Mary, and Jesus’ Birth

[Hope1960]

That sounds very likely. But as 1ke said, the Church has no official stance on this.

 

[BlackFriar]

NOBODY has said otherwise.

Interesting, I use the same premise to come to the opposite position.

All mothers from the time of Eve except perhaps one really “have told us” by means of a contrary experience surely. Birth canals exist for a reason.
The only people telling us the opposite seem to be men with deep theological problems (due to their worldview of the time) a couple of hundred years later that they needed to solve, who weren’t there, and who couldn’t possibly know the physical details.

None of them seem to say this knowledge was passed down to them privately by so and so.
That would seem to be an important consideration when asserting a miracle so spectacular as to contradict the experience of all other mothers ever existing. Strong physical claims surely need strong chains of testimony.

But they all seem to use complicated theoretic arguments from the thinnest “evidence” in the Old Testament and the theology of their day that it had to be so.
If I am mistaken I would love to see the quotes from 2nd or 3rd generation disciples of the apostles?
I don’t personally know of any.

The Buddhists say the same thing about Buddha being born the same way - but any theologically educated Buddhist monks I have talked to don’t literally believe the legend.

 

[LittleWay16]

Virginity is defined as not having had sexual intercourse. Women can have non-intact hymens and still be virgins. Having a hymen break during childbirth (I have no idea if it did, nor do I care) would not take away her status of being a virgin.

 

[BlackFriar]

Not really, it was intensely discussed by theologians in the from the 2nd to the 5th centuries and allegedly had to be defined at a couple of Councils no less.
As the above article states, it again became an issue of contention in the 1950s.

 

[Hope1960]

Catholicism allows us to ask questions. We aren’t taught to just blindly accept everything without thinking for ourselves, like some non-Catholics seem to think.

 

[Vico]

On another thread (as well as ol threads from long ago), it was mentioned that when Jesus was born, Mary’s womb was “opened.”

I know that some people debate this and say Jesus was born in a miraculous way (through Mary’s tummy?)

I also know Mary is ever Virgin. So what, if anything, does the Church teach on this?

VIRGINAL CONCEPTION IS BIOLOGICAL FACT
Pope John Paul II
General Audience, July 10, 1996

Mary’s holiness and virginity are closely linked

1. Although the definitions of the Magisterium, except for those of the Lateran Council of 649, desired by Pope Martin I, do not explain the meaning of the term “virgin”, it is clear that this term is used in its customary sense: the voluntary abstention from sexual acts and the preservation of bodily integrity. However, physical integrity is considered essential to the truth of faith of Jesus’ virginal conception (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 496).

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP960710.htm

 

[Hope1960]

Soooooo what, then? He was born through Mary’s birth canal but she never had sex, nor was her hymen torn?
Is that what your link means?

 

[Vico]

Soooooo what, then? He was born through Mary’s birth canal but she never had sex, nor was her hymen torn?
Is that what your link means?

Virgin during birth includes physical integrity, and that is why it is a miraculous delivery. There is a confirmation of the physical nature. Blessed Pope John Paul II also mentions the historical references:

cf. Second Roman. Lateran., Can. 3: ID Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et collectio very large, X, col. 1151; Second Tolet. XVI, Symbolum, Art. 22

anche per quanto concerne l’integrità della carne; (also with regard to integrity of the flesh)

And he explains:

“Affirming the reality of the virginal conception of Christ does not mean that in reference to it, we can provide demonstrable evidence of rationale. In fact, the virginal conception of Christ is a truth revealed by God, that man can accept in virtue of obedience of faith (cf. Rom 16, 26).”

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/speeches/1992/may/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19920524_concilio-capua.html

 

[Hope1960]

So, again, do you and JP2 say Jesus was born. Via Mary’s birth canal while her hymen remained intact?

 

[Vico]

So, again, do you and JP2 say Jesus was born. Via Mary’s birth canal while her hymen remained intact?

I don’t know how miracles work technically, but there was no change in virginal integrity, and that is what is important. Details would not change that.

 

[Isca]

I used to be a midwife, I’ve seen thousands of births. Many of them were truly beautiful.

 

[Hope1960]

By “virginal integrity” you mean her hymen remained intact, correct?
And do you mean Jesus was born via Marys birth canal?

 

[Vico]

By “virginal integrity” you mean her hymen remained intact, correct?
And do you mean Jesus was born via Marys birth canal?

This came up before on this forum. The hymen may not be intact in the first place. What is means is that there was no tearing or damage so that she her reproductive organs were in virgin condition. I don’t know how Jesus got out except that it was miraculous.

 

[BlackFriar]

If we hold to one we must hold to both.

In point of fact Church teaching has been running for cover on this one for some time now.
We are left with statements that in fact nobody can understand due to intentional diplomatic vagueness and nobody wants to clarify the physical aspects for obvious reasons.

I personally have considered it a repeat of the geocentric theology debacle of 500 years ago but no one really wants to admit it.

St Robert Bellarmine (and the Court who judged him) condemned Galileo on the basis his heliocentric view called into question the inerrancy of the Bible. It didn’t.

This seems to be exactly the same argument provided above by Vico above:

However, physical integrity is considered essential to the truth of faith of Jesus’ virginal conception (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 496).

But notice the side-step. it isn’t about “perpetual virginity” (before/during/after) … just the virginal conception.

Interestingly the court of nine Cardinals that condemned Galileo’s views were split 5/4.

 

[Hope1960]

If it wasn’t intact in the first place, there would be nothing to tear.

 

[BlackFriar]

Agreed, but it is an all or nothing issue.
If you accept that this level of physical congruency/integrity is demanded by the theology then you must also hold Jesus did not pass down the birth canal either.
“Opening the womb” in that way is also what is denied to maintain “virginity in partu”.

So if we accept that nothing was damaged or opened then we must also accept there was a spiritual caesarean as well.

For me Jesus was like us in all things but sin.
Passing down the birth canal and being born amongst a variety of bodily fluids and excrements is normal and while not always physically pleasant certainly isn’t sinful.
It makes us human.
Jesus was fully human and shared in all our joys, sorrows, tragedies and physical pains and unpleasantness’s. Even if he didn’t have to because these are not sin.

 

[Vico]

If it wasn’t intact in the first place, there would be nothing to tear.

In giving birth normally there is stretching and bruising of the birth canal, and sometimes the perineum tears.

 

[LittleFlower]

Virginity is defined as not having had sexual intercourse. Women can have non-intact hymens and still be virgins. Having a hymen break during childbirth (I have no idea if it did, nor do I care) would not take away her status of being a virgin.

This!!

Our Mother never had sexual intercourse. She probably gave birth naturally, via her birth canal. And then continued to never have sexual intercourse with Joseph. That would make her a virgin.

Giving birth does not ruining to status of virginity. Like Jane the Virgin, I guess?

 

[BlackFriar]

I don’t think anybody here would agree one can have intercourse and remain a virgin.
Though I have seen discussions where some youngsters do innocently hold this so long as the, ahem, activity doesn’t tear anything.

That’s exactly the mechanistic legalistic approach that the ancient’s seem to have come to grief on.

 

[Vico]

Agreed, but it is an all or nothing issue.
If you accept that this level of physical congruency/integrity is demanded by the theology then you must also hold Jesus did not pass down the birth canal either.
“Opening the womb” in that way is also what is denied to maintain “virginity in partu”.

So if we accept that nothing was damaged or opened then we must also accept there was a spiritual caesarean as well.

For me Jesus was like us in all things but sin.
Passing down the birth canal and being born amongst a variety of bodily fluids and excrements is normal and while not always physically pleasant certainly isn’t sinful.
It makes us human.
Jesus was fully human and shared in all our joys, sorrows, tragedies and physical pains and unpleasantness’s. Even if he didn’t have to because these are not sin.

A non-birth canal route is not really necessary since it is miraculously possible that there was passage through the birth canal without any tearing or bruising of anything.