[From: "The betrothal and marriage of Mary to Joseph" :] I take it as axiomatic that the Holy Spirit so arranged the Incarnation that the virginal conception of the Christ would raise no doubts about Joseph’s paternity and Mary’s absolute fidelity to him in the minds of their families and neighbors. This is corroborated by the fact that even three decades later these same people were still unable to accept Jesus as being anyone but the son “of the carpenter” (cf. Matt. 13:55).
This DIRECTLY contradicts the Protoevangelium of James:
[Chapter 11:] "1. Then came Annas the scribe, and said to Joseph, Why have we not seen you since your return? 2. And Joseph replied, Because I was weary after my journey and rested the first day. 3. But Annas turning about perceived the Virgin big with child. 4. And went away to the priest and told him, Joseph in whom you placed so much confidence, is guilty of a notorious crime, in that he has defiled the Virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord, and has privately married her, not revealing it to the children of Israel. 5. Then said the priest, Has Joseph done this? 6. Annas replied, If you send any of your servants, you will find that she is with child. 7. And the servants went, and found it as he said. 8. Upon this both she and Joseph were brought to their trial, and the priest said to her, Mary, what have you done? 9. Why have you debased your soul and forgotten your God, seeing you were brought up in the Holy of Holies, and received your food from the hands of angels, and heard their songs? 10. Why have you done this?"
So much for this guy's axioms. :) I'm not sure there is any way to know how long after the Annunciation that they were actually married.
However, the Protoevangelium clearly says that Mary was great with child BEFORE they were married. This is critical. Therefore, the Protoevangelium actually SUPPORTS my view that Mary was not expecting to actually BE married for some time, (it takes time to become great with child). So, Mary's question was logical. She was not expecting to be married any time soon, she would not dishonor her family by fooling around beforehand, and she was a virgin. How could it be that she would conceive a son? This is the basic and reasonable thought that prompted her question. (I thought it was interesting that under "Annunciation" at New Advent, they claim the two were already married at the time. Strange.)
[From Pope John Paul II:] We can wonder why she would accept betrothal, since she had the intention of remaining a virgin forever. Luke is aware of this difficulty, but merely notes the situation without offering any explanation. The fact that the Evangelist, while stressing Mary's intention of virginity, also presents her as Joseph's spouse, is a sign of the historical reliability of the two pieces of information.
What? How in the world does Luke "STRESS" Mary's intention of remaining a virgin. She asks how she can become pregnant since "I am a virgin". Does that, by itself, really translate into a lifelong pledge of virginity, especially from a betrothed woman? I can't see that at all, just on its face, never mind that Luke is stressing it.
LOL! It's funny how these "traditions" get in the way of one another.
If it did, that would not be a big deal since the Protoevangelium is not canonical, and the timing of the wedding is not a dogma of the Church. But there is no contradiction: the Protoevangelium does not describe the wedding at all, it merely mentions that the priest did not know of the wedding at the time Mary was noticeably pregnant.
How in the world does Luke "STRESS" Mary's intention of remaining a virgin. She asks how she can become pregnant since "I am a virgin"
To say, "I am a virgin" indeed does not stress any intention about the future, but to say "I know not man and therefore cannot become pregnant in the future, contrary to your prediction" very much stresses the intention, and the latter is what Luke effectively saying in 1:34.