Father Ryan Erlenbush teaches (
here) . . .
What does the Church mean by “virginity”?
In modern speech, we use the term “virginity” and “virgin” to refer to refraining from sexual intercourse. “Virginity” is considered entirely in moral terms, and is not related so much to a physical description of the womb of a woman. This is often called, “sex-act” virginity – a “virgin” is one (male or female) who has never had sexual relations.
The Church, however, does not use the word “virgin” in this sense, when speaking of our Lady. Certainly, we mean all that the modern usage means – our Blessed Mother never engaged in sexual relations – but we mean even more still. When the Church says that Mary is a “virgin”, we mean that Mary’s womb has never been opened.
Mary is a “virgin” because, speaking in very plain terms, the closure of her virginity (i.e. her hymen) has never been ruptured *. The womb of Mary is a sealed fountain, an enclosed garden, a cloister.
We may be a bit surprised to hear this – that “virginity”, in Mary’s case, means more than simple moral “virginity” but includes also this sense of physical integrity. Let us consider what this teaching would mean and why we must hold it.
Virgin “during birth”*
The Church teaches that Mary was a virgin “in birth” (the Latin phrase is
virginitas in partu). Consider the words . . . .
More of his article can be found
here.
Monsignor Calkins (an official of the Vatican’s Ecclesia Dei for over 20 years) unpacks this more
here.
Indeed, the mystery of the Incarnation, of which the virginitas in partu is an important facet, involves both Jesus and Mary according to God’s eternal plan and we have no right to diminish its grandeur simply because of our particular agendas, however desirable they may seem in themselves.
Faith1960. You said:
This is the “sordes” I mentioned Fr. Jaki warning against earlier. These things are all part of the mystery. We don’t know about such things.
If a person insists on thinking of this in those terms, they will always be lowering a given supernatural event . . . . to a mere natural incident.
I suppose an atheist could employ the same principle and ask about when the Resurrected Jesus came to the Apostles in the Upper Room right through the door. The atheist could ask what happened to Jesus’ clothing? How about other things (i.e. dust on His tunic)? Did they not pass through the walls (the atheist might ask)?
The same principle applies. We can’t get caught up in admixing natural physical events with supernatural as these events are ABOVE reason (not contrary to reason but above reason). We are not told how God does such things. Nor should we be told.
That’s part of the motive why in my original answer I said we will sooner or later have to get down to the miraculous.
Someone can deny that. But then their issues are with the supernatural, not with the unbroken teachings. Their problem is their own incredulity. Not with what is taught.
Father Ryan Erlenbush expounds upon this concept a little more
here and
here.
Monsignor Calkins and Fr. Erlenbush’s information are both very good reads.
I agree that they are good reads, but all the links you provided are addressing Mary’s intact hymen, her retaining her physical virginity. It says nothing about Jesus being born with no placenta or umbilical cord; nothing to suggest he suddenly popped out of Mary’s belly button or some such way that denies He arrived via the birth canal. In fact His being delivered via the birth canal is mentioned in the paragraph, “Did Jesus Open the Womb?” The authors are saying what Jon and have been saying all along.
