Friday, September 11, 2020

William Mahoney and Thomas Weinandy on the Physical Aspect of the Catholic Dogma of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

 

Whenever I discuss Mariology, particularly Roman Catholic Mariology, many tend to have a “you are kidding me?” look on their faces whenever I discuss the Catholic dogma about her perpetual virginity. Many are familiar with sexual virginity, that is, Mary remained a virgin in that she never had sexual relations. However, many are unaware that this aspect of the dogma is secondary. What has primacy in the Catholic definition is physical virginity, that is, Mary’s physical virginity (her hymen) remained intact even during the birthing process. I discussed such issues in chapter 4, "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary," pp. 83-138 of my book Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology.

 

As many find it hard to believe that Rome actually teaches such, note the following two helpful discussions from Roman Catholic sources defending this aspect of the perpetual virginity. The first comes from the “Rules for Retrogrades” channel:

 

R4R: Was Mary Really Ever Virgin? Apologetics with Dr. William Mahoney on Mary's Birthday!

 

The second comes from Thomas Weinandy, a Catholic priest and member of the Vatican’s International Theological Commission:

 

There arises the question of Mary’s virginity. The theological tradition maintains that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after giving bith to Jesus. It also argues that Mary conceived without stain and gave birth without pain. Would not painful natural childbirth jeopardize Mary’s virginity? . . . First, if Jesus, as the New Adam, assumed a humanity of the sinful race of the first Adam and thereby experienced the effects of that fallen humanity—such as pain, suffering, and death—is it not proper that Mary, herself being of the sinful race of Adam, equally experience pain, suffering, and death? Second, if Jesus, in assuming a humanity from disobedient Adam, overcame such disobedience through his own obedience, even unto death on the cross, and so became the New Adam of a new human race, should not Mary, through her obedience, overcome the sin and curse of Eve—painful childbirth—thus becoming the New Eve? The ultimate issue is this: if Jesus was not immune from the effects of Adam’s sin in becoming man, then Mary, from whom he received his humanity, out not be immune from the effects of Eve’s sin.

 

As to the maintaining of Mary’s virginity while naturally giving birth to Jesus, the premiere title for Mary is that she is the Mother of God. She is a virgin mother in that she conceived her son by the Holy Spirit. The tradition argued for a miraculous birth in order to maintain Mary’s virginity. I argue that it was not the birth that was miraculous, for such a miracle jeopardizes the Incarnation and so Mary being Mother of God, but that, if such is necessary, then the preservation of Mary’s virginity was miraculous . . . Mary’s virginity is the servant of her motherhood. Her virginity denotes that she conceived her son not by way of human causality but by way of the Holy Spirit. Her virginity defines the nature of her motherhood, and not that her motherhood defines the nature of her virginity. She is not a mother virgin. She is a virgin mother. (Thomas G. Weinandy, Jesus Becoming Jesus: A Theological Interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2018], 36-37 n. 3, emphasis added)