Mary and Joseph's Marriage Validity

  • Thread starter Thread starter PatrickB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
farronwolf said:
Marriage and ownership of property are not even in the same class of contracts. That is just my opinion.
Click to expand...
That’s fine. The principle remains, however: we can exchange rights but choose to not exercise them.

Dan
 
It’s quite different, since a house or a car cannot possibly have any obligations towards you. Spouses do however, and marital intimacy is certainly a core part of most marriages. Joseph and Mary were unique, so it makes sense that their marriage was as well. For most people a marriage without consumation would not make much sense.
 
Think about business contracts for a while and you will find plenty of parallels. A client service agreement, a merger between corporations, an employer-employee relationship. All of these are exchanges of consent; they outline rights and privileges, some of which may not be exercised.
 
Last edited:
I can’t really think of any such contract where the parts don’t intend to exercise the central rights of said contract (there would not really be any point in the contract then). There are of course many minor rights and obligations that never become relevant for some reason, but marital intimacy isn’t minor.
 
For example, if someone would sign a rental contact with a landlord without ever intending to exercise the right to live or use the rented place in some way, that would be odd. It could of course happen, but it would still be really odd.
 
tuffsmurf said:
but marital intimacy isn’t minor.
Click to expand...
For the majority of people I would agree wholeheartedly. But people who want to enter into that sort of marriage are the exception already. And that particular right cannot be waived completely or negotiated away and still make a valid marriage according to the Church (at least as I understand it).
 
tuffsmurf said:
For example, if someone would sign a rental contact with a landlord without ever intending to exercise the right to live or use the rented place in some way, that would be odd. It could of course happen, but it would still be really odd.
Click to expand...
Exactly like Josephite marriages.
 
Or a rental contract where the landlord never intended to give the tenant the key to said property.

Lets sign this contract, pay your rent, knowing full well that I will never allow access.

This is more in line with my thoughts of entering into a contract without the intent to fulfill the contract.
 
It’s not “never” in a Josephite marriage. And it’s a mutual decision. The husband and the wife each acknowledge the marriage debt and they each agree not to consummate the marriage. The option for them is always left open, if they mutually decide to consummate, then they do so.
 
Anesti33 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am aware of this, I understand this, and I do not disagree with it, but what is the reasoning behind it? How is the Holy Father able to dissolve a valid, sacramental marriage on the grounds of non-consummation (ratum sed non consummatum)? Or is it not yet sacramental? If not, then isn’t it more accurate to say that the sacrament is conferred when consummation takes place, rather than when vows and rings are exchanged?
 
tuffsmurf said:
but marital intimacy isn’t minor.
Click to expand...
That is true in one sense, but in another it is far from true.

Next week my bride and I will celebrate 35 years of marriage.
But only the most fractional tiniest percentage of that time will have been spent in “marital intimacy”.
:bride_with_veil:🤵‍♂️
 
HomeschoolDad said:
40.png
Anesti33:
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.
Click to expand...
I am aware of this, I understand this, and I do not disagree with it, but what is the reasoning behind it? How is the Holy Father able to dissolve a valid, sacramental marriage on the grounds of non-consummation (ratum sed non consummatum)? Or is it not yet sacramental? If not, then isn’t it more accurate to say that the sacrament is conferred when consummation takes place, rather than when vows and rings are exchanged?
Click to expand...
In short, because Canon Law gives him the ability:
Code of Canon Law 1983:
Can. 1142 A non-consummated marriage between baptised persons or between a baptised party and an unbaptised party can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason, at the request of both parties or of either party, even if the other is unwilling.
Click to expand...
It’s commonly called the Petrine Privilege. And a valid marriage is sacramental upon the baptism of both parties, and/or the exchange of consent. “Consent makes a marriage” and baptism makes it sacramental. Rings are cultural and wholly unnecessary.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
How is the Holy Father able to dissolve a valid, sacramental marriage on the grounds of non-consummation ( ratum sed non consummatum )?
Click to expand...
The reasoning behind it is that a marriage does not possess “extrinsic indissolubility” (i.e., no outside authority can dissolve the bond) unless it is ratified (among two baptized persons) and consummated. Prior to consummation, the Parties have not yet become one flesh and so the Pope’s ability to bind and loose still exists.

While it is true that consent makes marriage and a valid marriage is presumed once consent has been properly manifested, if the Parties do not “exchange the goods of marriage” via the conjugal act, they have not yet completed (consummated) the contract.

This distinction between the initiation of the contract and the completion of the contract through consummation was a compromise of sorts that was made about 900 years ago. Some people thought consummation, after expression of marital consent, was the beginning of the married state. Otherwise, how could religious profession or the Pope dissolve a non-consummated marriage? On the other hand, it is certainly true that “consent makes marriage” and so what does an expression of marital consent do, if not make the parties married? These were the two sides of the argument.

So, ultimately, it was stated that Popes (and religious profession) could and can dissolve valid marriages that were not consummated because the contract was not completed: the parties had not yet handed over their bodies to one another. I think St. Thomas Aquinas here made a distinction between a merely spiritual bond of marriage (prior to consummation) and a spiritual and carnal bond of marriage (after consummation).
HomeschoolDad said:
Or is it not yet sacramental?
Click to expand...
Sacramentality of marriage depends on the baptismal status of the Parties, not consummation (or lack thereof).

Dan
 
PatrickB said:
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?
Click to expand...
Not in the eyes of the Catholic Church. What a quandary.
 
The Catholic Church considers their marriage valid, and we just went to great lengths to discuss why.
 
Catholic Marriage FAQs - For Your Marriage valid Catholic marriage results,a properly authorized Church minister.

What is the difference between a valid and an invalid Catholic marriage?
Just as individual states have certain requirements for civil marriage (e.g., a marriage license, blood tests), the Catholic Church also has requirements before Catholics can be considered validly married in the eyes of the Church. A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements:

(1) the spouses are free to marry;
(2) they freely exchange their consent;
(3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; and
(4) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority.
Click to expand...
Were Mary and Joseph “Open to Children”? Obviously not since it is proclaimed that she maintained virginity passed the childbirth of Jesus.

Or did the website get it totally wrong. You don’t have to be “Open to Children”.
 
Last edited:
And what verses do Apologists use a lot?

Gen_1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Gen_9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Mary and Joseph did not follow that edict at all according to Catholic Tradition.
 
Last edited:
Actually in the timeframe when this happened a woman who became pregnant and did not have a husband would have been stoned to death. So one must always try to understand the circumstances that applied at the time the events unfolded.
Now we know from tradition that Mary was a consecrated virgin, she had taken the wow of virginity however in order to preserve her a marriage had been arranged with a suitable husband. Obviously Joseph knew about the wow therefore he was like a caretaker of the virgin and not someone who expected to have his marriage consummated.
Also the current concept of Matrimony as understood by the Catholic Church has evolved out of the teachings of Jesus.
Peace!
 
Were Joseph and Mary open to children? Have you read the Gospel of Luke?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top