There is nothing “actual” going on here from the perspective from which either Carter or Mohler are writing. “Actually,” virgin birth, under a perfectly legitimate use of the words “virgin” and “birth” is *actually* what they meant. Only if you import distinctively Catholic ideas into a place where they aren’t part of what the writer is talking about, does that become “actually” the case.

So rather than “actually,” the phrase “from another perspective,” which implies further discussion rather than correction or clarification, might have worked better. Otherwise, it sounds like a quibble, and an ill-founded one at that.

pentamom,

It must be my browser malfunctioning again. Apparently you see a notice—”No Dragging in Catholic Ideas”—that I don’t see.

This would not even qualify as a miracle under David Hume’s definition (“a suspension of the Laws of Nature.”) It is just extremely improbable.

Turning water into wine is actually a more impressive miracle, because carbon nuclei cannot be fused from oxygen and hydrogen without supplying a very large quantity of energy.

I once had it explained to me, by someone with more knowledge about fertilization and embryology than I possess, how all of Jesus’s chromosomes could have been provided by Mary, with the exception of the male (x). That x itself could have, been “manufactured,” for lack of a better word, from one of Mary’s chromosomes. All of this, of course, is not something that can happen without divine intervention.

I am just relaying what I remember and am no scientist. The point this person was trying to make was that just because Jesus was fully human (all the requisite chromosomes) and male was no argument against the virgin conception.

As someone who is willing to be skeptical about almost anything, I really don’t see why it is necessary to work out the Incarnation in terms of genes and chromosomes. For those who accept the Incarnation, it seems to me that Jesus could have been true God and true man with one human parent, with two human parents (see my reference to Pope Benedict XVI, above), and possibly even with no human parents. Since God created humans in the first place, I don’t see why he would be constrained from creating a truly human person “from scratch” instead of using a human egg.

I think you are quibbling. I agree everyone knows what is meant by “virgin birth” in most contexts, but when discussing the Catholic doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, “virgin birth” is not precise. “Virginal conception” is preferable, since the Catholic doctrine asserts that Mary remained an intact virgin during the birth process, not just that she was a virgin when she conceived.

I have no problem with people using the term “virgin birth,” but there are contexts in which it is not precise, which is why (I can only assume) the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the term “virginal conception.”

As for whether “intact virgin” is a “medical” term, you were the one who introduced the word “medical.” I used it in quotes to indicate it was not exactly the term I myself would use. But in the development of the doctrine of Mary’s virginity, it was very much the idea that Mary was physically an intact virgin. Whether you want to call that medical, or anatomical, or whatever, it’s not important. But the idea was more than the assertion that Mary was a virgin by reason, and only by reason, of never having had sex. We do not place a great deal of importance on “intact virginity” today, but it was considered very important to those who formulated the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.