mary, the eternal virgin?

[elvisman]

My statement was to Doxiemom in response to:

[sign]Originally Posted by Doxiemom

Her virginity was a sign to mankind that the King of the Jews had been born. I think it makes sense that that “sign”-her virginity- remain unviolated.

[/sign]

I’m very glad you answered it the way you did and the way I expected. You help make my point to Doxiemom.

There was no ‘checking her’ to see if she remained a virgin. We take it by faith that she was a virgin when she delivered Jesus. Because the Bible tells us that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, she did not need to remain celibate for us to know, or for anyone else to know.

WRONG.
I said Scripture AND Tradition.
There were traditions floating arouns before, during and after the NT was written (2 Thess. 2:15).

 

[Dokimas]

WRONG.
I said Scripture AND Tradition.
There were traditions floating arouns before, during and after the NT was written (2 Thess. 2:15).

Oh, I was correct, as far as I went. Your ST just adds to my point to Doxiemom. Thank you.

 

[elvisman]

Oh, I was correct, as far as I went. Your ST just adds to my point to Doxiemom. Thank you.

**Your being correct would be a first on this thread - if it were so.
**Alas - you’ve been all over the place with this topic . . .

 

[Roy5]

I have never understood why it is so vital that Mary was a perpetual virgin with no other children. She and Joseph were husband and wife, and why would marital relations be sinful? Today if a married couple doesn’t have such relations the church would grant an annulment - no additional questions asked. And I don’t see any problem with siblings of Jesus either. Yes, perhaps Mary lived with Jesus, though the evidence either way is slim. He spoke about having no place to lay his head, etc., as though he had no permanent home.

What has caused me to wonder most about the heavy veneration of Mary is that in all of the letters of St. Paul, filled with with advice and instructions to the early churches, he does not mention Mary even once. If veneration of Mary was central to the faith of early Christians, wouldn't he have at least made a reference or two to her? What I have read strongly suggests that many scholars believe that this veneration developed with time. Some scholars go on to suggest that it was influenced by the key positions that females goddesses played in competing faiths in the middle east at that time. 

 Certainly it was not until 1854 (as I recall) that the Immaculate Conception was defined by Pius IX as a doctrine, and the Assumption of Mary was not defined until Pius XII did so in 1950. One should honor Mary, of course, but have some groups within the church made more out of her than Jesus? Sometimes it can seem that way. 

  Recently I visited a shrine dedicated to St. Anne, mother of Mary. I took the opportunity to read up on her and found that she is not mentioned once in the Bible, that she and her husband (Joachim?) are mentioned instead in books that were not considered authentic enough to be admitted by the church into the canon. Again, I can't help but wonder. 

  I believe there should be room within Christianity and the church for different opinions on such matters as these. Frankly, I need elbow room - the freedom to think, investigate, weigh, etc, without feeling guilty about doubts and whatnot. I recently finished a book on the early Christian councils and all the factions, theological and political, that fought over such matters. I was impressed (or depressed?) by the messiness of that time, the influence of emperors, and skullduggery, even the crimes, associated with those councils.

 

[Doxiemom]

How did everyone know Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus?

Well, the wise men( non-jews) knew that they were looking for the King of the jews which they learned all about from the Jews who had lived in their country during the time of their capture( please help me here if i am mistaken- chaldeans? from the region of bablyon) so they were looking for a virgin mother

And were not the shepards told by the heavenly host to look for Him and the sign would be that He was born of a virgin and laying in a manger

if he was not born of a virgin, no matter how many miracles He was capable of doing, no matter how perfect He was, He would not have been Messiah.

I doubt anyone was allowed to peek up her insides to see her virginity. it was there , Jesus Himself would be her witness of it( I can ask Him one day).

As i said, she fulfilled prophecy by being virginal. It makes sense to me that she remained intack. But not for any of the usual 'catholic" reasons, ie, the desire for a virgin queen of heaven, lifting her upto co-redemptrix, some even saying that all grace comes through her, etc.

 

[mark_a]

I have never understood why it is so vital that Mary was a perpetual virgin with no other children. She and Joseph were husband and wife, and why would marital relations be sinful? Today if a married couple doesn’t have such relations the church would grant an annulment - no additional questions asked. And I don’t see any problem with siblings of Jesus either. Yes, perhaps Mary lived with Jesus, though the evidence either way is slim. He spoke about having no place to lay his head, etc., as though he had no permanent home.

I don’t understand why it’s so important to some Protestants that she is not an perpetual virgin.

What has caused me to wonder most about the heavy veneration of Mary is that in all of the letters of St. Paul, filled with with advice and instructions to the early churches, he does not mention Mary even once. If veneration of Mary was central to the faith of early Christians, wouldn’t he have at least made a reference or two to her? What I have read strongly suggests that many scholars believe that this veneration developed with time. Some scholars go on to suggest that it was influenced by the key positions that females goddesses played in competing faiths in the middle east at that time.

However, all the apostolic Churches Orthodox and Catholic teach Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Certainly it was not until 1854 (as I recall) that the Immaculate Conception was defined by Pius IX as a doctrine, and the Assumption of Mary was not defined until Pius XII did so in 1950.

Correct, Catholics cannot deny the IC or assumption.

One should honor Mary, of course, but have some groups within the church made more out of her than Jesus?

Truer words have never been spoken.

Sometimes it can seem that way.

Sometimes it can be that way, but the Church cannot deny these important historical teachings, even if they are sometimes misinterpreted.

I believe there should be room within Christianity and the church for different opinions on such matters as these. Frankly, I need elbow room - the freedom to think, investigate, weigh, etc, without feeling guilty about doubts and whatnot.

There’s all the room in the world outside Orthodoxy and Catholicism. If you are either of these, Mary’s perpetual virginity is dogma. Do we have:

elbow room - the freedom to think, investigate, weigh, etc, without feeling guilty about doubts and whatnot

You betcha. However, we cannot deny this teaching.

I recently finished a book on the early Christian councils and all the factions, theological and political, that fought over such matters. I was impressed (or depressed?) by the messiness of that time, the influence of emperors, and skullduggery, even the crimes, associated with those councils.

When you find that perfect Church, don’t step into it because it will at that point be imperfect.

If you think the Church is full of hippocrites, don’t worry, there’s room for one more.

 

[LilyM]

Well, the wise men( non-jews) knew that they were looking for the King of the jews which they learned all about from the Jews who had lived in their country during the time of their capture( please help me here if i am mistaken- chaldeans? from the region of bablyon) so they were looking for a virgin mother

And were not the shepards told by the heavenly host to look for Him and the sign would be that He was born of a virgin and laying in a manger

Actually, entirely wrong on both counts.

The Magi were looking merely for ‘the child who is to be King of the Jews’. They went to Herod presumably because they thought it would be one of Herod’s children, he being the king and so in the natural course of things due to be succeeded by a son and heir. So no requirement for a virgin mother can be deduced.

And the shepherds were simply told to look for ‘a child, wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger’. Again, no mention of a virgin mother at all.

In fact it’s unclear that virginity was a requirement for the mother of the Messiah. Remember others came before and after Jesus who also claimed to be the Messiah - none of them that I know of claimed virgin birth, yet many managed to convince groups of followers that they were the Messiah anyway.

Isaiah actually uses the word ‘almah’, which I am led to understand can simply mean ‘young woman’ or ‘maiden’, and not necessarily ‘virgin’. The fact that Matthew is so careful to record that she WAS a virgin is certainly evidence of the miraculous nature of His conception, but not necessarily an absolute requirement of Isaiah’s prophecy.

 

[guanophore]

Moreover, your belief makes a lie of Christ’s promise that those who believe in Him will NEVER die. He didn’t say ‘oh, they’ll be dead as dodos, but only for a couple of thousand years’. Being dead - and an inert, inactive, unaware soul can be nothing other than dead - for a couple of thousand years and then resurrected is NOT the same thing at all as NEVER dying, is it?

Give it up, LilyM. Rumpel does not even believe in the incarnation. How can Christ purchase eternal life for anyone? He is not even God in rumples book.

 

[YADA]

For as smart as you think you are you’ve missed me saying that Mary having children is not my issue. I agree with the verses brought forth by others that Jesus had sibblings. I think it’s logical that Mary had other children. However, I don’t think there’s proof one way or the other. Matthew 1:24,25 does suggest Joseph and Mary had ‘relations’. If the did, it is logical to assume that they had children. But, that’s NOT my issue.

Dokimas - Excuse me but your insistance upon “Context, Context, Context” belies your point … Matthew does not suggest that Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Jesus … quiet the contrary … Matthew’s passage is a comment on the “lack of relations between the two” … in essesnce the entire focus of the Gospel is to prove that Jesus was born of a Virgin … at best it leaves un discussed what transpired in the future between Mary and Joseph …

To read your interpretation of the Gospel it would be for the writer to be saying something like this … trust me, Mary and Joseph had carnal relations but not until after Jesus was born [or concieved] or whatever point in time you might find acceptable and still believe that the child was miraculously concieved by forces beyond the coupling of two human persons …

Instead we have the Gosple writer stating with authority that Mary and Joseph never had carnel relations until the birth … nothing about if, when or ever thay had relations at some future time … the context of the passage is all about Christ nad His advent into the world … it is not [contextually] about Mary and Joseph except in how they relate directly to the subject - which is clearly and only our Lord and Savior, the Christ …

 

[YADA]

I have never understood why it is so vital that Mary was a perpetual virgin with no other children. She and Joseph were husband and wife, and why would marital relations be sinful? Today if a married couple doesn’t have such relations the church would grant an annulment - no additional questions asked. And I don’t see any problem with siblings of Jesus either. Yes, perhaps Mary lived with Jesus, though the evidence either way is slim. He spoke about having no place to lay his head, etc., as though he had no permanent home.

…

I believe there should be room within Christianity and the church for different opinions on such matters as these. Frankly, I need elbow room - the freedom to think, investigate, weigh, etc, without feeling guilty about doubts and whatnot. I recently finished a book on the early Christian councils and all the factions, theological and political, that fought over such matters. I was impressed (or depressed?) by the messiness of that time, the influence of emperors, and skullduggery, even the crimes, associated with those councils.

And I have always wondered why after 1800 years of Christian belief [including all of the Reformers and the first couple of hundred years of Protestant Christians] believed in the perpetual viginity of Mary … that the new belief [which you can’t understand is vital] is so important enough to argue with the many Christians who hold to the original belief about … What makes you feel like you are so much more informed then CHrhistians throughout all of those 1800 years?

You remind me of the culture today that insists that we give contraceptives to all teenagers because everyone knows that teenagers will engage in sexual axtivity - its normal - everyone does it …

A culture that tells young people to engage in sex outside of marriage because nobody waits to get married before having sex. and all of the other ‘lies’ that pass for ‘truth’

Its a fact that many people live chaste lives, not every teenager will have sex and people do marry while still virgins …

Mary gave birth to the Incarnate God/Man, she concieved of the Holy Spirit and raised Jesus from infancy to adulthood … Joseph was given the care of both Mary and Jesus … you act very cavalier about this fact … somehow - getting ones head around this miracle is hard 2000 years later - how much more so for Mary and Jospeh … a live long challenge to submit to God’s will and to deny oneself …

 

[guanophore]

I've never claimed to be a scholor.  However, telling me that is not a personal attack.

The comment you felt personally attacked by was that it was poor “biblical scholarship”

So, if you are not a scholar, why would you be personally offended by this observation?

 It's the way you communicate that's personal.  And, unless I claim to be a scholar, what's the importance of saying I'm no scholar?  What's you reasoning for it?

Well, I did not make the observation, but since I do agree with it, I can say that you have drawn conclusion about the scriptures and their meaning based upon personal opinion and very poor biblical scholarship.

It happens everyday.

I surely know.

Why do you think that Catholics would notice or be concerned when our separated brethren have drawn conclusions from poor biblical scholarship that are heretical ?

You have not shown an openness to understandings different than those of the CC. You ask of me what you will not do.

Please help me then, because I think I have some very good understandings of how my separated brethren derive their doctrines. I think studying scripture in Protestant circles and three years in a Protestatant seminary have helped me a great deal in this area.

BTW, there’s much more for you to loose than for me (if I’m correct vs if you are correct - and I’m NOT refering to salvation. You hold the teachings of the CC so high, I can’t imagine what people like you will do if one or two of those teaching are shown to be inaccurate?).

It certainly is a great act of faith to take Jesus at His Word. I have asked people ask me this before. What I have realized is that I have found the answers that make the most sense for me, and when I follow the teachings of the CC my life is happiest. If I find that I was wrong, I will be happily wrong!

Then why ask me to change my understanding unless you can do a better job of clearing up my misunderstandings.

I thought we agreed that you were not going to change your mind, and that it was not necessary to do so?

It is not appropriate for any of us here to expect you to change. The purpose of the forum is to discuss, compare, and contrast diffferences. You cannot be expected to change your mind.

you have NOT given me any reason to change my understandings to fall in line with you and the CC.

Yes, that has become quite clear.

It has also become increasingly clear that you are unable to see things from the opposing point of view, even if you choose not to adopt that view.

The highlighted part is WRONG. I don’t get hurt. I could care less.

Perhaps you can clarify why you took the scholarship comment as a “personal attack”. It seems to me that people who are “personally attacked” are hurt. If you “don’t get hurt” then you are not human.

For a person who says he “could care less” you certainly do a lot of posting here, and react strongly to the content of the posts. I propose to you that people don’t get upset over things they don’t care about. Neither do people get involved and invest time in things they don’t care about. You are responding at an average of ten posts a day. I would say that indicates a significant level of invenstment (caring).

BTW, “I don’t care” is a common response humans make when they do care, but they wish they did not, since the caring is upsetting.

I have answered most of your wrong understandings of what I've said.  It gets soooooo frustrating to hear from you what I'm saying or what I believe when I KNOW that's not what I've said nor is it what I believe.

Yes, I thank you for these corrections. I know that there are times when I dont’ understand the postings. I just posted a response that contained about 5 confusions about what I read. I could not make sense out of most of the post (not yours).

However, I think what you are finding most frustrating is that I am following your assertions to their logical conclusions, and you don’t like the conclusions. For example, when you indicate that God is unable to stop the Apostles from making a mistake, it carries implications about the nature of God.

I believe that you dont’ think that God is weak, but your assertions, to be true, would require that He be too weak to act.

 

[guanophore]

Actually I don’t live in Africa at all. I’ve never been off the NA continent.

[SIGN]
DOKI! You made JOKE!!![/SIGN]
:extrahappy::dancing:

I think you meant Egypt, but it is still very funny!

:extrahappy::dancing:

How did everyone know Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus?

I am sure they did not. I suspect that most people thought she was with child by Joseph. Even Joseph thought she was pregnant from another man.

 

[guanophore]

Sure, there’s also no reason why Obama could not be living in your house too.

Rumpel, when I read comments like this I become concerned about the mental stability of the person with whom I am conversing. This is a very random and unrelated remark, and could be evidence of a flight of ideas, which is part of a psychotic disorder.

I'm not talking about your postulations.  I'm talking about what the Bible has NOT said.  And since it has not said...I am not inclined nor obliged to believe your interpretation.

No, I am not talking about postulations either. I am talking about the tribal structure of ancient Hebrew society. The Scripture cannot be understood properly outside of the context in which it was written.

What keeps you from being “inclined” to look at the historical facts?

Of course you are not “obliged to believe” my interpretation. You are not obliged to believe the facts of history, either. However, if you are not willing to explore opposing points of view, why are you here?

And what comes after your alleged ‘title’ ? - ‘What has this concern of yours to do with me? My hour has not yet come’. So much for your ‘title’…:tsktsk:

Well, we see that He immediately did exactly what she asked, didn’t He?

In fact, He knew, and was reminding her, that the moment of His first public miracle would begin a straight shot to the cross. He allowed her to choose the time and place when she would have to release Him to His final destiny.

How do you write a book for a group of people who did not exist then? There were no catholics during the time of the apostles.

Well, the prophets wrote quite a bit for people who had not yet been born.

However, the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. there were no Christians who were not Catholic

Go read secular history.

I have read plenty of history, though there is quite a bit more I should read. However, why would I want to read secular history to learn the history of my own family?
"guanophore:

Has no one ever asked you to pray for them?

This only you can answer.

Seriously Rumpel. How do you see that? Can you understand why I might be concerned about your mental status?

ACTUALLY???...why do you say Actually as if you were there with him?  Were you also dead?  Or were you the medium?  Don't tell me something which you do not have 1st hand information on and without written affirmation.

I am reading the text. Samuel knows what is going on in real time on earth, and about what is going to happen tomorrow.

Do people who are “asleep” have this awareness about current events? Can they have an intelligent conversation about current events when asleep?

You also did not tell me how all the saints in Heb. 11 were able to be “witnesses” if they were asleep?

Do you think a court of law would accept testimony from a “witness” who was asleep during the events?

How do they become witnesses?

They were there when an event occurred, and they observed it, and they were able to testify about it.

You did not answer the other two question:

guanophore:

I am curious how you see the difference between praying for someone, and praying on their 'behalf"?

 

[guanophore]

I have never understood why it is so vital that Mary was a perpetual virgin with no other children.

It has to do with the integrity of the faith. We were given a complete and once for all deposit of faith. We are obligated to receive and preserve it intact. We cannot just jettison parts of it because modern American Evangelicals can’t 'find it in the bible".

 

[elvisman]

As i said, she fulfilled prophecy by being virginal. It makes sense to me that she remained intack. But not for any of the usual 'catholic" reasons, ie, the desire for a virgin queen of heaven, lifting her upto co-redemptrix, some even saying that all grace comes through her, etc.

When I read statements like this, ONE thing is clear to me: You have no grasp on the Scriptures in regards to prefigurements or typology.

**Augustine wrote, **"The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is revealed in the New”. This statement means that unless one understands the Old Testament, one cannot understand the New Testament.

From the Scriptures - it is abundantly clear that Mary is the fulfillment of the Old Testament type that was the Ark of the Covenant (Sam. 6:9/Luke 1:43, 2 Sam. 6:14/Luke 2:38, 2 Sam. 6:11/Luke 1:56, 1 Sam 4:11, 6:13/Matt. 2:14). She is the Ark of the New Covenant (Jesus). The OT Ark carried symbols of God (Manna, the tablets, Aaron’s rod). The New Ark (Mary) carried GOD HIMSELF.

Non-Catholics charge that it doesn’t matter who gave birth to Jesus. They say that Jesus could have been born from anybodyand still been the Messiah - he could have even been born of a harlot.

Yes, Jesus could have been born of a harlot – but in order to fulfill all righteousness, his coming had to be more glorious than the Old Testament type. He chose Mary out of ALL of the women in history to be his mother.

They also charge that Mary didn’t have to remain a virgin. First of all - IF Mary had other children, there is no reason to think Jesus was any different from those siblings in His origin - that He was God the Son who became man. The perpetual virginity safeguards the miraculous birth, which, in turn, safeguards His special conception, which manifests His eternal pre-existence.

New Testament fulfillments of types found in the Old Testament are more glorious and perfect than the type itself. This rule of Scripture is without exception.

 

[guanophore]

she fulfilled prophecy by being virginal. It makes sense to me that she remained intack. But not for any of the usual 'catholic" reasons, ie, the desire for a virgin queen of heaven, lifting her upto co-redemptrix, some even saying that[SIGN] all grace comes through her, [/SIGN]etc.

My mind is boggled when I read this. I thought all Christians agreed that Jesus is full of God’s grace and truth, and that He came to us through Mary - born of the virgin. I thought even Christians who do not espouse the Nicean Creed believed that Jesus, the fullness of God’s grace, was born of the virgin,and became man.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Many Catholics don’t understand our “Total” dependance on Grace for and Goodness we have, and that we depend on this Grace from instant to intant.

WE have an obligation, however, to point out that he have to believe the Catholic Faith Whole and Entire. {Athanasian Credd} and the { Niceen Creed}

Whoever wishs to be saved must before all eles adhere to the Catholis Faith. He must preserve this Faith whole and untarnished.

As this is “the” Creed of the Catholic Faith. It os doctrine that an individual must believe in order to be Catholic.

Many Cathlice believe andn think we ca can do good on our own. Or any Good we have is not through the Grace of God. Know this…It would be easier to live without oxygen, Than to do and be good without Grace!

The most Holy Virgin in these last of time in which we live has given a new efficacy to the recition of the Rosary, to such an extent that there is “No Problem” no matter how difficult. Be it temporal or above all spiritual, in the personal life of each one of is and our familys. That cannot be solved but by the Rosary. There is No problem I tell you, no matter how difficult it is. That we cannot resolve throuhg the recititation of the Rosary
3} The Rosary shall be a Powerfull ARMOR gainst Hell. It will destry vive, decrease sin, and defeat Heresies!!

5} The Soul which recomments itself to me through recitation of the Rosary, shall"not’ perish!

6} Whoever shaell recite the Rosay devoutly. appling hinselfnto the consideration of its Sacred Mysteries shall never be conquered by misfoture. God will “not” chastise in his Justice. They shall not perish by an unprovided death If he be just he shall remain in the Grace of God, and become worthy of eternal LIfe!

10} The faithfull childer of the Rosary shall merti I high decree of Glory in Heaven,

11} You shall obtain, “ALL YOU Ask of me through the recititaton of the Rosary”.

14} All who recite the Rosary are my children, and Brother and Sisters of my Son. Jeus Chrsit.

15] Devotion of my Rossary. “is” a Greta sign of predestintation.

Pray the Rosary, be open that real Special Protection and Great Graces’s to "all’ those who recite the Rosary.

Pray the Rosay and you will witness the Quickening of the Holy Spirit!

God Blees. GT

 

[guanophore]

I don’t understand why it’s so important to some Protestants that she is not an perpetual virgin.

Accepting that means accepting Sacred Tradition as equal to Scripture.

It also ruins the private interpretations of some of the verses they believe are about Mary’s other children. They would have to concede that the Catholic understanding of them is the right one.

Both of these consequences relate back to the authority of the CC which must be rejected!

If you think the Church is full of hippocrites, don’t worry, there’s room for one more.

 

[Roy5]

Just for the record, I am more a student of the Christian faith than a strong partisan, My paternal side was Catholic, my maternal side Protestant, and I have many friends ‘on both sides’, Frankly, I am more interested in understanding, reconciliation and ecumenism than argument.

But, YADA, in particular. To suggest that maybe Joseph and Mary lived in a normal husband-wife relationship, including marital relations, is in no way connected to teenagers receiving contraceptives or the cohabitation of the unmarried. I certainly agree that these trends are disheartening.

What I ponder is why the model Holy Family would not live in a normal family relationship. I regard healthy married sex as a wonderful gift from God, an important source of joy and of intimacy and love between married couples. This Catholic emphasis on virginity seems to point in the opposite direction. After all, wasn't God's first commandment "be fruitful and multiply"? There would seem to be an implicit contradiction within Catholic teaching - or at least confusion - when it comes to sexuality. Virginity appears to be highly honored, even favored, while John Paul II wrote some excellent material on the beauty of sex within marriage.

I have serious problems with sola scriptura and various other tenets found among some Protestants. My difficulty with Catholicism is that it can seem to place severe limits on the individual conscience and upon free exploration of theology. Things are better now, but I recall when I wrote a thesis on St. Thomas Aquinas years ago I had to get special permission from a priest to have access to certain works at a Catholic university library. These included not only those by the Voltaires and the Tom Paines, but also Origen and other writers in the ancient church (as I recall). I also was shocked when I came across Aquinas' remedy for heresy. Deliver all heretics to the civil authorities to be executed! 

But, I do admire the wonderful things Catholicism has done (and is doing) around the world in such areas as education, medicine and feeding the poor. It's the rigidity of its theology that is a stumbling block for me and - I would suggest - millions of others. Why have 30,000,000 US Catholics left the church, according to various studies? It comes down to whether or not one can accept teachings that would have been easy to accept 1000 years ago when most people believed in demons, witches, ghosts, and many other things that we are inclined to dismiss as superstitions today.  

Thanks for 'listening'. 

 PS  It doesn't help instill confidence in the church that on page 1 of today's area paper there is yet another story of a priest whom I knew personally (he was a priest locally) who is charged with molesting an altar boy 20 or so years ago in another town. This does tend to cause pain and promote skepticism. Earlier this week a different story appeared re another priest in a neighboring town who has been arrested for stealing over $1,000,000 in church funds, spending much of it on male escorts in New York City. He had told his parish that he was going to New York for cancer treatments!  Yes, Protestants have bad clergy, too, but most of their errant ministers at least seem to have the 'normal' weaknesses that lead them into adultery with adult women rather than preying upon altar boys. No excuses for any, but priests have been presented as representatives of Christ in a real sense vested with extraordinary spiritual powers - and this hurts.

 May religion become a bridge and not a barrier. None of us have reason to boast. We all are saved by the wonderful grace of God and not by any church or sacrament or doctrine.

 

[mark_a]

To suggest that maybe Joseph and Mary lived in a normal husband-wife relationship, including marital relations, is in no way connected to teenagers receiving contraceptives or the cohabitation of the unmarried. I certainly agree that these trends are disheartening.

In “no way”? Really? Absolutely none at all?

Do you have a source? If not, what, in your opinion, are these things connected to?

What I ponder is why the model Holy Family would not live in a normal family relationship. I regard healthy married sex as a wonderful gift from God, an important source of joy and of intimacy and love between married couples. This Catholic emphasis on virginity seems to point in the opposite direction.

All the apostolic Churches, Orthodox and Catholic, teach Mary’s perpetual virginity.

But, I do admire the wonderful things Catholicism has done (and is doing) around the world in such areas as education, medicine and feeding the poor. It’s the rigidity of its theology that is a stumbling block for me

Even if this rigidity is the source of generosity?

and - I would suggest - millions of others. Why have 30,000,000 US Catholics left the church, according to various studies? It comes down to whether or not one can accept teachings

There are 30,000,000 reasons, none of which make the teaching about Mary’s perpetual virginity wrong.

PS It doesn’t help instill confidence in the church that on page 1 of today’s area paper there is yet another story of a priest whom I knew personally (he was a priest locally) who is charged with molesting an altar boy 20 or so years ago in another town. This does tend to cause pain and promote skepticism. Earlier this week a different story appeared re another priest in a neighboring town who has been arrested for stealing over $1,000,000 in church funds, spending much of it on male escorts in New York City. He had told his parish that he was going to New York for cancer treatments! Yes, Protestants have bad clergy, too, but most of their errant ministers at least seem to have the ‘normal’ weaknesses that lead them into adultery with adult women rather than preying upon altar boys. No excuses for any, but priests have been presented as representatives of Christ in a real sense vested with extraordinary spiritual powers - and this hurts.

It’s even more painful for those who accept the authority of the Church.

May religion become a bridge and not a barrier. None of us have reason to boast. We all are saved by the wonderful grace of God and not by any church or sacrament or doctrine.

Don’t be so open minded that your brain falls out!