Mary and Joseph's Marriage Validity

[PatrickB]

With certain requirements on marriage such as the openness to life and the necessity for intercourse, would the marriage of Mary and Joseph be considered valid? Can someone who has taken a vow of virginity ever be truly married? Is a marriage valid without consummation?

 

[Dolphin]

With certain requirements on marriage such as the openness to life and the necessity for intercourse,

Name one part of the Catechism that says having sex is needed for marriage to be valid?

So people who abstain from sex during marriage for a variety of reasons, is their marriage invalid?

Sex is not a requirement. You cannot force someone in a marriage to have sex with you. That is marital rape and is illegal.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Josephite Marriages can be perfectly valid and Sacramental.

 

[Dolphin]

Josephite Marriages can be perfectly valid and Sacramental.

Exactly, and can bring many graces as well

 

[edward_george1]

This question comes up quite a lot.

Mary and Joseph were Jewish. Mary and Joseph were not bound by Canon Law. Common sense.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[acanonlawyer]

Mary and Joseph were Jewish. Mary and Joseph were not bound by Canon Law.

And even if they were bound, their marriage enjoys/would have enjoyed the same presumption of validity as others do.

I would also say that, knowing what we know about their marriage, and basing an examination only on what canon law says about marriage, there is no good reason to question the validity of their marriage.

Dan

 

[sealabeag]

Father I’ve often heard it said that consummation is required for a marriage to be “something” - valid, fulfilled, I don’t know what word is used. Could you explain the difference between a consummated and unconsummated marriage if both are equally valid?

 

[acanonlawyer]

With certain requirements on marriage such as the openness to life and the necessity for intercourse, would the marriage of Mary and Joseph be considered valid?

“Openness to life” can be a useful short-hand for that essential element of marriage related to the procreation/education of offspring and the conjugal aspect of marriage. What this term does not mean, however, includes: the actual procreation of children, the completion of the conjugal act. A marriage is not invalid until children are conceived. A marriage is not invalid until consummation. (Sorry for the double negatives.)

“Consent makes marriage” is a fundamental point. If the parties to a marriage have proper, internal consent and are capable of marriage, then they are married at the moment they properly express their consent. “Proper consent” includes the “handing over” of self to the other and this includes the exchange of the right to the conjugal act. Spouses, of course, decide when they will exercise that right. It is possible for them to exchange the right and yet also have an intention to not exercise it.

Can someone who has taken a vow of virginity ever be truly married?

Yes.

Is a marriage valid without consummation?

Consummation does not make a marriage. A couple is married at the point they exchange consent. That’s why they are then morally free to have conjugal relations. You could say that consummation “seals” the (already valid) marriage or that it “adds a layer” of indissolubility to the (already valid) marriage.

Dan

 

[Tis_Bearself]

And even if they were bound, their marriage enjoys/would have enjoyed the same presumption of validity as others do.

Correct. We have had saints who were in Josephite (non-consummated, non-sexual) marriages, in some cases with the full knowledge and blessing of the person’s spiritual director.

With certain requirements on marriage such as… the necessity for intercourse,

There’s no such thing. It’s necessary that the two people be CAPABLE of having intercourse, not that they actually have it.

 

[neophyte]

With certain requirements on marriage such as … the necessity for intercourse,

Where in the world did you get that silly idea?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Where in the world did you get that silly idea?

Probably because non-consummation can be grounds for an annulment. However, the marriage is presumed valid unless and until someone applies for the annulment and it is granted. If neither spouse ever applies for an annulment, or if one applies and it isn’t granted, their marriage continues and is valid.

Consummating the marriage makes it harder to get an annulment. It doesn’t mean that the non-consummated marriage is not valid.

 

[Dan_Defender]

I suspect Mary and Joseph were not the only ones. I can imagine that the bride and bridegroom of Cana, after experiencing the miracle of the water turning into wine and talking/listening to Jesus, decided to live like virgins and follow Jesus as disciples.

 

[tuffsmurf]

Why would they live like virgins?

 

[AlNg]

Where in the world did you get that silly idea?

Because the primary purpose of marriage is procreation.

 

[neophyte]

Because the primary purpose of marriage is procreation.

Non sequitur.

 

[farronwolf]

It is possible for them to exchange the right and yet also have an intention to not exercise it.

Not trying to derail the topic, but this is difficult to follow.

I agree to X, but have no intent on doing X.

 

[TheLittleLady]

I am capable of knitting all day long. I choose not to knit all day long.

I am capable of solving algebraic problems and teaching others to do the same. I choose not to be a teacher.

 

[whatistrue]

Not trying to derail the topic, but this is difficult to follow.

I agree to X, but have no intent on doing X

I would couch it as something like “We have mutually determined that we have no intention of engaging in intercourse during our marriage, but each of us declares that, if the other changes their mind and wishes to do so, we will accept their decision and cooperate.” Of course that’s just my understanding and could be quite off base.

 

[Anesti33]

neophyte:

Where in the world did you get that silly idea?

Probably because non-consummation can be grounds for an annulment. However, the marriage is presumed valid unless and until someone applies for the annulment and it is granted. If neither spouse ever applies for an annulment, or if one applies and it isn’t granted, their marriage continues and is valid.

Consummating the marriage makes it harder to get an annulment. It doesn’t mean that the non-consummated marriage is not valid.

Consummating a sacramental marriage makes it indissoluble. An unconsummated marriage may be dissolved, which is not a declaration of nullity. A dissolution acknowledges that a valid marriage existed.

 

[acanonlawyer]

Not trying to derail the topic, but this is difficult to follow.

I agree to X, but have no intent on doing X.

What you call “X” in those two places is not actually the same thing. Exchanging what has been called “the right to the body” is not equivalent to engaging in the conjugal act.

Perhaps looking at other contracts might help, as marriage is a kind of contract (we like to say “covenant”, and that’s fine). If I buy a house, do I have to live there in order for the contract to be valid? No. Must I intend to live there in order for the contract to be valid? No. Same thing for a car. Let’s say I buy a collector car and it’s too precious to risk driving it. I can “exchange the rights” to the car and yet also intend to not exercise those rights. (At the same time, I could also, theoretically, change my mind at a later date and legitimately exercise my rights).

Perhaps that helps explain the distinction.

Dan