Sect. 212Mary the VirginMary the Virgin

In ordinary women maternity excludes virginity, but the woman chosen to be the Mother of Christ through the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost was necessarily consecrated to God alone, not only a virgin among many, but the virgin of virgins. The prophet Isaias (7:14; Matt. 1:23) announces that “a virgin shall conceive and bring forth Emmanuel;” and in the Apostles’ Creed, Mary “the Virgin” is associated with the Holy Ghost as the source and origin of Christ. She is the spiritual vessel of election set apart for God.

I. The Christian idea of Mary’s virginity postulates its perpetuity, and its extension to her body, her mind, and her feelings: Virgo perpetua virginitate mentis et sensus.

1. Mary, a virgin before, during, and after the birth of her Son: such is the classical phrase for expressing the perpetual integrity of her body.

The Fifth General Council (can. ii.), and the council held in the Lateran under Martin I. (can. iii.), defined the perpetual virginity of the flesh of Mary, which consequently is of faith. In Part II. of this Book we have spoken of Mary’s virginity in the conception and birth of Christ. That she was a virgin before conceiving has never been contested. As to her virginity after bringing forth her first-born, we gather it from her vow (Luke 1:34, of which more below); from the fact that she is always called the Mother of Jesus (never of any other), and that on the cross Christ recommended her to John, there being no son to take His place. Whatever is inadequate in these indications from Scripture, is amply supplied by the unanimous and unbroken tradition of the Church. To all the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers Mary is “The Virgin.” The heretics who impugn this attribute are treated as madmen, blasphemers, criminals, guilty of sacrilege (St. Jerome, Contra Helvidium). The reason why Mary should always remain a virgin is by universal consent given in the words of Ezech. 44:2, “This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.” St. Thomas (3, q. 28, a. 3) says that Mary’s perpetual virginity was required: (l) by Christ, whose dignity requires that He should be the only-born as well as the first-born Son of His Mother; (2) by the Holy Ghost, who had to preserve His sanctuary inviolate; (3) by Mary herself, who in sacrificing her virginity would have been guilty of the greatest ingratitude; (4) by Joseph, in whom the violation of the sanctuary of the Holy Ghost would have been most culpable arrogance.

Three exegetical difficulties have, from the earliest times, been urged by heretics against the perpetual virginity of Mary. St. Jerome exhaustively discusses and solves them in his book against Helvidius. They are: 1. Matt. 1:25, “And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born.” But from the words immediately preceding, “Joseph took unto him his wife,” it is manifest that the Evangelist only intended to lay stress upon the virginal birth of Jesus, without a thought of the relations between Joseph and Mary after that birth. The same intention is equally manifest in ver. 18, “Before they came together, she was found with child,” although here the coming together probably simply implies that Joseph “took unto him his wife.” 2. The title of “First-born” is applied to Jesus here; and Luke 2:7 excludes previous children without necessarily including subsequent ones. The First-born in the Bible is the subject of privileges, rights, and duties: he is consecrated to God. The title is given to Jesus for this and for no other reason. 3. The “brothers of Jesus” in biblical language may be His relatives, or members of the same tribe. Abraham says to Lot, “We are brethren” (Gen. 13:8). As a matter of fact, several of the brethren of Jesus are said to be children of another Mary, the sister of the Mother of Jesus, and wife of Klopas (Matt. 27:56, and John 19:25). James, who is especially pointed out as the brother of the Lord (Gal. 1:19), is regularly styled the son of Alphæus in the list of the Apostles. Klopas, Cleophas, and Alphæus, are but different forms of the same Hebrew name.

Some Fathers, on the authority of apocryphal gospels, admit that Joseph had children by a former marriage; this admission, however, is not necessary to account for the brethren of the Lord. Origen and Jerome strenuously reject it.

2. That the virginity of Mary includes “the firm intention perpetually to preserve the integrity of her body for the honour of God,” has always been the conviction of the Church.

After conceiving by the Holy Ghost, without detriment to her virginity, Mary could not entertain the thought of desecrating her sanctified body: such an impious desire could not spring up in a soul “full of grace.” As to the time before the conception, when Mary was yet unaware of her exalted vocation, we may safely presume that God prepared her for it by suggesting to her mind the “vow of virginity,” which she mentioned to the Angel of the Annunciation as an accomplished fact: “How shall this be done, because I know not man?” (Luke 1:34.) This text leaves no doubt as to the existence of a vow of chastity. When was it made? Was it unconditional? Considering the ideal love of purity which the Church attributes to the Virgin of virgins on the ground of her being the bride of the Holy Ghost, we are bound to think of this vow as perfect, without any restrictions as to time or circumstances, and that it was made when the question of her future state of life for the first time arose in Mary’s mind.

3. The third peculiarity of Mary’s perfect virginity is her complete freedom from unchaste feelings and sensations both in mind and body. As, however, this aspect of purity comes under the head of the moral perfection and sanctity of Mary’s will, we deal with it in another place.

Her perfect purity of body, mind, and feelings, makes the Mother of Jesus the Virgin of virgins—that is, the ideal Virgin. Her love of purity was in proportion to her eminent fulness of grace and love of God. Her virtue was protected not by human will alone, as other saints, but by the all-holy will of God, who, by reason of His alliance with her, bound Himself to keep her unspotted.

II. St. Thomas (3, q. 29, a. 1) gives twelve reasons why Mary should have been united in marriage to Joseph. The chief ones are, that her marriage shielded herself and her Son from infamy, secured a protector to both, and gave us, in the person of her husband, a trusty witness of the Divine origin of Christ. But was not Mary’s vow of virginity an obstacle to a true marriage? We must, indeed, admit that her marriage differed from the ordinary union between man and wife, inasmuch as her vow debarred Joseph from the exercise of his right over her body. All other duties and rights of both parties in the matrimonial contract remained unaffected. In virtue of his marriage, Joseph had a right to call Mary’s Son his own, and the duty to act to Him as a father; in fact, God had ordained their union for that very purpose. It thus appears that the union between Joseph and Mary has excellences not attained even by Christian matrimony. The fruit of union is Joseph’s own through his “spiritual” union with Mary. The same fruit is not merely an “adoptive Son of God added to His kingdom,” but the natural Son of God Himself. St. Thomas, 3, q. 28 and 29; Franzelin, thes. xv.