Mary, and Jesus’ Birth

[FrDavid96]

So, what do you mean, exactly, IYO? That the miraculous nature of Jesus’ birth could be that she was impregnated by the H.S., traveled down her birth canal and came out her vagina without opening her cervix?

I must admit. This is one of those times when we actually do have a problem with theology written only by men of that time period.

 

[Hope1960]

I don’t understand. Can you please rephrase that?

 

[ChunkMonk]

Child birth in the usual way as in a bloody mess of pain and screaming… That is pretty undignified. Child birth in the usual way as in vaginal… Okay that is obviously not inherently dignified.

 

[Hope1960]

I know you weren’t there, I know these writings are by ancient men, but despite that, to be clear (again) we ARE free, as Catholics, to believe Jesus came down the birth canal without opening Mary’s cervix, and exited her vagina, correct?

 

[Hope1960]

I think childbirth is a beautiful thing.

 

[ChunkMonk]

Well you are probably a woman lol

 

[Hope1960]

Yes, I most certainly am. But I had an epideural so I didn’t scream.

 

[FrDavid96]

I don’t understand. Can you please rephrase that?

Can I? Yes but How?

What I mean is that the fact of perpetual Virginity is indeed taught by the Church. No doubt, no hesitation.

When it comes down to the specific biological descriptions of what happened to BV Mary’s body (such as whether or not something tore) even though some of the Church Fathers might have offered thoughts on those details, the details themselves are not the “teaching of the magisterium”

In other words, I feel that I can disagree with something St Augustine said about a specific part of her body, without disagreeing with the teaching of the magisterium of the Church.

 

[FrDavid96]

I know you weren’t there, I know these writings are by ancient men, but despite that, to be clear (again) we ARE free, as Catholics, to believe Jesus came down the birth canal without opening Mary’s cervix, and exited her vagina, correct?

Free to believe it, yes.

I would personally disagree based on that not being a true human birth. My opinion as a theologian is that the birth was normal.

 

[Hope1960]

Are you saying your opinion is that Mary’s cervix did open and Jesus came out Marys vagina like other babies, minus the impregnation by the HS.

 

[FrDavid96]

Are you saying your opinion is that Mary’s cervix did open and Jesus came out Marys vagina like other babies, minus the impregnation by the HS.

Yes, I’m saying that it is my opinion as a theologian that he had a normal human birth.

I sometimes wonder why people on CAF keep asking the same question over and over again. Why does answering a question one time not suffice?

 

[Lea101]

The hymen was a physical sign to prove virginity, as far as I know. It’s not synonymous with virginity. It can easily break without having sex. Some girls are even born without it. It looks different in every girl. Some even remain intact after sex. If a woman is aroused enough, she won’t bleed when she has sex for the first time.

Basically, the whole physical virginity thing is a myth. People in those days knew nothing about virginity and sex and they use that as a sign of virginity. It pains me to think about the many women who have been hurt because they couldn’t present a bloody sheet to their family.

The purity culture here is ridiculous. Yes Mary is pure and perfect and everything…but she isn’t pure by your weird standards of purity. Men usually have a problem with this, they project their ideas of purity onto her. Also, not to sound patronizing, but men, especially from that culture, have little knowledge on women. Hence you see weird theology here and there.

 

[Hope1960]

Sorry, I have OCD and just want to make my questions clear because sometimes the answers here are a tad bit ambiguous.

Thank you for your time and (name removed by moderator)ut. It’s very much appreciated.

 

[nodito]

Child birth in the usual way as in a bloody mess of pain and screaming… That is pretty undignified. Child birth in the usual way as in vaginal… Okay that is obviously not inherently dignified.

I’ve given birth three times. My two natural births (no medication) involved no screaming and very tolerable discomfort. A very small percentage of women report no pain at all (about 1-2%). Not all births are as violent as the movies make them appear.

Childbirth is messy, but so is menstruation. We have no reason to believe that Mary did not also have a normal, healthy reproductive system.

 

[Vico]

So, what do you mean, exactly, IYO? That the miraculous nature of Jesus’ birth could be that she was impregnated by the H.S., traveled down her birth canal and came out her vagina without opening her cervix?

We don’t know details. For all we know the birth of Our Lord was entirely natural and then all physical elements were miraculously restored in an instant.

 

[De_Maria]

But did Jesus, when being born, come down Mary’s birth canal and out her vagina

Yes. Like a puff of smoke.

or did He just miraculously just appear outside her tummy?

[/QUOTE]
No. He went through the birth canal, but did not harm nor affect His mother’s integrity.

 

[BlackFriar]

Unfortunately baby Jesus did not have a glorified body so I think we can rule this “explanation” out.

 

[BlackFriar]

I mean that she was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, her womb and cervix remained closed during childbirth YET at the same time Jesus travelled down the birth canal and out of Our Lady’s vagina. Sorry for the confusion.

And this is probably the heart of the problem Hope.
The ancient expression appears to be “virginitas in partu”.
I don’t see how we can get away from a biology component as essential to what the ancient actually held - much as Lumen Gentium attempts to “spiritualise” the teaching.

This ancient teaching apparently speaks of two biological matters to preserve a more spiritual truth that Mary knew no man ever.
(a) Biological intactness: as FrDavid has well explained (if I understand him correctly) we don’t have to commit to any biological intactness for this truth to be preserved. So no miracle re this sign of virginity seems acceptable.
(b) No opening (cervical dilation) of the womb: FrDavid has well explained that though there were a variety of explanations for how Jesus was born without opening the womb (some being through his Mother’s side) it is not only acceptable but normative to assume he was born in the usual way down the birth canal.
It seems the spiritual truth being preserved here is that Mary was both Mother (she bore a child) and a Virgin (by never having her cervix dilated). It appears to be but a second way of “proving” she knew no man.

The problem, as you seem to see also, is that (b) above seems to demand a biological miracle if it is to be held true. And secondly, once we admit a biological miracle is needed to pass from the womb to the world even in the normal manner…then really it is only trivially less incongruent than saying Jesus miraculously came from her side. The difference in the miracles is so insignificant as to make both forms of birth somewhat “inhuman”.

I cannot think of any way out of this dilemma other than to make the same charge against (b) above as we have accepted of (a) above.
That is, biological intactness or not, cervical dilation or not, it makes no difference to the truth that is actually at stake - which is that Mary never knew any man her whole life long.

But then it seems we have to accept there was no miracle of passing through these two biological “closed openings” and the Fathers and Councils were in fact mistaken to have linked this spiritual truth so closely to the two biological signs literally interpreted from the Bible.

Which is exactly the theological error JPII admitted to re Galileo and geocentrism.
If this error is the same then it will be harder to back away from.
Unlike Galileo, Councils and Pope’s long ago somewhat dogmatically pronounced on this matter.
Very difficult for many to accept that a Council was so mistaken even if we all know that the Church is unable to speak infallibly on matters of biology and perceived physical miracles.

 

[FrDavid96]

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?

There are 2 questions here that I want to address:

1 Whether or not her hymen broke?
2 Whether or not her cervix dilated?

Before we get to those questions, let’s ask a preliminary one please?

Why do we even care? Why even ask those question? The answer is: because in the minds of some early Fathers, the definition of “virginity” was (in part) determined by those 2 questions. If either was answered in the affirmative, then a woman was not a virgin.

Obviously they were not the only questions. If a woman was already a mother, such questions were unnecessary.

These questions were seen as some in the ancient world to be a method (a provable one at least in their minds) of determining the virginity of a woman. Anyone can lie about having or not having a past experience. So, some people saw these questions as a way of proving or disproving a woman’s virginity.

I ANSWER THAT: it is not a necessary Christian doctrine to believe that the definition of virginity depends absolutely on either of those 2 questions. In other words, to put it more directly, no ons is required as a matter of faith to believe that if a woman’s cervix ever opened she ceases to be a virgin. No one is required as a matter of faith to believe that if a woman’s hymen breaks, she ceases to be a virgin.

I submit (as a theologian, not just someone taking a best guess) that the essential element of “virginity” is that the woman had no relations with a man. Not just no relations that resulted in a pregnancy. Not just no relations in which the act was completed. No sexual relations with a man. Period.

We are required to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Of course. No one here doubts this.

I disagree with the assertion that anyone must believe as a matter of faith that if a woman’s cervix has ever dilated that necessarily means that she is not a virgin. Our faith does not define such matters. Our faith does not require us to hold such a definition de fide.

I do agree with the assertion that we must believe that our Blessed Mother never had relations with a man; that she remained a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ, indeed forever since she is now in heaven. In other words, it is indeed essential to the definition of the word virgin to say that a woman never had relations with a man. We cannot say that being a “young woman” or being “not married” is a sufficient definition of virginity. Such definitions do not go far enough–and there’s nothing new about them, such attempts to re-define virginity have been around for centuries.

 

[Hope1960]

So to sum it up:
Jesus probably was born like any other baby, down the birth canal, and out Mary’s vagina, correct?