Could be time to turn in my Catholic membership card

In a discussion on one of the Catholic discussion boards on MySpace (even reading that sentence is a little scary), the subject came up of the Blessed Mother's perpetual virginity.

I have always understood Mary's perpetual virginity in terms of she conceived a son not through any man, but through the power of the Holy Spirit. After the birth of Jesus, she did not bear any additional children and did not have marital relations with Joseph, her husband, but remained chaste throughout her life preserving the virginity graced by God's presence in her womb.

This is a dogma of the Church, that while difficult to comprehend perhaps, I can accept. It reconciles well with Scripture and all that we have come to understand about the Blessed Mother.

Then came this discussion where not only did Mary conceive through the miracle of the Holy Spirit, but she also gave birth in a miraculous manner that had Jesus pass through the birth canal without any physical injury or pain to his mother.

This was news to me as we did not cover this aspect of the Virgin Birth in Catholic grade school, and by the time we got to high school, the nuns were more concerned about keeping the girls from bearing children of their own. Forget trying to explain how Mary gave birth without a break in the hymen.

I am appalled by this notion. I am not surprised that a bunch of men who never had children came up with this scenario, but I am appalled by 1) the idea that childbirth is such a heinous experience that we are expected to believe the greatest gift Mary could receive would be to have a supernatural birth without experiencing anything even remotely human in the process; and 2) that Mary's very humanity would be stripped from her as though her womanhood would be detrimental to the divinity of Christ.

Speechless. The whole conversation has left me speechless. On one hand the Church teaches us that giving birth is a tremendous gift - a sharing with God in the creation of new life. On the other hand, the pain of childbirth is seen as a horrible event from which Mary was to be protected. On the third hand, it is believed there is no greater way to show one's love of God than to suffer as Christ suffered.

The issue isn't even about the pain. Lots of women do whatever they can to avoid the pain of childbirth, so the idea of Mary being blessed with a pain free labor and delivery is not incomprehensible.

What is mind boggling to me is the part about Jesus leaving the womb without any physical injury or normal physical process.

This focus on keeping the hymen and birth canal intact ignores the reality of amniotic fluid, afterbirth, placenta, and uterine enlargement. Why not go even further and say Mary was never cursed with a menstrual cycle either? If she never had a menstrual cycle, then she never ovulated, and if she never ovulated, then she must not have had any eggs. Would this not make Mary not only virginal, but barren as well?

There are times when I think the Church fathers got a little too caught up in the details without possessing any real understanding of the human condition, particularly the female human condition.

As I said on the boards, I personally find the image of Mary giving birth to a son already conceived under miraculous circumstances, in the dark of the desert with only the grace of God and the love of her husband to give her comfort a far, far, FAR more compelling image of faith than the idea of a baby gliding through the birth canal like a ghost with no connection to his mother whatsoever.

What a sad way to come into the world and what sad experience for Mary to be robbed of all that makes for the true miracle of childbirth.