The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells
us:
“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. In fact, Christ’s birth ‘did
not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.’ And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates
Mary as Aeiparthenos, the ‘Ever-virgin.’”
(CCC #499)
The doctrine
of Mary’s perpetual virginity teaches that Mary was a virgin before Christ was born, during His birth, and even afterward, all the days of her
life. It is considered a dogma of the Catholic Church and therefore must be believed by the faithful
Catholic. It is not optional.
By the way, the
perpetual virginity of Mary is believed by both the Catholic and the Eastern
Orthodox Church, as well.
Origin
The earliest
witness to the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary seems to appear in the
apocryphal (“hidden,” non-canonical writing) Protoevangelium of James at around 150 A.D. By the way, this is not one of the seven
Apocryphal books in the Catholic Bible.
The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia also admits
that the Protoevangelium of James is
apocryphal, is of Catholic origin and that it contains “legendary and
imaginative elements, which are sometimes puerile [childishly foolish or
immature] or fantastic [remote from reality].”
Yet, this Catholic encyclopedia claims that this apocryphal book is
“based on the canonical gospels.” It also says that this book is the source of
“various traditions current among the faithful,” and these traditions “are of
value in indicating the veneration paid to Mary at a very early age.” So, in spite of its failings, the book is by
no means rejected by the Catholic Church.
See here:
According to
J. Warner Wallace, author, speaker and Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at
Biola University, the Protoevangelium of
James cannot be trusted. It is
considered to be written too late to be attributed to James or to any
eyewitness of the things described. Wallace
states that the author of the Protoevangelium “appears to know little or
nothing about the Jewish customs of the 1st century.” The writing is even condemned by Pope
Gelasius as one of the books to be avoided by Catholics. See here:
So why do
Catholics believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity? On what basis do they accept this unusual
belief? Here are some of the reasons…
“Because We Want it to Be True…”
An article
by Catholic Answers (the largest apostolate of Catholic apologetics and
evangelization in the U.S. run by lay people) says:
“According
to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: ‘The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove
the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth
of Christ’ (Patrology 1:120-1).” See
here:
Again, the
book’s principal aim, its very purpose, is to promote one of the Marian
doctrines, no matter how many errors are found in it, no matter how much
inconsistency can be found in it, no matter how unbiblical it is - the Catholic
Church will use this volume to continue pushing its false teachings on
Mary.
The Vow
One of the
reasons that the Catholic Church accepts the doctrine of the perpetual
virginity of Mary is at least partly because of the information found in the Protoevangelium of James. It tells us that Mary had taken a lifetime vow of virginity.
It states
that Mary’s mother (since she was supposedly barren), made a vow to God and
promised to dedicate her child to Him if He chose to give her one, much like
Samuel’s mother, Hannah, did in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 1:10-11). Supposedly, Mary’s parents brought her to the
temple at age three and she mounted the temple steps and she, herself, made a
vow of virginity at this time.
But how much
does a three-year-old know about human anatomy and virginity? Or about sexual activity within the marriage
relationship? A Catholic might say, “Maybe
this knowledge was given to her supernaturally. Don’t you Protestants think that God is able to do this?” But that’s just begging the question, as this
whole “perpetual virginity” issue does. We
should not be expected to prove that it wasn’t
supernatural. The Catholic Church bears
the burden of proof to demonstrate that it was as they say.
Luke 1:34 – When Mary was told by the angel of
her soon conception, she stated, “How can this be… since I am a virgin?”
Catholics
take Mary’s statement here, as well, to somehow mean that a vow was in place
beforehand, and they cling tightly to this idea.
It’s
important to note what Mary didn’t
say. She never said, “How can this be, since I will never know a man?” That would remove all doubt. And why would Mary ever pledge to be married
to Joseph to start with if she had already made a vow of virginity for life? It just doesn’t make sense.
Besides,
there was no such thing in that culture, historically or biblically, as a
married continuous virgin.
Matthew 1:18 – Now the
birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when his mother Mary had been betrothed
to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy
Spirit.
If Mary had
made a lifelong vow to remain a virgin, why would the phrase “before
they came together” even be there in this context if they never
intended to come together in their marriage?
It would just be pointless and would not make sense. In the gospels, as a whole, there appears to
at least be an intent to consummate
the marriage.
Furthermore,
why not just say that Joseph NEVER knew her?
But it doesn’t say that. We are
left with the impression that they went on to have a normal marriage, which would
include sex. Again, it is the burden of
the Catholic Church to show her perpetual virginity.
According to
an article in the New Advent Catholic
Encyclopedia:
“One might
ask why Mary consented to her betrothal, though she was bound by her vow of
virginity. As she had obeyed God’s
inspiration in making her vow, so she obeyed God’s inspiration in becoming the
affianced bride of Joseph.”
See here:
Notice here
the statement, “As she had obeyed God’s inspiration in making her vow…” The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia is begging the
question. They are not only assuming the vow was actually made in
the first place, but they are also assuming that Mary’s supposed vow of
virginity was under the inspiration of
God. Yet, they admit that this same
information is from these highly questionable
“puerile” and “fantastic” apocryphal writings. Sorry, my Catholic friends, but I’m not buying
it.
Matthew 1:24-25 - And
Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and
took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son; and
he called his name Jesus.
This
particular passage has seen much debate over the years, but the word “until”
is unnecessary and doesn’t make sense if there was a vow of virginity in place. If there was
a vow, the sentence should simply read “…but kept her a virgin and she gave birth to
a son.”
Moreover,
there is a definite biblical responsibility for the husband in Jewish culture
to, as the King James Version puts it, render “due benevolence,” i.e.,
to “fulfill
his duty,” to his wife:
1 Corinthians 7:3-4 –
The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to
her husband. The wife does not have
authority over her own body, but the husband does, and likewise also the
husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
So this “Mary
was a lifelong virgin” argument falls flat.
The Church Fathers
Besides the
“support” for this doctrine from the Protoevangelium of James, the Catholic
Church will also appeal to certain early fathers in the Church. But establishing doctrine through the
teachings of the fathers is not always an accurate way to determine truth. Biblical evidence far outweighs tradition (Matthew
15:1-9). The church fathers got
some things right and they got some things wrong. And they did not always agree with each other. Sometimes a certain church father would even
disagree with himself, that is, he
changed his mind on certain teachings. That’s
because they were not inspired like the authors of Scripture were. Scripture tells us we need to test all things
(1
Thessalonians 5:21), even the teachings of the fathers. See this article on the church fathers:
“Biblical” Catholic Arguments Versus
the Bible
Catholics
will also appeal to Scripture in an attempt to prove the doctrine of Mary’s
perpetual virginity. Here are some
examples of their “biblical” arguments and my response:
Argument
1 – They will say
that the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the Bible were actually cousins, and not blood brothers of Jesus. According to Catholics, these children were
not born of Mary but were really close relatives. After all, that’s the way Jews
spoke back then. For example, Lot was
called Abraham’s brother (Genesis 14:16), even though Lot was
actually his nephew. The Jews had no
word for “cousin” and the word that was used for “brothers” in the New
Testament (Greek “adelphos”) had a wide range of meanings. It could mean an actual blood brother, a step
brother, a cousin, or a spiritual brother.
Response - While it is true that the Jews (who
spoke mostly Hebrew and Aramaic) had no specific word for “cousin,” the Greek
DOES have a couple of words that mean cousin, e.g., “suggenes” in Luke
1:36 or “anepsios” in Colossians 4:10). And it was in the Greek language that the inspired New Testament was written. So, if the biblical authors really meant to
say “cousins,” these Greek words could have easily been used. But since they didn’t use them, the authors
very likely meant to say that these children were actual blood brothers of Jesus, i.e., sons of Mary.
Just because
a word has multiple meanings does not mean that you can simply transfer any one
of those meanings to any other text which uses that same word. We must always consider the context in which it is used.
Matthew 13:55 – Is not
this the carpenter’s son? Is not His
mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
If these
four brothers named here are actually cousins, then why just name four of them? Surely, He had more cousins that that! Does anyone really think that he had only
four male cousins?
Furthermore,
if “brothers” means spiritual
brothers here, we have to ask the same question. Did Jesus have only four believers following
Him and all the rest of His followers were unbelievers?
Luke 21:16 – But you
will be betrayed even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and
they will put some of you to death.
Notice that both “brothers” and “relatives” are in
the same sentence here. Why would the
author do this if he means the same thing?
If there is no distinction between the words, why is there a distinction
here?
Argument
2 – Catholics will
also claim that these brothers of Jesus were actually sons from Joseph’s
previous marriage before he met Mary.
Luke 2:41-51 – This is the story of Jesus at 12
years old when He was questioning the teachers in the Temple, when His family
was worried and looking for Him. So,
Catholics will ask, why is there no mention of these younger siblings here?
Response - But we can say the same
thing: “Why are they (the older brothers from Joseph) not
mentioned in the flight to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or when Jesus
stayed behind in the Temple in Luke 2:44? This argument cuts both
ways.
If he knew
Mary had made a lifelong vow of virginity, what was Joseph’s intent in this
betrothal? Was he only interested in
finding a “babysitter” for all his children from his (supposed) previous
marriage? That doesn’t seem likely.
Argument
3
John 19:26-27 – When Jesus then saw His mother,
and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman,
behold, your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother…”
Here, Jesus,
while on the cross, hands His mother over to the care of the apostle John. Catholics will ask Protestants, “But why would
Jesus turn Mary over to John if Mary really had children of her own? Therefore, they must have not been actual
siblings from the same womb.”
Response - Why indeed?!!! Good question. Why would Jesus favor John (a non-relative) over
actual relatives, whether they came
from Mary’s womb or whether they came from Joseph’s former marriage? Why turn her over to someone who was not even kin to her? It was for spiritual reasons. It was
because Jesus wanted her to be with believers, not unbelievers. At this point, Jesus’ family was not believing in Him (Matthew
13:57; John 7:5). So, this
argument doesn’t prove either side.
Furthermore,
there seems to be no solid historical evidence that Joseph had children from a
previous marriage. According to the New
Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The chief
sources of information on the life of St. Joseph are the first chapters of our
first and third Gospels; they are practically the only reliable sources… whilst… the apocryphal literature is
full of details, the non-admittance of these works into the Canon of the Sacred
Books casts a strong suspicion upon their
contents… it is in most instances next
to impossible to discern and sift these particles of true history from the
fancies with which they are associated.” (Emphasis added) See here:
So, we don’t
know much about the life of Joseph with certainty. All we know with certainty about him is what
we find in Scripture. And there is no
mention here of children from a previous marriage.
Argument
4 – Catholics try to
say that Ezekiel 44:1-3 is referring to Mary when it speaks of the “gate”
that is never to be opened again.
Ezekiel sees a vision in the temple where the east gate is entered by
the Lord and it has been shut after this, never to be entered into again. This is pointing to Mary Ever-Virgin.
Response – To say this is to take liberties
with typology. What about the other gates? Do these have anything to do with Mary, as
well? That is highly doubtful.
This, I
think is desperation by someone with an agenda.
Old Testament typology can be, and often is, certainly abused. And many believe that this is one case.
Argument
5 – Catholics will
sometimes place the brothers of Jesus as sons, not of Mary (Jesus’ mother), but
of Mary, the wife of Clopas (John 19:25). These brothers were named James and Joseph (Matthew
27:56). Some also believe that
the other two brothers, Simon and Judas were sons of Clopas from another wife. So this would explain why these four names of
Jesus’ “brothers” demonstrate that they were sons of someone else, not Mary.
Response – But even if the wives of Clopas
did have sons by the names of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, this proves
nothing about Mary’s virginity. It only
proves that the names Mary, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas were very common
names in that society.
Conclusion
Ok, let’s
say that someone does a casual reading of Mark 1:16 with no agenda in mind. It says:
As He was going along
by the Sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon, casting a
net in the Sea; for they were fishermen.
Let’s be
realistic. In this verse, would anyone
automatically assume that Simon and Andrew were cousins? Of course not. There is nothing in this context to suggest
that. What about this verse:
Matthew 12:46-47 –
While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were
standing outside, seeking to speak to Him.
Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing
outside seeking to speak to You.”
If someone
told you this, would your first instinct be to believe that your cousins were waiting for you? This passage seems to forcefully suggest the
actual immediate family of Jesus. When “brothers and sisters” are used in direct
connection with father / mother, it would strongly imply closest relationship,
i.e., blood brothers and sisters
(e.g., Mark 6:3-4).
Now consider
these last two quotes. If read apart from the context of the perpetual
virginity of Mary, no one would question that these were blood brothers. The idea of relatives or cousins would almost
have to be read into the context,
i.e., injected from outside (this is called eisegesis).
Once again,
it is those people (Catholics and Orthodox) who insist that Mary remained a
perpetual virgin that bear the burden of proof.
Catholics
will claim that the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity was not created to
glorify and exalt Mary, but to actually highlight the uniqueness and holiness
of Jesus. Ok, if that’s true, why stop there?
Why not believe that God had given Mary’s
mother the gift of perpetual virginity, as well? Why not believe that God made sure that ten
generations of perpetual virgins in Mary’s line existed, with Mary as the grand
finale? What would stop anyone from
believing that? Wouldn’t that highlight even more the uniqueness and holiness of the Savior if perpetual
virginity is the means of super holiness?
The
Protestant idea of Mary having a normal marriage and a normal sex life with her
lawful husband after the birth of Jesus is not a crime or an unbiblical idea. It is perfectly logical and the only reason
to deny this normal relationship after the birth of Jesus seems to be to exalt
Mary to a similar status to Jesus. But
Catholics will say that when Protestants attack Mary’s perpetual virginity,
they are attacking Jesus’ divinity. But Catholics
don’t have to worry because denying the perpetual virginity of Mary does not
deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, nor demean Him in any way.
Personally,
it doesn’t matter to me either way. If
she had a natural sex life after Jesus was born, then fine. If she really was a virgin all her life,
that’s ok. If there’s no way for us to
know, that’s not a problem. The problem
comes when someone makes great claims with no solid proof.
There is
sometimes a desperation in Catholic attempts to prove this teaching. For example, I recently heard a Catholic say
that even if Mary DID have other children besides Jesus, she could have STILL remained
a virgin, since God is able.
Well, we’re
not denying God’s ability. But you know
the old saying, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” In other words, you can present evidence
against a teaching, but if the Catholic insists that it’s true, there’s not
much you can do. And that’s often the
case with the Marian doctrines. This
doctrine of the Perpetual virginity of Mary is special pleading at its finest.
