Why Believe in Perpetual Virginity?

[NeoScholasticism]

What would the purpose of it be? How would sexuality in a proper context defile a person? It doesn't make any sense.

I don't understand what you're asking. What would the purpose of what be? The vow? It is a fitting, but not necessary, sacrifice which Mary took. God, in turn, used it as a fitting, but not necessary, sacrifice to help Mary to more fully carry out her role as the Mother of God.

I'm not sure what you mean by defile. If you mean 'commit sin', then such a thing clearly does not happen "in a proper context." Perhaps you are thinking about some remarks in Augustine's theology? That seems to be another matter. Suffice to say that Augustine does not stand for the entire tradition.

I don't understand why or how you don't think it doesn't make any sense.

 

[SolomonVII]

One thing that people have trouble with when it comes to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is that marriage is a sacred vow too.
It is a vow to family and saying yes to life.
The teaching on marriage and sexuality is that marriage is one-flesh union of a man and a woman who come together and are bonded in procreatively and in full love and all that it entails.
That is what marriage is about. While it certainly is okay and even commendable to refrain from such bonding in order to space the births of children, the higher purpose of marriage, which is a sacrament, is to be fruitful and multiply.

This is a close paraphrase of Catholic teaching on marriage actually.

From our own personal experiences, and/or the experiences of other married people, virginity in marriage does not seem to be from a higher place, but from a place of dysfunction.

Celibacy is commendable enough for those who chose to remain single, but celibate marriage compares to gay "marriage" in its sterility. The unitive response is all there but cutting oneself off from procreation is one step removed from onanism.

In a world in which life in the womb itself is under huge challenges, even assault, sterile marriages that opt out of going forth and being fruitful and multiplying do not strike some of us as being the highest type to laud as the example par excellence of all that marriage can be.

 

[NeoScholasticism]

One thing that people have trouble with when it comes to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is that marriage is a sacred vow too.
It is a vow to family and saying yes to life.
The teaching on marriage and sexuality is that marriage is one-flesh union of a man and a woman who come together and are bonded in procreatively and in full love and all that it entails.
That is what marriage is about. While it certainly is okay and even commendable to refrain from such bonding in order to space the births of children, the higher purpose of marriage, which is a sacrament, is to be fruitful and multiply.

This is a close paraphrase of Catholic teaching on marriage actually.

From our own personal experiences, and/or the experiences of other married people, virginity in marriage does not seem to be from a higher place, but from a place of dysfunction.

Celibacy is commendable enough for those who chose to remain single, but celibate marriage compares to gay "marriage" in its sterility. The unitive response is all there but cutting oneself off from procreation is one step removed from onanism.

In a world in which life in the womb itself is under huge challenges, even assault, sterile marriages that opt out of going forth and being fruitful and multiplying do not strike some of us as being the highest type to laud as the example par excellence of all that marriage can be.

I'm not sure celibate marriage is comparable to gay marriage in this situation. The consequences are in part the same, but Catholic moral theology is not consequentialist. What's prohibited is the use of contraception, because it is contrary to the natural law. It is not contrary to the natural law to use, say, NFP, so long as there is a sufficient reason. Likewise, it is not contrary to the natural law to refrain from intercourse, granted that there is a sufficient reason. In the case of Mary and Joseph, it's not inconceivable that there was a sufficient reason to abstain from intercourse altogether -- such as the vow.

Of course, that thought just considers whether a perpetual abstinence was morally licit, not whether perpetual abstinence is more laudable than the normal course of marital relations. I'll have to take another look at the issue later when I'm less busy.

There is possibly also an issue about the consummation of the marriage. Was the consummation necessary? If so, there is a problem. But the burden of proof lies right now in showing that such a consummation was in fact necessary.

 

[Sammy-San]

I don't understand what you're asking. What would the purpose of what be? The vow? It is a fitting, but not necessary, sacrifice which Mary took. God, in turn, used it as a fitting, but not necessary, sacrifice to help Mary to more fully carry out her role as the Mother of God.

I'm not sure what you mean by defile. If you mean 'commit sin', then such a thing clearly does not happen "in a proper context." Perhaps you are thinking about some remarks in Augustine's theology? That seems to be another matter. Suffice to say that Augustine does not stand for the entire tradition.

I don't understand why or how you don't think it doesn't make any sense.

Does sin and defilement mean the same thing?

 

[NeoScholasticism]

Does sin and defilement mean the same thing?

I don't think so unless 'defile' is used reflexively. If I say "The altar was defiled as the ruffians overtook St. Thomas Becket and slaughtered him," surely it is not that the altar sinned, though it was defiled. But to say "The ruffians defiled themselves in murdering St. Thomas Becket" surely means that they sinned.

I'm not entirely sure how that is relevant, though.

 

[Jonathan Mathews]

That sounds like really circular logic. Obviously you believe that computers or smartphones matter, otherwise you would be unable to join this forum. But they are not written about in the Scriptures, so you should say about computers, cell phones, automobiles, polycloth clothes, roads made of asphalt, kitchen appliances, and the plethora of other things that most people take for granted in the 21st century.

But computers don't REALLY matter either, do they? I mean, in light of the infinite expanse of the Height, Depth, and Width of the Cosmos of God's Love, His Eternal Kingdom of Light, and the Immortality found in the Resurrected Jesus Christ, do computers REALLY matter? That's why I don't bother including computers in my teaching on God. Nor do I include the "perpetual Virginity" of Mary.

And I like to call it "holistic" logic. If A = B and B = A, than A = A and B = B. But we already knew that, didn't we, so would you call that "circular" logic or just plain TRUE?

 

[SolomonVII]

I'm not sure celibate marriage is comparable to gay marriage in this situation. The consequences are in part the same, but Catholic moral theology is not consequentialist.

I am certainly not making the case that Catholic morality is consequentialist. What it is is open to life.
Gay marriage proponents have always countered the argument of the dual features of Catholic marriage and its unitive and procreative facets by pointing out that sterile couples are not functionally open to the procreative aspect either.
But that is not really true. By emulating the type of procreative marriage, even sterile couples are supporting procreative marriage by remaining open to the possibility of life, God willing. And God is sometimes willing, aka Sarah and Hannah.
A celibate marriage is no more of the type of openness to life as a gay marriage is.

What's prohibited is the use of contraception, because it is contrary to the natural law. It is not contrary to the natural law to use, say, NFP, so long as there is a sufficient reason. Likewise, it is not contrary to the natural law to refrain from intercourse, granted that there is a sufficient reason. In the case of Mary and Joseph, it's not inconceivable that there was a sufficient reason to abstain from intercourse altogether -- such as the vow.

And such a hypothetical vow, which is of course base in speculation after that fact, and in no way is historically supported by any known facts, would close any marriage down to the possibility of life. It is in effect contrary to the Catholic teaching of marriage as being open to life. Such a marriage would not be open to life.

Of course, that thought just considers whether a perpetual abstinence was morally licit, not whether perpetual abstinence is more laudable than the normal course of marital relations. I'll have to take another look at the issue later when I'm less busy.

Okay.

There is possibly also an issue about the consummation of the marriage. Was the consummation necessary? If so, there is a problem. But the burden of proof lies right now in showing that such a consummation was in fact necessary.

That is the legal argument. Of course, as long as nobody objects, nobody ought to force someone to have sex against their will. Anullment of a marriage on grounds of refusal to consummate is valid only if one of the other partner brings the issue forth as proof that the marriage is not real. And when they do so, the authorities normally agree that such a marriage would not be real.
So nevertheless, the teaching has always been that marriage is an agreement that there is an openness to life.
Celibate marriage with a perpetual vow to not consummate places the normal Catholic definition of what constitutes a marriage on its head.

 

[NeoScholasticism]

I am certainly not making the case that Catholic morality is consequentialist. What it is is open to life.
Gay marriage proponents have always countered the argument of the dual features of Catholic marriage and its unitive and procreative facets by pointing out that sterile couples are not functionally open to the procreative aspect either.
But that is not really true. By emulating the type of procreative marriage, even sterile couples are supporting procreative marriage by remaining open to the possibility of life, God willing. And God is sometimes willing, aka Sarah and Hannah.

That depends on what you mean by "emulating". If by emulating you mean refraining from the use of contraception, then I would agree. But if by emulating you mean engaging in sexual relations, I would say you have provided no reason to believe so. You're simply asserting, perhaps unwittingly, that to refrain from sexual relations perpetually, given a sufficient reason, is contrary to the 'procreative facet' of marriage. Now, to use contraception is always contrary to that procreative facet, because contraception is contrary to natural law, and the procreative facet of marriage just is another way of talking about the pertinent part of natural law. However, to abstain from marital relations is not against natural law, such as in NFP, granted that there is a sufficient reason. Even though the couple refrains from sexual relations, they are not failing to be "open to life." Why is this? Because there is a sufficient reason. A sufficient reason for something can preclude culpability for an act, granted that the act is not intrinsically evil. That's the principle of double effect, and it's used all the time in bioethics.

Now suppose -- just hypothetically -- that there is a sufficient reason to perpetually abstain from sexual relations. Would this be a failure to be "open to life"? How could it be? It is not against natural law any more than NFP is; for both are simply abstinence from the ordinary course of sexual relations. Now, if there is not a sufficient reason for abstinence, then surely that would be sinful to abstain for periods of time. But, given the hypothesis, there is a sufficient reason, and so it is not sinful.

A celibate marriage is no more of the type of openness to life as a gay marriage is.

So, I don't think I have any reason to accept this statement. Gay "marriage" is intrinsically opposed to the natural law. It is intrinsically evil. Celibate marriage is not contrary to the natural law, although a sufficient reason is required (and probably a very severe one) to perpetuate the celibacy. A vow of celibacy is a sufficient reason, granted that it is vowed under pain of mortal sin.

As an example, Sts. Louis and Zélie Martin, the parents of St. Therese of Lisieux, originally had the intention of entering into a celibate marriage. They eventually decided otherwise about a year into their marriage, with the advice of their confessor. At this point in France, Jansenism had impacted moral theology, making the requirements for the moral liceity of an action exceedingly high. If celibate marriage were in any way against the teachings of the Church, the moralists would have taught against it as scrupulously as they did everything else. And Sts. Louis and Zélie were well-informed on moral matters anyway -- being deeply pious French Catholics as they were.

And such a hypothetical vow, which is of course base in speculation after that fact, and in no way is historically supported by any known facts, would close any marriage down to the possibility of life. It is in effect contrary to the Catholic teaching of marriage as being open to life. Such a marriage would not be open to life.

The view that Mary was a vowed virgin was held by Sts. Augustine of Hippo and many of the early Church Fathers. This is not something being spun up as of a few years ago.

Celibate marriage with a perpetual vow to not consummate places the normal Catholic definition of what constitutes a marriage on its head.

This is not quite right. A marriage is validly contracted even before (or without) consummation. It even has a special name in canon law: ratum tantum. A valid marriage which is consummated is called ratum et consummatum. The validity of marriage, further, is treated as lawful until proven otherwise. Unless one can prove that the ratum tantum does not exist without the intention of consummation, the marriage must be presumed valid.

Moreover, if you are holding as you are to this conception of what is "open to life," then that makes for difficulties for the PVM. That's the whole reason this was brought up. Surely you would say that Mary and Joseph were married. But does it follow from this that they consummated their marriage? Certainly not, if you admit the PVM. You might say that they were open to life because they were jointly open to Christ's conception. But Jesus was not a result of the marriage; he is, as it were, adopted, in relation to Joseph. But you would probably not say that a celibate marriage which opts for adoption is "open to life," for it involves perpetual abstinence from sexual relations. Did Joseph fail to be open to life by living out a celibate marriage, then? Although we have no indication that Joseph was not sinless, we do know that he was a righteous man. This is a solid enough indicator to say that he would not do something so seriously wrong as decide to live a celibate life married to Mary -- if in fact living a celibate life married to Mary were a wrong thing to do. But I don't think it is. In fact, I think it was morally praiseworthy and meritorious.

 

[chilehed]

Except that the evidence shows that it's was the universal Christian belief from the beginning of Christianity until the Protestant Reformation.

What evidence shows from the beginning. The earliest I can find this being mentiined is the 4th century atleast 200+ years after Mary would have been dead. So these theologians would have as much 1st hand knowledge of such a thing as we do today. Through Scripture and Church history.

Notice that all the authorities who speak of it back then assume that it's common knowledge and that only heretics don't believe it. Origen and Athanasius of Alexandria, Hilary of Poitiers, Epiphanius of Cypress, Jerome of Italy, Ambrose of Milan, St. Augustine of Hippo; all scattered across the Christian world, all believing it true, and there being so little opposition to the idea that it was never brought up at any Church council. It's unreasonable to think that a novel, made-up teaching could arise independently all over the known world without there being a controversy about it, it had to have been understood from the beginning.

The fact that no one mentions it sooner is perfectly consistent with it being assumed as true from the beginning. In 400 years people will see that the first time anyone explicitly wrote that marriage can exist only between a man and a woman was in the early 21st Century; would it be reasonable for them to conclude that the idea was invented at that time? - Of course not.

 

[SolomonVII]

That depends on what you mean by "emulating".

what I mean by emulating if following the example of the type.

You're simply asserting, perhaps unwittingly, that to refrain from sexual relations perpetually, given a sufficient reason, is contrary to the 'procreative facet' of marriage.

No, not unwittingly.Marriage in its essence contains a procreative facet.

However, to abstain from marital relations is not against natural law, such as in NFP, granted that there is a sufficient reason. Even though the couple refrains from sexual relations, they are not failing to be "open to life." Why is this? Because there is a sufficient reason. A sufficient reason for something can preclude culpability for an act, granted that the act is not intrinsically evil. That's the principle of double effect, and it's used all the time in bioethics.

I note that you use marital relations synonymous with sexual relations in a marriage. I think that intuitively demonstrates the correct assessment that we all make about what marriage really is.

Now suppose -- just hypothetically -- that there is a sufficient reason to perpetually abstain from sexual relations. Would this be a failure to be "open to life"?

No. ....

How could it be? It is not against natural law any more than NFP is; for both are simply abstinence from the ordinary course of sexual relations. Now, if there is not a sufficient reason for abstinence, then surely that would be sinful to abstain for periods of time. But, given the hypothesis, there is a sufficient reason, and so it is not sinful.

... given the hypothesis that there is sufficient reason. ..

So, I don't think I have any reason to accept this statement. Gay "marriage" is intrinsically opposed to the natural law. It is intrinsically evil. Celibate marriage is not contrary to the natural law, although a sufficient reason is required (and probably a very severe one) to perpetuate the celibacy. A vow of celibacy is a sufficient reason, granted that it is vowed under pain of mortal sin.

Taking this (undocumented) and purely hypothetical vow of celibacy in the case in point would be contrary to the vow of marriage, which in its essence includes unitive and procreative facets. It would be akin to making vows to two different masters.
That in and of itself is problematic.

As an example, Sts. Louis and Zélie Martin, the parents of St. Therese of Lisieux, originally had the intention of entering into a celibate marriage. They eventually decided otherwise about a year into their marriage, with the advice of their confessor. At this point in France, Jansenism had impacted moral theology, making the requirements for the moral liceity of an action exceedingly high. If celibate marriage were in any way against the teachings of the Church, the moralists would have taught against it as scrupulously as they did everything else. And Sts. Louis and Zélie were well-informed on moral matters anyway -- being deeply pious French Catholics as they were.

...

The view that Mary was a vowed virgin was held by Sts. Augustine of Hippo and many of the early Church Fathers. This is not something being spun up as of a few years ago.

Of course it is not recent.
But, as has already been establised, nor does it go back to actual apostolic teaching, nor documented history. Here there is valid criticism that it is the theology that is creating the history rather than confining itself to what is historically, and apostolically verifiable. Augustine after all was 4 centuries after Good Friday.

This is not quite right. A marriage is validly contracted even before (or without) consummation. It even has a special name in canon law: ratum tantum. A valid marriage which is consummated is called ratum et consummatum. The validity of marriage, further, is treated as lawful until proven otherwise. Unless one can prove that the ratum tantum does not exist without the intention of consummation, the marriage must be presumed valid.

...
And yet, non-consummation remain grounds for annullment.

Moreover, if you are holding as you are to this conception of what is "open to life," then that makes for difficulties for the PVM. That's the whole reason this was brought up. Surely you would say that Mary and Joseph were married. But does it follow from this that they consummated their marriage? Certainly not, if you admit the PVM.

Not necessarily. The difficulty only comes with carnal understandings of virginity being the main assumptions. Once the understanding is set that PVM is not a statement of the physical status of Mary, but is purely a statement of who Mary is deemed to be theologically, PVM may be seen as a purely spiritual phenomena.
After all, it has already been established that this is not a dogma based in the historical biography of Mary. It is based in hypotheticals.

You might say that they were open to life because they were jointly open to Christ's conception. But Jesus was not a result of the marriage; he is, as it were, adopted, in relation to Joseph. But you would probably not say that a celibate marriage which opts for adoption is "open to life," for it involves perpetual abstinence from sexual relations. Did Joseph fail to be open to life by living out a celibate marriage, then? Although we have no indication that Joseph was not sinless, we do know that he was a righteous man. This is a solid enough indicator to say that he would not do something so seriously wrong as decide to live a celibate life married to Mary -- if in fact living a celibate life married to Mary were a wrong thing to do. But I don't think it is. In fact, I think it was morally praiseworthy and meritorious.

I think that celibate marriage, properly understood, is not truly marriage, according to normal definitions of marriage. It may well be a sinless state of affairs, like two celibate sisters, or two celibate men opting to raise an adopted child, but for the same reasons gay marriage is a misnomer, so too would celibate marriage be.

 

[rrguy]

The history of the Catholic church, like the history of the Jews, has both moments of glory and wretched hypocrisies. The early church believed that it was sinful for a layman to read the Bible. That gave the priests and enormous latitude because nothing they said could be disputed. To this day, according to the last survey I read, Catholics read their Bibles less than any other major religion. This doesn't mean they are any less devout, but it does make them vulnerable to false teaching.

The Bible doesn't tell us everything. It doesn't tells us everything jesus said, because that would be too voluminous and would have required many scribes. However, we have a direct connection with God through the Holy Spirit.

We should concentrate on the things that unite us, not dwell on the things that separate us.

I agree. Yet there seems to be a Danger with everyone reading & thinking they understand the Bible? Far as reading Bible I'm not disagreeing But during Mass several readings are read if survey counts that or not? Many want to condemn something just after hearing half the story. Especially past & may not know the reasoning. Until recently the amount of population that could read & understand was far less. Even today many who read don't agree or interpret the Bible same. How many time have I or seen someone read something & totally miss what they weren't looking for? Those of us who seek advice can get different answers depending on who you ask? So we ask Teachers, theologians who we agree with & therefore prove we now know & others are wrong?

 

[chevyontheriver]

There is possibly also an issue about the consummation of the marriage. Was the consummation necessary? If so, there is a problem. But the burden of proof lies right now in showing that such a consummation was in fact necessary.

In Catholic theology a valid marriage is presumed unless it can be shown somehow that it was invalid. If neither spouse makes the claim that it was invalid, we are left to presume validity. Even if it was not consummated. There would be a great case for a null marriage, but only if one spouse seeks that declaration. Until then, if both spouses are happy, they are married. If Mary vowed celibacy, and if Joseph accepted that vow, and neither changed their minds about it, they were married.

 

[KWCrazy]

I agree. Yet there seems to be a Danger with everyone reading & thinking they understand the Bible? Far as reading Bible I'm not disagreeing But during Mass several readings are read if survey counts that or not?

I don't believe that Catholic churches discourage Bible reading as they used to, but I don't see them encouraging independent reading. They are much more structured and formal as to what they teach and when. Catholics are Christians. They hold to some beliefs that many others do not, but none of that will keep you out of Heaven. I believe, however, that we should all take a personal interest in getting to know the Word so that errors in teaching, either by intent or error, do not lead us astray.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I don't believe that Catholic churches discourage Bible reading as they used to, but I don't see them encouraging independent reading.

There is STILL an indulgence offered for reading the Bible. So the Catholic Church STILL encourages reading the Bible.

 

[NeoScholasticism]

Not necessarily. The difficulty only comes with carnal understandings of virginity being the main assumptions. Once the understanding is set that PVM is not a statement of the physical status of Mary, but is purely a statement of who Mary is deemed to be theologically, PVM may be seen as a purely spiritual phenomena.
After all, it has already been established that this is not a dogma based in the historical biography of Mary. It is based in hypotheticals.

Is this a conclusion of your own independent study of magisterial documents? Or are you borrowing from Rahner, et al.?

 

[SolomonVII]

Is this a conclusion of your own independent study of magisterial documents? Or are you borrowing from Rahner, et al.?

I came back to Christianity because of the personal experience that believing is a better mode of existence than disbelief. What makes Catholicism appealing to me is the insistence on coherence and rational argument to support faith, rather than blind faith.
It is the coherence and rationality that makes belief possible for me in the first place.
It is not from following the logic of any Catholic theologian, dissident or otherwise, that helps me form my own understandings. It is following the logic of Catholic leaders, including our current pope, that leads me to the way that I believe about this.

For example, we are instructed to believe in Adam and Eve as real persons, and at the same time to now accept the evolutionary model of human genesis as the most believable model of how life arose on our planet.
This of course radically changes the traditional belief of all Christians, and Jews, and Muslims too, that the Book of Genesis is based in history.
Since Catholics have been so instructed in the ways and means of interpetration, we likewise are instructed to discern the historic from the spiritual in other articles of faith as well.
We cannot invent history in order to support our theology. Inventing hypothetical vows in order to affirm PV as an historic fact is engaging in belief in bad faith.
For Catholics anyway the, for whom PV is de fide belief, that means discovering methods of understanding which to affirm the belief while remaining true to the facts, as the fact present themselves to us.

 

[NeoScholasticism]

For Catholics anyway the, for whom PV is de fide belief, that means discovering methods of understanding which to affirm the belief while remaining true to the facts, as the fact present themselves to us.

But in order to do this, we must have a thorough grasp of the magisterial documents, and of dogmatic theology more generally. If you haven't got a copy already, I would suggest investing in the latest Denzinger (Enchiridion Symbolorum), and a copy of Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (if you can get it for a reasonable price). The prior is something of an abridged collection of all the Church's conciliar and papal documents. It also has the original Latin and Greek, where that applies. Ott's Fundamentals is something of a tried-and-true gold standard for dogmatic theology. The Denzinger is the more valuable of the two, if you had to choose.

The truth is that, since dogma is revealed on the authority of God, we are perfectly certain of it. Hence, we don't necessarily need to match dogma up to 'the facts', for indeed whatever is a dogma is a most certain fact. It is another thing to try and explain speculatively how the facts of dogma and the facts of natural knowledge line up, but this is not to tinker around with dogmas themselves. Perhaps that is what you mean. At any rate, we need a knowledge of precisely what is De Fide and what is merely speculation on how the dogma links up with the rest of what we know.

 

[Sammy-San]

What does God say?
Ephesians 5:
Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.

There is no sin in a husband and wife loving each other and engaging in acts of love which were given to man and woman from the beginning. I disagree with the condemnation of marital sex as something dirty or sinful. The Bible makes no such claim.

are dirty and sinful different meanings or synonymous?

 

[KWCrazy]

are dirty and sinful different meanings or synonymous?

Every word has its own meaning.

 

[rstrats]

chevyontheriver,
re: "To be 'firstborn' does not mean that there has to be a 'secondborn'. Could be an only child. The 'firstborn' argument against Mary having other children SHOULD be seen as deficient. Strangely it comes up again and again by people who think it has validity."


Can you provide any actual examples where the term "first born" was used when it absolutely couldn't have been implying that there had been a subsequent birth?