Richard McBrien's 'Catholicism' Questions
the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, The Mother of God

Editorial Note: We are grateful to noted theologian-author Fr. William G. Most for the following observations on a dangerous book.  — James Likoudis

It has become the fashion today to attack the perpetual virginity of Our Lady, in fact, even her virginal conception of Jesus. Martin Luther, arch-heretic, was kinder to Her than McBrien and some others today. In Luther's work "On the Gospel of St. John" (See "Works", American Edition vol. 22, p.23) we read:

"Christ... was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb... this was without the cooperation of a man, and She remained a virgin after that."

And in Luther's Commentary on the Hail Mary ("Works", vol.43, p.40):

"...She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin... God's grace fills Her with everything good and makes Her devoid of all evil..."

But Richard P. McBrien says in his book "Catholicism" (p.541) that "the arguments against historicity (of virginal conception) are also strong." First, he says that if Mary and Joseph knew He had no human father, and they had not kept it from Him, then He would not have been so ignorant about Who He was. He is so convinced of ignorance in Jesus that he uses it as an argument against the virginal conception of Our Lord!

Secondly, he says that the infancy narratives, the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke, "suggest a non-historical rather than historical accounting of the conception of Jesus." He says that the two accounts are "virtually irreconcilable." As one example, he mentions that Matthew tells of a flight into Egypt, while Luke in 2:39 goes straight from the Presentation in the temple to a return to Nazareth. McBrien seems not to know there can be a compendious or even a telescoped account of events. For example, most scholars think Acts 15 telescopes two meetings of the Apostles in Jerusalem.

He further says (p.542) that Matthew shows "artificiality in format" because he has groups of 14 generations in the genealogy of Jesus. Yes, he does have one thing that is artificial there. But that says nothing about the rest of the infancy narratives. Latest research shows there was a special genre of genealogy in ancient times: genealogies were not always just family trees, but were made up to bring out some special point. Matthew thus wanted to show the relation to David, whose name has the numerical value of 14.

Then McBrien asserts that the rest of the NT is silent on the virginal conception but ignores the simple fact there was no special reason to mention it.

Finally, he asks how that fact could have been known to anyone but Mary and Joseph. According to [Pope] John Paul II (General Audience, Jan. 28, 1988) she did give much information to the early Church. What would be more natural? In fact, we might even speculate that the reason why Matthew centers his account on Joseph, while Luke does on Her, is that she was still reticent - the Gospels show She did not even tell Joseph at first - so perhaps at first She told Matthew and others only the things that pertained to Joseph. Later, Luke managed to get further data from Her and used it.

After all this, McBrien thinks the virginal conception may have been just a theologoumenon (i.e. a mere theological opinion). He suggests that physically there was no such thing: it was just a way of asserting Her holiness. To that we reply:

Where else in Matthew and Luke do we find even one clear case of a theologoumenon?

Further, the Church has never considered it such. From the earliest creeds on, Mary is called simply "ever-virgin", "aei parthenos". Pope Leo the Great, in his "Tome to Flavian" at the Council of Chalcedon wrote (DS 291):

" She brought Him forth without the loss of virginity even as She conceived Him without its loss."

What point is there in talking about "keeping virginity" if it was only a theologoumenon? What would that add when extended to during and after birth? Following Pope Leo, the Council of Chalcedon in 451 taught (Mansi 7.462):

"As was fitting for God, He sealed Her womb."

St. Ambrose in "De Institutions Virginis" 8.52 (PL 16.320) wrote:

"What is this gate but Mary, closed for this reason, because She was a virgin. So Mary was the gate through which Christ entered and did not lose the genital barrier of virginity." (The gate is mentioned in Ezek 44:2).

The Lateran Council of October 649 (DS 503) with the Pope present and approving, taught:

"If anyone does not, in accord with the Holy Fathers, acknowledge the holy and ever-virgin and immaculate Mary as really and truly the Mother of God, in as much as She in the fullness of time, and without seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit .. and without loss of integrity brought Him forth, and after His birth preserved Her virginity inviolate, let him be condemned."

Finally, Vatican II, in Lumen Gentium § 57 says that:

"she joyfully showed Her first-born Son to the shepherds and the Magi, He who did not diminish but consecrated Her virginal integrity."

That word integrity is clearly physical, and does not express a mere theologoumenon. Let these people who boast so loudly of the "spirit of Vatican II" find how to reject this. In passing, let us note the matter-of-fact way in which Vatican II spoke of the shepherds and the Magi.

Still further, Vatican II, in LG § 12, wrote:

"The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief"

That is, if the whole Church, pastors and people, have ever, for even one period, believed something as revealed, that belief cannot be in error, and is infallible. Now, of course, the Catholic people have never dreamed that her virginity is a mere theologoumenon.

Richard P. McBrien is not alone in trying to subvert Catholic dogma today. Similarly, John P. Meier in "A Marginal Jew" spends page after page trying to disprove the perpetual virginity of Our Blessed Lady.

It is curious to see how some Catholic scholars have proved to be more Protestant than Luther!

 

---