On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Mother of Jesus

  There is a presupposition among Protestant believers that the Catholic Church has a habit of building up traditions over time. This habit wants too keep adding dogmas that must be accepted on faith, because of the Church's authority. Indeed, the split in 1517 was a direct result of a spurious dogma that the Church later revised and repudiated in practice. One could cite more such accretions, mostly harmless, but doing so would prove very little.

  In "modern" times, the question has been raised as to whether Mother Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. It has been said that the Bible notes several "brothers and sisters" of our Lord in the Gospels. Further, there is a distinct lack of biographical background in the story of Joseph, and virtually no discussion of Jesus' home life as a child or as a young adult. 

  It is almost a truism to say that the human mind abhors a vacuum, so it is no surprise to hear stories or create implications based on our natural human presuppositions. There were pseudo-gospels written centuries later to fill the gaps, but none spoke up to despoil Mary's perfect reputation. 

  This doubt is actually directed against Joseph, whether he could have kept Mary in her state of innocence for decades in his home. We don't even know for sure that he lived for long after Jesus' episode in the Temple, though we might presume that he witnessed his Bar Mitzvah. There is no discussion of Joseph's relations with Mary, marital or otherwise. It's not essential to the Gospel. Personally, I find it a bit rude to lay such a charge against Joseph's equally spotless reputation, and I want to defend him.

  The argument that "incriminating" evidence has to be picked apart one piece at a time really only works if it requires multiple interventions to clear someone's name. If there is a single explanation that covers all of the objections, then it should be held in equal regard to the accusation of "natural presupposition." 

  The Protestant "sola scriptura" position that says the Bible allows for Jesus to have biological siblings may be credible on the surface, but it lacks respect for tradition. I generally want to agree with Sola Scriptura for questions arising after the Great Schism in 1054, but for earlier issues, I want to defer to the Ecumenical Councils, and especially the teachings of the Apostles and their direct students. 

  Now, let's get into the argument on this topic.

  1. We are talking about exceptionally pious people in this case. It fits perfectly for Joseph to have lots of kids before he married Mary, and that he did so because he needed help to raise them. Choosing a young woman in her middle teens, who spent more time in prayer than in chasing boys, would make good sense. 

  2. It also fits that the culture of the Jews in the first century regarded all of the cousins as if they were siblings because they gathered for the festivals several times every year. They might even share the kids around with aunts and uncles, staying in each other's homes, for bonding or convenience. 

  3. It is equally likely that Joseph died once Jesus reached teen-age years, and all of his kids were regarded as belonging to Mary because she was the surviving parent. It might be considered bad taste to say they were Joseph's kids instead of Mary's. 

  But all of this is a normal case study for Judaean culture in the 1st century. Nothing is unexpected or convoluted to happen to clear Joseph's name. Older siblings and cousins are nothing unusual.

  4. In fact, if you were Joseph, and Mary had clearly been wed to God, and had borne God's Son, despite the legality of having visibly married her, do you think you would dare to violate the sanctity of the virgin who birthed God's Son? She is clearly dedicated, set apart for God, to be regarded as holy ground. I doubt that this pious husband, who sees visions, would cross that line. God doesn't divorce, so she is still His.

  5. On the cross, Jesus tells John to take Mary as his mother, which he need not have done if his "brothers and sisters" were around to care for her. He clearly thought that She would be better off if kept by his favorite disciple, as his relatives were not yet believers. None of his "presupposed siblings" felt enough filial piety to accompany Mary and witness his execution, but John did. 

  In conclusion, I have to agree with the ancient tradition that Mary remained a perpetual virgin. Given the normal social relations among the Jews in the Galilee and Judaea, with many festivals on the calendar observed as family gatherings, the collected cadre of siblings and cousins would blend into one extended family.

  The story was likely to be real, in my opinion. What remotely religious person, much less one chosen by God for his piety and observance of the Law, would have dared to make free use of the woman he was given to protect and care for her son? The claim for Mary's perpetual virginity isn't just a pious fiction. Rather it seems quite likely to be true, and it could have originated from among the apostles, even Mary herself, if anyone had asked. And as such, it's as authoritative as anything the Church has taught.

. 

The Collapse and Return of Civilisation

What are the elements that give way as a civilization declines into oblivion, such that centuries are required for recovery? First, let us begin by noting that civilization doesn't fall all at once because knowledge is destroyed. Barbarians don't destroy cities because they hate civilization. They conquer them because they want their share of the wealth, and books are valuable items. Indeed, they often contain the knowledge of how wealth is built. So, if a library burns, it was likely an accident, or if not, it was someone's stupidity.

But civilizations do fall, sometimes so slowly that no one sees the decline, and no one sounds an alarm. They break down one step at a time, as critical elements fall into disuse, or hit a snag that prevents a function for a season. When people learn to get by without some hard-to-get item, they forget why they needed it. Hardship can become normal in a decade or two. 

These are the steps by which previous civilizations declined. Some even fell so far that their legends were forgotten.

1. Foreign trade in essential supplies

2. Skills for producing utilitarian needs

3. Security for trade economics

4. Monumental architecture 

5. Bureaucratic record keeping 

6. Currency production 

7. Education in culture 

8. Glory lost beyond memory 

Civilization is vulnerable whenever keystone essential skills are dependent upon certain trade goods that can be cut off, or when they are under contract to a single payer or limited customer base. If demand ceases, and no one wants the product of a skill, no one will practice it, and no one will teach a new generation of artisans. Then all of the observed tacit knowledge that isn't written down but only shared in practice will be lost.

There is never a decision to abandon a capability, but only a year or two in which there are other needs more important than continuing it in production. This goes on just long enough for the people who understood how to do it move into other jobs, or die without passing on their knowledge. Then, if there isn't enough basic infrastructure to reconstruct the process from analyzing old products, there will be no one capable of continuing it. Future generations will have to rebuild it from scratch.  

Each generation looks at the current level of capabilities and establishes it as their recognized baseline. Whether it goes up or down, the capacity will be measured against that baseline. Thus, the decline, or rise, does not seem as dramatic up close as it would if seen from a longer perspective, but rises or falls on a gradual scale of about thirty years.

The recovery also must proceed in stages, regaining each element in order. Each generation pulls itself up, one step at a time, trying to build on hopeful imagination for greater things yet to arise in a more glorious future. But always, what they now experience in the field before them places limits upon what they imagine to be currently possible. 

1. Rudimentary consumer production 

2. Substitutions for lost supplies 

3. Centralized authority 

4. Acceptable currencies 

5. Foreign exchange 

6. Long distance security for trade 

7. Educated classes 

8. Demand for sophisticated products.

There is rarely possible any great leap forward without strong leadership imposing a drastic reorganization for a new vision and drawing capabilities into a new focus. This will inevitably wait for the governing authority to perceive that opportunity exists for a monumental achievement. In the meantime, society must regather itself gradually. 

The real danger of a prolonged dark age arises when there is no one who remembers that we were ever able to do such a thing in the past, and any records of it having been done come to be regarded as legend or fantasy. Even visible ruins can come to be regarded as the work of long dead giants. At that point, centuries can roll by without anyone dreaming of rising beyond their daily mundane experience. 

Remember, a dark age rarely happens because some barbarian conqueror smashes and burns a city holding a precious library. It doesn't happen because knowledge is destroyed. Rather, it happens because no one wants to buy a specialized product made by a skilled artisan. It gets neglected this year, then for a decade or so, because there are more pressing matters that need to be attended to. Maybe, the next time it's recalled to mind is by someone's grandfather reminiscing about his glory days, and by then it's too late. No one remembers how it was done. Then, in a few more generations, no one bothers to tell their children that the world used to be more wonderful. The memories will be gone. 

.