VERGINITÀ DI MARIA. – According to Catholic doctrine, Maria was a virgin before childbirth, in childbirth, and after childbirth.
The V. of M. before childbirth means that the conception of Jesus did not occur in the ordinary manner, since the material element in Maria was rendered capable of receiving the human soul of Jesus through an extraordinary intervention of God, without the cooperation of man.
Although this operation is common to the three divine Persons, it is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. It does not follow from this that the Holy Spirit or the Most Holy Trinity can properly be called the father of Jesus, because fatherhood presupposes the communication of the same nature (cf. Council of Toledo XI, Denz-U, 282). As man, Jesus is without a father (Lactantius, Div. Instit., IV, 13, 4: PL 6, 482); this implies a miracle. The V. of M. in childbirth is a second miracle: Maria gave birth to the son without violation of physical integrity and without pain. Virginity after childbirth means that this integrity was preserved thereafter as well, that is, that Maria never had marital relations and therefore 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 truncated at the name of Joseph: “husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” The same Evangelist shortly thereafter emphasizes that Mary was found to be with child through the power of the Holy Spirit before they came to live together. Joseph was reassured by a heavenly revelation: “Do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home, for that which has been conceived in her is the work of the Holy Spirit” (Mt. 1:20). Luke reports that the angel “was sent to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David—the name of the virgin was Mary—to announce to her: You will conceive and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great … Son of the Most High … he will reign forever over the house of Jacob” (ibid. 1:26-33). This was a clear identification of the Messiah through the allusion to the prophecy of Is. 7:14: “A virgin will conceive and bear a son, and his name (= and he) will be Emmanuel (= God with us).” From Mary’s question, which followed the angel’s words (“How will this happen, since I do not know [and do not wish to know, in the sense of having marital relations with] a man?”), one may infer a mutual commitment between Mary and Joseph not to exercise their marital rights. The first vow of virginity! (cf. Sum. Theol., 3°, 9, 28, a. 4). The angel’s reply evidently excludes any male involvement: “The Holy Spirit will descend upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (1:35).The V. of M. in childbirth is presupposed by the narrative of Lk. 2:27, where all external assistance is excluded: “She gave birth to her firstborn son, 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 thought to be found in the designation “brothers of Jesus,” given to certain disciples; but the objection is not valid (v. FRATELLI DI GESÙ).
II. TRADITION
Mary was always regarded as the Virgin par excellence, in direct dependence on the text of Lc. 1:26. Thus she is designated from the earliest symbols of faith: «...natus de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine»; this is the most ancient formula that explicitly contains the faith in the virginity of M. before childbirth (because of its constant association with divine motherhood) and after childbirth, and it would be difficult to reconcile it with the denial of virginity in childbirth. Later it was completed and summed up in the title «ever-Virgin». In the 2nd century, St. Ignatius vigorously affirmed against the Docetists the reality of the body of Jesus born «from Mary and from 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 birth as a mystery that had eluded the devil himself (Eph. 19, 1: PG 5, 660). By contrast, the apocryphal Protoevangelium of James makes it the object of a curious yet improper and legendary physical examination (G. Bonaccorsi, Vangeli apocrifi, I, Florence 1948, p. 101). St. Justin presents this truth without restriction, proving it from 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 several occasions 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 also, with sufficient clarity, the virginity of M. in childbirth (Adv. Haer., IV, 33, 11: PG 7, 1080). Tertullian was the only one who, led by his exaggerated realism and preconceived positions, yielded with regard to the virginity of M. in childbirth and after childbirth (De carne Christi, 20–23: PL 2, 785–90; De monog., VIII: ibid., 939); not, however, with regard to virginity before childbirth (De praes. haer., 26: PL 2, 49; Adv. Ind., 13: ibid., 635; De virg. vel., I: ibid., 889; De carne Christi, 17–18: ibid., 782–83).
Origen is equally explicit regarding the virginal conception, but obscure concerning the other two points (De princ., I, 4: PG 11, 117; Contra Cels., I, 69; VI, 73: ibid., 789, 1408; cf. C. Vagaggini, Maria nelle opere di Origene, Rome 1942, pp. 202–203). The virginity of M. before childbirth was always beyond dispute, given the clear testimony of Sacred Scripture. The virginity of M. in childbirth, too, was commonly and explicitly held at the beginning of the 4th century. This is testified to by St. Hilary of Poitiers (De Trinit., III, 19: PG 33, 87), St. Ephrem the Syrian (frequently in the Hymns, edited by Ricciotti, Turin 1939), St. Zeno of Verona (Tract., lib. I, tr. V. 3: PL 6, 303; lib. II, tr. VIII, 2 ff.; ibid., 414 ff.), 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), and St. Epiphanius (Adv. Haer., 78: PG 42, 729–36). The latter were more concerned with defending the virginity of M. before and after childbirth against the objections of Helvidius (v.), Jovinian (v.), and Bonosus (v.), and others who denied it in order to justify their contempt for the virginal state. Conversely, many affirmations of the virginity of M. are found in works devoted to virgins (already in Tertullian, Pseudo-Clement, but especially in St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and Methodius). Even if controversies concerning the virginity of M. continued thereafter, they never concerned the fact itself but its explanation (
V. PASCASIO RADBERTO; RATRIAMNO DI CORBIE): such was the case with Durandus of St
Pourçain (IV Sent., dist. 44, q. 6), who, even after St. Thomas’s brilliant solution (Quodl., I, a. 22; Sum. Theol., 3°, q. 28, a. 2), proposed an explanation for which later theologians never ceased to reproach him.It may be observed that the virginity of M. was accepted in its entirety in the Qur’an (sura 19) and was not called into question by the early Protestants. Only in the 18th–19th centuries, with the denial of the supernatural and of miracles, did the rationalists revive the old objections, absolutely rejecting the dogma and seeking its origin in the world of pagan or Jewish ideas (v. Prüm, Machen, cited in the bibliography).