I've barely had time even to post
my latest reply in our current ongoing discussion and I see that my friend Mr Nathanael Blake has already posted his objections to another topic. That is, he has
stated his objections to
my question about what Protestants gain from insisting upon a rejection of the Doctrine of Perpetual Virginity*. To summarize my take of his response: Protestants
as such gain little if anything by rejecting the Doctrine of Our Lady's Perpetual Virginity. It appears to me that this is at best a matter of factual correctness--important when formulating doctrine, to be sure--but not really of faith
per se**.
To be clear, I do believe that one's theology--like one's faith--ought to be based in reality, and thus there is some importance to Catholics as to whether or not Mary's perpetual virginity was a fact. But he has not convincingly shown why Protestants should care. He in fact plainly states the opposite:
First, from a Protestant perspective, it is the Catholic insistence upon this doctrine that causes the rift. One can be a Presbyterian or Baptist or whatever else in good standing and come down either way on the question (though deciding that Mary was perpetually virgin would probably raise some eyebrows).
Though, he also gets the facts a bit muddled, since Catholics were insisting upon this doctrine since before the first Protestant was born. So engrained in Christian circles was this that even Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, and John Wesley all accepted this doctrine, and John Calvin stated, at least, that he believed that Our Lady bore no children after Christ, that "the brother of the Lord" were cousins. Actually, since about the 5th century there was no opposition to this doctrine whatsoever in Christendom, and very little before then. The apocryphal second century "Protevangelion" attests to Saint Mary's perpetual virginity, and such notable early fathers as Origen, St Athanasius, St Hilary, St Jerome, and St Ambrose supported this doctrine, to name just a few.
His main point of contention is that
A Catholic who tells me that I am not in communion with the true church, and cannot be in communion unless I accept the doctrine of perpetual virginity, ought not wonder why I want to make the case against the doctrine. The Catholic church sets this doctrine as a deal-breaker, which puts me in the position of either making the deal or making the case against this doctrine.
A interesting argument, and certainly one worth re-visiting if in years down the road he finds himself in the peculiar position of believing all of the other dogma of the Church save this one (and infallibility, which would imply that this dogma was correct). It is no secret that the last doctrines accepted by most converts are the Marian ones. However, at this time it is not really relevant: I made it quite clear in the context of my last post that I was not making any effort to convince that one
must hold to the perpetual virginity to be a good Christian, rather that there is little reason to argue against it with the furor of so many Protestants.
I stated that this is an important doctrine to Catholics, but not really so important to Protestants. Mister Blake replies that it is important to him, because it helps him to distinguish his faith from the Catholic one. He finds himself in that curious position of "making the deal" or "making the case against the doctrine," but this is a false dichotomy. The only reason to make the case against the doctrine, under the terms which he has laid out, is because it is the only way to avoid "making the deal." It fails to answer the question as to why a Protestant must choose whether or not to "make the deal". A good many are not in the least interested in converting--unfortunate, I'll admit--but neither do they really care much one way or the other as to whether or not Our Lady was a virgin after giving birth to Our LORD as before.
I present another option, one which is almost studiously ignored by Mr Blake. I am making not claim as to proving that the doctrine is true, but rather that it is not necessary to hold the doctrine as false. Once evidence and arguments become a matter of interpretation--are
adelphos literally brothers, or just cousins? does "until" mean "not before, but certainly after" or simply "not before, and it says nothing about after"?--then the doctrine is on the table as a sort of "judgment call."
It is then a matter of deciding: do I want to be in communion with the Church? If so, then I must consent to this doctrine; but I have no insurmountable objections to it, either. If not, then why not? If this is the lone doctrine which is keeping me out, why is it keeping me out? Are my objections to it really so strong? But if the doctrine is such that a reasonable explanation for it exists, then the objections are not insurmountable; if I find myself in the position of saying "this keeps me out of the Church, though it could be true as well," then it is not really the doctrine which is the barrier against joining the Church. The objection must lie elsewhere*.
--------
In the case of Mr Blake--always honest enough to ensure that his objections have some rational, logical, or factual basis--presents his four arguments "against" the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity. The first argument boils back to a matter of interpretation (or of exegesis): what do
adelphos and "until" mean? But again, these are matters of interpretation, however weak, a reasonable explanation may be found for the Catholic position.
His fourth argument seems the strongest, as it is a direct question: how exactly can St Mary's Hymen remain intact during Christ's birth. He suggests
No doubt it’s considered a miracle, but presuming the occurrence of unrecorded miracles to support unBiblical doctrines seems to be going a bit far, in my opinion. It also seems to take away a bit from that “full humanity of Christ” deal.
As to the "full humanity of Jesus" bit, the existence of a miracle during His birth hardly takes away from that. His whole Incarnation, from conception onwards, was a miracle. Yes, a normal human birht would cause breakage to an intact hymen; but then, in the normal course of thing the hymen would have been broken long before the birth. It hardly seems unreasonable to suppose that a miracle would occur during His birth. Passing through the hymen does not seem to me to be any greater a miracle that passing through a
locked door, or (to take an opposite miracle), not passing through water but rather
walking upon it. Yet neither of these things takes away from His humanity in the least.
The middle two objections which Mr Blake lists are the two really interesting ones. These, at least, show an attempt to give a positive theological, moral, metaphorical, allegorical, and/or philosophical meaning to a rejection of the Doctrine of Perpetual Virginity. Specifically, he argues that such a thing sets up a bad example of a marriage:
2. Furthermore, this doctrine presents a sever logical problems. Marriages are supposed to be consummated. A marriage that is not consummated is, in fact, no marriage. And the Bible is quite clear that this was, in fact, a marriage. Husband and wife, not some sort of guardianship of a vestal virgin, as was presented in some apocryphal literature that Catholics often rely on in this matter. A marriage with no intention of having sex is a sham, but this is precisely what Catholics ascribe to Mary, though I think they’ve been trying to carve out an exception without destroying the logical basis of the rest of their teaching on marriage.
3. Contra Mr. Sanders, a woman never having sex with her husband isn’t a sign of faithfulness to God, but rather of disobedience. Oh, I’m sure Mary’s a special case, except that there’s no Biblical evidence that God ever laid such a command on her and Joseph.
Here are the really interesting objections, because they at the least make a stab at assigning some real significance to Our Lady's virginity by arguing as to what a marriage is. However, it misses a few important points. First and foremost, this marriage actually was a special case. Lest we forget, Saints Mary and Joseph were not raising any mere human child: He was that, but He was more than that. Their Son is God's Son: He is God in the fullest sense.
Since the marriage itself was an exceptional one, it does not serve as the sole normative model for Christian marriage. To be fair, Saint Joseph is often held up as an excellent example fo both father and spouse; but it is not his abstinence from sexual relations tat make him thus
per se, but rather that he was foster father and protector to the Child Christ and protector of Our Lady. This was done at great risk to himself (see: flight to Egypt).
He also lived chastely with Our Lady until his death, practicing the specific mode of chastity which is found in abstinence. There are times and circumstances in any marriage in which this might be the case, in which the best course is abstinence; it is certainly true that in every marriage the best course is chastity, which at times demands abstinence of us and at other times demands consummation. But the intervals during which each of these things are demanded of us by chastity vary from relationship to relationship and circumstance to circumstance. In the case of a marriage in which one partner falls perpetually ill, abstinence is demanded, and yet the marriage is not less true for it; in our vows we may explicitly state that we will love our spouses "in sickness and in health."
The case of the Holy family is a different kind of special circumstance. Every mother becomes for a time the temple in which lives a spark of the divine, for every child is in the image and likeness of God. But in the special case of Mary, she was uniquely chosen to be the temple in which resided the fullness of divinity, for her Child was not only the image of God, but God incarnate. For the ordinary woman, it is fitting and proper to be mother of many children if she is to be mother at all, because each child which through her is a rekindling of the divine flame which burns inside her during her pregnancy. Christ, however, is unique, and His temple is meant to be His alone; it would be neither proper, nor right, nor fitting for another to occupy that temple after his birth. It would not be proper for Our Lady to be focusing inward at the image of God kindled in her womb--caring for it, loving it as a mother does--when God himself stands before her, placed into her motherly care, in need of her motherly love.
So much for St Mary herself, but St Joseph too had every reason to abstain from sexual intercourse. Mary had acted for a time as the ark in which God dwelt literally and physically. She was the Ark of the New Covenant. Saint Joseph had surely been taught Scripture, being a devout Jew, and so he surely knew about the Ark of the Old Covenant. Just as surely, he knew that it was forbidden to touch the Ark, so much so that when King David's servant Oza touched it,
he was struck down by God***.
Second, Mr Blake argues that a marriage in which there is no intent to have sexual relations is a "sham marriage." This is true to some extent; it is also false to some extent. A normal marriage is meant for two purposes: procreation and intimacy. These two purposes are mirrored in sexual relations, whose purposes are procreative and unitive. But in a sense theirs already was procreative, for a Son was born to Mary and was foster (or "step") child to Joseph. That He came into the world through unusual means does not make theirs any less "procreative" a union. The Church has always taught that adoption (as per Saint Joseph) is a perfectly valid way for a marriage to "be fruitful."
As for intimacy, that is a deepening of the bonds of love, eros is not the only form of love, nor even the greatest. The highest love to which a married couple is called is agape, not eros, and the Holy Family had as Son the very Personification of agape. It doesn't get much more intimate than that. Indeed, the normal human marriage with its sexual relations is at its best but a shadow or image of agape. In the person of Christ, there was no mere image of agape, but rather agape in the flesh.
--------
With all of this said, Mr Blake helps prove the original point which I was making in my first post. My point there was that there comes a time when--all other things considered--it becomes reasonable to hold either position on a certain doctrine. In the case of Saint Mary's Perpetual Virginity, we begin with the fact that this is a doctrine held by all Christians with little if any opposition for over a thousand years, ending some time after the Protestant Reformation. Said opposition exists mainly because of two key phrases in the Bible, the meaning of which is easily lost in translation from another language in another culture during another time.
The key words "adelphos" and "until" can be rendered either of two ways. One results in the Catholic understanding, the other in the Protestant understanding. Catholics hold this doctrine in high esteem; Protestants as such really have no reason to care either way, aside from the potential convert. But Catholics also know that Protestants are not bound to Catholic dogma in the same manner as Catholics are; Protestants as such are entitled to their own wrong doctrines with little additional quarrel, provided there isn't any actual blaspheming going on. The teaching is there, and it can be theirs if they want it, and pray God it will be theirs, but it is not for us to force it upon them. We can teach it and state that it must be accepted for fullness of communion with the Church, but we do not make any claims that it must be held for being a good "mere Christian" member of a protestant denomination or sect.
As for the average Protestant, and especially the Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who often actively seek debate on the Marian doctrines in general and this one in particular, this doctrine means very little either way. It really shows the character of some of them that they are so willing to beat Catholics over the head with a long statement of "you're wrong, you're wrong, YOU'RE WRONG!!!!"" on a doctrine for which a reasonable explanation exists.
The task of a Catholic apologist, when defending his beliefs to a Protestant, is first and foremost to show that those beliefs may be reasonably held. This think can be done within the framework demanded--namely, within a framework which more-or-less demands
Sola Scriptura (in some case, with occasional concessions to very-well-established oral Tradition). The doctrine of Perpetual Virginity cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt from the Bible
per se, but it is not my mission nor intention to do this. Rather, I only wanted to note that the Bible does not outright reject it, to show that a reasonable interpretation exists for the passages used as "evidence" against this doctrine. This, it seems, I have done.
__________
*His return to active blogging in a sense makes me hearken back to my last two years of college: in which I was in a state of nearly perpetual apologetics. More so then than now, I suppose, since then in was live and in person with 4 roommates, to say nothing of the guests who frequented our little townhouse. Then there were the Bible studies at McMinemon's; fond memories.
**By Protestants "as such," I mean the average Protestant who is happy as a Protestant and not, as Mr Blake once was and perhaps at times still is, considering converting to Catholicism.
***Here it is worth sharing a rather amusing--if not exactly urbane--
story which I found on Mr Mark Shea's blog:
As a way of helping the majority Protestant crowd grasp Catholic reverence for Mary, I speak of her as the "Ark" of the New Covenant who bore The Word. I go on to explain... "Now if Uzzah was struck down for touching the Ark of the Old Covenant, how do you think Joseph felt about touching the Ark which bore the eternal Word, Jesus Christ?"
At this point, a L-A-R-G-E black brother from Cleveland (former drug dealer) says Mr. T-style -- "Makes sense to me. You'ld hafta be a foool to touch her! She was God's baby's Mama!"
Something like this was surely in the back of Saint Joseph's mind.
-----
If you enjoyed this post, here are some related ones:
The Devil's in the Details
C.S. Lewis on Apologetics (Quote of the Day)
Dancing with the Saints
Apologetics and Conversion
Apologetics and Evangelization
Rediscovering the Saints
_____
