Mary and Labor Pains

[ToeInTheWater]

This gets me thinking. How exactly, if the Fall hadn’t happened, would women give birth without pain? Different anatomy? Their body would produce painkillers? Something miraculous? Babies were born smaller?
I fail to see how this could conceivably not be painful.

I think the idea that “women would give birth without pain” if not for the Fall is actually a misconception. Most Bible versions do not state that God told Eve he would give her pains in childbirth, but that he would “increase” or “greatly increase” her pain.

I guess no one here reads the articles on the main site, but Tim Staples actually recently addressed this topic:

Although his answer is “no she didn’t” even his article quotes the relevant Bible verse:

Was Mary Free From Labor Pains?

But for our purpose, we want to focus on Genesis 3:16 and one particular effect of original sin:

To the woman [the Lord God] said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.”

Scripture teaches that as a result of original sin, God would “greatly multiply” the pains of labor not only for Eve but for all women. Many Fathers of the Church and theologians down through the centuries deemed it fitting that Mary alone would be exempt from such pains as a sign of her unique holiness. Thus, Mary’s freedom from the pains of labor is one of many reasons for belief in her Immaculate Conception.

Now to me since the actual Bible passage never states “God said, I will now give you pain in childbearing, if not for your sin you would have not had any pain at all” I really don’t think it follows that even if Mary was sinless, that she therefore must have had no labor pain at all. I don’t see any basis for the idea that she didn’t even go through labor. And there are some Biblical basis such as the Revelation quote about a woman “groaning in pain, as she was giving birth” that argue against the idea; since most Catholics DO accept this “woman” is Mary, or at least that the woman represents Mary among other things.

I also think Staples should have worded this paragraph a little more clearly. It’s also somewhat begging the question to state that Mary’s freedom from pain is “one of many reasons for belief in her Immaculate Conception” when that is the exact question being discussed.

 

[Techno2000]

That’s why it’s miraculous, we can’t explain how, if we could then it wouldn’t be a miracle.

Right, if he was conceived miraculously , why is it so far-fetched that he was born miraculously.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Does it really matter, as Scripture is silent on this issue?

ICXC NIKA

I agree.

There was some discussion on this recently by some I follow on Twitter.

The argument, as I understood it, is that because our Lady was without sin, and that labor pains were Eve’s punishment, then Our Lady would give birth painlessly.

I don’t know if I’m convinced either way. Mary suffered at the foot of the Cross watching the Savior being tortured to death. I would think that was much more painful than labor would have been.

I don’t think the details matter regarding the Virgin Birth. I just believe the Mary is Ever Virgin.

 

[tuffsmurf]

Jesus was probably born naturally, that means vaginally. Virginity has nothing to do with childbirth. There is no hymen that covers the vaginal opening and can “break”. And of course there could have been midwives at Jesus’ birth, the bible doesn’t say that Joseph was the only one there at the birth, but I fail to see how that is important.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I agree.

There was some discussion on this recently by some I follow on Twitter.

The argument, as I understood it, is that because our Lady was without sin, and that labor pains were Eve’s punishment, then Our Lady would give birth painlessly.

Again, I question the underlying assumption of “labor pains were Eve’s punishment” and the idea that if not for her sin, Eve herself would have given birth painlessly, as Genesis actually has God “increasing” or “multiplying” such pains, so it seems some level of discomfort during labor, was always part of the way women are designed.

After all, the animals are not capable of sinning, yet female animals hardly give birth painlessly – granted I only know this from TV and Youtube videos but I’m fairly sure any farmer on this site would agree with me.

However, some animals do give birth much more quickly than humans, and some give birth to babies who are much less developed at birth, so it is possible that the original design for human labor was to take, say, 3 hours and result in the birth of a baby half the size of what is considered “full term” now.

I don’t know if I’m convinced either way. Mary suffered at the foot of the Cross watching the Savior being tortured to death. I would think that was much more painful than labor would have been.

I know some theologians who think Mary gave birth in a completely pain-free way, or that she did not even go through normal labor, or that Jesus miraculously left her womb and appeared in her arms in one instant, think God spared Mary even the “normal” level of pain (not the “greatly multiplied” level) because He knew she would eventually suffer at the foot of the Cross.

Although…this brings another question to mind. If the only reason for pain and suffering is human sin, and Mary was sinless, then why did she actually suffer during her Son’s Passion? Wouldn’t she have been at peace about it because she knew this was God’s Divine Will? After all, aren’t the saints supposedly NOT troubled by the suffering of damned souls in Hell, even if the damned souls are their own children or other loved ones; that they are at peace, even happy about it, because they know this was God’s Divine Will?

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Jesus was probably born naturally, that means vaginally. Virginity has nothing to do with childbirth. There is no hymen that covers the vaginal opening and can “break”. And of course there could have been midwives at Jesus’ birth, the bible doesn’t say that Joseph was the only one there at the birth, but I fail to see how that is important.

Exactly. I think this preoccupation with the hymen is unhealthy and ultimately disrespectful to Mary. Young girls break their hymen in all kinds of ways - sports, horseback riding - without affecting their virginity. The idea of Jesus appearing mystically outside of Mary’s body seems to me as an insult to both Mary’s “Yes” to God and to her motherhood. As to "Joseph as a midwife:” Why do we think the Holy Family would have been alone? It was a tribal society and the census forced them to return to go “to their own town to register.” Clearly other kinspeople would have also been there in response to the census. Our Christmas nativity sets don’t likely tell the full story.

 

[tuffsmurf]

Exactly. I think this preoccupation with the hymen is unhealthy and ultimately disrespectful to Mary. Young girls break their hymen in all kinds of ways - sports, horseback riding - without affecting their virginity. The idea of Jesus appearing mystically outside of Mary’s body seems to me as an insult to both Mary’s “Yes” to God and to her motherhood. As to "Joseph as a midwife:” Why do we think the Holy Family would have been alone? It was a tribal society and the census forced them to return to go “to their own town to register.” Clearly other kinspeople would have also been there in response to the census. Our Christmas nativity sets don’t likely tell the full story.

This doesn’t have anything to do with Mother Mary, but I would just want to add that the hymen is not a membrane that covers the vaginal opening (if this was the case, you wouldn’t be able to have a period). There are some “flaps” of skin (sorry english isn’t my native tongue so I do not really know the right words) attached to the walls inside, but these exist in all women and you can never see if a woman has had sex or not. In some parts of the world this myth causes a lot of suffering to young women who are oppressed by their families and forced to undergo “examincations” to prove things. As catholics we shouldn’t spread that kind of nonsense.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Exactly. I think this preoccupation with the hymen is unhealthy and ultimately disrespectful to Mary. Young girls break their hymen in all kinds of ways - sports, horseback riding - without affecting their virginity. The idea of Jesus appearing mystically outside of Mary’s body seems to me as an insult to both Mary’s “Yes” to God and to her motherhood.

I also think some people don’t know what the hymen actually looks like in terms of basic anatomy. A normal hymen does NOT completely cover the vaginal opening, if it did then the menstrual blood would not be able to get out. Indeed, the rare women who have such “imperforate” hymens need surgery to cut an opening.

The hymen is essentially a ring of tissue that usually covers most, but not all, of the opening. Some girls are even born with minimal or absent hymens, obviously nothing to do with their virginity.

I have even read speculation that before the Fall, women weren’t even designed to “give birth” but that all children were originally meant to be “born” by translocating out of the womb in some mystical way without actual labor and childbirth ever happening. Then there are those who don’t even think sexual intercourse was “invented” by God until after the fall, that the original design for human reproduction was completely asexual. Makes me wonder why Eve even had a vagina in the first place, then.

Some of this speculation strikes me as bordering on the Manichean heresy, that the presence of the body itself is sinful.

 

[tuffsmurf]

As to "Joseph as a midwife:” Why do we think the Holy Family would have been alone? It was a tribal society and the census forced them to return to go “to their own town to register.” Clearly other kinspeople would have also been there in response to the census. Our Christmas nativity sets don’t likely tell the full story.

I actually makes more sense if they were not alone, I mean Joseph probably had brothers or at least cousins who would do the same trip. We just don’t want our nativity sets to be too crowded

 

[ToeInTheWater]

This doesn’t have anything to do with Mother Mary, but I would just want to add that the hymen is not a membrane that covers the vaginal opening (if this was the case, you wouldn’t be able to have a period). There are some “flaps” of skin (sorry english isn’t my native tongue so I do not really know the right words) attached to the walls inside, but these exist in all women and you can never see if a woman has had sex or not. In some parts of the world this myth causes a lot of suffering to young women who are oppressed by their families and forced to undergo “examincations” to prove things. As catholics we shouldn’t spread that kind of nonsense.

I mostly agree with you though I wouldn’t go as afar to say “you can never see if a woman has had sex or not” as the rare cases of imperforate hymen, or even a very thick hymen, if we see that is in place then I think we can confidently say the woman has never had sex, at least in countries where hymen reconstruction surgery is not done.

But there are indeed surgeries available to “recreate” a hymen, though I doubt such are routinely done in the US, there are countries where there is a market for it. And that is not just about evil promiscuous women defrauding their husbands. In certain societies even a rape victim would be considered “soiled goods” and I can see such a victim availing herself of the surgery.

 

[tuffsmurf]

I also think some people don’t know what the hymen actually looks like in terms of basic anatomy. A normal hymen does NOT completely cover the vaginal opening, if it did then the menstrual blood would not be able to get out. Indeed, the rare women who have such “imperforate” hymens need surgery to cut an opening.

The hymen is essentially a ring of tissue that usually covers most, but not all, of the opening. Some girls are even born with minimal or absent hymens, obviously nothing to do with their virginity.

.

You said it in much better words than I did!

 

[tuffsmurf]

I mostly agree with you though I wouldn’t go as afar to say “you can never see if a woman has had sex or not” as the rare cases of imperforate hymen, or even a very thick hymen, if we see that is in place then I think we can confidently say the woman has never had sex, at least in countries where hymen reconstruction surgery is not done.

But there are indeed surgeries available to “recreate” a hymen, though I doubt such are routinely done in the US, there are countries where there is a market for it. And that is not just about evil promiscuous women defrauding their husbands. In certain societies even a rape victim would be considered “soiled goods” and I can see such a victim availing herself of the surgery.

Of course in that rare case you would be able to see it, but as you said, if a girl is born with that surgery will be needed before she starts to menstruate.

In Europe there has sadly been cases of “recreation of the hymen”. Of course it is shuned by the medical professionals though.

 

[tuffsmurf]

As others had said, why did Mary suffer when Jesus was crucified if her sinlessness would make her free of pain? I guess you could assume that Mary wasn’t damaged during birth, but Jesus was a human, and humans are born in a certain way. Remember, Jesus was like us in every way except sin. The gospels talk about Jesus’ conception because it was a miracle event, so why would they fail to mention any miracle about his birth?

 

[Peebo]

Well if Mary gave birth miraculously why did she need to go through the 40 days of ritual purification…also what would be the point of Mary going through 9 months of pregancy if our Lord was going to be born “miraculously”…personally I think it was miraculous enough that she gave birth to the Son of God…Lukes gospel said she gave “birth” to her first born son…then they brought him to Jerusalem to be presented to the Lord…as it is written in the law of the Lord…“every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”…to assume he suddenly appeared outside her body sounds fanatical…

 

[Faith1960]

No tissue damage in the organs.

Ok, but did she give birth through the birth canal? Does the Church have an official teaching on this?

 

[steve93]

I also think some people don’t know what the hymen actually looks like in terms of basic anatomy. A normal hymen does NOT completely cover the vaginal opening, if it did then the menstrual blood would not be able to get out. Indeed, the rare women who have such “imperforate” hymens need surgery to cut an opening.

The hymen is essentially a ring of tissue that usually covers most, but not all, of the opening. Some girls are even born with minimal or absent hymens, obviously nothing to do with their virginity.

I have even read speculation that before the Fall, women weren’t even designed to “give birth” but that all children were originally meant to be “born” by translocating out of the womb in some mystical way without actual labor and childbirth ever happening. Then there are those who don’t even think sexual intercourse was “invented” by God until after the fall, that the original design for human reproduction was completely asexual. Makes me wonder why Eve even had a vagina in the first place, then.

Some of this speculation strikes me as bordering on the Manichean heresy, that the presence of the body itself is sinful.

If sexual intercourse was not originally intended by God, then why would He make male and female in the first place, rather than just a neuter gender and make more from dust ad infinitum?

 

[steve93]

Of course in that rare case you would be able to see it, but as you said, if a girl is born with that surgery will be needed before she starts to menstruate.

In Europe there has sadly been cases of “recreation of the hymen”. Of course it is shuned by the medical professionals though.

Any woman who has to get an unnatural surgery to hid being raped from her husband is clearly not marrying a decent, sane man.

What has happened to Sweden? They were once one of the greatest, most civilized nations on the globe. I’m presuming you’re not talking about actual Europeans, but barbaric outsiders.

 

[Wesrock]

Ok, but did she give birth through the birth canal? Does the Church have an official teaching on this?

The church does not have a teaching on whether Mary felt pain (I’ve seen pious writings that she felt no pain, but the Church has not defined that). I am not aware of any teaching clearly stating Jesus was born through the birth canal… but to my knowledge I think it’s generally taken for granted by most that he was. What the Church does teach is the birth of Jesus did not remove Mary’s virginity.

 

[jimsnew]

Actually, Joseph had relatives in the surrounding area, but that’s beside the point.

These people were pretty rural. I grew up a farm kid, and I could deliver a baby if I had to, done it hundreds of times for animals. I’m pretty sure Joseph could have helped with a delivery

 

[tuffsmurf]

These people were pretty rural. I grew up a farm kid, and I could deliver a baby if I had to, done it hundreds of times for animals. I’m pretty sure Joseph could have helped with a delivery

Yeah, he maybe could have if he really needed to (even though he was a carpnter and not a farmer), but why would he if there was a midwife or even other women nearby? Jesus was born in a town, not in the wilderness.