This has always confused me. I’ve always heard that a marriage can easily be annulled if it has not been consummated. Is this true? Also, on a cd I have on Marriage and the Eucharist (I can’t remember if it’s the one by Christopoher West or John Martignoni) I seem to remmber one of them saying the ‘marital embrace’ is what completes the sacrament of marriage - ‘and the 2 shall become one flesh’.
Insurance has nothing to do with the Church. You are confusing a secular institution with a spiritual sacrament.
Mary and Joseph were not bound by the Code of Canon Law any more than Malchezadeck was obligated to pray the Divine Office. I would suggest researching Jewish law regarding marriage instead of applying post-resurrection “law” to a pre-Messianic situation.
Well, I would question why, exactly, they feel they are being called to the vocation of marriage. Marriage isn’t a degree of love or a product of high emotions, it is a type of love; it has a function. If it is impossible to perform this function, I fail to see how this type of love can be truly fulfilled.
I understand this, but why would the Church define canon law in such a way, if we believe that Mary and Joseph’s marriage was valid?
If you are referring to children, the Church teaches that sterile couples can get married in the Church. It is only impotent couples who cannot.
The Sacrament of Marriage takes place with the exchange of vows/consent. A Marriage that is not consummated cannot “easily” be annulled it can be set aside for specific purposes stated in Canon Law by the Pope. By the way I understand that celibate marriage was not unknown in Jewish culture. Canon Law requires that the person entering Marriage be capable of consummating the Marriage at the time the Marriage takes place.
Hmm…a bit tougher. I’m not sure exactly why it would have changed, but it may have to do with a revelation of Jesus Christ and the Eucharist and the understanding of the bridegroom physically becoming one with His bride, the Church.
A valid, sacramental, but unconsumated marriage can be dissolved by the Holy Father. I won’t say the process is “easy”. This is different than a decree of nullity (i.e., annulment), where a marriage that is already invalid is officially declared to be so.
In order for Mary and Joseph’s marriage to be valid, the following must have been true:
I know you’re not trying to bash the Church; these are tough issues. But I think the root of it all has to do with our lack of understanding of marriage as a Sacrament and vocation. It really wasn’t until Theology of the Body that the Sacrament began to be truly understood in terms of the Eucharist and its proper role in our salvation history.
So two people can be married in the church if they are capable of consumation, even if they have determined to be celibate, but two people who are incapable of consumation cannot, even if they would consumate if they could. I just don’t understand that policy.
It depends on how “determined” they are. As I said, I believe both Mary and Joseph were willing and able to consumate the marriage had the other spouse requested it.
How can a pledge to pay the “marital debt” be considered valid if the person making it is not able to pay this debt?
I understand your point, and to avoid a problem of circular reference, you might be right on the money.
At the risk of hijacking this thread, I would have to say that from birth a child depends on his parents and family for this training. The sad fact is that today our families are as bad off as some of our seminaries and the training can be quite defective. IMO this is one very important reason why Christian Marriages between a man and a woman are so critical. The family is the pedigogical base for the future mature adult and for the future of our human society…
From what I gathered from Theology of the Body, the Church’s position on marriage stems from Genesis and the first marriage ever, completing the teaching from Christ’s marriage to His Church.