Did the Virgin Mary menstruate? (Short answer, no)

[Cleopatra7]

Some FJ members may know that the Catholic Church dogmatically teaches that the Virgin Mary was conceived without sin (ie the Immaculate Conception), experienced a Virgin Birth, and remained a virgin throughout her life. But what are the theological consequences of such teachings? Well, it can get pretty weird. For one thing, Mary never menstruated:

http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/yq/yq195.html

http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/12/virgin-birth-of-christ-what-church.html?m=1

Since Mary was preserved from all "impurity" and the Jewish law said that menstruation leads to ritual impurity, then obviously she could never have had a period. She also didn't experience a conventional childbirth, with pain and blood, for exactly the same reason. Since Mary was preserved from sin, she didn't have to undergo pain in childbirth and she didn't give birth to Jesus in such a way that would have torn her hymen; essentially, baby Jesus teleported out of her womb. Convenient, yes? 

Since Vatican ii, there has been an attempt to make Mary seem like a "regular woman" and less like the lofty Queen of Heaven, but you can't really do that and keep all of the Catholic Church's Marian doctrines intact, no pun intended. Even if we assume that Mary was a "regular woman" who did housework and worried about her son, we're still left with a woman who never menstruated, never sinned, was pregnant but didn't experience anything typical of real pregnancy, and lived her life as a nun who happened to be married (I know not all women menstruate or give birth, but since this is the Catholic Church we're talking about, you know trans women, female-presenting intersex individuals, or even cis career women don't count as "real women"). It's hard to see how Mary can be a model for Catholic women when she's so divorced from the reality most women experience. 

[Loveday]

I hope I don't offend any of my fellow Catholic FJ'ers here, but...I don't know, maybe I've still got too much of my ancestors' Anabaptist and Methodist blood in me, but this is just ridiculous.

 

[Black Aliss]

WTF did I just read? I have some friends who are devout Catholics, and maybe it's just that the subject of Mary's whatevers never came up in conversation, but I can't imagine them believing this.

[Maggie Mae]

We were told that Mary did experience the pain and blood of childbirth (that's what the hay was for). And that after she had Jesus, she could have had other children, we don't know, but if you are super curious, remember that all of your questions will be answered in heaven. Basically, Mary was so super because she was perfect up until the immaculate conception. She lived without sin, then some arch angel put a baby into her. Joseph loved her so much that he was like "cool, i'll pass off the angel's baby as my own, other wise this nice lady will be stoned." So she was sinless, then chose to experience all the pain and suffering even though she didn't do anything wrong, and then after the birth we forget about her until Jesus turns twelve and pull the "i'm hanging out with the other parent" stunt, when he wanted to just chill in a church. 

[desertvixen]

I get into Marian devotion at times, but I can safely say I've never wondered if she had a period... or cared.

[Cleopatra7]

1 hour ago, desertvixen said:

I get into Marian devotion at times, but I can safely say I've never wondered if she had a period... or cared.

I understand that the average pewsitter in a Catholic parish is probably not thinking about this issue, but one thing that is often discussed at FJ is how depictions of God and holy people affects how women and girls are treated. If you teach that God the Father is a patriarch and Jesus is eternally subordinate to him, like the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood does, this will have a direct affect on the roles boys and girls will be socialized into in Protestant patriarchal homes. Similarly, telling Catholic women and girls that the Virgin Mary should be their role model when "orthodox" theologians claimed that she never experienced life as a biological female with a normally functioning body makes the female body seem dirty and shameful. Remember the Virgin Mary's body is specifically holy because she was never "defiled" by menstruation or pregnancy discharge, and her perpetually intact hymen has theologically significance. One of the few female posters in the second link correctly notes that demanding that Mary gave birth with an intact hymen not only stretches the imagination, but makes women and girls who have lost their hymens by either not being born with one or through other innocent or even medically necessary activities makes them feel "less than." She also noted that the hymen doesn't function the way the church fathers thought it did and assigning cosmic significance to it is very damaging for Catholic women. So while the question of whether Mary menstruated may seem like it's in the league of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, it has real world consequences for how women and girls are treated.

[PsyD2013]

Some Catholic theologians have way too much time on their hands.   Wonder if the Catholic Lady blogger could answer this one for us.  Mathew 13 55-56 referenced Jesus' siblings, but maybe that is from a translation not authorized by the Catholic Church? 

[EmiGirl]

3 minutes ago, PsyD2013 said:

Some Catholic theologians have way too much time on their hands.   Wonder if the Catholic Lady blogger could answer this one for us.  Mathew 13 55-56 referenced Jesus' siblings, but maybe that is from a translation not authorized by the Catholic Church? 

They claim that they were josephs from a previous marriage and he and Mary never even had sex.

[Cleopatra7]

2 minutes ago, EmiGirl said:

They claim that they were josephs from a previous marriage and he and Mary never even had sex.

The claim is also that Jesus's brothers were his cousins and ancient Hebrew didn't have a word for cousins so the term brothers was used. 

[EmiGirl]

1 minute ago, Cleopatra7 said:

The claim is also that Jesus's brothers were his cousins and ancient Hebrew didn't have a word for cousins so the term brothers was used. 

Considering the new testament was written in Greek that's epic fail on their part.

[Imrlgoddess]

It makes a few of the passages in ritual make more sense....she was born of a virgin and born without Original Sin.  The act of menstruation and pain in childbirth are our punishments for Original Sin.  So, if she was born without....then she would not have to suffer the punishments thereof.   It can only be assumed as well that she didn't need to be baptized as an infant/child to erase the OS.  Basically she was divine from jump just as her divine offspring would be.  This leads into the whole Di Vinci Code idea that since she was literally a vessel, who's to say Mary Magdalene was not also a vessel to carry Jesus' child.  Except that the Bible doesn't mention anything about him and his potential offspring. 

[EmiGirl]

I guess one has to buy into the concept of Original Sin for any of it to make sense. As a Baptist we don't believe Mary was perfect or was a perpetual virgin as there is no Biblical evidence.

[Cleopatra7]

4 minutes ago, EmiGirl said:

Considering the new testament was written in Greek that's epic fail on their part.

I never thought of this before, but you're right. Yet another example of the mental contortions you have to get into if you take Mary's perpetual virginity seriously. 

 

4 minutes ago, Imrlgoddess said:

It makes a few of the passages in ritual make more sense....she was born of a virgin and born without Original Sin.  The act of menstruation and pain in childbirth are our punishments for Original Sin.  So, if she was born without....then she would not have to suffer the punishments thereof.   It can only be assumed as well that she didn't need to be baptized as an infant/child to erase the OS.  Basically she was divine from jump just as her divine offspring would be.  This leads into the whole Di Vinci Code idea that since she was literally a vessel, who's to say Mary Magdalene was not also a vessel to carry Jesus' child.  Except that the Bible doesn't mention anything about him and his potential offspring. 

Catholic dogma states that Mary was born without sin, but not without sex. Her parents Ann and Joachim had her in the usual way, and God somehow intervened to prevent her from having original sin. Ann was a very popular saint in the early modern period because she was seen as a kindly grandmother figure, and a young Martin Luther made a vow to her during a thunderstorm that if she protected him from harm during the storm that he would become a monk. 

[Imrlgoddess]

Leave it the Cat'licks to be confusing.  So...she was born of a virgin....but not born of a virgin?  How does that work?  For years I thought the line relating "virgin birth" to her was specifically in regard to how she brought Christ into the world.  Then later on, either a priest or a catechist explained that she too was of a virgin birth and that's what made her special.  

[Gemini]

Matthew, chapter 1 

“And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”

She was a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to Jesus, according to Matthew, although I'm sure some members of the church think they know better! 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

3 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

I never thought of this before, but you're right. Yet another example of the mental contortions you have to get into if you take Mary's perpetual virginity seriously. 

In Greek it's the same, the word adelfòs means both brother and cousin. In many Mediterranean cultures there was not much difference between the two concepts, so much so that they didn't bother to have different words. In some places in southern Italy it's still like that. 

Most Catholics I know never bothered to think of Mary menstruating or not, as they wouldn't bother thinking of any woman menstruating. Catholicism as I experienced it is a religion born out of male minds and lived and perpetuated by believers who are mostly female and male celibate hierarchies completely disconnected from the believers' real life experiences. 

The resoning behind this theory is so twisted and so determined to make reality fit into an imaginary idea of women's perfection that is mind boggling. 

No wonder that the only two ex cathedra dogmas proclaimed by popes both regard Mary: her immaculate conception and her assumption to heaven with her whole body.

[Cleopatra7]

48 minutes ago, Imrlgoddess said:

Leave it the Cat'licks to be confusing.  So...she was born of a virgin....but not born of a virgin?  How does that work?  For years I thought the line relating "virgin birth" to her was specifically in regard to how she brought Christ into the world.  Then later on, either a priest or a catechist explained that she too was of a virgin birth and that's what made her special.  

The Virgin Birth refers to how Jesus was born of a woman who was a virgin before, during, and after his birth. The Immaculate Conception refers to how Mary herself was conceived without sin, but in the usual way (I.e. sex). Like the Virgin Birth, the Immaculate Conception is supposed to a miracle on God's part. My question has always been why couldn't God just make everybody conceived without sin and save us humans a lot of trouble? Why make the Immaculate Conception a one off event? If sin is so disfiguring and dispensing to God, why not just make everyone as "pure" as Mary supposedly was?

[December]

1 hour ago, EmiGirl said:

I guess one has to buy into the concept of Original Sin for any of it to make sense. As a Baptist we don't believe Mary was perfect or was a perpetual virgin as there is no Biblical evidence.

Doesn't the idea of original sin have something to do with other religious ideas about pain in childbirth (i.e. they're connected)? 

Also, re: whether the Virgin Mary menstruated... it definitely seems like some stupid point to argue for the sake of arguing something that nobody can conclusively prove, until you remember that the social weight around women's virginity in the Western world is often tied to Judeo-Christian beliefs. I hope people do talk more about oddball questions like these, because it's worth reexamining beliefs, if they're truly tied to scripture or tradition, and if they come from scripture whether it merits a literal interpretation given our modern day knowledge (in this case, on issues of women's health, anatomy, etc.). Religion doesn't exist in a vacuum and it has consequences on people's daily lives even if few believe it still has effects outside the doors of a church/temple/mosque. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

32 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

The Virgin Birth refers to how Jesus was born of a woman who was a virgin before, during, and after his birth. The Immaculate Conception refers to how Mary herself was conceived without sin, but in the usual way (I.e. sex). Like the Virgin Birth, the Immaculate Conception is supposed to a miracle on God's part. My question has always been why couldn't God just make everybody conceived without sin and save us humans a lot of trouble? Why make the Immaculate Conception a one off event? If sin is so disfiguring and dispensing to God, why not just make everyone as "pure" as Mary supposedly was?

And you can absolutely be a virgin without a hymen and giving birth wouldn't cause the loss of virginity so I don't know why this would preclude a vaginal birth.  

Tbh I don't care what people chose to believe, if anything is insulting and shaming, imo, it the notion that (if this were true) that her hymen, lack of menstruating, and lack of pain in childbirth makes her less worthy of being a role model.

If I admire something about another woman and maybe want to emulate that to be a better person I don't stop to wonder about the state of their nether regions or cycles.

I doubt you intended it to read like this, but this topic comes off to me like we earn our womanhood though these things and somehow those who don't experience them are lesser women.  This is something the that those who are battling infertility, have had to lose their reproductive organs or breasts to illness, and transgendered women struggle with.  

Few Catholics have beliefs which completely align with the official doctrine.  For those who believe it's her love, sacrifice, and protection ...mostly her love...that earn people's devotion.  No one is venerating her because someone thinks she had the easiest labor ever, or anything related to her hymen and period.  

That's not what made her a woman.  That's not what makes anyone a woman.

[Foudeb]

I think a lot of the Marial cult is just a consequence of Christianity's early expansion in Europe - they needed something to build on so appropriated existing, local fecundity / harvest deities and just rebranded them as Mary-the-mother, with the Christian twist of "oh but she's also a virgin, because sex is bad".

So, did Mary menstruate? If you think of her as a more recent incarnation of a fertility goddess, then fuck yeah. If you think of her as what loads of supposedly chaste male priests secretly wank to, then oh noes, she is all spirit and can't possibly be defiled by being directly associated to mere bodily functions.

[Mercer]

I realize that this is probably like criticizing the paint job on the Titanic but...

Quote

 A woman must have her first period before she can become pregnant...

Is factually not true, divine intervention aside.

Menstruation is the final phase of the monthly cycle, not the first phase.  Ovulation comes before menstruation. A girl can become pregnant before getting her first period if she has sexual intercourse after she has ovulated. The first period is a visible sign of physical maturation, but it is entirely possible to have a baby before having a period if protection is not used and there is an egg to be fertilized.

It's minor compared to the other issues, but misinformation is misinformation.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 hours ago, Cleopatra7 said:

Remember the Virgin Mary's body is specifically holy because she was never "defiled" by menstruation or pregnancy discharge, and her perpetually intact hymen has theologically significance.

One more thing....that's absolutely not what we are taught about why she is holy.  Her holiness is due to her obedience to God even at the huge risk of her reputation in a time when, if people believed her to be pregnant before marriage by more traditional methods, could have ruined her entire life and brought shame to her family in a very life affecting way.

Her generosity of spirit to give up her body with so much risk so she could deliver a savior ...the sacrifice of putting the greater good of the world above her own well being....that's why she's seen as holy and what they teach.  

Of course I'm not saying anyone needs to believe the above - I'm saying that's the mindset and the sweeping statement of why Catholics consider her holy is wrong.  

Even if you believe none of it and it's all fiction, which is fair because it's pretty unbelievable on the face of it, the argument is like saying Snape sacrificed himself for Harry because Lily was his cousin.  Even though fictional there is still canon.

[Cleopatra7]

45 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

And you can absolutely be a virgin without a hymen and giving birth wouldn't cause the loss of virginity so I don't know why this would preclude a vaginal birth.  

Tbh I don't care what people chose to believe, if anything is insulting and shaming, imo, it the notion that (if this were true) that her hymen, lack of menstruating, and lack of pain in childbirth makes her less worthy of being a role model.

If I admire something about another woman and maybe want to emulate that to be a better person I don't stop to wonder about the state of their nether regions or cycles.

I doubt you intended it to read like this, but this topic comes off to me like we earn our womanhood though these things and somehow those who don't experience them are lesser women.  This is something the that those who are battling infertility, have had to lose their reproductive organs or breasts to illness, and transgendered women struggle with.  

Few Catholics have beliefs which completely align with the official doctrine.  For those who believe it's her love, sacrifice, and protection ...mostly her love...that earn people's devotion.  No one is venerating her because someone thinks she had the easiest labor ever, or anything related to her hymen and period.  

That's not what made her a woman.  That's not what makes anyone a woman.

I completely agree that there is more to being a woman than birth and menstruation and not having these experiences does not make one less of a woman. However, the Catholic Church, which is the topic of inquiry, adheres to a strict biological essentialism that basically states that it's Magisterium of ostensibly celibate men knows what the true nature of women is as exemplified by the Virgin Mary. I simply think that the model of womanhood put forth by "orthodox" Marian theology is damaging to women in the same way that the cult of Maria Goretti is,  because it places an inordinate amount of value on virginity to the exclusion of other qualities and experiences a woman may have. And of course, it excludes the experiences of trans women, female identifying intersex individuals, and basically anyone who doesn't fit into a very narrow and patriarchal mode of feminity. My primary complaint with the view that Mary didn't menstrate is not that I think this is the defining feature of womanhood, but because I think it teaches that bodies that do menstrate are "impure," which is very damaging, given how much shame and misinformation already exists on the issue. Perhaps @laPapessaGiovanna or another member from a majority Catholic culture could explain how these teachings have trickled down into everyday life, because I have a feeling that it will be different from a society like the U.S. that is primarily Protestant.

I realize that I'm approaching this issue from an academic theological perspective and not that of an average person who thinks very little of theology or church history. Obviously, the average pewsitter will have their own views on Mary that may or may not conform to what official theology teaches, which I think is for the best (DIY theology can be a source of liberation). However, I can testify based on my own experiences among conservative and traditionalist Catholics that the question of whether Mary menstruated does factor into how they view women and girls and what roles they should have in church and society. Super conservative Catholics may fly under the radar compared to Protestant fundamentalists, but they're just as patriarchal and just as nasty. 

ETA The specter of a pregnant female minister or priest serving at the altar still fills many conservative Christians with disgust, and is invoked as an argument against female ordination. The idea of "impure" females in the sanctuary is used by conservative and traditionalist Catholics as a reason to bar female altar servers and female lectors. So I think the notion of the female body (however that's defined) as being too impure or flawed to serve God in strong in conservative elements in all strains of Christianity, and helps explain why "orthodox" theologians would feel a need to separate Mary out.

[SpoonfulOSugar]

20 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

the argument is like saying Snape sacrificed himself for Harry because Lily was his cousin.  Even though fictional there is still canon.

Now lost.

Is this a hypothetical example of an inaccuracy?

Yes, of all the theological and feminist dialogue in this thread, I'm hung up on the Harry Potter reference.

[Glasgowghirl]

I was at Catholic school for 13 years and was never taught she remained a virgin. Maybe it wasn't something emphasised as much when I was at school in the 90's and 00's.