Mary & Joseph - Openness to Children

  • Thread starter Thread starter wynnejj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Old Catholic Encyclopedia under “Joseph, Saint” says…
This marriage, true and complete, was, in the intention of the spouses, to be a virgin marriage (cf. St. August, “De cons. Evang.”, II, i in P.L., XXXIV, 1071-72; “Cont. Julian.”, V, xii, 45 in P.L., XLIV, 810; St. Thomas, III, Q. xxviii; Q. xxix, a. 2).

It looks like it was the consensus of Catholic understanding that Mary & Joseph intended on a chaste marriage. That is, before the Annunciation that was their intention.

If there is mutual agreement to not have children when entering into marriage, is that not grounds for annulment? Is there a disconnect with current Catholic thinking?
 
wynnejj said:
…
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.
Click to expand...
i hear you, are they in a relationship though? betrothed?
“…but hath power over his own will…” when read with vs 1 - 7 in mind, i’m pretty sure he is talking about a man in a relationship in v37 not a father.

note
1 cor 7: 1-7 (NIV)
Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.a 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

i’ve read some interpret this as leniancy to ‘come together again’ as a concession due to lack of self control. ie, “not a command” to come together again. ie: some may have the self control (v37) …v7 I wish that all men were as I am…, but each man has his own gift…

mat19:12 …: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

luke 18:28…Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee. 29And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, 30Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

tertullian writes about a chaste marriage.
 
wynnejj said:
[Old Catholic Encyclopedia under “Joseph, Saint” says…
*This marriage, true and complete, was, in the intention of the spouses, to be a virgin marriage
Click to expand...
(cf. St. August, “De cons. Evang.”, II, i in P.L., XXXIV, 1071-72; “Cont. Julian.”, V, xii, 45 in P.L., XLIV, 810; St. Thomas, III, Q. xxviii; Q. xxix, a. 2).

It looks like it was the consensus of Catholic understanding that Mary & Joseph intended on a chaste marriage. That is, before the Annunciation that was their intention.

If there is mutual agreement to not have children when entering into marriage, is that not grounds for annulment? Is there a disconnect with current Catholic thinking?]

It might be helpful to not think of Mary and Joseph’s marriage in Catholic terms . You do realize that Joseph and Mary were thoroughly Jewish and Jewish law and customs would inform their marriage , correct ?

As a consecrated Temple Virgin Mary was vowed to a life of " Perpetual Virginity " . At a certain age , these Temple Virgins were ritualistically married to an honorable/righteous man who would respect her vow/pledge/obligation of Virginity . This pledge of perpetual virginity was expected of ALL these Temple Virgins ( it was part of the program ) . These women were a small class/caste of religous functionaries . Mary and Joseph knew what they were doing and getting into . They were not getting married in their Jewish religous understanding in order to start a family ( i.e. , conceive children ) .

I’m curious , why do you discount the Protoevangelium of James ?
 
panevino said:
note
1 cor 7: 1-7 (NIV)
Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.a 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
Click to expand...
It might be interesting to check out the commentary on verses 1-7 in the NAB on the bishop’s website.
usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians7.htm

There is the concept of asceticism - the practice of extreme self-denial and self-mortification - in sexual matters.

My NAB copyrighted 1970 states in the footnotes:
7,1-11: Paul’s teaching concerning marriage and the celibate state is place in the framework of the second coming of Christ (26,28); see note on 1 Thes 4,13-18. The apostle commends sexual asceticism in marriage provided it is agreed to by both parties; spiritually motivated, and not carried beyond either party’s limits of control (1-7). The existing practice within the community of widows and widowers remaining unmarried is also commended, without, however, any implication against the freedom to remarry should sexual attraction prove irresistible. Christ’s teaching against divorce and remarriage must be strictly adhered to in marriages between Christians; cf Mk 10,9.
Click to expand...
The concept of asceticism with regards to sexual matters within marriage at the time may have been rooted in imitation of Mary and Joseph and informed by the prevailing belief that the second coming of Jesus was expected to be in their lifetime.

Was this concept of asceticism due to a sense of emergency preparation for the imminent second coming of Jesus apply to us today? We know that the 2nd coming of Jesus will come like a thief in the night?

Does canon law 1101.2 prohibit entering the marriage contract with the intent of perpetual virginity in the spirit of sexual asceticism as recommended by Saint Paul?
 
chuckfrmvalyfrg said:
It might be helpful to not think of Mary and Joseph’s marriage in Catholic terms . You do realize that Joseph and Mary were thoroughly Jewish and Jewish law and customs would inform their marriage , correct ?

As a consecrated Temple Virgin Mary was vowed to a life of " Perpetual Virginity " . At a certain age , these Temple Virgins were ritualistically married to an honorable/righteous man who would respect her vow/pledge/obligation of Virginity . This pledge of perpetual virginity was expected of ALL these Temple Virgins ( it was part of the program ) . These women were a small class/caste of religous functionaries . Mary and Joseph knew what they were doing and getting into . They were not getting married in their Jewish religous understanding in order to start a family ( i.e. , conceive children ) .

I’m curious , why do you discount the Protoevangelium of James ?
Click to expand...
The Protoevangelium of James is apocrypha and extra-biblical. (I believe Saint Jerome dismissed them as dreams.)

Even though the story is questionable, due to the fact that it was written about 120 A.D., one can learn much about the practices of the day. I believe it reasonable that young women sometimes entered the service of the temple in a vow of perpetual virginity. I believe it possible that an elderly widowed man could be asked take guardianship of a temple virgin for protective reasons. They might even call it marriage - a virgin marriage - for legal reasons such that any sexual contact resulting in a pregnancy would be subject to the penalty of adultery for husband and wife, as well as third party and a spouse.

For a couple to enter such a marital contract of perpetual virginity, especially if the man had been married previously, would appear to me to bring on an undue near occasion of sin for such an oath. Nevertheless, there may have been practical reasons in the context of their society where this might be a risk that must be taken due to other circumstances that would make it a prudent choice.

I’m inclined to believe that the Protoevangelium of James was a story invented to reinforce the perpetual virginity of Mary.
 
Without the framework of a temple virgin given to a guardian husband in a virgin marriage, I find it just as likely given the lack of a social network of practical support for “widows and orphans”, that couples could agree to marry in a chaste marriage for simply practical charitable support reasons. That is, marriage was advised as a norm of society for practical support reasons, both sexual and sexless, without any religious or social proscriptions or expectations.

Personally, I can accept more readily the story of Joseph as an older bachelor who loved Mary for her person and was aware of Mary’s inner sense that she was not destined to have relations with a man, accepted that and agreed to marry her in a socially acceptable chaste marriage for practical support reasons. Mary, on the other hand, would recognize Joseph as a lonely man in need of companionship. I don’t believe Joseph was married previously, because I don’t believe Mary would subject a previously married man to an oath that would be an undue near occasion of sin.

The other scenario would be Mary & Joseph betrothed as husband and wife with the intent of normal marital relationships, whose circumstances changed drastically with the Annunciation. After that, the sense that Mary was exclusive to God would require a virgin marriage. This would be more in line with the intent of marriage should fundamentally be entered with the intent to bring forth and raise children.
 
wynnejj said:
Without the framework of a temple virgin given to a guardian husband in a virgin marriage, I find it just as likely given the lack of a social network of practical support for “widows and orphans”, that couples could agree to marry in a chaste marriage for simply practical charitable support reasons. That is, marriage was advised as a norm of society for practical support reasons, both sexual and sexless, without any religious or social proscriptions or expectations.

Personally, I can accept more readily the story of Joseph as an older bachelor who loved Mary for her person and was aware of Mary’s inner sense that she was not destined to have relations with a man, accepted that and agreed to marry her in a socially acceptable chaste marriage for practical support reasons. Mary, on the other hand, would recognize Joseph as a lonely man in need of companionship. I don’t believe Joseph was married previously, because I don’t believe Mary would subject a previously married man to an oath that would be an undue near occasion of sin.

The other scenario would be Mary & Joseph betrothed as husband and wife with the intent of normal marital relationships, whose circumstances changed drastically with the Annunciation. After that, the sense that Mary was exclusive to God would require a virgin marriage. This would be more in line with the idea that the fundamental purpose of marriage is bring forth and raise children, and therefore the marriage contract should be entered as such.
Click to expand...
 
Bookcat said:
I have not really read the thread…but thought to post this …perhaps it will help.

jimmyakin.org/2005/07/marys_marriage.html
Click to expand...
Good article. Can one contract a Josephite / celibate / spiritual marriage and be considered a sacramental marriage adhering to Catholic form?

My understanding is one cannot make such a marriage agreement and have a “sacramental marriage” and possibly not a valid marriage. It would be contrary to canon 1101.2 for two baptized Catholics and, therefore potentially grounds for annulment.

There are examples of saints in Josephite marriage arrangements, after having some children. In effect, they limited their family size for the serious reason of pursuing spiritual asceticism, if I understand correctly.
 
Just looking at some Scripture, does the word till mean they had sex after Jesus was born (not right after, but later).

Matt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
I’ve looked up several translations, some say they did not have sex before Jesus was born (implying they had sex after?), some say they sis not have sex untill Jesus was born (again implying that they had sex some time after). Any thoughts on this, and please don’t say tradition.
 
Hi Steve … the word ‘til’ ot ‘until’ does not direct future events - it only limits past … future events may or may not come to pass …

For example I will not buy you our first dinner together until 30 days after we meet …

Well - we have not met,
and we may or may not ever meet …
and I could get run over by a truck on day 29 - if we did meet …
I could be broke on day 31 …
I could decide that I don’t care to eat with you on day 31 or any day in the future …

Can you see that our dinner may not ever be eaten for a variety of reasons … thus the word ‘til’ means nothing in the future and all things related in the past …

Also you can read in the Book of Numbers [part of the Pentatuch - the first 5 books of the Hebrew Texts] about young women who vow - or dedicate themselves to the Lord [and marrie women as well] … who - if their father [or husband] fail to counter the vow immediatly are bound by that vow … Temple Virgins … not sure about - but dedications to a life of chastity and service to God are found in Numbers, in the writings of the Essenes and in the early Christian commumities … Not hard to see that in the Life of Christ and His Holy Family …

Also, Mary’s response to the ANgel makes no sense if she [being betrothed] intended to enter into a marraige with thoughts of traditional marital encounters … In Jewish parlance to “know a man” is to have carnal relations - exactly what married couples do and engaged, betrothed couples forsee … Mary’s “how can this be as I know not man?” to what as presented as a future event 'You shall bear a son … " only makes sense if Mary did not intend to complete her betrothal to Josheph in the “normal way”
 
Assuming that Mary’s response of “How can this be, as I know not man?” is indeed an indication of a vow of perpetual virginity, then it must be that Joseph was betrothed to Mary with the intent of a virgin marriage.

However, the idea of Joseph being a widower with children makes one wonder where were they when Jesus assigned John to Mary as son, and Mary to John as mother.

Where was Jesus step-brothers when Mary needed someone?

It is hard to believe that Joseph would have taught his sons so poorly that they would not take on responsibility of their step mother when she needed someone.

This, along with the idea that Mary would NOT subject a previously married man with a requirement of a virgin marriage, is another reason why I find the Protoevangelium of James suspect.
 
wynnejj said:
[The Protoevangelium of James is apocrypha and extra-biblical. (I believe Saint Jerome dismissed them as dreams.)

Even though the story is questionable, due to the fact that it was written about 120 A.D., one can learn much about the practices of the day. I believe it reasonable that young women sometimes entered the service of the temple in a vow of perpetual virginity. I believe it possible that an elderly widowed man could be asked take guardianship of a temple virgin for protective reasons. They might even call it marriage - a virgin marriage - for legal reasons such that any sexual contact resulting in a pregnancy would be subject to the penalty of adultery for husband and wife, as well as third party and a spouse.

For a couple to enter such a marital contract of perpetual virginity, especially if the man had been married previously, would appear to me to bring on an *undue near occasion of sin for such an oath
Click to expand...
. Nevertheless, there may have been practical reasons in the context of their society where this might be a risk that must be taken due to other circumstances that would make it a prudent choice.

I’m inclined to believe that the Protoevangelium of James was a story invented to reinforce the perpetual virginity of Mary.] Quote

When Mary’s birth was prophesied , her mother , St . Anne , vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord , as Samuel had been by his mother ( 1 Sam. 1:11 ) . Thus, Mary would serve the Lord in the Temple as women had for centuries ( 1 Sam . 2:22). This life of continual , devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary was vowed to a life of Perpetual Virginity .

These consecrated virgins were married at the age of 13 as a matter of course . Their ritual marriage did Not Revoke their vow of perpetual virginity and their husbands knew and accepted this .

Think about it . Why was Joseph apparently in so much trouble when Marry began " to show " ? If this had been a normal Jewish marriage this would not have been that big a deal . They would not have been the 1st Jewish couple to conceive during the betrothal period . But because Mary was vowed to be a Perpetual Virgin serving in the Temple it was a big deal . She would have broken her vow and could no longer serve in the Temple as she had been consecrated .

Re: The Protoevangeliumof James ( from now on it will be , TPJ ) . Why do you dismiss it out of hand because it is extra- bibiblical ? There is truth outside of the Bible . In fact you could apply your arguement to Sacred Tradition . I think your claim that TPJ was invented approaches calumny . How is that different than saying James is lying ?

So what if it was written in 120 AD . There were still people alive who knew Mary in 120 AD .

I think you are being overly temperocentric and Catholicocentric ( I made that one up ) in approaching this issue . These Temple Virgins were vowed to Perpetual Virginity and were ritualistically married And remained Virgins , That was their GIG . It doesn’t have to make sense to us in 2011 anymore than ritual circumcision does .

Joseph’s children by a former marriage obviously were not Mary’s . I do not know what the Jewish law said about these children having any responsibility regarding Mary . They were probably all grown when Joseph took Mary as his wife since there is no direct mention of them , if they were still alive . Even if they were still alive at the time of Jesus death , perhaps they were not close by . Or just maybe Jesus wanted John to look after His Mother , because it was His plan .

On this last part , I don’t remember where I read or heard this . If this is wrong , I would appreciate a correction . The James of TPJ was a disciple of the Apostle John . John was given the responsibility for caring for Mary . It is possible that James acquired knowledge of Mary through John . It is also possible that James may have known Mary . Just because TPJ was written in 120 AD does not mean the knowledge wasn’t acquired considerably before that .

Let me ask you , if it was the Protoevangelium of John ( the Apostle ) , but still extra-biblical , would you still be skeptical ?
 
wynnejj said:
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.
Click to expand...
we have to view the command and vow to be open to children in the context of perfect obedience and conformity to God’s will. That is the quality Mary and Joseph demonstrated, so that is the quality all married couples must demonstrate. Openness to children does not exist apart from that obedience. For instance a couple who learns they cannot have children is still in perfect obedience on that matter when they conform their marriage to God’s will and remain open to his creative action in their mutual life, even though it may not include actual procreation.
 
wynnejj said:
Let me ask you , if it was the Protoevangelium of John ( the Apostle ) , but still extra-biblical , would you still be skeptical ?
Click to expand...
This article treats of problem with the authenticity of the author:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James
Scholars have established that, based on the style of the language and the fact that the author is not aware of contemporary Jewish customs, while the historical James the Just certainly was, the work is pseudepigraphical (not written by the person it is attributed to).[4] For instance the work suggests there were consecrated temple virgins in Judaism, as with Vestal Virgins in pagan Rome, but this is spurious. Celibacy has played little role in Judaism, in which marriage and raising children are understood as holy obligations.[5]
Click to expand...
Check out the Old Catholic Encyclopedia article entitled “Apocrypha” and find the section entitled “(a) Apocryphal Gospels of Catholic Origin”:
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Apocrypha
 
stevekehl said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because Joseph wouldn’t dare touch a wife of another, which she bear the fruit of, the Son of God.
 
It seems that some have forgotten the Jewish ritual of elder men taking a virgin, as she had to leave the temple, because of the fact that menstruating women were not allowed into the temple while menstruating.
 
Think about it . Why was Joseph apparently in so much trouble when Marry began " to show " ? If this had been a normal Jewish marriage this would not have been that big a deal . They would not have been the 1st Jewish couple to conceive during the betrothal period . But because Mary was vowed to be a Perpetual Virgin serving in the Temple it was a big deal . She would have broken her vow and could no longer serve in the Temple as she had been consecrated.
Click to expand...
This is another troubling aspect of the TPJ. If Mary was a temple virgin consecrated to perpetual virginity, and Joseph was her guardian assigned to her protection against violations to her virginity, then what was his punishment since she gave birth to what the authorities had to consider Joseph’s child? Did he get a special dispensation after the fact? What is the usual punishment for husband & wife in a virgin marriage contract? Is it “Oh well, boys will be boys” and, “that perpetual virginity thing - that is more of a guideline than a rule”? My guess would be that the punishment would be the same as that of adultery? Since Joseph did not divorce her, he is admitting his & her mutual breach of their perpetual virginity marriage agreement. No penalty when all other sexual misconduct relating to infidelity to a marriage agreement is met with a stoning to death?
 
stevekehl said:
Just looking at some Scripture, does the word till mean they had sex after Jesus was born (not right after, but later).

Matt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
I’ve looked up several translations, some say they did not have sex before Jesus was born (implying they had sex after?), some say they sis not have sex untill Jesus was born (again implying that they had sex some time after). Any thoughts on this, and please don’t say tradition.
Click to expand...
The context around Matt 1:25 is to highlight that ISA 7:14 is fulfilled.
See mat1:18 & 22-23
Ie : a virgin at conceiving and bearing
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top