Understanding the Immaculate Conception

[VIR2010]

I made the decision to become Catholic a while ago after conviction from the Holy Spirit. I was raised under Baptist doctrine, was a Baptist minister, and was training to be a Baptist Pastor so I considered myself someone who understood the Word of God greatly, boy was I wrong. I have read the Catholic Catechism and am ready to embrace the Catholic Faith. One thing that I am still having trouble taking in is the Immulate conception of the Virgin Mary. I respect greatly, the Virgin Mary, and believe she is the highest of the Saints being the Mother of God. I am having no problem accepting the fact that she was Immaculately conceived because how can someone that is perfect come from someone who is stained with sin. the equasion would not match up. So I accept the fact that Mary was without blemish at the time of her conception, but one thing I am having trouble with is that she remained a virgin her entire life, because in Matthew it seems to state that Mary and Joseph were in Union after the birth of Jesus. I hope that you understand my struggle with this because I am converting from a denomination whuch is avidly against the dogma, I am trying to accept this based on faith, but am struggling.

 

[ryanoneil]

If you are thinking of Joseph “knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son,” the Greek does not carry the same implied connotation of a change in condition after the specified time, the way it does in English. It really says nothing one way or the other regarding whether Joseph and Mary had relations after Jesus was born, but it does make the important point that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Compair these uses:

**"The Lord said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.’ (Matthew 22:44)

“I charge you to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Timothy 6:13-14)

“Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.” (1 Timothy 4:13) **

None of these verses imply a change in status after the time referenced by until. For example, I don’t think that Timothy was supposed to quit reading the Scripture, preaching, and teaching, after Paul arrived. So, it doesn’t really prove or disprove anything afterward. I hope that helps.

 

[Cachonga]

VIR2010:

One thing that I am still having trouble taking in is the Immulate conception of the Virgin Mary. I respect greatly, the Virgin Mary, and believe she is the highest of the Saints being the Mother of God. I am having no problem accepting the fact that she was Immaculately conceived because how can someone that is perfect come from someone who is stained with sin. the equasion would not match up.

So, how is it that Mary was born sinless from sinful parents? Keep in mind that the Father of Jesus was not Joseph, but God the Father (seems to me that God could sanctify any vessel, no matter how corrupt it may be). Was Mary’s father a man or God? BTW, the Roman Catholic scholar Ludwig Ott admits that the immaculate conception is a dogma that has no basis in Scripture, but is based on tradition alone, and that from apochryphal writings from the 4th or 5th century (‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’, I think it’s around pages 125-129).

So I accept the fact that Mary was without blemish at the time of her conception, but one thing I am having trouble with is that she remained a virgin her entire life, because in Matthew it seems to state that Mary and Joseph were in Union after the birth of Jesus. I hope that you understand my struggle with this because I am converting from a denomination whuch is avidly against the dogma, I am trying to accept this based on faith, but am struggling.

I would suggest that if the verse read “but kept her a virgin; and he called His name Jesus.” (Matt 1:25) would be proof that Mary may very well have been kept a virgin. However, since the verse includes the phrase “until she gave birth to a Son”, then it is unreasonable to assume that she remained a virgin. Furthermore, the dogma claims that Mary remained a virgin (physically) before, during, and after the birth of Jesus. This is not possible in normal childbirth. Of course, this idea is based on a non-scriptural writing that basically has Jesus “beaming out” of Mary, not on anything found in Scripture.

VIR2010, I would encourage you to reconsider your decision. If you’d like, feel free to PM me!

 

[Barbkw]

The word “brothers” in Hebrew is not case specific as it is in English. Brothers can mean brother, cousin, uncle, etc.

The word “until” is used oddly in other parts of Scripture. In those areas as well, until does not mean “after”.

Jesus specifically gave Mary to John and it is assumed that he and she traveled to the city of Ephesus. If Mary and Joseph had children, where were Mary’s supposed other children during the Passion?

I tend to think as well, that if at age 14, Jesus had brothers and sisters, that one of them would have informed Mary and Joseph that He’d remaining at Temple.

Mary’s own words are strange for a engaged woman who would be having intimate relations with her husband after marriage. “How can this be, I know not man.” It indicates that she had taken a vow as a consecrated virgin.

If I were a man, and my fiance became pregnant by the Holy Spirit, and I was visited by an angel three times, and people arrived mysteriously after my stepchild’s birth, and prophets forefold of His birth 500 years earlier and at His circumcision - I’d think twice about having a “traditional” marriage.

It wouldn’t however have been much of a concern to a man who knowingly married a consecrated virgin.

 

[1believer1]

I made the decision to become Catholic a while ago after conviction from the Holy Spirit. I was raised under Baptist doctrine, was a Baptist minister, and was training to be a Baptist Pastor so I considered myself someone who understood the Word of God greatly, boy was I wrong. I have read the Catholic Catechism and am ready to embrace the Catholic Faith. One thing that I am still having trouble taking in is the Immulate conception of the Virgin Mary. I respect greatly, the Virgin Mary, and believe she is the highest of the Saints being the Mother of God. I am having no problem accepting the fact that she was Immaculately conceived because how can someone that is perfect come from someone who is stained with sin. the equasion would not match up. So I accept the fact that Mary was without blemish at the time of her conception, but one thing I am having trouble with is that she remained a virgin her entire life, because in Matthew it seems to state that Mary and Joseph were in Union after the birth of Jesus. I hope that you understand my struggle with this because I am converting from a denomination whuch is avidly against the dogma, I am trying to accept this based on faith, but am struggling.

Here is a link that explains this pretty well, I hope it helps.

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

So, how is it that Mary was born sinless from sinful parents? Keep in mind that the Father of Jesus was not Joseph, but God the Father (seems to me that God could sanctify any vessel, no matter how corrupt it may be). Was Mary’s father a man or God? BTW, the Roman Catholic scholar Ludwig Ott admits that the immaculate conception is a dogma that has no basis in Scripture, but is based on tradition alone, and that from apochryphal writings from the 4th or 5th century (‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’, I think it’s around pages 125-129).

Documentation sir? This may not be an academic site, but if you are going to imply that dogma’s are “apocryphal” then back it up.

The dogma is based upon the philosophy of potuit decuit ergo fecit (He could, he should, therefore he did).

And since the Catholic Church is based upon a three legged stool (Scripture, tradition, magisterium), rather than a one legged table (scripture), our foundations are a LOT less shaky or based upon private hermeneutics.

I would suggest that if the verse read “but kept her a virgin; and he called His name Jesus.” (Matt 1:25) would be proof that Mary may very well have been kept a virgin. However, since the verse includes the phrase “until she gave birth to a Son”, then it is unreasonable to assume that she remained a virgin. Furthermore, the dogma claims that Mary remained a virgin (physically) before, during, and after the birth of Jesus. This is not possible in normal childbirth. Of course, this idea is based on a non-scriptural writing that basically has Jesus “beaming out” of Mary, not on anything found in Scripture.

How is it “not possible to remain a virgin” during Childbirth? Is there intercourse during childbirth? the state of virginity is based upon intercourse, not the hymen. When young girls show horses they often experience breakage of the Hymen, but that does not indicate a loss of virginity.

A negative does not prove a positive. If I said that I never raped a woman until I got drunk that does not imply that I DID rape a woman, only that I definitely never did until that point. The “until” statement has VASTLY different implications outside of the english language.

VIR2010, I would encourage you to reconsider your decision. If you’d like, feel free to PM me!

I would encourage you to make a thorough, well thought out, well researched decision. I suggest that you stay on this site, ask questions realizing that the answers provided are typically personal opinions based on contemplated research, and read the catechism, rome sweet home, Peter Kreeft’s Catholic Christianity, the book “A Biblical defense of Catholicism”, Perhaps “Catholicism and Fundamentalism”, and definitely all the articles in the library on catholic.com.

FSC

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

See this link for good resources:

catholic.com/library/mary_saints.asp

 

[Chesster]

I made the decision to become Catholic a while ago after conviction from the Holy Spirit.

If you received a “conviction from the Holy Spirit” to become Catholic then there is no valid reason for you to have any problems with Catholic Dogma.

 

[VIR2010]

So, how is it that Mary was born sinless from sinful parents? Keep in mind that the Father of Jesus was not Joseph, but God the Father (seems to me that God could sanctify any vessel, no matter how corrupt it may be). Was Mary’s father a man or God? BTW, the Roman Catholic scholar Ludwig Ott admits that the immaculate conception is a dogma that has no basis in Scripture, but is based on tradition alone, and that from apochryphal writings from the 4th or 5th century (‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’, I think it’s around pages 125-129).

I would suggest that if the verse read “but kept her a virgin; and he called His name Jesus.” (Matt 1:25) would be proof that Mary may very well have been kept a virgin. However, since the verse includes the phrase “until she gave birth to a Son”, then it is unreasonable to assume that she remained a virgin. Furthermore, the dogma claims that Mary remained a virgin (physically) before, during, and after the birth of Jesus. This is not possible in normal childbirth. Of course, this idea is based on a non-scriptural writing that basically has Jesus “beaming out” of Mary, not on anything found in Scripture.

VIR2010, I would encourage you to reconsider your decision. If you’d like, feel free to PM me!

I understand what you are saying but you could then imply if Mary was born of sinful parents and therefore is a sinner, then Jesus was born of sinful parent making his human form filled with error. You can not use both instances in the same manner that would be trying to compare apples with oranges. Mary was not conceived of the Holy Spirit. I believe a heavenly miracle happened that caused mary to be spotless at conception or (full of grace). I will not reconciler converting because as a former Baptist minister, Baptist give an unscriptural way out for sinners.

 

[Cachonga]

FidesSpesCarita:

Documentation sir? This may not be an academic site, but if you are going to imply that dogma’s are “apocryphal” then back it up.

Please read the reference (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, around pages 125-129). This is his assertion, not mine.

The dogma is based upon the philosophy of potuit decuit ergo fecit (He could, he should, therefore he did).

Col 2:8 - “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.” (RSV emphasis mine). When did theology give way to philosophy?

And since the Catholic Church is based upon a three legged stool (Scripture, tradition, magisterium), rather than a one legged table (scripture), our foundations are a LOT less shaky or based upon private hermeneutics.

This goes beyond the topic, but I think it makes a good point. That point is “These dogmas are true because the Church says they’re true!” Period! End of discussion! To question this is to question the “infallible” authority of the Magisterium (which is NOT permissable under ANY circumstances)!

How is it “not possible to remain a virgin” during Childbirth? Is there intercourse during childbirth? the state of virginity is based upon intercourse, not the hymen. When young girls show horses they often experience breakage of the Hymen, but that does not indicate a loss of virginity.

What, exactly, do you think “virginal integrity” refers to (if not her physical hymen)? Look at CCC499 and you’ll see this refered to. As you point out, there is no intercourse during childbirth, so why does the dogma include this as a time when she remained virgin? In fact, it refers to her “virginal integrity” remaining undamaged. If this doesn’t refer to the hymen, what does it refer to?

A negative does not prove a positive. If I said that I never raped a woman until I got drunk that does not imply that I DID rape a woman, only that I definitely never did until that point. The “until” statement has VASTLY different implications outside of the english language.

I think your example is flawed. If you told me that you had never raped a woman until you got drunk I might start checking to see if you’re a registered sex offender (and I certainly wouldn’t leave you alone with a woman where you can get drunk). Apart from that, my objection isn’t the word “until”, but the inclusion of the phrase “until she gave birth to a Son”. Without that phrase, you might have a good arguement for her perpetual virginty. However, the inclusion of the phrase creates enough doubt in this dogma that I feel no problem in rejecting it outright.

 

[Cachonga]

VIR2010:

I understand what you are saying but you could then imply if Mary was born of sinful parents and therefore is a sinner, then Jesus was born of sinful parent making his human form filled with error. You can not use both instances in the same manner that would be trying to compare apples with oranges. Mary was not conceived of the Holy Spirit. I believe a heavenly miracle happened that caused mary to be spotless at conception or (full of grace). I will not reconciler converting because as a former Baptist minister, Baptist give an unscriptural way out for sinners.

Sounds like you believe that God could create a sinless Mary from 2 sinful parents, but could not sanctify Mary prior to conception so that Jesus could be sinless, even though His mother would have been a sinful (though redeemed) woman. What’s wrong with this picture?

As for the Baptist “way out”, I’m guessing you’re talking about OSAS (which I beleive is a heresy with no Scriptural support). This, however, goes beyond the topic, so I will not comment on it (but I will gladly respond to a PM).

 

[VIR2010]

Sounds like you believe that God could create a sinless Mary from 2 sinful parents, but could not sanctify Mary prior to conception so that Jesus could be sinless, even though His mother would have been a sinful (though redeemed) woman. What’s wrong with this picture?

As for the Baptist “way out”, I’m guessing you’re talking about OSAS (which I beleive is a heresy with no Scriptural support). This, however, goes beyond the topic, so I will not comment on it (but I will gladly respond to a PM).

I am not saying that God could not do both, but it makes more sense with Immaculate conception, plus it is supported by the Church which is continued by Apostolic Succession, I think those are pretty good odds

 

[Cachonga]

VIR2010:

I am not saying that God could not do both, but it makes more sense with Immaculate conception, plus it is supported by the Church which is continued by Apostolic Succession, I think those are pretty good odds

It seems you have your mind made up, and would prefer to believe what the “infallible” magisterium tells you than what is revealed in Scripture. I will not respond to this thread any longer, but leave you an open invitation to PM me any time for discussion on any topic you wish. I will pray for you!

Pax!

 

[VIR2010]

no not what the magistrum tells me, but what the scriptures point out, they have gotten it right so far, a working bike does not need to be fixed

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Please read the reference (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, around pages 125-129). This is his assertion, not mine.

Perhaps when I buy the book. Can you get us a link?

Col 2:8 - “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.” (RSV emphasis mine). When did theology give way to philosophy?

lol, ok then, get rid of the word “Philosophy” and replace it with “Theological Principle”

This goes beyond the topic, but I think it makes a good point. That point is “These dogmas are true because the Church says they’re true!” Period! End of discussion! To question this is to question the “infallible” authority of the Magisterium (which is NOT permissable under ANY circumstances)!

Umm, any time the Church defines or proclaims anything they back it up with MOUNTAINS of evidence (although it would be theological dissertations instead of, say, fingerprints, since I think you would try to go there with that statement )

And we are encouraged to look things up, question why, research. Heck, one of the most traditional Catholic preachers alive at the moment, Father Corapi, tells us to question and seek understanding. You make assertions that are completely without basis like “These dogmas are true because the Church says they’re true!” I dont really understand where you come from on that. I suppose my question is why the animosity towards the Church?

What, exactly, do you think “virginal integrity” refers to (if not her physical hymen)? Look at CCC499 and you’ll see this refered to. As you point out, there is no intercourse during childbirth, so why does the dogma include this as a time when she remained virgin? In fact, it refers to her “virginal integrity” remaining undamaged. If this doesn’t refer to the hymen, what does it refer to?

Well, here is CCC 499

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ’s birth "did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.156

Here is the definition of Virgin from freedictionary.com

vir·gin (vûrjn)
n.

1. A person who has not experienced sexual intercourse.
2. A chaste or unmarried woman; a maiden.
3. An unmarried woman who has taken religious vows of chastity.
4. Virgin The Virgin Mary.
5. Zoology A female insect or other arthropod that produces fertile eggs without copulating.
   adj.
6. Of, relating to, or being a virgin; chaste.
7. Being in a pure or natural state; unsullied: virgin snow.
8. Unused, uncultivated, or unexplored: virgin territory.
9. Existing in native or raw form; not processed or refined.
10. Happening for the first time; initial.
11. Obtained directly from the first pressing: virgin olive oil.
12. Zoology Producing fertile eggs without copulating.

Nothing there about a Hymen. Nothing there that would indicate in ANY way that giving birth removes virginity (obviously assuming you have faith in the virginal conception).

I think your example is flawed. If you told me that you had never raped a woman until you got drunk I might start checking to see if you’re a registered sex offender (and I certainly wouldn’t leave you alone with a woman where you can get drunk). Apart from that, my objection isn’t the word “until”, but the inclusion of the phrase “until she gave birth to a Son”. Without that phrase, you might have a good arguement for her perpetual virginty. However, the inclusion of the phrase creates enough doubt in this dogma that I feel no problem in rejecting it outright.

Then once Christ’s enemies are made his footstool, does he no longer sit at the right hand of God?

You do understand that you reject the Catholic interpretation because YOU dont like it, because YOUR hermeneutic interpretation takes precedence, and that this outlook sounds an aweful lot like saying “I know better than all of y’all” which sounds an aweful lot like pride? (please dont take this as judgement, since pride is one of my chief weaknesses and I am vastly more guilty of this sin than just about anyone I meet)

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Sounds like you believe that God could create a sinless Mary from 2 sinful parents, but could not sanctify Mary prior to conception so that Jesus could be sinless, even though His mother would have been a sinful (though redeemed) woman. What’s wrong with this picture?

You obviously believe that God could have sanctified Mary in order to make her be a fitting mother for the Christ. So why is it that you have trouble believing that the God who could raise up sons of Abraham from stones could sanctify Mary from her conception.

 

[inkaneer]

Sounds like you believe that God could create a sinless Mary from 2 sinful parents, but could not sanctify Mary prior to conception so that Jesus could be sinless, even though His mother would have been a sinful (though redeemed) woman. What’s wrong with this picture?

What’s wrong with it? It means that The Father did not love the Son enough to give Him as perfect a human mother as He could have, What’s wrong with it? It says that God isn’t more powerful than sin because He can’t create a sinless being. He can only sanctify a sin filled one. What is wrong with it? It is hypocrisy on a grand scale. Note the following passage:

"7 “Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” [Mt 7:10 RSV]

So you, a sinner, expect bread and Jesus gets a stone. You, a sinner, get a fish and Jesus gets a serpent. Can you say hypocrit?

 

[ryanoneil]

Maybe these will help.

[But] Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. The early Reformers even applied, though with some reticence, the title Theotokos to Mary . . . Calvin called on his followers to venerate and praise her as the teacher who instructs them in her Son’s commands. {J.A. Ross MacKenzie (Protestant), in Stacpoole, Alberic, ed., Mary’s Place in Christian Dialogue, Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1982, pp.35-6}

Martin Luther

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. {Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. {Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

John Calvin

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. {Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 1, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.107}

Huldreich Zwingli

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity. {Max Thurian (Protestant), Mary: Mother of all Christians, tr. Neville B. Cryer, NY: Herder & Herder, 1963 (orig. 1962), pp. 76}

 

[Cachonga]

I did not intend to respond to this thread anymore, however, I feel that I need to respond to some things, and so, here I am.

FidesSpesCarita:

Here is the definition of Virgin from freedictionary.com

This reminds me of an episode of the Beverly Hillbillies (and, yes, I saw this episode when it first aired way back when). Jethro was going to be made a vice-president at the bank, but Granny stopped that after she had Jethro read her the definition of the word “vice” from the dictionary. I asked ‘What, exactly, do you think “virginal integrity” refers to (if not her physical hymen)?’, and you give a definition of the word “virgin”. I’m sure Granny would applaud your “clever” response, but it falls short of answering the question.

You do understand that you reject the Catholic interpretation because YOU dont like it, because YOUR hermeneutic interpretation takes precedence, and that this outlook sounds an aweful lot like saying “I know better than all of y’all” which sounds an aweful lot like pride? (please dont take this as judgement, since pride is one of my chief weaknesses and I am vastly more guilty of this sin than just about anyone I meet)

I reject it because the Scriptures don’t support the Catholic dogma.

You obviously believe that God could have sanctified Mary in order to make her be a fitting mother for the Christ. So why is it that you have trouble believing that the God who could raise up sons of Abraham from stones could sanctify Mary from her conception.

Apples and oranges. God can raise up Apostolic Successors just as easy as He could raise up seed to Abraham. That has nothing to do with when Mary was sanctified. It would seem to me that, since Roman Catholics like to compare Mary to the Ark of the Covenant, why don’t you look at when the Ark was sanctified and made Holy? It wasn’t while it was being built; it was when the Tabernacle (and everything associated with it) was “overshadowed” (RC Apologists are quick to compare this overshadowing with the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit at the conception of Jesus). Can’t you guys be consistent with your types? As far as Kecharitomene goes, what in this word says this “fullness of grace” was from her conception?

To inkaneer I would point out that God is not a man, so He is not bound to your logic. He gave us the Scriptures for a reason, and they do NOT support the dogma of the immaculate conception (as even your own scholar (Ludwig Ott) admits).

To ryanoneil I would simply say that Calvin, Luther and others did not leave the Church because of the teachings on Mary (which they had been taught all their lives), and they are no more infallible than the Pope! I would also point out that the dogmas of the imacculate conception and bodily assumption were not in effect at that time.

Pax!

 

[JimG]

Mary’s own words are strange for a engaged woman who would be having intimate relations with her husband after marriage. “How can this be, I know not man.” It indicates that she had taken a vow as a consecrated virgin.

This is a key point that is sometimes overlooked. Mary was engaged to Joseph. She knew how babies were conceived. She was betrothed, soon to move in with her husband. The angel Gabriel announces to a devout Jewish girl in an age of messianic expectations, that she is to give birth to a son who will inherit the Davidic throne (Luke 1:32). One would expect a response on the order of “Wow, I am to be the mother of the messiah!”

But no. Mary, who was betrothed and about to move in with her husband, and knew how babies are conceived, said “How can this be?” Such a response only makes sense if no marital relations were expected.