Gladly.
The Scripture does not say anything about Mary's relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus. Matthew 1:19-24 simply says that prior to Jesus's birth thay had no carnal relations. It does not project anything following that.
Every time where the "brothers" of Jesus are mentioned by name, we also know the name of the mother, and she is not Mary the Mother of God, but rather Mary Clopas. On the other hand, "brother" or "sister" in Middle Eastern countries can refer to any family member close in age, -- half-brother, cousin, etc. Note how Abram calls Lot his "brother" when we know from the same scripture that Lot was actually his nephew.
We don't know either way as regards Mary's marital life from the scripture.
Why is it so important to Catholics to think that Mary was always a virgin?
It is not terribly important. No Catholic dogma necessary for your salvation would fall if Mary is discovered to have had marital relations with Joseph. It certainly wouldn't have been a sin for them to do so. But the doctrine of perpetual virginity of Mary is logical, because we would find it strange that a woman who gave miraculous birth to God would still be interested in leaving a natural offspring. For Joseph, that would be an act of desecration, if you take into account that the Jews held any vessel touched by God -- even inanimate one like the Tabernacle of the Word, -- as something not to be touched on penalty of death. Mary's womb was holy to him as it is to all Christians.
Further, while, like I said, there is not direct scripture, Mary's perpetual virginity is consistent with Luke 1:34, where Mary says "I know not man". That is because if she intended to have carnal relations with Joseph after she should marry, she would not have been surprised by the prophecy of having a child.
The tradition holds it that Mary was a temple virgin married off to Joseph for economic reasons, while the intention was for her to remain a virgin, as was the common way to deal with temple virgins who reached early adulthood. That explains Luke 1:34, the likely presence of half-brothers from Joseph's previous marriage, and Joseph's early death due to old age at the time of his marriage to Mary. It is also consistent with the fact that she accompanied Jesus throughout His ministry, wich perhaps would have been harder (or less necessary) to do if there were other children of hers around.
So, if somehow we find out that in fact she was not a virgin, nothing would change, really, but we would be surprised.
Note that it does not put the Church in any uncomfortable position. We do not derive all our theology from the scripture. We are a historical Church which put some of her institutional memory to scripture. Since the circumstances of Mary's life outside of her participation in the ministry of Christ are not the focus of the Gospel, the=is historical knowledge was left as traditional rather than scriptural.
Nothing like the real soup the Protestantism find itself in as it ,on one hand, proclaime that all of its doctrines are from the scripture, and then, on the other hand, teaches salvation by faith alone which is dirctly contradicted by the scriptire. Resolve that one for me, please.
Interesting that Catholics consider sex between a husband and wife as "carnal relations". Sex between a husband and wife is God's idea and there's nothing wrong with it at all.
Well I think it would mean quite a lot would have to change. Your religion teaches that ex-cathedra proclaimations are inerrant. The dogma that states the perpetual virginity of Mary was also claimed to pronounce "anathema" on anyone who did not believe it, as I understand it. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a doctrine of De fide (of the faith). It is a "theological note" or "theological qualification" that indicates that some religious doctrine is an essential part of Catholic faith and that denial of it is heresy. So, yes, it would actually mean that the "Church" was actually wrong about something and would blow that whole "inerrancy" bubble sky high.
We know that many "traditions" from the past can be based on myths or legends so not all traditions are necessarily true. That is why God gave us scripture as our rule of faith. People don't always get things right. God is never wrong.
“Nothing like the real soup the Protestantism find itself in as it ,on one hand, proclaime that all of its doctrines are from the scripture, and then, on the other hand, teaches salvation by faith alone which is dirctly contradicted by the scriptire. Resolve that one for me, please.”
I wish somebody would answer this, sincerely. Because I’ve always sought this answer and have never even seen a serious attempt.