How could Mary have been a temple virgin and still marry?

[dmar198]

Catholic Church Canon 1088 says that “[t]hose who are bound by a public perpetual vow of chastity in a religious institute invalidly attempt marriage.”

Church common doctrine holds that Mary was a consecrated Temple Virgin with a vow of virginity. Does this mean that her marriage to Joseph was invalid?

BTW, the Code of Canon Law also states that marriage is brought into being by the mere manifested consent of persons who are legally capable (cf. Canon 1057), meaning that the Church has no power to change the qualifications of marriage contracts. Canon 1088 must therefore reflect a truth that is not dependent on the Church’s teachings; it is timeless. For either 1st century couples or 21st century couples, public vows of virginity are inconsistent with valid marriages.

The only way I can think to reconcile this is if (1) Mary’s vow was a private one and not a public one, or (2) Canon 1088 was not aimed at those marriages in which the couple agree to remain inconsumate.

But I’d like other (name removed by moderator)ut and/or some help substantiating either of those two options.

 

[Fr.Vincent_Serpa]

Hi,

Our Blessed Mother did not belong to a religious institute, which is another name for a religious order. There was no Church and so there was no canon law and no religious life. So the distinction between private and public vows is mute. There is a tradition that Mary was a temple virgin, but this is not clear and certainly it is not Church dogma.

Further, the code of canon law requires much more than manifested consent from adult Catholics in order for the marriage to be valid.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.