Here’s my take on this.
I’ve heard the argument that Mary didn’t experience pain during childbirth because she was conceived without Original Sin, and since pain in childbirth was a consequence of Original Sin, Mary would not have had this.
The problem with this argument is that it rests upon a false assumption; namely, that being conceived without Original Sin would free one from the consequences of Original Sin. We know this is false because Mary still required a savior (“my spirit rejoices in God my Savior”). The most important consequence of Original Sin, then, the closure of Heaven to man, Mary was still subject to until Jesus effectively reopened the gates.
One might also ask whether “not being subject to the consequences of Original Sin” would mean the restoration of the Preternatural Graces that Adam and Eve lost due to their Original Sin. That is, would Mary then have had infused knowledge, freedom from concupiscence and bodily immortality?
Let’s start with immortality. At first glance, it seems that she may have had this. After all, she was assumed into heaven, and therefore never died. Yet, Mary is not the only one to have been assumed into heaven. Henoch and Elijah also were. Might we suppose, then, that they too were free from Original Sin? The answer is no. They received a special grace for their righteousness. Likewise, we should cosnider the same to be true of Mary, though she was certainly far more deserving of it than Henoch and Elijah.
She certainly didn’t seem to have any infused knowledge. After all, she didn’t understand how she was to give birth without having had intimate relations with a man. Yet, as a faithful young Jewish girl, she would have known the prophecies of the Messiah being born of a virgin. She had no knowledge of her cousin’s pregnancy until it was revealed by the Angel. She didn’t know of Herod’s intention to kill her baby, that was revealed to Joseph. For all intents and purposes, Mary isn’t portrayed as more than a simple, virtuous, but incredibly blessed Jewish woman. At least, not until after her son’s passion and death.
What about concupiscence? It should be an important note that Adam and Eve were not tempted in the Garden. Rather, they were deceived. This is an important distinction. Temptation comes after the fall, when man is subject to concupiscence. Since our natures are fallen, our wills are inclined toward sin. Thus, we now become subject to temptation. We’re baited to sin, because that’s the direction our wills are aimed. Adam and Eve could not have been tempted in the Garden because their wills were properly oriented. Therefore, the attack was on the mind, through deception, as Satan’s was a superior intellect.
So was Mary subject to concupiscence? Well, we see that Jesus, Himself, was tempted, though He never succumbed to the temptation. Indeed, one of the features of Christ’s redemptive work is that he endured all things. He allowed Himself to be subjected to the consequences of sin in order to make debt restitution. One cannot make restitution if one does not accept the consequences of the offense. So, if Jesus was subject to concupiscence, though He never submitted to it, should we expect anything different from His mother? I would assert no, particularly if we are to call her co-redemptrix. How could she expect her son to bear all iniquity if she would not also subject herself the to consequences of sin?
In a great many ways we can see that Mary was not free from the consequences of Original Sin, or at least we have no compelling evidence to say that she was, even though she was free of Original Sin itself.
continued…
