Hey, everyone. I have been told that it is a doctrine of the Church that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ in a painless manner. Is this true? If so, how could it be true? From what I understand, she is said to have given birth painlessly because she had no stain of sin from the moment of conception. Well, Jesus Christ did not have any stain of sin from the moment of his conception either but He still suffered the pain of crucifixion. Can someone please help me to understand this?
Does it really matter?
Probably stems from the original story of Adam and Eve. After they ate the fruit God told Eve she (and women in the future) would suffer pain in childbirth due to her sin.
*To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,
but he shall rule over you.”*
Mary having no sin, then no pain.
Scripture does not elaborate on whether Mary experienced pain or not.
I think that was recently discussed here at length, along with the companion idea that Jesus appeared miraculously outside Mary’s body without passing through the birth canal. I don’t believe the Church has a teaching - let alone a doctrine - on this. There are pious beliefs and supposedly private revelations, neither of which are binding. Mary’s life was clearly not free of pain, and whether or not she was granted a painless birth neither adds nor takes away from her unique role in salvation history or her exaulted position among mankind.
Since Mary remained a Virgin her whole life…the birth must have been miraculous!
Many Church Fathers favored the view that Mary gave birth painlessly, but it’s not a dogma or even really doctrine of the Church, to my knowledge.
My parish priest said that she did, actually. I admit I don’t know much, but I remember him saying that a woman still experiences pain during labor even if she was baptized 5 minutes ago…and baptism removes original sin.
Mary and Jesus did not have original sin, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t experience the effects of it imo.
Again, there is no infallible statement that answers your statement.
Edit: I remember a belief that Jesus was delivered like how “a light passes through a window” or something like that…because she was a virgin. Again I don’t know much but to me it seems like they’re just ignorant about the concept of virginity (you know…they probably think a tampon affects your virginity but I digress)
I’d like to think so, but really, none of that matters.
To back up Crusaderbear’s statement: Mary was a virgin BEFORE, DURING and AFTER Our Lord’s birth.
It’s dogma, so we’re bound to believe it.
Also dogma: Mary didn’t suffer the pain of childbirth.
The birth was miraculous…the Infant may have passed through His mother’s flesh, or like rays of light…whatever. Anyway: miraculous.
For want of better words: her virginal integrity wasn’t violated at any time of her life on this earth.
I am not aware of this being dogma. Source?
Is anyone denying that she wasn’t a virgin? The birth was miraculous because she didn’t have sex, I think we can all agree on this.
Giving birth normally doesn’t take away your virginity, though? Is there any source that says it’s a dogma that she didn’t experience pain? I’ve been trying to find it but from what I see, there isn’t. If there is I would genuinely like to read it.
The idea of a painless birth is found in scripture, as usual, it might be out of context, but it is there, nonetheless.
NSRV-2CE Isaiah 66:7 (if it wasn’t on the last page of the book of Isaiah, I probably wouldn’t be able to find it so often, when this question comes up)
**7 Before she was in labor
she gave birth
before her pain came upon her
she delivered a son.
8 Who has heard such a thing?
Who has seen such things?
10 Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad for her,
all you who love her**
Sorry: it’s not outright dogma.
The following quote is from an article linked to after the quote:
The Church teaches that the virgin birth was also a painless birth, without defining it dogmatically.****[A bit misleading] However, as its inclusion in the Catechism of the Council of Trent affirms, it is a logical conclusion from the Church’s definitive teaching regarding Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth:…
See above, plus the one below regarding her perpetual virginity:
I am curious what the definition of “virginity” is being used here. After all, a woman whose hymen breaks in the course of medical care (for example) is still a virgin. Likewise it would seem that the act of childbirth itself would not violate virginity.
The only sane way i can put it is that if she had been examined by a physician at the end of her life on this earth (a virtually impossible occurrence)), he would have had to conclude that she had remained a virgin.
Physically, she remained, and remains, “intact”.
This has been discussed before, but still: A doctor cannot see if a woman is a virgin(unless there is some kind of deformity). So no doctor can conclude such a thing. It is a dangerous myth.
There are only four marian dogmas:
- That she is the kother of God
- That she was a virgin
- That she was born without ancestral sin
- That she was taken to heaven with body and soul.
Therefore, we are free to believe different thingd regarding the labors of Mary. I believe Jesus was born in a “normal” way, and that there was some amount of discomfort. Many women give birth without any extreme pain though, And Mary could have been one of them. As previous posters have said, this has already been discussed, several time even.
In what way is it a dangerous myth?
i 'm taking for granted that it’d be obvious that she hadn’t given birth, and no deformity, either.
Also what a friend told me a handful of years ago after his older never-married sister died. A. doctor mentioned to him that his sister was still a virgin. Was the doctor wrong to say that?
Not all women ride horses or motor cycles or whatever.
Regardless: Our Lady remained a virgin BEFORE, DURING and AFTER the birth of her Son.
In some way, the birth WAS miraculous. Period! So says the Church!
This has become too anatomical!
Many Church Fathers seemed to consider her “physical” virginity to have remained intact as well. I don’t know that the Church has formally defined it as referring to the physical aspects, necessarily, whatever that may be but it hasn’t formally defined it as “only not having relations with a man,” either.
Yes, the doctor was wrong to say that. Horse riding and motor cycles has nothing to do with anything. In a normal female, there is nothing that completly covers the vaginal opening (you couldn’t have your period if there was, and if there was and it became teared, the body would try to repair it). All woman have a stretchable ring of tissue though.
I agree that it has become to anatomical, I wish we didn’t have to discuss this. Our lady was of course a virgin, because she never had sex.
It is a dangerous myth because women or even children some parts of the world are forced to undergo exams to prove their virginity. In any normal case, you cannot tell if a woman is a virgin or not. Period. However, all of this is irrelevant when it comes to Our lady. Her loving and sacrificing nature is what matters.