Mary and birth pains

[Kendy]

My catholic scripture school teacher said that Mary probably did experience birth pains. She said she does not deny the immaculate conception, but if Jesus could be sinless and still work and die (consequences of the fall), Mary can experience birth pains. This seems to make sense to me but I am wondering what does the church teach?

Kendy

 

[water]

sources:
catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

Even before the terms “original sin” and “immaculate conception” had been defined, early passages imply the doctrines. Many works mention that Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain. But pain in childbearing is part of the penalty of original sin (Gen. 3:16). Thus, Mary could not have been under that penalty. By God’s grace, she was immaculate in anticipation of her Son’s redemptive death on the cross. The Church therefore describes Mary as “the most excellent fruit of redemption” (CCC 508).

 

[BlestOne]

hmmm…My name is Mary and I have had 4 children and no birth pains…it still doesn’t make me the Blessed Mother.

 

[NotWorthy]

You might want to check Genesis 3:16 again. It doesn’t say I will give you pain in childbirth. It says I will increase (or intsensify) the pain. Hence, there was to be generally some pain if not intense pain.

Gen. 3:16 - To the woman he said: "I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children…"

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

Here is the answer from our Ask an Apologist forum: Did Mary suffer in childbirth?

 

[Todd_Easton]

My catholic scripture school teacher said that Mary probably did experience birth pains. She said she does not deny the immaculate conception, but if Jesus could be sinless and still work and die (consequences of the fall), Mary can experience birth pains. This seems to make sense to me but I am wondering what does the church teach?

Kendy

According to the article on the “Immaculate Conception” in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Mary was not exempt from the temporal effects of Original Sin:

The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam – from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death. Its my guess that birth pains would fall in the catagory of ‘temporal penalties of Adam.’ So Mary may indeed have experience some birth pains. See Revelation 12:2. On the other hand, the Church teaches that Jesus’ birth was miraculous, that Mary preserved her virginity during his birth. So, I don’t know for sure.

The second century Christian writing called the Protoevangelium of James, 17-19, which describes the events surrounding Jesus’ birth in detail, is silent on the matter of Mary having birth pains; it only mentions that Mary had an awareness that the time for Jesus’ birth was at hand.

 

[copland]

As far as Rev. 12:2, Oecumenius, one of the Early Church Fathers, explains it the best, showing that Mary did not experience birth pains, but that the passage uses figurative speech to indicate that she was sorrowful due to being pregnant until she understood by the word of the angel that she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit.

She was with child, and she cried out in her birth-pangs, in anguish for delivery. Yet Isaiah says about her, “before the woman in labor gives birth, and before the toil of labor begins, she fled and brought forth a male child.(Is. 66:7)” Gregory also, in the 13th chapter of his interpretation of the Song of Songs talks about of the Lord “whose conception is without intercourse, and whose birth is undefiled.(Gregory of Nyssa, Homilia in Canticum Canticorum 13)” So the birth was free from pain. Therefore, if, according to such a great prophet and the teacher of the church, the Virgin has escaped the pain of childbirth, how does she here cry out in her birth-pang, in anguish for delivery? Does not this contradict what is said? Certainly not. For nothing could be contradictory in the mouth of the one and the same Spirit, who spoke through both. But in the present passage you should understand the crying out and being in anguish in the way: until the divine angel told Joseph about her, that the conception was from the Holy Spirit, the Virgin was naturally despondent, blushing before her betrothed, and thinking that he might somehow suspect that she was in labor from a furtive marriage. Her despondency and grief he called, according to the principles of metaphor, crying and anguish; and this is not surprising. For even when blessed Moses spiritually met God and was losing heart- for he saw Israel in the desert being encircled by the sea and by enemies- God said to him, “Why do you cry to me?(Ex. 14:15) So also now the vision calls the sorrowful disposition of the Virgin’s mind and heart “crying out.” Oecumenius Commentary on Revelation] 6th Century

 

[Kendy]

Thanks, everybody

 

[spauline]

My personal opinion is not only did Mary experience intense birth pains, not because of sin but that she might share in the sufferings of Christ, but that she was also not a physically attractive girl and that Jesus was not physically attractive either, in order that they would not be associated with what draws worldly attention, in order that their perfect sinlessness would be veiled under the garment of humble physical characteristics.

I think heard Peter Kreeft takes this position. If he does, more power to him!

 

[spauline]

and correlatedly, I would say that Mary and Jesus did not acquire physical beauty until their respective acquisition of glorified bodies.

 

[exoflare]

My personal opinion is not only did Mary experience intense birth pains, not because of sin but that she might share in the sufferings of Christ, but that she was also not a physically attractive girl and that Jesus was not physically attractive either, in order that they would not be associated with what draws worldly attention, in order that their perfect sinlessness would be veiled under the garment of humble physical characteristics.

I think heard Peter Kreeft takes this position. If he does, more power to him!

Wow, that makes a lot of sense but I never thought about it that way before. Interesting…

 

[spauline]

Wow, that makes a lot of sense but I never thought about it that way before. Interesting…

thank you for your support! I posted this on Steve Ray’s forum, and pretty much everybody disagreed with me. but I think alot of the people in DCF are more hard hearted than some people here on CAF.

blessings to you, exoflare!

 

[spauline]

Wow, that makes a lot of sense but I never thought about it that way before. Interesting…

yes, I tend to think this way because the world runs after physical beauty, because it is largely driven by lust and superficial pursuits. But, as it says in the Scripture where God chooses David, something like, “Men judge by appearance, but God judges by the heart”.

I often ponder how many wonderful girls and women there are who have no one to court them because they are overweight or not attractive in their face, but inside they are radiantly beautiful, with great humility, virtue, and love.

Indeed, I have a problem with guys who say they can’t be attracted to a girl if she is not “attractive” in a physical sense. I think a person’s interests should more be driven by what lies on the inside, and not so much on the outside. Every body is beautiful, according to JPII in his wondrous theology of the body, they are capable of giving and receiving the same love.

So this just makes me think that prior to their glorification, Jesus and Mary had humble physical characteristics in order that they might be more in solidarity with the less attractive persons who suffer psychological persecution because of they are not worldly attractive.

 

[Franciscan]

I understand that beauty is more than skin deep. Our Lady is certainly the model of inner beauty. But it’s hard to believe that, in contrast to her immaculate nature, she was an ugly person on the outside. Consider the Song of Songs. When the indentity of the bride is attributed to Mary the Groom is the Holy Spirit singing her praises.

The first address the Holy Spirit says to Mary is, “O most beautiful among women’(1:8).
Again, “Ah you are beautiful my beloved, Ah you are beautiful”(1:16). These are just the first two addresses to the bride. If you read through the Song of Songs with Mary in mind as the bride(which is theologically correct) there’s no way you would come away thinking that she was probably unattractive.

The following titles were selected from the traditional litany to Mary. These I think hint at her external beauty:

Mother inviolate,
Mother undefiled,
Mother most admirable,
Mirror of justice,
Vessel of honor,
Singular vessel of devotion,
Mystical rose,
Tower of David,
Tower of ivory,
House of gold,
Ark of the covenant.

Finally, in just about every account of the many apparitions including Fatima and Lourdes, the visionaries unanimously proclaim her beauty. This may have been due to her Assumption but if we consider that our glorified bodies are the truest version of our real selves then we could see that Mary was beautiful inside and out.

So please don’t call our Ma Ma ugly.

 

[buffalo]

A very interesting article

** Was Mary like other women in her biological cycle?**

 

[spauline]

I said I believe while she was on EARTH, she was unattractive, and here, I only mean in a WORLDLY sense, that is, that guys who are superficial wouldn’t have found her attractive. But men who understood what true beauty is would be able to be attracted to her precisely because of here spiritual beautry. but, of course, in her GLORIFIED BODY after the ASSUMPTION, she is indescribably beautiful, especially physically, seeing as our inner beauty will be manifested physicaly in the resurrection, just as many “beautiful women” who were dead spiritually will be grotesque in the resurrection of the damned.

 

[exoflare]

Finally, in just about every account of the many apparitions including Fatima and Lourdes, the visionaries unanimously proclaim her beauty. This may have been due to her Assumption but if we consider that our glorified bodies are the truest version of our real selves then we could see that Mary was beautiful inside and out.

Yes, but I think it’s pretty well implied that we’re only speaking of her appearance before the Assumption. Anyway see my response in your other thread.

 

[Valke2]

Why would anyone have any birth pains after Jesus sacrificed himself for the sins of others? Why are we required to still toil for our daily bread?

 

[tequilamac]

According to the article on the “Immaculate Conception” in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Mary was not exempt from the temporal effects of Original Sin:

The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam – from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death. Its my guess that birth pains would fall in the catagory of ‘temporal penalties of Adam.’ So Mary may indeed have experience some birth pains. See Revelation 12:2. On the other hand, the Church teaches that Jesus’ birth was miraculous, that Mary preserved her virginity during his birth. So, I don’t know for sure.

The second century Christian writing called the Protoevangelium of James, 17-19, which describes the events surrounding Jesus’ birth in detail, is silent on the matter of Mary having birth pains; it only mentions that Mary had an awareness that the time for Jesus’ birth was at hand.

Also Jesus was without sin, ANY sin, original or not and yet He felt the same pain any of us would feel when He was nailed to the cross. so why is it necessary that Mary felt no pain in childbirth?

 

[exoflare]

Why would anyone have any birth pains after Jesus sacrificed himself for the sins of others? Why are we required to still toil for our daily bread?

I think someone explained to you in another thread, but just in case… it’s because the effects of original sin on earth still remain. The difference is that our culpability for original sin is wiped clean. Only after the final judgement of the earth will ALL effects of sin be eliminated, for those who God judges favorably.