Once a Virgin, Always a Virgin? – 4

I know that you are not arguing that sex is “dirty”, but I can’t help thinking that such an attitude was behind the doctrine.  One historian observes that the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity “spread in close connection with the ascetic overestimate of celibacy, and the rise of monasticism.”  But what really suggests this to me is that right alongside the teaching that Mary did not consummate her marriage is the strange idea that the birth of Jesus was miraculous in not disturbing Mary’s physical traits of virginity. To “prove” this miracle, the Protoevangelium tells a most repulsive story (at chapters 19-21).  By this light, not only does ideal holiness require abstinence even from marital sex, but also it evidently requires physical resemblance to a woman who has never given birth.  There’s something almost Gnostic about this abhorrence of natural procreation.

The Bible says that Mary “gave birth” to Jesus (Matt.1:25), and that Jesus was “born of” Mary (Matt. 1:16); and without getting into the obstetrical details, we know what this means.  Hypothesizing, instead, a “birth” other than through the birth canal is a self-contradiction, and it impugns Jesus’ full and real humanity.  It impugns marriage, sex, and childbirth.  To put my own position positively, I affirm a full, real humanity for Jesus, not a magical birth that left his mother unaffected, and not a childhood in a stilted environment where his parents had vowed not to be a real husband and wife.

Dwight: We are referring to a miraculous event here. The whole idea that a woman becomes pregnant by the Holy Spirit is pretty astounding. The belief that Mary’s virginity was preserved through the birth process as well as after is not due to some repulsion about sex. The story you refer to is a simple, vivid support for the total fact of the Virgin Birth. The Protoevangelium was written to bolster belief in the Virgin Birth, and for good or ill, the episode was included in the Protoevangelium for that reason alone. You can’t blame this view on sexually repressed monks. The perpetual virginity of Mary was established well before the rise of Christian monasticism in the early fourth century.

Let’s get back to the real point. You ask, “What is the reason for Mary’s perpetual virginity?” Athanasius, that great defender of orthodoxy in the fourth century, answers your question quite succinctly, “Mary, who gave birth to God, remained a virgin to the end [in order to be a model for] all to come after her.” In other words, Mary’s perpetual purity was a model and example for all those who would strive for that “better way” of discipleship that identifies most fully with the example of Jesus. In other words, Mary’s perpetual virginity makes sense because it reflects the glory of her Son—the virgin par excellence.

I can see your worries that this belief denigrates marriage and impugns Christ’s true humanity. That might be true if the Catholic Church’s teachings generally supported such views, but they don’t. On the contrary, of all churches, it is the Catholic Church that has the strongest, most consistent, complete and life-affirming view of marriage, sex, and procreation. Likewise, the doctrine could impugn Christ’s true humanity only if the Catholic Church actually took that position. It doesn’t. The Catholic Church has been both the definer and defender of the true Christology for the last two thousand years. The only other question is whether the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin must lead to other more unpalatable doctrines about Mary. In other words, is it the thin edge of the wedge?

David: I guess that’s one way of putting it.  In the fourth century, Basil of Caesarea observed that if Mary had had normal conjugal relations, “That would not have affected the teaching of our religion at all, because Mary’s virginity was necessary until the service of the Incarnation, and what happened afterward need not be investigated in order to affect the doctrine of the mystery.” Therefore, Mary’s supposed perpetual virginity marks the point where Marian doctrine stops being about Jesus and starts being about Mary.

Dwight: You left out the last part of Basil’s observation. He goes on to say why he does believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary: “since the lovers of Christ [that is, the faithful] do not allow themselves to hear that the Mother of God ceased at a given moment to be a virgin, we consider their testimony to be sufficient.” That leads me to end where I started. The perpetual virginity of Mary is a beautiful, fitting doctrine that has been held by the vast majority of Christians, including the Protestant Reformers, at all times and in all places from the earliest days of the Church. The only Christians who deny this doctrine are modern Evangelicals. It is possible, I suppose, that the vast majority of Christians have got it wrong, but I know where I’d place my bet.

David: On this one, we’ll have to disagree. However, you do state a good point to leave us Evangelicals thinking about:  Are we paying adequate attention to the testimony and wisdom of the historic Church, especially as it relates to a concept—consecrated virginity—on which our own thought, meditation, and experience may be lacking?   And if consecrated virginity is an unfamiliar concept for Evangelicals, how much more unfamiliar will be our next subject—the Catholic idea of Mary’s espousal to God.