A question about Mary and Joseph

[Binary]

In order to avoid scandalizing anyone, let me say that this isn’t intended to be a “gotcha” question or a criticism. I’m asking bluntly because I genuinely want to know.

The Church would refuse to marry any two people who said that they intended to remain celibate for life. Does this mean that Mary and Joseph’s marriage is invalid in the eyes of the Church?

 

[smichhertz]

No, that happened in the Old Testament. Marriage was not a sacrament then.

 

[Nita]

In order to avoid scandalizing anyone, let me say that this isn’t intended to be a “gotcha” question or a criticism. I’m asking bluntly because I genuinely want to know.

The Church would refuse to marry any two people who said that they intended to remain celibate for life. Does this mean that Mary and Joseph’s marriage is invalid in the eyes of the Church?

The Church did not yet exist at the time Joseph and Mary were married.
To my knowledge, there is no law in the Old Covenant that says marriages must be consumated.

Even in the New Covenant, there are exceptions; eg physical incapabilities (quadraplegic…). Also, I’m pretty sure marriage would be allowed to elderly even tho they may have no intention of consumating the union physically through intercourse.

 

[Binary]

The idea that marriage was qualitatively different prior to the institutionalization of the sacrament of matrimony doesn’t sit right with me. Catholic theology about sex (and, by extension, marriage) is largely predicated on Natural Law, which we can come to know without the revelation of the New Testament. So why would people who got married before the church came around be held to a different standard?

 

[SwizzleStick]

…Even in the New Covenant, there are exceptions; eg physical incapabilities (quadraplegic…). Also, I’m pretty sure marriage would be allowed to elderly even tho they may have no intention of consumating the union physically through intercourse.

I don’t think that is correct. A quadraplegic would not be able to marry in the Catholic Church. I’ll search and see what I can find.

I know I was involved in a discussion about Josephite marriages (like Mary and Joseph’s marriage, one without the marital embrace) at one point here at CAF, but it has been a few years. I’ll look for that thread.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I don’t think that is correct. A quadraplegic would not be able to marry in the Catholic Church. I’ll search and see what I can find.

I know I was involved in a discussion about Josephite marriages (like Mary and Joseph’s marriage, one without the marital embrace) at one point here at CAF, but it has been a few years. I’ll look for that thread.

Here we go. The thread is nearly three years old, but here is the link to it.

Marriage Never Consumated
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=256567

 

[david_friol_1]

In order to avoid scandalizing anyone, let me say that this isn’t intended to be a “gotcha” question or a criticism. I’m asking bluntly because I genuinely want to know.

The Church would refuse to marry any two people who said that they intended to remain celibate for life. Does this mean that Mary and Joseph’s marriage is invalid in the eyes of the Church?

I do not think the Church would always refuse this situation. I believe there are a few in my area.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Here’s a Q&A about Josephite Marriage from the “Ask an Apologist” forum.

St. Joseph’s Night
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=6919

 

[TimothyH]

The idea that marriage was qualitatively different prior to the institutionalization of the sacrament of matrimony doesn’t sit right with me. Catholic theology about sex (and, by extension, marriage) is largely predicated on Natural Law, which we can come to know without the revelation of the New Testament. So why would people who got married before the church came around be held to a different standard?

I’ll go further and state that the idea of marriage not being a sacrament prior to the advent of Christ is blatantly wrong.

The sacramentality of spousal union is established in the first book of Genesis. If anything, it is the orignial sacrament. No less than the Blessed John Paul II described spousal union, which was established specifically in Geneis 1:27, as “The primordial sacrament” beacuase of the way it uses things which are visible and physical to reveal to us invisible, divine truths.

God the Father loves God the Son and God the Son loves God the Father, both completely vulnerable to each other, both giving themselves completely in self sacrificing love. This perfect interchange of self giving love produces the Holy Spirit. We bear witness to this in the creed when we profess that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” How the love of husband and wife produce a child reveals to us the essence of love between God the Father and God the Son, and more than that, is a way in which we are to experience Trinitarian love in our own lives.

Having said that, I have no idea how to answer the original question.

-Tim-

 

[cajun2core]

I don’t think that is correct. A quadraplegic would not be able to marry in the Catholic Church. I’ll search and see what I can find.

I know I was involved in a discussion about Josephite marriages (like Mary and Joseph’s marriage, one without the marital embrace) at one point here at CAF, but it has been a few years. I’ll look for that thread.

SwizzleStick is correct. Impotence (but not sterilization) is an impediment to marriage:

From the Code of Canon Law:
Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.

 

[Binary]

Thanks Swizzle, for rizzle.

To check my understanding, it sounds like I was incorrect in saying that the church would refuse to marry two people who did not intend to consummate. I’m confused, though, because I’m pretty sure that the church will refuse to marry people who have some kind of permanent inability to consummate. What is the difference between the two?

EDIT: thanks for posting the relevant canon law, cajun.

 

[puzzleannie]

the question was addressed in a recent thread within the last two weeks
no, their marriage would not be invalid
they were not married under Catholic canon law because the Church did not yet exist so what the Church rule is would not matter in any case
they married under Mosaic law and both Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels take great pains to assure us they were righteous and observed the law in every particular surrounding Christ’s birth.

Celibate means unmarried so by definition does not apply to a married couple who abstain from sexual relationships for any length of time by mutual agreement, which St. Paul assures us, is allowable. If it were not allowed, then NFP would also be forbidden.

YOu are evading the major point, what they did was at God’s explicit instruction. HIs word trumps all laws.

 

[crystal_waters]

In order to avoid scandalizing anyone, let me say that this isn’t intended to be a “gotcha” question or a criticism. I’m asking bluntly because I genuinely want to know.

The Church would refuse to marry any two people who said that they intended to remain celibate for life. Does this mean that Mary and Joseph’s marriage is invalid in the eyes of the Church?

there was no catholi church then…they were jewish

i think i read somewhere that mary had made a vow of virginity?

but there are plenty of married saints that remained celibate…st cecilia remained a virgin in her marriage till death. her husband and his brother were also martyred for the faith

 

[ConstantineTG]

Wait, its not that Joseph wasn’t willing to consummate with Mary. Its that at first he found out she was pregnant, of course naturally as a human he was hurt. “Why would this woman I am about to marry be pregnant? And I am pretty sure its not by me!”

Then he learned that the child is the Son of God. Who would then want to touch the womb that bore the Son of God? Its not that Joseph never intended to remain celibate at the time of the betrothal but quite possibly decided on it afterwards after receiving all the facts of the events that transpired.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Thanks Swizzle, for rizzle.

To check my understanding, it sounds like I was incorrect in saying that the church would refuse to marry two people who did not intend to consummate. I’m confused, though, because I’m pretty sure that the church will refuse to marry people who have some kind of permanent inability to consummate. What is the difference between the two?

EDIT: thanks for posting the relevant canon law, cajun.

Here is a quote from the thread I referenced above in my post #6, Marriage Never Consumated forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=256567 . Reading that thread should help answer your questions. It helped clarify things for me a few years ago and I think I’ll re-read the thread again now.

Swizzle,

You’re close, but not quite right. Pre-existiing perpetual inability to consummate a marriage is an impediment to marriage, however it is only the *ability *that is required, not that one make use of the ability.

A marriage that is never consummated is still a valid sacramental marriage (ratum). It is, however, subject to dissolution until consummated (ratum et consummatum).

VC

 

[ConstantineTG]

i think i read somewhere that mary had made a vow of virginity?

It was stated in tradition that she was a consecrated virgin of the temple. But they were released from the temple as soon as they start having their period because at that time they would start seeking to marry, also that they could be defiled by a man and the priests doesn’t want someone who’s no longer a virgin to serve. So as tradition has it, she was betrothed to an older widower so that she may remain a virgin all her life. Joseph was chosen from among the widowers called forth by the priest though a sign from God.

This can be found in the Protoevangelium of James.

 

[Binary]

Here is a quote from the thread I referenced above in my post #. Reading that thread should help answer your questions. It helped clarify things for me and I might read the thread again now.

It was actually that post which prompted my question. What is the distinction between having the ability and never using it vs. not having it at all? It must be a big difference indeed to mean the difference between being a valid candidate for spousehood or not.

 

[Nita]

I don’t think that is correct. A quadraplegic would not be able to marry in the Catholic Church. I’ll search and see what I can find.

I know I was involved in a discussion about Josephite marriages (like Mary and Joseph’s marriage, one without the marital embrace) at one point here at CAF, but it has been a few years. I’ll look for that thread.

I am wondering if the Church has a procedure that allows for people to apply for dispensations from the canonical regulations.

 

[SwizzleStick]

It was actually that post which prompted my question. What is the distinction between having the ability and never using it vs. not having it at all? It must be a big difference indeed to mean the difference between being a valid candidate for spousehood or not.

Below is quoted from the thread I keep referencing.

…Consent makes marriage. When two people consent to marriage in a marriage ceremony, then the marriage bond is formed.

Consummation of the marriage cements the bond and makes it indissoluble, but a marriage that was contracted with consent but is not consummated is open to being dissolved.

An impotent person is impeded from marriage because he/she cannot consummate. It is not the same as when a couple contracts marriage and then both choose to not consummate for whatever reason, forming a “Josephite marriage.” It comes down to being able to choose or not. …

 

[Binary]

the question was addressed in a recent thread within the last two weeks
no, their marriage would not be invalid
they were not married under Catholic canon law because the Church did not yet exist so what the Church rule is would not matter in any case
they married under Mosaic law and both Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels take great pains to assure us they were righteous and observed the law in every particular surrounding Christ’s birth.

Celibate means unmarried so by definition does not apply to a married couple who abstain from sexual relationships for any length of time by mutual agreement, which St. Paul assures us, is allowable. If it were not allowed, then NFP would also be forbidden.

YOu are evading the major point, what they did was at God’s explicit instruction. HIs word trumps all laws.

First of all, I’m not evading anything. I have no agenda here except to learn. Mary and Joseph were obedient to God, sure. And God is incapable of contradicting himself. So I’m asking for help in resolving this apparent (but, I’m sure, not real) contradiction in my mind. Namely, that it is acceptable for people who swear perpetual abstinence (not celibacy, thank you for the correction) to marry, but not people who have perpetual abstinence imposed on them in the form of impotence.

I’m not convinced that canon law doesn’t apply to pre-Christ marriages, because canon law itself prescinds from Natural Law. Right? I mean, it’s not like Christ’s foundation of the church changed the nature of man and how we relate to each other. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I would think that canon law is not a creation of truth, only a codification of it. Also I’ll refer you to TimothyH’s post for you to agree/disagree with.