[adiaireton8]

Harley, it wasn't "Friar Bob". The issue was important enough that it was pronounced in the Fifth Ecumenical Council (of 533 AD)that Mary was a "perpetual virgin".

You don't see the importance, mostly because you have a gnostic view of virginity such that for you it does not matter how Jesus was born. Whereas the Church's view of virginity is such that Jesus had to have been botn a certain way so as not to corrupt Mary's virginity. The Savior could not have been the corruptor.

-A8

[HarleyD]

The virginity of Mary was indeed important and I do not hold a gnostic view. Christ had to be born of a virgin in order to be separated from the sin of Adam. However, Catholics believe (wrongly IMO) that Mary's womb had to be immaculate so that Christ could be unstained from sin. So God did something "special" for her to allow this.

Why I believe this is the wrong view is simply because I believe our sin is not passed through the mother but through the father. All wombs are holy and pure but sinful regeneration occurs through the man. This was one of the purposes of circumcision-to remind man that every time he procreates, he is creating a sinner. Thus there is no need to manufacture an immaculate conception.

Christ's virgin birth was necessary because He could not be a son of Adam, stained and tarnished by the sins of the world. It was through Adam that the world was condemned. Not Eve.

Unfortunately I am unable to prove my hypothesis. While I have plenty of females who may or may not wish to be test cases, I have no way to create a virgin birth.

[TomSmedley]

Whereas the Church's view of virginity is such that Jesus had to have been born a certain way so as not to corrupt Mary's virginity. The Savior could not have been the corruptor.

OK, OK, we got it. Childbirth is spiritually defiling. Matter bad, spirit good and Jesus never dirtied His immaculate diapers.