Does sex, becoming one flesh, make you married?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bill77

Guest
Hello,

I’ve run into the idea that having sex, or “becoming one flesh,” makes two people married (assuming that neither are already married - then it would be adultery).

The Bible refers to sex as “becoming one flesh” or “one body.” (Genesis 2:24, Ephesians 5:31). It even refers to it as this when specifically talking about a prostitute, that it makes you one flesh, is 1 Corinthians 6:16: “[Or] do you not know that anyone who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For ‘the two,’ it says, ‘will become one flesh.’”

In Matthew 19:3-6, Jesus says:
“Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
Jesus even says, “THEREFORE, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” The use of the word “therefore” here seems to mean that it is directly BECAUSE the two are no longer two but one flesh, which is synonymous with having had sex.

This seems to me to spell out pretty clearly that sex creates a marriage bond between two previously unmarried virgins that should not be broken. So if two virgins have sex, break up, and then one of them wants to get married to another later in life, that would make them an adulterer. Thoughts?

I have read this article (non-Catholic source) which argued against what I’m saying here from Boundless written by Professor J. Budziszewski.

The article helps, but not all the way because it only separates a “becoming one flesh” which is in marriage and a “becoming one flesh” that is outside of marriage. But in the verse quoted above, it seems that Jesus treats them as the same, and just addresses the two becoming one flesh as what should not be separated, not necessarily treating it as if there is one or the other. He seems to treat it as if that “becoming one flesh” makes you married, and you should not be separated.

Thanks!
 
Thank you so much for your quick reply! I agree that those are not the same thing, but I’m still worried that both would be considered “becoming one flesh” due to the verse about the prostitute. That is certainly a one-night-stand type deal, but it’s still referred to as becoming one flesh.

I know that the Church does not teach that you need to be a virgin to get married. And I trust the Church’s teaching, even while wanting to understand and reconcile it with words in the Bible that could easily - or even plainly - be interpreted in a contradictory sense to that teaching.

But I do trust the Church. Do you, or anyone reading this, have a definitive source of doctrine you could point me to which directly states that what I’m saying here is wrong, that sex wouldn’t make two virgins married?

Thanks again
 
Bill77 said:
Do you, or anyone reading this, have a definitive source of doctrine you could point me to which directly states that what I’m saying here is wrong, that sex wouldn’t make two virgins married?
Click to expand...
Just curious… Why do you need an official source to explain something which is clearly just common sense to you? Do you not trust or believe in discretion?
 
Thanks! Could you point me to something definitive in Church doctrine which states this, or explain how I’m misinterpreting the Scriptures? I’m inclined to agree with you, but I want to have a better understanding. Where I am now, reading the scripture, it seems to say what I fear.
 
Just saw this after having already replied to your last message. I trust the Church and Sacred Scripture more than I would trust myself. I’m fallible, and I’m also very biased in wanting what I said not to be the case. I rely on the Church to avoid the same mistakes that led to things like the reformation. It would give me great confidence to see something more sure and definitive.
 
It’s not about the Scriptures, it’s about the Law.

Nothing in Church or State Law says two unmarried people having sex makes them married.

This is the problem with Sola Scriptura - it is possible for people to take random Scripture verses and interpret them in a way which leads to bizarre beliefs like people becoming married by having sex.

The Church doesn’t teach that and neither do the Laws of any nation on Earth as far as I’m aware.
 
That’s a good and valid distinction. I just wish the distinction were made in the Scripture or somewhere official in Church teaching, when it’s using the same terms in both places. Thanks again!
 
I agree with your stance on sola scriptura - that’s not exactly where I’m coming from however. Because I’ve found something troubling in the scripture, I’m looking to the rest of the Church and our pillars of faith, including brothers in Christ (you guys) to help clear it up. I just wish there was somewhere that the Church, aside from Scripture, addressed that directly.
 
Thank you both very much, you’ve been really helpful. I’ll be reading those sources. God bless you.
 
I might be wrong here, but I’ve read references to back in the Middle Ages, in remote areas where they might only see a priest once a year, that a couple could go ahead and start living together before the priest came to marry them.

However, in the eyes of the Church and community, they were “really” married. They couldn’t split up and find other partners if they changed their minds. It had the full weight of every other marriage.

In other words, it was nothing like our current culture of living together.
 
Your verse from St. Paul says that there is a sense in which sex, as a joining of bodies is similar enough to becoming one flesh to use it as an example. In argument, terms must be defined and they do not always static. In any case, this does not make, or equal marriage. The two, sex and marriage, both have a commonality, that is, a unifying action. Thus, sex outside of marriage is very damaging, be it prostitution, adultery, hooking up, or living together.

Marriage is unifying on a much deeper level. In addition to the physical act, the commitments made (permanence, fidelity, children) amplify the oneness exponentially
 
Follow up question: What formality is required to establish a natural marriage? Obviously, sex alone is not enough, but what form do the vows have to take for a natural marriage to be formed?
 
Marriage happens at valid exchange of consent.

I’d suggest you read the entire section on marriage:

[1626] The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage."127 If consent is lacking there is no marriage.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#1631
 
Bill77 said:
…
Click to expand...
No, for God to join two requires the proper consent (lifelong, exclusive, and granting just conjugal rights) and the conjugal relations make it indissoluble for two that are baptized.

Canon law (CIC) states:
Can. 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons quali-fied by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.
§2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage.
Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.
Can. 1116 §1. If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only …
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The question is, “What constitutes valid exchange of consent in the case of a natural marriage?” This is no small matter, considering the multitude of marriages throughout the world that are conducted informally.
 
Basically they must be free to marry (no prior marriages with living spouses), if either is baptized Catholic they follow the laws of the Church, and they freely exchange consent.

That is explained at a high level in the Catechism. For more detailed information, read the footnote referenced Canons and Documents.

[1625] The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; “to be free” means:
  • not being under constraint;
  • not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.
[1626] The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage."127 If consent is lacking there is no marriage.

1627 The consent consists in a “human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other”: “I take you to be my wife” - "I take you to be my husband."128 This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh."129

[1628] The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear.130 No human power can substitute for this consent.131 If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.
 
Yes, Paul stated that Porneia joins someone into marriage (one flesh). This is Porneia, which can be divorced (especially when assumed as a Christian Marriage).

Porneia is binding in a natural sense. It’s not binding in God, however. It must be repented to be released, since it is sin.

Christian marriage is between two Baptized Christian’s vowing before God to give themselves to one another. After this is consummated, I one has the authority to break, try as they may.
 
Last edited:
Obviously, canon law governs the issue of two Catholics or a Catholic and a non-Catholic marrying. I was speaking of the putative marriage between two non-Catholics: Does the marital consent need to be given before two witnesses? Can the couple exchange consent remotely? Is it relevant if the state does not recognize the marriage?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top