The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

For ancient Jews the title “first-born” applied to the child who opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was this "first-born" son who was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Parents did not have to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first son the "first-born son." In regards to Jesus’ siblings, the Catechism says, “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” (500).

For an in-depth treatment see The Case for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

It’s true that there is a more precise Greek word for cousin (anepsios), but it’s not true that adelphos can only mean a biological sibling. In Matthew 23:8 Jesus told us to call one another brothers (adelphoi), but obviously not in the biological sense of the word. In Matthew 13:55-56 four men are named as brothers (adelphoi) of the Lord: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. But if these men weren’t Jesus’ biological brothers, then who were they?

In John 19:25 we read, "Standing by the foot of the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas [emphasis added], and Mary of Magdala." But Matthew 27:56 tells us that at the cross, “were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee." This means that “Mary’s sister, Mary the Wife of Cleophas” is the same person as “Mary, the mother of James and Joseph.” Since it would have been very strange for two biological sisters to both share the same name, the two Mary’s probably shared a more distant kin relationship (thus showing once again that adlephe does not always refer to a biological sibling)

Therefore, just because these men were called “brothers” does not mean they were Jesus’ biological brothers and, for at least two of them, the evidence points away from this conclusion.

In the Bible the word “until” means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point. It does not always mean the action happened later, as is common with the modern sense of this word. For example, 2 Samuel 6:23 says that, "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” Are we to assume she had children after her death? The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word "until" in Matthew 1:25. Even John Calvin, who denied Mary was ever-virgin, said that, “no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words [Matt. 1:25] of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ,” (Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke).

Even though a marriage is consummated on the marriage bed, it is valid the moment the vows have been spoken at the altar. The only difference is that once a marriage has been consummated it becomes indissoluble (or cannot be divorced. That is because upon consummation the man and woman “become one flesh” that God has joined and no man can divide (Matt 19:6). Therefore, Mary and Joseph had a valid marriage but it could have been dissolved since they never had sexual relations. This was an option Joseph briefly considered when he realized Mary was pregnant even though they had not had relations (Matt 1:19). However, an angel later told Joseph why Mary was pregnant and so this option was abandoned (Matt 1:20-21).

Celibacy among the Jews was not common in the first century, but neither was it unheard of as Scripture and tradition tell us that Jeremiah, Elijah and Elisha, Paul, and even Jesus himself were celibate. Certainly Mary and Joseph’s celibacy would have been unusual, but not as unusual as having a virgin give birth to a child, and not nearly as unusual as that child being the Son of God. The Holy Family was not an “average family” so we should not expect its members to act just like any other average family of that time. The circumstances surrounding the incarnation demanded sacrifice by Mary and Joseph. No greater dignity could be given to a marriage that, as St. Athanasius said in the fourth century, included the intervention of a God who “took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians, 2:70). 

"The Catholic position" does not hold that when the Bible refers to the brethren of Christ that they are his cousins. The Church holds only that Mary did not have any other children besides Christ. Who the brethren were is debatable--they might have been cousins, stepbrothers via Joseph, or they might have been adoptive children. Moreover, the main premise of the argument--that the New Testament says Elizabeth is Mary's cousin--is wrong. The translation being quoted does not accurately reflect the Greek.

The New Testament does not say that Elizabeth is Mary's cousin, the Greek word for which is anepsios. The word used in Luke 1:36 to describe Elizabeth is suggenes (pronounced su-gen-ace), which means kinswoman or relative (See Strong’s Concordance 4773). It tells us nothing about her exact relation within the extended family. All we can tell from the word suggenes is that Elizabeth was some kind of female relative of Mary's. But whether she was an aunt, a cousin, or a more distant relation cannot be determined from the word.

An early tradition preserved in the Protoevangelium of James says that Joseph was a widower who married the Virgin Mary later in life (after already having a family with his first wife). A later tradition says that Joseph was a virgin and that the "brothers" of Jesus were other relatives, perhaps cousins. Because we simply don’t know, Catholics are free to believe either tradition. All that is required of us to believe is that Mary remained a perpetual virgin, including throughout her marriage to Joseph.

The statement is problematic as it reads like an established fact when the Church has no official teaching on the physiological aspects of Jesus’ birth. What the Church does teach is that "Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity”

Ludwig Ott, in his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, explains that "The dogma merely asserts the fact of the continuance of Mary’s physical virginity without determining more closely how this is to be physiologically explained" (205). However, he goes on to say that in general, "the Fathers and Schoolmen conceived it as non-injury to the hymen, and accordingly taught that Mary gave birth in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and injury to the hymen, and consequently also without pains" (cf. Summa Theologiae III:28:2).