The Full Meaning of the Virgin Birth

We know the famous prophecy of Isaiah, “a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Later in Isaiah there is another striking prophecy that complements this more famous one: “Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son. Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things?” (Isaiah 66:7). Even the first prophecy speaks of a virgin giving birth (as Aquinas points out) and the second confirms this by speaking of the miraculous nature of this birth.

When we think of the Virgin Birth today, it simply means in our minds that Virgin Mary conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit. Traditionally, the Virgin Birth includes the reality that the birth itself was virginal, as part of the sign mentioned by Isaiah, manifesting the Messiah. The Second Vatican Council picked up on this aspect of the virginal birth: “This union of the Mother with the Son . . . is manifest also at the birth of Our Lord, who did not diminish His mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it, when the Mother of God joyfully showed her firstborn Son to the shepherds and Magi” (Lumen Gentium, 57). Why would the virginal integrity be linked to the Magi? The virginal birth was a sign manifesting the Messiah.

We profess our faith in the Creed that Jesus was “born of the Virgin Mary.” The Church has taught consistently and authoritatively not only the miraculous virginal conception but also a virginal birth, meaning that Jesus was born without passing through the birth canal. It is not surprising that Protestants would reject this teaching. Many Catholics, however, are completely ignorant of it and, when they hear it, they with derision or even outrage. The disparity with the tradition can be seen in the labor pains depicted in the movie “The Nativity Story” and in a painting depicting a vaginal birth that caused a stir as it was circulating on Facebook.

The Lateran Council of 649 laid out the meaning of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity in its third canon, confirmed by Pope Martin I: “The blessed ever-virginal and immaculate Mary conceived, without seed, by the Holy Spirit, and without loss of integrity brought him forth, and after his birth preserved her virginity inviolate.” The Catholic Encyclopedia, in its article on the Virgin Birth, explains this teaching:

That the supernatural influence of the Holy Ghost extended to the birth of Jesus Christ, not merely preserving Mary’s integrity, but also causing Christ’s birth or external generation to reflect his eternal birth from the Father in this, that “the Light from Light” proceeded from his mother’s womb as a light shed on the world; that the “power of the Most High” passed through the barriers of nature without injuring them; that “the body of the Word” formed by the Holy Ghost penetrated another body after the manner of spirits.

This teaching may be controversial today simply for lack of awareness and understanding, even though it simply presupposed in the Catechism (with many references given):

Mary – “ever-virgin” 499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man (Cf. DS 291; 294; 427; 442; 503; 571; 1880). In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it” (Lumen Gentium 57). And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin” (Cf. LG 52).

510 Mary “remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin” (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999)

If you have doubts about the tradition and consistent teaching of the Church, should you simply dismiss them rather than trying to understand them? Is it more likely that the Church Fathers, Councils, and Catechism have erred or that you are thinking more in line with modern culture?

From teaching this doctrine, I can say that the greatest objection has to do with the alleged focus on body parts. Is this simply about leaving Mary’s physical virginity intact (virgo in tacta) and, if so, why does that really matter? If the Church is saying that an intact physical virginity is so important, does this demean women who have lost virginity or simply had an accidental rupturing of the hymen? My response is that this doctrine is not about biology or body parts. In a sacramental vision, the reality is interior even as it is manifested by physical signs. Keeping Mary’s physical virginity intact provides a manifestation of her complete dedication to God, a temple overshadowed by the Spirit, untouched by any even normal physical change. The miraculous birth confirms Mary’s perpetual virginity and the two are closely linked.

The Church Fathers pointed to Mary as the holy of holies and the new ark of the covenant. Her perpetual virginity recognizes that she is set apart for God, wholly belong to him as the gate by which he enters the world. The Fathers pointed to the prophecy of Ezekiel to confirm this: “Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. And he said to me, ‘This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut’” (44:1-2). Just as God preserved Mary from all sin, so he preserved her virginity, pointing to her spiritual role in salvation.

Another objection is that the teaching is Gnostic and takes away a normal humanity for Mary and Jesus. If the virginal conception does not take away their humanity (conception without a human father), how would a virginal birth do so? Jesus and Mary are the new Adam and new Eve and the miraculous conception and birth are signs showing the new creation that God is bringing about (see paragraph 504 of the Catechism for more on this). The miraculous nature of Jesus’ conception and birth enable them to reach us and draw us into their reality.

In a related point, some people complain that this teaching would somehow demean women and motherhood. Does this create a gap between Mary and other women? It is true that Mary had many unique privileges due to her role in salvation, especially her Immaculate Conception that kept her free from original sin. She uniquely embraces both virginity and marriage and her absolute purity enables her to embrace the role of wife and mother even more fully. She is the glory of the human race and her privileges benefit us, precisely because, and not in spite of the fact, she is all pure and dedicated to God. We would like to bring Mary and Jesus down to our level, but they raise us up to the graces they received.

Another objection comes from Revelation 12: “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery” (vv 1-2). This passage, although clearly linked to Mary, also relates to the Church. The tradition points to Mary as the New Eve to interpret this passage, indicating that she bore her labor pains at the foot of the Cross (see Tim Staples on this). She helps to give birth to the Church, joining to Christ’s Passion, and Jesus affirms this with his words, “Behold your mother” (John 19:27).

The miraculous birth of Jesus is fitting to manifest God’s unique entrance into the world. His birth is not an ordinary one. It’s not just about Mary’s virginity, as it speaks just as much to way that God does things, making us more alive and fully ourselves, not less. Mary’s conception and birth were seen to be foreshadowed in the burning bush, which set it aflame without consumming it. God is spiritually fruitful and Mary’s mystical marriage to him shows God’s deepest plan for salvation. He lays out the wedding feast of the lamb as the goal of our lives, with the early reality of marriage and family life pointing to the spiritual reality to come, although already realized by Mary in her life on earth.

Christ’s miraculous birth also shows how we will be reborn “not of flesh and blood” but as children of God. The Catechism makes the connection between Jesus’ miraculous birth and our rebirth:

505 By his virginal conception, Jesus, the New Adam, ushers in the new birth of children adopted in the Holy Spirit through faith. “How can this be?” (Lk 1:34; cf. Jn 3:9). Participation in the divine life arises “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (Jn 1:13). The acceptance of this life is virginal because it is entirely the Spirit’s gift to man. The spousal character of the human vocation in relation to God (Cf. 2 Cor 11:2) is fulfilled perfectly in Mary’s virginal motherhood.

Why believe in the virginal conception and not the virgin birth? God’s ways are not our ways and we need to conform our minds and hearts to his plan of salvation as handed down to us by his Church. We can object to the Church’s teaching on Our Lady’s virginity and miss how Christ’s birth is also about our own rebirth. Mary is the New Eve and her virginal motherhood enables her to become our mother as well, as she helps us to be reborn, serving as the gate by which Christ enters the world.