Virginity of Mary

VIRGINITY OF MARY. - According to Catholic doctrine, Mary was a virgin before the birth, in the birth and after the birth.

The v. of M. before the birth means that the conception of Jesus did not take place in the common way, since the material element in Mary was made apt to receive the human soul of Jesus by an extraordinary intervention of God, without the cooperation of man.

This operation, although it is 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 called in the proper sense the father of Jesus, because paternity supposes 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 the birth is a second miracle: Mary gave birth to her son without violation of her physical integrity and without pain. The virginity after the birth means that this integrity was preserved also afterward, that is, that Mary never had marital relations and therefore had no other children either.

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: "the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." The same Evangelist stresses shortly afterward that Mary was found with child by the power of the Holy Spirit before they came to live together. Joseph was reassured by a heavenly revelation: "Do not fear to take to you your wife Mary, for what has been conceived in her is the work of the Holy Spirit" (Mt. 1:20). Luke relates that the angel "was sent to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David - the virgin's name was Mary - to announce to her: You shall conceive and bear a son whom you shall name 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 appeal to the prophecy of Is. 7:14: "A virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name (= and he) shall be Emmanuel (= God with us)." From Mary's question that followed the angel's words ("How shall this be, since I know not [and do not wish to know, in the sense of having marital relations with] man?"), one infers 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 answer evidently excludes any virile cooperation: "The Holy Spirit will come 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 any outside help 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 they believed they found confirmation in the title of "brothers of Jesus" given to certain disciples; but the objection does not hold (v. FRATELLI DI GESÙ).

II. TRADITION

Mary was always considered the Virgin par excellence, in direct dependence on the text of Lk. 1:26. Thus she is designated from the earliest creeds: "...natus de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine"; it forms the most ancient formula that explicitly contains the faith in the v. of M. before childbirth (through the constant association with the divine motherhood) and after childbirth, and it would ill be reconciled with the denial of virginity in childbirth. Later it was completed and summed up in the title of "ever Virgin." In the 2nd century St. Ignatius energetically affirmed against the Docetists 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 escaped even the devil himself (Eph. 19, 1: PG 5, 660). Instead, the apocryphal Protoevangelium of James makes it the object of a curious as well as indecorous and legendary physical inspection (G. Bonaccorsi, Vangeli apocrifi, I, Florence 1948, p. 101). St. Justin proposes this truth without restrictions, 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 v. of M. in childbirth (Adv. Haer., IV, 33, 11: PG 7, 1080). Tertullian was the only one who, led by his exaggerated realism and by preconceived theses, yielded regarding the v. of M. in childbirth and after childbirth (De carne Christi, 20-23: PL 2, 785-90; De monog., VIII: ibid., 939); not, however, on the v. 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 as explicit on the virginal conception as he is obscure on 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 v. of M. before childbirth was always beyond discussion, given the clear attestation of Holy Scripture. The v. of M. in childbirth as well was commonly and explicitly held at the beginning of the 4th century. This is testified by St. Hilary of Poitiers (De Trinit., III, 19: PG 33, 87), St. Ephrem the Syrian (often 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), St. Epiphanius (Adv. Haer., 78: PG 42, 729-36). The latter are more concerned with defending the v. 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 v. of M. are found in works dedicated to virgins (already Tertullian, Pseudo-Clement, but especially St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Methodius). If even afterward there were controversies about the v. of M., they never concerned the fact but its explanation (v. PASCASIUS RADBERTUS; RATRAMNUS OF 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 observed that the v. of M. was fully accepted in the Koran (sura 19) and was not called into doubt by the first Protestants. Only in the 18th-19th century, with the denial of the supernatural and of miracle, did the rationalists renew 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).

III. THE MAGISTERIUM

Virginity in general is affirmed, besides in the Apostles' Creed (Denz-U, 2-12), in that of St. Epiphanius (ibid., 13), in the formula known as that of Damasus (ibid., 16), in the anti-Priscillianist Creed of Toledo (ibid., 20) and finally in that of Constantinople (ibid., 290), witnesses to an ancient and constant faith. It is presupposed in the Council of Ephesus (ibid., 113), explicitly repeated by St. Leo in the Tomus ad Flavianum (acclaimed in the Council of Chalcedon: ibid., 144) and solemnly declared in the Lateran Council of 649 (ibid., 256), which defines it in all its three phases.

Domenico Bertetto