(a) The folks here are reading Matthew 1:25 like Americans, and you are imputing American content to a translation.
The answer to the question about Matthew 1:25 is not some kind of scary, risque, contra-Scriptural interpretation by Holy Mother the Church, but rather this: The Greek word heos translated “until” is probably most elegantly translated “up to the moment that.” It has nothing to say about the future. Matthew was not an American, and he would not have understood your addition of meaning about the future to the word *heos *(or the Aramaic equivalent).
(b) As far as respecting the Church’s role in interpreting Scripture, whereas the Church is the final arbiter of meaning, *the Church does not, philosophically, have a right to reverse or alter meaning, but rather only to perceive meaning. *Inspired Magisterial teaching should arrive at the same points as Scripture. The Church may not knowingly change Scripture’s meaning.
If one is too shy about reading Scripture and trying to determine meaning, to the point of saying things like, “However you, according to many Catholics that have told me, are not qualified to interpret the scriptures. That is to be left up to the priest, he is to tell you what to believe. So please forget that you read this scripture because you have probably misinterpreted it anyway.” Way, way, way, WAY too conservative. Heck, with that as our guideline we may as well burn our Bibles!
And I have heard many priests misinterpret Scripture.
The rule to follow is this: The Church’s infallibility is penumbral. While we are bound to bow to ex cathedra statements, the responsibility below that level is to bow to a teaching unless we can point to an articulable reason for disputing it.
Otherwise, Catholics were morally bound to accept every Lutheran teaching issuing from the mouth of every rebellious-but-still-nominally-Catholic German bishop in the Reformation, until Rome should contradict them, no matter how anti-Catholic the teaching.