In 1 Corinthians 7:2–5, the Apostle Paul commands that spouses must not deprive one another of sexual intimacy, except temporarily and by mutual agreement for spiritual purposes. He states that each spouse has authority over the other’s body and that withholding intimacy invites temptation and sin. This is not presented as optional advice. It is a moral directive grounded in the nature of marriage.
If Mary and Joseph were truly married, and Mary permanently withheld sexual intimacy, then by Paul’s standard, she violated the moral obligations of marriage. That would constitute sin. But Catholic doctrine insists that Mary was sinless. Therefore, one of two conclusions must follow:
- Mary was not sinless, which contradicts the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
- Mary was not truly married to Joseph in the full sense, which contradicts Scripture and tradition.
To affirm both dogmas simultaneously, one must carve out an exception to Paul’s teaching, an exception not found in the text itself. This requires assuming that Mary and Joseph had a unique, divinely ordained marriage exempt from normal moral obligations. But such an assumption is theological special pleading: it introduces an exception to resolve a contradiction without scriptural support.
Therefore, the tension remains unresolved. Either Mary sinned by withholding what Paul calls a marital duty, or she did not remain perpetually virgin. Both cannot be true without redefining either sin or marriage in a way that departs from the ordinary meaning of Scripture.
Thanks for the guffaw!
ReplyDelete