THE VIRGINITY OF MARY. - According to Catholic doctrine, Mary was a virgin before childbirth, in childbirth, and after childbirth.
The virginity of Mary before childbirth means that the conception of Jesus did not occur in the usual way, since the material element in Mary was made capable of receiving the human soul of Jesus through an extraordinary intervention of God, without the concurrence of man.
This operation, though common to the three divine Persons, is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. From this it does not follow that the Holy Spirit or the Most Holy Trinity can be said in the proper sense to be the father of Jesus, because paternity presupposes the communication of the same nature (cf. Council of Toledo XI, Denz-U, 282). As a man, Jesus is without a father (Lactantius, Div. Instit., IV, 13, 4: PL 6, 482); this implies a miracle. The virginity of Mary in childbirth is a second miracle: Mary gave birth to her son without violation of physical integrity and without pain. The virginity after childbirth means that this integrity was preserved thereafter, that is, that Mary never had marital relations and therefore had no other children.
I. HOLY SCRIPTURE
In Mt 1:16 the parallelism of the narrative preserved in the three series of genealogies of Jesus' ancestors is abruptly broken off at the name of Joseph: "husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ." The same Evangelist emphasizes shortly afterward that Mary was found to be with child by the power of the Holy Spirit before they came together. Joseph was reassured by a heavenly revelation: "Do not be afraid to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 1:20). Luke reports that the angel "was sent to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary," to announce: "You will conceive and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great... Son of the Most High... and his kingdom will have no end" (Lk 1:26-33). This was a clear identification of the Messiah through the reference to the prophecy of Is 7:14: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Immanuel (that is, God with us)." From Mary's question following the angel's words ("How can this be, since I know not man?" [and do not wish to know man, in the sense of having marital relations]) it is inferred that there was a mutual commitment between Mary and Joseph not to exercise their marital rights. The first vow of virginity! (cf. Sum. Theol., 3ª, q. 28, a. 4). The angel's reply clearly excludes any male concurrence: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you" (Lk 1:35).The virginity of Mary in childbirth is implied by the narrative of Lk 2:7, where any external assistance is excluded: "She gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger." The term "firstborn" has led some to think that Mary had other children, and confirmation was sought in the designation of certain disciples as "brothers of Jesus"; but the objection is invalid (v. BRETHREN OF JESUS).
II. TRADITION
Mary was always regarded as the Virgin par excellence, directly based on the text of Lk 1:26. Thus she is designated in the earliest symbols of faith: "... born of the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary"; an extremely ancient formula that explicitly contains the faith in the virginity of Mary before childbirth (by its constant association with the divine maternity) and after childbirth, and would be poorly reconciled with the denial of virginity in childbirth. Later it was completed and summarized in the title of "ever-Virgin." In the 2nd century, Ignatius strongly affirmed against the Docetae the reality of Jesus' body born "of Mary and of God" (Eph. 7, 2: PG 5, 649; cf. Eph. 18, 2: ibid., 560; Trall., IX, 1: ibid., 681; Smyrn., I, 1: ibid., 708), defining the virginal conception and childbirth a mystery that even the devil himself failed to grasp (Eph. 19, 1: PG 5, 660). Instead, the apocryphal Protoevangelium of James makes it the subject of a curious, as well as improper and legendary, physical inspection (G. Bonaccorsi, Vangeli apocrifi, I, Firenze 1948, p. 101). St. Justin unreservedly proposes this truth, proving it with the texts of Luke, Matthew, and Isaiah (Dial. cum Tryph., nos. 43, 45, 48, 54, 63, 75, 78, 84, 100, 120; PG 6, 568-753; I Apol., nos. 22, 32-33, 46, 54; PG 6, 364-409). Against the extravagant genealogical theories of the Gnostics, St. Irenaeus had occasion several times to affirm the virginal conception of Jesus (Adv. Haer., III, 9, 2; 16, 2; 19, 2; 21, 4; 10; 22, 4; IV, 22, 4; V, 19; PG 7, 870-1176) and quite clearly also the virginity of Mary in childbirth (Adv. Haer., IV, 33, 11; PG 7, 1080). Tertullian was the only one who, led by his exaggerated realism and preconceived theses, yielded regarding the virginity of Mary in childbirth and after childbirth (De carne Christi, 20-23; PL 2, 785-90; De monog., VIII; ibid., 939); not, however, regarding her virginity before childbirth (De praescr. haer., 26; PL 2, 49; Adv. Iud., 13; ibid., 635; De virg. vel., 1; ibid., 889; De carne Christi, 17-18; ibid., 782-83).Origen is equally explicit about the virginal conception, but obscure on the other two points (De princ., I, 4; PG 11, 117; Contra Cels., I, 69; VI, 73; ibid., 1498; cf. C. Vagagnini, Maria nelle opere di Origene, Roma 1942, pp. 202-203). The virginity of Mary before childbirth was always beyond dispute, given the clear attestation of Holy Scripture. Even the virginity of Mary in childbirth was commonly and explicitly held at the beginning of the 4th century, as testified by St. Hilary of Poitiers (De Trinit., III, 19; PG 33, 87), St. Ephrem the Syrian (often in the Hymns, edited by Ricciotti, Torino 1939), St. Zeno of Verona (Tract., lib. I, tr. V. 3; PL 6, 303; lib. II, tr. viii, 2 sqq.; ibid., 414 sqq.), St. Ambrose (De institut. virg., VIII, 54; PL 16, 320; Epist., LXII, 33; ibid., 1198; In Lc., lib. II, 57; PL 15, 1573). St. Jerome (De perp. virg. adv. Helv., PL 23, 192; Adv. Iovin., I, 31; ibid., 254; Epist., 48, 21; PL 22, 510; In Io., III, 7; PL 24, 107; Adv. Pelag., II, 4; PL 23, 538; In Ezech. lib. XIII, 44; PL 25, 430), St. Epiphanius (Adv. Haer., 78; PG 42, 729-36). The latter are more concerned with defending the virginity of Mary before and after childbirth against the objections of Helvidius (v.), Jovinian (v.), and Bonosus (v.) and others who denied it to justify their contempt for the virginal state. Conversely, many affirmations of the virginity of Mary are found in works dedicated to virgins (already Tertullian, the Pseudo-Clement, but especially St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Methodius). Even later, though there were controversies about the virginity of Mary, they never concerned the fact itself but its explanation (v. PASCHASIUS RADBERTUS; CORBIE): thus Durandus of St-Pourçain (IV Sent., dist. 44, q. 6), who, even after the brilliant solution of St. Thomas (Quodl., I, a. 22; Sum. Theol., 3ª, q. 28, a. 2), proposed an explanation that later theologians never ceased to reproach him for.
It may be noted that the virginity of Mary was fully accepted in the Koran (sura 19) and was not doubted by the first Protestants. Only in the 18th-19th centuries, with the denial of the supernatural and of miracles, did rationalists renew the old objections, absolutely rejecting the dogma and seeking its origin in the world of pagan or Jewish ideas (v. FRUTTI, Machen, cited in bibliography).