MORE ON PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY by Atty. Marwil Llasos of Defensores Fidei Foundation

The Virgin of Virgins - Mary of Nazareth

In the comments section of Fr. Abe Arganiosa’s blog, a blogger [castroj1] posted a comment regarding my article on perpetual virginity which Fr. Abe graciously published in his wonderful blog.

Here’s the link:

http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/03/bereans-poor-scholarship-shows-in-their.html

Actually, the blogger has two questions: (1) on Mary’s perpetual virginity, and (1) praying 10 Hail Marys for every one Our Father in the rosary. I will answer these questions separately. I hope that, with God’s grace, I will be able to clear up sum of the difficulties of Castroj1 (I’ll call the blogger by that name).

Before I proceed, I note that Castroj1 (I’ll call the blogger by that name) has a rather high regard for the Blessed Virgin Mary. He admits that Mary “was a great woman.” He also says that Mary is in Heaven. For him, “Mary is the most important woman mentioned in the bible as she was the mother of the Messiah (Jesus Christ).” Given his high regard for Mary, Castroj1 is able to conclude that “Mary was a great woman, and the issue of perpetual virginity to me is not important for who (s)he was nor does it affect the great respect that I have for her.”

Yet, it seems to me that despite Castroj1’s esteem for the Blessed Virgin Mary, he grapples with some difficulties about our Catholic teachings on Mary. As he himself candidly admitted: “I guess I have never understood why it is so important to say that she [Mary] remained a virgin forever.” He also confessed: “I don't see how it is OK to pray 9-10 times to her per each time we pray to God. It is almost as if she is 10 times more important than God.”

With my response, I hope and pray that God’s grace will enable Castroj1 to understand Catholic teachings on Mary.

On Mary’s perpetual virginity

I think that Castroj1 is an honest Christian. He only has difficulties which need to be resolved. I am glad that he came to the right sources to (hopefully) clear up his misconceptions.

Castroj1 says that he agrees “that the New Testament is not conclusive about the perpetual virginity of Mary.” However, he posits that “if I had to give it a percentage scale where 0% means that it is certain that Mary was always a virgin and 100% that it stopped being a virgin after Jesus birth; then I would choose 70%” [later on, however, he said that he came up with 65%]. What is his basis in saying so?

He avers: “However, I find that Mathew 1:25 seems to implicate (sic) that Joseph "knew" (in the biblical sense) Mary after Jesus was borned” (sic). By his very own admission, his basis in denying Mary’s perpetual virginity is a mere “implication” allegedly in Matthew 1:25 that Joseph knew Mary after Jesus was born.

Castroj1 expounds his point of view: “What can you say about Mt 1:25? I have seen this verse [translated] in Catholic bibles as if they were trying to minimize its impact. As a matter of fact, in the Jerusalem Bible (which I have in Spanish) this verse has a note that says that this verse by itself does not confirm the perpetual virginity of Mary. Then the verse goes on to say that the rest of the gospel as well as the tradition of the Church suppose it. The problem I see with this argument is that, they are basically saying that if you ignore this verse; then the rest of the gospel agrees with the hypotheses of perpetual virginity. But how can you ignore this verse and then make a conclusion about the gospel. It would be more appropriate to say that based on everything that the gospels say about Mary (including Mt 1:25), it is more likely (more than 50%) that Mary did have more children with Joseph that not.”

Well, it is obvious that Castroj1’s statement is full of errors, inaccuracies, misconceptions, if not misrepresentations. I shall respond briefly to each of the points raised.

“What can you say about Mt 1:25? I have seen this verse [translated] in Catholic bibles as if they were trying to minimize its impact.

Here, Castroj1 imputes bias or dishonesty on the Catholic Church in the translation of Catholic Bibles. Castroj1 accuses our Catholic translations of minimizing the impact of Matthew 1:25.

Nothing can be farther from the truth.

There is absolutely no need to “minimize the impact” of Matthew 1:25 as it has no impact whatsoever. Evangelical sources affirm this conclusion.

Evangelical Prof. Tim Perry comments in footnote 68, p. 57, of Mary for Evangelicals –

“In passing, I draw attention to Mt 1:25, which states that Joseph did not have sex with Mary “until she had borne a son.” In the light of passages concerning Jesus’ brothers (Mt 12:46-50; 13:54-58), readers may infer that Mt 1:25 assumes that Joseph and Mary engaged in sexual intercourse after Jesus’ birth, as a normal part of their marriage. However legitimate the inference, it is just that – an inference. Grammar and context both suggest that Matthew’s point is not to allude to Mary and Joseph’s assumption of a normal sexual relationship after Jesus’ birth, but to explicitly affirm one of chastity prior to it. It thus reemphasizes that Jesus can in no way be biologically connected to Joseph” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2006) p. 57, emphasis added]

So, what can I say about Matthew 1:25? It proves nothing against Mary’s perpetual virginity. As your own evangelical scholar himself admitted, the grammar and context of Matthew 1:25 suggest that Matthew’s point is not to allude to Mary and Joseph’s assumption of a normal sexual relationship after Jesus’ birth. Thus, to read into it anything that suggests that Joseph and Mary had sex after Christ’s birth is an unwarranted and unscriptural inference.

Since the basis of Castroj1’s 70% (or 65%, or more than 50% - he is not sure) position that Joseph and Mary had sex is Matthew 1:25, which, even evangelical scholars like Prof. Tim Perry admit that it doesn’t allude to Joseph and Mary’s assumption of sexual relationship after Jesus’ birth, therefore Castroj1’s position is back to 0%.

As a matter of fact, in the Jerusalem Bible (which I have in Spanish) this verse has a note that says that this verse by itself does not confirm the perpetual virginity of Mary. Then the verse (sic) goes on to say that the rest of the gospel as well as the tradition of the Church suppose it.

I don’t have the Spanish version of Jerusalem Bible but I have its English translation.

Matthew 1:25 of the Jerusalem version states: “and, though he had not had intercourse with her, she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.”

In footnote i, p. 35 of the Jerusalem Bible, it states –

“Lit. ‘and he did not know her until the day she gave birth.’ The text is not concerned with the period that followed and, taken by itself, does not assert Mary’s perpetual virginity which, however, the gospels elsewhere suppose and which the Tradition of the Church affirms. On the ‘brothers’ of Jesus, cf. 12:46+” [The Jerusalem Bible (Manila: Philippine Bible Society, 1966) p. 35].

We may thus note the inaccuracies of Castroj1. He sliced off portions of the footnote. He merely said that “this verse has a note that says that this verse by itself does not confirm the perpetual virginity of Mary.” In reality, the footnote explicitly states that “[t]he text is not concerned with the period that followed and, taken by itself, does not assert Mary’s perpetual virginity which, however, the gospels elsewhere suppose and which the Tradition of the Church affirms.”

The problem I see with this argument is that, they are basically saying that if you ignore this verse; then the rest of the gospel agrees with the hypotheses of perpetual virginity. But how can you ignore this verse and then make a conclusion about the gospel.

I think that the argument proffered by Castroj1 is a misrepresentation of what the footnote says. Nowhere is there a statement nor a clear implication that Matthew 1:25 has to be ignored in order for the rest of the gospel to agree with the “hypotheses” (sic) of perpetual virginity. The Catholic Church in no way ignores this verse, as in fact, this verse is so important for us Catholics because it proves the Virgin Birth or the Virginal Conception of Christ. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church points out that the use of “until” in Matthew 1:25, on both grammatical and contextual grounds, does not allude to marital relations between Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus Christ. As already pointed out, scholarly evangelical sources affirm this.

It would be more appropriate to say that based on everything that the gospels say about Mary (including Mt 1:25), it is more likely (more than 50%) that Mary did have more children with Joseph that (sic) not.”

No, it is not appropriate. In fact, it is even unbiblical. The cumulative biblical evidence points to the fact that your position that “Mary did have more children with Joseph than not” is more likely 0%.

Castroj1, like evangelical David Gustafson, rests his case against Mary’s perpetual virginity on the use of “until” in Matthew 1:25, among others. Mr. David Gustafson, in his debate with Catholic Dwight Longenecker, quickly admits as “absolutely not decisive” the Gospel accounts on whether or not “Mary and Joseph did consummate their marriage physically.” He says, “I admit that the Gospel accounts are not absolutely decisive on this point” [Dwight Longenecker and David Gustafson, Mary – A Catholic-Evangelical Debate (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2003) p. 65] So, if the Gospel accounts are not absolutely decisive, then what are?

Mr. Gustafson cannot present any conclusive or absolutely decisive scriptural support for the evangelical view that Mary and Joseph physically consummated their marriage after Jesus was born. Instead, he offered what he calls “indirect biblical evidence” that “tends against Mary’s perpetual virginity” [cf. Dwight Longenecker and David Gustafson, Mary – A Catholic-Evangelical Debate (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2003) p. 65] p. 70] Notice how similar Mr. Gustafson’s line of thinking with that of Castroj1.

What are these “indirect biblical evidence”? One is Matthew 1:25 which, according to Mr. Gustafson, “asserts” that Joseph “had no union with her [Mary] until she gave birth to a son.” He asked, “Does this imply that he did afterwards? Mr. Gustafson left his own question unanswered. Later on, however, he concluded: “As a reader of the English New Testament, I find that these details – even if they are not conclusive – add to my impression that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage” [Dwight Longenecker and David Gustafson, Mary – A Catholic-Evangelical Debate (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2003) p. 70, underscoring supplied].

Let’s summarize Mr. Gustafson’s arguments against Mary’s perpetual virginity based on the use of “until” in Matthew 1:25:

1. The Gospel accounts are not absolutely decisive on this point;

2. There is only “indirect biblical evidence” that “tends” against Mary’s perpetual virginity;

3. The use of “until” in Matthew 1:25 implies that Joseph did have union with Mary after Jesus was born;

4. The details in the English New Testament are not conclusive

5. Yet, they add to the “impression” that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage.

In short, the evangelical argument against Mary’s virginity based on Matthew 1:25 is “not absolutely decisive” because it rests only on “indirect biblical evidence” which merely “tends” against Mary’s perpetual virginity. The use of “until” in Matthew 1:25 only “implies” that Joseph had union with Mary after Jesus was born although it is “not conclusive” but nevertheless “adds” to the “impression” that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage.

Excuse me, but is this the best argument that evangelicalism has to offer? Arguments that are not absolutely decisive? Indirect biblical evidence? Tendency? Implication? Inconclusive details? Mere impression?

Mr. Gustafson’s frail and effete arguments against the perpetual virginity of Mary based on the use of “until” in Matthew 1:25 was easily demolished by Catholic apologist, Dwight Longenecker, thus –

“Matthew 1:25 does not necessarily mean that Mary and Joseph did “have union” after Jesus’ birth, since “until” does not always mean that a change took place after the noted event. (When I tell my children to “be good until I return home,” I don’t mean that they can start being bad after I arrive)” [p. 70].

In my response to Castroj1, I wish to amplify Mr. Longenecker’s arguments with scriptural and linguistic support.

I have had the occasion to write on this issue in my refutation of Rev. Anthony Pezzotta’s similar use of the “until” argument in Matthew 1:25 to assail the perpetual virginity of Mary (click: www.bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com). Like Rev. Pezzotta, Castroj1 also anchors his objection to Mary’s perpetual virginity on the word “until” in Matthew 1:25. Let me just share my answer here.

Link:

http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/search/label/Perpetual%20Virginity

Another argument that Pezzotta uses in attacking the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is the use of “until” in Matthew 1:25:

But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Pezzotta claims that “[t]his passage says that Joseph kept Mary a virgin until Jesus was born, but it does not suggest that he kept her a virgin after that.”[1] This is an unwarranted, if not malicious, assumption. Matthew was only stressing the point that Mary could not have been pregnant from St. Joseph. The immediate intention of Matthew was to prove the miraculous and virginal conception of Jesus and His virgin birth. Pezzotta is reading too much into the verse.

Since Dr. Pezzotta has an undergraduate degree in Greek, he ought to know that the Greek expression “heos hou” does not indicate change. It does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated. It only emphasizes the Virgin Birth. It simply states that Joseph had no relations with Mary before or during her pregnancy as can be plainly understood in the context. Matthew was not immediately concerned with discussing Mary’s continued virginity after the birth of Jesus.

Verse 25, the last verse in the first chapter of Matthew, is the summary or the bottom line of all the previous verses (verses 18-24) which relates how the conception of Jesus happened, without any intervention of Joseph. To interpret it other way - that Joseph had sexual relations with the Virgin Mary after the birth of Jesus - is to change the whole meaning of the chapter.

Closer Biblical study reveals that “until” does not imply change of status. On the contrary, it conveys perpetual or permanent condition. Consider the following verses:

2 Samuel 6:23

“Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.”

Does it mean that Michal had children after the day of her death?

Isaiah 46:4

“And even to your old age I am he; and even to hoar hairs will I carry you: I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you.”

Psalm 110:1; 1 Corinthians 15:25

“The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool” (Ps. 110:1).

“For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor.15:25).

Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Shall the reign of Our Lord stop after he has put all his enemies under his feet? No, because Jesus shall reign forever and ever (Rev. 22:1,3).

Matthew 28:20

“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

Does this mean that after the end of the world, Jesus will no longer be with his followers?

1 Timothy 4:13

“Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.”

Does this mean that when Paul arrived, Timothy had to stop attending to reading, exhortation and doctrine?

Genesis 26:13 “And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he became very great.”

Did the man become poor after he became very rich? No, the text merely says that the man collected money until he was very rich. The man did not start losing money after he became very rich.

Deuteronomy 2:15

“For indeed the hand of the LORD was against them, to destroy them from among the host, until they were consumed.”

Did the anger of God cease at their death? It’s unlikely, unless there is no life after death. They remain as God’s enemy even after their death.

2 Kings 6:25

“And there was a great famine in Samaria: and, behold, they besieged it, until an ass's head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of dove's dung for five pieces of silver.”

Did they lift the siege after the ass’s head was sold? The situation turned worse.

1 Chronicles 6:32

“And they ministered before the dwelling place of the tabernacle of the congregation with singing, until Solomon had built the house of the LORD in Jerusalem: and then they waited on their office according to their order.”

Did they stop ministering before the tabernacle after the temple was built? No, they continued afterwards not anymore in the tent but in the temple.

2 Chronicles 21:15

“And thou shalt have great sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day.”

Did the man get well after his bowels come out? He continued to be sick afterwards. In fact, his condition got even worse.

2 Chronicles 26:15

“And he made in Jerusalem engines, invented by cunning men, to be on the towers and upon the bulwarks, to shoot arrows and great stones withal. And his name spread far abroad; for he was marvelously helped, till he was strong.”

Did the man’s fame stop after ­he became strong? Did the man stop being strong when he was already strong?

Psalm 57:1

“Be merciful unto me, O God, be merciful unto me: for my soul trusteth in thee: yea, in the shadow of thy wings will I make my refuge, until these calamities be overpast.” After the calamities were over, did God cease to be merciful? No, for God’s mercy endures forever (Ps. 136).

Psalm 123:2

“Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their masters, and as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress; so our eyes wait upon the LORD our God, until that he have mercy upon us.”

Will they stop waiting upon the Lord after God had mercy on them?

Ecclesiastes 2:3

“I sought in mine heart to give myself unto wine, yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom; and to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven all the days of their life.”

After he has seen the good in the sons of men, did he stop searching for wisdom?

Ezekiel 24:13 “In thy filthiness is lewdness: because I have purged thee, and thou wast not purged, thou shalt not be purged from thy filthiness any more, till I have caused my fury to rest upon thee.”

After God has satisfied His fury, will those who have died be still purged for their filthiness?

Matthew 13:33

“Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.”

Did the woman take out the leaven after the flour was leavened?

Matthew 18:34

“And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.”

How can a man pay his debt while being tortured in prison? Here, “until” is actually used to indicate infinite duration.

2 Peter 1:19

“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.”

After the light has shone in the dark, the day dawned and the day star rose in our hearts, should we stop taking heed of the sure word of prophecy? Again, “until” means an infinite duration or a perpetual condition.

We can add more to the verses but that would be belaboring the obvious. I hope that Dr. Pezzotta already gets the point. In all the verses cited, the Bible is abundantly clear that no change of status is conveyed by “until.” On the contrary, it is a Hebraic way of expressing a permanent condition or state. Instead of negating Mary’s perpetual virginity, the expression “until” supports it.”

_____________________

[1] TE, p. 139.

____________________

I therefore ask Castroj1 if in the verses given, a change of status is conveyed by “until.” If no change is implied after the time indicated, then, biblically speaking, your argument holds no water.

CONCLUSION:

Castroj1 states: “To me, Mary was a great woman, and the issue of perpetual virginity to me is not important for who (s)he was nor does it affect the great respect that I have for her. I guess I have never understood why it is so important to say that she remained a virgin forever.”

Indeed, Mary was (and is) a great woman. Her perpetual virginity is part of who she was and of her greatness.

Castroj1 involves himself in big contradiction when he claims that the issue of perpetual virginity is not important for who Mary was nor does it affect the great respect Castroj1 has for her. If that is the case, then why is he openly opposed to Mary’s perpetual virginity if the same is not important for Mary’s identity? Why is Castroj1 so against it when, according to him, it does not affect the great respect he has for Mary? Why not just believe? Honestly, I just can’t understand where this double standard is coming from.

Our beloved brother Castroj1 also honestly acknowledged: “I guess I have never understood why it is so important to say that she remained a virgin forever.” I think that the reason why you don’t understand the importance of Mary remaining a virgin forever is that you allow your “protestant” or “evangelical” mindset to limit your appreciation of God’s truth as revealed in Scripture and constantly taught by His Church as shown by the unbroken Tradition of the Christian faith.

Castroj1 says he believes at least 70% that Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus’ birth and that she many children by Joseph. You see, Castroj1’s evangelical belief allows him 70% only of the truth. I thought that truth must be whole and entire – the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Truth brings us holiness, so it must be total: “Sanctify them in truth: thy word is truth” (Jn. 17:17). Truth must be total – 100% – otherwise it’s heresy if it’s only partial.

The beauty of Catholicism is that it has the splendor of truth – the pure, entire and unadulterated truth. We don’t accept the tyranny of relativism. We have the teaching authority of the Church to guide us. The Lord Himself solemnly declares: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt. 16:18-19). We believe the assurance of the Savior that He will never abandon His Church: “I will be with you always until the end of time” (Mt. 28:20). Thus, the Church cannot teach error because it has promise of the Lord that He will send the Spirit of Truth to guide it and to lead it into ALL the truth: “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all that I have said to you” (Jn. 14:26).

Unlike in protestantism and evangelicalism where you belong, there is no central teaching authority – everything is interpretation – hence, truth remains to be subjective and relative (and that is no truth at all). The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has a teaching authority as willed by its Divine Founder. Thus, when as doctrine is doubted or debated, the Church settles the issue once and for all, as in the case of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Truly, the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). When our leaders make a binding decision, we obey and submit them because it is written: “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account” (Heb. 13:17).

I guess I have never understood why it is so important to say that she remained a virgin forever.

Since you believe that Mary had many children, my question to you is: What is the theological significance of Mary having many children? Or, What is the Christological focus of your belief that Mary had many children?

Let me share with you the importance of Mary’s remaining a virgin forever.

For Catholics, dogmas are not sterile propositions. They contain multifaceted truths which affect other aspects of our faith life. In short, truth is interconnected.

The Catholic Church emphatically affirms the truth of Mary’s perpetual virginity because it is a corollary truth to the Virgin Birth of Our Lord. It is intended to safeguard the virginal conception of Jesus Christ which is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. The Virgin Birth points out the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Mary’s perpetual virginity is a sign of that uniqueness. Hence, God’s wisdom decreed Mary’s perpetual virginity to safeguard the Virgin Birth of Our Lord. An only child was unusual during the time of Christ. If Jesus were not the only child of Mary, His birth would not appear miraculous. If Jesus had brothers and sisters, the people of His time would always suspect that He was born the normal way.

Jesus' unique Sonship from Mary reflects His unique Sonship in eternity. Christ is the only-begotten Son of the Father, who begets Him eternally without the help of a mother. He is also the only Son of Mary, who conceives Him in time without the help of a man. It is also further affirmation of the holiness and Deity of Jesus. It would not have been fitting for the womb which bore the Savior to bring sinners into the world (which any hypothetical child of Joseph and Mary would have been). As the ancient Ark of the Covenant was consecrated for sacred use, so the New Ark could not be defiled by common usage.

Moreover, Jesus' unique Sonship from Mary reflects His unique Sonship in eternity. Christ is the only-begotten Son of the Father, who begets Him eternally without the help of a mother. He is also the only Son of Mary, who conceives Him in time without the help of a man.

An early church father, Theodotus of Ancyra (d. before 446 AD), saw the perpetual virginity of Mary as proof of the divinity of her Son. He said:

“No mother of a man has ever remained a virgin. Have you seen how this birth offers us a twofold consideration regarding the One who is born? If he had been born like us, he would have been a man, but if he kept his Mother a virgin, it is clear, for those who know how to think, that the One who is born is God” [Theodotus of Ancyra, Homily 2, cited in Luigi Gambero, S.M., Mary and the Fathers of the Church (San Francisco, California: Ignatius, 1999) pp. 262-263].

Pope Leo the Great (ca. 400-461) affirmed Mary’s perpetual virginity in its incarnational context in his letter to the Bishop of Constantinople:

“He was truly conceived of the Holy Spirit within the womb of his Virgin Mother, who bore him while preserving her virginity just as, preserving her virginity, she conceived him … Fecundity was given to the Virgin by the Holy Spirit, but the reality was taken from her body … He was born in a “new type of birth” in that undefiled virginity experienced no concupiscence, yet supplied the material for the flesh. From the Mother the Lord took his nature, but no fault; and the Lord Jesus Christ, born from a virgins womb, does not have a nature different from ours just because his birth was an unusual one” [Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 22: 25 December 441; quoted in Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 159].

Evangelical Prof. Tim Perry, in assessing the patristic teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity, states: “It is in these christological and soteriological contexts that Mary’s virginity – whether ante partum, in partu or post partum – arises” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 150].

Simply, the focus of the Catholic Church in teaching Mary’s perpetual virginity is on Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Mary, and not on Mary herself.

I hope that this article will help clear some of the doubts and difficulties of our beloved brother Castroj1. I just would like to hasten to add that there’s much for him to learn about the beauty and splendor of the Catholic faith. I invite him to consider and study our Faith with an openness of mind and heart to the gentle voice of the Spirit of Truth. Come on over, brother!