Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller and the Virgin Birth

From the early fourth century on, we find, in several variants, the tripartite formula of Mary’s virginity before, in, and after giving birth (semper virgo / aeiparthenos {Latin and Greek for “ever-virgin”}).  The foundation thereof is her status as the virginal Mother of God, which she accepted in the ready willingness of her faith.  From this primarily Christological statement about Mary’s virginity before giving birth follows, in the sense of a more strongly Mariological accentuation of the statement, the singularity of the birth process (virginitas in partu {virginity in giving birth}) by the fact that Mary brings forth the God-man and Redeemer, and, that in the steadfastness of her total self-abandonment {ganzmenschliche Hingabe} to the redemption event, she had no marital relations with Joseph, Therefore, she also remained without any other children.  All the Church Fathers testify to the faith-content of Mary’s virginity before, in, and after giving birth, and consequently of Mary’s perpetual virginity, for instance against the heretical sects of the Antidikomarionites (Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion III, haer. 78, 79) and against Jovinian (Jerome, Adversus Iovin.; Augustine, Ep. 137, 2, 8; haer. 82; Ambrose, Inst. Virg. 8, 52;  Isidore of Seville, Orig. VII, 5, 46, 57, etc.).  Her perpetual virginity, expressed in this tripartite formula (Zeno of Verona, Tract. II, 12) is received by the Church as binding doctrine of the faith (Synod of Milan in 379; Ch. J. Hefele and H. Leclercq, 78 ff.; Tomus Leonis {Tome of Leo I}, as at Denzinger Hünermann {DH} 294; Canon 6 of the Second Council of Constantinople in 553:  DH 427;  Canons 2-4 of the Lateran Synod of 649: DH 502-504).

Beyond a Gnostic-dualistic misinterpretation of the virginitas in partu as a denial of the reality of Jesus’ humanity (cf. Tertullian’s wavering about this question, Carn. 23; Monog. 8), the Church’s doctrine must be explained in the sense of the reality of the Incarnation.  It is not about {Es geht nicht um} anomalous physiological peculiarities in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not being opened, the hymen not being broken, and the absence of birth pangs), but rather about the healing and saving influence of the Redeemer’s grace on human nature, which had been “wounded” by original sin.  For the mother, birth is not limited merely to a biological process.  It constitutes a personal relationship with the child.  The passive conditions of the birth are integrated into this personal relationship, and intrinsically defined, thereby.  The special character of Mary’s personal relationship with Jesus is defined by the fact that he is the Redeemer, and that her relationship to him is to be understood within a comprehensive theological perspective.  In resorting to the Eve-Mary parallel, the Church Fathers found justification for the possibility of putting the event of the Redeemer’s birth in an antithesis to the punishments (poenalitates) foretold to Eve, which include a woman’s “pain in childbearing” as an expression of the wounding of creation by sin (Gen 3:16).  The natural process of birth, too, which is grounded in creation, is likewise conditioned {mitbestimmt} by the experiences of man’s alienation from God, his origin and destination.  In the act of giving birth (as with other fundamental human accomplishments), a difference becomes evident in the passivity of the occurrence to which the woman in labor is subject, and her interior will to be active {zur Aktivität}, i.e., to integrate the whole event personally.  This difference is experienced in an anthropological sense as “pain” {“Schmerz”}, disintegration, and threat.  Because of her “yes” to God’s becoming man of her, Mary’s relationship to Jesus, even in the act of giving birth, should already be seen from the perspective of the eschatological salvation that came about in Christ.  The content of the faith statement, therefore, does not refer to physiologically, and empirically verifiable somatic details.  Rather, it recognizes already in the birth of Christ the initial signs {Vorzeichen} of the eschatological salvation of the Messianic end time which dawned with Jesus (cf. Is 66:7-10; Ezek 44:1 f.).  In any theological interpretation of Mary’s freedom from “pain” in the salvific event of the Savior’s birth, one should also take into account the biblically-based doctrine that Mary followed the way of the cross (Lk 2:35;  Jn 19:25).  With Mary as model, Christian spirituality recognizes in every birth, accepted by a woman in faith, an experience of the salvation that has come in the end time.

Karl Rahner interprets the faith-content of Mary’s virginitas in partu {virginity in giving birth} strikingly:

… the Church’s doctrine says, together with the authentic core of Tradition:  the (active) birth of Mary {i.e. her giving-birth} is (in terms of the Child and His Mother), like her conceiving, from the perspective of the total reality (as a holistic human act {ganzmenschlicher Akt} of this “Virgin”) even in itself (and not only as a result of the conception…) appropriate to this Mother, and, therefore, unique, miraculous, “virginal,” although this sentence (which in itself is comprehensible, however) does not make it possible for us to derive from it, in a manner that is certain and obligatory for everyone,  statements about specific details of this process. (Virginitas in partu = Rahner’s Schriften 4:173-205 at 205.)

COMMENTARY:
Gerhard Ludwig Müller’s Dogmatik is encyclopedic in its scope and method.  In each section, the dogma in question is stated briefly, sometimes in relation to another doctrine previously discussed.  A historical review typically follows, chronicling heresies and challenges to the doctrine, or describing its development.  One could call it a solidly Catholic application of the historical-critical method.  A section may conclude with the author’s own remarks, designed to make the dogma seem more plausible or fitting to the modern mindset.

The treatment is extensive rather than intensive; the author surveys the field (e.g. simply referencing several Church Fathers), and makes necessary distinctions, but does not try to explain the doctrine thoroughly, or to list supporting arguments.  Scripture is cited sparingly, but forcefully.  The focus is on binding Magisterial teaching, rather than theological schools or systems.  Despite the extreme compression of the writing, the German prose is generally clear and straightforward, occasionally elegant (a great improvement over the citations from Karl Rahner’s writings that frequently conclude a section).

Even a small sampling from the Dogmatik reveals several of its author’s preoccupations.  First, there is an apologetic purpose: defending Christian dogmas against academic attempts to explain them away, for instance, as variations on Egyptian or Greek myths.  The presentation of the doctrines shows considerable ecumenical sensitivity, with regard to both Eastern Orthodox and Protestant traditions and intellectual trends.  The occurrence of the term ganzmenschlich {holistic-human} twice in the section translated above, reflects a determination not to make a “body-soul dichotomy” (a modern objection implying that some dogmas are based on unsound philosophy).  Finally, the author scrupulously avoids citing “unscientific” arguments, rhetoric, or imagery from homilies, or spiritual writings, which may assist faith once it is professed, but do not define the object of faith, strictly speaking.

One example of such “flowery” devotional language (digressing for a moment from the topic of the Virgin birth) is the metaphor of “bloodline” used in connection with Mary’s motherhood.  While it is scripturally and historically true that Jesus is a Son of David, devotional praises of Our Lady have sometimes argued that, since Jesus Christ had no human father, he must have received his “royal blood” from her.  Some spiritual writers have even speculated that, in the absence of traits handed down from a father’s bloodline, Jesus must have had an extraordinary resemblance to his Mother.  This notion has persisted for centuries in Franciscan spirituality, and has even been heard from the pulpit during Masses broadcast by EWTN from Irondale, Alabama!

Of course, the findings of genetics prove that both of these devotional “beliefs” are utterly baseless.  Yet, modern science in no way diminishes the mystery.  We cannot explain how Jesus got his Y chromosome (or for that matter the set of 23 chromosomes that ordinarily comes from a human father), except to say with absolute certainty that God’s almighty power supplied it.

Returning to the matter of the Virgin birth:  this dogma has been the subject of countless hymns and homilies, and spiritual exegeses of numerous Old Testament passages, not directly concerned with messianic prophecy.  St. Luke, however, tells us only that Our Lady “gave birth to her first-born son” (2:7).  The Church’s official teaching is just as austere.  Mary’s virginity in giving birth is affirmed by many popes and councils (as Müller notes), but no explanation is offered in the Magisterial statements cited in a pre-Vatican-II edition of Denzinger’s Enchiridion. 5  The question about the manner of Christ’s birth is not thematized, or even suggested, in the patristic passages selected by Thomas Aquinas for his Catena Aurea for the initial chapters of Matthew and Luke, or in those cited by Cornelius à Lapide, S.J., in his encyclopedic Commentary on the Gospels.  The nearest thing to it is this passage from a Christmas homily by Gregory of Nyssa (Catena Aurea, at Luke 2:6-7):