The faithful are all regenerated “cognati’ in filial relation to phenomenological personalism of “knowing” Christ – a freely given gift experienced in the piercing contrition of our restless heart’s desire spent unrequited in futile, nay sterile, earthly pastimes. But we are born “agnati” – capable of consciousness of our filial descent… what separates the two is the Gordian knot of Human Salvation history…

This taking flesh in human form (ie the anthropology of the JPII catechesis hinges on an adequate anthropology) cannot be comprehended as an operation antecedent in time, like a the biological process termed “conception” that Mary’s parents were privy to in Palestine of the last century BEFORE the Year of our Lord, reduced to the mechanics of the nuptial embrace, for sure, since He is antecedent to all time, he exists outside time, but the begetting part, the mothering is not possible without the anthropology of the communio personarum, the female body is a sign all by itself (even one as vulnerable as Terri Schiavo for example, she menstruated to the bitter and horrendously insufferable end) as dramatically presented in the play “Radiation of Fatherhood”
http://www.catholicculture.com/Radiation_of_Fatherhood.pdf

So I wouldn’t say Jesus and Mary were begotten by the same means in the same breath -that doesn’t sound right… they’re not the same mystery – Mary was once not embodied, but she was a thought in the Mind of God foreseen from eternity, and then she became embodied complete with the egg cells (sarx, flesh) necessary to implant inside her womb when the moment came for one of them to be made incarnate (ie a separate genetic and complementarilly-gendered identity or body, ie XY not XX), and she will receive her XX-gendered body at the Resurrection right, while Christ’s XY-gendered body never truely left us as Emmanuel, the Mystery of his presence in the Host we receive at Mass we are taught is NOT a reenactment, but one and the same sacrifice, right?

But I would say with the Catholic feminists like Mary Shivanandam
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/mshivana/marriage-icon.htm
that every woman is a sign – she may be a stained sign, but that’s still better than not extant at all (see reference to Terry Schiavo earlier) as the Thinking Housewife and you yourself seem to imply… The XX seat of the filial relationship to fatherhood is key… part of God’s plan… ineffable perhaps but not to be rejected outright… the Church is modelled on this sign afterall, how can we discount that? Sir Gawain may have fallen for the lady with the green girdle, but he still venerated her as a lady, right? He saw her fruitfulness, as we see the five point symmetry inside an apple core, but he overlooked what she was pointing to, he forgot the meaning of the five points:
No matter where he moved in melee or in battle
it was his fervent thought through thick or thin
that when he fought his courage came from the five joys
the high Queen of Heaven had of her child.
(And so the noble knight would never wear his shield
till her image had been painted on the inner half;
for when he saw her face his courage never failed.)

GOD BLESS I have to get going otherwise I’ll become aschenputtl in a flash (I don’t blog after midnight)