Mary and Labor Pains

[dnar]

Part of the readings for the Assumption of Mary on August 15, 2012 were as follows…

Revelation 12:1-2…
A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun,
with the moon under her feet,
and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth…

In Genesis, females for original sin were given the curse of pains during labor…

Genesis 3:16; To the woman he said:I will intensify your toil in childbearing;in pain* you shall bring forth children.Yet your urge shall be for your husband,and he shall rule over you.

If Mary did not have Original Sin, and according to Church teaching she did not…how could the verses in Revelation 12 be referring to Mary as having ‘wailed aloud in pain’…

?

 

[beehumble]

This has been covered by those more astute than I, here and in other places.

Basically, the labor pains are of giving birth to the Church and the new heaven and new earth. (Note: ‘new’ here is better translated and understood as ‘restored’.) Blessed Mary is the mother of the Church, she gave birth to the Church, literally and spiritually. She had no pain during the actual birth of her Son; she does have pain at the cross watching the death of her Son and the birth of the restored world. His death and resurrection restores all things to their original immaculate state. “Behold I make all things new”, says Jesus in the Book of Revelation. This birth of the ‘new’ world is painful - the death of Jesus and the pain of the martyrs of the Church, and all those who die to self in this world as they follow Christ so as to give birth to the new world.
(Note - this perfect restored world is not yet and while the wedding has commenced with the first coming, it has not been fully consummated - all things have not yet been restored and wont be until the second coming. But the Kingdom is here now, just not fully.)

Hope this helps.

God bless you.

 

[dailey]

Thanks for posting this question…I was wondering the same thing.

Great answer Beehumble.

 

[po18guy]

The clue is in Genesis. I will “intensify/increase” your pain in childbearing. This implies that some pain existed, even before original sin.

 

[PJD1987]

This has been covered by those more astute than I, here and in other places.

Basically, the labor pains are of giving birth to the Church and the new heaven and new earth. (Note: ‘new’ here is better translated and understood as ‘restored’.) Blessed Mary is the mother of the Church, she gave birth to the Church, literally and spiritually. She had no pain during the actual birth of her Son; she does have pain at the cross watching the death of her Son and the birth of the restored world. His death and resurrection restores all things to their original immaculate state. “Behold I make all things new”, says Jesus in the Book of Revelation. This birth of the ‘new’ world is painful - the death of Jesus and the pain of the martyrs of the Church, and all those who die to self in this world as they follow Christ so as to give birth to the new world.
(Note - this perfect restored world is not yet and while the wedding has commenced with the first coming, it has not been fully consummated - all things have not yet been restored and wont be until the second coming. But the Kingdom is here now, just not fully.)

Hope this helps.

God bless you.

This.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Does anyone understand St. Paul literally when he says he “is again in travail” in Galatians 4:19? or when he says “the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves” in Romans 8:22-23? Does anyone understand the labor pains literally who thinks that the woman of Rev 12 represents the People of God (the Jewish nation, the Christian Church or both)? No. The labor pains in all these instances are understood metaphorically. I don’t see why the labor pains necessarily have to be understood literally if the woman of Rev 12 is the Virgin Mary. Could they not be understood metaphorically in her case as well?

 

[MarcoPolo]

As Todd mentioned, it does not have to be literal labor pains.

Additionally, consider this: if birth pangs are a consequence of original sin, does that necessarily mean anyone who experiences birth pangs does so as a result of original sin? Logic says no. If fatigue is a consequence of running a marathon, does that mean therefore that anyone who experiences fatigue does so as a result of running a marathon? Of course not. Take another example. The rule is: students caught talking in class have to stay after school. Let’s say Billy is caught talking and gets a detention. But Suzie gets a ride home with Billy. If Suzie also stays after school then, does that mean Suzie is staying after school as a result of being caught talking in class? Of course not.

In the same way, death was a consequence of original sin. As in Adam all die, as Scripture says. Yet Christ died. Did he experience death as a result of original sin? No. So whether or not Mary had birth pangs does not tell us one way or the other if she had original sin.

Also, there are a number of theologians that equate the “pains of birth” as an emotional pain as prophecied by Simeon to her in Luke 2:34-35 about how a sword would pierce her heart in solidarity with her son.

 

[Church_Militant]

I was reading Isaiah in my Bible this morning and noted this verse which could well give us a prophetic and defining clue. Since Isaiah contains so many other prophecies about the coming of Our Lord, it struck me that this also might be one.

Isaiah 66:[7] "Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son."

 

[Actaeon]

Emphasis will be mine…

In Genesis, females for original sin were given the curse of pains during labor…

Genesis 3:16; To the woman he said:I will intensify your toil in childbearing;in pain* you shall bring forth children.Yet your urge shall be for your husband,and he shall rule over you.

If Mary did not have Original Sin, and according to Church teaching she did not…how could the verses in Revelation 12 be referring to Mary as having ‘wailed aloud in pain’…

?

First, Genesis does NOT say that women had NO childbearing pain before original sin, just that it was thereafter magnified/intensified.

Second, death was ALSO a consequence of original sin… but when I look at Christ I see a man (and our God) who was totally without original sin… and yet still managed to die.

Therefore, I see no contradiction in doctrine if Mary DID suffer physical birth pains in delivering Christ despite the fact that she was born spared from the stain of original sin.

 

[po18guy]

I was reading Isaiah in my Bible this morning and noted this verse which could well give us a prophetic and defining clue. Since Isaiah contains so many other prophecies about the coming of Our Lord, it struck me that this also might be one.

Isaiah 66:[7] "Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son."

The seven sorrows.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

In the same way, death was a consequence of original sin. As in Adam all die, as Scripture says. Yet Christ died. Did he experience death as a result of original sin?

Not quite (though I know what you mean and the logic in itself is correct).
Jesus did causally experience death because of Adam’s sin (i.e. to save Adam) , but not because He himself was guilty or stained by OS but because total solidarity with the human condition required he suffered the effects. (Strangely he may not have suffered concupiscence, which is supposed to be another effect of OS…that bit is beyond me).

That is not to say the Incarnation was demanded but, given that the Father willed Jesus to become Man, Adam’s OS necessitated Jesus die if he was to save us. Without death his human solidarity would not have been complete.

No. So whether or not Mary had birth pangs does not tell us one way or the other if she had original sin.

Not sure … If OS causes birth pangs then if Mary didn’t have birth pangs then, all things being equal, logically she didn’t have OS. In any case what you state here is not questioned by the OP - it is accepted she did not have OS.

 

[MarcoPolo]

not because He himself was guilty or stained by OS but because total solidarity with the human condition required he suffered the effects.

Right - but that’s my point, no? That just because someone suffers an effect of Original Sin, does not necessarily mean that person is stained by it.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 2:7[/BIBLEDRB]

Could a woman give birth to a firstborn child (the first baby is the hardest for a woman to give, as the passages have not stretched yet by the passage of other babies) then have energy after all that pain and suffering to clean and swaddle the baby (a newborn baby is very sensitive to cold, therefore cleaning and swaddling the baby is life-saving), and place the baby in a manger by herself?

 

[Actaeon]

+JMJ+

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 2:7[/BIBLEDRB]

Could a woman give birth to a firstborn child (the first baby is the hardest for a woman to give, as the passages have not stretched yet by the passage of other babies) then have energy after all that pain and suffering to clean and swaddle the baby (a newborn baby is very sensitive to cold, therefore cleaning and swaddling the baby is life-saving), and place the baby in a manger by herself?

I’m not sure that’s such an incredible point: women TODAY rest because the medical services are available to allow them to do so… but such services would not have been commonly present in the past. It’s amazing what necessity can drive people to do.

Furthermore, as I noted, the Bible makes no mention that there were NO labor pains prior to Original Sin, it only notes that such pains were magnified afterwards… so Mary may have suffered labor pains that were far less than normal (but still present)

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

I’m not sure that’s such an incredible point: women TODAY rest because the medical services are available to allow them to do so… but such services would not have been commonly present in the past. It’s amazing what necessity can drive people to do.

Even with St. Joseph by her side? Why not let HIM do all of those?

 

[Actaeon]

+JMJ+

Even with St. Joseph by her side? Why not let HIM do all of those?

maybe he passed out or felt sick… I hear that’s pretty common for guys seeing the birthing process.

Okay, in seriousness, there are any number of reasons he might not have been present or might not have participated at that time…

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

maybe he passed out or felt sick… I hear that’s pretty common for guys seeing the birthing process.

Okay, in seriousness, there are any number of reasons he might not have been present or might not have participated at that time…

Not convincing reasoning. Remember that both Mary and Joseph knew Who’s coming. St Joseph not being there and prepared when he knows it was his Lord that was being born? Really?

 

[Actaeon]

+JMJ+

Not convincing reasoning. Remember that both Mary and Joseph knew Who’s coming. St Joseph not being there and prepared when he knows it was his Lord that was being born? Really?

Let’s do a little role playing here:

You’re a man on the road for a census. Your wife is pregnant. You stop in a crowded inn with a harried inkeeper because your wife has gone into labor. He has a cave, but you have to convince him to let you use it.

Yes, he may have been busy at the time. I know it’s a hard pill to swallow, but when you’re effectively without shelter, some things are a priority. We also have to remember, and this is just a guess because I’m not familiar with historical jewish birthing practices, that in many cultures the husband was not ALLOWED to be present during the actual birth, while a midwife or fellow woman may have been.

And I’m not saying that Mary most definitely suffered pain during labor… what I’m saying is that such a position is not necessarily opposed to Catholic doctrine regarding the Immaculate Conception. It’s really sort of a non-issue in the long run, one of those things that is only important to protestants trying to protest the church because it doesn’t matter either way insofar as Mary was immaculately conceived…

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Let’s do a little role playing here:

You’re a man on the road for a census. Your wife is pregnant. You stop in a crowded inn with a harried inkeeper because your wife has gone into labor. He has a cave, but you have to convince him to let you use it.

Yes, he may have been busy at the time. I know it’s a hard pill to swallow, but when you’re effectively without shelter, some things are a priority. We also have to remember, and this is just a guess because I’m not familiar with historical jewish birthing practices, that in many cultures the husband was not ALLOWED to be present during the actual birth, while a midwife or fellow woman may have been.

A couple of questions:

1. Where was the midwife or fellow woman in St. Luke’s narrative?
2. How long again is a primigravida’s labor on average, and why weren’t Mary and Joseph ready for delivery with at least a hurried call to a midwife that was conspicuously absent considering how long primigravid labor and delivery usually are? ESPECIALLY since Mary herself knows what to expect since she assisted her relative Elizabeth with her pregnancy and delivery. For either Joseph to not be there or him not to be able to find midwife on time is a grave and unusual misjudgement for one who was able to ready his family to go to Egypt weeks later under such short notice.

And I’m not saying that Mary most definitely suffered pain during labor… what I’m saying is that such a position is not necessarily opposed to Catholic doctrine regarding the Immaculate Conception. It’s really sort of a non-issue in the long run, one of those things that is only important to protestants trying to protest the church because it doesn’t matter either way insofar as Mary was immaculately conceived…

I agree. However, there is sufficient evidence from this one verse from Luke that Mary was spared from at least severe labor pains, as I am pointing out

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Right - but that’s my point, no?

Only you know what your point is .

If my clarification of the confusion was indeed your point then we are all happy .