Mary & Joseph - Openness to Children

[wynnejj]

After reading this article from “The Rock” entitled “Was Mary a Perpetual Virgin?”…

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp

The arguments seems to fortify my firm belief that both Joseph and Mary were ever Virgin, and Jesus was an only child. My belief is that when they were engaged they entered their betrothal with that their eventual marriage covenant would be conducted with an openness to children whose course was altered by will of God with the Annunciation and the Incarnation of Our Lord. After the Incarnation of Our Lord, Joseph took on the role of guardian and foster father, but would not presume to put asunder the marriage of Mary and the Holy Spirit.

I reject the extrabiblical account of the ProtoEvangelium of Saint James and the idea that Mary was consecrated to virginity by her mother Saint Anne.

Canon 1101.2 suggest that a marriage can be annulled if couples enter the marriage covenant with the idea of a marriage of permanent abstinence and without an open-ness to children. If my Mother the Church has this instinct guided by the Holy Spirit, wouldn’t it be in concert with the instinct of our Blessed Virgin Mother and Saint Joseph, the Protector of the Catholic Church?

 

[ADiosgracias]

jajaj I just posted a similar question. I can’t wait someone to respond us.

 

[wynnejj]

jajaj I just posted a similar question. I can’t wait someone to respond us.

I think my earliest childhood interpretation of the story went something like this…
Mary and Joseph were engaged to be married with the full expectation to have children. The angel Gabriel announces to Mary that God the Father would like her to bear His Son, to which she asks the natural question as to how this will happen if she does not know man in the Biblical sense. In retrospect, the question might be as to how this would be accomplished - through the intermediary of a flesh & blood man? Then, she gives her consent. The Holy Spirit overshadows Mary and Jesus becomes incarnate.

The article suggests that Mary’s question presupposes that Joseph and Mary had agreed to marry but remain perpetual virgins - never consummate the marriage - which suggests that Jewish law accepted a marriage contract of perpetual virginity.

This sounds contrary to Canon Law 1101.2 that says couples must not enter the marriage contract with an unwillingness to perform the procreative functions of marriage.

So the question becomes how does scripture square with the concept of a couple entering the marriage contract with the intent to abstain completely.

 

[Yiu_Mahdd]

I’ve always believed, personally, that marriage should be consummated before the marriage begins, so that you can make sure that there won’t be any surprises once you get married.

 

[Trolol]

I don’t believe people should get married at all, we should all just go out and rape and get random people pregnant to keep the species going. That’s how wolves do it!!!

 

[wynnejj]

I don’t believe people should get married at all, we should all just go out and rape and get random people pregnant to keep the species going. That’s how wolves do it!!!

Copied from an ‘overpopulation’ thread…
Let’s talk about natural population control for a second. Take the example of a wolf pack. Their territory has limited food supply. If all members of the pack had sexual partners, there would be too many wolves and wolf packs for the limited resources of their territory. What is the response of mother nature through the process of natural selection? One alpha male wolf mates with his one selected alpha female wolf. All the rest abstain!

Now for something entirely different… let’s get back to the thread topic!

 

[Trolol]

Copied from an ‘overpopulation’ thread…
Let’s talk about natural population control for a second. Take the example of a wolf pack. Their territory has limited food supply. If all members of the pack had sexual partners, there would be too many wolves and wolf packs for the limited resources of their territory. What is the response of mother nature through the process of natural selection? One alpha male wolf mates with his one selected alpha female wolf. All the rest abstain!

Now for something entirely different… let’s get back to the thread topic!

Your picture turns me on, dude.

 

[wynnejj]

Here’s a copy of the ProtoEvangelium of James from newadvent.org
newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm

I’m wondering if there are any other references to the idea of virgins who have been given to the temple in the service of the holy of holies. Sounds like the precursor of nuns & convents. Regardless, the idea of an assigned guardian taking a virgin into their homes for safety in a marriage contract based on mutual perpetual virginity seems at first glance implausible considering the severity of their punishments for sexual misconduct.

 

[stevekehl]

I’m gonna throw a post on here because I’m also interested in what people have to say. I don’t see the necessity of Mary remaining a virgin. In a culture where many children was expected and useful I don’t see why Joseph and Mary wouldn’t at least try to have more children. One part of Scripture which makes me think Jesus was an only child is when Jesus, on the cross, tells John to take care of Mary. If there were siblings they would take care of Mary, unless they were all girls.

 

[panevino]

perhaps consider

Heb11: 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [son],

Sarah only had one child with Abraham - isaac - a type of Christ.
ISA 51:2,

Sarah?
Gen 17:16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be [a mother] of nations; kings of people shall be of her… 19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, [and] with his seed after him.

 

[wynnejj]

I’m gonna throw a post on here because I’m also interested in what people have to say. I don’t see the necessity of Mary remaining a virgin. In a culture where many children was expected and useful I don’t see why Joseph and Mary wouldn’t at least try to have more children. One part of Scripture which makes me think Jesus was an only child is when Jesus, on the cross, tells John to take care of Mary. If there were siblings they would take care of Mary, unless they were all girls.

One reason that I believe that Joseph was not a widower with children is the concept that Jesus was to be the unblemished first-born sacrifice to the Lord in the same fashion of earlier Jewish temple sacrifices. The OT prefiguration would be Abraham and Isaac.

What about afterwards, though? Joseph was a just man as cited in the Bible, so when Mary tells Joseph that she knows no man, he allows that she is telling the truth and would not presume that she is not. In fact, he has no way to conclusively assess the truth of the situation, so he draws no conclusion except that he can only act on one incontrovertible fact - she is with child that is not his child. This puts him into a quandary. What is his role now? Can he take her as his wife when she is quite possibly - most probably - the bride of the one true God? Wouldn’t that be the ultimate sin of adultery?

Given the angels message to take her as his wife, without explicit instructions not to have marital relations afterwards, how would a just man judge his new circumstances?

Without explicit instructions from an angel messenger to have marital relations with Mary, wouldn’t it be expected that Joseph would assume that marital relations with Mary would be exclusive to the one true God considering Mary having gone through the consent process at the Annunciation which is equivalent to God asking Mary to marry him?

One reason that Joseph would find it necessary to be a quiet man is because idle conversation might lead to a situation where he is pressed to comment on the point of his fatherhood. To have additional children might be even worse, if it were discovered and accepted by the Jewish community that Mary was the Mother of the Messiah, and Joseph was having relations with a woman who was exclusive to the one true God.

 

[wynnejj]

Sarah only had one child with Abraham - isaac - a type of Christ.

Good point. The story of Abraham & Sarah & Isaac do prefigure the coming of the Messiah.

 

[gtJoey]

One reason that I believe that Joseph was not a widower with children is the concept that Jesus was to be the unblemished first-born sacrifice to the Lord in the same fashion of earlier Jewish temple sacrifices. The OT prefiguration would be Abraham and Isaac.

What about afterwards, though? Joseph was a just man as cited in the Bible, so when Mary tells Joseph that she knows no man, he allows that she is telling the truth and would not presume that she is not. In fact, he has no way to conclusively assess the truth of the situation, so he draws no conclusion except that he can only act on one incontrovertible fact - she is with child that is not his child. This puts him into a quandary. What is his role now? Can he take her as his wife when she is quite possibly - most probably - the bride of the one true God? Wouldn’t that be the ultimate sin of adultery?

Given the angels message to take her as his wife, without explicit instructions not to have marital relations afterwards, how would a just man judge his new circumstances?

Without explicit instructions from an angel messenger to have marital relations with Mary, wouldn’t it be expected that Joseph would assume that marital relations with Mary would be exclusive to the one true God considering Mary having gone through the consent process at the Annunciation which is equivalent to God asking Mary to marry him?

One reason that Joseph would find it necessary to be a quiet man is because idle conversation might lead to a situation where he is pressed to comment on the point of his fatherhood. To have additional children might be even worse, if it were discovered and accepted by the Jewish community that Mary was the Mother of the Messiah, and Joseph was having relations with a woman who was exclusive to the one true God.

I’ve heard a very similar question asked on catholic answers. I don’t completely remember the response, but it goes something like this.

1. before the annunciation, Mary and Joseph intended to marry as a normal couple
2. after the annunciation, Joseph intended to send Mary away because according to Jewish law, he could no longer take her as his wife - she had been with another man, or so he thought. There was a Jewish law about not conceiving with a woman that another man has been with - or something like that. (there is where I’m most fuzzy, I don’t remember the particular law).
3. Joseph is told to take Mary as his wife by a messenger from God, right?

so, we can know a few things by remembering the context in which all of this occurs.

1. Under normal circumstances, Joseph could not have children with Mary and could not even marry her due to Jewish law
2. Due to the message from God, Joseph believed Mary and so knew she was with God’s son.
3. This would make her not only off limits due to law, but even more so because she is the Ark of the Covenant - as such, there is NO WAY Joseph would try and complete the marital act with Mary - he was a good Jew
4. The marriage of Mary and Joseph is, obviously, a special circumstance and as such needed direct approval from God, which of course, was given in Joseph’s dream

therefore, there’s really no tension here - if Mary and Joseph’s situation had been conventional - then yes, there might be something to ponder here. But, seeing as how she is the Mother of God and all, we have to allow for special circumstances dictated by God, Himself.

 

[wynnejj]

therefore, there’s really no tension here - if Mary and Joseph’s situation had been conventional - then yes, there might be something to ponder here. But, seeing as how she is the Mother of God and all, we have to allow for special circumstances dictated by God, Himself.

The scenario that you outline is pretty much in accord with my understanding. I’m not sure that I understand what is the conclusion that you draw from it, though.

Are you saying that the angel instructions for Joseph to marry Mary was saying that Joseph was to marry Mary in the conventional sense including the expected marital acts?

 

[gtJoey]

The scenario that you outline is pretty much in accord with my understanding. I’m not sure that I understand what is the conclusion that you draw from it, though.

Are you saying that the angel instructions for Joseph to marry Mary was saying that Joseph was to marry Mary in the conventional sense including the expected marital acts?

quite the opposite.
It’s my impression that the angel’s instructions to Joseph were to take Mary as his wife, but at the same time, as Mary is the ark of the covenant, Joseph would not dare trespass on “Holy Ground”, if you will.

in fact, in today’s office of readings, we see why this must be the case, why Joseph would KNOW that he could not dare touch the Ark of the Covenant.
Office of Readings - 2Samuel 6:1-23

David again mustered all the picked troops of Israel, thirty thousand men. Setting off with the whole force then with him, David went to Baalah of Judah, to bring up from there the ark of God which bears the name of the Lord of Hosts who is seated on the cherubs. They placed the ark of God on a new cart, and brought it from Abinadab’s house which is on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, were leading the cart, Uzzah walked alongside the ark of God and Ahio went in front. David and all the House of Israel danced before the Lord with all their might, singing to the accompaniment of lyres, harps, tambourines, castanets, and cymbals. When they came to the threshing-floor of Nacon,

Uzzah stretched his hand out to the ark of God and steadied it, as the oxen were making it tilt. Then the anger of the Lord blazed out against Uzzah, **and for this crime God struck him down on the spot, and he died there beside the ark of God. ******

David was displeased that the Lord had broken out against Uzzah, and that place was called Perez-uzzah, as it still is now.
David went in fear of the Lord that day. ‘How ever can the ark of the Lord come to me?’ he said. So David decided not to take the ark into the Citadel of David and took it to the house of Obed-edom of Gath. The ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obed-edom of Gath for three months, and the Lord blessed Obed-edom and his whole family.
Word was brought to King David that the Lord had blessed the family of Obed-edom and all that belonged to him on account of the ark of God. David accordingly went and brought the ark of God up from Obed-edom’s house to the Citadel of David with great rejoicing. When the bearers of the ark of the Lord had gone six paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fat sheep. And David danced whirling round before the Lord with all his might, wearing a linen loincloth round him. Thus David and all the House of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with acclaim and the sound of the horn. Now as the ark of the Lord entered the Citadel of David, Michal the daughter of Saul was watching from the window and saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord; and she despised him in her heart. They brought the ark of the Lord in and put it in position inside the tent that David had pitched for it; and David offered holocausts before the Lord, and communion sacrifices. And when David had finished offering holocausts and communion sacrifices, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord of Hosts. He then distributed among all the people, among the whole multitude of Israelites, men and women, a roll of bread to each, a portion of dates, and a raisin cake. Then they all went away, each to his own house.
As David was coming back to bless his household Michal, the daughter of Saul, went out to meet him. ‘What a fine reputation the king of Israel has won himself today,’ she said ‘displaying himself under the eyes of his servant-maids, as any buffoon might display himself.’ David answered Michal, ‘I was dancing for the Lord, not for them. As the Lord lives, who chose me in preference to your father and his whole House to make me leader of Israel, the Lord’s people, I shall dance before the Lord and demean myself even more. In your eyes I may be base, but by the maids you speak of I shall be held in honour.’ And to the day of her death Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no children.

so, he obeyed God in marrying Mary, but also obeyed God in not having marital relations with her

 

[puzzleannie]

openness to children is rooted in cooperation with God’s will
as I just got done explaining in the concurrent thread on the same topic, Mary and Joseph proceeded as they did in perfect obedience to God’s will for them as individuals, as a couple, as a family.

if you have an issue with that you need to go back to Commandments101 and Remedial Obedience Class.

 

[wynnejj]

It’s my impression that the angel’s instructions to Joseph were to take Mary as his wife, but at the same time, as Mary is the ark of the covenant, Joseph would not dare trespass on “Holy Ground”, if you will.

That is actually my take on it as well. What is interesting in the Protoevangelium of James is the idea of marriage for purposes of guardianship in perpetual virginity. And, Joseph’s actual undisputed marriage to Mary is again a marriage for purposes of guardianship in perpetual virginity.

Such a marriage would be invalid in the Catholic Church today, if I understand Canon 1101.2 correctly:

§2. If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.

Grounds for annulment include partial simulation of consent for being open to the bringing forth and raising up of children whereby the one or both in actuality have no intention to have children.

The question becomes if a couple enter a marriage with the intent of perpetual virginity, is it a valid marriage now under Catholic law or previously under Jewish law.

Note: I understand that the marriage of Joseph and Mary was a very special case and not subject to this law.

 

[wynnejj]

Mary and Joseph proceeded as they did in perfect obedience to God’s will for them as individuals, as a couple, as a family.

The marriage of Joseph and Mary was a very special case and not subject to the norms of marriage in terms of the procreative aspect due to the exclusive nature of her relationship with God.

 

[panevino]

One reason that I believe that Joseph was not a widower with children is the concept that Jesus was to be the unblemished first-born sacrifice to the Lord in the same fashion of earlier Jewish temple sacrifices. The OT prefiguration would be Abraham and Isaac.

qualification for “firstborn” relies on the womb. Abraham had another child before isaac, however with a different woman (Hagar?)

…
Given the angels message to take her as his wife,

I think they were already husband/wife before the annunciation
I think angels message relates to keeping her as his wife.

(KJV)Matt1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just [man], and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee** Mary thy wife:** for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Isn’t v20 saying don’t fear to keep your wife with you, (ie: dont put her away privily, per vs 19), rather than what you seem to suggest - dont fear to take her home “to be” your wife.?

I know the “espoused” arrangement is complex/different to today. My understanding is the words “put her away privily” is a divorce. Ie: Matt 5: 31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

There are some interesting words in 1cor7 including but not limited to…

1cor7:36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of [her] age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.

 

[wynnejj]

qualification for “firstborn” relies on the womb. Abraham had another child before isaac, however with a different woman (Hagar?).

Good point. There was another concubine after the birth of Isaac too (Ketura) to my surprise. Abraham had only one wife, though. Nevertheless, it sure seems to diminish my idea that Jesus had to be an only child without step-sons as suggested by the Protoevangelium of James.

I think they were already husband/wife before the annunciation
I think angels message relates to keeping her as his wife.

(KJV)Matt1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just [man], and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee** Mary thy wife:** for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Isn’t v20 saying don’t fear to keep your wife with you, (ie: dont put her away privily, per vs 19), rather than what you seem to suggest - dont fear to take her home “to be” your wife.?

I had heard this too and was not sure how to interpret it. My NAB in Matt 1:19 expresses it this way: “Joseph her husband, an upright man unwilling to expose her to the law, decided to divorce her quietly.”. Someone told me once that one could be betrothed - that is, legally married - where they make the vows upfront since that was there intent, but then they had a customary period of time where they do not live together. Betrothal in this sense was a legally recognized statement of exclusivity that made the punishment of adultery effective. If the “engagement” period proves them to be incompatible as they go through their process of discovey, then they can dissolve the marriage with a divorce. I have no idea as to whether that was the practice or not, but it sounds reasonable.

I know the “espoused” arrangement is complex/different to today. My understanding is the words “put her away privily” is a divorce. Ie: Matt 5: 31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

There are some interesting words in 1cor7 including but not limited to…

1cor7:36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of [her] age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.

My NAB says: These verses may mean either that a) a man living chastely with a virgin may marry her or b) a father may give his daughter in marriage, or a guardian his ward. However, dedicated celibacy and virginity anticipate the life of glory after the resurrection, when marriage will no longer exist; cf Mt 22,30.

Verse 38 in my NAB says: “To sum up, the man who marries his virgin acts fittingly; the one who does not, will do better.”. So “keep his virgin, doeth well” would not mean marry in perpetual celibacy / virginity.