Mary and her marriage

[Catholicwife32]

Exactly! Since the Theotokos was free from original sin, she did not suffer the pains of labor.

I’m confused as to why you’re saying “exactly!” when I pointed out that Genesis uses the words “intensify” and DOESN’T say that original sin is the root of ALL labor pain. The first sentence says “I will intensify your toil in childbearing; in pain* you shall bring forth children.”

This is what the NABCE says “Toil…pain: the punishment affects the woman directly by increasing the toil and pain of having children.”

This idea that Mary experienced NO pain seems a complete misreading of Genesis and a faulty application of doctrine.

 

[Gorgias]

This idea that Mary experienced NO pain seems a complete misreading of Genesis and a faulty application of doctrine.

Right: the idea of Mary’s painless birthing of Jesus doesn’t proceed from a reading of Genesis, but from a particular interpretation of the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Namely, this interpretation asserts that a virgin birth necessarily has physical implications, among them being a pain-free birth.

(Often, the explanation for this assertion points to the catechism of Trent, which makes precisely this claim. However, I think it’s valuable to point out that this is a biological claim rather than a theological one. And, if we look at that same catechism, in its description of Jesus’ conception, we see that it makes the biological claim that Jesus is conceived of Mary’s blood. (This is the same error of reproductive biology that Aquinas makes, and which leads him to reject the Immaculate Conception.) So, I think I would ask this question: if the catechism of Trent, in explaining theological dogma, makes an error of biology (which does not affect the truth of the dogma) in explaining Jesus’ conception, is it unreasonable to suggest that their biological assertions on Jesus’ birth aren’t an infallible declaration of dogma? (I would answer ‘no, it’s not unreasonable’… and I’m sure that would send some into a tizzy… ) )

 

[guanophore]

Namely, this interpretation asserts that a virgin birth necessarily has physical implications, among them being a pain-free birth.

How do you figure that?

this is a biological claim rather than a theological one.

So you are saying that the Council of Trent was making biological claims, rather than theological?

is it unreasonable to suggest that their biological assertions on Jesus’ birth aren’t an infallible declaration of dogma?

I don’t think I would tizzy over it, but you would have a hard time convincing me that Trent was trying to make anything in the biological sciences an infallible dogma.

 

[Catholicwife32]

Right: the idea of Mary’s painless birthing of Jesus doesn’t proceed from a reading of Genesis, but from a particular interpretation of the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

You are the second person to mention this. I understand you’re going into the poor understanding of biology, but I’ve met many Catholics who insist the Genesis passage DOES play in role in claiming Mary had a pain-free birth. Couldn’t it be argued that both a misreading of Genesis AND a faulty understanding of female biology would contribute to this idea that Mary had a pain-free birth?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Namely, this interpretation asserts that a virgin birth necessarily has physical implications, among them being a pain-free birth.

How do you figure that?

'Cause it’s what’s asserted. I don’t understand the question…?

this is a biological claim rather than a theological one.

So you are saying that the Council of Trent was making biological claims, rather than theological?

I’m saying that, like all Church documents, it’s the case that not every word is an infallible declaration of faith and morals. How would you interpret the following statement – faith or biology:

in believing that the body of Christ was formed from the most pure blood of his Virgin Mother, we acknowledge the operation of human nature, this being a law common to the formation of all human bodies

Or this one:

the body of Christ was formed of the pure blood of the immaculate Virgin

So… presuming that you’re familiar with the medieval understanding of how conception occurred… would you say that these are statements about biology, or not?

is it unreasonable to suggest that their biological assertions on Jesus’ birth aren’t an infallible declaration of dogma?

I don’t think I would tizzy over it, but you would have a hard time convincing me that Trent was trying to make anything in the biological sciences an infallible dogma.

I agree. However, there are those who would dig in their heels and insist that these biological statements are statements of dogma. Go figure.

 

[Gorgias]

I understand you’re going into the poor understanding of biology, but I’ve met many Catholics who insist the Genesis passage DOES play in role in claiming Mary had a pain-free birth.

And I bet we’ve both met many Catholics who have insisted on all sorts of things that aren’t implied or stated by the Church.

Couldn’t it be argued that both a misreading of Genesis AND a faulty understanding of female biology would contribute to this idea that Mary had a pain-free birth?

Perhaps. However, given that it’s the discussion of Jesus’ birth that gives rise to these assertions, aside from the question of the Immaculate Conception (which, after all, hadn’t been formally defined at the time that this birth argument was formulated), then it stands to reason that it can be refuted on its own merits, aside from any other consideration. (Does that mean that Catholics won’t attempt to bring it into the discussion, though? Of course not.)

 

[guanophore]

'Cause it’s what’s asserted. I don’t understand the question…?

Gorgias:

It seems to me that the issue of the pain free birth is more related to her immaculate conception than it is to the virgin birth. That goes back to the relationship between original sin and pain in childbirth.

I’m saying that, like all Church documents, it’s the case that not every word is an infallible declaration of faith and morals. How would you interpret the following statement – faith or biology:

in believing that the body of Christ was formed from the most pure blood of his Virgin Mother, we acknowledge the operation of human nature, this being a law common to the formation of all human bodies

Honestly, I never interpreted it as literal “blood”. I realize that there was limited knowledge about the inner workings of the human body during medieval times. Dissection was not allowed by the Church until the early 14th century (though it was practiced clandestinely) but there was always an understanding that conception was related to “seed”, not blood.

What would be obvious to them at every birth was the umbilical cord, so it could be seen that the baby formed connected to the mothers ‘blood". The could not know how the tissues were knit together in secret in the mother’s womb, but “blood” in this context means that the child’s body was formed from the body of the Theotokos,and no other “blood” (such as from the father). No one would think there was “blood” in semen, or that it was transmitted by “blood”, yet it is said that persons’ descended from a man are his “blood”.

Yes, I agree that not every word is intended to be infallible, but I disagree about how much knowledge there was about conception. People largely lived a rural existence and were quite familiar with mammalian reproductive processes.

I don’t read them as “biological statements”.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

'Cause it’s what’s asserted. I don’t understand the question…?

Gorgias:

It seems to me that the issue of the pain free birth is more related to her immaculate conception than it is to the virgin birth. That goes back to the relationship between original sin and pain in childbirth.

But, as has been pointed out, the text claims increased pain, not a new condition of pain. Therefore, if we’re talking about what the effects of sin are, then the objective fact of pain in childbirth precedes sin.

Honestly, I never interpreted it as literal “blood”. I realize that there was limited knowledge about the inner workings of the human body during medieval times.

See this discussion of the medieval understanding of conception, based on Aristotle’s discussion of it. Women were seen as a “fertile field” (of menstrual blood) into which the “seed of man” was planted.

Yes, I agree that not every word is intended to be infallible, but I disagree about how much knowledge there was about conception. People largely lived a rural existence and were quite familiar with mammalian reproductive processes.

Processes perhaps, but even then, they got them wrong, from a biological perspective.

I don’t read them as “biological statements”.

Please re-read the discussion of Christ proceeding from Mary’s blood after you read the link I’ve cited…