Msg Base:  AREA 5  - ASK FATHER            CIN ECHO   AMDG
  Msg No: 305.  Mon  6-08-92 15:55  (MAILED)
    From: Father Mateo
      To: Mike Dante
 Subject: Dogma

ÚÄ
³ Dear Father,
³     In order to avoid raising unnecessary barriers, whenever I discuss
³ Catholicism with non-Catholics and problem points arise, I distinguish
³ between defined doctrine, which one must believe to be a Catholic, and
³ those teachings and traditions which are not dogma and thus are points
³ about which a sincere and prayerful person may have doubts without
³ separation from the Church.
³     That the Blessed Virgin remained a perpetual virgin (before, during
³ and after the Birth of Jesus) is, of course, a dogma.  But when I
³ mentioned that belief in a miraculous birth for Jesus was not a defined
³ teaching, I was refuted by someone who claimed that you said that this is
³ dogma.  He quoted you as saying that the "bodily integrity" of the BVM is
³ cited by Ott as a dogma.
³     Is there a later version of Ott?  My copy mentions only "virginal
³ integrity", not "bodily integrity."  And when I read the explanation
³ provide by Ott, he contrasts what "the Fathers and the Schoolmen
³ conceived" with "modern natural scientific knowledge" and concludes that
³ "from the concept of virginity alone the miraculous character of the
³ process of birth cannot be inferred".
³     Ott also states that "the Fathers ... [who] vouch for the miraculous
³ character of the birth ...  wrongly interpret a truth of Revelation, that
³ is, Mary's virginity, from an inadequate natural scientific point of
³ view."  Ott further points out that "Holy Writ attests Mary's active role
³ in the act of Birth .... which does not seem to indicate a miraculous
³ process."
³     I am not contesting the fact of Mary's perpetual virginity nor that a
³ miraculous birth for Jesus was an explanation put forth early in the
³ Church as a way for Mary to remain a virgin during the Nativity.  But is
³ this explanation a dogma?
³     As an aside, it seems to me that the Holy Spirit prevents some truths
³ from being proclaimed as dogmas precisely so that they do not become
³ stumbling blocks for those genuinely seeking Christ.
³ Thanks,
³      Mike
ÀÄ[MD=>FM]
 
Dear Mike,
 
I am impressed with your zeal for others and your desire to make
straight the way of the Lord into their minds and hearts.
 
The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion (Maher, O'Brien, Aherne)
describes a virgin as one who has not surrendered to sexual passion,
or as one who has the dedicated purpose of maintaining sexual
reserve.  The Random House Unabridged Dictionary more
matter-of-factly defines as virgin a person who has never had sexual
intercourse.
 
When the Council of the Lateran (A.D. 649) defined as dogma that Mary
was a virgin before, during, and after childbirth  (ante partum, in
partu, post partum), the Council Fathers presented future generations
with something of a semantic as well as a biological problem.  To say
that Mary was a virgin before childbirth, if they meant to describe
her condition between the moment of Christ's Incarnation and His
birth -- and no one doubts that this was their intention -- then
the conception of Christ was miraculous and without the cooperation
of any man.  To say she was lifelong a virgin after her birthgiving
requires no extra miracle.  And both the "before" and the "after" fit
neatly into the definition of virgin as a person who has never had
sexual intercourse.
 
But to say that Mary was a virgin DURING childbirth requires an
expanded definition of virginity.  A woman while giving birth is not
having sexual intercourse nor is she at that moment "surrendering to
sexual passion."  Sexual intercourse or the permanent absence thereof
simply cannot enter into the doctrinal concept of virginity during
childbirth.  So what could the Council have been defining?  Virginity
IN PARTU can only mean virginal integrity of body, bodily integrity,
physical integrity.  No one has ever suggested anything else without
robbing virginity IN PARTU of every shred of meaning. But
childbearing without suffering disruption requires a miracle. And it
is precisely this miracle which is the only possible meaning of
Virginity IN PARTU.
 
I simply deny that such a miracle robs Mary of an ACTIVE role
in bearing her Child.  Her muscles undoubtedly contracted in the
usual way, but there was no tearing of her body.
 
Furthermore, I think you have mis-quoted  Ott.  In your
paragraph beginning "Ott also states", I find a misreading of that
theologian.  In my edition, I read: "However, the question is (N.B.,
he poses a QUESTION; he does not make a STATEMENT) whether (the
Fathers in vouching for the miraculous character of the birth) attest a
truth of Revelation or whether they wrongly interpret a truth of
Revelation, that is, Mary's virginity from an inadequate natural
scientific point of view."
 
        One cannot be a Catholic without  admitting the possibility
and actual existence of miracles. We must face the fact that "if God
is not Lord of all, He is not Lord at all." And He is not Lord if He
is the prisoner of His own natural laws.  That does not mean we need
to look for miracles where there are none.  In fact, the Church is
eminently cautious about miracles and always prefers a natural 
explanation of an event where that is possible.
 
        On what the Holy Spirit's policy on defining dogmas is, I'm
afraid I cannot offer an opinion.  But we do have infallible
certitude that He leads us into all truth (John 16:12), and that a
humble seeker will always have sufficient grace to accept the whole
teaching.  "God wants all to be saved, and to come to the knowledge
of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4).
 
                                Sincerely in Christ,
                                        Father Mateo