Mariology and Economics about "virginity in partu The word "Economy" usually designates the communication that God makes of himself, as opposed to the reality of God in the intimacy of himself: the "redemptive Incarnation" and the "Economy of salvation" designate, respectively in function of God or in function of man, the same reality. We retain this meaning of the word economy: let us analyze it briefly. The economy of salvation is the unity between two orders: God, who saves supernaturally, and man, wounded in his very nature by sin. These two orders are distinct, each having its own unity; they are one in a sense in the incarnate Word: as his two natures, in virtue of his Person. These two orders are also one in each of the redeemed; they are one in Mary, the first redeemed. If we call in general harmony the unity of two orders which remain distinct, we will say that the structure of the economy of salvation is that of a harmony, and that this harmony comprises degrees. The Blessed Virgin is one of them. She is Christ, she is herself; one through the other. From this intimate connection it follows that the unity, in Mary, of the divine order and the human order constitutes the highest degree created of the "Economy", that is to say, of the harmony proper to the redemptive incarnation1. Each of the privileges of Mary reflects in its own way the perfection of the harmony proper to Mary. There can be no such thing. The same thing can be expressed in another way. The expression "order of Mary" designates, according to the usual meaning of the word "order", the whole of the realities related to the Blessed Virgin. The proper perfection of this order is manifested by the unity between Marian theology and Mariology: the latter considering Mary in herself, the former considering Mary in her relationship to Christ. Distinguishing between these two points of view must not divide Marian doctrine, whose unity is founded on the first. And if this is possible, even though it is very difficult, it is precisely because Mary is Mary: because there is an "order of Mary". Let us now do the "translation". What we usually call "Mary's order" we designate here by harmony, simply for the sake of precision. When two orders, each having its unity according to its principle, together constitute another unity, it is appropriate, to designate this third unity, to use a word other than "order": and that is "harmony. When the elements of one order are referred to the principle of a second order and thus integrated into that second order, there is only one order. Harmony, on the other hand, has two orders, each of which retains its own principle. We see how these clarifications apply to the present case and are called for by it. The "natural" and the "supernatural" are one in Christ according to the essence itself. It is therefore appropriate to say, even in view of the vocabulary precision immediately proposed, that there is an "order of hypostatic union". It cannot be said, at the same time, that there is an "order of Mary". This last expression, having been consecrated by usage, carries with it an intuitive meaning that should be retained. It is this intuitive content that we designate in the text as harmony. Let us add that the distinction between unity of order and unity of harmony depends, in the concrete application, on the point of view from which we place ourselves. This, of course, limits the useful scope of the proposed precision. 204 THOMIST REVIEW There is no exception or substitution. Indeed, the perfection of an order or harmony is manifested in that it is perfectly present in each of its parts. The order does not discriminate between its elements: it constitutes them as such by virtue of its principle. A hierarchy of perfection may exist between the elements of an order considered according to their indivi duality; but, considered according to their belonging to the order, they all manifest its unity and thus all its perfection. Each one, having its own role, is irreplaceable. It would therefore be to minimize the harmony of Mary to consider any of its constituents as secondary; it would be, we think, to remain at a "peripherent" examination of this harmony. Let us take a comparison. The various parts of a cathedral seem to be of unequal importance. For example, the nave could be what it is without the addition of such and such a lateral part not required for the balance of the thrusts; and since, from the point of view of usage, the vessel is the main one, we will rightly consider that the columns connected in the keystone constitute the main part. Other parts, however, are architecturally necessary; and the well-built building is one in which there is no unnecessary part, even from the sole point of view of stability. The persuasive "harmony" radiated by masterpieces comes precisely from the unity of two orders: one physical, whose constituents are weight and material, and the other spiritual, whose end is symbolism. Ideally, the same element should be imitated, where it is and not elsewhere, according to both these orders. And, of course, it is the spiritual order which is dominant: it alone, at once, concerns the whole and inspires every detail: so, in a true masterpiece, irrelevance exists only for the "hurried" observer. The windows of such an apse have been pierced in such a way that, every morning and throughout the year, the object illuminated by the first rays of the sun is the tabernacle. This arrangement is "secondary", in the sense that the building would remain planted in the ground if the openings of the apse had another shape. It would be better to say, using the language of modern science, that this arrangement is a "second order effect". The visitor who has no time to observe, or no longer knows how to do so, will at most record with his guide: "One will notice the curious windows of the apse. - The calculation of the ogival spindles distributing the sunlight in the heart of the sanctuary, and the calculation of the master columns pointing from the intimacy of the sanctuary to its end which is heaven, these two calculations, technically foreign to each other, are nevertheless one: because they serve the same idea: God nourishes his own glory from the communication he makes of himself. Anyone who does not enter into this idea will see, without understanding it, only the "first order effects": a vessel designed to contain a crowd. The technique of piercing which aims at a precious but so discreet evocation, L u c e r n a e j u s e s t A g n u s ( A p o c . xxi, 23): this technique is only an "effect of the second order". It appears to those who reflect. And then it is no longer something secondary in the trivial sense of the word - let us complete our comparison. It is the second-order effects which really show the nature of gravitation. The first-order effects only allow us to grasp the reality of the situation. The effects of the second order are not those of the third or fourth order... they therefore do not manifest everything: but to ignore them systematically would simply be to condemn oneself to ignore everything. To reduce in p a r t u virginity to a merely moral sense would be tantamount, and worse, to open cid en'so^parfdt^^ret5i. 1*enCeinte ** d'une ba5,licIue romane qui enclôt la lumière du MARIOLOGY AND ECONOMY 205 What is already true of the work of man is also true of the work of God, eminently of the masterpiece that is Mary. If you wall up the apse, you will no longer have the cathedral: you will have something else, a convenient room no doubt. Leave out one of Mary's privileges, you will have a useful character for the Church: you will no longer have Mary. Mary is Mary, the pure masterpiece of God. This would be overlooked if we were to relegate to the triviality of the "secondary" what in truth is in Mary a "second-order effect" adequately expressive of divine wisdom. We can now clarify our point. I n p a r tu virginity constitutes a necessary element of Marian harmony. To make this clear, it suffices to observe that the existence and nature of this privilege have both a double and a single meaning, in accordance with the intimate mystery of Mary: she is of Christ, she is herself. That which is organically inserted into the essential, flows from the essence: such is the case of virginity. We shall even see that it is not only a question of the Marian doctrine but of the essence of the mystery as such. We take for granted the fact of virginity in the physical sense, the only one which does not render the traditional statement useless. In the second paragraph we shall examine, as far as possible, the nature of the mystery. First of all, let us recall the meaning of the fact itself. The Incarnation is a new presence ordered both to the glory of God and to the salvation of man, the one being integrated with the other in the unity of the same effective plan. The reasons of convenience in favour of the Incarnation insist on one thing or the other, but they necessarily take both into account. They do not concern the glory of God in Himself, nor man only in his present state: they are founded on the God of Love, condescending i. R. L a u r e n t is , T h e m y s t e r o f v i r g i n a l n a i s a n c e , in E p h . M a r . X, i960, PP- 345'374; H.-M. D ie p e n , L a v i r g i n i t é d e M a r i e , λ s i g n e d u V e r b e n a i s s a n t ", in KT LX, i960, pp. 425-428; M.-L. G u é r a r d e s L a u r ie r s , R T LIX, 1959, p. 751. - The documents of the Magisterium affirm that childbirth is m i r a b i l e , s i n g u l a r e , n o s tr a e n a t u r a e d i s s i m i l i s , t h a t virginity which is not altered is virginity κατα çûaw. Finally, three passages from the M u n i f i c e n t i s s i m u s , Pius XII's constitution [Λ /IS XLII, 1950, pp. 761, 765, 768], assign virginity in childbirth as a motive in favour of the Assumption. The Assumption is a singular privilege, and it is singular in that respect. The argument put forward by Pius XII would therefore have no value if virginity were to be understood only in a moral sense. The traditional character of the doctrine of virginity in the physical sense has been established by the rigorous critical study of Mgr G. J o u a s s a r d , M a r i e à tr a c e r s la p a t r i s t i c e : M a t e r n i t y d i v i n e , v i r g i n i t y , s a i n t e n t y , in M a r i a I, Paris, 1949, pp. 71-108. Bishop J. returns to this question in a recent article in which he studies the position of St. Ambrose: D e u x c h e f s d e f i l e e n t h e m a r i a l t h e o l o g i e s i n t h e s e c o n d e n o i l i e s o f t h e I V e n d e c l e : s a i n t É p i p h a n e a n d t h e s a i n t A m b r o i s e , i n G r e g i n e . XLII, 1961, pp. 5-36 (especially pp. 21-25). - Finally, let us note that a decree of the Holy Office has firmly recalled that the traditional doctrine concerning virginity is binding on theologians as on all believers: Document inserted in E p h . M a r i o l o g i c a e XI, 1961, p. 138. The document is interpreted (p. 137) as it is: not as forbidding to speak of virginity, but as forbidding to speak of it in the condemned sense: s i a v i e t a t a l a p u b b l i c a z i o n e d i s im il i d i s e r t a z i o n i Jcf. B T X, 1957-I959. P- 716)The document is translated in the C a t h o l i c D o c u m e n t a t i o n LV III, 1961, c. 240. 2O6 THOMIST REVIEW It is clear that in order to justify the existence of a relationship between two extremes one must take into account each one not as it is in itself but as it is in relation to the other. It is clear, moreover, that in order to justify the existence of a relationship between two extremes, it is necessary to take into account each one not as it is in itself but as it is in relation to the other. The manifestation of God to man would be insufficient, even from man's point of view alone, if God assumed something of man, and the reality assumed did not by that very fact become indicative of God. This principle is in fact put into practice in each of the "conveniences of the incarnation" enunciated by Saint Thomas1. It is even expressed in a maximum form that gives it great clarity. The divinity is best manifested by what is proper to God. Now God has the power to modify the laws of nature, of which he is the author, by producing something that exceeds them2. 2 Thus miracles accompanied and proved the incarnation. And St. Thomas adds that if others than Christ performed miracles similar to his, he alone acted by commanding, his disciples by praying. The order of nature was thus promoted above itself, either to be integrated into the hypostatic order or to designate it. The miracle is, in this perspective, normal. The taste for the marvellous may have sought to multiply it. Rationalism would now like to reexamine 3. Faith makes us adhere to reality, as God reveals it immutably. Virginity is a miracle; this miracle inaugurates the visible incarnation. The virgin birth is like the virgin conception: they concern a human being, they concern God; they are common and singular. They are not unnatural, but the seal of the miracle is affixed to them: and thus, precisely, they designate God. All this is perfectly coherent, and has been sufficiently brought to light for it not to be necessary to insist. Why, then, is a difficulty raised in this connection which should not be special? Why should natural law proscribe virginity but not the resurrection of the dead? The answer, which, like the question itself, is related to the present situation, is to be found in a certain conception of mystery, which is fiercely contested whenever it touches upon "lived" human realities. Believers who question virginity in the physical sense do not contest the possibility or the right of God to raise the dead. This is because the accomplishment of a resurrection is outside the sphere of human action, so there is no meeting on this point between God and man; consequently, there is no need to expect God to conform to man: "God is free," and there is no difficulty in admitting this type of miracle for those who believe in his omnipotence. But if God is born or grows or dies, the principle "everything is assumed except sin" does not con1. Sum. th e o l I I * , q. χ, a . 2 ; C . G e n t . IV, c. 54, 55. 2. C. Goii. IV, c. 55, § η. 33 3. Cf. R. L a v r e n t is , a r t . c i l . We also refer to RT LIX, 1959, p. 750. MARIOLOGY AND ECONOMY 207 Does it not lead one to affirm that in the human order nothing distinguishes Christ from other men? Exclusivism should not be confused with rigor or truth. In the present case, it is linked to a one-sided interpretation of the proprieties of the incarnation: this is hardly worth dwelling on. But how can it be that self-criticism does not rule out these excesses? Here three conceptions of the mystery confront each other in relation to the incarnation, and it is opportune to recall them briefly. We find them both from the point of view of duration and from the point of view of being, which is where we will begin. Mystery is, ontologically, the manifestation in a sign of a reality which is itself hidden. It is essential for the mystery to be relational, that is, to include a relationship within itself. This is all the more true the more perfect the mystery is, especially if the sign is not only an intelligible designation of reality, but also assures its presence. Presence is in fact the foundation of a relation: the relation of that which is present to that of which there is presence. Presence is therefore not a relation, but it is concomitant to a relation: the proof would be that the modalities correspond to each other: in particular, reality and reciprocity belong or not to both presence and the relation that founds it. The risk is always great, as we know, of confusing a relation with its foundation or with its extremes, that is, in the case under consideration, of confusing presence with the relation to the present reality or even with this reality itself. This is why the mysteries which include presence are the most difficult: and it is in relation to them that we can observe two inadequate conceptions of mystery. The relationship to which presence is concomitant can be rejected in fact in two ways: either by separation or by confusion of its extremes. In the first case, the mystery has unity only in virtue of God's omnipotence: reality is no longer, in fact, conceived as being present in the sign but as being in the sign. The sign does not intelligibly lead to reality; it is a kind of substitute for it. Only the act of a purely voluntary faith makes it possible to apprehend the relationship established by the divine will between this rationally knowable sign and the inaccessible reality. We see that, according to this first conception, the sign is not part of the mystery: in fact, we call mystery that which is beyond the sign and which is inaccessible to the intelligence in any way. We will call this theory leglistic, which neglects, at the same time as the proper value of intelligence, the unity of the relation in which the economy of mystery consists: the extremes are disjoined; the sign is not charged with reality, it only designates a beyond. The same preterition of the relation can and does have an inverse sequence: the extremes are no longer disjoined but confused 20S THOMIST REVIEW The sign absorbs the reality to which it was simply meant to lead. At the same time, it loses its role, and hence its real reason for being. So the existence of the sign is, according to this conception of mystery, justified in another way: functionally, that is, according to the use which man makes of it. And since reality is, as we have just said, absorbed by the sign because of the preterism of the relation, it follows ineluctably that reality itself is envisaged not in itself but functionally, in function of salvation. From then on, reality can no longer be normative for the sign. The sign, in the final analysis, is normed by the demands of man. And this inevitably becomes the fundamental, though implicit, principle both of theological inference and of the interpretation of revelation. This tendency is dominant at the present time, and this is the real cause of the emergence of the "difficulties of believing" which are proliferating in different mentalities. Each one has his own difficulty; each one would like to have faith in accordance with his own faith, that is to say, in accordance with the sign which he has formed of the mystery. But if reality is conceived functionally, that is to say, in fact, by each one in function of himself, then the sign specified by the need of each one legitimately claims to be reality, and each one legitimately claims that his faith is faith. The physicist rejects eternity as conceived by "theologians" and claims to substitute an eternity derived from an interpretation of the relativistic theory. The physiologist rejects virginity as conceived by "theologians" and claims to replace it with a purely moral virginity12. We are limiting ourselves, but we should mention the sociologist, the historian, the existentialist... and so many others. Each has his difficulty and presents his request; each wraps his argument in reasons which, in the absence of proof, aim to persuade. These arguments even contradict each other3, which is not a sign of truth; but they all have radically the same origin: namely the non-dociety of reason which, at least in fact, claims the precedence of its own constructions over divine revelation: at least in cases where there is a confrontation between the two things. It is this which leads to an alteration of the very notion of mystery. We shall call this theory "f o n c t i o n a l", which, like the previous one, is a theory of the "mystery" of the Church. 1. Authors who profess the Catholic faith cannot, of course, attack dogma itself. Theology is used as a scapegoat. The reader will please believe that we are not speaking here in the vague; references to the specific cases we are aiming at, some of which are quite well known, would weigh down this note. 2. Much more noble, of course, since it conforms to science. The pity is that we are not concerned to know if this interpretation is in conformity with God's information. * It is a pity that one does not care whether this interpretation is in accordance with God's information, because the historian does not agree on the subject of eternity, nor on the subject of duration, nor on the subject of the time. .fonct.io,in(;1 had two different meanings, one particularizing siquc^tdl""tP£ by giving it, according to the context, one or the other meaning. The functional unity of the sign is thus better manifested; and equivocation is not to be feared if we properly base the ontology of the sign on its relation to transcendent reality. i. P s > xi, 2. 210 THOMIST REVIEW sign refers to reality. That this conception is the true one results from reasons that we will limit ourselves to stating without further development: it takes as its basis that which the lack of which makes the first two conceptions antinomic; it is perfectly coherent: for it assigns as the principle of unity for the double role of the sign that very thing which constitutes its ontology, namely its relation to the signified reality; finally, it is of an analogical nature: let us insist a little on this character, for it recapitulates the preceding ones, and will be particularly useful for our purpose. Let us speak of the mystery of the incarnation, since it is one of these aspects that we have to deal with, and let us first make a remark of an inductive nature. Everything which, in virtue of the Incarnation, becomes, more or less mediately, relative to the Incarnate Word becomes, by this very fact, a sign of the mystery: either that it designates the person of Christ, or that it makes him present in some way. The sign is real if the relation is real, the sign assures presence insofar as and insofar as it constitutes the foundation of a real relation, the sign is mediate if the relation has as its term another sign and not reality itself, etc. Moreover, it is not a question of dissolving the reality proper to the mystery into an indefinite universe of signs in which it would become more and more blurred. What we are pointing out is that the concept of analogy is valid for the notion of mystery examined in the third hour and for it alone. That analogy does not entail imprecision, we shall confirm by referring to the "hypostatic order": even understood in the strictest sense, and as constituting in some way the nucleus of the mystery of the incarnation, the "hypostatic order" itself includes ana logy. To the degree of precision to which it is preferable to say that the whole of the realities concerning Mary constitute a harmony rather than an order, it must nevertheless be maintained that Mary belongs to the hypostatic order1 : by the permanent effect induced in her by the act which constitutes her, all relative to the Word becoming incarnate in her. But the Blessed Virgin does not belong to the hypostatic order in the same way as the Humanity assumed by the Word: from one case to the other, there is an analogy whose unity is founded on the reference to the person of the Word and whose diversity comes from the aspects under which this reference is realized. The principle of analogy is thus well established: it applies to the mystery of the incarnation considered in general as well as to its eminent aspect which is the hypostatic order. Having made this observation, it is appropriate to recall its justification. Analogy is proper to being; if it is possible with regard to the essence of the mystery defined in the third way, it is because the relationship, the principal element of this definition, is Academia Mariana Internationale, 1959. MARIOLOGY AND ECONOMY 211 an ontological category; and by this we mean that the relation has, among the ten categories, the exclusive property of being found in all the others: substance excepted. A theory of mystery based on the reality of the relation is thus open to the whole amplitude of being. We will call it a real theory: it is the only theory that sufficiently grounds the functional aspect of the sign: it guarantees its internal order and, by the same token, its integrity. We can now understand the full scope of the virility of the sign. It is, on the one hand, integrated into the mystery of the incarnation; it is, as Dom Diepen has said, the "sign of the Word being born "1 : this is what, on the side of the created dispositions and as immediately as possible, distinguishes the birth of the God-man from that of other men. But on the other hand it carries a general teaching: showing God being born, it also shows the meaning of the mystery. As we have said, virginity is a "second-order effect"; it requires a sharp discrimination between rival conceptions which the interpretation of "first-order effects" also considers possible. 2 Specifically, virginity requires the realist theory of mystery, to the exclusion of the other two. And the "difficulties" raised in connection with virginity in the real sense of the word mean difficulty or refusal to admit a certain conception of mystery. Few words will suffice to show this. First of all, let us observe that this connection between the virginity of the Virgin Mary and the structure of faith is perfectly foreseen by theologians who hold a minimal attitude towards the Marian privilege, and who generally place themselves in the kerygmatic point of view. If they truly held this miracle to be "secondary", they should simply not add to the general formulas which their perspective justifies an inadmissible clause: namely, that these formulas are sufficient to express the whole truth. 3 That certain aspects of revealed doctrine are left in the background in a catechesis aimed at a largely uneducated audience is no surprise to anyone, but why, then, preempt the curiosity of the audience and present the "diminished truth" as the whole truth? The real issue is not virginity itself, but a certain conception of mystery. The arguments which claim to reduce the virginity of the individual are aimed at a particularly topical case; but they have a much more general scope, and this alone explains the sometimes harsh way in which they are presented: their profound intention is to eliminate everything which opposes a concept of mystery. Cf. H.-M. Diep e n , a r t . c i t . p. 425, n. 1. 2. The "mystery of salvation", the Redemption, the Economy, the Incarnation can up to a point be explained from the theories of mystery which we have called legalistic and functional. The content is, so to speak, infinite enough to retain consistency, even if it is inadequately expressed. This is no longer the case for those aspects which some theologians consider secondary. Minimized, they lose their raison d'être. K. Rahman, S. J., M a r i e M e r e o f t h e S e i g n , Pans, ed. de 1 Orante, 1960, p. 81. 212 THOMIST REVIEW Let us not dwell on this first observation. Let us not insist further on this first observation. To interpret the dogmatic statement of virginity in a purely moral sense is to evade its content and to oppose tradition. Each of these two reasons alone is sufficient to exclude this interpretation. But the authors who support it at least feel something to be true, namely that the right notion of virginity is intimately connected with the right notion of mystery. This is what we shall now show. The sign associated with the mystery has, as we have just recalled, two roles: to be grasped by those to whom it is addressed, to designate intelligibly and even to make present the reality. These two roles are mutually ordered one to the other, and this is what the functional unity of the sign consists in. How can we now conceive the reality of the sign? The differences between the answers given to this question by the three theories we have schematically distinguished are due to two presuppositions that an abstract classification has led us to state separately and that a real view must consider together. These two presuppositions are: on the one hand, the way of conceiving the relation, and on the other hand, the aspect of reality to which the sign refers. Can the relation have such a reality that it constitutes a real determination of its subject? Does the "sign" of "virginity" refer only to the moral virginity of Mary, or also to a divine and transcendent reality? The interference between these two questions, which is very complex in concrete terms, actually determines the option in favour of one or the other theory of the mystery. To the second question, which is supposed to be separate from the first, the teaching which the Christmas liturgy imparts gives a unanimously accepted answer: the bodily integrity of Mary in the act of childbirth refers to the simple act of the eternal generation of the Word. But what is the nature of this reference? Is it real or merely symbolic? This is the radical area of divergence between the different ways of answering the first question. Let us explain the two members of the alternative. In the first place, if the reference of i n p a r t u virginity to the transcendent reality which it symbolizes is conceived as a real relationship, the physical determination which i n p a r t u virginity constitutes for Mary herself is really founded in virtue of this same transcendent reality; and this is the reason for the mutual implication between two types of reality. This mutual implication between two types of reality: that of her virginity and that of her relation to the etemal generation is a corollary and even simply an aspect of the privilege of divine Maternity. Mary is, all of it, MARIOLOGY AND ECONOMY 213 She was made to be a Mother; she is entirely relative to the Word becoming incarnate in her. This relationality concerns primordially the act and operation of the ever Virgin; but it extends in the form of a permanent effect to all the "harmony" included in the person of Mary: harmony which associates the natural and the supernatural, the body and the soul, which therefore concerns the very being. In this perspective, virginity is the corporeal aspect of the foundation, real and permanent in Mary, of the distinct and singular relationship that she maintains with the person of the Word and consequently with the generation of this same person. And, in return, if we conceive of virginity in this way, that is to say, integrated into the real foundation of a relation of Mary to the Uncreated, it follows that virginity objectively and actually determines Mary's being in view of this relationship. In the second place, if the reference of virginity to the transcendent reality which it symbolises is conceived as a pure symbol, the physical determination which virginity eventually constitutes for Mary has no reason to exist and therefore no reality except as a sign of moral virginity. Symbolism loses its reality at the same time as the relationship on which it is based. And it is, in this perspective, considered as belonging to the "infancy" of human knowledge and humanity. Humanity, having now reached "adulthood", must have another conception of mystery and forge, for the incarnation in particular, other schemes of representation. And, in fact, if the raison d'être of virginity lies exclusively in the fact that it is the sign of moral virginity, its reference to transcendent reality is no more than a symbolism of overgrowth which cannot be taken into consideration in a rigorous theological determination. The interpretation that should be given to the dogmatic statement will therefore be a matter for other considerations. Here, then, is an alternative whose two members exclude each other, at the same time as the two ways in which they respectively found the reality of the sign. The first member corresponds to the real theory of mystery: it affirms a necessary connection in fact between the physical reality of the virginity of the incarnation and the reality of the incarnation; in other words, it affirms that the virginity of the incarnation, understood in the physical sense, is, necessarily in fact, an integral part of the "Economy. The second member of the alternative denies what the first formally affirms: it does not immediately deny the physical character of inpariety, but it intends to derive it only from moral virginity. The functional theory of mystery follows this second member of the alternative. This is inescapable. This theory affirms that, of the two roles of the sign, one of referring to the transcendent reality and the other of being grasped by man, it is the second that is primary. I L In fact, that is, being presupposed Γ Incarnation. 214 THOMIST REVIEW The functional theory, therefore, by virtue of its original inspiration, inevitably in practice, though perhaps unwillingly, leads to the exclusion of the first member of the alternative; it therefore necessarily follows the second member. The functional theory thus entails, by virtue of its original inspiration, inevitably in practice, though perhaps unwillingly, the exclusion of the first member of the alternative; it thus necessarily follows the second member. We will complete our demonstration that the functional theory is incompatible with the physical interpretation of i n p a r t u virginity by examining how the relationship between moral virginity and i n p a r t u virginity is presented according to the internal logic of this theory. The fundamental option is found here: what is primordial is that the sign be grasped by man, that it shows the economy of salvation such as man is called to realise it; the sign, of course, laughs at God and refers to him: but both are obscure and remain implicit, there is no need to mention them. Now it is clear that virginity is not an example. It constitutes an "a-normal", "extra-ordinary" fact: whereas the birth of Emmanuel "must" precisely make God present to men by the fact that it is inserted in the usual human course, by the fact that it is accompanied by all the circumstances usually concomitant with a human birth. Under these conditions, virginity in the physical sense is no more than a cumbersome miracle, a relic of the primitive imagination, enamoured of the marvellous... and tainted by docility, some theologians dare to add. What can be imitated, what is meritorious, what, in a word, deserves to be integrated as an exemplary and effective sign in the economy of salvation, is the idea of virginity understood in the moral sense, that is to say, as defined by the mora ls1 . It is therefore virginity, understood in this way, that must be retained, and it alone. Moreover, the eminence of the case considered makes it perfectly sufficient: according to the functional theory, which follows, as we have just seen, the second member of the alternative, the bodily integrity of the Virgin is in fact referred to Mary herself and not to the person of the Word becoming incarnate in her; now, Mary's virginity is so perfect that she has no need of a "sign": It would even be to misjudge the Virgin of virgins to consider useful for her a physical addition completing in her body the virginity which is perfect in her heart. Such is, in short, the argument developed by the supporters of the functional theory. That the conclusion is unacceptable, that it is obtained at the price of often disrespectful distortions of the most elementary human experience, that it is ultimately founded on a conception of virginity akin to the docetism which it claimed to combat, all this is quite obvious and we will not return to it. Our purpose is different: to show that the refusal to interpret virginity in the physical sense is only a kind of equivocation. And even the casuists... of the xx" century. MARIOLOGY AND ECONOMY 215 The original fact is the functional theory of the mystery. We think we have shown that, in a precise manner, there is in fact a necessary mutual implication between this theory and this refusal. On the one hand, in fact, admitting the functional theory leads to the refusal of the physical meaning of the virginity of the mystery: this is the sequence we have described; on the other hand, refusing this meaning excludes the realist theory of the mystery, and consequently imposes the functional theory. It is in fact a "second order effect", the interpretation of which detects in a precise manner the general theory of mystery on which it depends. Is the bodily integrity of the Virgin Mother the incidental sign of her mental virginity, or is it the "sign of the Word being born"? Does the Incarnation consist primarily in the fact that a human reality of all kinds becomes for man the sacrament of divine realities, even fulfilling for man the role of God; or does the Incarnation consist primarily in the fact that the flesh itself becomes a mystery; is the Incarnation to be conceived functionally or ontologically? The question of the realism of virginity forces a categorical answer: "it is", not "up to a certain point". The physical integrity of the Virgin Mother is or is not: if it is, as is dogmatically certain, it requires that the flesh be integrated into the hypostatic order by bearing in its being of flesh the seal of the Mystery, it requires the realistic theory of mystery. If the physical integrity is not, it makes the functional theory of mystery possible. And it is in fact because they hold this theory that some writers are led to reject the physical meaning of virginity. The point is important enough that it is legitimate, in concluding this paragraph, to express it in another way. The choice to which the dogma of virginity leads, very precisely, does not concern two conceptions of the mystery, but the order in which they are held, and consequently the nature of the dilemma they constitute. The realist theory of the mystery bases in the reality of the sign the ordination of its two roles: first, to designate or even to make present the transcendent reality; then, by definition, to be grasped by the man whom faith makes capable of the transcendent reality, and capable of welcoming such a miracle as reveals it. The functional theory of mystery even minimizes the functional role of the sign because it does not bring into play its relational reality. We leave aside the legalistic theory, which has fewer followers. From the precise point of view of our investigation, it is to be placed with the realist theory; but it founds on the power of God alone what the realist theory also founds and more "properly" on the reality of the relation. ... 2. No one e x p l i c i t e l y rejects this relationality, neither in expression nor without doubt in intention. But this rejection is, in the practical order, the ineluctable consequence of the way in which functional theory envisages mystery. 2l6 THOMIST REVIEW The realist theory preserves everything: it can do so because it interprets fundamentally according to being; the functional theory minimises because it interprets originally according to man, that is, according to a mode of being. The two theories are therefore not at parity and each imposes a different structure on the dilemma they constitute together: posited, the functional theory excludes the other; posited, the realist theory integrates the other. "Exclusion" or "ordination". This is ultimately the real alternative; it is in a way of the second degree, it concerns two ways of conceiving a dilemma, and the two members exclude each other: e x c l u s i o n e x c l u s i n g t h e o r d i n a t i o n a n d r e c i p r o c e s s . It is to this alternative of the second degree that physical realism, the virginity that is the "second order effect", obliges us to give the categorical answer that is the only one possible. This realism is, therefore, the "ordination" is true: therefore the "exclusion" is excluded, and with it the functional theory. Such seems to us to be the meaning, double and one, of the physical fact of virginity considered ontologically; Mary is of Christ: the physical integrity of the Mother is the sign of the Word being born; Mary is Mary: the integrity of the body of the Virgin shows the Mystery because the flesh itself becomes mystery. The mystery is manifestation in a sign of a hidden reality. The mystery is permanence in development. The one follows the other: duration follows being. This is not the place to analyse and establish this principle: the Thomistic doctrine of eternity would suffice to prove its value. Our purpose is to show that virginity implies, from the point of view of temporality, a discrimination quite similar to that which we have just observed from the ontological point of view. Christ was born, he passed through the earth, he is no longer there: that is over. Christ is in glory, in the glory of God, in the glory of God: that is eternal. The Incarnation for us now is not just one thing or the other separately, it is their connection. And here we find the three conceptions of the mystery which we have already encountered: so we shall be very brief, since our purpose is not to treat the question of the mystery for its own sake. In view of the earthly state and the merit of Christ, God gives grace to each believer until the end of time: this is the legalistic theory. The functional theory goes to the other extreme: history, for it, becomes Γ History; and since Γ History is supposed to dominate in some way the course of time, Christ according to each of his past states is the cause, both exemplary and efficacious, of the grace which each of his members receives in his present. In this view, we find both the inspiration and the lacuna essential to the functional theory. The sign is conceived primordially as I. Rom . VIII, 34 ; C o l. ni, i; etc. MARIOLOGY AND ECONOMY 217 Each member receives from the Head, at present, immediately, and in accordance with the states of Christ in his life. This is unmistakable, and the legalistic theory is wrong to neglect it: it introduces at bottom, between Christ and each of his members, the at least virtual mediation of a kind of capital acquired by the Redeemer and providentially distributed in the course of time. The Christian has more than this, he has Christ actually acting in him, this action being really specified by the states and dispositions revealed by the Gospel. On the strength of this observation, the functional theory imputes, but this time without any foundation, to history the responsibility of ascribing this immediacy of Christ's states to the progress of each of its members; the functional theory in fact dismisses any reference of the "sign", in this case such and such a distinctly specified state of Christ, to the transcendent reality, namely, Christ's glorious state. Why this preterition? We think we have shown that it is practically the inevitable consequence of the metaphysical minimism implied by the "functional" option. This minimism normally correlates, from the point of view of duration, with the preterion of eternity: this simply shows that the coherence of a doctrine with itself is not a sufficient indication of truth. There is no more direct "contact" or causality between two separate moments than there is between the states of Christ realized twenty centuries ago and the spiritual realities presently communicated to its members. What makes the instrumentality of the Humanity of Christ possible here and there is being: the divine being of the assuming person and the eternity convertible with it. History as used by the functional theory is, moreover, a kind of etemism: a kind of time that usurps the role that only eternity can truly play. Time, however, can neither be inflated with eternity nor neglected in relation to eternity: neither is the sign associated with mystery absorbing or extrinsic in relation to the reality which it designates and makes present. Mystery is only permanent in development if the sign subject to temporality manifests an immutable reality. The two definitions of mystery are like duration and being, and the two theories, legalist and functionalist, are opposed by the same excesses, both from the point of view of being and of duration. Let us not go into the analysis of these fundamental principles. It was opportune to recall them in order to better ask the question to which the virginity of Christ brings an element of answer, modest but simple and precise. The Humanity of Christ is eternally the instrument of God's communication of himself and the joint object of blessed contemplation. This is particularly and eminently true of the Blessed Virgin, whether it is a question of her personally or of the role she plays, together with Christ, for each of the redeemed. The virginity which is bodily cannot well be considered as a gift. 2l8 THOMIST REVIEW It is only from this point of view that the nature of the relationship between the Incarnate Word and his Mother can be manifested. It is therefore formally and very rigorously from this point of view that we must place ourselves in order to understand the discrimination implied by virginity between the different theories of the mystery. The body of Mary is like that of Christ in glory; the body of Jesus was, like that of His Mother, in the passible condition: the conversion from the passible state to the impassible state concerns each of these two bodies respectively, and there is nothing to allow us to affirm that it was carried out in the same way for the one and for the other. It is not on this point that the virginity can at least directly shed some light. But on the other hand, these two bodies were on earth in each other and then separated from each other; gloriously, they remain separated from each other: this suits their dignity, both generically and eminently1. The relationship between the body of Christ and the body of his Mother thus received, at the moment of the birth of the Incarnate Word, the determination that it has always retained. This, it will be said, is the fact of every birth: two bodies separate. However, it should be observed that the body of Jesus and the body of Mary, forever incorruptible one in fact and the other in law, have always remained true bodies, whatever may be the case with their passive or impassible state; their relationship as a relationship has therefore never been altered, whatever may have been the case with the modifications affecting these two bodies respectively, but respecting their numerical identity. However, there is more; and it is here, finally, that virginity brings its own contribution: it founds at the same time in reality and according to intelligibility the absolute p e r m a n e n c e of the determination that the relationship between the body of the Child and that of his Mother receives at the moment of the virgin birth. This relationship, as we insist, is eternally in glory identical to what it was in the earthly moment of birth. Let us see how this identity derives from and normally requires virginity. The perfection of a relationship is all the greater in that it better realizes the type of unity which is proper to the relationship: namely, reciprocity. Now the reciprocity of a relationship requires the similarity of the terms it distinguishes and unites. The perfection of the relationship between Jesus and Mary thus requires, from her to him, a similarity. And since we are dealing with the corporeal order, it is appropriate to examine how the characteristics which are appropriate to the body of Jesus are also appropriate to that of Mary. The intimate union brings about, for the assumed human nature, connatural perfection and ordination to glory. These two things are intimately connected. Ordination to glory in pyticulkldc 'nVœ^^ for the giant bodies because of their eminence, and 'However... i MARI0L0G1E AND ECONOMY ; 1 < 2IÇ For Christ, this ordination to glory is not only an infallible but abstract right: it is inscribed in his being, to the point that his usual earthly state constitutes for him a "privation". The immanent requirement of ultimate fulfillment, this ordination to glory normally presupposes the perfection of nature: it is appropriate that the inferior be completed in its order if it is to be promoted to a higher perfection. Finally, these things belong to the humanity of Christ, especially to His body, in a permanent way. Incorruptibility is, even in the violent state of death, the discreet but proper and infallible sign that this body remains a true body and that its perfection orders it to glory in virtue of its immediate belonging to the hypostatic order. Thus, connatural perfection and ordination to glory are, for the body of Christ, perfections that dominate the difference between the passible state and the impassible state: this is what the incorruptibility of the inanimate body perfectly manifests. Are these data found in Mary? The ordination to glory is implied by the immaculate conception; but it is an intimate ordination concerning the being, to a glory of Mother of God, which is acquired by Mary at the Annunciation. The power of immortality was, in the virgin human creature par excellence, so powerful by God and so liberated by the purity of this creature that it is possible that Mary did not die; in any case, and on this everyone agrees, her Dormition is exempt from all corruption: the same seal of incorruptibility guarantees, for Mary as for Jesus, a permanence which dominates the difference between the passive and impassible states. Now, this permanence undoubtedly concerns the intimate ordination to glory: it therefore also concerns the original perfection of nature; this perfection is, corporeally, for a virgin, integrity: it requires for Mary the incorruptible virginity. This privilege thus makes perfect the similarity between the body of Mary and the body of Jesus: it founds it in nature. It is even quite remarkable that it is at the moment when they finish distinguishing themselves that these two bodies respectively acquire the completion of perfection which makes them perfectly similar: one is constituted in its autonomy and will grow according to its integrity, the other, already autonomous, is consecrated in its integrity. The birth of Christ, accompanied for Mary by her virginity, thus inaugurates between them, in the corporeal order, a relationship whose perfection guarantees its immutability: the distinction by extraposition, the unity founded on similitude, the reciprocity which derives from the one and the other belong to the relationship between these two now glorious bodies, as they belonged to this same relationship at the moment when Mary gave birth to her Child. Let us now return to the three theories of the mystery, considered according to temporality. What remains, in the state of glory, of 220 THOMIST REVIEW What is the difference between the two, either for Christ and Mary themselves, or in terms of the influence1 which they now have in common on each redeemed? The legalistic theory dissolves the specificity of each of these acts into a global right to glory or active redemption. The functional theory affirms, for these acts, however past, a present efficacy in conformity with their nature. We have already indicated the opposing difficulties presented by these two theses, as well as what each one affirms as true. We only mention it again to show how the realist theory of mystery is justified by virginity: it is the true one since it assumes what the other two hold, except for the limits which make them incompatible with each other. A past act, in this case the virgin birth of the unborn Word, can specify an eternal state. The sensible reality of the act has been, it is no longer: it is, as such, neither present in the eternal state of Christ and Mary nor, therefore, the source of a present influence on the redeemed. But this sensible reality has founded an ontological determination, in this case the relationship between the body of Christ and that of his Mother, which remains immutable. This, as we have seen, is what virginity concretely shows. It thus imprints the choice of the realist theory according to which the past states of Christ and the Virgin are distinctly and respectively principles for them of glory and for us of grace: not in virtue of their sensible reality which has never passed, but in virtue of their specificity which remains eternally. The mystery is hidden reality manifested in a sign, the mystery is permanence in development: the one follows the other. From both points of view, the meaning of virginity is twofold and one. Mary is Mary: she is, even according to her body, integrated into the hypostatic order; and this in a way that is forever fixed in virtue of the act of her childbirth. Mary is of Christ. The virginity of the Incarnation, the "second-order effect" of the Wisdom who presides over the mystery of the Incarnation, shows and, one might say, demonstrates concretely, starting from this mystery which is par excellence that of manifestation, the meaning of every mystery, the meaning of the mystery: the sign is always new, always new from generation to generation, and it is always the same because it refers to a transcendent and immutable reality. And these two meanings are the same thing: one is concretized in the other. That Mary's flesh has become a mystery is an ephemeral sign; that this sign has a present-day meaning is clear, and what it shows, therefore, is that the functional theory of mystery is radically inadequate. C u n c t a s h a e r e s s o la i n t e r e m i s ti . lion STtK 'S * . la 0""- MARIOLOGY AND ECONOMY I I. 221 So much for the fact. Let us now examine the n a t u r e of in p a r t u r e virginity: in order to discover its meaning both for Mary herself and for her children. Î same as for Mary Mother of Christ. ♦ ♦ ♦ ' : ' Virginity is a miracle. It is "difficult" for some because it is not the usual way, or even because it is a physical impossibility. It would be naive to think that this "difficulty" was born with learned physiology or that it escaped the ancients. Moreover, we must not confuse the physical reality of the sign with the meaning by virtue of which it is part of the mystery of the incarnation. We have recalled the reasons of appropriateness which found the meaning of the sign in the mystery itself. These reasons obviously leave untouched the "difficulties" which concern the physical reality of the sign. It does not seem possible, starting only from a certain order, to postulate the existence of things that are contrary to it; but we can and must show that this contrariety is only apparent, that it covers a positive possibility, or at least that it is not an impossibility, that is, that it does not imply contradiction. Let us briefly recall that both have been made, concerning virginity in the first place: we will thus mark that these kinds of considerations must be maintained. The virginal childbirth is certainly somewhat secret: but it is a physical act of which we know both the t e r m i n u s a q u o and the t e r m i n u s a d q u e m : the question of its nature therefore arises immediately. St. Thomas always expresses himself on this subject in a delicate manner; but he is not afraid, as a realist, to use his own expressions: "c o n v e n i e n s f u i t u t d e i n c o r r u p t o v i r g i n i s u t e r o n a s c e r e tu r 1 2 . We do not see why it would be appropriate to leave the benefit of precision in physiological matters to dogmatic minimalism. 1. Every mystery raises questions. These are distinct from dogmatic statements, at least as the play of reason is distinct from the act of intelligence. These questions, and their eventual resolution, play a very different role in relation to the mystery, depending on whether or not they make sense independently of it. Questions which have meaning and therefore reality only in relation to the mystery cannot even be the basis of an argument of non-impossibility. For example, the theology of the Trinity raises the question of the unity of substance and relation; this question is, in natural light, a possible question, but without real content: becoming real in virtue of the mystery, it cannot in any way induce reality. Other questions, for example, that of the natural knowledge of God, acquire a completely different meaning as a function of the mystery, in this case that of elevation to the supernatural order: their resolution shows at most a non-contradiction, namely between their two analogously similar meanings. Finally, there are questions which have a meaning of their own which they preserve in their relation to the mystery: such is the physical fact of virginity. Whatever significance it acquires in the birth of the Incarnate Word, it has a physiologically determined nature. In such a case the resolution of the question is required for the possibility of the mystery, or may even constitute an argument in its favour. 2. Ι Π * , q. 28, a. 2. 222 THOMIST REVIEW First of all, here are the arguments for the non-impossibility of the physical fact of virginity. They are of two kinds. The first are related to the singular quality of Christ's body, demonstrated by several miracles before or after the Passion. St. Thomas denies that the body of the newborn Christ was endowed with subtlety1 : before the Passion, Christ did not allow the permanent glory of Tame to flow over his body. With St. Augustine 12, St. Thomas nevertheless invokes in favour of virginity the entry of Christ into the cenacle with closed doors, the transport on the sea moreover communicated... This shows exactly the scope of the argument. These facts, which are certain since they are described in the Gospel, cannot be explained by virtue of properties which the body of Christ did not yet have: they were accomplished in a way that is similar to ours; since they were possible without the body of Christ ceasing to be similar to ours, nothing can a priori be opposed to the virginity of Christ, not even the spectre of Docetism. There is a second kind of argument which shows the non-impossibility of the virginity of Christ: unlike the first, they offer a possible explanation. They consider the two bodies of Christ and his Mother, either as bodies in general or as human bodies: hence two arguments of a different nature. First, there is the argument which we will call cosmological: the physical fact of virginity is not impossible because it is not impossible for two bodies to be in the same place. St. Thomas explains it 4, but by reversing, so to speak, the question as spontaneously posed by the imagination. The latter starts from duality: two bodies, respectively individuated; the question is then to resolve this duality in unity; how can two bodies be in the same place, experience showing that one "evacuates" the other? But we can also start from unity 5: the same place, the same "enve 1. Cf. i b . ad 3 "" . 2. St. Thomas takes up the argument again; cf. C o m p e n d i u m t h e o l o g i a e , c. 225, ed. Turin, 1954. P- n. 469. 3. i l l * , q. 28, a. 2, ad 3 um . 4. i b . 9 S u p p l . It is easy to see that these two ways of posing the difficulty are equivalent; so that St. Thomas' answer is equally valid for the imaginative and common form of the objection: "a body that occupies a place evacuates every other body from it." T h e individuation takes place through m a t e r i a s i g n a t a q u a n t i t a t e . This traditional thesis calls for some clarification. The continuous quantity in question here has divisibility as its essence. Each virtual part is therefore distinguished from the others only by its virtual relation to them. But the continuous quantity never exists in its pure state. Independently of the subject which it metaphysically presupposes, it is always determined by limits which play for it the role of form and which belong to quality ( f i g u r a e t f o r m a ) . It follows that, intrinsically to any continuous quantity, and to any part of such a quantity, there are two different principles of determination: two parts are distinguished from each other really or virtually only by virtue of their mutual relation, real or virtual; V a t t h e r e i s e x c l u s i v e l y f o r m e l : a 1 5a re/erencc other parts, but ultimately by its aJ0HA?It is the formal principle of the law that is the basis of the law of the land. This is from the formal principle / in lssue a defin,t,on also classical of quantity: o r d o p a r t i u m i n M o . - Now, concretely and really, individuation by the MARIOLOGY AND ECONOMY 22β The question is then to maintain duality: can two distinctly individuated bodies be circumscribed by the same "envelope"? This is not impossible, for if individuation comes through matter, it ultimately concerns the very being of the body in question; and God, and he alone, can preserve the being of a creature independently of the created causes that produce it: God can preserve individuation independently of the quantified matter that is its next principle. The presence of two distinct bodies in the same place is thus a miracle: it is only realized if God operates independently of the created causality which he usually makes the instrument of his own; but this simultaneous presence is not contradictory. The miracle of virginity therefore does not imply contradiction, it is not impossible. The non-impossibility leaves the field of analysis open. Can we discover a positive possibility? It can only be by virtue of an analogy borrowed from the natural order: since revelation, so firm on the fact of virginity, is silent on the how. This certainly calls for discretion. The example of St. Thomas would be eloquent, moreover, if it were not in some way hypothecated by a position that is at least questionable with regard to the Immaculate Conception: the comparison of the physical maternity of Mary to that of the woman in the state of innocence is only conceivable and possible if, first of all, the grace of Mary can be compared to original grace. To compare is not to identify. But, in return, the original character of the grace imparted to Mary makes it possible for her to have benefited and thus formally and immediately, by the continuous quantity, to implement simultaneously the two principles we have just recalled: one exclusively relational, the other equally formal. These two principles play two different roles, analogously similar to that of matter and that of form. And it is the confusion between these two roles that gives rise to the objection of the imaginative type: < a body that occupies a place evacuates every other body from it." The imaginative misrepresentation consists in attributing to the relational principle what can only be attributed to the formal principle. It is thought that the physical matter of the dwelling of one body must replace the physical matter of the dwelling of another body. But matter conceived irnaginatively "within," and therefore lacking in form, is incapable of individuating a body; its parts are individuated only relationally, and this applies equally to every body. It is impossible, from this point of view alone, to say that one body must drive out the other; because, from this same point of view, neither body is individuated. Both individuation and the habitual observation of the compulsory ousting of one body by the other require the implementation of the formal principle. What is shown by sensible experience is not immediately that there is a substitution of the physical matter of one body for the physical matter of another body, but that there is an eviction of the physical matter of one body by the physical matter of another body. But these two forms, physically different because they ultimately found Γ individuation of two physically different bodies, are locally the same form: they both coincide with the "ultimate surface of the enveloping body. Can this coincidence of each physical form with the local form of the container also be a simultaneous coincidence of the two physical forms? Physical experience usually shows the opposite; but does this negative answer cover a metaphysical impossibility? This is ultimately the question to which the difficulty presented irnaginatively is reduced: "one body must drive out the other. Now we see that this question, thus freed from a fallacious halo, coincides exactly in its substance as well as in its formulation with that which St. Thomas poses and resolves. m a te r ia s i g n a t a q u a n t i t a t e , 224 THOMIST REVIEW It is not necessary to discuss a question of fact here, such as that posed by the Dormition of the Virgin Mary. It is not necessary to discuss here a question of fact, such as that posed by the Dormition of the Virgin. It is certain that childbirth is not accompanied by physical suffering or organic alteration for the Mother of God. But how does this happen? Theology has sought to clarify this by comparison with the state of innocence, and this argument, which we will call physiological, has become even more legitimate after the definition of the Immaculate Conception. St. Thomas holds, after St. Augustine, that in the state of innocence involving supernatural grace and the preternatural gifts which accompany it, generation would have been virginal. The concurrence of the two sexes on the one hand, and gestation and parturition on the other, would have been both required in accordance with the nature of the human species; but neither would have impaired the integrity of the female. The certainty of the one strengthens the plausibility of the other; but the perfect conformity of the first to the profound requirements of nature better manifests for us the wisdom of the first of the miracles which Jesus performed on earth, precisely in favour of his Mother. Let us insist a little on the Augustinian intuition taken up by Saint Thomas. It consists in linking to sin what the exercise of generation involves in disorder: the argument is common, but here it takes a precise form which makes it interesting. To undermine integrity is, in any order, a reason for violence. Sin is violence: it alters the integrity of the divinely established order; generation leads to violence: it alters the integrity of the woman. What is the relationship between one violence and the other? The "medium" is the moderate way in which man covets first the possession of himself, that is to say of the person, and by derivation the possession of the land, that is to say of nature. The first is integrated with pride, which is the origin of sin; the second is inescapably called, i. /*, q. 98, a. 2, ad 4 am reproduces a particularly topical passage of Saint Augustine. - It is to be presumed, St. Augustine explains, that in the happy life of the earthly paradise, man could use the appetite ordered to generation without shame. St. Augustine insists first of all that all the functions of generation in paradise were under the control of the will. This, according to him, sufficiently grounds the conjecture that it is obviously impossible to verify under the regime of original sin: - Ita tunc potuisse utero conjugis, salva integritate feminei geni talis, virile semen immitti : sicut nunc potest, eadem integritate salva, ex utero vir ginis fluxus menstiyi cruoris emitti. Eadem quippe via potest illud injici, qua hoc potest ejici. Ut enim ad pariendum non doloris gemitus, sed maturitatis impulsus feminea viscera relaxaret : sic ad fetandum et concipiendum non libidinis appetitus, P L XU naturam utram Que conjungeret ", d e C i v i t a t e D e i , XIV; xxvi, u^4 dOUtt SMILE talk about minimalism. The smile and the adoration Mv " " bie " MARIOLOGY AND ECONOMY 225 It is a kind of compensation for the failure of the first, by the same tendency which considers itself frustrated because it is originally vitiated. In all this, then, there is violence: because immoderation in the inclination to possess is the absence or even the contempt of that pattern according to which human reason should be spontaneously consenting to the wisdom of God. Neither man nor his father, neither the person nor the species, in the final analysis, are for man: everything is for God; and to go towards anything absolutely unconditionally is to do violence to God by radically attacking the absolety of the order established by Him. This violence, which is first of all in the mind and in reason, spreads throughout the human being: it contaminates the impulse of nature which is at the origin of generation, and then the acts impelled by this impulse, and by the acts the organs which are its instruments. It is violence, it is the absence of m o d u s , in the desire for the p r o i e s , which is the cause of the violence suffered by the subject of desire: and the violence is physical and it is greater in the one of the two sexes in whom the desire for the φύσις is susceptible of reaching its paroxysm. There is thus a very precise concrete continuity, within the state of sin, between the violence done by sin to the divine order and the violence done to bodily integrity by generation. The acute perception of this connection leads St. Augustine to conclude that, without sin, there would have been no violence whatsoever: conception and par turition would have been functions similar to all the others, obviously not having to alter the structure of the organs which allow their exercise. This inference, of course, acquires an eminent and cogent value if it concerns the birth of a being who is absolutely holy by a creature in whom sin has absolutely no part. Where would one find here a cause of violence1? Gentleness12 cannot be identified with non-violence in a world where evil must be judged as evil and sometimes opposed: Jesus gave the example. But violence always implies sin. And if Jesus comes in view of the sin to be redeemed, sin is radically excluded not only from the person of the Incarnate Word but from everything that concerns his human and earthly origin. The intimacy between God and man is here without shadow: it spreads the peace which the Christian sense has always associated with the mystery of Christmas as being its primordial and proper note: E t i n t e r r a p a x . It is in being born that Emmanuel excellently fulfils the title of Peaceful King. Later he will be a sign of condemnation3 , he will carry the sharp sword4 of the Word5 , he will establish on 1. Cf. I I I - - , q. 28, a. 2: "Fas non erat ut per ejus adventum violaretur integritas, qui venerat sanare corrupta." 2. This word is generally replaced by "sweetness" in modern vocabulary. 3. L u c . n, 24. 4. A p o c . i, 16. 5. H e b . rv, 12. RT 4 226 THOMIST REVIEW And Mary herself will be pierced in her soul2. It will be the time of costly vigilance3 , and it will be the violent who will take away the kingdom4. All this, which is essentially related to sin, will manifest the Peaceable King as the Victorious One.5 But at the time of His appearance, He is the Prince of Peace®. At the moment when God fulfils the promise of the Γ Covenant, when he manifests even in the flesh the ineffable generation immanent in himself, there can be nothing but holiness, and peace, intimacy and harmony. Sin cannot, therefore, appear; violence is impossible; to think it possible would be sacrilegious. It is in virtue of the very wisdom from which the redemptive incarnation proceeds that no violence can therefore be done to the perfect instrument of God's plan: this is an even more original reason than the eminent dignity of the Virgin Mother 7 or even the filial piety of her Almighty Child 8. 8 In this perspective, therefore, virginity is presented as the outcropping and the fruit in the person of Mary of the substantial peace that the God-Man bears in his person and in his being. The Word being born places a sign in his Mother; he also reveals, by what he himself is, the nature of this sign: let us follow his light. The word peace is full of resonances whose richness should not obscure its precise origin. Peace is the fruit of order. And it is appropriate to recall what we observed at the beginning of this note. What, in the Incarnate Word, is order in virtue of the unity which is proper to him, is in Mary more exactly harmony: in her, the natural and the supernatural are two distinct orders even in their principle, but together they constitute a unity which dominates both of them because Mary is of Christ. Virginity is, on the one hand, the parturition which belongs to human nature in its state of perfection, and on the other hand, the accomplishment of this perfection by the Word being born. The maximum perfection to which the resources of nature reach without violence is achieved on the basis of a Perfection which absolutely transcends nature. This is order and order, this is harmony, this is Mary. By virtue of the act by which she brings her Child into the world, her flesh becomes a mystery and her flesh fulfils the intention divinely inscribed in nature: and these two 1. Luke xii, 51. 2. Luke. h , 35. 3. M a r c . xiv, 38. 4. M a l t . xi, 12. 5. A p e c . v, 5. 6. I s . ïx, 6. 7. ΠΖ\ q. 28. a. 2. 8. An argument could also be drawn from the joy which accompanies every birth and which of itself excludes any cause for trouble. It would be easy to reach the ontological point of \ue to which peace gives direct access, since joy is essentially awareness of being. G a 'u d ia M a t r i s h a b e n s '■ " P '" 5- '" P"-- nature. MARI0L0G1E AND ECONOMY 22/ Things are one in the body of the Virgin Mother, not by itself, but by the relationship it immutably contracts with the body of the Incarnate Word at the moment it gives it autonomy. Here, then, are two arguments, the first c o s m o l o g i c a n d the second p h y s i o lo g i c a l , both of which are capable of resolving the dif ficulty concomitant with the mystery of virginity. They are sufficient, and have always been held to be sufficient: they free the exercise of faith from the legitimate critical examination of reason: "I believe in the fact, whatever the how. The curiosity of faith, however, desires more; love seeks knowledge: "How can this be? From then on we have to choose between the two arguments. They correspond to two different explanations which it is repugnant to superimpose: not that they exclude each other, but that which is true must suffice on its own. We shall indicate very briefly the reasons why we prefer the physiological argument: virginity is nothing other than the physical partu rition of the state of innocence. First of all, it is necessary to examine whether the presumed explanatory hypotheses are in conformity with the general economy of the mystery. In particular, all violence must be excluded; or, more precisely, between two plausible hypotheses, one must choose the one that is at least reason for violence; this word having, of course, its technical meaning: what is violent is that which is contrary to a certain order. Now each of the two arguments indicated includes a miracle: but these two miracles are of a different nature. The unilocation of two bodies supposes, as we have seen, that God alone works an effect which, o r d i n a r y , He works by a created cause. This, of course, is perfectly possible; but it constitutes a derogation from an established order, which, for all that, is judged to be good by God Himself: there is violence with regard to the created cause whose connatural exercise is suspended. Does virginal parturition pass the res sources of "pure nature"? In any case, it is in the line of nature. It is contrary to the order that is usual for fallen nature, it is not contrary to the order originally established by God. It is violent, and even we call it a miracle, only in terms of a state which is itself violent. Being an intimate promotion of nature by its Author, and not a suspension or annihilation of the inner impulse of nature, the virginal parturition does not involve any violence either of itself or, a fortiori, in the case of Mary. It follows, therefore, that the physiological argument is more in conformity than the cosmological argument with the absolute requirement of order and harmony implied by the coming of Emmanuel and the Wisdom who presides over it. Secondly, it is normal that the argument destined to resolve a difficulty corresponds to the mystery to which this difficulty is related. Now the cosmological argument does not mention the character of the 228 THOMIST REVIEW Finally, as St. Thomas remarks,1 it is important to judge all things in accordance with their nature, unless they are transcendent realities which we know only by revelation. Finally, as St. Thomas remarks,1 it is important to judge all things according to their nature, unless they are transcendent realities which we know only by revelation. Now revelation proposes the fact of virginity in itself, but says nothing about its nature; and since parturition is a human reality, it is appropriate to judge it by referring as far as possible to the "nature of things". This general reason can be used both to dismiss the cosmological argument and to introduce the physiological argument. Before doing so, let us observe that the "nature of things" to which it is legitimate and normal to refer the case under consideration cannot coincide with what is actually observable, since the Blessed Virgin bore and gave birth without pain. This lends credence to the view of St. Augustine and St. Thomas. The "nature of things" as it is likely to be used for the human birth of Christ is what was most likely realized in the state of innocence. This being the case, it is appropriate to reject either the affirmation of the virgin birth or that which respectively contravenes or belongs to the parturition in the state of innocence. Now, the act of parturition can be considered as an act of parturition or as an act of parturition. Let us examine the one and the other in turn. The act of parturition, considered as an act of parturition, cannot include a unilocation of two bodies, which on the one hand is implied by the supposedly normal parturition and on the other hand is contrary to the normal order of the material cosmos. Of course this unilocation is not impossible, as we have said. But it would be permanent and ataxic, so to speak, outside the order: unilocation presupposes dissociation between uncreated causality and created causality, the latter being held in abeyance; and this dissociation would be, like unilocation itself, consecutive to the existence of a body which belongs to the cosmic order and which even crowns this order because it is the instrument of a conscious and eminent cooperation between created and uncreated causality. It is not in accordance with wisdom that the unity between these two causalities should be held in abeyance in that very thing which constitutes its completion. It is not fitting, therefore, that in the state of innocence one human body should be born of another, these two bodies having at one time and in part the same place. Therefore, the cosmological argument concerning virginity must be rejected. On the other hand, the act of parturition, considered as an act of birth, requires the mother's active participation. It must even be an eminently human act. We have neither the competence nor the curiosity to analyse in this case the in-i. i. /", q. 99, a. i. MARIOLOGY AND ECONOMY 22Ç It is easy to observe, however, that the punishment of sin in this case is one of the punishments of sin which concern the woman in her own right1 . It is easy to see, however, that suffering is one of the punishments of sin which concern the woman in her own right1 : it is not part of the order established by God, and it must not, therefore, obscure what is right, of which it remains an obvious sign, namely the joy attached to childbirth. This joy seems to be the secret of mothers and one of the highest in the human order. 1 2 Since authentic joy is substantially consciousness of being, the joy of childbirth manifests itself as an eminent though para-conceptual actualisation of the consciousness of being human. The act of parturition is thus, in spite of the heavy burden of sin, an eminently human act. And it is clear that this character belongs to the birthing of the incarnate Word more than to any other. Let us now return to the two arguments between which we have to choose. The cosmological explanation of a virgin birth cancels out the active participation of the mother. It involves a miracle which consists, we repeat once again, in the fact that the exercise of created causality normally implemented by God is suspended. What is oblivious to the common sense thus has in this case a rigorous and ineluctable metaphysical foundation. According to the cosmological argument, a virginal parturition would indeed consist of one human body actually proceeding from another; but the mother would witness the birth of her child rather than give birth to it. This is not impossible, but it is an unacceptable hypothesis because it does not conform to the "nature of things," to human reality as it is observable. Let us add that this disharmony implied by the cosmological argument would be particularly manifest in the case of the Blessed Virgin. She brings Jesus into this world; she shows him3 , she gives him. All this is active.4 The cosmological argument, which fails to account for this, is therefore inadequate. It remains for us to observe that the physiological argument such as that of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas shows, on the contrary, with exactitude the role played by the mother in parturition: in particular and eminently if this one is virginal. This role is certainly active, but we have observed that, in a precise manner, it consists in the fact that the woman, in giving birth to a child, performs an eminent act. 16. It is, moreover, well known that virgins have particular niaddities. It is well known that virgins have particular nihidies. Chastisement does not make any distinction, although the effect is different in mode than in intensity. Jesus himself speaks of this joy : J o . xvi, 21. The Magi come to a d o r e t h e r o i ( U s J u i f s ( M a i l . 11, 2) ; they find Γ E n f a n t a v e M a r i e s a M è r e ( M a t t . 11, 11). The mother shows the Child, that is her role; she effaces herself by showing her Child - Nobis post hoc exilium o s t e n d i . There is an epiphany which is concomitant with the blessed contemplation of the Humanity of Christ, and in which the Blessed Virgin began to cooperate at the time of the birth of Jesus. 4. We leave aside the question of knowing how this active cooperation is radially subordinated to the operation of Christ. 1. they so much 2. 3. G cn. 230 THOMIST REVIEW This quality is veiled by the consequences of original sin, but it is not abolished. Now what characterizes the process of generation in the state of innocence, what explains the virginal mode of conception and parturition which are the extremes of it, is, as we have analyzed a little earlier, the measure imposed by reason; in other words, it is that every act contributing to this process is perfectly a human act: whereas, in the state of sin, the same act falls away, at least in fact, from this dignity, even though it retains its requirement. The physiological argument concerning virginity therefore amounts to the assertion that the act of parturition is perfectly a human act. The argument is thus rigorously consistent with the nature of human reality as it remains observable though veiled in wounded nature. We conclude, therefore, that if virginity appears to be a "violent" miracle, i.e., contrary to the usual course of things and to patterns of representation unduly set up as a law, this is because we judge it in terms of a state which itself is "violent", i.e., contrary to the order originally instituted by God. I n p a r t u r e virginity is the perfection of human nature in communicating itself, achieved by a creature who is completely virgin and completely relative to her Creator, becoming her Child. I n p a r t u virginity is, as we have seen, a "second order effect" of divine wisdom working in the mystery of the redemptive incarnation. This privilege shows, in a sign, the purity of the Virgin: it also shows by its very existence that without which it would lose its highest raison d'être, namely the true essence of the mystery. The nature of virginity completes both teachings, and this is what we must say in conclusion. Let us begin with the most general teaching, that which corresponds to Marian theology or to the fact that the Mother of the Word belongs to the hypostatic order and to the economy of salvation. We have indicated the reasons which seem to us to postulate, for the virginity i n p a r t u , the one of the two explanations which, exempt from all violence, is perfectly con formulated to the nature supposed to be itself in conformity with the divine wisdom. This indicates, with regard to the structure of the mystery, a precision which, at first sight, seems to contradict that which we have insisted on and which we recall. The sign integrated into the mystery subsists in virtue of its relation to reality; from this derives the intimate order of its functional unity; first it refers to reality, and by derivation it gives access to it. Now, is not this order of law between the two functions of the sign reversed, for the sake of the functional theory: since the sign that constitutes virginity in childbirth must be conceived as a whole in conformity with the nature of those to whom it is addressed, and not as bearing in its heteronomy the seal of the transcendent Power to which it refers. The existence of the sign MARIOLOGY AND ECONOMY 23I would they lead to contrary conclusions concerning the epistemology of mystery? The answer is negative: in order to understand this, it is sufficient to apply the classical notion of the mystery. The economy of the mystery must be considered primarily as God himself considers it, from his own point of view: faith makes it possible precisely because it makes us see "with the eye of God" and in his light. God manifests his mercy to the fullest, and at the same time his omnipotence, by freely communicating his wisdom and his judgment to man, not by leaving man enclosed in his own point of view. This was the conclusion of our first part; it should not be diminished. The distortion introduced by the functional theory consists in substituting the human for the divine in terms of the law. *. This is what is categorically excluded by the fact that virginity is a privilege. The nature of this privilege simply leads to a further refinement of this conclusion. To see as God sees is to see things as they are, not to sublimate them into a possible universe in order to make them more worthy of the God who creates their real being. A "recovery" from God alone is unthinkable. First of all, consider this: God only takes back his work if it is damaged by sin. Apart from that, God respects all his creatures; he eminently respects those he promotes to a higher order, and this respect consists in not altering anything of what they are. Then, e x p a r t e D e i : God, if one may say so, is consistent with himself. The instrument which is already in existence and which is by nature capable of producing a certain effect is the one which God uses, provided that it remains as it was designed. The parturition proper to the state of innocence is sufficient for the incarnate Father: God has nothing to change in the original order to make it shine with his presence. The sign is indeed, as the functional theory insists, very close to man and accessible at will; but it is on the condition that man does not destroy by sin and does not disregard by indocility the connaturality which was originally established between a sign coming from human nature and man supposed to remain as he was meant to be. The birth of Emmanuel must be such that human nature is found in it to the maximum: certainly; but it must be understood as the maximum of which that nature is capable. This is the most subtle of all seductions. The change of viewpoint does not mean that anything is wrong, it means that everything becomes deceptive. You will not be able to see anything, because you will not be able to look at it ( G e n . ni, 3) ; The word was good to look at, good to see... ( G e n . in, 6). It is the same fruit. According to God's point of view and intention, first of all it refers to God, it exists to signify something of God; and, moreover, it is pleasing. According to man's point of view, the fruit is first of all pleasant. And the seduction of the change of point of view is that the fruit seen from man's point of view becomes, by that very fact, incapable of fulfilling what it seems to promise. This is exactly the situation of the sign as conceived by the functional theory: it no longer ensures, not even from the sole functional point of view, what it seems to promise. 232 THOMIST REVIEW This is what the nature of virginity recalls: the sign integrated into the mystery is in law all too familiar to man because man must know himself and ask himself what he is. This is what the nature of virginity reminds us of: the sign that is integrated into the mystery is familiar to man because man must know himself and place himself before the mystery in God's law. The resolution of the physical fact of virginity in the par turition proper to the state of innocence has, with regard to the Virgin herself, an obvious meaning. We have already recalled that the gift to Mary of a grace which prevails over all others does not of itself imply the preternatural gifts associated with original grace. The question must be debated, for each of these gifts in particular.1 Well, the argument developed above shows that the conditions in which the Virgin finds herself with regard to the female contribution to human generation are those of the state of innocence. This does not establish that the Blessed Virgin was in that state in every respect: her suffering is sufficient to negate it. But the fact that Mary possessed all the feminine privileges whose loss is due to sin*2 leads us to conceive of her as the unique success perfectly in conformity with the original design of divine wisdom. Is Mary not "new Eve" naturally, as she is sumatrily? It is not possible at present to answer this question in the affirmative if we formulate it in a general way. But the "truthfulness" of the affirmative answer is increased each time a new conformity between the condition of Mother of God and the status of innocence is discovered. The same argument concerning virginity also shows, and this time with certainty, an important truth. The all-virgin creature is constituted as a stranger to everything that has anything to do with sin, with the sole exception of the consequences of sin which Christ himself wished to suffer. Mary's suffering is not that of a redeemed woman, it is the suffering of the Mother of God 4*; Mary, all relative to the Incarnate Word, suffers from his suffering: she suffers from him and in him. Her suffering is that of a mother of God 6 . This truth, therefore, is corroborated by x. Each of these questions is very concrete and concerns a matter of fact: the belonging to Mary of such and such a privilege. It is not necessary in this case to determine whether this privilege is properly preternatural or whether it is a matter of pure nature. 2. G t n . ni, x6. Suffering, especially to beget. Subjection to man because of the desire of nature. 3. This word A*l" is appropriate for man in the state of innocence: he is ignorant of evil, he is a stranger to evil. No less can be given to Mary who conceives in her the thrice Holy One. 4- Π.the same applies to everything that concerns the holy Virgin: glory, beatitude, predestination. This principle, enunciated by St. Thomas, deserves to be rigorously implemented. co^P^ re to active redemption than in the operation of the Redeemer - U tafi E .ÏÏS '">pâtir rtdemfSon than in the pftΛ Mucmpteur. it is always the same principle of assimilation. MARIOLOGY AND ECONOMY 233 Virginity, which is considered a law, is so because of the observation data it explains. Jesus is a stranger to the suffering which is, for the sinful race, always connected with the sinful child. If Mary suffers only from Jesus and in Him, she too is a stranger to that suffering, and therefore a stranger to all the disturbances attached to childbirth in the state of sin for the woman. The principle would therefore suffice to prove the virginity of Mary: to it belongs the truth which is manifest in its consequence. Mary is Mary, Mary is all relative to the incarnate Word. Perfec tion of the created order, belonging to the hypostatic Order. Order and order... harmony? or simple unity that would be deflowered by any created expression. It is the divine seal of this ineffable unity which the Virgin, in becoming a Mother, receives in her flesh, which becomes a mystery. "Fons signa tus, Hortus conclusus. en. M.-L. G u é r a r d d La u r ie r s , O. P.