Replies

Then what is the scriptural basis for the sinless nature of Mary and the denial of the brothers and sisters of Jesus? These infallible positions would be in addition to the scriptures, if there isn't a scriptural basis for them, correct?

The teachings on Mary's purity are based on Scripture -- they are implicit in Scripture, in the same way the Trinity is implicit in Scripture.

Granted, the Catholic doctrine on Mary is not one of those doctrines that can be demonstrated by referencing a single passage in the Bible. It requires reading the Bible as a whole, and in the light of the teachings of the early Church Fathers, in order to provide the hermeneutic context in which these Church doctrines can be shown to be very much rooted in the OT and NT, taken as a whole -- so much so that their explication brings a coherence and fulfillment of the Scriptures that is not possible without them, as is demonstrated, for example, by Scott Hahn in his excellent and very accessible book, Haily, Holy Queen.

Since the earliest days of Christianity, the church has constantly taught that Mary preserved her virginity not only before the conception of Jesus, but ever afterward as well. Though she was married to Joseph, the two never consummated their marriage by sexual intercourse. This doctrine is known as Mary's perpetual virginity.

Heretics in the early Church occasionally challenged this teaching but they never gained much ground. Their purportedly scriptural arguments were easily refuted by the likes of St. Jerome, the great biblical scholar of the ancient church. (Jerome was also a great name-caller, and he reserved his most scathing insults for those who dared to question Mary's perpetual virginity). What were the arguments of these heretics? They should sound very familiar.

The bulk of their arguments rested on the New Testament passages that refer to Jesus' "brethren." We find in St. Mark's gospel, for example: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and joses and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?" (6:3). In Matthew 12:46, we see: "Behold, His Mother and His brethren stood outside, asking to speak to Him." In Luke 2:7, we read that Jesus was Mary's "first-born."

This is virtually a non-issue for anyone who has a glancing familiarity with Hebrew customs. The Hebrew word for "brother" is a more inclusive term, applying to cousins as well. In fact, in ancient Hebrew there is no word for cousin. To a Jew of Jesus' time, one's cousin was one's brother. This familial principle applied in other Semitic languages as well, such as Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke. Furthermore, precisely because Jesus was an only child, His cousins would even assume the legal status of siblings for Him, as they were His nearest relatives. Finally, the word "firstborn" raises no real difficulty because it was a legal term in ancient Israel that applied to the child who "openend the womb," whether or not the mother bore more children afterward.

Heretics also quoted passages that seemed--again, to those unfamiliar with Jewish modes of expression--to imply that Mary and Joseph later had sexual relations. They would cite Matthew 1:18: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit." St. Jerome's antagonist Helvidius placed his question squarely on the word "before" in that sentence, claiming that Matthew would never have applied "before they came together" to a couple who did not eventually come together. Helvidius also cited a passage later in Matthew's first chapter that declares that Joseph "knew her not until she had borne a son" (1:25). Again, Helvidius said that Matthew's use of "until" implied that Joseph "knew" Mary afterward.

This is a classic example of amateur exegesis. It was definitively and easily leveled by a professional biblical scholar. Responding to Helvidius, Jerome demonstrated that scripture "often uses a fixed time...to denote time without limitation, as when God by the mouth of the prophet says to certain persons, 'Even to old age I am He' (Is 46:4)." Jerome thundered on: "Will He cease to be God when they have grown old?" The answer of course is no. Jerome goes on, then, to quote Jesus, Who said: "Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Mt 28:20). Wryly, Jerome asked Helvidius if he thought the Lord would then forsake His disciples after the close of the age. Jerome multiples such example, but we don't need to repeat them here. Suffice it to say that those who question Mary's virginity don't have a page of scripture to stand on--and Christian Tradition is univocally against them.

If they wanted to find a message implicit in scripture, they should have examined the first chapter of Luke's gospel. There, the angel Gabriel appears to Mary--who was then betrothed to Joseph--and tells her that she will conceive a son. Mary responds: "How shall this be, since I have no husband?" (Lk 1:27-34).

Now, this would be an odd question if Mary had planned to have normal marital relations with her husband. The angel had told her only that she would conceive a son, which is a commonplace event in marriage. If Helvidius were right, then Mary should have known exactly "how shall this be." It would happen in the normal course of nature.

But that, apparently, was beyond the realm of possibility for her. The unspoken assumption behind her question is that, even though she was betrothed, she should not have an opportunity to conceive a child. How can that be? Some commentators speculate that Mary must have vowed virginity from an early age, and that Joseph knew of her vow, accepted it, and eventually took it on himself. Contrarians respond that vowed celibacy was almost unheard of in ancient Israel. Yet we do find examples of celibacy in the time of Jesus, evidenced in the New Testament by Jesus Himself and by Saint Paul, among others. The Dead Sea Scrolls attest that celibacy was a common practice of some Israelite sects. So it is not unthinkable that Mary could have vowed virginity.

In any case, it is clear from scripture and Tradition that she lived her virginity--so much that, for all future generations, she became its very personification. St. Epiphanius dismissed all arguments against Mary's virginity with the witness of her name. Even in his day (the fourth century), she was well established as simply "the Virgin." A good son firmly defends his mother's honor--though most of the time, he need not do so with long and labored argument. Still, there is a place for proofs as well; and sons of Mary can, if challenged, take up the Scriptures in her defense, as Jerome did.