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

[defraudedbychipendales]

Can I say that I went through 13 years of Catholic School (15 if you count preschool) and I never heard:

1. Mary's birth itself was virgin;

2. She never menstruated;

3. She stayed a virgin all her life (as a matter of fact, we learned that she lived a normal married life with Joe and had other kids)

We were taught that the Immaculate Conception was just that, and was not meant to be a PERFECT woman. I don't think I ever heard that idea. She would not be perfect because humans are all created imperfect. The idea is to strive to be the best person you could, while resisting the more fun imperfect actions.

The term "Virgin Mary" doesn't refer to her life, but to the Immaculate Conception.

Thank you @HerNameIsBuffy "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.  "

Also just what "Orthodox" doctrine are you referring to? I'd like to know where you have learned this.

[Imrlgoddess]

2 hours 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?

Now you're just talking crazy!  Make everyone with out sin.....pshaw!

 I knew the Mary being born thing had a different name, it was nagging at me while I was typing.  It's been a loooong time since I went to mass.  Although it took years to forget the profession of faith...I barely remember any of it these days.  

 

[paganbaby]

I went to Catholic school in the 60s and 70s, and Mary's virginity and sinlessness were emphasized. We didn't discuss menstruation at all, let alone Mary's, but she was definitely held up as some stainless, perfect creature unaffected by anything resembling a human fault. Pain in childbirth was a punishment for original sin, and because she wasn't subject to original sin there was some haziness about what she felt when Jesus was born. I don't remember a specific statement about this, but if she felt pain, it was something akin to Jesus' pain on the cross--she would have offered it up as a sacrifice for others. And of course she was taken bodily up into heaven, because she was too pure to rot like the rest of us.

My mother refused to be "churched" after childbirth. This is now presented as a nice ceremony to give thanks for a safe delivery, but at the time, it was seen as a necessary cleansing after the defilement involved in giving birth. If that was blatant enough for my mother to rebel against it, the reasoning behind it was made very clear.

As we moved into the 70s, there was a definite move to stop viewing natural bodily functions as evidence women are inferior. But I remember the misogynistic tone to a lot of these beliefs during my childhood and how they were used to set Mary up as an example no real woman could approach.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, SpoonfulOSugar said:

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.

My point was just that even if one looks at the Mary virgin deal as pure fiction there is still canon, just like Harry Potter has canon.  it was a clumsy metaphor.

[paganbaby]

1 hour ago, defraudedbychipendales said:

Can I say that I went through 13 years of Catholic School (15 if you count preschool) and I never heard:

1. Mary's birth itself was virgin;

2. She never menstruated;

3. She stayed a virgin all her life (as a matter of fact, we learned that she lived a normal married life with Joe and had other kids)

 

 

Bear in mind that my schooling started pre-Vatican II. I was taught #3; in fact, it was emphasized. #2 was never discussed. #1 is more complicated. She wasn't a virgin birth, but she was "conceived without sin." This doesn't mean her parents didn't do the dirty deed. Rather, God refrained from inserting original sin into one particular fetus so it could grow up to be a worthy vessel for His Son.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, Cleopatra7 said:

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.

I agree emphasis on virginity feeds into purity culture which can be very damaging.  I think the emphasis on Mary's virginity (pre-birth) in most Christian sects is to emphasis the miraculous nature of the event.  If she's a virgin the pregnancy is a divine miracle.  If she's not...the biblical scholars spend time debating who his real dad was.

As a Catholic I'm side eyeing the authority of the New Theological Movement link you posted.      For example on the 'For Priests and Semarians"

Quote

blog was created with the particular intention of being useful for the theological formation of priests and seminarians. While we do hope that the articles are accessible to all people of faith, there are certain articles which really are written mostly for the benefit of those called to the priesthood of Jesus Christ.

 

Following this are "articles" about why baptism is done with water, and the importance of confirmation, and why the Eucharist can't be a metaphor.  That's like saying a site's audience is highly skilled IT professionals and then posting articles on what a keyboard is and explaining that Google is a search engine...and how you don't need a stamp for email.  This stuff is old hat for 5th grade CCD classes.

and this:  

Quote

The principal proof from the New Testament is that our Lady, immediately after giving birth, rises and wraps the Child in swaddling clothes and lays him in a manger. Now, of course, such activity would generally be far beyond the powers of any woman who had just given birth.

This guy is giving his opinion.  I've given birth vaginally three times and each time I was up shortly going to the bathroom and would have been more than able to tuck my babies into blankets if the nurses hadn't done it for me.  Doesn't make me an expert in childbirth but I'm safe saying I'm more of an expert than he is.

just pointing out he's giving his opinon as fact, he does the same when speaking for the church, IMO.

It does look legit until one starts reading...but fwiw there is stuff in that link that I have never run across in any Catholic teaching.  I'd really caution anyone reading that site to verify his statements of belief through other sources before assuming he speaks for the RCC.

Now I'm a currently lapsed formerly very practicing Catholic and have no experience with the 'traditional' Catholics but they aren't, as a group, aligned with Rome on some of these issues because not conservative enough...if I'm correct.  They aren't the RCC as most people understand it.

and it's  it just the lay people thst don't follow the whole playbook from Rome.  Since my kids were born I've not been in a church were girls weren't alter servers.  My daughter was one for a couple years.  It's so common no one even questions it.  

The Catholic church has plenty of beliefs that are really crazy to outsiders and there is a lot of objectionable stuff that tptb need to answer for.  So I'm not defending the RCC as being all logic based and eagletarian...there is plenty that is rage worthy and other stuff that is mock worthy ...but this stuff about her hymen and whether she menstruated ...it's just a bizarre ranting IMO.

 

[Cleopatra7]

30 minutes ago, defraudedbychipendales said:

Can I say that I went through 13 years of Catholic School (15 if you count preschool) and I never heard:

1. Mary's birth itself was virgin;

2. She never menstruated;

3. She stayed a virgin all her life (as a matter of fact, we learned that she lived a normal married life with Joe and had other kids)

We were taught that the Immaculate Conception was just that, and was not meant to be a PERFECT woman. I don't think I ever heard that idea. She would not be perfect because humans are all created imperfect. The idea is to strive to be the best person you could, while resisting the more fun imperfect actions.

The term "Virgin Mary" doesn't refer to her life, but to the Immaculate Conception.

Thank you @HerNameIsBuffy "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.  "

Also just what "Orthodox" doctrine are you referring to? I'd like to know where you have learned this.

If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches on a dogmatic level, I would suggest you (you in the general sense, not you in particular) invest in "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Ludwig Ott, which is considered the gold standard on the subject, especially if you want a single volume book. It's a bit hard to find, but well worth the money. Also, I would recommend reading the works of Church Fathers, especially Augustine of Hippo who really set the tone for all Western theology, medieval theologians (not just Aquinas), and the works of scholarly historians to understand how these teachings operated on a popular level. 

1. As I've mentioned several times in this thread, the Catholic Church does not teach that Mary was conceived in a virgin birth, but that she was conceived through sex but without sin (Augustine of Hippo was the first to teach the original sin is transmitted through sexual intercourse, and its a notion that you don't find in the Easter Orthodox Churches). I have noticed that popular parlance uses the phrases "Virgin Birth" and "Immaculate Conception" interchangeably, and they are quite different. According to Pope Pius IX's bull "Ineffibilis deus,":

"The Virgin Mother of God would not be conceived by Anna before grace would bear its fruits; it was proper that she be conceived as the first-born, by whom "the first-born of every creature" would be conceived. They testified, too, that the flesh of the Virgin, although derived from Adam, did not contract the stains of Adam, and that on this account the most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself and formed by the Holy Spirit, truly a work in royal purple, adorned and woven with gold, which that new Beseleel[26] made. They affirmed that the same Virgin is, and is deservedly, the first and especial work of God, escaping the fiery arrows the the evil one; that she is beautiful by nature and entirely free from all stain; that at her Immaculate Conception she came into the world all radiant like the dawn. For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness."

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

Interestingly, Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, which led his works to be initially viewed with suspicion.

2. The question as to whether Mary had periods seems to have been largely confined to the medieval scholastics, and there are no dogmatic teachings about it either way. According to the Aristotelian science of the day, breast milk was considered to be menstrual fluid that had been re-purposed and re-formed. Since it was taken to be a given that Mary breastfed Jesus, some argued that she must have menstruated. Yet the idea of Mary engaging in such a "polluting" activity suggested to others that it must have been an impossibility. As the article I linked to above indicates, if you take the purity codes in the Hebrew Bible seriously and assumed that Mary did too as a good Jewish woman, then it's difficult to square how her body could ever be ritually impure if God was so intent on making her this perfect vessel.

As @paganbaby mentioned, there used to be a ceremony called "the churching of women" that a woman who recently gave birth had to undergo before she could return to church, because of her "impurity." Churching has largely disappeared, though some conservative and traditionalist Catholic women do it today to show how conservative/trad they are.

Those who believe that Mary never menstruated were also acting under the assumption that menstruation, like pain in childbirth, was a consequence of the fall, and not having original sin, she would have experienced neither. The Catechism of the Council of Trent that was issued in 1556 stated, "To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain."

https://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html

Although the Catechism of the Council of Trent was more or less superseded by the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, I believe it is still considered an authoritative document.

3. The Catholic belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary is quite ancient, going back to at least the third century that we have evidence of. For example, in 649, Pope Martin I declared at the Lateran Synod that Mary was "blessed, ever-virginal and immaculate" and that she "conceived without seed, of the Holy Ghost, generated without injury (to her virginity), and her virginity continued unimpaired after the birth." (note: this is from Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, which is not online). The more recent Catechism of the Catholic Church also states that Mary was perpetually a virgin in sections 499 and 500 (among others), saying, "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...Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary". They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression."

6 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I agree emphasis on virginity feeds into purity culture which can be very damaging.  I think the emphasis on Mary's virginity (pre-birth) in most Christian sects is to emphasis the miraculous nature of the event.  If she's a virgin the pregnancy is a divine miracle.  If she's not...the biblical scholars spend time debating who his real dad was.

As a Catholic I'm side eyeing the authority of the New Theological Movement link you posted.      For example on the 'For Priests and Semarians"

Following this are "articles" about why baptism is done with water, and the importance of confirmation, and why the Eucharist can't be a metaphor.  That's like saying a site's audience is highly skilled IT professionals and then posting articles on what a keyboard is and explaining that Google is a search engine...and how you don't need a stamp for email.  This stuff is old hat for 5th grade CCD classes.

and this:  

This guy is giving his opinion.  I've given birth vaginally three times and each time I was up shortly going to the bathroom and would have been more than able to tuck my babies into blankets if the nurses hadn't done it for me.  Doesn't make me an expert in childbirth but I'm safe saying I'm more of an expert than he is.

just pointing out he's giving his opinon as fact, he does the same when speaking for the church, IMO.

It does look legit until one starts reading...but fwiw there is stuff in that link that I have never run across in any Catholic teaching.  I'd really caution anyone reading that site to verify his statements of belief through other sources before assuming he speaks for the RCC.

Now I'm a currently lapsed formerly very practicing Catholic and have no experience with the 'traditional' Catholics but they aren't, as a group, aligned with Rome on some of these issues because not conservative enough...if I'm correct.  They aren't the RCC as most people understand it.

and it's  it just the lay people thst don't follow the whole playbook from Rome.  Since my kids were born I've not been in a church were girls weren't alter servers.  My daughter was one for a couple years.  It's so common no one even questions it.  

The Catholic church has plenty of beliefs that are really crazy to outsiders and there is a lot of objectionable stuff that tptb need to answer for.  So I'm not defending the RCC as being all logic based and eagletarian...there is plenty that is rage worthy and other stuff that is mock worthy ...but this stuff about her hymen and whether she menstruated ...it's just a bizarre ranting IMO.

 

I would agree with you that the New Theological Movement or whatever represents the views of a certain group of priests and is not authoritative. However, the views expressed there are indicative of a very vocal and activist strain of conservative Catholicism that has a lot of influence in this country, even if it is not as obvious as conservative Protestantism. If you look at the official documents and theology from Rome about Mary, they are not that far removed from the links I presented, even if the bulk of ordinary Catholics would not agree with them; John Paul II was really into mystical Marianism, and I believe that influenced how he saw women's issues, especially in his cringe-worthy "Feminine Genius" concept. This is why I said earlier that these seemingly weird debates about Mary's body have real world consequences, from contraception access for poor women in the Philippines to what women can and can't do in churches right here in the US.  How one feels about Mary is sort of like a Rorschach test for what kind of Catholicism one practices. If you see Mary as being a woman more or less like you and me but nobler and more loving , then you're probably a liberal Catholic. If you see Mary as the ever-virgin Queen of Heaven, you're conservative. If you think Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces, you're probably traditionalist.

[defraudedbychipendales]

Hmm... maybe my nun teachers were just really progressive...

(More progressive than 5th century Popes, anyway?)

The things that you are talking about do not jive with the RCC I grew up in, and so I am bowing out of this discussion.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

46 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

<snip>

How one feels about Mary is sort of like a Rorschach test for what kind of Catholicism one practices. If you see Mary as being a woman more or less like you and me but nobler and more loving , then you're probably a liberal Catholic. If you see Mary as the ever-virgin Queen of Heaven, you're conservative. If you think Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces, you're probably traditionalist.

This was fascinating, thanks for taking the time to type this out.  I'm going to look into finding that book you recommended.

Traditional Catholics are so far removed from anything ime of mainstream Catholic experience I wouldn't be surprised if they broke away entirely if not in my lifetime, maybe that of my kids.  

As far as her perpetual virgintiy I was taught she remained a virgin which confused me when I was older with the whole sex was this beautiful and sacred thing within a marriage...but then I figured it doesn't matter to me one way or the other.  Maybe Joseph couldn't...maybe a non physical relationship was what they mutually wanted, maybe they did have a physical relationship which may or may not have resulted in other children (the translation being brothers or family in a more general sense is why it will remain unclear for me.)  

I guess I just think of her up there shaking her head a couple millennia of theologians trying to figure this out thinking, "you know this is really none of your business...why don't you go feed the poor and stop worrying about my sex life?"

 

35 minutes ago, defraudedbychipendales said:

Hmm... maybe my nun teachers were just really progressive...

(More progressive than 5th century Popes, anyway?)

The things that you are talking about do not jive with the RCC I grew up in, and so I am bowing out of this discussion.

Hard to find an easier bar to clear than being more progressive than a 5th century Pope.  

[paganbaby]

18 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Hard to find an easier bar to clear than being more progressive than a 5th century Pope.

I don't know if I'm older than the other commenters on this thread, but chances are I am. There was a huge chasm between the Church I knew pre- and post-Vatican II. My childhood memories feel like something from the 5th century, with the mass in a dead language and priests and nuns dressed in a way that removed them from the rest of humanity. All learning was rote memorization of catechism, and non-Catholics were all going to limbo  or hell, including "pagan babies" if we couldn't get them baptized in time. We bought ourselves time out of purgatory by saying certain prayers or suffering pain in silence. We were supposed to be absolutely obedient, and individualism wasn't exactly encouraged. I was punished for wearing my sweater in class, I assume because I didn't look exactly like all the other girls when I had it on.

I remember waiting to cross the street to the classroom building one morning and thinking I was hallucinating. I caught a glimpse of a teacher momentarily before cars came along and blocked view. I couldn't have actually seen Sister Pierre's legs, could I? And bits of her hair showed under a small wimple that was barely more than a scarf.

A lot more changed than the admission to the world that nuns had shins and didn't move around on wheels under their habits. By the time I was in high school there were actual discussions, where dogma could be questioned.

My family had no trouble with the changes. My parents were still more liberal than this new, improved Church, although they wouldn't have put it like that. (The standard line from my mother is, "I'm a Catholic but I believe [in using birth control/gay people should be allowed to get married/divorced people should be able to get married again/there's no need to make a fuss because someone marries a non-Catholic].")

But I met plenty of Catholics who longed for the old days. I eventually realized that a lot of that old dogma was still around under the kinder, gentler facade, and that subsequent popes walked back a lot of John XXIII's reforms. Many of the clergy I knew ignored those steps backward. Sometimes that worked, but a lot eventually left the church or at least returned to lay life.

[Toothfairy]

3 hours ago, defraudedbychipendales said:

Can I say that I went through 13 years of Catholic School (15 if you count preschool) and I never heard:

1. Mary's birth itself was virgin;

2. She never menstruated;

3. She stayed a virgin all her life (as a matter of fact, we learned that she lived a normal married life with Joe and had other kids)

We were taught that the Immaculate Conception was just that, and was not meant to be a PERFECT woman. I don't think I ever heard that idea. She would not be perfect because humans are all created imperfect. The idea is to strive to be the best person you could, while resisting the more fun imperfect actions.

The term "Virgin Mary" doesn't refer to her life, but to the Immaculate Conception.

Thank you @HerNameIsBuffy "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.  "

Also just what "Orthodox" doctrine are you referring to? I'd like to know where you have learned this.

Never learned any of this in Catholic school. 

[Imrlgoddess]

I was born into a cradle Catholic family, remained one until the ripe old age of 26.  I can honestly say I've learned more from this site & this particular thread then I ever learned in 12 years if CCD even with my mother & sister as catechists. 

The way I remember learning about the church is what I call fundamentalism.  My sister calls it the old Baltimore Catechism. In my eyes.... There's no difference. We venerated Mary, but only a little. But my town was highly Protestant. Once I moved to south La, I began seeing the little Mary statues under their little covers in front of all the houses. I had to relearn how to be Catholic.

[Cleopatra7]

It's worth pointing out that Catholic education today is a very different animal than what it was pre-Vatican II, at least in the US. Pre-Vatican II, the purpose of Catholic education in the US was to create a Catholic alternative to the public schools. For most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Catholic children in the public education system were subjected to open Protestant proselytizing, especially by making them read the King James Bible and receiting the Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer each morning. The infamous Philadelphia Bible Riots were ostensibly caused when a Catholic boy refused to read the KJV in school, although the underlying ethnic and religious tensions had been simmering for years:

http://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/archive/nativist-riots-of-1844/

After this incident, there was a major push to ensure that all Catholic school children had access to a free or low-cost Catholic school. This was possible because of the emergence of the women's teaching orders at around the same time. The teaching sisters worked for poverty wages, which meant that it was possible to keep costs down. Since becoming a nun or teaching sister was one of the few alternatives for a Catholic woman to avoid marriage and even attain power and influence, there were plenty of recruits to the teaching orders. The quality of these schools tended to be about as good as the public schools that existed in the same areas. Many classrooms were overcrowded, and instruction relied on rote learning, but the same appears to have been true for public schools as well. Then as now, there were more expensive college prep Catholic schools for those willing to pay for them. The schools were based around the neighborhood parish, so they tended to be fairly monocultural, at least in the sense that the students usually came from the same ethnic group and geographical location (i.e,. the white Catholic ghetto). There would not have been any open dissent around Catholic teachings, and people were often peer-pressured into conforming, like making parishioners openly declare during mass that they would not attend a movie condemned by the League of Decency.

After Vatican II, this situation vastly changed. With the unintentional redefinition of the religious life at Vatican II and the increased opportunities for women caused by second wave feminism, the teaching orders collapsed. This, combined with the flight of white Catholics to the suburbs, meant that the "every Catholic child a Catholic school" model could no longer be sustained. Lay teachers replaced the sisters, and of course, they had to be paid a real wage. Consequently, tuition prices skyrocketed, at least compared to what they had been before. Many Catholic schools closed, while others reinvented themselves as college prep schools that just happened to be Catholic. Today, children from all backgrounds, including atheist, attend Catholic schools because such schools tend to be cheaper than nonsectarian private schools are believed to be a good buy for the money. This would never happen in the pre-Vatican II era, where Catholic schools were routinely criticized for instilling Catholic separatism in children, and Catholicism was seen as an un-American creed. Basically, Catholicism was in the past what Islam is seen as today. Because so many non-Catholic family attend Catholic schools and so many non-Catholic teachers work in Catholic schools, it's impossible to force the kind of moral conformity that was possible in the pre-Vatican II era. When you do hear about a Catholic school firing a teacher for being in a same-sex marriage or doing in-vitro fertilization, the pushback within the school community tends to be fierce, to say nothing of the media backlash.

The rather large gap between what is officially in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and what is actually taught in many post-Vatican II Catholic schools is why many conservative and traditionalist Catholics homeschool, something that would have been unthinkable in the pre-Vatican II era. The Catholic homeschoolers I had the misfortune to meet at my former traditionalist parish were the worst. They thought everyone was a heretic, including the current pope at the time, Benedict XVI, talked smack about everyone who wasn't in their clique, and routinely tried to get all the priests they didn't like removed. Given that the Catholic traditionalist world is so much smaller than the Protestant fundamentalist world, I wonder how the kids who grow up in that environment will be able to function as adults.

[AmazonGrace]

5 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

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.  

 

It seems to me she didnt have much of a choice. She was basically raped by an angel.

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, paganbaby said:

Bear in mind that my schooling started pre-Vatican II. I was taught #3; in fact, it was emphasized. #2 was never discussed. #1 is more complicated. She wasn't a virgin birth, but she was "conceived without sin." This doesn't mean her parents didn't do the dirty deed. Rather, God refrained from inserting original sin into one particular fetus so it could grow up to be a worthy vessel for His Son.

Even after Vatican 2 it was explained to me that when Mary was conceived without sin it meant what you say above, that at the time of her conception, God didn't put the guilt for the sin of Adam-and-Eve in her. 

That is different from the Immaculate Conception, which refers to Mary's conception of Jesus via the Holy Spirit.

I was taught that Mary did not sleep with Joseph and that his brothers and sisters were cousins.

On the subject of whether or not Mary menstruated, I don't doubt that extremely misogynist and patriarchal Catholic theologians may spend time thinking about Mary being the only woman not being "unclean" because she did't menstruate, and they may talk about Mary having given birth without blood or pain, but in Luke 2:22 we read of Mary going for "purification" according to the Jewish Law, which would suggest that early Christians at least thought that she bled after childbirth.  (The feast that is now more commonly known as The Presentation of the Lord or Candlemas was in Medieval times known as the "Purification of the Virgin," and the practice of "Churching" women 40 days after the birth was symbolically linked with Mary's purification.  This begs the question of what was Mary being purified for if she didn't bleed after the birth of Jesus.

My own opinion is that this is one of those topics about which there is no consensus in the Church. Popes have made pronouncements about Mary's virginity, but not about whether she menstruated or felt pain in childbirth.  It is therefore less doctrine than open to interpretation.

To my mind, the talk about her "ritual purity" in terms of Jewish Law overlooks the crucial point that Christianity (according to the teachings of Peter and Paul) was not just for the Jews but the whole world.  If Christian men don't have to be circumcised and Christians don't have to follow the dietary laws, why would the Mother of Christ be rendered "impure" by menstruation?  

It is all ridiculous, and I agree that it smacks of misogyny and fear of women's fertility.  But it is not mainstream Catholicism.  The nuns I knew when I taught at a Catholic college back in the late 1970s used to scold students for calling menses "the curse," because, they said, menstruation was "God's blessing, that meant they could be mothers."  

[paganbaby]

26 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

It's worth pointing out that Catholic education today is a very different animal than what it was pre-Vatican II, at least in the US. Pre-Vatican II, the purpose of Catholic education in the US was to create a Catholic alternative to the public schools.

After Vatican II, this situation vastly changed. With the unintentional redefinition of the religious life at Vatican II and the increased opportunities for women caused by second wave feminism, the teaching orders collapsed.

I snipped the quote to save space, but my own experiences fit into the historical summary you provided. I can definitely attest that those pre-V II classrooms were overcrowded! And the switch to more lay teachers was happening as I moved through the system. Many nuns left teaching or quit the orders entirely by the time I graduated high school.

In many ways, it was a very good education. I wouldn't have cringed at sending my daughters to a high school similar to the one I attended, if there hadn't been a good secular alternative. But although it was the best thing available to my parents at the time, I'd never allow my kids to experience an environment like my elementary school. I'd even have *gulp* homeschooled instead. Seen from my adult perspective, it was soul-crushing, and it took me years to shake off the residue of that indoctrination.

[Georgiana]

I went to Catholic school that taught scripture using the Historical Critical Method (which I believe is the official method of Scriptural interpretation taught by the Church).  Here is what I was taught:

Mary absolutely menstruated.  She was betrothed.  Girls/women were not betrothed until after they had menstruated in Judea at that time.  So had she never menstruated, she never would have been betrothed to Joseph.  

Mary was born without sin, which may have meant that she did not experience the pain of childbirth, which is a punishment for Eve's sin.  However, you can also argue she DID experience it as her purpose in birthing Jesus was to atone for the sin of Eve and redeem humanity, thus she willingly took part in the punishment in order to bring the Savior into the world.  

 

There are a lot of very weird things that are still official Catechism simply because the method of changing them is so difficult as to be nearly impossible.  For example, I am sure you have heard that Catholics believe "life begins at conception".  This is NOT what is on the books,  The OFFICIAL Catechism is still the crazy idea that St. Thomas Aquinas modified from Aristotle: the soul enters the body at 40 days for a male and 80 for a female.  

In an effort to avoid having to change this, Church leaders instead focused on abortion, condemning it from conception onward.  It got weird fast.  There were times when early abortions were not considered homicide so long as the fetus was reasonably believed to be female.  

Anyway, if you scour the Catechism, you'll find loads of little tidbits like this.  The difference is that while they are on the books, they are no longer in any way taught or recognized by the church.  You would find the same thing if you scoured the laws of any state/province/municipality.  For example, in my city, it is illegal to display a hypnotized person in a store window and it is illegal statewide to harass Sasquatch or buy a mattress on a Sunday.  If you are a motorist with criminal intentions entering my state, you must stop and telephone the chief of police before entering any municipality.  Until very recently, it was also illegal to hunt whales from your automobile (sadly this expired in 2012 I believe).  

Where bureaucracy exists, you will ALWAYS find things like this because they aren't worth the immense effort to officially repeal.  

[IntrinsicallyDisordered]

4 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

It seems to me she didnt have much of a choice. She was basically raped by an angel.

You phrased this a lot more bluntly than I would have, but this is one of the things that started pushing me away from the church (ironically, a small devotion to Mary and my love for her is the only thing still keeping me tethered to the church and religion and God in general).

Mary, conceived without sin, did not have the capacity or ability or propensity to sin, unlike the rest of us losers.  Her will would have been completely in line with God's.  She wouldn't have said no, she wouldn't have wanted to say no, because she couldn't say no.  Because God made her incapable of it.  Oh, says the church.  He only did that because He knew she would say yes.  Okay...then why was it necessary to take away the possibility if you can see all things and know all things.  It's like the story of God hardening the Pharaoh's heart, but in reverse.  Free will is suspended sometimes for some people because...we can't know the mind of God and he made the rules and so he can break them?  Doesn't seem like the kind of guy worth worshipping.  

I harbor a lot of blasphemous thoughts (though as I've gotten older I mainly keep them to myself instead of getting into hysterical arguments with my mother) and one is my desire for Mary to have become pregnant - maybe from Joseph, maybe not - and knowing she was going to be stoned to death, was quick witted and convincing enough to be like "It was an angel!  This is God's kid!"

@Cleopatra7 most of what you're saying jives with what I was taught even though I grew up in the 80s and 90s.  My mother was/is very conservative and we went to more conservative churches though not traditional.  Mary was the Mediatrix of all graces and ever virgin.  Her marriage to Joseph was what we now call a "Josephite" marriage; they never had sex and Jesus's "brothers" were his kids from his previous marriage.  But I think we were taught that at the time other people would have assumed they were having sex, but he wouldn't touch  her after God had because he realized how "pure" she was and didn't want to defile her.  But sex in marriage is beautiful!  Pay no mind to the mixed messages.

I have never til this day thought about her menstruating or not (assumed she did because ????), but we did learn that she had had no pain in childbirth because she wasn't carrying around Eve's sin (poor Eve, created with the ability to sin/free will and then daring to actually use it).  But it was implied it was a normal, human birth and Jesus was supposed to have acted like a good, but normal, human child growing up, where he did cause his mom some trouble and didn't always listen. 

Attaching one of my favorite depictions of the Annunciation by Simone Martini in 1333.  The mutual stares of hatred are amazing.  

 

[jerkit]

FWIW, the university linked to is marianist. It also happens to be my husband's alma mater. I would tend to believe that a Jesuit Catholic may have a very different answer.

 

 

[EmiGirl]

One of the things that we discussed in my ladies Bible study was the fact that in Genesis Eves curse isn't pain in childbearing, but INCREASED pain. So there was and has always been pain in birth, but it was increased with the first Sin (which actually wasn't even called the first sin in the text but that's a whole different discussion ).

[Palimpsest]

8 hours ago, paganbaby said:

But I met plenty of Catholics who longed for the old days. I eventually realized that a lot of that old dogma was still around under the kinder, gentler facade, and that subsequent popes walked back a lot of John XXIII's reforms. Many of the clergy I knew ignored those steps backward. Sometimes that worked, but a lot eventually left the church or at least returned to lay life.

This.  I'm also of the opinion that the Roman Catholic Church in the US is teetering on the edge of a schism.  I'm not RC myself but Mr. P's family is steeped in it.  He is very lapsed but nuns and priests abound.  They tend to be on the liberal side.

@Cleopatra7 you said:

Quote

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. 

I completely agree with the bolded.  I seem to remember that you were just starting grad school?  Congratulations.  It must be for theology.

I'm only saying this because I rather like you - but I feel like I'm reading a term paper not a discussion on FJ.  You write well and are obviously intrigued by the subject.  The manner in which you are conveying information here on FJ is rather off-putting, however.  Please don't fall into the all too common grad school trap of sounding like a right little snob.

[jerkit]

Also, the university of Dayton is sort of a bizarre place. The theology coming out of their academics is very conservative, but the university culture is SO not conservative. It's essentially a part school with high academic standards. The student neighborhood (referred to as the ghetto) is one giant party on the weekends where students move from house to house partying. The corner store in the student neighborhood is the largest distributor of PBR in the state of Ohio. It's such a bizarre juxtaposition. 

[Cleopatra7]

20 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

This.  I'm also of the opinion that the Roman Catholic Church in the US is teetering on the edge of a schism.  I'm not RC myself but Mr. P's family is steeped in it.  He is very lapsed but nuns and priests abound.  They tend to be on the liberal side.

@Cleopatra7 you said:

I completely agree with the bolded.  I seem to remember that you were just starting grad school?  Congratulations.  It must be for theology.

I'm only saying this because I rather like you - but I feel like I'm reading a term paper not a discussion on FJ.  You write well and are obviously intrigued by the subject.  The manner in which you are conveying information here on FJ is rather off-putting, however.  Please don't fall into the all too common grad school trap of sounding like a right little snob.

Given that this is how I am in real life (I.e, sounding like a term paper), even before entering graduate school, I'm not sure I can be any different. I've always had an encyclopedic sort of mindset. Besides, I thought the point of FJ was intelligent conversation about the damage caused by fundamentalism and I thought I was helping provide background on the subject at hand.

[Four is Enough]

I've felt recently,, Cleopatra, that you have been interested in digging at Catholic dogma a great deal.  I understand the need to discuss fundamentalism, but digging up questions of menstruation seems a bit extreme.

As a pre-Vatican II cradle Catholic, I do remember hearing that the Blessed Mother (this is a name I use for Mary; to me it would be blessed indeed to become the mother of God) was "ever virgin". We didn't carry it much past that, and somehow, we didn't bother questioning it too much when the Gospel said "his brothers talked among themselves"... Maybe we were incurious; maybe we believed, as many Catholics did and do, that such a thing was a "miracle" and therefore not to be understood by the likes of us. Some of us truly didn't care whether she was Virgin or not, we simply admired her as the mother of God. Why she'll be the only person in Heaven with a corporeal body is another source of incuriosity. Of course, now, we might think that it's to keep anyone from getting to half of Jesus's DNA. (JK)

At any rate, to me it's always been theologians and class clowns who ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (This is not an insult to anyone here; but carrying something like this out to its extreme is something I call recreational theology.) 

It's not necessary for me to know whether or not the Blessed Mother had a period, but I'm guessing she did. and also attended and submitted to the mikvah as so many others did. This does not affect the belief for me that she was indeed a virgin when the angel came to her. 

AFA the Maria Goretti thing: I attended St. Maria Goretti high school in my state. The whole "virginity" thing was carried out to fanatical reaches. But we were teenagers, there were miniskirts, weed, and "free love" ideas floating around...

[laPapessaGiovanna]

This is the link to the official Catechism of the Catholic Church. 

www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM (I don't know why it isn't live)

Everything I'm going to quote comes from here.

Quote

The Aim and Intended Readership of the Catechism

11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium. It is intended to serve "as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries".15

The above means that every catechism teaching around the world comes from reelaborations of this document written in 1966.

Quote

Only One Faith

172 Through the centuries, in so many languages, cultures, peoples and nations, the Church has constantly confessed this one faith, received from the one Lord, transmitted by one Baptism, and grounded in the conviction that all people have only one God and Father.58 St. Irenaeus of Lyons, a witness of this faith, declared:

173 "Indeed, the Church, though scattered throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, having received the faith from the apostles and their disciples. . . guards [this preaching and faith] with care, as dwelling in but a single house, and similarly believes as if having but one soul and a single heart, and preaches, teaches and hands on this faith with a unanimous voice, as if possessing only one mouth."59

174 "For though languages differ throughout the world, the content of the Tradition is one and the same. the Churches established in Germany have no other faith or Tradition, nor do those of the Iberians, nor those of the Celts, nor those of the East, of Egypt, of Libya, nor those established at the centre of the world. . ."60 The Church's message "is true and solid, in which one and the same way of salvation appears throughout the whole world."

Whoever teaches differently does it out of his/her own mind and doesn't speak for the Catholic faith. Then why HNIB was taught that Mary holiness came only by her behaving like a good and brave woman?

Quote

Necessary Adaptations

23 The Catechism emphasizes the exposition of doctrine. It seeks to help deepen understanding of faith. In this way it is oriented towards the maturing of that faith, its putting down roots in personal life, and its shining forth in personal conduct.17

24 By design, this Catechism does not set out to provide the adaptation of doctrinal presentations and catechetical methods required by the differences of culture, age, spiritual maturity, and social and ecclesial condition among all those to whom it is addressed. Such indispensable adaptations are the responsibility of particular catechisms and, even more, of those who instruct the faithful:

Whoever teaches must become "all things to all men" (⇒ I Cor 9:22), to win everyone to Christ. . . Above all, teachers must not imagine that a single kind of soul has been entrusted to them, and that consequently it is lawful to teach and form equally all the faithful in true piety with one and the same method! Let them realize that some are in Christ as newborn babes, others as adolescents, and still others as adults in full command of their powers.... Those who are called to the ministry of preaching must suit their words to the maturity and understanding of their hearers, as they hand on the teaching of the mysteries of faith and the rules of moral conduct.18

The above is the reason for many of you have heard only half truths.

And now let's see what it says about Mary.

Quote

966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."506 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.507

. . . she is our Mother in the order of grace

967 By her complete adherence to the Father's will, to his Son's redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church's model of faith and charity. Thus she is a "preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church"; indeed, she is the "exemplary realization" (typus)508 of the Church.

968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace."509

969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfilment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation .... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."510

More about Mary (I cut away the more boring bits for the full version check out the link above).

Quote

487 What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.

Mary's predestination

488 "God sent forth his Son", but to prepare a body for him,125 he wanted the free co-operation of a creature. For this, from all eternity God chose for the mother of his Son a daughter of Israel, a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee, "a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary":126

The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in the coming of death, so also should a woman contribute to the coming of life.127

The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

492 The "splendour of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son".136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".137

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature".138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long. 
"Let it be done to me according to your word. . ."

494 At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:140

Mary's divine motherhood

495 Called in the Gospels "the mother of Jesus", 

Mary's virginity

496 From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived "by the Holy Spirit without human seed".146 The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own. 

497 The Gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility

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.154 In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 and so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".156

500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary".158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159

Mary's virginal motherhood in God's plan

503 Mary's virginity manifests God's absolute initiative in the Incarnation. Jesus has only God as Father. "He was never estranged from the Father because of the human nature which he assumed. . . He is naturally Son of the Father as to his divinity and naturally son of his mother as to his humanity, but properly Son of the Father in both natures."161

 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 God167 is fulfilled perfectly in Mary's virginal motherhood.

506 Mary is a virgin because her virginity is the sign of her faith "unadulterated by any doubt", and of her undivided gift of herself to God's will.168 It is her faith that enables her to become the mother of the Saviour: "Mary is more blessed because she embraces faith in Christ than because she conceives the flesh of Christ."169

507 At once virgin and mother, Mary is the symbol and the most perfect realization of the Church: "the Church indeed. . . by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By preaching and Baptism she brings forth sons, who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of God, to a new and immortal life. She herself is a virgin, who keeps in its entirety and purity the faith she pledged to her spouse."170

IN BRIEF

508 From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. "Full of grace", Mary is "the most excellent fruit of redemption" (SC 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.

509 Mary is truly "Mother of God" since she is the mother of the eternal Son of God made man, who is God himself.

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): with her whole being she is "the handmaid of the Lord" (⇒ Lk 1:38).

511 The Virgin Mary "co-operated through free faith and obedience in human salvation" (LG 56). She uttered her yes "in the name of all human nature" (St. Thomas Aquinas, S Th III, 30, 1). By her obedience she became the new Eve, mother of the living.

 

9 hours ago, Georgiana said:

There are a lot of very weird things that are still official Catechism simply because the method of changing them is so difficult as to be nearly impossible.  For example, I am sure you have heard that Catholics believe "life begins at conception".  This is NOT what is on the books,  The OFFICIAL Catechism is still the crazy idea that St. Thomas Aquinas modified from Aristotle: the soul enters the body at 40 days for a male and 80 for a female.  

In an effort to avoid having to change this, Church leaders instead focused on abortion, condemning it from conception onward.  It got weird fast.  There were times when early abortions were not considered homicide so long as the fetus was reasonably believed to be female.  

Anyway, if you scour the Catechism, you'll find loads of little tidbits like this.  The difference is that while they are on the books, they are no longer in any way taught or recognized by the church.

Bullshit. Whatever ideas Aristoteles and Aquinas had this is what thinks the RCC now.This Catechism was thoroughly revised last in 1966 and as you can see for yourself there's no mention of strange Aristotelian theories. I didn't cut out anything so you can check.

Quote

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.71

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.72 
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.73

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. 
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. 
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74 
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. 
Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.75

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. 
The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. 
"A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78 
The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. 
Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. 
These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. 
Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."79

 

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. 
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined.... 
As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."80

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual.... 
It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."81

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."82 
"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."83 
"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. 
Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"84 which are unique and unrepeatable.

This is what the RCC teaches now. My personal take on this will be in another post because I am terrified that this might be eaten (it already happened once).