Are we witnessing yet another example of catholic minds able to hold two diametrically opposite notions as both simultaneously valid, simply because the magicsteerignthem has decreed a notion?
Ignoring all your hatred and invective, marriages at the time were not voluntary. She was expelled from the Temple. Her vow was preserved through the miracle of her Virgin pregnancy.
1) Nobody "grew up" in the Temple, especially not a female child, to place Mary there conflicts with the Gospel, she lived a very long way, 100 miles, on foot, in Nazareth and was betrothed to Joseph, which means she was under contract to lose her virginity.
2) the "ideal" of "perpetual virginity" is an utterly pagan concept, not supported in any way by Scripture and utterly foreign to Mary's Jewish culture.
3) The Gospels (and the Book of the Acts of the Apostles) clearly say that Jesus had brothers, including James the head of the church at Jerusalem.
4) Nothing in Scripture remotely suggests that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. Nor do the early church fathers suggest any such thing. And it is unlikely they would ignore such a doctrine which, for the heavily Jewish early church, would have been quite controversial, even shocking. Their culture dictated that the most honored position for a woman was to be legally joined to a man physically and become a mother of children, preferably many of them.
To make these weak theories of Mary's "perpetual virginity" so important in the Catholic church was a big mistake, the result of the dangerous tendency to syncretism that weakens the church and obscures the Gospel with worthless distractions.
Mary is of course worthy of honor: She bore the Savior, she was joined to faithful Joseph, with him became the mother of children, and was obviously good at it. Good on you, Mary.
"According to non-biblical literature, Brer' Rabbit grew up in the thorns of the Briar Patch until he got out ..."
Makes just as much truth...