Is marriage sinful?

[BobCatholic]

Jesus instructed them to do this, in general, in Luke 12
33 Sell your belongings and give alms. Provide money bags for yourselves that do not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven that no thief can reach nor moth destroy.

Acts 4:34-35 explains what was being done in the community:

34 There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, 35 and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.

36 Thus Joseph, also named by the apostles Barnabas (which is translated “son of encouragement”), a Levite, a Cypriot by birth, 37 sold a piece of property that he owned, then brought the money and put it at the feet of the apostles.

So, we are required to give up all money and remain in poverty, even if we are married.

This is why married laypeople are second class citizens in the kingdom of God. It is wrong for people to have money.

 

[Rau]

So, we are required to give up all money and remain in poverty, even if we are married.

This is why married laypeople are second class citizens in the kingdom of God. It is wrong for people to have money.

Required to? For what end? The positive precepts encourage us toward a focus on others, but are not definitive as to extent. Only the negative precepts (“Thou shall not…”) provide absolutes.

To live in luxury while others starve is not the perfect life. That much is true.

 

[Vico]

So, we are required to give up all money and remain in poverty, even if we are married.

This is why married laypeople are second class citizens in the kingdom of God. It is wrong for people to have money.

Glory in heaven depends upon merit which is greater in some than in others. For example the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is good to earn a living through which one supports their family and contributes to the Church and to help others. You should read Luke 12 to understand the entire teaching.

 

[BobCatholic]

Required to? For what end?

Because God says so. If one has money, God ignores them and avoids them.

The positive precepts encourage us toward a focus on others, but are not definitive as to extent. Only the negative precepts (“Thou shall not…”) provide absolutes

.

Right, and what we have here is a negative precept: Thou shalt not have money.

To live in luxury while others starve is not the perfect life. That much is true.

The solution is not that everyone starves.

Glory in heaven depends upon merit which is greater in some than in others. For example the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is good to earn a living through which one supports their family and contributes to the Church and to help others. You should read Luke 12 to understand the entire teaching.

The entire teaching is simple. Summarized by “Thou shalt not have money.”

Just ask the rich young ruler. Add “you cannot serve God and mammon.” Add Anninias and Sapphira. Add in the Magnificat “The Rich he has sent empty away.” The examples are endless - rich people are bad. No exception.

God hates money. This is why married couples are second class citizens in the kingdom of God. They need money to survive, hence are seen as bad.

 

[Elf01]

But why did they make that vow?

If it was not required (because they’re not a monk or nun) then it was a rash vow and thus they are not responsible for upholding the vow. This is Church teaching.

But clearly a rash vow is still binding under penalty of death.

I suspect there was a lot of peer pressure against them. OR they were falsely led to believe that giving up all money is required for salvation. If yes, that should reduce their culpability (but it did not) - that leads to bigger questions about whether lack of culpability is sufficient to avoid being punished.

Understand, I’m not disagreeing that they lied or approving/defending that. I’m questioning the belief that laypeople are second class citizens in the kingdom of God, and this is because of money.

THEY DIED FOR LYING, NOT WITHHOLDING THE MONEY. Peter tells them that even after selling the land the money was theirs (highlighted in my previous post).

after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal?

I see no evidence that they had taken a vow, rash or not. Either way they died for lying, not breaking the vow (if there even was one)

You are probably right about the peer pressure, in the sense that they likely wanted to be thought better by the community (or maybe by God, as Peter does accuse them of lying to the Holy Spirit). However, in the case of God they would have been wrong.

Paul, in 2 Corinthians 9 says

Each of you must give as you have made up your mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

I will concede, that, despite his protests, I do consider the rest of his statements to be pressuring (maybe it is cultural), either way he says that giving cheerfully is liked by God, I think that the converse (giving under compulsion would not be appreciated) is implied.

In terms of wealth Abram and Lot were so wealthy that they had to separate (Genesis 13). It is an Old Testament example, but if money was inherently evil I don’t think we would be seeing that. It is just very easy to get attached to.

2 Now Abram was very rich in livestock, in silver, and in gold. 3 He journeyed on by stages from the Negeb as far as Bethel, to the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Ai, 4 to the place where he had made an altar at the first; and there Abram called on the name of the Lord. 5 Now Lot, who went with Abram, also had flocks and herds and tents, 6 so that the land could not support both of them living together; for their possessions were so great that they could not live together, 7 and there was strife between the herders of Abram’s livestock and the herders of Lot’s livestock. At that time the Canaanites and the Perizzites lived in the land.

8 Then Abram said to Lot, ‘Let there be no strife between you and me, and between your herders and my herders; for we are kindred. 9 Is not the whole land before you? Separate yourself from me. If you take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if you take the right hand, then I will go to the left.

NRSVACE Gen 13

 

[BobCatholic]

THEY DIED FOR LYING, NOT WITHHOLDING THE MONEY. Peter tells them that even after selling the land the money was theirs (highlighted in my previous post).

I did not deny they lied. But that’s not the only reason they died. If it was lying alone, they’d be humiliated.

In addition, if they committed a sin, why were they not given a chance to repent? None was given. I’d have gone to confession.

I see no evidence that they had taken a vow, rash or not.

They made a vow to give up all their money. This means 100% of it. All they had left was a large piece of land. So they sold it for money. They sold their house/farm where they lived and earned a living.

Tell me, why were they required to give up all their possessions? Why was that kind of vow required?

They were a lay married couple, not monks or nuns. Monks and nuns have a vow of poverty, not married lay couples.

If they made a vow to give up all money in their state of life, that vow was definitely a rash vow. Being required to give up all possessions was inconsistent with their state in life, which made such a vow rash in another way.

I will concede, that, despite his protests, I do consider the rest of his statements to be pressuring (maybe it is cultural), either way he says that giving cheerfully is liked by God, I think that the converse (giving under compulsion would not be appreciated) is implied.

Precisely. A rash vow is not binding. A rash vow is done under compulsion or pressure.
People make the vow to relieve the pressure and get the pressure of their backs.

In terms of wealth Abram and Lot were so wealthy that they had to separate (Genesis 13). It is an Old Testament example, but if money was inherently evil I don’t think we would be seeing that. It is just very easy to get attached to.

If the OT said wealth is OK, then the NT went in a different direction. Christ himself said that wealth is wrong when he demanded the rich young ruler to give up all his wealth. The magnificat also says the same thing. So does Christ using rich people as evil role models.

 

[Sky_River]

I’m not sure what you mean. That’s not really a response to what I said. Please elaborate.

-Fr ACEGC

Like the expletive “mf”. How can sex be sacred and holy knowing how vile that language is?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I don’t know what is going on in this thread but it seems to have left the bounds of rational thought.

I strongly feel God called me to get married. That that is what he wanted me to do because he kept putting it (and the particular man) in my path for a very long time, and preventing me from going in other directions. My future husband also had a dream shortly after we met that indicated we would likely be together for life, and he rarely has any dreams he remembers. When he had that dream I knew I was “done for”.

It has been a good thing, though it’s not what I planned. God doesn’t lead us into sin, or to bad things.

Marriage, as God intended it to be, is perfectly fine. In my heart I know this. I don’t need to torture it out of the scriptures and Church fathers’ writings.

 

[RandomAlias]

In Isaiah 56:3-5, for example, the Lord promises the faithful and obedient eunuch heavenly rewards greater than the earthly rewards enjoyed by married couples with children:

The foreigner joined to the Lord should not say, “The Lord will surely exclude me from his people”; Nor should the eunuch say, “See, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord: To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose what pleases me, and who hold fast to my covenant, I will give them, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; an eternal name, which shall not be cut off, will I give them.

A married couple had earthly rewards: children who would take care of them in their old age, and a name or bloodline or legacy that would continue past their own lives. The eunuch was therefore a “dry tree,” no children, no lasting name, no legacy, and he might fall into poverty when he is too old to work.

This passage gives hope to the eunuch, but it does not say he is better off than a married person who is also faithful and obedient to God.