Mary: Pain During Birth of Jesus
Mary/Saints
Mary: Did She Experience Pain During Jesus’ Birth
Posted: 02/25/2026
Updated: 02/28/2026
STOSS Books
Table of Contents
Introduction
I have seen many movies depicting Mary writhing in labor pain during the delivery of her son, Jesus. The latest example is The Chosen, a television series created, directed, and co-written by Dallas Jenkins. In Jenkins’ version, Mary’s character, played by Vanessa Benavente, delivers a line that further supports the interpretation that Jesus’ birth was the same as that of any human woman subject to the consequences of original sin. For example, she talks about wiping the postpartum blood off of Jesus’ body. This understanding of the Nativity is virtually unanimous among later historical Protestants. Many at the time of the Reformers (late 1500s) held to the view expressed by the Council of Trent, as outlined in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, also known as the Roman Catechism (see §2:B:3 of this article).
However, it should be noted that movies promoted by Catholic media as being “Catholic-friendly” and in which Catholics formed a significant part of the creative team, e.g., producer, director, writers, etc., conveyed the same message as does Jenkins. Examples are: Jesus of Nazareth (1977, directed by Catholic Franco Zeffirelli), Mary (2024, directed by D. J. Caruso), and The Nativity Story (2006, directed by Catherine Hardwicke).
I cringe every time I encounter such portrayals. I am astounded by how many Catholics are unaware of the Church’s teaching on this matter. Some have characterized the “no pain” belief as merely a theological or speculative opinion. The Church’s teaching on this topic is far from mere opinion, speculation, or otherwise.
In fact, proponents of the ordinary Magisterial teaching contained within the pages of the Church’s first universal Catechism include Fathers of the Church, early Christian writers, mystics of the Church, Councils, Popes, Church Dogma, theologians, philosophers, and more. Further contributing positively to the teaching are the biological sciences. I believe this article is a reasonably comprehensive treatment of the “no pain during childbirth” debate.
§1–Sources Supporting Mary’s Lack of Pain During Jesus’ Birth
§1:A–Early Christian Writings
Taylor Marshall writes:
After a little research, I discovered that of the 33 Doctors of the Church, none deny the painless and intact nativity of Christ. Moreover, at least 20 of the Doctors of the Church explicitly affirm that the birth of Christ was painless and miraculously left Mary’s physical virginity intact.
The following represent only a few such examples of the no-pain belief:
§1:A:1–Aquinas (written 1265 to 1273):
St Thomas Aquinas writes:
On the contrary, Augustine says (Serm. de Nativ. [Supposititious]), addressing himself to the Virgin-Mother: “In conceiving thou wast all pure, in giving Birth thou wast without pain.
I answer that, The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above [i.e., see III, Q. 28, A. 2, Replies to objections 1-3], that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage [i.e., her physical virginity remained intact before, during, and after delivery]. Consequently, there was no pain in that Birth [see §3:A:1 and §3:A:1:a of this article, wherein the biology of labor pain is explained], as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that God-Man “was born into the world,” according to Is. 35:1,2: “Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise.”[1]
In Objection 3 of Article 6, Aquinas cites one assertion used against the no-pain teaching. He writes:
Further, in the book on the birth of our Saviour [Protevangelium Jacobi xix, xx] it is related that midwives were present at Christ’s birth; and they would be wanted by reason of the mother’s suffering pain. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin suffered pain in giving birth to her Child.[2]
However, citing St. Jerome, Aquinas responds to Objection 3:
We are told (Luke 2:7) that the Blessed Virgin herself “wrapped up in swaddling clothes” the Child whom she had brought forth, “and laid Him in a manger.” Consequently, the narrative of this book [i.e., Protevangelium Jacobi], which is apocryphal, is untrue. Wherefore Jerome says (Adv. Helvid. iv): “No midwife was there, no officious women interfered. She was both mother and midwife. ‘With swaddling clothes,’ says he, ‘she wrapped up the child, and laid Him in a manger.’ ” These words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings.[3]
Now seems an appropriate time to ask the question: Why did God deem it proper to maintain Mary’s physical and intact virginity, including a painless delivery, during the Nativity? Aquinas answers this question when he writes:
Without any doubt whatever we must assert that the Mother of Christ was a virgin even in His Birth: for the prophet says not only: “Behold a virgin shall conceive,” but adds: “and shall bear a son.” This indeed was befitting for three reasons. First, because this was in keeping with a property of Him whose Birth is in question, for He is the Word of God. For the word is not only conceived in the mind without corruption, but also proceeds from the mind without corruption. Wherefore, in order to show that body to be the body of the very Word of God, it was fitting that it should be born of a virgin incorrupt. Whence in the sermon of the Council of Ephesus (quoted above) we read: “Whosoever brings forth mere flesh, ceases to be a virgin [see the biology of pain in §3:A:1 and §3:B:1:e through §3:B:1:e:iii]. But since she gave birth to the Word made flesh, God safeguarded her virginity so as to manifest His Word, by which Word He thus manifested Himself: for neither does our word, when brought forth, corrupt the mind; nor does God, the substantial Word, deigning to be born, destroy virginity.”
Secondly, this is fitting as regards the effect of Christ’s Incarnation: since He came for this purpose, that He might take away our corruption. Wherefore it is unfitting that in His Birth He should corrupt His Mother’s virginity. Thus Augustine says in a sermon on the Nativity of Our Lord: “It was not right that He who came to heal corruption, should by His advent violate integrity.”Thirdly, it was fitting that He Who commanded us to honor our father and mother should not in His Birth lessen the honor due to His Mother.[4]
Supporting the understanding that Mary did not suffer the pain of childbirth, it was revealed to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich in a vision that all mankind, before the fall and still fully experiencing (to the degree possible for one not yet experiencing the beatific vision) the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, were intended to be born the same way as Jesus in Bethlehem.[5]
§1:A:2–The Book: Ascension of Isaiah (written early to mid‑2nd century)
Tim Staples writes:
This book “is a composite work comprising three originally distinct writings, the Martyrdom of Isaiah . . . which is of Jewish origin; a Christian apocalypse, known as the Testament of Ezekiel; and the Vision of Isaiah, also of Christian origin.”[6]
The Ascension of Isaiah also dates back to the first and second centuries, and the Jewish part perhaps to before the first century. It is noteworthy that it appears to have been alluded to in the New Testament in Hebrews 11:37. In the midst of referencing the great and heroic virtue of men and women of the Old Covenant, the inspired author of Hebrews here mentions that “they were sawn in two,” just as the Ascension of Isaiah recounts of Isaiah. This work shows heavy Gnostic influences, but because Scripture most likely alludes to it, it is worth considering:
“And while they were alone, Mary looked up and saw a little child, and she was frightened. And at that very moment her womb was found as it had been before she had conceived.”[7]
§1:A:3–Protoevangelium of James (A.D. 140)
Tim Staples writes:
This text was quoted often by Fathers of the Church and is definitely Christian. It is this ancient writer who gave us our traditional names of Mary’s parents, Anne and Joachim. In it, there is a graphic depiction of the birth of the Lord. In his book Mary and the Fathers of the Church, Luigi Gambero writes:
The absence of labor pains and the sometimes crudely realistic examinations carried out by the midwife and a woman named Salome, who was then punished for her unbelief, confirm Mary’s virginity in the act of giving birth. At the same time, the realism with which the Lord’s birth is described leads one to think that the apocryphal gospel means to oppose the error of Gnostic Docetism, which considered Christ’s body to be a mere appearance or phantasm.[8]
Because this work was anti-Gnostic in nature, it gives a strong argument for the belief of Christians to coincide with Gnostics concerning this matter of Mary’s freedom from labor pains. As Gambero mentioned, the author went to great lengths to make it clear that Jesus possessed an actual body and Mary was actually pregnant yet that she gave birth in a miraculous fashion.[9]
§1:A:4–St. Irenaeus (written circa A.D. 170–190)
Citing Isaiah, St. Irenaeus writes:
For Behold, He saith, the virgin shall conceive and shall bring forth a son;(Isa. 7:14 and He, being God, is to be with us. And, as if altogether astonished at these things, he proclaims in regard to these future events that With us shall be God. And yet again concerning His birth the same prophet says in another place: Before she that travailed gave birth, and before the pains of travail came on, she escaped and was delivered of a man-child [Isa 66:7; see Note below].[10]
Note: According to the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (ICSB) note for Is. 66:7, the first half of this passage refers to Zion, not Mary’s labor. The Note for the second half states, “Mary conceived the Son of God . . . by the will of the Father and the working of the Spirit. Although she gave birth at the normal time according to the law of pregnancy, it surpassed the normal laws of birth because it was painless.”[11]The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: Old and New Testament (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2024), 1259; ISBN: 978-158617-614-3 (Leather Bound edition).
§1:A:5–St. Gregory of Nyssa (circa A.D. 380)
St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote:
His conception did not result from the union of two humans; his birth was not polluted in any way; there were no labor pangs; his bridal chamber was that of the power [i.e., the action of the Holy Spirit] of the Most High, which covered virginity like a cloud; the bridal torch was the splendor of the Holy Spirit; his bed was a personal condition devoid of vices; his nuptials were incorrupt . . . his birth alone occurred without labor pains[*]. . . . “Before the pangs of birth arrived, a male child came forth and was born” (Isa. 66:7).[12]
St. Gregory’s writings and the Protoevangelium of James (see §1:A:3) provide support for the belief that Mary did not suffer labor pains, a belief that extends back to at least the second, fourth, and subsequent centuries.
[*]To further see the necessary relationship of “no pain” and the Holy Spirit, see Sections 1:A;5, 1:A:9, 3:D:1:f:i-iii, and the quote from Msgr. Calkins in §1:C:4:a.
§1:A:6–St. Peter Chrysologus (circa A.D. 430):
St. Peter Chrysologus writes:
She conceives as a virgin, she gives birth as a virgin, and she remains a virgin. Therefore, her flesh knows the power of the miracle but does not know pain. In giving birth, it gains in integrity and knows nothing of physical suffering.[13]
§1:A:7–St. John of Damascus (circa A.D. 730):
As cited by Taylor Marshall, St. John Damascene writes:
Again, we see the three components vital for belief in Mary’s painless delivery of Jesus: 1) Mary’s freedom from original sin and, therefore, possessing the preternatural gifts (see §3:D:1:f:i), 2) the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in one in the state of Original Justice, and 3) one whose virginity is physically intact. These interdependencies are shown throughout this article.How can death claim as its prey this truly blessed one, who listened to God’s word in humility, and was filled with the Spirit, conceiving the Father’s gift through the archangel, bearing without concupiscence or the co-operation of [mortal] man[,] the Person of the Divine Word, who fills all things, bringing Him forth without the pains of childbirth, being wholly united to God? . . . It was fitting that the body of her, who preserved her virginity intact in childbirth, should be kept from corruption even after death. She who nursed her Creator as an infant at her breast, had a right to be in the divine tabernacles. . . . It was fitting that she who saw her Son die on the cross, and received in her heart the sword of pain which she had not felt in childbirth, should gaze upon Him seated next to the Father.[14]
§1:A:8–St. Bonaventure (circa A.D. 1259–1274)
St. Bonaventure tells us:
O God, my God: I will glorify thee by Thy Mother. For she hath conceived thee in virginity: and without travail [i.e., labor pains] she hath brought Thee forth.[15]
§1:A:9–Pope Alexander III (1169):
Pope Alexander III writes:
[Mary] indeed conceived without shame, gave birth without pain, and went hence without corruption, according to the word of the angel, or rather (the word) of God through the angel, so that she should be proved to be full, not merely half filled, with grace and (so that) God her Son should faithfully fulfill the ancient commandment that he had formerly given, namely, to treat one’s father and mother with honor.[15-A]
§1:A:10–Pope St. John Paul II
Pope St. John Paul II points out that the Catechism of Trent, as part of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church, teaching about Mary’s absence of labor pains, is validated by the inclusion of said teaching in the Preface of the second Mass of “Mary at the Foot of the Cross” published in the Collection of Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Msgr. Calkins writes:
Here the Pope [St. John Paul II], in effect, proposes a datum of the tradition, i.e., that while Mary gave birth to Jesus in a painless way, her intense sufferings in union with Jesus on Calvary were the birth pangs by which she “begets as her children all those who become [his] disciples.” This truth is magnificently synthesized in the preface of the second Mass of “Mary at the Foot of the Cross” published in the Collection of Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary:
[Quoting the Sacramentary,] “In your divine wisdom you planned the redemption of the human race and decreed that the new Eve should stand by the cross of the new Adam: as she became his mother by the power of the Holy Spirit, so, by a new gift of your love, she was to be a partner in his passion, and she who had given him birth without the pains of childbirth was to endure the greatest of pains in bringing forth to new life the family of your Church [emphasis intended].”[16]
This quote in the Sacramentary is from the Preface of the second Mass of “Mary at the Foot of the Cross,” and was used in the Latin rite before the revisions of Vatican II.
That the understanding of Mary’s lack of pain during childbirth represented the true belief and teaching of the entire Church can be seen in light of the USCCB’s own words. They write (all bolded emphasis added):
Lex orandi, lex credendi has become something of a tenet of liturgical theology, especially in the years since the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Literally translated, it means ‘the law of prayer [is] the law of belief.’ The original version of the phrase, ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi (“that the law of praying establishes the law of believing”), highlighted the understanding that the Church’s teaching (lex credendi) is articulated and made manifest in the celebration of the liturgy and prayer (lex orandi). We understand this to mean that prayer and worship is the first articulation of the faith.[17]
Through the above, it can be seen that the truth of the universal ordinary Magisterial teaching of the Catechism of Trent was reinforced via its inclusion in the Liturgy of the Mass.
The key question is: Would the Church include speculative opinion in any part of the Liturgy? Now, one may say that the Liturgy of the Mass is subject to change, which it is. But the assertion must be responded to with the question: How is ‘change’ being defined by the one making the assertion? I’m not aware of any liturgical change that would contradict a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church, i.e., in this case, the Universal Catechism of the Council of Trent (§2:B:3 and §2:B:4).[17-A]
In the Church, change can occur, termed “doctrinal development.” This term means the Church’s teaching regarding doctrine deepens, resulting in a clearer and deeper expression of the same divinely revealed truths held over time, without changing those truths into something different.
Fr. Thomas Weinandy provides a concrete example when he writes,
The Council of Nicaea is then a true development of doctrine, not because the doctrine was changed, but because the council fathers conceived and articulated the doctrine in a manner that could be more clearly understood (though not fully comprehended). Unlike Arius’s false “development,” which dissolved the mystery of the Trinity, the Trinity remained a mystery of the faith.[18]
What Fr. Thomas Weinandy teaches about the development of doctrine at the Council of Nicea also applies to a different Council—the Council of Trent. The Catechism of the Council of Trent (also known as the Roman Catechism) is an ordinary Magisterial teaching that holds that Mary’s painless delivery of Jesus was a miracle. One that resulted in Mary’s virginal integrity remaining intact before, during, and after delivery. A delivery free from pain. This point will be defended many times in subsequent sections of this article. See §2:B:3 through §2:B4:d for an understanding of the teaching authority of a universal catechism.
§1:B–Scripture Passages
Let us now look at two Scripture passages that support Mary’s painless birth of Jesus.
§1:B:1–Isaiah 66:7
Isaiah writes, “Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son.” In this passage, both “Before she was in labor” and “before her pain” refer to the sword that shall pierce Mary’s heart as prophesied by Simeon (Luke 2:35). It does not refer to the labor pains resulting from a vaginal delivery of Jesus.
As the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (ICBS) stated in §1:A:4, the first half of this passage refers to Zion, not Mary’s labor. The Note for the second half states, “Mary conceived the Son of God . . . by the will of the Father and the working of the Spirit. Although she gave birth at the normal time according to the law of pregnancy, it surpassed the normal laws of birth because it was painless.”[19]
§1:B:2–Luke 2:7
Luke 2:7 states:
Some critics say that Mary “brought forth” Jesus, implying she experienced labor pains, but Aquinas and St. Jerome refute this.[20]And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.
§1:C–Credible Mystics
Genesis 3:16 tells us, “To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.’ ” This passage seems to indicate that a woman, still in the state of original justice, would experience some level of pain. But is that an accurate interpretation?
In §3:A:1 and §3:A:1:a, we learn about the physiological causes of pain during vaginal deliveries. By knowing the biochemical causes of labor pain, one can more accurately see why the Dogma of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity supports the Church’s teaching of both the miraculous birth and a pain-free delivery.[21]
As seen below and throughout this article, three points affirm this article’s topic:
1) In §3:D:1:f:ii, we see that “greatly multiply” does not mean that, even if Eve had not sinned, she would still experience ‘some’ pain during childbirth;2) In §3:B:1:e, we learn that if Mary had given birth to Jesus through a standard vaginal, i.e., non-miraculous, delivery, her physical virginal integrity could not have remained intact. Now, one could claim that a miraculous delivery could preserve her virginity intact while still allowing for pain in childbirth, but that would contradict what Aquinas taught[22] in response to the rhetorical question: Why did God deem it proper to maintain Mary’s physical and intact virginity, including a painless delivery, and;3) Advocating that Mary suffered pain in childbirth would contradict over twenty centuries of consistent teaching within the Church, including the Dogmatic definition of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, on the part of mystics, Church Fathers, Popes, Councils, Synods, and a Universal Catechism.
As Dr. Taylor Marshall wrote:
For anyone who would deny the painless and intact nativity of Christ, let us challenge you to produce a citation from any saint or pope who teaches otherwise–that is a text that affirms that the nativity of the Christ Child caused pain to Mary and broke her physical virginity.
In the following sections, let’s examine credible mystics who were shown the Nativity of Jesus.
§1:C:1–St. Hildegard of Bingen
St. Hildegard of Bingen is a Doctor of the Church. What weight does that carry for her writings? Theresa Horvat writes:
The Catholic Church confers the title of doctor on saints who have made significant contributions to theology and doctrine. While not identified as infallible, their doctrinal writings and teachings hold special authority and have the depth and breadth to transcend time and culture [emphasis added].
Matthew Muller, Ph.D., associate professor of theology at Benedictine College in Atchison, elaborates:
To be declared a doctor of the church means that a person’s thought has had a significant influence on the magisterium (teaching authority/role) of the church. The doctors have continuing relevance and provide insights into divine revelation that are of enduring significance to the church.[23]
Further, Barbara J. Newman, in the “Introduction” to Scivias, writes:
Not only does Hildegard lapse easily from speaking about God in the third person, as preacher, to speaking for him in the first person, as prophet; she also claims direct verbal inspiration for her entire opus and threatens terrible divine vengeance on anyone who dares to add, delete or alter a word.[24]
Both Hildegard of Bingen and Catherine of Siena are often described as God’s secretaries[25] who, presumably, do not take dictation incorrectly. It should be added, however, that, just as it is with Scripture translations, the accuracy of each translation of her words should be factored into the judgment of the claims made by Newman concerning Hildegard’s meaning.
Relaying the words of God’s explanation of Psalm 44:3 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition), St. Hildegard wrote:
[T]he body of the Son of Man was born more purely than other people, for the stainless Virgin bore her Son in ignorance of sin, and thus ignorant of the sorrow of childbirth. How? She never felt any stubborn urge to sin, and therefore the pains of childbirth were unknown to her; but the wholeness of her body rejoiced within her.[26]
Paraphrasing the words of God to St. Hildegard: ‘ignorance of sin’, i.e., freedom from original sin, equates with ‘freedom from pain in childbirth’. The Catechism of Trent is a part of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church (§2:B:4:b through §2:B:4:d). It teaches that Mary experienced no pain in childbirth. Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich revealed that all mankind, while free from original sin, would have been born in the same way (see also Augustine’s quote in §3:D:1:f:ii, Aquinas in §1:A:1, and Miraville’s citations in §2:B:3:b). This gift during the Nativity would be given as part of the preternatural gifts conferred on Adam and Eve and on all their descendants who remain in the perfect state of original justice.
§1:C:2–St. Bridget of Sweden
Describing the Nativity of Jesus, St. Bridget of Sweden wrote:
[Mary] stood with uplifted hands, and eyes fixed on Heaven, rapt as it were, in an ecstasy [cf. ecstasy in §1:C:4; §1C:4:a; and §3:D:1:f:i] of contemplation, inebriated with the divine sweetness. And while she thus stood in prayer, I beheld her Child move in her womb, and at once in a moment, and in the twinkling of an eye, she brought forth her Son, from whom such ineffable light and splendor radiated, that the sun could not be compared to it; nor did the torch which the old man had set, in any manner give light, because that divine splendor had totally annihilated the material splendor of the torch, and so sudden and momentary was that mode of bearing, that I could not perceive or discern how, or in what part she brought forth. Nevertheless, I immediately beheld that glorious Babe lying naked and most pure on the ground, His flesh most clean from all filth or impurity[, i.e., blood, placental fluid, etc., which directly contradicts the Mary character’s dialogue in Jenkin’s The Chosen].[27]
§1:C:3–Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich
Explaining her vision of the Nativity of Jesus, Emmerich wrote:
THE light which surrounded the Blessed Virgin became more and more brilliant: the light of the lamp prepared by Joseph could not be seen. When the hour of midnight arrived Mary was transported in an ecstasy [cf. ecstasy in §1:C:4; §1C:4:a; and §3:D:1:f:i]. I saw her raised a certain height from the ground; she had her hands crossed upon her breast. The light kept increasing around her; everything seemed to feel a joyful emotion, even things inanimate. The rock which formed the floor and the wall of the grotto were, as it were, alive with light. But soon I saw no more of the roof; a luminous path, whose brightness continually increased, went from Mary to the highest heaven. Then was there a marvelous movement of the celestial glories, which, approaching nearer and nearer, appeared distinctly under the form of the angelic choirs. The Blessed Virgin, raised from the earth in her ecstasy, prayed and turned her eyes to her God, of whom she had become the mother, and who, a feeble new-born infant, was lying on the ground before her.[https://www.ecatholic2000.com/anne/nat12.shtml#:~:text=THE%20light%20which]
§1:C:4–Venerable Mary of Agreda
According to Venerable Mary of Agreda:
The most holy Mary remained in this ecstasy [cf. ecstasy in §1:C:4; §1C:4:a; and §3:D:1:f:i] and beatific vision for over an hour immediately preceding her divine delivery. At the moment when she issued from it and regained the use of her senses she felt and saw that the body of the infant God began to move in her virginal womb; how, releasing and freeing Himself from the place which in the course of nature He had occupied for nine months, He now prepared to issue forth from that sacred bridal chamber. This movement not only did not cause any pain or hardship, as happens with the other daughters of Adam and Eve in their childbirths; but filled her with incomparable joy and delight, causing in her soul and in her virginal body such exalted and divine effects that they exceed all thoughts of men. Her body became so spiritualized with the beauty of Heaven that she seemed no more a human and earthly creature. Her countenance emitted rays of light, like a sun incarnadined, and shone in indescribable earnestness and majesty, all inflamed with fervent love. . . . [after delivery] leaving her untouched in her virginal integrity and purity and making her more godlike and forever sacred; for He did not divide, but penetrated the virginal chamber as the rays of the sun penetrate the crystal shrine, lighting it up in prismatic beauty. The infant God therefore was brought forth from the virginal chamber unencumbered by any corporeal or material substance foreign to Himself. . . . participating in the gifts of glory in the same way as happened afterwards in His Transfiguration on mount Tabor [see also https://www.stossbooks.com/thirty-four-biological-mysteries-in-scripture.html#33_Cells_Breath_Light about the Transfiguration] in the presence of the Apostles. (Matt. 17:2). . . . It was the Will of God that the most Blessed Virgin should look upon the body of her Son, the God-man, for this first time in a glorified state.[28]
§1:C:4:a–The Holy Spirit is the Ecstasy of God
The correlation between the power of the Holy Spirit and freedom from physical pain is not uncommon. Likely, even essential, except for biological anomalies such as CIP (Congenital Insensitivity to Pain-see §3:D:1:e). For example, according to Pope St. John Paul II, “Considering the specific language, first it must be recognized that in the Genesis account, that sleep in which the man is immersed—thanks to God-Yahweh—in preparation for the new creative act, gives us food for thought.”[29] According to the Pope’s exegesis, sleep in Genesis 2:21 meant a state of ecstasy. The Hebrew word for Adam’s sleep is tardemah. The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) renders tardemah as ekstasis.[30] Of note, theologian Francois-Xavier Durrwell, whom Scott Hahn highly praises, states that the Holy Spirit is the ecstasy of God.[31]
JP II believed this ecstasy (see also §1:C:4:a) was a precursor to God’s opening Adam’s flesh, removing one of his ribs, and then closing up his flesh again. It should also be noted that for a person to be in a state of original justice, said person must be perfectly in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:27-31), which cannot occur without the full indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
There is another vital reason to emphasize the relationship among the Holy Spirit, ecstasy, and human biology. That relationship points to Eve’s creation as a helper to Adam. To the husband-wife complementarity and to the family as the most perfect image of the Trinity in creation. To the woman being intentionally created as the holy spirit of the trinitarian human family. I have written a two-part blog on that topic. Part One examines the science revealed in Genesis 2: 20-24 and can be accessed here. Part Two addresses the feminine genius and how the biological beating heart plays a significant part and can be accessed here.
Continuing with the original topic, certain apparitions support the relationship between a state of ecstasy and the absence of physical sensations, including pain. In these cases, seers experience any physical sensation when in ecstasy. At Medjugorje[32] and Lourdes, the visionaries were tested for reactions to pain-inducing stimuli while in a state of ecstasy. According to tests detailed in Rene Laurentin’s book, the seers felt no pain.[33] This is also true at Fatima, where not only the visionaries, but also the approximately seventy thousand onlookers were able to stare at the sun without any pain or physical damage to their eyes. Furthermore, they felt no heat as their drenched clothes dried almost instantly (See also §3:D:1:f:iii).
§2–Nativity of Jesus: The Theology, Biology, and Philosophy
When I initially wrote this article, I intended to include only the material listed above. However, during a recent conversation, the question was asked: Why is it important to know whether or not Mary experienced pain during childbirth? When asked, I immediately recalled a past lesson. What did I learn? It was this: the adage that “less is more” does not apply to, among others, the sciences, of which I include theology. In such cases, it is vital to realize that less is, simply put, not enough. Years ago, I submitted a theologically-themed paper for peer review. The word-count limit was 4,000 words. In retrospect, the paper could not have been written adequately in fewer than 9,000 words. My paper was rejected. The reviewers’ comments made it clear that I had tried to say too much in too few words. This lesson explains why, in general, my writing tends to be lengthy and comprehensive. That is why, after hearing my friend’s question, I realized I needed to expand this article to include theological, biological, and philosophical content to answer it adequately. Sections 2-3 below provide a more complete answer to my to the question above.
To begin, one must first ask why an understanding of Jesus’ humanity and his birth is vital. After all, we can only understand Mary’s humanity through Jesus’ humanity, which was accomplished by the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). Jesus’ physical humanity came only and entirely from Mary. However, Mary only provided the genetic material of his humanity. It was Jesus’ spiritual soul, in which the Holy Spirit, i.e., Divine Light, fully dwelt, that directed every biological process[34], such as cell division[35], cell differentiation[36], and genetic expression.§2:A–Jesus Made Sin (2 Cor 5:19-21): A Key to Understanding the Nativity and the Redemption of Man
We know, dogmatically, that neither Jesus nor Mary was ever in a state of original sin. As such, they were not subject to death or any of the other consequences of concupiscence (see St. Augustine quote in §3:D:1:f:ii, Aquinas in §1:A:1).[37]
In Second Corinthians, it is written:
God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. . . . For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin [emphasis added], so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:19-21).
What does the above passage mean? According to Ignatius Catholic Bible Study:
Jesus was not made a sinner or personally counted guilty of sin on the Cross. Rather, he bore the curse of death [mortality/passability] that mankind incurred because of sin (Gal 3:13; 1 Pet 2:22-24), even though he himself knew no sin, i.e., committed no sin (Jn 8:46; 1 Jn 3:5) (CCC, 602-3). Paul adopts the idiom of the Greek OT, where “sin” is a shorthand expression for a Levitical ‘sin offering’ (Lev 4:21; 5:12; 6:25). Isaiah uses this same language for the suffering Messiah, who was expected to make himself an ‘offering for sin’ (Is 53:10).[38]
Put another way, as a sin offering, Jesus had to cause, via his human spiritual soul in which the Holy Spirit fully dwelt, his imperishable body to function as though it were perishable. This efficacious causality was possible because the spiritual soul is the body’s substantial form, directing its every action (see also §3:C:1).
Unlike 2 Corinthians 5:21, in Leviticus, the organic substance being used for the sin offering was not of the same rational human nature as was the fallen Jew, i.e., the sinner for whom the offering is made. In contrast, Jesus is both the High Priest making the offering and the organic substance (his rational human nature) ‘offering for sin’ (Is. 53:10) who can take on His own shoulders the pain and guilt of all mankind’s sins.
According to Jamieson et al., the word ‘sin’ in the context of 2 Cor 5:21:
[Passage does not mean the type of] sin offering, which would destroy the antithesis to “righteousness,” and would make “sin” be used in different senses in the same sentence: not a sinful person, which would be untrue, and would require in the antithesis “righteous men,” not “righteousness”; but “sin,” that is, the representative Sin-bearer (vicariously) of the aggregate sin of all men past, present, and future. The sin of the world is one, therefore the singular, not the plural, is used; though its manifestations are manifold (Jn 1:29). “Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.” Compare “made a curse for us,” Ga 3:13.[39]
Continuing on the topic of sin offering, Joe Heschmeyer from Catholic Answers writes:
In Hebrew, the word ḥāṭā’ means both “sin” and “a sin offering.” In technical terms, this is what’s called a “contranym.” We’ve got plenty [of examples] in English: “cleave” can mean to separate (like a meat cleaver does) or to join together (cleave to your wife). . . . So it is with ḥāṭā’. In Genesis 4:7 and many other places, it means “sin.” In Exodus 29:14 and many other places, it means “sin offering.” In Leviticus 4, we see it used in both ways: the same word to describe the people’s sin (Lev. 4:14) and the sacrificial offering made in response to that sin (Lev. 4:20).
In the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, ḥāṭā’ gets translated as the Greek word hamartia. Likewise, when Hebrews 10 mentions sin offerings, it simply says peri hamartia, “for sin.” The word “offering” is implicit in the context, but not actually there in the Greek. So to say that Christ “became hamartia,” as St. Paul does in 2 Corinthians 5, is to say that Christ became our sin offering, so that “by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (Heb. 10:14).[40]
What does “knew no sin” mean in this passage? According to Jamieson:
[T]he phrase “knew no sin” means that Jesus’ entire human nature was absolutely untouched by the stain of any sin whatsoever “by personal experience (Jn 8:46) [Alford]. Heb 7:26; 1 Pe 2:22; 1 Jn 3:5.”[41]
From the above, we know that Jesus was not subject to any of the consequences of original sin. So the question becomes, how is it that he suffered physical repercussions reserved for mortal bodies? The answer: To redeem fallen man, Jesus willed (free will is an upper power of the human spiritual soul in which, in the case of Jesus and Mary, fully dwelt the Holy Spirit) his humanity to function as if it were a mortal, perishable body so that he could take upon his shoulders the burden and guilt of man’s sins. Then, out of Love, die for his fallen human brothers and sisters.
John writes: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat [pointing to Jesus in the Eucharist] falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit (John 12:24). Thus, Jesus’ body was not rendered mortal because of original sin, but because of his Divine will that it should function as though it were mortal for our sake.
For example, some might be confused by the fact that Jesus suffered from hunger pangs in the desert (Mt 4:2, Lk 4:2) or excruciating pain on the Cross. And yet, we know that he was not born with original sin. How are we to understand this seeming contradiction? Again, because it was his Divine will that it should be so (see also §3:D:1:e through §3:D:1:f:iii).
Aquinas explains this apparent contradiction thusly:
The penalties, such as hunger, thirst, death, and the like, which we suffer sensibly in this life flow from original sin. And hence Christ, in order to satisfy fully for original sin, wished [willed] to suffer sensible [all those penalties, so] that He might consume death and the like in Himself.[42]
Aquinas is telling us that Christ’s sufferings were not a consequence of original sin. In actuality, this phenomenon can only be understood in light of a spiritual soul existing as the substantial form of the body, controlling its every function. The soul in a state of original justice was able to know what was good, and the harmonious body obeyed the desires of the spiritual soul. When man fell, the flesh warred with the spirit. As such, the fallen body, under the influence of Satan, sensibly tricked the spirit into believing that ‘good’ and illicit sensuality were the same.
One of the biological components of concupiscence and the lies of Satan is the involuntary expression of hormones in response to sensually received inputs. It is through certain hormones that we willingly subjugate ourselves and become slaves to sin—a consequence Scripture warns against (e.g., Jn 8:34).
Germane to this scriptural warning, it should be noted that all hormones are delivered to their target cells via the bloodstream.[43] St. Hildegard of Bingen teaches us the significance of that fact. She writes:
Succumbing to the whirlwinds of Satan’s lies, the fallen soul cries out, “Ach miserable me! for harmful poisons were instilled into me through Adam, when he disobeyed God and was cast out into the world and joined his tabernacle [i.e., human body] to carnal things. For in the taste of the fruit he knew by disobedience, a harmful sweetness poured itself into his blood and flesh, producing the corruption of vice. And therefore I feel the sin of the flesh in me, and intoxicated by this sin, I neglect the Most Pure God.”[44]
And,
For blood by itself carries shameful crimes and turbulent injustice, and runs through uncertain paths, in a twisted sweetness that leads to burning lust and frightful vices.[45]
And finally:
For, since the fall of Adam, I [God] have not found in human seed the justice that should have been in it, for the Devil drove out this justice by the taste of the fruit.[46] Therefore I sent My Son into the world born of a virgin, so that by His blood, in which there was no carnal pollution, He might take away from the Devil those spoils that he had carried off from humanity.[47]
The expression of hormones in a body in a state of original justice is designed by God to serve as part of a body’s orderly function as the mouth of the spiritual soul. But in the disordered body/spiritual soul composite, hormones lead to addictions, suffering, imitation/false love, and rampant false compassion that are the opposite of God’s Truth—of Jesus, who is Truth incarnate. Disordered hormones are the honey/sweetness that Satan uses to make sin taste sweet to the sinner.[48]
Jesus’ redemptive act would not have been possible had his human soul not been fully subject and obedient to his human spirit in which dwelt the Holy Spirit. He did not inherit original sin; therefore, his spiritual soul possessed the power to will and allow his body to experience the consequences of original sin, but without sinning himself.
The concept of substantial form helps us more fully understand the visible manifestations of the Resurrected Jesus. Because Jesus’ glorified physical (but not mortal) body is entirely subject to his human spiritual soul, he can choose to will his body to appear in any form he wishes. He can appear as an infant, a child, or a thirty-two-year-old man. He can choose to reveal only a portion of his flesh and/or blood in the Eucharist while remaining wholly and entirely present. Importantly, in such appearances, what the beholder sees is not a phantasm. It is Jesus’ actual, glorified, physical body (not mortal), appearing as he wills.
Because Jesus’ resurrected humanity is in the eternal now, his appearance as an adult does not mean he has gone back in time to when he was thirty-two. When he appears as an infant, it does not mean he has gone back in history to the Nativity. Sometimes, he appears as he was on the Cross. When he appears, he chooses and wills the form his body takes for specific reasons. His glorified physical body remains perfectly whole. His appearances are not illusions, not phantasms. His substance never changes.
Aquinas provides us with an example:
The same reverence is shown to [Christ’s body appears in the flesh or as a child miraculously in this Sacrament] as was shown at first, which would not be done if Christ were not truly there, to Whom we show reverence of latria. Therefore, when such apparition occurs, Christ is under the Sacrament. . . . as was said already, this is not deception, because it is done “to represent the truth,” namely, to show by this miraculous apparition that Christ’s body and blood are truly in this Sacrament. And thus it is clear that as the dimensions remain, which are the foundation of the other accidents, as we shall see later on (Q. 77, A. 2), the body of Christ truly remains in this Sacrament.[49]
This truth is not limited to only Eucharistic miracles, but to all visible manifestations of his humanity within time. This understanding is further explicated in the two blogs Garden-Eucharist-1 and Garden-Eucharist-2.
§2:B–Magisterial Arguments Revealing Mary’s Painless Delivery and Intact Virginity
§2:B:1–From the Catechism Promulgated by John Paul II
§2:B:1:a–CCC 499
The Catechism of the Catholic Church reads:
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. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it” (Lumen Gentium, n. 57) And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin.”[50]
Note: In this specialized older usage, “integrity” means physical wholeness of the Body and its parts.[51] In #499 above, this integrity is specific to Mary’s physical virginity before, during, and after the Birth of Jesus.
§2:B:2–Catechism of the Council of Trent (aka Roman Catechism)
Catholic teaching holds that Mary, being immaculately conceived and free from original sin, was exempt from the curse of pain in childbirth given to Eve in Genesis 3:16.[52] This teaching is interpreted to mean that Mary’s childbirth was miraculously painless. The preternatural gifts, given to Adam and Eve before the fall, are miraculous because they were above our nature as human beings.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent (aka The Roman Catechism) and other Catholic sources use the analogy of rays of sunlight passing through glass to describe Jesus’ Birth, emphasizing that Mary’s virginity and bodily integrity were preserved without pain.
§2:B:2:a–The Catechism of Trent
According to the Catechism of Trent:
The Virgin Mother we may also in like manner compare with Eve, making the second Eve, that is, Mary, correspond with the first, as we have already shown the second Adam, that is, Christ, to correspond with the first Adam. For Eve, by believing the serpent, entailed malediction and death on the human race (Genesis 3); and, after Mary believed the Angel, the divine goodness made her instrumental in bringing benediction and life to mankind (And Mary, after she believed the angel, was enabled by the goodness of God, so that blessing and life might come to men.). From Eve we are born children of wrath (Ephes. 2:3); from Mary we have received Jesus Christ, and through him are regenerated children of grace. To Eve it was said, In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children (Gen. 3:16): Mary was exempt from this law, for, preserving her virgin integrity inviolate, she brought forth Jesus the Son of God, without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.[53]
§2:B:2:b–Mark Miraville
Relative to the dogma of Mary’s physical virginity, Mark Miraville writes:
The second aspect of the dogma refers to Mary’s physical virginity during the Birth of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Here we can take a more specific look into what the virginal Birth of Jesus truly means. The papal definition of Mary’s continued virginity during the Birth of Christ refers to the event that at the appointed time of Birth, Jesus left the womb of Mary without the loss of Mary’s physical virginity. The Church understands Mary’s virginity during the Birth of Christ as an absence of any physical injury or violation to Mary’s virginal seal (in Latin, virginitas in partu) through a special divine action of the all-powerful God. This divine act would safeguard Mary’s physical virginity which is both symbol and part of her perfect, overall virginity; a virginity both internal and external, of soul and Body. The Fathers of the Church overwhelmingly taught the “miraculous birth” of Jesus that resulted in no injury to the Blessed Virgin Mary’s physical integrity. St. Augustine stated: “It is not right that He who came to heal corruption should by His advent violate integrity.”[54] Pope St. Leo the Great proclaimed in his famous Tome to Flavian: “Mary brought Him forth, with her virginity untouched, as with her virginity untouched she conceived Him.”[55] Later, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church’s greatest theologian, would defend the miraculous (and therefore painless nature of Christ’s Birth)[56].[57] As light passes through glass without harming it, so too did Jesus pass through the womb of Mary without the opening of Mary’s womb and without any physical harm to the tabernacle of the unborn Christ[58].[59]
Thus, since Jesus’ birth did not alter Mary’s physical virginity and Jesus exited the womb as light passes through glass, we can surmise that the biological causes of pain in childbirth (see §3:A:1 to §3:A:1:a) could not have been triggered.
§2:B:3–Is the Roman Catechism Considered Part of the Ordinary Magisterium and to What Level of Authority is it Given?
§2:B:3:a–The JP II Catechism is Magisterial
The current universal Catechism states:
Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.[60]
§2:B:3:b–What is the Doctrinal Teaching Authority of the Catechism
What is the Doctrinal Teaching Authority of the Catechism? According JP II as quoted by the USCCB:
The Catechism is part of the Church’s official teaching in the sense that it was suggested by a Synod of Bishops, requested by the Holy Father, prepared and revised by bishops and promulgated by the Holy Father as part of his ordinary Magisterium. . . . Pope John Paul II said, “The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.” John Paul II also stated that the Catechism “is given as a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine.”
§2:B:3:c–Does the Catechism of Trent Meet the Above Standards
By way of similarity to the above, the Council of Trent intended the projected Catechism to be the Church’s official manual of popular instruction. The seventh canon, “De Reformatione”, of Session 24, states:
That the faithful may approach the sacraments with greater reverence and devotion of mind, the holy council commands all bishops that not only when they are themselves about to administer them to the people, they shall first, in a manner adapted to the mental ability of those who receive them, explain their efficacy and use, but also they shall see to it that the same is done piously and prudently by every parish priest, and in the vernacular tongue, if need be and if it can be done conveniently, in accordance with the form which will be prescribed for each of the sacraments by the holy council in a catechism, which the bishops shall have faithfully translated into the language of the people and explained to the people by all parish priests.
In light of the USCCB’s answer above, it should be noted that, on November 30th, 1544, Paul III promulgated the bull Laetare Jerusalem, irrevocably convoking the council at Trent (held 1545-1563) as a Holy Synod. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, the first universal Catechism of the Church, was commissioned by the Council of Trent and published in 1566. It was approved and commanded to be published by Pope St. Pius V. It has been recognized as the most authoritative Catechism by many of the greatest popes, including St. Pius X, Clement XIII, Benedict XV, and Leo XIII. Clergy and laymen have used it for over 400 years as a source of clear, simple truths of the Faith.
§2:B:3:d–The Catholic Encyclopedia on Catechisms:
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
[A]ssisted by the countless written forms of religious teaching, among which catechisms have a special character of doctrinal security, approved as they are by the teaching authority and claiming only to set forth with clearness and precision the teaching common in the Church. . . . The [universal] Catechism is the same in all the parishes of a diocese; apart from a few differences of detail which have no bearing on doctrine all the catechisms of a country are alike . . . It is truly the mind of the Church received from God or Christ and transmitted by the Apostles to the Christian society.[61]
§2:B:4–Were there criticisms of the Council of Trent’s teachings?
There most certainly were criticisms. However, the key question is: who was criticizing, and what was being criticized?
1. Keeping in mind that Trent was convened to counter the erroneous teachings of Luther and other Protestant Reformers, it would thus be logical that the vast majority of criticisms came from them. H. J. Schroeder wrote:The Council of Trent primarily functioned as a systematic response to the central doctrinal challenges articulated by the Protestant Reformers. In its decrees, the council repudiates foundational Protestant claims such as sola scriptura, sola fide, and the Reformers’ emphasis on salvation by grace alone. Instead entrenches a theological framework grounded in ecclesial authority, sacred tradition, and the sacramental system. Although Trent enacted reforms targeting clerical abuses and disciplinary corruption within the Catholic Church, it simultaneously reaffirmed papal supremacy. It codified structures that sharply restrict private interpretation of Scripture in favor of magisterial oversight.[62]2. In the Abstract of his chapter in Bulman and Parrella’s book, Joseph Komonchak writes of criticisms (in the form of reversals) of Trent by the Second Vatican Council. He writes:Vatican II reversed some decisions of Trent, most notably permitting the vernacular to be used in the liturgy[63], broadening occasions for receiving the Eucharist under both kinds, dethroning within the authority of the Church the Vulgate as the normative biblical text, and encouraging a wide reading. One of the main differences between Vatican II and Trent was that while Trent sought to identify and clarify the respects the [sic] doctrines of the Reformers departed from those of the Catholic Church, Vatican II sought to identify and to express those elements of faith that Catholics and non-Catholics had in common.[64]However, it is essential to note that Vatican II did not reverse any of the magisterial teachings of Trent, as expressed in the Roman Catechism, regarding the Virgin Birth of Jesus and Mary’s lack of pain during delivery.3. Some theologians argue that the “painless birth” idea goes beyond what Scripture clearly states and rests on a highly symbolic reading of passages like Genesis 3:16 (addressed in §3:D:1:f:ii) and Isaiah 66:7 (see note in §1:A:4), rather than on explicit biblical testimony. In the Western Church, they worry that treating Mary as exempt from one of the ordinary consequences of human life can unintentionally distance her from the real, embodied experience of other mothers and risk making her less, rather than more, relatable as a model of faith.[65]
What??? They want to change/deny a Magisterial teaching because of how it might affect one’s view on motherhood. I find that to be myopic and a deeply errant hermeneutical approach for interpreting Scripture. According to the Pontifical Bible Commission, the shortcomings inherent in the Historical–Critical method of interpreting Scripture require that “each biblical text [must be interpreted] in the light of the [entire] Canon of the Scriptures . . . Each individual book only becomes biblical in the light of the Canon as a whole.”[66] Scripture, as a whole, supports the idea of no pain during the Nativity.
Further addressing this claim, Dr. Taylor Marshall writes:
Some have felt that it somehow undermines the humanity of Christ to assert these Catholic beliefs [regarding the miraculous birth of Jesus]. We must recall that Christ walked on water, was transfigured on Mount Tabor, exited the sepulcher before it was opened, and walked through locked doors. None of these facts undermine the humanity of Christ. Consequently, to believe that Christ exited the womb of the Blessed Mother in a mysterious way is neither credulous or impious. Rather, it is the conviction of the holiest and brightest saints of the Catholic Church. For anyone who would deny the painless and intact nativity of Christ, let us challenge you to produce a citation from any saint or pope who teaches otherwise–that is a text that affirms that the nativity of the Christ Child caused pain to Mary and broke her physical virginity.
§3–The Theology and Biology of the Virgin Birth
§3:A:1–The Biology of Pain During Childbirth
§3:A:1:a–Labor Pains In Childbirth
All content in this section, up to the bracketed ‘Note’ that clearly indicates its end, was summarized and cited from Perplexity AI (San Francisco: Perplexity AI, 2025).
During the first stage of labor, cervical and lower uterine segment distension, along with relative ischemia (reduced blood flow), activate nociceptors [specialized sensory nerve cells], especially C fibers [i.e., sensory nerve fibers that conduct signals very slowly], in the uterus and cervix. Mechanical stretch and local changes such as low pH and inflammatory mediators (bradykinin, prostaglandins, leukotrienes, serotonin, substance P, lactic acid) open ion channels on these nociceptors, converting mechanical/chemical stimuli into electrical impulses.[67]In the second stage, somatic [of, relating to, or affecting the physical body] nociceptors in the vagina, perineum, and pelvic floor are strongly stimulated by stretching and tissue pressure as the fetus descends, producing sharper, well-localized pain.[68]Pain during labor arises when intense uterine contractions and tissue stretching activate specialized pain-sensing nerve endings, which then send signals through the spinal cord to brain regions that generate both the sensory experience of pain and its emotional and autonomic responses. Multiple neurochemical mediators (in both the uterus and the central nervous system) modulate the intensity of this pain and the body’s response to it.[69]Uterine contraction pain is mediated mainly by classic excitatory neurotransmitters (like glutamate and substance P) released in the spinal cord, plus a set of neuropeptides and hormones (notably oxytocin, vasopressin, and catecholamines) that drive and modulate myometrial contractions and the resulting nociceptive signaling. Inhibitory systems (endogenous opioids, GABA, and others) also shape how intensely these contraction signals are perceived as pain.[70]At the uterus (myometrium), key mediators that promote contraction and thereby generate nociceptive input include:1. Oxytocin, acting on oxytocin receptors (OTR) to raise intracellular calcium in myometrial cells and enhance the strength and frequency of contractions.[71]2. Vasopressin, which shares related G‑protein–coupled signaling with oxytocin and can also potentiate uterine contractions in late pregnancy and labor.[72]3. Catecholamines (norepinephrine, epinephrine, and dopamine) released from sympathetic [nerve] fibers, which can stimulate uterine smooth muscle and uterine vessels via adrenergic receptors, influencing contraction pattern and uterine perfusion.[73]Locally, prostaglandins and inflammatory mediators are not neurotransmitters but strongly facilitate uterine contractility and sensitize uterine nociceptors, thereby amplifying contraction-related pain.[74][Note: Perplexity generated text ends here.]
The above information demonstrates that the only way Mary could have escaped physical pain during childbirth was for it to have been a miraculous delivery. But, then again, so too was it miraculous when Adam and Eve were gifted with preternatural grace, which produced effects beyond our normal human nature. Numerous sources in this article (see, for example, sections §1:A, §1:A:3, §2:A:3, and §2:A:3:b) assert that the Nativity was indeed miraculous.
In Objection #2 of I, Q.1, A. 4 in Aquinas’ Summa, the claim is made that physical pain was not a consequence of original sin—only the emotional/spiritual pain of loss was its consequence. Aquinas responds to that claim when he states:
Furthermore, short of a miracle, if Mary had experienced pain in childbirth, it would have contradicted the Church’s Dogmatic teaching on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. Specifically, the Church’s teaching is that her physical virginity remained fully intact before, during, and after Jesus’ birth. The following Section will address that issue in greater detail.[P]enalties, such as hunger, thirst, death, and the like, which we suffer sensibly [physically] in this life flow from original sin. And hence Christ, in order to satisfy fully for original sin, wished to suffer sensible pain (see §2:A on why Jesus became sin), that He might consume death and the like in Himself.[75]
§3:B:1–The Dogma of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
§3:B:1:a:i Hebrew Bible’s Song of Solomon (a.k.a Song of Songs in the Greek Septuagint)
In Songs, it reads, “A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a garden locked, a fountain sealed” (Song of Solomon 4:12). In the notes section for this verse, the ICBS asserts that “garden” is a metaphor for a bride as part of a covenantal union [of salt] and hearkens back to the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3, and is consistent with the usage of the Hebrew word ahoti to interprete the meaning of “my sister.”[76]
In the exegesis of this passage, ICBS writes:
Through this passage, a link is established between Mary and the Dogma of her perpetual virginity as the Mother of Jesus, the Mediatrix of all grace, and the Mother of the Church.[78] The comparison of Eve to Mary as the new Eve[79] employs a hermeneutic known as parallels-with-contrast, aka parallelism.[80] An example of that hermeneutic relative to Jesus-Adam can be seen in 1 Cor 15:45, 47.If the bride of Christ, the Church, is a garden enclosed, she cannot be accessed by outsiders. If she is a fountain sealed, the outsider cannot drink from the well of the living water that lies within, that is, he can gain no life or sanctification from it (St. Cyprian, Letters 69, 2). Christ descended into the womb of the Virgin without injuring the enclosure of her body, and he left the womb without opening the door of her virginity. He thus fulfilled what is chanted in the Song of Songs: My sister, my spouse, is a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed (St. Peter Chrysologus, Sermons 145).”[77]
§3:B:1:a:ii—The Unique Biological Union of Jesus and Mary
The doctrine of Mary as the Mediatrix of Grace and Mother of the Church (I believe these two titles are inextricably linked to express the same thing) was described in Lumen Gentium (LG). Many reasons are given for this declaration, among them the unique biological union with her son.[81]
It should be further noted that this one-flesh union between Mary and her Son Jesus is much deeper and more intimate than ever scientifically and theologically thought before. The biological sciences have enabled the discovery of this phenomenon. We now know that a mother and her preborn son(s) exchange some of their living non-differentiated stem cells during pregnancy. Further, these exchanged stem cells can be converted into pluripotent stem cells through established biological processes.[82] Pluripotent stem cells are non-differentiated cells that can self‑renew indefinitely and give rise to any cell type of the body, but not placental cells.[83]
This phenomenon probably occurs in daughter(s) as well, but it is more difficult for biologists to detect because females lack a readily identifiable Y chromosome. This exchange is called Maternal-Fetal Microchimerism (MFM). Briefly, bilaterally exchanged stem cells eventually differentiate into various living, functioning cell types, e.g., heart muscle cells, brain cells, and nerve cells. They continue to live and function within the receiver’s body for, potentially, the rest of their lives.[84]
Ponder this: Mary’s stem cell(s) could have become part of Jesus’ beating physical Sacred Heart and/or vice versa by differentiating into myocardial cell(s). Moving on with our topic.
Something to consider about MFM is the question of substantial form. Whose spiritual soul is directing the function of those cells? Because biologists and other scientists tend to shy away from anything that can’t be empirically measured, they would give broad leeway toward any endeavor to conduct research to answer that question. While I am not definitively suggesting an answer to that question, one scientific insight might provide some clues.
Science has identified MFM cells in numerous cancer cluster cells and other biological anomalies.[85] Of note, these pathologies occur between two individuals who both possess a fallen, and therefore disordered, rational human nature. After the Fall, all physical illness stems from said disordered biological-spiritual nature. In contrast, Mary or her Son could not have experienced this problem, since they both existed in a state of original justice. So, leads to ask another question. Why is it important to understand our biology in light of the humanity of Jesus?
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “In reality, it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear.”[86] While n. 22 in Gaudium et Spes (GS) provides a partial answer to my friend’s question, GS, n. 32 is also a vital component of the answer. Why? Because a primary goal of Jesus’ incarnation was to become a member of the genetic rational human family. It is through Jesus’ humanity that we become adopted sons and daughters of the Father.
We cannot understand the Nativity, or ourselves, without an understanding of the perfect humanity of Jesus, whose human and Divine natures are united in one Person[87], i.e., the Son of God—the same Person with whom the human family has always been destined to be one, just as the Father and the Son have been fully united (cf. John 17:21) in the Spirit.
§3:B:1:a–Lateran Council (649 AD) with Pope St. Martin I
As quoted by Taylor Marshall:
If anyone does not in accord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary was really and truly the Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in the fullness of time, and without seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God in the Word Himself, who before all time was born of God the Father, and without loss of integrity brought Him forth, and after His birth preserved her virginity inviolate, let him be condemned.[https://taylormarshall.com/2010/12/marys-painless-delivery-of-christ.html#:~:text=Lateran%20Council,-(649%20AD)%20with]
§3:B:1:b–Council of Toledo XVI (693 AD)
Also quoted by Marshall:
And as the Virgin acquired the modesty of virginity before conception, so also she experienced no loss of her integrity; for she conceived a virgin, gave birth a virgin, and after birth retained the uninterrupted modesty of an intact virgin. [see https://taylormarshall.com/2010/12/marys-painless-delivery-of-christ.html#:~:text=Council%20of%20Toledo,-XVI%20(693%20AD]
§3:B:1:c–St. Paul Center in Steubenville, Ohio:
According to the St. Paul Center:
Mary’s virginity wasn’t just one attribute of hers among many. It’s central to her identity. It’s who she is. Not just biologically, but spiritually, interiorly. All her life, Mary possessed an integrity that every other human person since Adam and Eve has lacked. Because of that integrity, her Body perfectly expressed her spirit [see also §3:C:1 to §3:D:1:e]. There was no tension between the two. Accordingly, since Mary’s soul was entirely consecrated to God, so too was her Body. Her physical virginity was a perpetual sign of that consecration. Mary’s virginity keeps the physical sign of an interior reality intact.[88]
§3:B:1:d–Catechism of the Council of Trent on the Perpetual Virginity
The Roman Catechism reads:
[Jesus] is born of his mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity; and as he afterwards went forth from the sepulchre whilst it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which his disciples were assembled with closed doors (John 20:19); or, not to depart even from natural things, which we witness every day, as the rays of the sun penetrate, without breaking, or injuring in the least, the solid substance of glass; after a similar, I say, but more exalted manner, did Jesus Christ come forth from his mother’s womb, without any injury to her maternal virginity.[89]
And:
Moreover, the bodies of the saints, when resuscitated, shall possess certain transcendant and glorious adornments . . . The first is impassibility, a gift and endowment that shall place them beyond the reach of suffering anything disagreeable, or being afflicted with pain, or inconvenience of any sort. For neither the piercing severity of cold, nor the glowing intensity of heat, nor the rush of waters, can affect them: It is sown, says the apostle, in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption (1 Cor. 15:42). This quality schoolmen call impassibility, not incorruption, in order to distinguish it as a property peculiar to a glorified body. For the bodies of the damned, though incorruptible, do not partake in this impassibility; for their bodies, although they be incorruptible, shall be capable of experiencing heat and cold, and of being afflicted by various torments.[90]
The Catechism of Trent shows us once again, but from a different approach, that Adam and Eve, had they not fallen, would be “beyond the reach of suffering anything disagreeable, or being afflicted with pain.” Since Adam and Eve, even though not possessing glorified bodies, still possessed those same preternatural gifts, of which impassibility and freedom from pain are only two,[91] it can thus be said that Mary, also in a state of original justice but not a glorified body, would not have experienced pain in childbirth.
§3:B:1:e–The Hymen and Physical Virginity
As has been amply demonstrated above and elsewhere, Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, before, during, and after Jesus’ birth, is an infallibly defined Dogma. Her virginity extends to her fully intact body, which would include the hymen and other aspects of the birth canal.
I want to refer again to what was said about the mystics in §1:C of this article. One could claim that a miraculous delivery could preserve her virginity intact while still allowing for pain in childbirth. Still, that assertion would be improbable, especially in light of what Aquinas taught ([92]), the quote of which is located in §1:A:1 in answer to the question: Why did God deem it proper to maintain Mary’s physical and intact virginity, including a painless delivery?
§3:B:1:e:i–What is the Hymen?
The hymen is a thin, membranous fold of highly variable appearance that partially (to varying degrees) covers the opening of the vagina before its rupture. In many post-Adam and Eve women, it has already stretched or partially torn long before pregnancy, e.g., from growth, participation in sports, tampons, or intercourse. As an FYI, a woman can get pregnant without stretching or tearing the hymen.
§3:B:1:e:ii–Can a Woman Deliver Her Firstborn Without Tearing or Stretching the Hymen
For a woman with an intact and physiologically normal hymen (Mary’s body was perfect in every way) before delivery of the firstborn child, the birthing process would almost certainly rupture, stretch, or tear the hymen. Available medical and educational sources describe rare instances seen in case reports or occasional anecdotes, but not in statistically significant scientific studies.[93] It should be noted that the biological physiology of a fallen nature can’t be reliably compared to that of one in the state of Original Justice, such as Mary.
§3:B:1:e:iii–Ramifications of the Status of Mary’s Birth Canal (BC)
If Jesus’s delivery had physically changed Mary’s BC, the doctrinal and ordinary Magisterial teaching of the Church would be wrong. All the sources concerning the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary cited above describe that virginity as her remaining physically intact. For example:
· The Lateran Council (§3:B:1:a) wrote: “preserved her virginity inviolate.”
· The Council of Toledo (§3:B:1:b) wrote, “after birth retained the uninterrupted modesty of an intact virgin.”
· CCC #499 (§2:B:1:a) states, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity”—meaning physical wholeness of the Body and its parts.
· Number 251 in Tradivox Volume 8 answers the question: “How could the Blessed Mary have had a son, whilst she remained a Virgin,” with the following:
This is a miracle of the omnipotence of God; and so great a miracle that none has ever taken place like it. The Holy Ghost . . . formed the body of Jesus Christ [emphasis added], of the most pure blood of Mary; in due time Mary brought him forth in the stable of Bethlehem, remaining even then a Virgin as before; and so she brought him forth without pain or sorrow, and without any injury or violation of her virginal integrity. Observe that it is an article of the faith, that Mary was a Virgin before childbirth, in childbirth, and after childbirth, as defined by the General Council of Chalcedon.[94]
Note: “formed the body of Jesus Christ, of the most pure blood [emphasis added] of Mary,” quoted from Tradivox above, is significant in light of the parallels-in-contrast often used by Scripture writers concerning Adam/Eve and Jesus and Mary. Eve was likely made from the hemopoietic stem cells from Adam’s rib. While I’m not making the claim, the possibility exists, vis-à-vis parallelism, that Jesus was formed from a stem cell taken from the bone marrow of one of Mary’s organs. Once the embryonic cell began dividing, a totipotent stem cell would be generated for placental development.[95]
· If Jesus were born as a mortal, his physical body, with its full dimensive qualities, when delivered through the birth canal, would almost certainly have resulted in Mary’s loss of virginal integrity.
· Bishop Athanasius Schneider writes:
The Church’s constant teaching and liturgy [likely a reference to JP II, detailed in §1:A:10] affirms that Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ in joy, without pain or physical injury. The birth of Jesus Christ was a miraculous one [96], as Christ left the womb of Mary like He passed through closed doors in His risen body (see Jn 20:19).[97]
§3:C:1–The Spiritual Soul is the Substantial Form of the Physical Body
§3:C:1:a–Hildegard and The Book of Divine Works
Reinforcing the spiritual soul as the substantial form of the body, Hildegard writes:
1) That the soul controls the body becomes self-evident when we consider that, when the soul leaves a body, the body can’t DO anything. The soul is not merely the energy that fuels bodily movement, but that which directs the function. According to Hildegard, the soul “orders a person’s every work with circling rationality.”[98]2) “[T]he soul does not move the body more than the body can execute, nor does the body do more than it is moved by the soul.”[99]3) “[W]hen in such a way the soul is flooded by the Holy Spirit’s dew and heat, it subjects the flesh to itself and compels [emphasis added] it to serve God with it.”[100]4) “The body is moved by the soul, and the soul cannot leave off moving the body in its various operations—for the soul understands what the flesh desires, and the flesh is alive because of the soul.”[101]
In addition to Hidegard, the St. Paul Center writes:
All her life, Mary possessed an integrity that every other human person since Adam and Eve has lacked. Because of that integrity, her Body perfectly expressed her spirit. There was no tension between the two.[104]
All the above points lead to the conclusion that God designed the human body to accurately express the overflow of the spiritual heart—more on that in the following section.
§3:C:1:b–The Scriptural Mouth
To further help us appreciate the spiritual soul’s role in controlling the body’s movements and biological functions, it is worthwhile to understand the scriptural mouth. This understanding will, in turn, help explain why both Jesus and Mary were not subject to the consequences of original sin, such as physical death.
God does not have a physical mouth. So, when we read in Scripture of the mouth of God, e.g., Deut 8:3, 2 Chron 35:22, and Matt 4:3-4 (in which Jesus quotes Deuteronomy), how are we to interpret its meaning? For a human, the mouth is the opening through which we send out and take in. This function is also what God’s mouth does. Within the three Persons of the Trinity, only the Son (Jn 3:17; 5:23) and the Spirit (Jn 14:26) are ever described as being sent. The Father is never described as such. So the Father is the sender and, therefore, the mouth of the Trinitarian God.
The Son of God is not the “mouth” of the Trinity. However, when he became incarnate, he took upon himself a human biblical mouth. One that breathes out, i.e., Graces of all kinds, and takes in, i.e., unites humanity to himself (cf. Jn 14:20, 17:20-23). Jesus tells us, “Out of the abundance of the heart [i.e., the human spirit of the spiritual soul] the mouth speaks” (Mt 12:34. See also Mk 7:21-22, Rom 1:24, and Ez 36:25-27). Jesus’ human spirit/heart perfectly and accurately expressed his Divine Personality into all humanity, thus accomplishing our Redemption.
As JP II wrote, “The body speaks not merely with the whole external expression of masculinity and femininity, but also with the internal structures of the organism, of the somatic [the entire body and its aggregate parts] and psychosomatic [relating to the mind/mental] reaction.”[105] Thus, we can say that the human body will always accurately meta-sense-ably express the overflow of the human spirit/heart. However, the sense-able component of that expression, the part of the expression that others can see, can lead others to fall for a lie. For example, think of the Pharisees who would tithe and fast to make themselves look holy.
JP II’s teaching provides a jumping-off point for understanding the ramifications of the body/soul composite relative to Jesus, Mary, and, in contrast, fallen Adam and Eve. This relationship is why Gaudium et Spes tells us we can only understand our humanity in light of Jesus’ humanity; one in which the spiritual soul, i.e., the substantial form of the body, is in the perfect image and likeness of God, rather than in a fallen, disordered state.
§3:D:1–The Philosophy of the Spiritual Soul as the Substantial Form of the Body
§3:D:1:a–According to Komonchak et al.,
Joseph Komonchak writes:
[F]orm [i.e., the spiritual soul] and matter [i.e., the physical human body] are two of the most basic and indispensable terms for speaking about our everyday experience of the world. Form signifies the shapes, patterns, structures, or designs of things, whether natural or artificial, i.e., in general, that which determines something to be such and such, to be this kind of thing. Matter signifies the “material [e.g., DNA],” that out of which something is made, that which is capable of receiving a form or pattern, i.e., in general, that which is determinable by form.[106]
Organic matter without the ability to function is lifeless. The spiritual soul gives organic matter both form and function. The body does not direct the soul, but can entice/tempt it to sin. Tricking the soul into thinking something objectively evil is good.
§3:D:1:b–Barbara J. Newman, Citing St. Hildegard
As an illustration of the substantial form topic, in the Introduction to Scivias, Barbara J. Newman writes:
In effect, a virtue is a divine quality that becomes an operative force in willing souls and fully incarnates itself in right action; it is a synthesis of grace and moral effort. As Hildegard puts it, the Virtues do not work of their own accord, but with the cooperation of the person who has received them from God.[107]
What does this mean? As the heart is purified, so also is the body. The higher powers of the spiritual soul (where the Holy Spirit dwells) are not fenced off from the lower powers (which control all the functions of the body). Why is this necessary? In its role as the mouth of the overflow of the spiritual heart, the body must accurately express (both sense-ably and meta-sense-ably) virtuous acts which will bear good fruit. West tells us that the body expresses the experiences of the heart.[108]
§3:D:1:c–Thomas Aquinas on Substantial Form
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:
Now we have it on the authority of Scripture that ‘God made man right’ (Eccles 7:30), which rightness, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei, xiv, 11), consists in the perfect subjection of the Body [i.e., salt/dust of DNA] to the [spiritual] soul.[109]
Aquinas goes on to show the role that supernatural grace played in our state of original justice. He writes:
Subjection of the body to the soul and of the lower powers to reason, was not from nature; otherwise it would have remained after sin . . . Hence it is clear that also the primitive subjection by virtue of which reason was subject to God, was not a merely natural gift, but a supernatural endowment of grace.[110]
§3:D:1:d–St. Catherine of Siena
How do we know that the body is subject to the spiritual soul? One way is to consider the following: If the spiritual soul is not the body's substantial form, then the body acts independently of the spiritual soul. Consequently, an infinitely just God would, in many cases, be compelled, during the Final Judgement, to send the body to one eternal abode while sending the spiritual soul to another.
St. Catherine tells us, by God’s design, the body is meant to be fully and harmoniously subject to the spiritual soul. She writes:
[Those who are being judged on the last day] will see my generosity and mercy shine forth in the blessed as these receive the fruit of the blood of the Lamb. And they will see how all the sufferings the blessed endured remain as adornments on their bodies, like ornamentation imprinted on cloth—not from the body’s own excellence, but because the soul from her fullness will imprint on the body the fruit of its labors, to shine outwardly, since it was her [both Hildegard and Catherine refer to the human spirit in the feminine, as does the Book of Wisdom] partner in virtue. Just as a mirror reflects a person’s face, just so, the fruit of their labors will be reflected in their bodies.
When the darksome ones see such honor, and themselves deprived of it, their suffering and confusion will increase. For on their bodies will appear the mark of their evil deeds, with pain and excruciating torment.
Another good example, though an unpleasant one, of the spirit as the substantial form that controls bodily function is demonic possession. Regardless of the cause of the possession, the demonic spirit takes over the physiology of the possessed’s body. The demon can make the body do things the possessed person cannot, including the function of individual cells or groups of cells. However, this usurped power exists only to the degree that God allows it, e.g., the demon cannot cause the heart to stop functioning. Note that demons have no control over the possessed person’s own spiritual soul.This imprinted ornamentation, so to speak, will not occur through the power of the body, but through the power of the soul [emphasis added], as it was prior to the fall.[111]
§3:D:1:e–Substantial Form, Physical Pain, and the Holy Spirit
Normal biological pain results from 1) nociceptors detecting tissue damage (heat, pressure, chemicals) and converting it into electrical signals[112] and 2) sending those signals through peripheral nerves to the spinal cord and then to brain regions that create the conscious experience of pain.[113] Thus, we know that pain is normal for one with a disordered, fallen body. It should be noted that people with Congenital Insensitivity to Pain (CIP) do not feel pain due to mutations in genes critical for nociceptor function, resulting in neurons that either fail to develop properly or cannot transmit electrochemical signals.
All miraculous biological healings, i.e., restoring a person to ordered biological health, are miracles conferred through the power of the Holy Spirit.[114] Thus, we can say that Mary’s lack of pain during childbirth was A) a miraculous intervention of the power of the Holy Spirit, and/or B) a supernatural consequence for one never born under the consequences of original sin.
If only A, this would be consistent with the Church’s ordinary Magisterial teaching regarding the Nativity as being a miraculous event. If B, it would be consistent with the Church’s teaching concerning the preternatural gifts conferred on one free from original sin. As Aquinas states, “[P]enalties, such as hunger, thirst, death, and the like, which we suffer sensibly [physically] in this life flow from original sin. And hence Christ, to satisfy fully for original sin, wished to suffer sensible pain, that He might consume death and the like in Himself.”[115] I suspect it’s both A and B because the preternatural gifts lift us above our natural human nature, i.e., a miracle, were meant for all Adam’s offspring.
§3:D:1:f–From the Above Content, What Can Be Said About Mary’s Death?
§3:D:1:f:i–Since She was Free From All Sin, Did Mary Need to Die or Feel Pain?
According to Jeannie Ewing,
St. Alphonsus believed that, because Jesus chose a ghastly human death, Mary also followed in His footsteps to choose physical death for herself [which is confirmed by the quote below***]. However, many saints also believe that the Blessed Mother died in such a holy and sublime manner that there was no pain [which is also confirmed below by her being in a state of ecstasy (see §1:C:4:a) at the time of her death.****
***Regarding Mary choosing to follow her Son in death, Mary of Agreda offers this insight:
Her divine Son [said to her] . . . “I have caused thee to enter the world free and exempt from sin, therefore also death shall have no right or permission to touch thee at thy exit from this world. If thou wishest not to pass through it, come with Me now to partake of my glory, which thou hast merited.” The most prudent Mother prostrated herself at the feet of her Son and with a joyous countenance answered: “My Son and my Lord, I beseech Thee let thy mother and thy servant enter into eternal life by the common portal of natural death, like the other children of Adam. Thou, who art my true God, hast suffered death without being obliged to do so [another affirmation of Jesus “becoming sin” as explicated in §2:A]; it is proper that, as I have followed Thee in life, so I follow Thee also in death.” Christ the Saviour approved of the decision and the sacrifice of His most blessed Mother, and consented to its fulfillment.[116]
****Regarding pain and death:
1) According to Fr. F. J. Koch:
Over and above the natural gifts bestowed by God upon the first man, He conferred upon him other preternatural and supernatural gifts.
The preternatural gifts were:1. Full and clear knowledge of created things.2. Harmony between reason and the lower appetites.3. Immortality of body and immunity from pain and suffering [From this preternatural gift, we can surmise that Adam and Eve ate food because it was ordered to their pre-fallen human nature, but not as a response to the pain of hunger produced by the hormone ghrelin]. . . .The supernatural gifts conferred by God upon the first man in order that he might obtain eternal happiness were:1. Sanctifying grace, which involves2. Sonship of God, and therefore3. A right to heaven as his inheritance.[117]
2) “[She] seemed in a state of perpetual ecstasy [see also §1:C:4:a]. She was radiant with longing; I could feel this longing, which was bearing her upwards.”[118]
§3:D:1:f:ii–(Genesis 3:16) and Pre-fallen Pain in Childbirth
Genesis reads, “To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children’ ” (Gen 3:16). Since any quantity times zero is zero, the passage seems to indicate that some labor pain would have occurred even if Adam and Eve had remained obedient to God’s command.
However, careful examination of this passage shows that the interpretation is likely incorrect. The verb phrase “will greatly multiply” links to the direct object: “your pain in childbearing.” It does not link to the words, “in pain you shall bring forth children.” A semicolon links two related, but not equal, independent clauses. In other words, the multiplication of pain refers to childbirth, but not the labor pains.
Let’s look at the word “multiply” as it is used in the context of childbearing, not labor. According to George Haydock, the sorrows/pains of childbearing are multiplied on account of the many untimely deaths resulting from our fallen state.[119] Thus, the logic used above to infer that Mary would have felt some labor pain due to contractions, even though she was not subject to the concupiscence brought on by original sin, is likely false.
Additionally, Allen P. Ross writes:
God then told Adam that he would experience great pain in scratching out a livelihood (3:17–19). (Painful toil translates the same word used in v. 16 for the woman’s pain. This word occurs only three times in the OT, in vv. 16–17 [“I will greatly multiply your [toil] in childbearing; in [toil] you shall bring forth children”] and 5:29 [“from the toil of our hands”].) Death will be his end—he will return to the ground (’ăḏāmâh; a gracious provision in view of the suffering), and he will return to dust and become the serpent’s prey again (cf. 3:14).[120]
The labor pains resulting from a vaginal delivery could not apply to Mary for reasons already discussed earlier. The lack of labor pain is because, as Ross points out above, the word used for pain in Genesis 3:16 applies to the toils/pains resulting from original sin, of which Mary was not subject.
According to St. Augustine:
In Paradise . . . There was in his body no corruption, nor seed of corruption, which could produce in [man] any unpleasant sensation. He feared no inward disease, no outward accident. Soundest health blessed his body, absolute tranquillity his soul. As in Paradise there was no excessive heat or cold, so its inhabitants were exempt from the vicissitudes of fear and desire. No sadness of any kind was there, nor any foolish joy; true gladness ceaselessly flowed from the presence of God, who was loved “out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned” (1 Tim 1:5).[121]
Since, according to Augustine, an “unpleasant sensation” could not befall someone in the state of original justice, i.e., one in which the Holy Spirit fully dwelt, such as in Mary’s spiritual soul (see Luke 1:28, cf. John 1:14), the unpleasant sensation of labor pains would not be present during the delivery of Jesus.
Repeating what was written in §1:A:1, God showed Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich that all mankind, before the fall and still fully experiencing (to the degree possible for one not yet experiencing the beatific vision) the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, were intended to be born in the same manner as Jesus in Bethlehem.[122]
§3:D:1:f:iii–Post-fallen
Pain is a consequence of original sin. A state of Original Justice is not a possibility for the fallen in the present world. It is only through Jesus’ redemptive act and our incorporation into the Mystical Body of Christ that we are given the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is only in light of Jesus’ humanity fully participating in the Trinitarian Dialogue as a consequence of His Ascension to the Father that this gift has been given (John 16:7, John 7:39, and Acts 2:32–33). But make no mistake, that gift does not remove our fallen nature. Recall Romans, where Paul writes, “and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (Rom 8:23).
Our flesh still wars with our spiritual hearts. Relative to post-redeemed man, the graces received through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit would be proportionate to the degree to which each person’s heart is on fire with desire for union with God. Thus, an absence of pain, absent any biological phenomenon (see §3:A:1), must come solely from the power of the Holy Spirit.
For examples, see below:
§3:D:1:f:iii:a–The Angel of the Lord
In the Book of Daniel, King Nebuchadnez′zar throws Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed′nego into a burning fiery furnace. So intense was its flame that it streamed out above the furnace forty-nine cubits (approximately 85 feet), and burned those closest to its opening. Looking into the pit, the King notices there is a fourth person in the fire—an angel of the Lord. The King calls the men out. He and his counselors notice the “fire had not had any power over the bodies of those men; the hair of their heads was not singed, their mantles were not harmed, and no smell of fire had come upon them” (Dan 3:23-27, 24-27).
In this passage, what/who is the Angel of the Lord? Norman L. Geisler makes the case that the Angel of the Lord is the Second Person of the Trinity. He presents two reasons for this conclusion. First, the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament serves the same role as Christ in the New Testament. Second, once the Son (Christ) came in permanent incarnate form (John 1:1, 14; 1 John 4:2), the Angel of the Lord never again appears, though an angel appears from time to time (cf. Acts 12:7ff.). No angel that commands or accepts worship or claims to be God ever appears again.[123]
After the ascended Jesus, including his glorified body, entered into the Trinitarian Dialogue, he was no longer confined by either space or time.[124] The two hypostatically united natures of the Person of the Son of God could never be separated,[125] including during the time of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed′nego in the Old Covenant. This same phenomenon would apply to the Last Supper during which the mortal Jesus, who had not yet died and ascended to the Father, confected and gave the Eucharist to his Apostles. Whenever the Father sends Christ, he is sent in the Spirit. As discussed earlier, all gratuitous graces, through which miracles are confected, are through the power of the Holy Spirit dwelling within Jesus’ human spirit.[126] Thus, we understand why the three men in the pit were protected from physical harm.
§3:D:1:f:iii:b–St. Seraphim of Sarov
From a conversation between St. Seraphim and Nicholas Motovilov, we read,
[F]or we are now enveloped in the fragrance of the Holy Spirit of God. What on earth can be like it? Mark, your Godliness, you have told me that around us it is warm as in a bath-house; but look, neither on you nor on me does the snow melt, nor does it underfoot; therefore, this warmth is not in the air but in us [i.e., no painful cold (unpleasant) sensation]. It is that very warmth about which the Holy Spirit in the words of prayer, makes us cry to the Lord: “Warm me with the warmth of Thy Holy Spirit!”[127]
In other words, as also shown in the example in Daniel above, the Holy Spirit overcomes the normal fallen nature’s physical sensations (see also §1:C:4:a).
§4–Conclusion
This article presents a comprehensive case supporting the Council of Trent’s Catechism teaching on the no-pain delivery of Jesus. Other support for this teaching includes saints, popes, Church Councils, various scientific disciplines, theologians, philosophers, credible mystics, and, according to Dr. Taylor Marshall (§1:A), at least 20 of the 33 Doctors of the Church. While the no-pain teaching is not dogmatic, it is part of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church and, in light of Gaudium et Spes nos. 22, 32, is an essential aspect of knowing our humanity through an understanding of Jesus’ humanity.
§5-ENDNOTES
[1] Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae III, Q. 35. A. 6, s.c., co., https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4035.htm#article6.
[2] Aquinas, Summa theologiae III, Q. 35. A. 6, arg. 3., https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4035.htm#article6.
[3] Aquinas, Summa theologiae III, Q. 35. A. 6, ad. 3, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4035.htm#article6.
[4] Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae III, Q. 28. A. 2, co., https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4028.htm#article2.
[5] Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations, as recorded in the Journals of Clemens Brentano, arranged and edited by Carl E Schmoger CSSR, Vol 1 of 4, p. 6-8.
[6] Bernard Orchard et al., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 123-124, quoted in Tim Staples, “Evidence for Mary’s Painless Childbirth,” 11/01/2018, Catholic Answers, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/evidence-for-marys-painless-childbirth ; Rhyne R. Putman, Conceived by the Holy Spirit: The Virgin Birth in Scripture and Theology (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024), 353–357.
[7] Ascension of Isaiah, ch. 5, quoted and cited in Tim Staples, “Evidence for Mary’s Painless Childbirth,” 11/01/2018, Catholic Answers, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/evidence-for-marys-painless-childbirth.
[8] Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought, trans. Thomas Buffer (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, March 26, 1999), p. 40, ISBN: 0-89870-686-6, quoted and cited in Tim Staples, “Evidence for Mary’s Painless Childbirth,” 11/01/2018, Catholic Answers, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/evidence-for-marys-painless-childbirth.
[9] Tim Staples, “Evidence for Mary’s Painless Childbirth,” 11/01/2018, Catholic Answers, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/evidence-for-marys-painless-childbirth ; cf. George Themelis Zervos, The Protevangelium of James: Greek Text, English Translation, Critical Introduction, Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies (London; New York; Oxford; New Delhi; Sydney: T&T Clark, 2019), 1:166 ; Rhyne R. Putman, Conceived by the Holy Spirit: The Virgin Birth in Scripture and Theology (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024), 353–357.
[10] St. Irenæus, The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, ed. W. J. Sparrow Simpson and W. K. Lowther Clarke, trans. J. Armitage Robinson, Translations of Christian Literature, Series IV, Oriental Texts (London; New York: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; The Macmillan Co., 1920), 117–118.
[11] The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: Old and New Testament (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2024), 1259; ISBN: 978-158617-614-3 (Leather Bound edition).
[12] Quoted by Tim Staples, “Evidence for Mary’s Painless Childbirth,” https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/evidence-for-marys-painless-childbirth ;.see also Gregory of Nyssa, On the Song of Songs 13, cited in Rhyne R. Putman, Conceived by the Holy Spirit: The Virgin Birth in Scripture and Theology (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024), 353–357.
[13] St. Peter Chrysologus, “On Mary’s Perpetual Virginity,” Sermon 117:3, quoted in Tim Staples, “Evidence for Mary’s Painless Childbirth,” https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/evidence-for-marys-painless-childbirth.
[14] St. John Damascene, Second Homily on the Dormition of the Mother of God.
[15] St Bonaventure, Psalter of the BVM, 62.
[15-A] Quoted by Tim Staples, “Evidence for Mary’s Painless Childbirth,” https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/evidence-for-marys-painless-childbirth.
[16] Collection of Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Vol. I: Sacramentary (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1992), 117 ; quoted in Fr. Terry Donahue, “IV. Explanation by Msgr. Calkins based on Marian Catecheses of John Paul II” in Reconciling Mary’s Perpetual Virginity With the ‘Labour Pains’ of Revelation 12:2, p. 3, chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.catholicbridge.com/downloads/reconciling-marys-virginity-with-revelation-12.pdf.
[17] USCCB Committee on Evangelization & Catechesis, “Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi: The Word of God in the Celebration of the Sacraments,” (Washington, D.C.: United States Council of Catholic Bishops, 2012), https://www.usccb.org/resources/lex-orandi-lex-credendi.
[17-A] Catholic Church, “Who Was Conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary” in The Catechism of the Council of Trent [aka Roman Catechism], trans. Theodore Alois Buckley (London: George Routledge and Co., 1852), Part I, Chapter 4, Article 3, Question 9, p. 45.
[18] Fr. Thomas Weinandy, “What Does it Mean for Doctrine to Develop?” 5/2/2020, Catholic Answers, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/what-does-it-mean-for-doctrine-to-develop.
[19] The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: Old and New Testament (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2024), 1259; ISBN: 978-158617-614-3 (Leather Bound edition).
[20] Aquinas, Summa theologiae III, Q. 35. A. 6, ad. 3, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4035.htm#article6.
[21] Mark J. Zia, The Faith Understood: An Introduction to Catholic Theology (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2013), 116–117.
[22] Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae III, Q. 28. A. 2, co., https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4028.htm#article2 ; see quote in §1:A:1 of this article.
[23] Therese Horvat, “Pope proclaims new doctor: Newman’s teachings resonate for today’s church and times,” (Archdiocese of Kansas City, Kansas: The Leaven, November 28, 2025), https://theleaven.org/pope-proclaims-new-doctor-newmans-teachings-resonate-for-todays-church-and-times/.
[24] Barbara J. Newman, “Introduction,” in Hildegard of Bingen: Scivias, ed. Bernard McGinn, trans. Columba Hart and Jane Bishop, The Classics of Western Spirituality (New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1990), 17–18, ISBN: 0-8091-3130-7 (pbk).
[25] Diane Watt, Secretaries of God: Women Prophets in Late Medieval and Early Modern England, (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1997), p. 26-27, ISBN: 0-85991-524-7.
[26] Hildegard of Bingen, Hildegard of Bingen: Scivias, ed. Bernard McGinn, trans. Columba Hart and Jane Bishop, The Classics of Western Spirituality (New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1990), 314–315.
[27] St. Bridget of Sweden, Revelations of St. Bridget: On the Life and Passion of Our Lord and the Life of His Blessed Mother, TAN Books, Kindle Edition, (Locations 355-362).
[28] Mary of Agreda, The Mystical City of God: A Popular Abridgement of the Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God, trans. Fr. Goerge J. Blatter: Fiscar Marison is his nom de plume (Charlotte, NC: TAN Books and Saint Benedict Press, 1978), Kindle Edition, pp. 227-231, ISBN: 978-0-89555-070-5.
[29] John Paul II, in his general audience of Nov. 7, 1979, “Original Unity of Man and Woman,” n.2, https://web.archive.org/web/20211017162435/https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/original-unity-of-man-and-woman-8543.
[30] John Paul II, Original Unity, footnotes 2-3, https://web.archive.org/web/20211017162435/https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/original-unity-of-man-and-woman-8543.
[31] Francois-Xavier Durrwell, Holy Spirit of God, trans. Sister Benedict Davies, Revised Edition (Cincinnati: Servant Books, 2006), 18-19, ISBN: 978-0-86716-785-6.
[32] Zenit Staff, “What Science Says About Medjugorje: During the Apparitions There Is Energy Around The Visionaries,” (Alpharetta, GA: Zenit, July 4, 2025), https://zenit.org/2025/07/04/what-science-says-about-medjugorje-during-the-apparitions-there-is-energy-around-the-visionaries/#:~:text=Reaction%20of%20Visionaies ; Medjugorje.com “Specific Tests Administered to the Medjugorje Visionaries and Their Results,” (Sterrett, Alabama: Caritas of Birmingham, June 1, 2009), https://medjugorje.com/specific-tests-administered-to-the-medjugorje-visionaries-and-their-results/#:~:text=Test%20or%20Procedure%3A-,Fr.%20Nicholas%20Bulat,-%2C%20on%20June%202.
[33] Rene Laurentin and scientist Henri Joyeux, Scientific and Medical Studies on the Apparitions, (Veritas Publn, December 31, 1987), ISBN: 978-0862172138 ; quoted in Medjugorje.com “Specific Tests Administered to the Medjugorje Visionaries and Their Results,” (Sterrett, Alabama: Caritas of Birmingham, June 1, 2009), https://medjugorje.com/specific-tests-administered-to-the-medjugorje-visionaries-and-their-results/#:~:text=Test%20or%20Procedure%3A-,Fr.%20Nicholas%20Bulat,-%2C%20on%20June%202.
[34] Loewenstein believes photons are the guiding principle of biological organization, consisting of information circles along a path of least information cost (Loewenstein, Locations 160-162). He writes: “Since molecules [i.e., cells containing DNA, RNA, etc.] cannot talk or engage in other human forms of communication, their method of transmitting information is straightforward: the emitter molecule makes the atoms of the receiver deploy themselves in an analogue spatial pattern. Now, there is only one force that can make this happen: the electromagnetic force [i.e., light]” (Loewenstein, Locations 547-549, 783-785). The relationship between energy and information is quantified through a thermodynamic equivalence where 1 kilocalorie of energy corresponds to approximately 10²³ bits of biological information (Loewenstein, Location 311). The solid-state gear, which embodies the deterministic information core in living beings, is made of DNA, RNA, and their products. Vast amounts of information go into making such macromolecules, and all that information ultimately comes from photon energy (Werner R. Loewenstein, The Touchstone of Life: Molecular Information, Cell Communication, and the Foundations of Life, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999), Kindle Edition.
[35] L.V. Beloussov, & V.L. Voeikov, “From Mitogenetic Rays to Biophotons,” Biophotonics and Coherent Systems in Biology, ed. L.V. Beloussov, V.L. Voeikov, V.S. Martynyuk (New York: Springer, 2007), Kindle Edition, Locations 92-94 ; Werner R. Loewenstein, The Touchstone of Life: Molecular Information, Cell Communication, and the Foundations of Life, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999), Kindle Edition, Locations 14.
[36] L.V. Beloussov, & V.L. Voeikov, “From Mitogenetic Rays to Biophotons,” Biophotonics and Coherent Systems in Biology, ed. L.V. Beloussov, V.L. Voeikov, V.S. Martynyuk (New York: Springer, 2007), Kindle Edition, Locations 92-94 ; Werner R. Loewenstein, The Touchstone of Life: Molecular Information, Cell Communication, and the Foundations of Life, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999), Kindle Edition, Locations 1813-1828.
[37] Sarah E. Dahl, “That Most Familiar Story: How Certain Details of the Nativity Became Tradition,” Christian History Magazine: The Wonder of the Season (Worcester, PA: Christian History Institute, 2012), 21 ; and https://stossbooks.com/substance--philosophical-.html#Jesus_Made_Sin.
[38] The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The New Testament (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), 320.
[39] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 309–310.
[40] Joe Heschmeyer, “Wait, Jesus Became SIN??,” 3/31/2023, Catholic Answers, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/blog/wait-jesus-became-sin.
[41] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 309–310.
[42] Aquinas, ST, III, Q. 1, Art. 4, ad. 2.
[43] Richard Hampl, Marie Bičíková, and Lucie Sosvorová, “Hormones and the blood-brain barrier,” Hormone Molecular Biology and Clinical Investigation 21, no. 3 (2015): 159.
[44] Hildegard, Scivias, 113.
[45] Hildegard, Scivias, 417.
[46] See also Original Sin Part One @ https://stossbooks.com/blog/index.php?10-04----original-sin--part-one#:~:text=Cor.%205%3A21).-,Then%20Their%20Eyes%20Were%20Opened,-There%20is%20no.
[47] Hildegard, Scivias, 80.
[48] Hildegard, Scivias, 273.
[49] Aquinas, ST, III, Q. 76, Art. 8, o. c. and co.
[50] Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), n. 499.
[51] cf. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson, eds., “Integrity” in Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
[52] Jimmy Akin, “Did Jesus Have a Miraculous Birth?” https://jimmyakin.com/2019/01/did-jesus-have-a-miraculous-birth.html.
[53] Catholic Church, “Who Was Conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary” in The Catechism of the Council of Trent [aka Roman Catechism], trans. Theodore Alois Buckley (London: George Routledge and Co., 1852), Part I, chapter 4 of the Third Article, Q.9, p. 45.
[54] Cited by Thomas Aquinas: St. Augustine, Serm. 189, n.2; PL 38, 1005.
[55] Cited by Miraville: Pope St. Leo, Enchiridion Patristicum (EP) 2182.
[56] From Miraville’s Endnote: “Furthermore, it follows that Mary’s Birth of Jesus would be a painless experience, since pain in childbirth is a punitive effect of Original Sin (cf. Gen 3:15). Mary, being free from the penalty of Original Sin due to her Immaculate Conception, would likewise be free from the penalty of a painful process of childbirth.”
[57] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, Q. 28, a. 2.
[58] Cf. Carol, Fundamentals, p. 147 ; Carol, “Mary’s Virginity in Partu,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review, 54, 1954. 18. DS 214 ; cf. Burghart, “Mary in Eastern Patristic Thought,” Mariology, Vol. II. 19. Cf. Collins, S.J., “Our Lady’s Vow of Virginity” in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 5, 1943 ; both cited in Mark Miravalle, Introduction to Mary: The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion (Goleta, CA: Queenship Publishing, 2013), Kindle Edition, pp. 48-49, ISBN: 1-882972-06-6.
[59] Mark Miravalle, Introduction to Mary: The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion (Goleta, CA: Queenship Publishing, 2013), Kindle Edition, pp. 48-49, ISBN: 1-82972-06-6.
[60] CCC, n. 892.
[61] Jean Bainvel, “Tradition and Living Magisterium,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912), https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm.
[62] Cf. H. J. Schroeder, Canons and decrees of the Council of Trent (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1941), pp. 17-18, 31-34, 36,41,51.
[63] Which is clearly within the authority of the Church to do. See Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Sacrosanctum Concilium, promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 4, 1963, Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1963), Section III, nos. 21-23.
[64] Joseph A. Komonchak, “The Council of Trent at the Second Vatican Council”, in Raymond F. Bulman, and Frederick J. Parrella (eds), From Trent to Vatican II: Historical and Theological Investigations (New York, 2006; online edn, Oxford Academic, 1 Sept. 2006), 61-80, https://doi.org/10.1093/0195178068.003.0004.
[65] Judith Schubert, 101 Questions & Answers on Women in the New Testament (New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2014), 14–15.
[66] Pontifical Bible Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, (Pauline Books & Media, 1993), pp 52-53 ; cf. Promulgated by Pope Paul VI, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum, (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1965), n.10, https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html.
[67] S. Labor, S., & S. Maguire, “The Pain of Labour,” Reviews in Pain 2, n. 2 (2008): 15–19, https://doi.org/10.1177/204946370800200205 ; Peter H. Pan MD, James C. Eisenach MD, “The Pain of Childbirth and Its Effect on the Mother and the Fetus” in Chestnut’s Obstetric Anesthesia; Principles and Practice Fifth Edition; edited by David H. Chestnut, Cynthia A Wong, Lawrence C Tsen, Warwick D Ngan Kee, Yaakov Beilin, Jill Mhyre ; Naveen Nathan, graphic editor, (Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier/Saunders, 2014), online version of Chapter 20 at: https://elsevier-elibrary.com/contents/fullcontent/82175/epubcontent_v2/OEBPS/xhtml/chp0020.html ; I. Jurna, “Geburtsschmerz-Entstehung, Erregungsleitung und Folgen” [English translation: Labor pain-causes, pathways and issues], Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) vol. 7, n. 2, (1993): 79-84, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18415427/.
[68] I. Jurna, “Geburtsschmerz-Entstehung, Erregungsleitung und Folgen” [English translation: Labor pain-causes, pathways and issues], Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) vol. 7, n. 2, (1993): 79-84, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18415427/ ; S. Labor, S., & S. Maguire, “The Pain of Labour,” Reviews in Pain 2, n. 2 (2008): 15–19, https://doi.org/10.1177/204946370800200205.
[69] I. Jurna, “Geburtsschmerz-Entstehung, Erregungsleitung und Folgen” [English translation: Labor pain-causes, pathways and issues], Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) vol. 7, n. 2, (1993): 79-84, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18415427/ ; Meera Gonzalez, Gaurav Trehan, and Ihab Kamel, “Pain Management During Labor: Part 1—Pathophysiology of Labor Pain and Maternal Evaluation for Labor Analgesia,” Topics in Pain Management 7, no. 1 (August 2021): pps 1-8, https://www.nursingcenter.com/journalarticle?Article_ID=5989459&Journal_ID=3402523&Issue_ID=5989458 ; S. Labor, S., & S. Maguire, “The Pain of Labour,” Reviews in Pain 2, n. 2 (2008): 15–19, https://doi.org/10.1177/204946370800200205.
[70] A. Malvasi, A. Vimercati, I. Ricci,N. Picardi, E. Cicinelli, I. Kosmas, G. M. Baldini, & A. Tinelli, “Dystocic Labor and Adrenergic and Noradrenergic Neurotransmitters: A Morphological Experimental Study,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23, n. 19 (2022): 11379, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms231911379 ; A. Malvasi, A. Ballini, B. Tinelli, B. Fioretti, A. Vimercati, E. Gliozheni, G. M. Baldini, E. Cascardi, M. Dellino, M. Bonetti, E. Cicinelli, A. Vitagliano, & G. R. Damiani, “Oxytocin augmentation and neurotransmitters in prolonged delivery: An experimental appraisal,” European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology X: 21, (Dec 23, 2023): 100273, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurox.2023.100273 ; M. H. Walter, H. Abele, & C. F. Plappert, “The Role of Oxytocin and the Effect of Stress During Childbirth: Neurobiological Basics and Implications for Mother and Child,” Frontiers in endocrinology 12, (October 27, 2021): 742236. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.742236 ; S. Arrowsmith, & S. Wray, “Oxytocin: its mechanism of action and receptor signalling in the myometrium,” Journal of neuroendocrinology 26, n. 6 (2014): 356–369, https://doi.org/10.1111/jne.12154.
[71] J. J. Ferreira, A. Butler, R. Stewart, A. L. Gonzalez-Cota, P. Lybaert, C. Amazu, E. L. Reinl, M. Wakle-Prabagaran, L. Salkoff, S. K. England, & C. M. Santi, “Oxytocin can regulate myometrial smooth muscle excitability by inhibiting the Na+ -activated K+ channel, Slo2.1,” The Journal of physiology 597, n. 1 (2019): 137–149, https://doi.org/10.1113/JP276806 ; S. Arrowsmith, & S. Wray, “Oxytocin: its mechanism of action and receptor signalling in the myometrium,” Journal of neuroendocrinology 26, n. 6 (2014): 356–369, https://doi.org/10.1111/jne.12154.
[72] Sarah Arrowsmith, “Oxytocin and vasopressin signalling and myometrial contraction,” Current Opinion in Physiology 13, (February 2020): Pages 62-70, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cophys.2019.10.006.
[73] A. Malvasi, et al, Dystocic Labor and Adrenergic and Noradrenergic Neurotransmitters, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms231911379.
[74] F. Z. Zangeneh, & S. Hantoushzadeh, “The physiological basis with uterine myometrium contractions from electro-mechanical/hormonal myofibril function to the term and preterm labor,” Heliyon 9, n. 11 (2023): e22259, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22259 ; Sarah Arrowsmith, “Oxytocin and vasopressin signalling and myometrial contraction,” Current Opinion in Physiology 13, (February 2020): Pages 62-70, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cophys.2019.10.006.
[75] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, n.d.), I, Q. 29, co., ad. 1-2, 4.
[76] The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: Old and New Testament (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2024), pp. 1027-1028.
[77] The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: Old and New Testament (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2024), pp. 1027-1028.
[78] Fulton J. Sheen, The Mystical Body of Christ, Kindle Edition, (Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press, 2015), p. 195; eISBN:13 978-0-87061-295-4.
[79] For example, see Paul VI, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, (November 21, 1964) (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1964), n. 56, https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html.
[80] Mark Allan Powell, “Parallelism,” in The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary (Revised and Updated), ed. Mark Allan Powell (New York: HarperCollins, 2011), 740; ISBN: 0–8146-5609–9.
[81] LG states, “The union of the Mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to His death it is shown first of all when Mary [full of grace (n. 56, Luke 1:28)], arising in haste to go to visit Elizabeth, is greeted by her as blessed because of her belief in the promise of salvation and the precursor leaped with joy in the womb of his mother” (Lk. 1:41-45; LG, nos. 57-58). Jesus, whose humanity includes his biological body, is the instrument of all created grace. (Paul VI, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, Chapter 8, nos. 55-69 (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, November 21, 1964), https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html).
[82] Lei Ye, Cory Swingen, & Jianyi Zhang, “Induced pluripotent stem cells and their potential for basic and clinical sciences,” Current Cardiology Reviews 9, no.1 (2013): 63–72, https://doi.org/10.2174/157340313805076278.
[83] Lei Ye, Cory Swingen, & Jianyi Zhang, “Induced pluripotent stem cells and their potential for basic and clinical sciences,” Current Cardiology Reviews 9, no.1 (2013): 63–72, https://doi.org/10.2174/157340313805076278.
[84] Cómitre-Mariano, B., Martínez-García, M., García-Gálvez, B., Paternina-Die, M., Desco, M., Carmona, S., & Gómez-Gaviro, M. V., “Feto-maternal microchimerism: Memories from pregnancy,” iScience 25, n. 1 (2021): 103664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.103664.
[85] Kallenbach LR, Johnson KL, Bianchi DW, “Fetal cell microchimerism and cancer: a nexus of reproduction, immunology and tumor biology,” Cancer Res 71: n. 1 (2011): 8–12, https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-0618.
[86] Catholic Church, “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium Et Spes,” in Vatican II Documents (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011), n. 22, cited in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), n. 359.
[87] Definition of PERSON: “ ‘An individual substance of a rational nature’ (Boethius). Therefore, every individual intellectual substance which is complete in itself, uncommunicated and existing for itself, is a person. Essential to person in theological terms are intelligence and substantiality, wholeness in oneself and especially individuality.” (John Hardon, “Person,” Modern Catholic Dictionary (Bardstown: Eternal Life Publishing, 2008), 417 ; see also Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, n.d.), I, Q. 29, co., ad. 1-2, 4).
[88] St. Paul Center, “Understanding Mary’s Perpetual Virginity,” Nov. 21, 2018, https://stpaulcenter.com/posts/understanding-marys-perpetual-virginity#:~:text=requires%20recognition%20that-,Mary%E2%80%99s%20virginity,-wasn%E2%80%99t%20just%20one.
[89] Catholic Church, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, trans. Theodore Alois Buckley (London: George Routledge and Co., 1852), Part I, Chapter 4, Question 8, p. 45.
[90] Catholic Church, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, trans. Theodore Alois Buckley (London: George Routledge and Co., 1852), Part I, Chapter 12, Question 10, pps. 124–125.
[91] F. J. Koch, A Manual of Apologetics, ed. Charles Bruehl, trans. A. M. Buchanan, Imprimatur: Archbishop John Cardinal Farley of New York (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1915), 66–68.
[92] Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae III, Q. 35. A. 6, s.c., co.
[93] I used Consensus (https://consensus.app), an AI-powered academic search engine, to identify and synthesize relevant scientific literature.
[94] Ven. Fr. Giuseppe Frassinetti and Pope Pius X, Tradivox: Catholic Catechism Index, Vol 8 (Sophia Institute Press, 2022), n. 251, ISBN: 978-1644133644 ; Note regarding Tradivox Volume 8: According to Sophia Press, two of the greatest Italian catechisms have been paired together for the first time in the Tradivox collection. The first is A Dogmatic Catechism, first published in 1842 by Ven. Fr. Giuseppe Frassinetti. The second Catechism in this volume is that of Pope St. Pius X, first published in 1905 as Compendium of Christian Doctrine.
[95] Cf. Lei Ye, Cory Swingen, & Jianyi Zhang, “Induced pluripotent stem cells and their potential for basic and clinical sciences,” Current Cardiology Reviews 9, no.1 (2013): 63–72, https://doi.org/10.2174/157340313805076278 ; L.V. Beloussov, V.L. Voeikov. “From Mitogenetic Rays to Biophotons.” Biophotonics and Coherent Systems in Biology, ed. L.V. Beloussov, V.L. Voeikov, V.S. Martynyuk, Kindle Edition, Locations 92-94, 105-107 ; Werner R. Loewenstein, The Touchstone of Life: Molecular Information, Cell Communication, and the Foundations of Life (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999), Kindle Edition, Locations 311, 160-162, 868-870; eISBN: 978-0190283629.
[96] See Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, n. 11.
[97] Schneider, Bishop Athanasius, Credo: Compendium of the Catholic Faith (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2023), Kindle Edition, n. 322, pp. 109-110; eBook ISBN: 978-1-64413-941-7.
[98] St. Hildegard of Bingen, The Book of Divine Works, ed. Gregory F. LaNave, trans. Nathaniel M. Campbell, vol. 18, The Fathers of the Church: Mediaeval Continuation (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2018), 140.
[99] Hildegard, The Book of Divine Works, p. 148.
[100] Hildegard, The Book of Divine Works, p. 151.
[101] Hildegard, The Book of Divine Works, p. 143.
[102] cf. Physica 6, Preface on Birds (p. 177).
[103] Hildegard, The Book of Divine Works, p.184.
[104] St. Paul Center, “Understanding Mary’s Perpetual Virginity,” Nov. 21, 2018, https://stpaulcenter.com/posts/understanding-marys-perpetual-virginity#:~:text=requires%20recognition%20that-,Mary%E2%80%99s%20virginity,-wasn%E2%80%99t%20just%20one.
[105] John Paul II, “Responsible Parenthood Linked to Moral Maturity,” in his general audience given Sept. 5, 1984, Audiences of Pope John Paul II (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2014), n. 1.
[106] Joseph A. Komonchak, Mary Collins, and Dermot A. Lane, in The New Dictionary of Theology (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), 398.
[107] Barbara J. Newman, “Introduction,” in Hildegard of Bingen: Scivias, ed. Bernard McGinn, trans. Columba Hart and Jane Bishop, The Classics of Western Spirituality (New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1990), 37.
[108] Christopher West, Theology of the Body Explained (Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 2003), p. 94.] The spirit expresses itself in the language of the body.[West, Theology of the Body Explained, p. 382.
[109] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, n.d.), I, q. 99, a. 1, co.
[110] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 99, a. 1, co.
[111] Catherine of Siena, The Dialogue, trans. Suzanne Noffke, O.P (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1980), 86.
[112] KR Schon, APJ Parker, CG Woods, “Congenital Insensitivity to Pain Overview,” (Updated Jun 11, 2020), in: Ed. MP Adam, S. Bick, GM Mirzaa, et al., GeneReviews [Internet], (Seattle, WA: University of Washington, 1993-2026), available online at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK481553/.
[113] KR Schon et al., “Congenital Insensitivity to Pain Overview,” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK481553/.
[114] See Mt 12:28; Lk 11:20; Acts1:8, 10:38; 1 Cor 12:4-11, and Ex 8:19 ; in Ex 8:19, it reads, “[T]he magicians said to Pharaoh, ‘This is the finger of God.’ ” The ‘finger’ is interpreted as the Holy Spirit (Translated by J.G. Cunningham, “Letters of St. Augustine-Letter 55,” n. 29, From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 1, ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887), Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102055.htm).
[115] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, n.d.), I, Q. 29, co., ad. 1-2, 4.
[116] Mary of Agreda, The Mystical City of God: A Popular Abridgement of the Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God, (Saint Benedict Press and TAN Books, ), Kindle Edition, p. 589.
[117] F. J. Koch, A Manual of Apologetics, ed. Charles Bruehl, trans. A. M. Buchanan, Imprimatur: Archbishop John Cardinal Farley of New York (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1915), 66–68.
[118] Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary: From the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, ed. Donald R. Dickerson Jr., trans. Sir Michael Palairit (Ignacio Hills Press and e-Pulp Adventures, 2009), Kindle Edition, p. 197.
[119] George Leo Haydock, Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary (New York: Edward Dunigan and Brother, 1859), Gen 3:16.
[120] Allen P. Ross, “Genesis,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 33.
[121] Augustine of Hippo, “The City of God,” in St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 281.
[122] Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations, as recorded in the Journals of Clemens Brentano, arranged and edited by Carl E Schmoger CSSR, Vol 1 of 4, p. 6-8.
[123] Norman L. Geisler, Systematic theology, volume two: God, creation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2003), pp. 597–601 ; see also https://www.stossbooks.com/blog/index.php?garden-of-eden--first-eucharistic-celebration-in-history--part-ii-of-ii#:~:text=Christ%20as%20the%20Messenger%20of%20Yahweh.
[124] Fulton J. Sheen, The Mystical Body of Christ, Kindle Edition, (Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press, 2015), pps. 23-24, 48, 76, 181-185; eISBN:13 978-0-87061-295-4.
[125] Fulton J. Sheen, The Mystical Body of Christ, Kindle Edition, (Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press, 2015), pp. 23-24.
[126] See Mt 12:28; Lk 11:20; Acts1:8, 10:38; 1 Cor 12:4-11, and Ex 8:19 ; in Ex 8:19, it reads, “[T]he magicians said to Pharaoh, ‘This is the finger of God.’ ” The ‘finger’ is interpreted as the Holy Spirit (Translated by J.G. Cunningham, “Letters of St. Augustine-Letter 55,” n. 29, From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 1, ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887), Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102055.htm).
[127] Saint Seraphim of Sarov, On Acquisition of the Holy Spirit, (Grapevine Books, 2025), Kindle Edition, pp. 31-32.