Childbirth is the most natural thing in the world and often has real health implications for the woman and man involved. Making the process ‘dirty’ is a throw back to a time of lack of understanding … maybe we should go back to banning menstruating women from the sanctuary
Which merely means that they do not contradict doctrines of the Church. This is not a matter of a doctrine of the Church, or – if you prefer – does not contradict the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
In other words, it doesn’t prove what you think it proves.
I’m totally cool with that. Where I start shaking my head is when folks start getting into all sorts of contortions, bringing up physical ‘facts’ and claims of ‘miracles’, in order to substantiate the teaching (as if it needs such substantiation). And, to make matters worse, then asserting that the doctrinal meaning of “perpetual virginity” includes physical descriptions.
(The best defense of the claim, incidentally, came way upthread, by @De_Maria, who made the following claims:
the Church Teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary. Therefore, the hymen must remain inviolate. The early Church would not have considered her a virgin without it.
You’re interpreting virginity in the modern sense. That would not have ever occurred to the 1st century mind. Unless you can find a first century dissertation of virginity without the unbroken hymen, you are merely inventing a new definition of virginity.
The problem is, these assertions don’t hold up. Was there a physical way to ascertain virginity? Yes. Was it the only way – that is, were there no other ways that would “have ever occurred to the 1st century mind”? Actually, there were.
If we look at the laws of ancient Judaism, we see some pretty detailed descriptions of virginity and marriage. The “bridal price” for a virgin was double that of a non-virgin. Therefore, there were some pretty serious consequences for lying about it. So, there was literally legal process around determining the answer to the question. If @De_Maria is correct in her assertion, then the only thing that the Jewish court would have to prove is lack of ‘integrity’.
That could be proven with a bedsheet from the wedding night.
However, that didn’t suffice. Rather, to prove non-virginity, the putatively aggrieved husband would also be required to provide proof that she had had intercourse prior to her wedding night.
Let that sink in for a second: if lack of integrity
(as demonstrated by lack of bleeding on the wedding night)
was sufficient, as @De_Maria claims it is, then there would be no need to produce a prior paramour. The very fact that they were required to produce a previous lover demonstrates that they realized that physical integrity wasn’t the only sign of virginity.
And therefore, the insistence of conflating physical intactness with ‘virginity’ absolutely, or inventing miraculous ‘spiritual caesarean birth’ stories, must be later inventions. @De_Maria’s claim that the 1st century mind wouldn’t have thought that way – while a noble and pious thought – doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
The Church is rather wise to make the doctrinal statement ‘perpetually virgin’ and leave it at that. Attempting to say more makes the case less credible, IMHO.
Imagine I am walking and fall into quicksand. You come and pull me out. Did you save me? - Yes
Now imagine that I have not fallen yet and you are behind me and yell at me that there is quicksand and to avoid it. I go around it. Did you still save me? - Yes
Mary was saved in the second way. Most of us are saved in the first.
What is the point of arguing this? Childbirth is not sex. If the hymen, or any other part of the body tears through anything other than sex, the person is still a virgin. The hymen can tear from tampons, horseback riding, pelvic exams. Those activities don’t make a person a non-virgin. Only sex does.
the Church Teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary. Therefore, the hymen must remain inviolate. The early Church would not have considered her a virgin without it.
You’re interpreting virginity in the modern sense. That would not have ever occurred to the 1st century mind. Unless you can find a first century dissertation of virginity without the unbroken hymen, you are merely inventing a new definition of virginity.
Well, you see, you are the one who claimed that I said it was the only way. But I didn’t. It’s what is referred to as a straw man.
However, Vico posted this:
Magisterium:
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.”
Notice that anyone who says that she was not inviolate and that her integrity was not preserved, is condemned. He posted more, but one is enough to prove your assertions wrong.
Yes. Mary was protected from Original Sin. A simple way of visualizing this is by recognizing that she is the Mother of God. Let’s say that you had the following choices before you.
You see a truck bearing down on your mother. But there’s a renowned doctor sitting by your side. What you choose. That the truck hit your mother and the doctor save her afterwards. Or would you somehow prevent your mother by being hit by the truck?
Most of us would.
Jesus is the only Son in the world who could prevent His mother from being afflicted with Original Sin and concupiscence. So, He did.
You claimed that it must be true, due to the doctrine of the perpetual virginity. Call it a straw man all you want, but you asserted the conflation of the two notions.
Notice that anyone who says that she was not inviolate and that her integrity was not preserved, is condemned. He posted more, but one is enough to prove your assertions wrong.
Actually, it isn’t. Here’s the thing: scholars have demonstrated that the Acts of the Lateran Council of 649 were written in Greek, not Latin (and therefore, the Latin is merely a translation of what the council asserted). So, the assertion that bodily integrity is proven by the use of the phrase “in partu” doesn’t hold up – for the assertion to hold, we have to see what the Greek says. As Vico points out, the merely says “aphtheros”, which doesn’t imply “in partu”, but rather, “incorrupt.” So, can we conclude that Mary gave birth to Christ without corrupting her virginity? Absolutely! Must we draw a physical, biological conclusion from that assertion? Nope.
You claimed that it must be true, due to the doctrine of the perpetual virginity. Call it a straw man all you want, but you asserted the conflation of the two notions.
Did I use the word “only”? If I didn’t, then it remains your straw man.
Actually, it isn’t. Here’s the thing: scholars have demonstrated that the Acts of the Lateran Council of 649 were written in Greek, not Latin (and therefore, the Latin is merely a translation of what the council asserted). So, the assertion that bodily integrity is proven by the use of the phrase “in partu” doesn’t hold up – for the assertion to hold, we have to see what the Greek says. As Vico points out, the merely says “aphtheros”, which doesn’t imply “in partu”, but rather, “incorrupt.” So, can we conclude that Mary gave birth to Christ without corrupting her virginity? Absolutely! Must we draw a physical, biological conclusion from that assertion? Nope.
The problem for you is, that the interpreters from Greek to Latin, were Church scholars. The one’s who deny that interpretation, are you and others probably reading from a Lexicon. Remember, the Church is the true interpreter of Church documents.
I’ll stick to the Church’s interpretation.
Lumen Gentium 57 Chapter VIII, states that physical integrity was preserved:
…This union is manifest also at the birth of Our Lord, who did not diminish His mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it,(10*) …
the Church Teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary. Therefore, the hymen must remain inviolate. The early Church would not have considered her a virgin without it.
DISCLAIMER: Catholic Answers has turned over the archive to Catholic-Questions.org and no longer owns, manages, or moderates the forums. For additional apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.
