One of the most difficult teachings of the Catholic Church for contemporary people to understand is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Actually, in one way, it is one of the easiest things to understand. We may not have any sense of what it means to be conceived without Original Sin (the meaning of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception) because we simply cannot imagine that. We can, on the other hand, imagine what perpetual virginity is, namely, that Mary never had sexual intercourse throughout the course of her life.
It is not that we don’t know what it means, but that we can scarcely believe it is possible. My hope here is to show not only that Mary’s perpetual virginity is possible, but that it is meaningful. We cannot, strictly speaking, prove something like the doctrine of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. What would such proof even look like? But if we can show that the doctrine is both possible and meaningful, we have good reason to trust the ancient witness of the Church that Mary did, in fact, remain a virgin throughout her life.
In that light, we can consider two lines of argument against the possibility of Mary’s perpetual virginity. The first is scriptural and the second is cultural. We will then look at both Scripture and culture to see if we can come to some deeper understanding of the doctrine.
The most obvious argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity is that the Gospels seem to speak of Jesus’s “brothers.” It is important to recognize, however, that the word used here does not mean simply biological brother, but could apply to other relatives such as step-brothers or cousins.
The early Church did not interpret these passages to mean that Jesus had biological siblings. Indeed, quite early on, the suggestion that Joseph was a widower with children from a previous marriage, while Mary was a consecrated virgin, was widely accepted. It is important to note that this is neither Scriptural teaching, nor an official teaching of the Church, but it is a plausible explanation of the passage in question.
But showing that Scripture does not necessarily oppose the teaching of perpetual virginity does not prove it either. Are there are any positive indications in Scripture of this teaching?
Well, the hypothesis that Mary was a consecrated virgin who never expected to have relations with a man does make some sense of her response to the angel Gabriel at the annunciation. After Gabriel says that Mary will conceive a son, she is baffled because she “does not know a man.” For an engaged girl to be told she will have a son is not so surprising if she expects to “know” her husband eventually. But if she has consecrated herself to a life of virginity, the shock makes much more sense. Moreover, such consecrations were not uncommon in Israel at this time in history. Indeed, many cultures have had men and women consecrated to a life of virginity, but more on that below.
Another Scriptural reference that comports with the teaching on perpetual virginity is the account of Jesus giving Mary into John’s care from the cross. If Jesus had other surviving siblings, this would be awkward and unnecessary. Normal Jewish practice would have Jesus’s siblings at the cross and the eldest remaining son would be responsible for their mother. But if Jesus was Mary’s only child, this scene makes perfect sense.
Now, it must be admitted that these Scriptural explorations are not decisive proof of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Theoretically, Jesus could have been an only child even if Mary and Joseph had had normal sexual relations after his birth. But our study does show that the doctrine is not so far-fetched as some may assume. Indeed, it accounts for some scriptural data rather well.
Having looked at the relevant passages of Scripture, we can now turn to the second kind of argument usually made against Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Above I called this argument a “cultural” argument because our culture tends to believe that sexual intercourse is a kind of necessity for the basic fulfillment of the human person. There are subtle and not-so-subtle suggestions everywhere that, without sex, people cannot be fulfilled. Indeed, sometimes this takes the form of suggesting that celibacy can even lead to mental illness or sexual perversion. And, if celibacy is a bad idea for single people, it is certainly not something we could ever believe about a married couple.
There are a few things that need to be said in response to this.
First of all, as a celibate priest once pointed out to me, far fewer people out there are having sex than we are generally led to expect. And many of those who are not celibate have sex only rarely, and not always in a way that we would expect to lead to healthy human and interpersonal functioning. (E.g., do we think that someone who resorts to prostitutes is actually healthier than someone who does not?) This includes a large number of people who are not in relationships, but also many who are. Another priest even suggested that part of how he understands his vow of celibacy is as an act of solidarity with those who cannot have sexual relationships for whatever reason.
And the suggestion that most people who are living celibately have had sex at some point does not carry much weight. For surely if celibacy is possible for an extended period of life, it is possible for the whole of it. As everyone who has been celibate for some time, that is, virtually everyone, knows, one is not insulated from the challenges of celibacy simply by the fact that one has had sex or might have sex at some point in the distant past or future.
In other words, our cultural assumption that sex is necessary for basic human flourishing is simply false. There are many happy and healthy people who are celibate for life or for long stretches of it.
A second thing that we can point out is that many (perhaps most) cultures have recognized a kind of value in virginity that we can no longer understand. For us, virginity tends to be something to be ashamed of and gotten rid of as soon as possible. Even for those (usually religious) subcultures within our culture that value virginity, it often functions as a kind of proof of virtue rather than as anything valuable in its own right. Consider: some of us may think it is good for young people to be virgins when they marry, but we don’t think it very valuable if someone decides to stay a virgin for life.
I think our difficulty in understanding how other cultures valued virginity is largely a function of the split in our minds between sex and procreation that follows on the widespread availability and acceptance of contraception.
Why?
Because in cultures where sex more or less automatically means babies, virginity becomes a symbol of focus and dedication. A person who forsakes family life for some other good to which they are called is necessarily a celibate. In times past, a person might be a monk, or a philosopher, or an artist, or a warrior, and feel that to do this completely also meant forgoing sexual relations and family life.
Nowadays we hear about couples that decide not to have children in order to pursue certain career goals and we never dream that that means they are living celibately. The fact that sex can be artificially separated from childbearing and childrearing means that we have lost a sense of the natural symbolism of virginity.
But it is precisely this symbolism that gives us access to the deepest meaning of the doctrine of perpetual virginity. For Mary’s commitment to abstain from a normal family life with Joseph was indicative of her total commitment to God. That may have already been the case if she was in fact a consecrated virgin (which, incidentally, would not have precluded a kind of formal marriage arrangement with Joseph, especially if he was an older man), but it is certainly and especially the case once she accepts the word of the angel and becomes the mother of Jesus.
In accepting to become the mother of the Lord, Mary makes an absolute commitment of her life to the service of God. This is unique. But it allows Mary to be the spiritual mother of all Christians, both those called to the service of God and others in a celibate vocation, and those called to serve God by serving their families in a married vocation. In Mary, because she was the mother of Jesus, the celibate’s dedication to God alone and the married person’s commitment to family are one and the same. As such, she is the spiritual mother of all Christians, and can identify with the joys and struggles of both the celibate and the married vocations.
The doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is not some denigration of married love and human sexuality as some suggest. Rather it is recognition that certain goods require our complete dedication. For some of us, this means a renunciation of sex and family life. For others, it means a radical commitment to one other person and to the children we might have with that person. Mary’s perpetual virginity means she is with us in both vocations; she is the virgin mother, not only of Jesus, but of the whole Church.
