church sent the Apostles with His authority. History points to only one Church that has existed since the time of Christ. If you think there is evidence that points to any church other than the Catholic Church please present it.
    And who did the first christians turn to for the Truth since the canon of Scripture was not set for three centuries after our Blessed Lord’s Ascension?
    Luke 10:16 makes it clear we are obligated to hear those our Lord sent with his authority.
    “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J

86. Ignore the Sacred Scriptures if you wish but don’t pretend that they say the Church sent the Apostles with His authority.
    Sorry this sentence is horrible.
    The Sacred Scriptures make it clear that Christ sent the Apostles with His Authority.
    That is what I get for trying to think with a room full of kids playing in the background.
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J

87. Of course the truth is exactly the opposite of what April says: The Church is almost the only defender of the goodness and sacredness of sex in the world.
    Modernity doesn’t embrace sex. It makes war on it, defiles it, fractures it, separating the unitive from the procreative, separating sex now from total gift of self for the whole of life, separating the actual partners with barriers of latex, waging chemical war on the healthy and natural functioning of the reproductive systems, substituting dysfunction for health.
    The Church alone affirms, defends and celebrates the great gift of sex in its total dimension, unitive and procreative, husband and wife as total gift of self, body and soul, without reservation, without division, unow and forever, as long as they both shall live.

88. God created sex, and no church I would be interested in would demonize it to the extent that it is unacceptable even within marriage.
    How do you reconcile your belief with Sacred Scripture?
    10:The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” 11: But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12: For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.“
    And of course St. Paul:
    7: I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. 8: To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.
    Both recommend choosing virginity for the sake of the kingdom of God. Marriage is a great good and celibacy for love of God is even better.
    Thank you to all the priests and nuns who read this blog for your witness of complete love of God in this world.
    Have you ever read any of Pope John Paul II THEOLOGY OF THE BODY? The Church does not “demonize” physical intamcy between a husband and wife. It says that it is sacred.
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J

89. “The Word of God says that Jesus had brothers and sisters.”
    The original language of Bible uses the same word for “cousin” and “brother”. There is no scriptural evidence that Mary had any further children, as evidenced by the fact that, as Jesus died, he handed Mary over to the care, not of any siblings (which would have been the normal course, and expected in that society) but to John the Apostle.
    And, since when did anyone say that there is something wrong with sex in marriage? Not ME, I can tell you!
    Why does Mary being a consecrated virgin mean that Sex is Bad? It doesn’t follow.
    John the Baptist was a teetotaler, I understand, but you don’t see people saying that this must mean that the Church condemns the drinking of wine.
    Is Joseph being a carpenter a sign that the early Church had a bias toward manual labor?
    Concerning your theories about the early Church, it sounds like you and Dan Brown have been tapping the same keg. It’s all modernist fantasy.

90. “While writings of the early Christians may contain wisdom and interpretations worth reading, they are not the Word of God.”
    So, anything that is not the Word of God is therefore false?
    Interesting.

91. Tim J:
    “So, anything that is not the Word of God is therefore false?”
    No, anything that directly contradicts the Word of God is therefore false. (I think we can agree on THAT, even if we don’t agree that the Marian dogma is a direct contradiction to the Scriptures)
    “Why does Mary being a consecrated virgin mean that Sex is Bad? It doesn’t follow.”
    Mary being FALSELY “consecrated” as a virgin indicates to me that the Catholic church has a negative attitude towards women and sex. It seems to me that Catholics will take simple passages regarding Joseph and Mary’s family life and twist it, and skew it, and over-interpret it to fit this dogmatic teaching. And to what purpose?
    As for Dan Brown, he and I are both not huge fans of the Catholic church. However, even I was very upset at his depictions of faithful Christians in his book Angels and Demons. Given how most Catholics are very distainful of Dan Brown (including you, “tapping the same keg”), I believe your comparison of me to him was an ad hominem. Is that really necessary? This was a very civil debate until then.
    Meretrice

92. Mary being FALSELY “consecrated” as a virgin indicates to me that the Catholic church has a negative attitude towards women and sex.

    Let’s be clear, April, that this belief wasn’t invented by the medievals or something, but goes back to living memory of the apostles themselves. Unless the apostles themselves all had negative attitudes toward sex and women, it would seem they did a shockingly poor job of passing down the teachings Jesus entrusted to them.
    And I guess you also have to include the Reformers as having a negative attitude toward sex, then, since they too believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.
    But all of this is really unnecessarily judgmental. Even if you think that the belief is wrong, I don’t see why you have to posit a psychological motive for it — especially since this motive requires you to ignore the express declarations of the Church to the contrary.
    In other words, “Never mind that the Church says it affirms the goodness and sacredness of sex in marriage. Based on the fact that I think the church has gotten Mary’s virginity wrong, the church must be down on sex.”
    That’s not really particularly civil at all, is it? Not to take people at their word about what they say they really believe.

    It seems to me that Catholics will take simple passages regarding Joseph and Mary’s family life and twist it, and skew it, and over-interpret it to fit this dogmatic teaching. And to what purpose?

    If you’ve got an alternate explanation regarding the points I raised above, I’d be interested to hear them.

93. Well, Meretrice, I didn’t mean to be uncivil, but I found your reasoning (regarding the early Church being anti-woman) to be identical to Dan Brown’s.
    That’s why I said you seemed to be drinking from the same keg. It could have been “the same poisoned well”, or what have you.
    There are no Catholic Priestesses, therefore the Catholic Church hates women and is afraid of sex.
    Huh?
    Where do all these huge Catholic families come from? SOMEBODY be havin’ some sex! The Church is a veritable Cheerleader of sex. Hot, steamy, procreatin’ sex! No chemicals or man-made devices… as natural as granola, and as often as possible.
    “Mary being FALSELY “consecrated” as a virgin indicates to me that the Catholic church has a negative attitude towards women and sex.”
    If Mary HAD been falsely declared perpetually a virgin, I might follow you, but seeing as the earliest Christians witnessed to the fact that she WAS a consecrated virgin, I must disagree.
    It is NOT unbiblical, it contradicts no scripture (as has been explained), and it is well attested in the early church. Why do you find it impossible to consider?
    There is a kind of downward spiral of bias that I have noted since the Deformation that goes like this;
    “It’s not in scripture, therefore we can’t be sure of it”. (Martin Luther)
    “It’s not in scripture, therefore it is false”
    (Most of your storefront anti-Catholics)
    “It’s Catholic, therefore it is false”
    (Jack Chick)
    and inevitably –
    “It’s in scripture, therefore it’s false”
    (J.D. Crossan)
    That’s where it always ends up.

94. “LOL”.
    “This is just getting silly to me.”
    “…the Madonna/Whore syndrome.”
    “…the Catholic Church has a real problem with sexuality specifically(a shout to all the priests and nuns in the room!)…”
    “This was a very civil debate until then.”
    Civil? Frankly, April, I’ve had it with your bad manners.

95. Me: “It seems to me that Catholics will take simple passages regarding Joseph and Mary’s family life and twist it, and skew it, and over-interpret it to fit this dogmatic teaching. And to what purpose?”
    SDG: “If you’ve got an alternate explanation regarding the points I raised above, I’d be interested to hear them.”
    If you have Scriptural text that states that Mary was a perpetual virgin, I would be interested in seeing them.
    I do think that the Reformers inherited the misogynistic attitudes of their forebears, unfortunately.
    Despite what Rome says about the goodness of sex, the adoration of Mary by Catholics is distinct from the respect she is showed by Protestants. And the difference is in that Catholics believe (and taught to do so by the Church) that she was a virgin forever. Thus, Mary is special, revered and set aside for adoration for the sake of that alone. I would even argue that she is outright worshipped by Catholics, but let’s save that one for another day, please. (Email me on that one if you want)
    As this belief is unsupported by Scripture, I ask myself why Catholics have this very different and extreme viewpoint about her. If the difference between Protestant Mary and Catholic Mary is whether or not she ever had sex, then sex is the crux of the issue. To be full of grace, to be sinless, is to be asexual (even within marriage!) Priests are expected to be asexual. Nuns are expected to be asexual. Can you not see why I would reasonably think that the Catholic church, despite what it claims, has a negative attitude towards sex?
    Meretrice

96. bill912: Civil? Frankly, April, I’ve had it with your bad manners.
    Excuse me, but show me where I made any ad hominem statements in this discussion. I have a sense of humor and I refuse to relinquish the freedom to use it. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to respond to me. 😛
    Tim J – You say Mary’s perpetual virginity is supported by Scripture. I really would like to read any passages you may cite to show that.
    I didn’t say anything about the lack of Catholic priestesses, although I don’t get that one either.
    Also, I understand why you compared my reasoning to Dan Brown’s (although he is hardly the first or only person to say that Rome isn’t favorable to women), I think it was the keg tapping thing that seemed ad hominem. But it’s all good now.
    By the way Tim, although it is clear that this is something we will never agree on, I appreciate the time and effort you’ve taken to respond to me, and I do respect your views.
    Meretrice

97. April,
    “Priests are expected to be asexual. Nuns are expected to be asexual.” No one is forced to accept a religious vocation they choose it after years of discernment knowing full well they are receiving a life of celibacy.
    there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.
    Grace builds on nature. A priest becomes a spiritual father and a nun a spiritual mother. In heaven there is no marriage and priests and nuns live out there vocation here on earth for the kingdom of heaven.
    “Can you not see why I would reasonably think that the Catholic church, despite what it claims, has a negative attitude towards sex?”
    Have you read the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OR THEOLOGY OF THE BODY? You cannot know what the Church teaches unless you read what the Church teaches and not what protestants say it teaches.
    And please tell me what you think christians did in the first three centuries before the Church canonized the Sacred Scriptures?
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J

98. Inocencio,
    I have access to an excellent apologist. 🙂 Does that count?
    Meretrice

99. Oh by the way, just because I’m a lost heretic soul, don’t blame that on any deficiencies of my apologist, she does the best she can with what she has to work with…
    Meretrice

100. April,
     You are a soul in love with God. We recognize that or we wouldn’t keep interacting with you. I would still like to know if you have actually read Church documents?
     And how did the early christians come to an understanding of the Truth before the canon of Sacred Scripture was set?
     A lot of books claimed to be scripture and since it was a time of persecution it was a matter of life or death to know the Truth.
     Take care and God bless,
     Inocencio
     J+M+J

101. SDG: “If you’ve got an alternate explanation regarding the points I raised above, I’d be interested to hear them.”
     If you have Scriptural text that states that Mary was a perpetual virgin, I would be interested in seeing them.

     1. If you have scriptural texts that states that all revealed truth is found in scripture alone, I would be interested in seeing them.

     2. The passage under discussion was Mary’s response to Gabriel, “How shall this be? For I know not a man.” You posited an interpretation that I think is unsatisfactory, for the reasons given in my post above. If you have any response, I’d be interested to hear it.

     Despite what Rome says about the goodness of sex, the adoration of Mary by Catholics is distinct from the respect she is showed by Protestants. And the difference is in that Catholics believe (and taught to do so by the Church) that she was a virgin forever. Thus, Mary is special, revered and set aside for adoration for the sake of that alone.

     This is not only obviously false, but manifestly silly as well. LOTS of people have been lifelong virgins! If Mary is unique, as Catholics believe, it could HARDLY be for THAT reason. 🙂
     Mary is honored NOT because she remained ever virgin, but because she is the Mother of our Lord, the Theotokos, God-bearer or Mother of God (cf. Luke 2:42). I would think that would be obvious to you.

     this belief is unsupported by Scripture, I ask myself why Catholics have this very different and extreme viewpoint about her.

     Hm, it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that (a) Catholics don’t believe that Scripture alone is the only source of truth and (b) the belief is amply supported by early tradition and has been affirmed by the Magisterium?

     Priests are expected to be asexual. Nuns are expected to be asexual.

     Single people aren’t “asexual”!!! What an incredibly demeaning term. And a false one. A priest is not “asexual,” he is a man, and his masculinity is essential to his priesthood, for a priest is a father, and only a man can be a father.

     Can you not see why I would reasonably think that the Catholic church, despite what it claims, has a negative attitude towards sex?

     The only reason I can see is that you must suffer from the common confusion that if A is honored above B, B must be bad. Which is silly.
     Look here: Do you honor the word of God against good Christian literature? You do? Does that mean you think that you have a negative attitude toward good Christian literature?
     All right. The Catholic Church honors marriage (and conjugal relations with it), but it honors celibacy more, in keeping with Jesus (Matthew 19) and St. Paul (1 Cor 7). To argue that because celibacy is honored more, marriage and sex are therefore dishonored is clearly logically fallacious.

102. P.S. April, just because you’re a heretic, that doesn’t mean you’re a lost soul! 😀

103. “Thus, Mary is special, revered and set aside for adoration for the sake of that alone”
     Actually, no. Mary is not revered merely because she was a virgin , at all (I mean, there have been tons of virgins throughout history), but because she is the Mother of Christ, the Son of God. God is the one who specially set her aside, not us. He chose her. If not for her status as Mother of Jesus, she would not inhabit the place she does in Catholic devotion.
     I honor Mary BECAUSE I love Jesus.
     “You say Mary’s perpetual virginity is supported by Scripture.”.
     Actually, what I said was that it does not contradict scripture, and is well attested by the earliest Christians. But it is supported (if not explicitly) in places like John 19:26-27, that I referenced before (in regard to Mary apparently having no children besides Jesus to care for her).
     If Mary DID have other children, it would have been scandalous of them not to care for her (especially in that culture) yet Jesus entrusts her to John.
     As I pointed out, the original language of the bible uses a very vague term that can mean either “brother” or “cousin”, so there is really no direct Biblical evidence of Jesus having any brothers or sisters through Mary.

104. “If Mary DID have other children, it would have been scandalous of them not to care for her…” In fact, Tim, it would have been illegal for Jesus to entrust Mary to anyone other than one of her own biological children, if she had had any other than Jesus.

105. Tim J.,
     Plus the Sacred Scriptures state that two of the “brethren/cousins”, James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6:3 are in fact the sons of another woman, Mary the wife of Clopas (Matt. 27:56). John 19:25 identifies Mary the wife of Clopas as the “sister/cousin” of Blessed Mary. So James and Joses can be proven to be cousins of our Blessed Lord.
     No where in Sacred Scripture is Blessed Mary identified as the mother of anyone other than our Blessed Lord Jesus.
     No man could touch the Ark of the Covenant or enter the East Gate which the Lord entered and shut.
     Take care and God bless,
     Inocencio
     J+M+J

106. In fact, Tim, it would have been illegal for Jesus to entrust Mary to anyone other than one of her own biological children, if she had had any other than Jesus.

     1. This may be pushing the argument a bit far. FWIW, Jesus was sometimes known for not doing things by the book. I’d hesitate to say that he would have been bound to turn the care of his mother to anyone but whom he chose. That said, John 19 does suggest (not prove) that filial responsibility for Mary had to be given to John because she had no other sons to take over.

        Plus the Sacred Scriptures state that two of the “brethren/cousins”, James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6:3 are in fact the sons of another woman, Mary the wife of Clopas (Matt. 27:56). John 19:25 identifies Mary the wife of Clopas as the “sister/cousin” of Blessed Mary. So James and Joses can be proven to be cousins of our Blessed Lord.

        This, too, is a possible interpretation, but can’t really be proven. FWIW, I actually think that the earlier belief that Jesus’ “brethren” were actually older stepbrothers by Joseph from an earlier marriage is more likely than the “cousin” theory. At any rate, both are compatible with the evidence.

107. Sorry, ordered list off.

108. I got it from Scott Hahn, SDG. If I’m wrong, it’s all his fault(The old “it-wasn’t-my-fault” defense).

109. It’s a fine point, Bill. Sometimes though we need to settle for a suggestive argument rather than a definitive one. 🙂

110. I appreciate the Scriptural references that everyone provided. It still leaves the question open of what is meant by Jesus’ sisters, plus Juda and Simon (Mark 6:3)
     Regarding the giving of Mary to John, its possible perhaps that her other children weren’t that fond of her and she would have been better off in the care of John. Who knows? (Tangent: if no one was available to care for her, who was looking after her during Jesus’ ministry? Assuming of course she needed care at that time.)
     Inocencio: What did Christians do for 300 years before the Bible was set in stone (so to speak)? Oh I dunno, I heard that there was this Paul guy writing letters to all of Christendom with express orders that they be copied, saved, and read aloud to congregations. Maybe something along those lines? 🙂
     SDG:
     Now think about Mary’s situation. Try to prescind for a moment from what you know about the virgin birth. Assume for the moment that Mary is an ordinary Jewish bride-to-be looking forward to bearing her husband’s children.
     Suddenly, an angel appears to her and announces that she’s going to have a son!
     What’s her response?
     “Blessed be the Lord! Our marriage will be blessed with children!”
     No: “How shall this be? For I know not a man.”
     That is really an extraordinary response when you think about it.
     I can see your point, but I still think it works the other way: “Mary, guess what? You’re going to have a kid!” “Uhm, what? I’ve never been with a guy before!” Also, please remember that I don’t dispute that Mary was a virgin when she concieved, my argument was that there is no evidence (and in fact there is evidence to suggest otherwise) that she was a virgin her whole life.
     I’m not sure that you guys understood my point about the Protestant vs. Catholic take on Mary. Protestants admire Mary for sure (even little ‘ol me). Catholics take their admiration to a whole other level, in my opinion, almost to the same stature of Jesus Himself. Protestants and Catholics agree that she was the mother of Jesus, and a virgin when He was conceived and an important figure for those reasons.
     The difference is that Catholics insist that she was a virgin forever, and I *do* think that she is considered extra-special because of that. Why insist on it? and make it dogmatic!, if it isn’t important for some reason? (Wow, 3 punctuation marks in one sentence!)
     My question remains, what is its relevency? Some people have said (paraphrasing here, I don’t feel like going thru 100+ comments again for quotes), “Its relevent because its TRUE!” Some have said, “I don’t know why it matters, but Rome says so and that’s good enough.”
     Speaking to the “its TRUE” crowd… okay, let’s, for the sake of argument, say that it IS. To me, its like saying, “Stonewall Jackson loved to eat lemons.” This is a fact. Does it tell you anything about his battleground tactics in the Civil War? How his own men shot and killed him? Or anything else relevent to history? Nope. Its just a little bit of trivia. Mary’s perpetual virginity, IF true, is just trivia. But the Catholic church has built it up into dogma, and other than my guess “the Catholic church likes keeping the womenfolk down and their pants up” theory, I’m still left scratching my head.
     To the “I don’t know” crowd… maybe this debate has helped you guys out too. 🙂
     Meretrice

111. Okay, April, I appreciate the question. I don’t have time to go into a lot of detail, but try to consider it from this perspective.
     Usually when we talk of people being “holy,” we mean “morally virtuous, spiritual.” But “holiness” has another sense, referring to that which is “set apart” for divine service, and cannot be approached in an ordinary or everyday way. The ark of the covenant carries the word of God and the bread from heaven, and anyone who touches it will die. The Holy of holies cannot be entered except by the high priest once a year; the one who enters will die. This mountain is “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit (the Greek word in the OT LXX is the same as the word Luke uses for the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary); no one may approach it, and anyone who does will die.
     There is also a “holiness” of this kind that pertains to Mary, that is not merely moral (that she was without sin) but also in a way that sets her apart for God’s purposes, and as God entered the world through her body, others shall not enter thereby.
     Luther and the other Reformers not only accepted Mary’s perpetual virginity, they accepted the typological exegetical tradition that saw Ezekiel 44:2 — “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut” — as applying typologically to Mary. What was true of the gate in Ezekiel’s vision is true also of Mary’s body, and for the same reason.
     More later.

112. Our Lady remained virgin because Our Lord must have used His glorious body (the state that we will have if we are saved and pass through the final judgement and is the same state Our Lord showed in the Transfiguration.) which has the ability to pass another body with it making some sort of physical contact.
     Impassibility (the incapability of suffering), meaning that we will no longer suffer physical evils such as sorrow, sickness or death; subtility, meaning that we will have a spiritualized nature in the sense of a spiritual body as did our Lord; agility, meaning that the body will obey the soul with the greatest ease and speed of movement; and clarity, meaning that this body will be free from any deformity and will be filled with beauty and radiance.

113. Is it me, or have things gotten sort of off topic?
     This section from the Catechism of the Catholic Church clears up doubt as to what the Church officially teaches:
     510 Mary “remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin” (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is “the handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1:38).
     This entire section is worth reading: “He Was Conceived By The Power Of The Holy Spirit, And Born Of The Virgin Mary”

114. SDG,
     Veritas! I feel like I’m back in apologetics class!

115. Dear April: I admit I’m getting into the fray a bit late since it looks like all the debate over this started yesterday. I was a generic protestant before I converted to Catholicism. Prior to that I thought that the different Christian “denominations” were roughly equivalent. FYI- I am a professional woman who knows her own mind and does not feel inferior to men. But that is not what the Church teaches either. I was at first confused as to why Catholics venerate Mary. This was because in the protestant churches that I attended (Free Methodist, Nazarene) we mostly just ignored her completely until Christmas. This veneration of Mary (or other saints)also made me uncomfortable at first. Being an inquisitive person, I did some research about it. I read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the articles in “This Rock” magazine. The tracts on Catholic.com really helped me understand this teaching of the Church. Of course, you can refer to the writings of the early Christians who Catholics call the Church Fathers. I invite you to review that information (with an open mind.)I think you are on the right track, asking questions is good for your faith journey. It is also helpful to listen to Catholic Answers Live radio show. Questions about Mary come up on there too. My questions were answered by those resources. My faith is fuller, deeper and sweeter now than when I was a protestant. As for priestly celibacy, I thought that was weird at first too since my protestant pastors were all married guys with children. But then I read Peter Kreeft’s book about Catholicism. It does a good job of explaining in lay terms why celibacy is required. And it explains that priestly (or for nuns)celibacy is a discipline, not a matter of dogma. (God bless all of you dedicated priests, nuns, religious brothers.)In closing, April I ask that God bless you on your walk with Christ…may it draw you ever closer to the fullness of truth.

116. I appreciate the Scriptural references that everyone provided. It still leaves the question open of what is meant by Jesus’ sisters, plus Juda and Simon (Mark 6:3)

     There are two possibilities.
     The earliest indications, going back to within living memory of the apostolic age (the Protoevangelion of James, an early second-century document) are that Joseph was a widower, and Jesus’ brethren were the children of Joseph’s first marriage.
     Another significant possibility, supported by many of the early Fathers, is that Jesus’ brethren are relatives such as cousins, perhaps children of the sister of Mary mentioned in John 19, whom the text may indicate was also named Mary (the name was so common this is not as odd as it seems).
     This has some plausibility:
     1. Jesus’ two eldest brethren seem to be “James and Joses” (always named in that order).
     2. “James and Joses” (same order) are elsewhere identified as the sons of a Mary who was not the mother of Jesus.
     3. This other Mary, the mother of James and Joses, is at the foot of the cross along with the mother of Jesus.
     4. A Mary called Mary of Clopas is at the foot of the cross, and may be the same Mary as the mother of James and Joses.
     5. John 19 may indicate that Mary of Clopas is the sister of Jesus’ mother.
     This is not certain, but it has some plausibility. Even so, I personally tend toward the earlier idea that Joseph was a widower.

117. April,
     Regarding your claim that the Catholic Church disdains sexual relations, I would direct you to John Paul II’s ‘Theology of the Body’.

118. April,
     The angel said, ‘You SHALL conceive (future tense)…’ If Mary intended to have relations with Joseph then she wouldn’t have been suprised when she was told that she would conceive in the future.

119. David B:
     “You SHALL conceive” may be future tense, but the future is extends from later today to the end of your life.
     Meretrice

120. “You SHALL conceive” may be future tense, but the future is extends from later today to the end of your life.

     Which is precisely the point, April. The angel could have been talking about any point in the future. And Mary knew that such a promise might in fact not be fulfilled for years to come. There was no reason in the world for Mary to think anything other than that the child the angel prophesied would be conceived after the wedding in the normal way — unless she somehow knew that the angel was not in fact saying any such thing.

121. April,
     Earlier in our discussions I had (feebly) attempted to demonstrate how Mary’s response to the angel Gabriel can be explained so that it shows that – at the time of the exchange between them – Mary was a virgin and intended to remain a virgin, despite that fact that she was betrothed to Joseph.
     I admit, upon rereading my comment, that I didn’t do a very good job. Please allow me to try again.
     First of all, when Gabriel says to Mary, “Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus”, he uses a verb in the subjunctive mood.
     “Unlike the indicative mood, which indicates that something is true, the subjunctive expresses a wish, a command, or a condition contrary to fact.” (http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/s.html#subjunctive)
     Please note the usage of the subjunctive mood that I boldfaced. Thus, Gabriel was communicating the wish of God that she be Theotokos. Mary, using her free will, could have chosen NOT to do so. (Jimmy, SDG, Tim J., Inocencio, Bill912, please correct me if I’m wrong.)
     Mary replied to Gabriel, indicating her decision to remain a virgin, “How shall this be done, because I know not man?”
     Let’s break this down: “How shall this be done?”, which, again, uses the subjunctive mood, means, “How does God intend for this to happen?”
     As David B. pointed out, I think it is safe to say that Mary knew how God normally intends for how babies to be conceived, and would not need to ask this question — unless she had different intentions.
     So, we get to Mary’s usage of present tense to indicate her present virginity. However, this present tense can be used also to indicate that the present condition will be maintained indefinitely.
     It can be used to indicate that she is a virgin NOW AND that she believes that she will remain a virgin (because it is her intention) INDEFINITELY INTO THE FUTURE.
     Let try the example I had used earlier in this on-going discussion. (I think I heard this from Steve Ray; definitely it was somebody on Catholic Answers Live.)
     I don’t smoke, nor do I use smokeless tobacco. If an angel were to tell me something like, “Nick, shall have tobacco-stained teeth,” I might respond with, “How will God make this possible? I don’t smoke.”
     My use of the present tense, “I don’t smoke,” really indicates my present AND ON-GOING intention not to smoke. God can give me tobacco-stained teeth if he wills it; but, because I don’t smoke, I’d sure like to know how it will happen.
     People often hear a tone of surprise in Mary’s voice when she asks, “How shall this be done?” (When I read the passage, I certainly imagine a tone of surprise.) Why does it have to be read with surprise?
     It is very possible that Mary is asking the question, not out of surprise, but – because she has accepted that God’s will be done – with genuine interest to know how it will be affected – because she knows it won’t be through the marital embrace.

122. SDG,
     The CCC paragraph states:
     500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”. They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.
     Take care and God bless,
     Inocencio
     J+M+J

123. Serious question:
     Other than as supporting evidence that Jesus was the Son of God (fulfillment of prophesies in the OT), why does the virginity of Mary MATTER?
     Someone has written that the Catholic faith is shallow enough for a mouse to swim in, yet deep enough for an elephant to sink in.
     The perpetual virginity of Mary is probably something that no ones goes to heaven or hell for their stance on it.
     However, there are many people who have a desire to learn more and more about God and his workings. And that’s where this teaching matters. If Mary is perpetually a virgin, then that is another truth upon which to build upon and upon which we can see the mind of God (why did she have to be a virgin? what did God have in mind? How does that affect me personally?).
     If she was perpetually a virgin, and someone believes otherwise, they would build on a foundation of error (Mary was not a virgin, therefore….) and most likely miss the truths that that brings, and possibly misunderstand God’s plans and mind.
     For me personally, I find it quite mind-boggling that God teaches us humans that a family is properly built upon a father and a mother. This is something most conservative Christians fight for, and yet in the non-Catholic understanding of our spiritual family, we have a Father and we have brothers and sisters, but we have no mother.
     Francis

124. All of this about the future and subjunctive tense does not make sense as a support to the argument that Mary intended to be a virgin her entire life. As SDG agreed, her comment “How shall this be done, because I know not man?” could be taken to mean that the conception would occur that day or 30 years in the future. Reading that one sentence and trying to determine what was going on inside Mary’s head is impossible. It is difficult enough to read someone’s email and determine what is going on inside their head! That’s why emoticons were invented. 🙂
     The idea that Mary *intended* to be a virgin prior to the visitation of Gabriel does not make sense for many reasons:
     1) Why would she become betrothed to Joseph if she never intended to sleep with him? Why would Joseph agree to marry her if she intended to be a virgin forever? (Isn’t this grounds for annulment in the Catholic church?)
     2) Prior to Mary there are no examples of Biblical women intending to be virgins and unmarried. In fact, Biblical women seemed to have the opposite problem: barrenness. Even Mary’s relative Elizabeth had this problem. The only specific woman mentioned in the Bible who was a virgin her whole life was Jephthah’s daughter (Judges 11), and she mourned the fact that she was going to die a virgin for two months!
     3) Mary was a Jewish girl, and according to the Old Covenant, deciding to be a virgin perpetually goes against God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply.”
     4) As we have discussed before, there is direct mention in the Bible that Jesus had brothers and sisters that can’t be explained away as sons of Mary, wife of Clopas.
     Meretrice

125. “As we have discussed before, there is direct mention in the Bible that Jesus had brothers and sisters that can’t be explained away as sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. ”
     Where? And why aren’t they cousins, since the word is the same? It is not “explaining away” anything to point that out. I think you are projecting into scripture your own pre-determined theological construct.

126. I will add that, IMO, Mary’s perpetual virginity can be neither proved or disproved from scripture.
     Of course, the only evidence some people need of the certain falsehood of any belief is that it is a)Catholic and, b) not found in scripture.
     I see no reason to discount the consistent testimony of the earliest Christians on the matter. The constant tradition of the faithful has been that Mary was a consecrated virgin and there is nothing in scripture that contradicts this.
     Did Mary always intend to be a lifelong virgin? Did she and Joseph have an understanding? Again, this can only be speculated upon, and never proved. Anyone may find this or that scripture that, looked at a certain way, seems to support their “side”, but solid scriptural PROOF is not to be found.
     Therefore, honest enquirers must be willing to look elsewhere for helpful evidence. If that is precluded, then the question has no hope of being resolved.
     If history itself seems biased in favor of Catholicism, that is enough to make many simply turn away from the study of history.

127. “I see no reason to discount the consistent testimony of the earliest Christians on the matter. The constant tradition of the faithful has been that Mary was a consecrated virgin and there is nothing in scripture that contradicts this.”
     Right… except the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters whose mother is not named. Who else could it be other than Mary? Wait, wait… I know what you’ll say…
     “brother and sisters” = cousins, step-siblings, “we’re all a brotherhood of man,” or some other twisting of Scripture to support the idea Mary never did it, despite the clarity of the passage.
     And then there is the sticky business about her being betrothed to Joseph at the time of the anunciation. If she intended to be a lifelong virgin, as some have claimed here, then she was committing a fraud and is not sinless, as has also been claimed. Based on your claims she must have either:
     1) Never intended to be a virgin her entire life, but was a virgin upon the conception of Jesus.
     2) Intended to be a virgin her entire life, and therefore was sinning against God (by disobeying his commandment to multiply) and Joseph. If Joseph had an agreement with her that they would never do it, he was sinning too for the same reason. In either case, Mary was committing fraud.
     “Therefore, honest enquirers must be willing to look elsewhere for helpful evidence. If that is precluded, then the question has no hope of being resolved.”
     Given that the Bible doesn’t even HINT that Mary was a lifelong virgin, why do I need to look for support of it? The burdon of proof is on your side.
     As for the “constant tradition of the faithful,” I ascribe to them no more merit to their opinions than any other learned men and women. Sometimes even less, given their aptitude and willingness to teach erroneous understandings of Scripture.
     Meretrice

128. As SDG agreed, her comment “How shall this be done, because I know not man?” could be taken to mean that the conception would occur that day or 30 years in the future.

     You don’t seem to be following me. It was the angel’s declaration — not Mary’s — that “could be taken to mean that the conception would occur that day or 30 years in the future. Mary was in no position whatsoever to be implying or inferring anything regarding when the conception would occur. All she knew was what the angel said — and the angel didn’t say.
     What you don’t seem to have grappled with yet is how Mary could have known that the angel wasn’t speaking of one of the children you say she was planning on having with Joseph. Until you can explain that, this passage is a great big question mark for your POV.

     Reading that one sentence and trying to determine what was going on inside Mary’s head is impossible.

     I’m not asking for a determination — just a plausible possibility. How could Mary have known that the angel wasn’t speaking of one of the children you say she was planning on having with Joseph?

     Why would she become betrothed to Joseph if she never intended to sleep with him? Why would Joseph agree to marry her if she intended to be a virgin forever?

     No clear answers here; the earliest tradition (not a binding part of the faith) indicates that Joseph was a widower who married Mary on the understanding that she was a consecrated virgin, with the intent of providing for her and acting as guardian of her virginity.

     Prior to Mary there are no examples of Biblical women intending to be virgins and unmarried.

     In the NT we do find a very different perspective on virginity and the unmarried state, viz. Jesus’ teaching on remaining unmarried as “eunuchs for the kingdom” in Mt 19, St. Paul’s teaching on the advantages for both men and women of the unmarried state in 1 Cor 7, St. John’s idealizing of the 144,000 as unmarried “virgins” who have not “defiled themselves with women” (obviously not to say that conjugal relations “defile” one, but clearly unmarried virginity is seen in a highly honored light here).

     Mary was a Jewish girl, and according to the Old Covenant, deciding to be a virgin perpetually goes against God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply.”

     The Old Covenant taught no such thing. God even commanded the prophet Jeremiah not to take a wife. Was God commanding Jeremiah to sin?

     Jesus had brothers and sisters whose mother is not named. Who else could it be other than Mary?

     What on earth are you talking about? Just because the Bible calls the “other Mary” the “mother of James and Joses” without going on to name also Simon and Jude and the sisters, how does it follow that Jesus’ brethren aren’t all siblings, children of the same mother?
     If you infer from the fact that the Bible calls the “other Mary” the “mother of James and Joses” means that she was only the mother of James and Joses — not the others — shouldn’t you equally infer from the fact that Jesus’ mother Mary is always only called “the mother of Jesus” — never the mother of anyone else — that she must be only his mother?

129. “I know what you’ll say… “brother and sisters” = cousins, step-siblings, “we’re all a brotherhood of man,” or some other twisting of Scripture to support the idea Mary never did it, despite the clarity of the passage.”.
     What passage is that, exactly? And why do you insist on it’s “clarity” when the Bible does, in fact, use ambiguous language? The gospel writers didn’t speak English, as I’m sure you know.
     You seem extremely uncomfortable with the very real possibility that Jesus had step-siblings through Joseph. Why?
     Brotherhood of man? Come on, your thrashing, now.
     “Given that the Bible doesn’t even HINT that Mary was a lifelong virgin…”
     Except it does…
     “The burdon of proof is on your side…”
     Well, as I said, if you insist on limiting the evidence to strictly that of the biblical text, then there is no need to go any further. Mary’s perpetual virginity can be supported, but not proved, from scripture.
     One more thing… God never issued a command that every.single.person. go forth and multiply. As has been pointed out, there was a long-standing tradition of consecrated virginity in the Israelite community, up to and including John the Baptist! Was he sinning because he never married?
     There have always been those who were set apart to do the work of God, and they were often, like John, basically hermit monks… no wife or family, no alcohol, often fasting, abstaining from meat, etc…
     Catholics did not invent the idea of celibacy.
     Neither Mary nor Joseph sinned, or could have sinned, by breaking a non-existent commandment.
     The Bible states;
     “Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph…”
     If Joseph was understood by the community to be the father of Jesus, was he then guilty of fraud? By your logic, yes.
     As for there being no record of consecrated female virgins in the OT, so what? There is no prior record of any virgin birth, either. As the Holy Spirit said through Isaiah, “See, I am doing a new thing!”.

130. Getting married with no intention of procreating isn’t a sin?
     Anyways, I knew that this debate would never change anybody’s mind, my intention was to try and figure out why the Catholic church bothered to make Mary’s ‘perpetual’ virginity a dogma.
     April
     http://www.meretrice.com

131. What about the Eastern Orthodox view that Joseph was a widower with children from a previous marriage?
     It is not important to my faith if Mary had other children, which is good and natural.
     The body and sex and having children is good.

132. Getting married with no intention of procreating isn’t a sin?

     A marriage that by mutual agreement is never consummated is no sin, correct.

     Anyways, I knew that this debate would never change anybody’s mind, my intention was to try and figure out why the Catholic church bothered to make Mary’s ‘perpetual’ virginity a dogma.

     I hope that my discussion above regarding the category of “holiness” in the sense of that which is “set apart” for a unique divine purpose and is therefore off limits to men (the ark of the covenant, etc.) was helpful in this regard.

133. and therefore was sinning against God (by disobeying his commandment to multiply
     You really serious ?
     Does it follow then that Jesus sinned because he didn’t multiply?

134. “Sometimes even less, given their aptitude and willingness to teach erroneous understandings of Scripture.”
     And what authority do you ascribe to your teaching and understanding of Sacred Scripture?
     Take care and God bless,
     Inocencio
     J+M+J

135. Inocencio,
     “And what authority do you ascribe to your teaching and understanding of Sacred Scripture?”
     Well, it is not the Catholic church’s “authority,” and thus I doubt it would be any use discussing it here. Another one of those situations where neither of us will see the other’s point of view.
     Meretrice

136. It seems to me that the Bible teaches rather straightforwardly Mary’s virginity in partu, and I am surprised that we Catholics don’t cite the clearest scriptural statement on this truth more often.
     Here it is:
     Matthew 2:23, quoting Isaiah, does not state merely “Behold, a virgin shall conceive,” but “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and shall give birth to a son.”
     Most conservative Christians, including many Protestants, have insisted that that when Isaiah prophesied that “a virgin shall conceive,” he meant “a virgin shall conceive (while remaining a virgin).”
     Well, the same “virgin” is also the subject of the second verb in the sentence “a virgin shall give birth.” Consistency and grammar demand that if “a virgin shall conceive” means “a virgin shall conceive (while remaining a virgin),” then “a virgin shall give birth” must mean “a virgin shall give birth (while remaining a virgin),” and this is of course precisely the dogma of Mary’s in-partu virginity.

137. Correction: The scriptural verse is question is Matthew 1:23, not 2:23 as I wrote above.

138. “…the dogma of Mary’s in-partu virginity.”
     That’s not a dogma, i.e., something that, as Catholics, we are required to believe.

139. I was using “dogma” in a more general sense to mean “teaching,” not necessary formal teaching that Catholics are required to believe. I had the original Greek meaning of the word in mind, perhaps misleadingly.
     While it is my opinion that Mary’s virginity in partu is a formal dogma, I didn’t post so much to demonstrate that as to point out that Matthew 1:23 asserts the teaching. According to Matthew 1:23, a virgin will give birth to a son, and this is precisely virginity in partu (i.e., virginity in giving birth). The miracle that Isaiah foresaw and proclaimed was twofold: a virgin will conceive and a virgin will give birth.
     I’m not interested in speculating on the biology of this, though.

140. I fully believe in the Virgin conception and birth of Jesus and that Mary, herself was conceived without sin.
     However, is Mary more holy by remaining a virgin after the birth of Jesus? Can someone explain that God has revealed this to us?
     Is anyone more “holy” if they remain a virgin? Are those who marry and fulfill God’s desire that man and woman be fruitful and multiply less “holy” then those who marry and remain virgin?
     Was the marriage of Mary and Joseph invalid? Was it never consummated? What of Matthew’s statement in his Gospel that they had no relations until after the birth of Jesus?
     Why do we insist that conjugal union between a husband and wife is defilement? I do not understand.

141. We don’t.

142. Lisa,
     Remaining a virgin wouldn’t be virtuous if the thing one is giving up, namely marriage, were not also virtuous.
     Those who practice perfect chastity are usually less concerned with earthly things than married people are. I believe Paul said something to that effect in the Bible.
     Marriage is a symbol of the union which is the Living will have with Christ in heaven. Those Catholics who remain chaste all their lives have taken a step closer to the perfect union we will have with Our Lord in heaven.
     Remember, it is not a choice between good and bad, but between good and better.

143. I meant to say: “Marriage is a symbol of the union which all of the Living have with Christ in heaven.” Sorry about the mistake.

144. Lisa,
     I fully believe in the Virgin conception and birth of Jesus and that Mary, herself was conceived without sin.
     However, is Mary more holy by remaining a virgin after the birth of Jesus? Can someone explain that God has revealed this to us?
     Yes, she was more holy, because that was God’s will. Virginity, considered apart from the will of God, is not more or less holy. God has revealed Mary’s perpetual virginity to us through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Although space would not permit an exhaustive recap, there are some very profitable studies in this regard, on the ark of the covenant in the OT, and the need for it to remain pure and undefiled. Mary, we see through Scripture and Tradition, is the ark of the New Covenant. But you’re not going to find “proof texts” for this point — it requires patient study of Scripture and the early Church Fathers, etc.
     Is anyone more “holy” if they remain a virgin?
     Yes, if that is their calling. No, if it is not.
     But virgins are given special honor because of the special witness they give to Christ. Would that virginity were more valued in our society today! How much closer would we be to Christ, married and celibate alike, if that were the case?
     Are those who marry and fulfill God’s desire that man and woman be fruitful and multiply less “holy” then those who marry and remain virgin?
     No, in the ordinary case it would be precisely the opposite. Marriage is intended to be fruitful, and, in the ordinary case, virginity stands in the way of fruitfulness. (Notice, in Mary’s case, it did not. She was more fruitful in virginity than anyone else could be without.)
     Was the marriage of Mary and Joseph invalid?Was it never consummated?
     It was not consummated in the ordinary sense, but we can rest assured that it was valid.
     What of Matthew’s statement in his Gospel that they had no relations until after the birth of Jesus?
     Linguistically, the statement literally refers only to what preceded it, and has no bearing on what comes after. I understand that is not the usual understanding in English, but this is another one of those cases where it pays to study the text in its original language (or at least refer to what others who have studied it in the original language have noticed).
     Why do we insist that conjugal union between a husband and wife is defilement? I do not understand.
     Again, it is not, in the ordinary case. It can be, of course, when it is used in ways other than that in which God wills. Just because sex, properly used, between a husband and wife is good, does not mean that all sex between a husband and wife is good. Periods of abstinence are also good.

145. Thank you for the replies.
     I agree Mary’s “holiness” is above ours. She IS Blessed Above all Women.
     If Mary and Joseph had consummated their marriage, as Matthew suggests in his Gospel, would she have been “less” holy than if they both remained celibate during the remainder of their marriage on earth?
     Our Lord said that some will not marry, for the kingdom of heaven, does that mean they have given more to God then those who do? Where does that leave the ones who continue to propagate the earth? If everyone remained virgin, we wouldn’t be here too long.
     As for Blessed Mother and Joseph. They did marry. Unless I’m wrong, our Catechism teaches, and I think Pope John Paul II spoke about the beauty and holiness of marriage. I think it was God’s will for man and wife to be intimate, with each other, to honor God. Sorry, I still don’t get why we insist that Mary would be “less” holy if she and Joseph were intimate. It doesn’t make God sense to me.
     Maybe if someone could point to the moment in time this was revealed, by God? Was it by a particular Pope or a visionary? Does anyone know where the notion originated?

146. It is incorrect to understand the ‘until’ in Matthew 1:25 as a time conditional to relations. The verse is best understood as:
     He had no relations with her [prior to her boring] a son, and he named him Jesus.
     The footnote in the NAB is:
     Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.

147. Lisa,
     If Mary and Joseph had consummated their marriage, as Matthew suggests in his Gospel…
     Matthew does not suggest this in his Gospel. Look at other uses of “until” in Scripture. In 2 Samuel 6:23, Saul’s daughter Micah did not have children “until the day of her death.” The Greek and Hebrew words for “until” only mean that some action did not occur until that point. There is no implication in Greek or Hebrew (as there might be in English) that the action did occur after that point.
     Maybe if someone could point to the moment in time this was revealed, by God? Was it by a particular Pope or a visionary? Does anyone know where the notion originated?
     St. Athanasius, in the 300’s, is the first Church Father I’m aware of to specifically refer to Mary as “ever-virgin.” You are correct that the great Pope John Paul II has beautiful and profound teachings about the goodness and holiness of marriage. Here is what he had to say on Mary’s perpetual virginity. Among other things, the Second Council of Constantinople (553) proclaimed Mary as ever-Virgin, and Mary’s perpetual virginity is assumed in the infallible doctrine of the Assumption.

148. Meant to include this link to Pope John Paul II’s statement on Mary’s perpetual virginity. Among other things, he notes that the Second Council of Constantinople (553) proclaimed Mary’s perpetual viriginity, that this has been affirmed by subsequent ecumenical councils, and that Mary’s perpetual virginity is assumed and is one of the foundational bases for the infallible dogma regarding Mary’s Assumption.

149. “Maybe if someone could point to the moment in time this was revealed, by God? Was it by a particular Pope or a visionary? Does anyone know where the notion originated?”
     It did not have to be specially revealed by God, as it was the constant understanding of the faithful from the earliest days of the Church.
     In other words, everyone who knew Mary personally knew that it was so, and passed that on through the living tradition of the Church. It may not be explicit in scripture, but it has been the *sensus fidelum* from the beginning.

150. Lisa,
     It has everything to do with Christ’s divinity. Do understand that your typical non-Christian does not deny the virginal conception and miraculous resurrection of our Lord. They deny the virgin birth. For example, Muslims believe that Jesus was miraculously conceived and resurrected. They reject his miraculous birth. If you look at anyone who rejects Christ’s divinity, they almost always start by rejecting his miraculous birth.

151. “Meant to include this link to Pope John Paul II’s statement on Mary’s perpetual virginity…”
     Thank you for this. I trust in God’s will through His successor to Peter, on spiritual matters.
     Still don’t understand why people, in a married state, would remain celibate, in marriage. It seems like living a lie.

152. Lisa,
     You’re welcome.
     Still don’t understand why people, in a married state, would remain celibate, in marriage. It seems like living a lie.
     Don’t let the exception swallow the rule. There are no other cases that I’m aware of where perpetual virginity is the rule within marriage. For them it would be living a lie. (There are cases, of course, where celibacy within the married state can come to be the norm, but as a general rule one with a celibate calling should not enter into marriage.)

153. Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit. She had to stay faithful to Him in the same way that nuns do.

154. Jared wrote,
     “Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit. She had to stay faithful to Him in the same way that nuns do.”
     This makes little sense. Nuns and priests take vows of celibacy. Mary took a vow to wed Joseph before the Holy Spirit came to her. They must have intended on having subsequent children, as a result of their union. Do you see the contradiction?
     Having or not having sex, in this case, doesn’t determine if one is staying “faithful” to God. Doing His will is. If God’s will was that Mary and Joseph remained celibate, despite their marriage vows, then it was His will, and they both did His will.
     If Blessed Mother remained “ever virgin” it must have been for God’s purpose apart from the state of priests and nuns, remaining celibate. Don’t think you can compare the two. Think that’s a mistake that places religious in a category above holy matrimony. Don’t think that is right, just or fair to God and His creation.

155. If Mary expected to have normal marital relations with Joseph, her question to the angel Gabriel, when he told her she would conceive and have a son–“How can this be, since I know not man?”–makes no sense. She would have expected to conceive a child the usual way. Her question makes sense only if she had expected to remain a virgin after marriage.

156. That’s exactly it, Bill912. Mary wasn’t stupid. If she intended to have sex with Joseph, she would’ve assumed that Jesus would’ve been Joseph’s son, in the same way that John the Baptist was fathered by Zachariah. And she never would’ve asked the question.
     In addition, historians tell us that there was a tradition in the Jewish religion wherein both married and unmarried men and women would agree to live celibate lives. I’ll see if I can dig up that reference, but I’m pretty sure it’s been well-documented.

157. “They must have intended on having subsequent children, as a result of their union. ”
     Lisa,
     Did you read that in any of the four Gospels?

158. “That’s exactly it, Bill912.”
     Precisely, bill912.
     Mary’s question just makes NO SENSE except in the context of a prior commitement to celibacy, in spite of her betrothal to Joseph.
     I only fairly recently had this pointed out for me, and it absolutely demolishes the idea that Mary figured on having children with Joseph.

159. David B wrote:
     “They must have intended on having subsequent children, as a result of their union. ”
     Lisa,
     Did you read that in any of the four Gospels?”
     David,
     No. I did not read this in a Gospel. In your tone, “Just as you have not read in any Gospel that Mary remained “ever virgin”. or even that she was “without original sin.” Which I believe she was.
     Matthew 1:18 “…When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.”
     Why would Mary be “espoused” to Joseph if it were not to be wed in Holy Matrimony? What were their intentions before St. Gabriel visited Mary? Were they not planning to wed?
     Luke 1:26, 27 “And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth. To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary…”
     There is that word again, in a second Gospel, “espoused”. Is someone going to say that it doesn’t mean that their intention was to marry and have children?
     I don’t understand the presumption that because she asked “How shall this be done, because I know not man?”
     that it means she intended on remaining a virgin. This seems preposterous!
     I take these passages as the explanation of how Mary conceived by The Holy Spirit, not that she ever intended on remaining a virgin in her marriage to Joseph. Didn’t the incident take place before their final wedding vows? Before the possible consummation?

160. Lisa: Think about it for a second. Let’s say that Mary intended to have children. She’s espoused to Joseph. Cool. Soon, she’ll be married and can have those kids. Gabriel shows up and says, “Yo, Mary, you’re gonna get pregnant.”
     In this scenario, she says, “Cool. Hey, why’d you bother to tell me that? That’s kinda a gimme, right? I mean I’m getting married and I said I wanted to have kids.”
     That’s what we’d expect her to ask in this case.
     But, she doesn’t.
     She … asks the angel … “How will this happen?”
     Given the former (false) scenario, this response makes no sense whatsoever. It is, in your words, preposterous.
     Why on earth would she ask this? I mean, what kind of a question is that for a prospective wife. Clearly, something is amiss.
     The ONLY reasonable explanation (and certainly not preposterous at all) is that she did not intend to engage in the activity that would result in a pregnancy, i.e. sexual intercourse.
     If you examine the facts, it is the ONLY thing that makes sense.

161. Jared,
     Are you saying Mary and Joseph were engaged and preparing to marry and remain virgins? Was that acceptable behavior then? Was there no option toward monastic, consecrated life, at the time?
     It’s my understanding that couples were engaged for a year and lived together but did not consummate their wedding vows until later. ie they abstained and did not intend on remaining virgin in marriage.
     I believe the entire accounting of Gabriel’s appearance and what was spoken between them and re-counted in the Gospels is to tell us of the virgin birth. In no way does it suggest Mary was figuring on marrying Joseph and remaining virgin. This would be a deception…a lie…a sin. It would go against God’s will for married couples.
     The only possible explanation that Mary remained “ever virgin” is that God asked her and Joseph to remain celibate, in marriage, and they obeyed. That’s the only way I can accept this teaching is true.

162. Lisa,
     Sorry if I came across as rude. That wasn’t my intention.
     My point is that nothing in the Gospels contradicts the idea that Mary remained a virgin. OTOH, many things in the bible, such as the comparision of Mary to the ark of the covenant, clearly lead one to believe the possibility that Mary forever remained a virgin.

163. Also, David, it is likely that Mary took a vow of virginity, and that St. Joseph was selected to be her protector. The early Christian writings give evidence of this. (I believe the “Protoevangelium of James” is specific). As has been pointed out, Mary’s question to Gabriel makes no sense otherwise. Mary may not have known as much about reproduction as does a modern gynecologist, but she certainly knew how babies are normally made.

164. Lisa: Given your scenario, why did Mary ask Gabriel how should would get pregnant?

165. David,
     Thank you for your reply. My initial question was to try and understand why God would want two married people to remain celibate. It seems clear contradiction to the vows in Holy Matrimony and suggests that to remain celibate is more holy than to fulfill ones marriage vows and to be fruitful and multiply.
     Differentiating between possible, probable and absolute seem to be the goal. In the end all things are possible with God and it is His creation and will that we try to adhere to.
     Bill and Jared,
     I don’t know if Mary intended on remaining virgin all her life. Think it is possible the answer is “no”.
     When I was younger, I thought moms and dads went to the doctors office to get pregnant. The point being that little girls do not automatically know where babies come from. Perhaps not until they physically find out. Think that is a possible way to look at the Blessed Mother’s question to Gabriel.

166. Lisa: That is clearly preposterous. Mary asked how it was to be “since I do not know man.” She knew how it was done.
     Try again.

167. Jared,
     Clearly you feel you have all the answers. No need to continue this banter.
     God’s peace brother.

168. Nope, I don’t have all the answers (though the Church does have all of the important ones). But the point is, you’re not adequately responding to the facts as laid out. Your assumptions regarding the question Mary asks Gabriel make no sense.

169. We tried, Jared, and with great patience. You sure didn’t deserve that snotty remark.

170. Thanks, Bill. You’re right, as usual.

171. I know of 2 franciscan theologian mariologists who did audio talks on this subject. One was done in 2003 and the other was done in regards to the Nativity story movie.
     Very informative. You can listen to them on airmaria.com at this link: http://www.airmaria.com/?s=perpetual+virginity
     If the link doesn’t work just do a search on airmaria.com for perpetual virginity or their other website marymediatrix.com.

172. Pricilla,
     Thank you very much for this link. It was very helpful and helped to spark the understanding that Our Blessed Mother, born immaculate, may have remained a virgin, so that she would not bear one ever conceived in original sin.
     As Jesus was born, not only of a virgin, but one born of one born without original sin, so she might not bear another, born of original sin, through the line of David.
     All things are possible with God. He, Mary and Joseph know all which transpired. We are left only with our limited thinking and desire toward faith, to please Him.
     http://www.airmaria.com/?s=perpetual+virginity

173. FWIW – in the January issue of Magnificat, for Wednesday Jan 3, the entry in the “Saints of Today and Yesterday” section that follows each day’s prayers is on Saint Bertilia of Marleuil, a virgin from the 7th century who was married. She and her husband agreed to live their married lives in a state of perpetual continence, or as brother and sister. Since she’s a saint, one can say that their mutual decision was not sinful in the eyes of God, but rather they gave up a moral good for a different moral good, all for the love of God. So, there is some evidence that this was practiced in the past. My guess is that they used the lives of Mary and Joseph as inspiration.

174. Hi Larry,
     Here is what my Dictionary of Saints says:
     St. Bertilda of Mareuil (8th century). Of noble parents, she married a nobleman, was active in charitable works and on his death, lived as a hermitess at Mareuil, France, building a church adjacent to her cell. Jan 3.
     There is no mention of virginity. There is a listing for St. Bertilla but, she was a nun in France. Maybe there was some confusion in the Magnificat’s accounting?
     I had a great-aunt who married and remained a virgin. It was because her husband turned out to be gay.
     I believe when a person joins a secular religious order and takes a vow of chastity, it is with the intention of living true to the state of their vocation. If they are single , and remain so, they are to remain celibate. If they are married, they are to remain chaste, not celibate, unless their are extraordinary circumstances that prevent them from being intimate.

Comments are closed.