MERGED & EDITED: Few questions re: Marriage

[Rocks_91]

I have a few questions about marriage and such that I’m curious about. Sorry if these questions sound stupid but I’m a relatively new Catholic…so…

1. What’s the difference between a simple vow of celibacy, a solemn vow of celibacy, and a vow of celibacy that a layperson makes?
2. Can a priest who is ordained marry? If not, does the Pope have the authority to grant him a dispensation that would allow him to marry? Or would the vows a priest makes be a permanent impediment to marriage? Was Martin Luther’s marriage to his nun wife valid?
3. Tell me about Josephite marriages. Can a person who has made one of these vows live in a Josephite marriage? What about priests? What if two laypeople want to marry, but they want to make a vow to offer up their sexuality to God, can they live in a Josephite marriage intending to never consummate it physically? Would such a marriage be valid? What kind of impediment would that be? If it can never be valid, does the Pope have the authority to grant a dispensation from the impediment in order for it to be valid? I’ve heard that the Pope even has the power to exclude someone from being bound to the canon law. Does he have the power to grant such dispensations also? Or would it be a permanent impediment? Does divine law have anything to say about this?
4. What does the term ‘marriage bond’ mean. Is it a sort of spiritual bond between two people? What exactly is it?
5. Is it morally okay for two people to make a vow never to marry again if either dies?
6. What if the two married people never die due to divine grace, then would their marriage bond remain forever?
7. What if a spouse who dies is resurrected by divine power the next day? Would the marriage continue or would they have to marry again?
8. Can Jesus allow two people to share the marriage bond in heaven also if he wants to? I know he said their will be no marriage in heaven, only celibacy. But what about the spiritual marriage bond?
9. Is God’s creative work going to stop at the end of the world or will he create more humans/creatures?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I love questions. I’ll leave the first few to those more knowledgeable than I, and start here:

1. What does the term ‘marriage bond’ mean. Is it a sort of spiritual bond between two people? What exactly is it?

I’ve been happily married 25 years. For us, it started with an agreement. We decided we meant, “until death do us part,” and that divorce would never be an option. There were not “excepts,” because there were not going to be any “excepts.” We entered into this agreement well before our actual wedding, but at our engagement. So it started with a promise, and has provided much fruit.

As far as a spiritual bond, I think we can have these with anybody, and I don’t know the details as far as the intimacy levels, etc. I have had silent prayer with strangers and felt edifying presence from them during the prayer. The person I am most closely bonded to spiritually IMO is my wife Julie, because the two became one.

1. Is it morally okay for two people to make a vow never to marry again if either dies?

I think they can agree on anything they want. I don’t like “vows,” in general, because I don’t know what it would be like if one of us died. We do discuss these things, though, and neither would probably remarry although neither would begrudge the other.

1. What if the two married people never die due to divine grace, then would their marriage bond remain forever?

I certainly would think so. Where do I sign up?

1. Can Jesus allow two people to share the marriage bond in heaven also if he wants to? I know he said their will be no marriage in heaven, only celibacy. But what about the spiritual marriage bond?

I think he could, but I think our essence – True selves – that is spirit and not flesh – is something we probably have never experienced consciously while we are alive and still have chemical and electrical brain functions. I generally don’t pay a great deal of attention to “near death” experiences…

1. Is God’s creative work going to stop at the end of the world or will he create more humans/creatures?

Every time I learn something new I feel like God’s creative work is at hand.

Alan

 

[midori]

1. Is it morally okay for two people to make a vow never to marry again if either dies?

Morally okay? Sure. Prudent or a good idea? Probably not.

I have one friend whose husband died of cancer. Before his death, he left her a list of guys in their circle of friends/acquaintances (they played competitive sports, did performance art, and were active in some academic communities, so it was a pretty big pool to choose from) that he approved of her dating after his passing. She mourned his loss for years, but when she was mentally and emotionally ready, his approval really helped her when it was time to move on with her own life, and she remarried this summer (to someone outside their original social group).

As much as we love each other, I’d feel uncomfortable making him promise that kind of a thing. Circumstances change and life goes on. If he ends up not remarrying because no one can hold a candle to my fabulosity, that’s one thing . But he’d already be dealing with sorrow… when he’s ready to continue his life, I’d hate to add guilt to it because he feels like he’s betraying me somehow by breaking a promise that was made under totally different circumstances. YMMV.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’ll just answer one question right now and leave the rest for others.

1. Can a priest who is ordained marry? If not, does the Pope have the authority to grant him a dispensation that would allow him to marry? Or would the vows a priest makes be a permanent impediment to marriage? Was Martin Luther’s marriage to his nun wife valid?

I do not believe there are any instances where a priest gets married after he is ordained. Those married priests out there were all married before they were ordained and (just as with married permanent deacons), they are not allowed to remarry if their spouse dies.

I would think (and this is just my thought on the matter) that the Pope could grant a dispensation. But I cannot imagine him ever doing so.

Diocesan priests do not take a vow of celibacy – only religious order priests do. Diocesan priests make a promise of chastity (as well as a promise of obedience to the bishop and his successors). For all intents and purposes, that translates to the same thing (as chastity for the unmarried equals celibacy while chastity for the married equals fidelity to one’s spouse). But priests can be laicized and receive a dispensation to be married.

As to the validity of Martin Luther’s marriage, I think that’s a speculative enterprise that we really can’t know the answer to. But, thankfully, we don’t really need to know.

 

[Rocks_91]

Thanks. Hoping to hear more responses.

 

[Rocks_91]

Hmm, anyone? :compcoff:

 

[puzzleannie]

Thanks. Hoping to hear more responses.

too many questions on widely varied topics in one post

you might also prefer to post on liturgy and sacraments, since if one searches for this post there, where marriage is discussed, we won’t find it and hence cannot participate in the discussion. same with questions related to the priesthood

No an ordained priest may not marry unless he goes through the formal canon law process of laicization and is dispensed from his vows. A man who has been married is barred from ordination, but that may also be dispensed in certain cases. Since there are many variables too hard to discuss here.

No Martin Luther’s marriage was not valid because he had already openly declared his rupture from the Church, disdain for his religious vows and the ordained priesthood in general and had neither asked for nor received any dispensation.

A lay person cannot make a formal vow of celibacy that is binding without permission of the bishop, and this must almost certainly be done in the context of entering into consecrated religious life in some form.

there is also confusion here in the use of the word “vow” as opposed to a promise, and the confusion of the word “celibacy” with “chastity”.

 

[sky1]

I would suggest you to listen to Father Altier’s Course of Basic Catholicism, free 23 hours of audio

fatheraltier.excerptsofinri.com/

It will give you all the answers concerning basic catholicism, and a pleasure to hear.

Also, Catholicism, by George Brantl, is a great book to understand your faith. And there are many books to learn about your faith.

You can find it here

God Bless

 

[Rocks_91]

No an ordained priest may not marry unless he goes through the formal canon law process of laicization and is dispensed from his vows. A man who has been married is barred from ordination, but that may also be dispensed in certain cases. Since there are many variables too hard to discuss here.

But does the Pope have the power to dispense him from the vows and allow him to marry while letting him remain a priest? Or does the Pope not have that power. I’m curious.

No Martin Luther’s marriage was not valid because he had already openly declared his rupture from the Church, disdain for his religious vows and the ordained priesthood in general and had neither asked for nor received any dispensation.

Okay.

A lay person cannot make a formal vow of celibacy that is binding without permission of the bishop, and this must almost certainly be done in the context of entering into consecrated religious life in some form.

there is also confusion here in the use of the word “vow” as opposed to a promise, and the confusion of the word “celibacy” with “chastity”.

I mean lifelong abstinence from all sexual activity. Even if it is not a formal vow, would such a promise to God be an impediment to marriage? I especially want answers to the question on Josephite marriages, whether it can be valid if there is no intention to physically consummate it at any time. And if it is an impediment, does the Pope have the power to grant a dispensation and allow two people to live in a marriage with lifelong celibacy?

 

[Rocks_91]

I posted this question in another forum, but it got buried…

Can two laypeople get married with the intention to never consummate it physically? If they want to live a permanent Josephite marriage? If the intention is to never consummate it, then would that be an impediment? And if it would, then does the Pope have the authority to grant a dispensation in order for such a marriage to be valid?

Thanks

 

[1ke]

They must be capable of intercourse, i.e. no impotence.

They must also be willing to take up their marital duty should either spouse desire to do so at any point in the marriage. It can only remain a Josephite marriage as long as both parties agree.

And, they would need to undertake such an arrangement under spiritual direction.

 

[purplesunshine]

I think there has to be some grave reason. More than just wanting to. I cant think of a single reason the church would allow it today since women arent forced into destitution without a man.

Perhaps to missionaries (a religious sister and a brother) who have served side by side and had their order dissolved? (it happens)

i really dont know

 

[1ke]

I think there has to be some grave reason. More than just wanting to. I cant think of a single reason the church would allow it today since women arent forced into destitution without a man.

Perhaps to missionaries (a religious sister and a brother) who have served side by side and had their order dissolved? (it happens)

i really dont know

Nothing in church law or teaching would indicate that there has to be a “grave reason”.

 

[Bookcat]

They must be capable of intercourse, i.e. no impotence.

They must also be willing to take up their marital duty should either spouse desire to do so at any point in the marriage. It can only remain a Josephite marriage as long as both parties agree.

And, they would need to undertake such an arrangement under spiritual direction.

It is an exchange of the marital right…but not acting on such…

 

[dans0622]

I posted this question in another forum, but it got buried…

Can two laypeople get married with the intention to never consummate it physically? If they want to live a permanent Josephite marriage? If the intention is to never consummate it, then would that be an impediment? And if it would, then does the Pope have the authority to grant a dispensation in order for such a marriage to be valid? …

Hello Rocks_91,

It seems the conversation has shifted from what you presented here to what would be a proper, marital intention (i.e., exchanging the “right to the body” but not exercising it). What you say here is that the couple has an “intention to never consummate.” In that phrase, I see no exchange of the right. Such an intention is not a marital intention so such a couple would not be married. This is not “an impediment.” It is a textbook example of simulation.

The Pope can not dispense this requirement: the consent of the couple makes a valid marriage. If that consent is lacking–as in having an intention contrary to the good of children–only the couple can correct it and consent properly.

Of course, a “Josephite marriage” is possible. I just don’t see that sort of marriage in the way you introduced the question. If what you meant is what “1ke” said, then my interpretation of your question is wrong. I have no argument with what she (I think) said.

Dan

 

[Bookcat]

Hello Rocks_91,

It seems the conversation has shifted from what you presented here to what would be a proper, marital intention (i.e., exchanging the “right to the body” but not exercising it). What you say here is that the couple has an “intention to never consummate.” In that phrase, I see no exchange of the right. Such an intention is not a marital intention so such a couple would not be married. This is not “an impediment.” It is a textbook example of simulation.

Such would not be the case. The “intention to never consummate” is fine…a couple who seeks to live this very rare vocation does exactly that.

So long as the right has been exchanged.

This has been done for centuries.

 

[1ke]

Hello Rocks_91,

It seems the conversation has shifted from what you presented here to what would be a proper, marital intention (i.e., exchanging the “right to the body” but not exercising it). What you say here is that the couple has an “intention to never consummate.” In that phrase, I see no exchange of the right. Such an intention is not a marital intention so such a couple would not be married. This is not “an impediment.” It is a textbook example of simulation.

Can. 1101 §1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words and signs used in celebrating the marriage.

§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.

Remember, Bl. Martin and Zelie Louis entered into to such a marriage, and entered it validly. They did not intend to consummate, but still had valide consent since they exchanged vows and exchanged the *right *to marital relations.

They took up marital relations only upon the insistence of the spiritual director.

 

[dans0622]

Such would not be the case. The “intention to never consummate” is fine…a couple who seeks to live this very rare vocation does exactly that.

So long as the right has been exchanged. …

Hello Bookcat,

Of course. The issue is that I see no evidence of an exchange of the right in the plain and simple statement that a couple intends to never consummate their marriage. How is the “intention to never consummate a marriage” not a positive act of the will that excludes an essential element of marriage (that is, it’s simulation; cf. c. 1101)?

The intention of such a couple would have to be more nuanced than what has been postulated in the OP, if we want to say that such an expression of consent is truly marital in its essence and effects. The nuance has been provided by “1ke,” not the OP. I am trying to make sure the OP noticed the added nuance and that, without the nuance, the “marriage” is not a marriage.

Dan

 

[Rocks_91]

Such would not be the case. The “intention to never consummate” is fine…a couple who seeks to live this very rare vocation does exactly that.

So long as the right has been exchanged.

This has been done for centuries.

Thanks, Bookcat and 1ke!

dans0622: Point humbly noted. For it to be valid, The marital right is exchanged, merely not acted upon. :coffeeread: