Those entering a Josephite marriage must be able to consummate the marriage. Also, they must take up the conjugal life if either party requests it. A Joesphite marriage is only by mutual consent and for as long as both give consent. A couple unable or a person unwilling to engage in marital relations cannot marry.
Um, no, canon law says no such thing.Anti-Catholic apologists would certainly have a hayday with this, huh?
We believe that Joseph and Mary never consummated their marriage, yet canon law says this can’t be.
For me, it’s one of those hoop-jumping moments being Catholic.
This is not accurate. A valid, unconsummated marriage can be dissolved by the Pope. It is not a candidate for a declaration of nullity by virtue of being a valid marriage.
Then you need look no further than the bible where he discussed eunuchs being in an unmarried state.
Since being a woman is not a medical condition, I find the comparison invalid in all honesty.
Do you know of something ithat required them to do so?
I don’t know about anyone else but the above analogy was never really helpful to me in understanding or even accepting teachings. In one case (the person being told s/he can’t marry because they can’t complete the marital act) the person is being told they aren’t allowed to get married, dictated by Church rules and laws. In the other case (men cannot give birth), no one has to tell a man he can’t give birth because he isn’t physiologically able to do so. There’s a difference between being told one isn’t allowed to do something, and actually really not able to do something because it’s not possible.
I wasn’t talking about an impotent person but addressing the validity of Mary and Joseph’s marriage.
This is fascinating. I’ve been reading this thread and I have some questions. Let me start with a hypothetical question that’s actually a reality for some people. What if two people who are fully capable of having sex should get married and then after having sex fully, often and with all due diligence and vigor in accordance with the mandates that I’m reading about here, find that they are unable to have children? Are they to have the marriage annulled, or should they become celibate and adopt children? If the answer is the latter, how is that different than a couple who are celibate and adopt children because they can’t have sex? How about a couple who are married and celibate because they are raising the Son of God? I am totally serious. This is a straightforward question and I would very much appreciate a logical well-reasoned answer rather than getting slapped with a warning for asking an honest question (Eric). God won’t punish you for letting me ask things in earnest. If there are good answers to things they will bear themselves out and you have nothing to worry about.
Impotence is not sterility but the inability to perform the sexual act. Sterility is not an impediment to marriage. Impotence is, however. If, however, one is found to be impotent after marriage, they are to remain married. With the vows they become married; the marital act more or less fulfills it.
Thanks for the reply Karebear: But the outcome is the same as in the examples I have put forward, is it not? I still need to see answers to the questions I have put forward if I may. Should a sterile couple be celibate? If so, how is one celibate couple different than another? In fact, the outcome is the same. If a sterile couple is to continue having sex, what specific sex are they to have? There are all kinds, and in most marriages all kinds of things happen before intercourse, right, and those things are sexual relations in and of themselves. I am trying to make sense of the logic on this thread. In all honesty, I find it baffling, and I hope I’m given the opportunity to press on until I get a full answer this time. Thanks again.
No the couple should not become celibate unless for some reason they both desire to. Sexual relations between a husband and wife have two aspects - unitive and procreative. If sexual relations are unable to serve the procreative aspect for whatever reason then it is acceptable and encouraged to still fully embrace the unitive aspect of sex. As far as what kind of sexual relations - this would be the same kind of sex that they could have if they were able to have children. Meaning they have to be open to life - not necessarily able to procreate. Meaning - that just because a couple may be post menopausal for instance or have an ailment or some other more serious issue does not mean that it is free license to do whatever in the bedroom that they would not normally do (for instance finishing in places they wouldn’t normally finish or using barrier methods). I hope that is an OK answer.
There are two parts to marriage: procreation and the unity of two people: “for this reason man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh” (Mark 10:7). Basically, marriage is the unity of two people with children as a natural result of the union. The result of children does not have to be realized, however. If someone is impotent neither is fulfilled and therefore the purpose of marriage is invalid. Besides, nobody is truly infertile with God. Are they physically? Yes, but that does not mean that God could not have them conceive a child.
So, if I don;t want children then I simply find a post menopausal or otherwise infertile wife and let the good times roll? God’s happy, Sufjon’s having a grand ole time and see ya’ll in heaven? No one becomes one flesh through intercourse. That’s just putting your flesh in another person’s flesh, and there are a lot of ways to do that. I have been told on this forum that sex is just for procreation. Now I’m being told that if you follow the rules just right, it can work out just fine otherwise. Sounds rather litigious and unspiritual to me. This doesn’t answer my question on a number of fronts. What about Mary and Joseph? They didn’t fulfill any of that, but they were a family. A model family at that. Was Joseph just a cover to keep Mary from being run out of town or did they have a marriage in the eyes of God? If not, what was he there for? Was he a cover to uphold a social norm, because he didn’t fulfill the marriage thing, unless we want to concede that Protestants had that right after all. Personally I think she always stayed a virgin BTW. Her family could have taken care of her. Why was Joseph there? That said, who is to say what arrangements others might have with God? I am still totally puzzled.
Well, no. You must always have the intent and be open to children, so if you wait to mary for that reason then you are completely missing the concept of marriage.
Not true on either statement.
You have been told wrong.
They were validly married, as in they both had the ability to perform the marital act, but they did not make their marriage valid through the conjugal act. They could have but chose not to, which did not break the marital vows that we have today. Marriage occurs during the sacramental proceeding, and it is validated though the marital act. With marriage comes the marital debt (the right to conjugal relations if reasonably requested). They married with the ability and the prospect that if one were to reasonably request it, it would be granted to them. If the birth of Jesus changed their minds about having sex or if they both agreed before marriage not to but still with the prospect that they would if one of them so desired, then they did not break the marital vows, and therefore were validly married, albeit without validating it through sex.
Consummation of a marriage,as far as I know, has been the sign of a marriage being made complete, since Adam and Eve. In other words, the vows made are not complete until the marriage is consummated.
In Catholicism, marriage is not just a legal contract but a sacrament when validly entered into by two baptized persons- This makes it a means of grace and involves God in the whole matter. The Church recognizes non-christian marriages as valid but not sacramental- A sacramental, valid, (+ consummated) marriage cannot be dissolved by anyone/anything except death.
Perhaps that’s the key difference here then. Christ and the Apostles clearly taught us this truth, so we defer to them on it. To us, marriage and consummation is about making a complete and permanent gift of your self to another- Giving yourself away- literally! That’s why divorce and remarriage is never ok- You have only one self and you’ve “given it” to one person, what is there to give another? This giving away is effected physically in the conjugal act, where your body is not your own anymore- How can it be separated again except by death? To us, the consummating couple has become one flesh and this is why there’s no separation. You should probably understand our idea of sacrament, what happens physically, happens truly/spiritually also. Only by the death of the other’s body do you “get your gift back”- (Please excuse the language, I don’t know how else to put it)
Sex in marriage is complete and permanent self giving to each other which is hindered if you place “buts” and barriers such as contraception in it- Procreation is the crowning of that mutual self-giving by God who creates with the couple new life. It’s also exemplified by Christ marrying the Church (his bride) and then the church becomes Christ’s own body- One flesh! It was God’s desire to create human life by the love of man and woman- contraception locks God out of his own designs for human life.
There were no sacraments when Joseph married the Virgin- The marriage itself was valid, just as the Church considers all Jewish marriages valid though non-sacramental. Also, the agreement not to have sex was mutual and strictly between the two. Even Catholics can abstain but it must be mutual and cease (the abstinence) when it no longer is mutual, because you did make a gift of yourself to another as Christ has made for us and we (at least ideally) for him.
. I don’t think single mother-hood (or father-hood) apart from widow-hood, is the Judaic God’s idea , but man’s idea.