In a recent Catholic Answers Live radio episode, a listener asked for an explanation of Revelations 12:2 which states that “she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.” This runs into difficulty as Catholic answers has explained elsewhere that “The Church teaches that Mary’s virginal integrity remained intact during the birth of Jesus (CCC 499, citing Lumen Gentium 57). It seems to follow, therefore, that she would have been free of labor pains.” Furthermore, it seems to follow simply from the logical fact that we are taught in Genesis 3:16 that labor pains are the result of original sin, we believe Mary was without original sin, therefore she should not have had labor pains. Catholic Answers has answered this question elsewhere on their site offering a few different options. Two of their explanations boil down to the book of Revelation being full of metaphors and birth pangs being used often as metaphors in the Bible, as such they claim this may be a metaphorical phrase. In the radio episode, an answer was offered that it may have been intended more as an explanation of the pains Israel as a people would go through. The problem I ran up against in all of these options was that if we understand this verse as not applying literally to Mary, it takes a huge deal of validity out of the fact that we use this very verse as biblical evidence for Mary as queen. It is surely possible that parts of it could apply to her and parts could not, but it’d be an awfully confusing choice of how to present that information.
Tim Staples presents a claim that it could be the knowledge of what would happen to Christ that was the pain through which Mary had to suffer. This does carry a lot of weight in that it is comparable to our understanding of the prophecy of Simeon claiming that a sword would pierce her heart. I do not want to argue against this point because I think it quite well could be the correct answer, however, it was not the final answer given in the radio episode. The final option given in the radio episode was that Genesis 3:16 does not specifically say that original sin meant that the pains of labor were initially created in that moment but rather that they would be “greatly multiplied.” As such Mary could have experienced the pre-fall equivalent of labor pains. I found this very intriguing. In that her labor pains would have been minuscule compared to today’s labor pains, she still would have experienced something demonstrably different enough from what we understand as the effects of sin that it would still serve as evidence for the immaculate conception and would not serve as evidence against such a claim, however, it would also square the circle of why Revelations 12:2 claims she experienced birthing pangs without having to uncomfortably work around what that means. However, it leaves one asking: why would women experience labor pains before the fall?
I’ve been struggling with this question ever since I heard this particular argument expressed and have been unable to answer it. However, I finally had an understanding of it when I read Stephanie Gray Connors’ book “My Body For You: A Pro-Life Message For A Post-Roe World. In her book, she discusses the challenges she had when she first began breast-feeding. She found herself constantly going back to the question “Why does it hurt?” She puts it on an even deeper level asking “Why is something so natural, and so necessary for a child’s survival so difficult?” She goes on to discuss that she was breastfeeding at Mass once when she heard the very words “Take this… and eat of it, for this is my body which will be given up for you.”
This not only answers her question but it goes on to become the main thesis of her incredible pro-life book. It hurt so much so that her body could be an offering for her child. With this in mind, I finally understood why there may have been labor pains before the fall (albeit less multiplied). While it was painful, it was an opportunity to make a sacrifice and an offering for her child, an even more beautiful concept than not having birth pangs at all. As such we could potentially understand that Revelations 12:2 tells us about Mary not experiencing the post-fall birth pangs we understand today - because she was immaculately conceived - but still experiencing a pre-fall variant of the birth pangs that would give her an opportunity to offer herself as her own body for the son who would one day give up His body as an offering for her and for all of us.
The reality of the matter is that we likely will know whether the answer given in that radio episode - coupled with this context - is correct, if Tim Staples’ answer is correct, or if it is something else entirely. But this information finally gave me the context to be at peace with this question and I pray it at least can do the same for you. Ave maria.