As we move forward in time now the 21 Century research in so many areasopen our minds for those willing to learn. For discussion I offer the following: Perpetual Virginity

We know that Mary at the time of conception was a Virgin as She herself stated " How may I when I have not known man? " In Jewish law of old a bride was expected to give her virginity to her spouse as a sign of purity and social acceptance.During the third century Mary was brought into the Church as a virgin and has been presented as Perpetual Virgin.

Ques: Is the virginity of Mary a Spiritual one in that she would remain " untainted " and she would as her laws demanded give herself to her spouse? Or are we to accept Ambrose's argument she was/is always a virgin even through lawful marriage as " betrothed " to The Father?

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 24, 2002

Answers

Jean writes:

"Or are we to accept Ambrose's argument she was/is always a virgin even through lawful marriage as " betrothed " to The Father?"

You shouldn't be so quick to characterize St. Ambrose as someone who made up Mary's perpetual virginity. He's also not alone in the matter. If you want more quotes from Church fathers, you can refer to:

Catholic.com

EWTN #1

EWTN #2

Jean writes:

"As we move forward in time now the 21 Century research in so many areasopen our minds for those willing to learn."

Help me understand, Jean. What "21st century research" is going to help us? Is denial of Mary's perpetual virginity equivalent to "opening our minds"?

I think it's a disingenuous position for you to begin your question by implicitly calling those who defend the truth of Mary's virginity as:

1) Closed minded

2) Unwilling to learn

I find it hard to believe you attended Catholic school. You know so little about Christianity. And when you bring up a topic about Christianity, it always has to either have a negative undertone directed at a Catholic doctrine or at the bishops and priests. Why do you have such an antagonism toward the Catholic Church?

In the future, if you feel the need to ask a valid question like this one, please leave out your condescending comments (like those of the first paragraph). If you're an old man (as you say you are), then you can't be so naive as to deny the pompousness of your first sentence.

Then again, George Orwell predicted that many would speak fluent Doublespeak by now... :-)

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 24, 2002.

I might have mentioned this on another thread: But, the fact that Mary said "How is this, since I do not know man" is actually a statement of her perpetual (Spiritual and Physical) virginity. If she had the intentions of having marital relations with Joseph she might have known how "this" was to happen. Elizibeth's husband asked how it would happen because of her age - he knew it would be because of marital relations! But Mary, because she had decided to be a virgin (even after marriage) was interested in knowing how exactly the conception would take place.

I hope this makes sence.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), July 24, 2002.

This is no theological view, but just from a natural perspective, it seems to me VERY hard to believe that Joseph, knowing Mary was conceived by the Holy Ghost, having had numerous angelic visitations, visits by magi, strange phophesies, would have viewed Mary as an ordinary woman and wife, and that he would have even WANTED to consummate the marriage in light of all this.

I think most men, if put in that very strange position, would find sexual intercourse under these circumstances anathema.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 24, 2002.

"As we move forward in time now the 21 Century research in so many areasopen our minds for those willing to learn."

Don't let your mind be so open as to let your brain fall out. ; )

-- jake (jake__@msn.com), July 24, 2002.

Jean:
We know of Mary's virginity for life as a result of Catholic teaching by the authority of the apostles. It isn't a point for conjecture, since God reveals it. God is, after all the best witness; we could not know anything if He didn't want it revealed. The sources are impeccable: Christ/His Apostles/His Church.

Sacred Tradition has told us the evangelist Saint Luke wrote his gospel mainly on the word of Mary herself; at least the narratives of the nativity and early life of Jesus. Undoubtedly we have her own word on the lifelong virginity you question. (Incidentally, it isn't ''perpetual''. You either have a maidenhead, or you lose it.

We have it on the word of Tradition as well that Mary's giving birth didn't cause her loss of virginity either. Christ's birth from the Virgin was accomplished in a miraculous manner. There should be no problem for us to believe this on pure faith. For God nothing is impossible.

The Church has no cause to idealize Mary's virginity without that knowledge. What was not revealed is never taught. I know some people are skeptical; but we can't worry about that.

You place too much store in the Mosaic Law's ''demands'' for married couples. In the first place, you don't know what the real circumstances of Mary's marital and virginal states even were.. You would have to, to judge at this distance how she lived under the Law. --The Law itself might not just ''demand'' Mary and Joseph have sexual relations. It simply states Joseph could himself execise his rights under the Law (or voluntarily abstain without committing sin). That is not breaking the Law of Moses.

In the second place, and most importantly, God is above the Law. His word was enough to lift the requirements. He did it when He gave Peter dietary permissions as we now know them. Jews are still keeping these, as you must know.

What else is there to discuss about the Blessed Virgin?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 24, 2002.

Jake - Thank you for th einout as the first was excellent and the second left me wondering.

Mateo - I often wonder at times where the inance thoughts come in you as your both intelligant ant I know perceptive. Dialogue brings us forward in life. Looking at the past continually retards growth.

Gail - I applaud you heartily as this is my view on the history of Christ's family. Atta girl.

Eugene - as usual you rely on the written word as a fundamentalist. Where please does it state the virginty of Our Holy Mother in the Gospels?

Please remeber they were not written until many years later and many politcal venues expressed until the authorites were pleased.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 24, 2002.

Eugene - re-reading your post as in some others brings a ques: Arr you antisemitic?

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 24, 2002.

Jean:
My posts have never indicated any such thing. If you can find one antisemitic statement I ever made, show it to us, please. Accuse me; but show the statement.

Far from it. My Lord and Saviour is a Jew. The Mother of God, Jesus Christ is a Jew. Saint Peter is a Galilean Jew. But Christians come from all racial strains, Jewish is just the first one.

I have no Jewish blood in any recent branch of my family tree. But, if I had, I would be very proud of it.

I do not ''believe'' in Judaism, but it is a living religious faith. By God's own Will the people of Israel are unable to see for the time being that the Holy One of Israel is Jesus Christ. I feel pity for them; but I respect them for their faith.

Mary is a virgin; even today. We know it because God has revealed it. It is known from many unwritten sources (Sacred Tradition) under the care of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, the Church would never dare teach them. I am not a ''literal'' reader of Holy Scripture. I believe what I read in it; but not in every passage as a totally literal interpretation. SOME, yes. The Catholic Church is the true interpreter of the Word of God. Knowing her, I'm never afraid to dispute with the ''literal'' interpreters. She is the inerrant teacher. If she teaches Mary was ever- virgin, that's the final word.

WHY? Because God gives her the final word. That can even be proven from scripture. Jesus would never allow a falsehood to be taught by His Church; especially a falsehood about His holy mother. Just common sense, Jean. Not rocket science.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 24, 2002.

Hello, Mr. Bouchard

It doesn't matter what century we are in sir! It doesn't matter how smart your thinking mind is. The continued virginity of The Blessed Mother has been upheld by several Eucumenical Councils and Popes. This is a Infallible teaching of the holy Catholic Church.

Tommorow morning when you are drinking your three cups of coffee at morning prayer. Start thinking about the Infalliable teachings of the Church, and don't worry about what I am doing.

I don't understand how a man that spent 4 or 5 ( depending on what thread you read) years in the seminary would question the virginity of the Blessed Mother?

After giving birth to the God of the Universe, and you would ask such a question?

I read you say on another thread that when you where in the seminary that sex was the farthest thing from your mind. (about 6 months ago). Please wake up Mr. Bouchard.

God bless you

David

-- David (David@excite.com), July 24, 2002.

May I please add to Jean's question? I have always had a bit of a problem grasping this area of docterine. I have no problem believing that Jesus was born to a virgin. It is a glorious mystery that I have full faith in. What I have never been able to comprehend is the dogma that Mary never had relations with her blessed spouse following the birth of Jesus. I hesitate to bring down the wrath of the inquisitors of this group but I've always wondered , "Who would know? Why should it be anyones business?".

-- Twinkle (3Ee5G@yahoo.com), July 24, 2002.

Eugene _ I guess when the bottom line is read I simply do not like your type of faith. God did not " will " the Jews etc: refusal of the Messiah as that would negate the sendng of His Son.

Secondly as to your giving pity to the Jews that is plain and simple arrogance based on ignorance for you negate your religous in heritance. As a born Jew I say take your pity and offer it to the less developed.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 25, 2002.

Twinkle - I agree with you on the subjedt of marital relationships with Mary and Joseph being none of anyone's business. I brought forward this thread as a discussion.

Smiling here with your referance to the Inquisition as it's base root took hold in Spain we having many Spanish/Latino members here who do defend the faith with a cudgel.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 25, 2002.

"I hesitate to bring down the wrath of the inquisitors of this group but I've always wondered , "Who would know? Why should it be anyones business?".

No need to hesitate.. Just ask!

We know of her perpetual virginity from several sources, one of which I posted above: When Mary is visited by the Angel Gabriel, she said "How can this be since I do not know man". You've taken that to mean in the past or at very best present. But remember Mary was only betrothed to Joseph at that time (not yet Married). And the customs of the time (as should be the customs of our time) was to wait till marriage for the "marriage act". So for her to say that she has not known man in the past would be kinda obvious, to me anyway. Mary was stating her intent to remain a virgin (which God had willed for her - and since she was without sin, she automatically willed the same) perpetually. Otherwise, Mary would have known how "this" would be; "it" would be through her to-be spouse St. Joseph (just like Elizabeth’s husband, in the previous passages, knew it would be him). But since she already knew "it" wouldn't be through him, Mary had to inquire how "this" would be. To which the Angel replied that "it" would be through the Power of the Holy Spirit!

We might also ponder how Mary must have felt: Although she knew God wanted her to remain a virgin (we know this from her statement), Mary also knew it was God's will for her to marry Joseph. How confusing is that? On the one had she wants (what God wants) to remain a virgin, yet on the other hand she also wants (what God wants) to marry Joseph (which would mean in most cases loosing your virginity). However, Joseph had a specific role to play - not including her sexual partner, rather to be the foster-father of God! When it was revealed to Mary that she would bear a Child, which would be the Son of God, it must have all come together for her. I can just feel her relief at finally understanding God's plan for her (it is just like, but to a greater extent, spending hours and hours trying to solve a problem and finally finding the answer! Such Relief). It must have been a great burden lifter from her to know that she would still be able to remain a virgin, yet her marriage was not in vain.

Hope this helps.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), July 25, 2002.

Jean writes:

"Smiling here with your referance to the Inquisition as it's base root took hold in Spain we having many Spanish/Latino members here who do defend the faith with a cudgel."

Can you say..."Racial slur"? Jean, I hope you're not as big a racist in real life as you are on the net. I hope you can find it in yourself to apologize for your thoughtless comment.

Mateo el Arabe.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 25, 2002.

Dear Jean:
You may not ''like'' my kind of faith, and I have no problem with that. I trust in God, not men. It's very mean- spirited of some observers of this forum to come here and publicize their unwillingness to accept Catholic dogmas, even knowing the majority of us are faithful. This is tantamount to entering a good person's home, and proceeding to tell him what a cheap and worthless home this place is!

The words of Saint Paul, in Hebrews clearly say to us that because God opened the eyes of the Gentiles, He has made the Hebrews close theirs. Read the epistle. It is Saint Paul's own lament for his race which I found the basis for my statement; though in truth I don't fully understand the words of Paul. I do know he was the most Pharisaical of Jews, and only converted miraculously. That is good enough for me.

My pity is from the heart, because I truly want all Jews to come to Jesus Christ. That doesn't make me or my faith antisemitic, it means my faith is deeply Christian. If this offends you, I pity YOU, for your own lack of charity. I am not an inquistitor; I'm a Chavez. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Jean. You live in human pride, very obviously. It is from hubris you always speak to us who remain orthodox in our faith.

As for Twinkle--Is that Joan Storey again--? It's fine to respect the ''privacy'' of Mary and Joseph in their intimate relations. But please understand, GOD is who has revealed the holiness of Mary's absolute virginity. We treat that subject with every possible discretion and loving respect. It is people like Bouchard who come here to raise embarrassing questions to us. To use the pretext that Jewish Law would have demanded Mary ''give'' her virginity to Joseph ''as a sign of purity and social acceptance,--'' (whatever that implies) is simply CRUDE. I'm not at all surprised, since Jean has stated in the past many evil opinions; i.e., Paul the apostle a homosexual, Mary Magdalene a ''whore'' and lately, Jesus wanted to be ''just another one of us,'' divine or not.

He has never matched me in logic or debate, so now he tries to attack me as antisemitic. What a pathetic man.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 25, 2002.

Eugene,

Your very last paragraph, in which you mention someone saying that Joseph and Mary's Jewish roots would have forced them to perform the marriage act, brought this to mind:

I was told somewhere that if one were to do the research they would find that there is evidance that some Jewish couples of Jesus' time remaind virgins throughout their marriage. The marriage act is a gift to one another, and as such, it may be withheld from one another when both parties agree to it. It may not have been common, but Mary and Joseph were not alone!

Thanks Eugene for your post.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), July 25, 2002.

Jake,
You may not be very familiar with the apocryphal books; many of which were acknowledged by the Fathers as holy books and yet were not included in the canon as the inspired Word of God.

In some of them, the life of Mary is spoken of, and other relatives of Jesus Christ. They were not inspired, but nevertheless sustained many traditions passed down from the apostles and disciples of Our Lord.

In that Tradition, Mary is known to have been presented by her holy parents in the Temple; where she lived until marriagable age.

We are told this, and some of the early circumstances of Joseph and Mary's betrothal; but the accounts are not taken as indisputable, since they are apocryphal in nature.

A Temple virgin by definition would have had saintly status even after coming back to public life. It is always assumed by the Fathers Mary had taken vows; making a gift of her virginity to Yawheh in the Temple. God, then, once and for all accepted her self- denial (virginity IS self-denial), and very fittingly so, since He intended her for the Messiah's own mother. It had already been written she would be a virgin (Isaiah, 7:14).

These ways of God would have become clear and apparent to Joseph; and he would have submitted himself to the divine Will without any reservation. It is only logical he would have joyfully relinquished any rights afforded him as husband to the holy mother of his Messiah. It would have been unthinkable for him to insist on a right over her as long as he lived.

Sure enough, we see these truths by the light of faith. God demands faith of all His people. It's only those without faith who set up stumbling-blocks for the believer. --Those are the present wolves in sheep's clothing we've been entertaining here these last months. And what did Jesus say to us in scripture about them? ''Beware''.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 25, 2002.

To read documentation on Gene's explanation, please see this tract from Catholic Answers.

The tract discusses the Protoevangelium of James which contains the information that Gene gave us. The tract also has some quotes from some early Church fathers which support Mary being a virgin her entire life.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), July 25, 2002.

Again I state this thread was brought forward for dialogue and thought not Dogma with a cudgel. For some thinking is a terrible fear.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 25, 2002.

Jean writes:

"Again I state this thread was brought forward for dialogue and thought not Dogma with a cudgel. For some thinking is a terrible fear. "

It's fear, and we're not open minded, and we aren't 21st century thinkers ...OK Jean, we've got it. You're the only "21st century thinker."

Jean, could you share with us how you hoped a "21st century dialogue" would go? Would it be something like this:

Post #1: "I don't believe that Mary was always a virgin."

Post #2: "Yeah, people have needs, if you know what I mean."

Post #3: "Oh, you guys are so open-minded...not like the bishops in Rome, they're just afraid to lose their power."

Jean, I have hope that, one day, we'll be able to penetrate through your ignorance. Let me just say this: we're on the Internet, last I checked, most of us didn't live 2000 years ago. Aside from the Bible, Church teachings and the Church fathers (the things that you disregard), what insight could forum contributors have on this topic?

Expecting anything different from the forum makes no sense. You might as well see if we can all have a dialogue about whether we all believe George Washington to be the first president of the United States. When we cite all the history books, would you tell us all that the books are just the historical equivalent of dogma, and that those that tacitly accept George Washington as the first president are afraid to dialogue? Are they "closed minded"? Are they intellectually stagnant?

Jean, the absurdity of your reasoning boggles the mind. Come back to reality...it's a nice place to be.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 25, 2002.

Who is cudgelling you, Jean? You say you want dialogue, well. Just present your argument. Why would you dispute the lifelong virginity of Mary? I told you why I didn't believe she and Saint Joseph were breaking the Law. Tell us if the Church is wrong. You are willing to challenge Saint Ambrose, who's been dead for many centuries. But he cannot dialogue anymore. Let the living answer you. It isn't a cudgel, it's reason. Besides, who told you we could reject dogma? You're a strange Catholic, Mon Ami.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 25, 2002.

Eugene - Yes I am a " strange " Christian for instance just today I had a chat with a parishoner on my giving lectures this fall on Domestic Violence throughout the diocese.

She was very pleased as her thoughts were it is about time for our parish is a nimby parish. She had witnessed a 13 year old girl at the parish school hitting her mother on the face and the slaps being returned. Not a thing was said by the school teachers.

My observation was perhaps the father is doing something wrong to both women in his household and they are in fear of him and are acting it out. This woman smiled and said ' We need more men like you in the parish for sure for so many others turn a blind eye to it all. "

Yes I am very strange indeed very much so.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 25, 2002.

Jean,

What does your last post have to do with the price of fish in China?

You told Gene a few weeks ago that you wanted to slap him silly. What that got to do with your typical Protestant nonsense?

May I suggest the first Saturday devotion to you sir , "The Spirit of Reparation"?

God bless you

David

-- David (David@excite.com), July 25, 2002.

Jean,

What does your last post have to do with the price of tea in China?

Just because you offer someone an opinion about domestic violence, do you think that that gives you the right to arbitrarily deny Catholic doctrine?

You are weird...especially when you boast about yourself.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 25, 2002.

David,

We posted at the same time. Tea or fish, same idea! :-)

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 25, 2002.

Mateo

Six of one or a half dozen of another. :-)

I will say some prayers for you and your future Mrs tonight. Getting mighty close, now.

God bless Bertha.

David

PS; Jean, You should stay away from the Eucharist. You are worse than a dennis molscum because you call yourself a Catholic.

-- David (David@excite.com), July 26, 2002.

"I think most men, if put in that very strange position, would find sexual intercourse under these circumstances anathema."

Gail I think theyd find a lifetime married to a beautiful woman and not getting any action anathema! Not funny Im sure Joseph took it in his stride. I must remember ...sex is only for procreation....

Jean,weird is a bit harsh but your logic seems funny. You are well versed on Catholic doctrine so must have known the Church's position, I was waiting for some startling piece of "evidence" to contradict this, yet you have produced nothing. Are you ok my friend?

Mr Lomu I know I said I didnt want to converse with you but something has been nagging me, are you related to Mr Eugene Chavez, a son perhaps?- just curious ps the All Blacks won 41- 20 last week against South Africa and Lomu got some game time.

Thanks for the links Mateo and Glenn. Blessings

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 26, 2002.

-- (^@^.^), July 26, 2002.

Hello, Kiwi

You couldn't even stay away from me for 5 days could you? :-)

Eugene C, and David S. Does this sound like I could be his son?

What grade do you teach again, sir? :-)

God bless you, and the young people you teach.

David S

-- David (David@excite.com), July 26, 2002.

Dear David,
I want to thank you once more for your prayers on behalf of my sister and her family. You are a true friend. You're a good and faithful Catholic as well.

I'm sure your heart is without real malice; however, please try not to presume who is worthy to receive Our Lord in holy communion. No matter your views of their conduct or spiritual state. In that part, only Jesus Himself is the Judge.

Christ is infinitely merciful to all of us. There is not ONE of us worthy of Him in the true sense. We are instructed in the gospels to defend the truth for Him. But not to judge; we all must look to our own sinfulness only.

We are also to pray for our brethren. ''Lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy.'' Just as you've prayed for me, we both must pray for Jean, Kiwi and Fred, et al.

Because Jesus does love them. (I might add that very possibly He loves them more than He loves me. I'm a sinner, I have no presumptions.)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 26, 2002.

Hello, Gene

You're very welcome for my prayers. Thank you for you very nice words to me. I will keep your family in my prayers.

Yes, you are correct. I should not tell Jean to stay away from the Eucharist. I am not his judge, and that is for sure. I do like Mr. Bouchard and know he is a good guy, and probably very kind in person too.

But, I am very concerned about some of the things he says in this forum. His comments in the Mary Magdeline thread, Him questioning the virginity of the Blessed Mother, and his recent comments on masturbation make me wonder about this Kat? I would imagine he wonders about me too. :-)

Jean,

If I offended you than I am sorry. But you should talk to a Priest about your doubting infalliable teachings of the Holy Catholic Church. You could be hurting Our Lord more than calvary by receiving the Eucharist if you should not be which is possibly the case here.

I do understand that I am not your judge, sir.

God bless you

David

-- David (David@excite.com), July 26, 2002.

Hello, Kiwi. You wrote:
"I must remember ...sex is only for procreation...."

That is not what the Catholic Church teaches. Did someone lead you to believe that?

Pope Paul VI explained, in his great 1968 encyclical, "Humanae vitae" (Of Human Life), that marital sex has not one, but two main dimensions -- the unitive AND the procreative. The first pertains to love-giving unification of spouses and the second pertains to the life-giving fruitfulness of that love. Here are some quotations from the new Catechism:

2360. "Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. ..."
2361. "'Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.' ..."
2362. "'The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.' [GS 49 # 2.] Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure: The Creator himself . . . established that in the (generative) function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation. [Pius XII, Discourse, October 29, 1951.]" 2363. "The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family. The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity. "

2364. "The married couple forms 'the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent.' Both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh. The covenant they freely contracted imposes on the spouses the obligation to preserve it as unique and indissoluble. 'What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.'"

2365. "Fidelity expresses constancy in keeping one's given word. God is faithful. The Sacrament of Matrimony enables man and woman to enter into Christ's fidelity for his Church. Through conjugal chastity, they bear witness to this mystery before the world. St. John Chrysostom suggests that young husbands should say to their wives: I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us.... I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you. [St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Eph. 20, 8: PG 62, 146-147.]"

2366. "Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which 'is on the side of life' [FC 30.] teaches that 'each and every marriage act must remain open 'per se' to the transmission of life.' [HV 11.] 'This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.' [HV 12; cf. Pius XI, encyclical, Casti connubii.]"

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 26, 2002.

John I did not know this, thankyou. I read "basically the church maintains that sex should be the preserve of married men and woman, for creating a family, and not for selfish pleasure" (North and South Magazine "The Catholic Cauldron" August 2002) and got the wrong idea.

Can you clear something up for me on the Church and homosexuality. Is this accurate...

Man and womans sexual faculties have been designed to be complimentary to one another to facilitate the relationship beteween man and wife and of course the establishment of a family.

Homosexuality to that extent is against nature.

Homosexuality in itself is not a sin though. People are sometimes not responsible for their orientation, but they do have a choice to be sexualy active or not.

If so can we say that that the Church agrees with homosexuality as long as it is celibate? What Im getting at is can the Church disagree with something if its not considered a sin.

Thanks again and Blessings

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 26, 2002.

Eugene - You should have been a priest/politician or pimp as you have the manner of a man who is able to contort twist and allways stays clean and unsoiled (self prerception of course.)

Again your a Catholic Fundie and they are most dangerous indeed to new learning minds. I brought the thread forward for discusssion as I have attempted in others and again you and the Forum fundies block the sunlight.

You remind me of 18th century clerics who fought with the new development of a science called geology. I feel you would have sided with the clerics who were divinely convinced the earth was only 4004 years old.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 27, 2002.

David - your offensive as always to thinking people. As to my thoughts on sex during seminary I was a late vocation and had perpose through deep Spirtual concilling came to the conclusion of not having a sex.

Sadly when in seminary the " buzz " of surpressed sexuality was dreadful as many of the younger men were denying the is area without a deep emotional committment. Hence the scandal of today. Gay priests etc: and the fiasco of little minds not wanting to disuss the thrustof this thread are what drive many away from the hiearchy and direct to Christ in desparation.

In short David you are becoming a boring little man and fundie.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 27, 2002.

"Twinkle - I agree with you on the subjedt of marital relationships with Mary and Joseph being none of anyone's business. I brought forward this thread as a discussion."

It really is our business for this reason: It matters that Mary WAS and IS a virgin. It links the Old Testament prophesy to Jesus! Moreover, virginity was and is a symbol of giving yourself completely to God for marriage (becoming the spouse of God). And the fact that we know Mary became the spouse of the Holy Spirit FIRST automatically puts her in that position. She had to be married to St. Joseph because he would become Jesus' foster-father, but her body, soul, and spirit belonged to God alone.

"Again I state this thread was brought forward for dialogue and thought not Dogma"

But we are "dialoguing", with Dogma!

"Sadly when in seminary the " buzz " of surpressed sexuality was dreadful as many of the younger men were denying the is area without a deep emotional committment. Hence the scandal of today."

It should be obvious that when one would like to become a priest they realize that celibacy is a part of the calling. It isn't like you go to the seminary and then... WHAM!!! they tell you you've got to be celibate. It is hard for me to believe that this had anything to do with the scandal of today. And coinciding with facts and statistics, celibacy (or as some might like to call it - supressed sexual feelings) is indeed not a contributing factor to sexual molestations. You might check out how many married men do this as well.

"In short David you are becoming a boring little man and fundie."

Please, please can I be a "boring little man and fundie" (or in other words - a Catholic).

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), July 27, 2002.

John I found a thread on homosexuality and the church that answers my questions.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005DHD

God Bless

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 28, 2002.

Hello, Mr Bouchard

"In short David you are becoming a boring little man and a fundie!"

I will respect your opinion of me sir, and you are entitled to that. But I must correct the "little man" part. I am 6 ft3 and weigh 220lbs. :-)

God bless you, Mr. Bouchard

David

-- David (David@excite.com), July 28, 2002.

Dear Bouchard --
Thank you for saying I'm like a pimp. This shows all who read your words what your intentions are in our forum. You may label me whichever way you please, I won't answer you in kind. Some day you may repent; I hope for that sincerely.

I'm fundamentally a sincere believer. Is that ''fundy''??? I stand convicted.

You are radical to my conservative. I have the true Church to sustain me in the faith; you have pulp fiction and psychobabble. I forgive you because I'm a true believer. You feel hatred because you can't believe.

''Again your [you are] a Catholic Fundie and they are most dangerous indeed to *new learning minds.* I brought the thread forward for discussion as I have attempted in others and again you and the Forum fundies block the sunlight.''

My, how self-congratulatory you seem today! You call your words ''the SUNLIGHT -- and those for whom you feel no love are compared to PIMPS, they are beastly and DANGEROUS!

New learning minds should watch for your posts. They are just full of Christian charity, Jean-- Virtue is all you ever express here.
Thank you.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 29, 2002.

Eugene - Oh please keep your promise to stay out of my threads. Your charity to others especially Fred Bishop is/was something to behold. Odd your choice was pimp rather then priest of politician. Freudian slip perhaps? Goodbye conquistidor Chevaz of 300 years+ lineage.

Dollar to a donut your ego will not allow you do stay away.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 29, 2002.

Jean writes:

"Goodbye conquistidor Chevaz of 300 years+ lineage."

Jean, when will you break the habit of unapologetically throwing out ethnic slurs?

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 29, 2002.

Probably when he breaks the habit of unapologetically throwing out semi-heretical questions for "dialogue" and not "Dogma".

Jean,

We truly enjoy some of your posts, and you seem like a sincere person. But when you begin to degrade others for not taking interest in questioning things that are as good as fact (i.e. Mary's virginity), you will find that it is quite irritating to some of us on the forum.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), July 29, 2002.

Jean,

You will not find a friendly voice here when you question Catholic dogma. If you would like some support for your lack of faith, I would like to recommend a different board to you.

I was reading EWTN's Q&A, and a lady wrote about a Catholic forum where orthodox Catholics are ganged up on. I went there but did not see too much liberal garbage. I hate the format of the forum so I will not return. But you might like it.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), July 29, 2002.

Jean,

That was a classless thing to say to Gene! Throwing past debates in his face with another man who is not here any more. Please don't call my friend a pimp or tell him he should of became one.

Please rember that Gene's beloved sister, Bertha just passed too. Show him a little respect Jean.

God bless you

David

-- David (David@excite.com), July 29, 2002.

My friends,
Jean has no respect for our holy Church. Why should he respect me or you? He has little or no respect for the apostles. His respect for science overshadows any respect he once had for religion.
But I have no wish for him to go away from our forum. When will Jean realise he is here by the grace of God to learn, not to instruct. He will accuse me of pridefully associating my ego with God. I do not.

I call this forum Jean's extension to God's grace. He will in fact learn what was lacking in his understanding of faith. It doesn't matter if he insults a member here, the member is here to serve. I hope to serve Jean. If it means absorbing a little verbal abuse, I will pay that price.

I did not ''promise'', Mr. B; to leave your threads alone. You assumed wrongly. You may introduce controversy; but you have no license to warp the truth to fit your views of God's revelations. They are the heritage we received through the martyrdom of apostles and saints; a glorious heritage. You will never overcome God's revelations. Is that too fundamental for you?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 30, 2002.

For those still interested in this subject, here is a web page from a priest named Fr. Mateo (I'm not making this up!) who offers a detailed response to a number of arguments against perpetual virginity.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 30, 2002.

This post is already probably dead, but has been rather informative to read. I will confess that I am not a catholic to start, I am a protestant. I am posting, but I do not wish to cause what have appeard hard feelings. I have currently been in debate with my fiance about the perpetual virginity of Mary. My questions stem from that 1) Jesus did not call Mary mother, he called her woman. 2) The bible specifically states that there were brothers and sisters. While I am prepared to admit that the "brothers" might even have been close friends of Jesus as was want in the time, the "sisters" calling seems a bit suspicious. If anyone is there to debate this please do so, I am curious to see the responses.

-- Brian Delaney (globalrogue@yahoo.com), October 23, 2003.

Dear Brian,

I am not here to debate you. I am a rather unlike individual at this site but here goes my simple answer.

I believe you may find a Catholic response to your question in some of the work of a man called Karl Keating. He did a book awhile ago regarding fundamentalists, where you might see this dealt with.

Good luck.

Karl(not the same guy as the author)

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 23, 2003.

"My questions stem from that 1) Jesus did not call Mary mother, he called her woman."

Brian,

there is a great verse at the end of the Gospel of John, which states that not all of what Jesus said or did was written down. If it were, it goes on to say, there wouldn't be enough room in the world to fit all the books!

Therefore, we cannot accurately assume that Jesus NEVER called Mary mother (after all that IS what she was - as confirmed by her cousin Elizabeth, "who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me").

What we have is the written account of what Jesus spoke publicly. Also, if I recall correctly, historically "woman" was a title of honor.

"2) The bible specifically states that there were brothers and sisters. While I am prepared to admit that the "brothers" might even have been close friends of Jesus as was want in the time, the "sisters" calling seems a bit suspicious."

I would agree, but from another angle. I would be willing to bet that "sisters" was placed in to make all the feminists happy. The real word would have probably been "brothers" alone (which is inclusive to women and men *in general*). Like hermanOS, in Spanish it is used to express the plural of 1) men only or 2) men and women. So, it may or may not have included sisters. It might have simply been a blanket statement to cover a group of his relatives that were with him.

For Catholics there really is no issue for a couple of reasons:

We believe (and it is Biblical) that the Church has the final say on things:

"whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven." "if he doesn't listen EVEN to the Church, treat him as a gentile and tax collector." etc. etc.

So, since the Church declared Mary a perpetual Virgin, rest assured that she is.

But besides for that evidence, history provides evidence that the earliest Church (which just so happens to be the Catholic Church) also believed Mary to be a perpetual Virgin. In fact, even Luther, I believe, maintainted this. It wasn't until recent times that the issue became a debate. Quite frankly because the Bible was handed to people who had no idea about the history surrounding what was written.

Unfortunatly, you would think that people wouldn't go to these extremes, many Protestant sects have essentially tried to re-invent the wheele. That is, they've taken the Bible, stripped of all prior knowledge of what went into it, and have tried to remake Christianity. But we know that Christianity wasn't produced by the Bible. The Bible was a product of Christianity, more precisely Catholicism!

I wish you well in your quest for truth!

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 23, 2003.

Hi, Jake H.

I believe that Brian is talking about a gospel verse in which there could be no mistranslation (pressured by feminists). He may be thinking of this one:

"Mark 6:3 -- Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us? [RSV]"

There are separate (masculine and feminine) nouns involved. But really, this is no problem at all with respect to the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The words "brother" and "sisters" in this verse could easily have had two other meanings besides "other children of Mary." I mean ...

1. older children of St. Joseph (from a previous marriage), or ...
2. close relatives of Jesus (cousins, aunts, uncles) -- for it is known that the Aramaic words for blood-brother/sister could also take on these extended meanings.

I think it quite likely that Brian's Protestant clergyman sometimes refers to his congregants as "My brothers and sisters." Yet he does not mean that he shares the same two parents with them. This allows Brian to realize that the gospel verse also need not mean that the "brothers" and "sisters" mentioned were actually born to Mary.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 24, 2003.

This is regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary. My knowledge is not extensive, but I have heard about a tradition that says that St. Joseph had dedicated himself to be Nazareen (one who abstains from wine, sex, etc., and consecrating himself to God by growing his hair and beard, like Samson I guess). St. Joseph painfully pondered over relinquishing his virginity on his marriage with Mary, if necessary, although he was not happy about it. It is during this time, that God intervenes and settles the issue.

Philp John

-- PHILIP JOHN (leslie_jn@yahoo.com), October 24, 2003.

It amazes me that as much as a non-Catholic reads the Bible, and trains him/herself never to question what's in the Bible; they all seem to deny the existence of the Holy Spirit! Seems they would rather not allow the Holy Spirit to impose the truth on them.

That's why they can't make the slightest concession to the Catholic Church. Once they admit the Church is legitimate & from the apostles-- the next thing to follow is, whatsoever she teaches is true. Because, the Holy Spirit is given this Church for all ages. He is the Spirit of truth.

Christ says it very surely in John, 16 :12, :13: ''Many things I have yet to say to you. But you cannot bear them now,'' (So much for the scriptures containing it all.) ''But, when HE, the Spirit of truth has come, He will teach you (the Church) all the truth . . . . and the things that are to come He will declare to you.'' > That means, to His Church.

To pretend then that the Church has invented the perpetual virginity of Christ's holy mother; or denies Jesus has blood siblings but He DOES, is to deny the Holy Spirit. He must not BE the Spirit of truth! If He IS, then Christ's words make everything the Church knows & teaches a final revelation of the truth! When the Church teaches, the Holy Spirit teaches. If the Church then, teaches us Mary is EVER VIRGIN; that's what the Holy Spirit is revealing. Jesus prophesied just that! (John, 16 :12, :13-- ''He will teach you all the truth'' --)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 24, 2003.

"I would not believe the Gospel itself, if the Authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so." ~ St. Augustine

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 25, 2003.