3.  The Contents of the Second Part

       The angel reacts to Mary's attitude, confirming and clarifying the contents of the greeting (Lk 1: 30-33). The angel explains that she has been chosen and prepared by God to be the mother of Jesus and emphasizes the greatness of the figure of Jesus.

       In face of the angel's message, Mary reacts with a question-objection: "How can this come about since I am a virgin?" (Lk 1: 34). This verse is very important in tracing a true image of Mary. The mariological value of the text is not based on mere psychological considerations; its strength is derived, above all, from a calm and serious analysis of the literary structure of the text.

       We know that in past centuries there were persons and groups who denied the truth of the virginal conception of Jesus. It is true, also, that this error does not belong in the past alone. For some, Jesus is the fruit of an adulterous relation; for others, the consequence of a rape; for others the fruit of a normal sexual relationship between Mary and Joseph. To deny the reality of the virginal conception of Jesus is to remain below the level of the faith of the Catholic  Church and even below the level of the doctrine of the Koran (XIX, 20-22).              

      The conception of Jesus was, according to Luke's account, a virginal conception. The fact is undeniable, not only because of the strength of verse 34 and of the other verses of the second panel, but also in virtue of the result of the comparative analysis between the affirmations of the two panels of the diptych. It is evident, on the one hand, that Luke is using the structure of the diptych in order to give greater emphasis to the superiority of the figure of Jesus over the figure of John the Baptist. It is evident, on the other hand, that, in the first panel of the diptych, Luke attributes to John the Baptist an extraordinary conception. It is quite illogical, therefore, to think that Luke would attribute to Jesus, in the second panel, a totally ordinary conception, inferior to that of John the Baptist.

     But the theme of verse 34 is not limited to this point. There still remains the other question: does verse 34, examined in the light of the context, offer a solid basis far speaking of a project of perpetual virginity on the part of Mary? Many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have responded affirmatively. The affirmative response has been the most common among Catholics. Let us see the reasons why such a response can be presented and defended today as the most correct one.

        The authentic logic of Mary's reaction-objection forces us to think that, at the moment of the annunciation, Mary was a virgin with the firm resolution of remaining a virgin. "I do not know man" was for Mary a fact and also a manner of being and a plan of life. "I do not know man" was something which referred not only to the past and the present, but also to the whole future of Mary. The logic of the objection shows us the firmness of Mary's decision. Her life option was very energetic. Mary believed firmly in the value of her life plan. The context indicates also that she had made this option for a religious motive: for the love of God. Mary had embarked on a future of virginity because she wanted to please God. The context authorizes one to think also that the one who inspired such a plan was God, the God who had chosen Mary and who by a special providence guided her toward the great work of the virginal maternity of Jesus. This interpretation can be maintained and defended even without recourse to the use of the vocabulary of "vow".