In a previous column, entitled THE
ATTACK ON MARY, we noted that of all the things that drive anti-Catholics nuts
about Catholic beliefs, the thing that drives them most nuts is what we believe
about Mary.
 |
| The Aeiparthenos (Ever Virgin) |
And of those things which we believe
about Mary, such as the Immaculate Conception and her bodily Assumption, the
most irksome, to non and anti-Catholics, is our belief in her Perpetual
Virginity. In fact, the very words “Perpetual Virginity” seem to provoke a
cringe similar to that provoked by the sound of fingernails scraping a
chalkboard.
The intent in this column is to share a
few thoughts on how to engage the “Protestant” disbelief in the Perpetual
Virginity, but we should first note that a disbelief in the value of
consecrated virginity in general is, at its root, a fundamental Protestant
tenet promulgated by “the First Protestant”, Martin Luther.
While Luther may have had some
legitimate beefs relative to the so-called “sale of indulgences”, it seems that
his real itch involved celibacy. In 1521, Luther wrote: I see myself insensible, hardened, sunk
in idleness, alas! seldom in prayer, and not venting one groan over God’s
Church. My unsubdued flesh burns me with devouring fire. In short, I … am
devoured by the flesh, by luxury, indolence, idleness, somnolence.
A few years later, Luther wrote to a group of nuns: “In such cases (no
longer wishing to remain celibate) it is time to run away, leaving the convent
and all it entails behind.” Luther went
on to explain: “Though womenfolk are ashamed to admit to this... a woman
has no control over herself. God has made her body to be with man...”
Apparently Luther had his own body in
mind for he eventually helped himself to the nuns, taking one for his wife and
offering another to the Bishop of Mainz (if he would convert) during a
Luther-inspired pogrom against celibacy in which scores of German monks and
nuns were “liberated” from their monasteries, convents, AND their vows. The
story goes downhill from there.
But what about that? What about Luther’s
claim that God made a woman’s “body to be with a man.” Ummm, well, yah, and
visa versa. However, and without a long dissertation on celibacy: “With God,
all things are possible”. So of course, with God’s grace, a man or woman can
give his or her body (and soul) entirely to God.
So you might say that Catholics, since
we are the only Christians to institutionally place a value on consecrated
virginity, are the only true “Full Gospel Church”, i.e. we actually believe
that “all things are possible with God”, including consecrated virginity, and take seriously - for those engaged in
particular ministries - St. Paul’s Corinthian exhortation to celibacy (1 Cor
7:8-9). But Luther’s personal peccadillos aside, how do we engage a challenge
to our belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?
Usually the challenge is based on one of
the ten instances in the New Testament wherein “brothers (and/or sisters) of
the Lord” are mentioned. A simple response to this is to point out that Aramaic
had no word for “cousins”, and “brother” and/or “sister” was used to reference
several degrees of kin.
Another challenge is based on Matthew
1:25 which says: “And he (Joseph) did not know her until she had brought forth
her firstborn son.” The implication is that the word “until” assumes that Joseph
and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born.
This argument is also easily dispatched
by simply referencing other instances in Scripture wherein the word “until” is
used, but does not mean that anything different followed: e.g. no one knew the
location of Moses’ grave “until this present day” (Deut. 24.6). We still don’t
know.
And then of course there is the matter
of Jesus, on the cross, entrusting his mother to the apostle, John. If Mary had
other children, there would have been no need for Jesus to do this.
Perhaps the easiest and most useful
reply, though, is to simply ask the challenger to show you in the Bible where
it says that Mary had other children. He or she will resort to the memorized
lines about the “brothers of the Lord”. But stay with the program: continue to
ask where it says that Mary had other children. Of course, the Bible never says
that she does.
The reason this works is because of the
“Protestant’s” own belief in “the Bible alone”, i.e. “if it’s not in the Bible,
it didn’t happen”. “Protestants” use this principle to discredit the Immaculate
Conception, the Assumption, and other doctrines which are not explicit in
Scripture. You are simply asking them to use this same principle of “sola
scriptura” to prove that Mary was not a Perpetual Virgin. They can’t. End of
conversation. (Unless of course you’d like to invite him or her to join the
one, true Church!)
