Were Mary and Joseph really "married"?

[1ke]

Non-consummation is only grounds for annulment if one of the parties complains about it.

Non consummation isn’t grounds for a decree of nullity. It requires a petition for dissolution of the bond.

 

[Contrabonumprolis]

How is that not simulation contra bonum prolis?

 

[1ke]

a) A priest cannot witness a marriage that he knows to be invalid. Josephite marriages are allowed in the church, and therefore can be valid or the priest couldn’t perform them.

b) It would only be a case of contra bonum prolis if either of the spouses request conjugal relations and are denied. Foregoing the marital embrace indefinitely by mutual consent for some good does not mean the couple has an intention against children, per se.

So, while there could be grounds for nullity based on canon 1101 in specific cases, you can’t automatically conclude that the marriage is invalid. If intention to live in continence indefinitely were an actual impediment to valid marriage, then these marriages wouldn’t exist at all because the Church wouldn’t allow them to be entered into. But they do.

 

[Contrabonumprolis]

1ke, thank you for elaborating, much appreciated.

I’m not so sure about Josephite marriage. I admit that I do not understand it … it does not seem to be at all common, and appears to be an “extraordinary form” of some sort.

I have a hard time squaring this being a valid catholic marriage against the following. From the US Conference of Catholic bishops:

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.

I do see the technicality that you could technically decide to be celibate within a marriage, understanding that celibacy rules out procreating, but that not being the *motivation" for the abstinence, and therefore not necessarily being an intention against children. But that’s a heck of a needle to thread. It seems quite a stretch to say you are “open to children” while scrupulously avoiding the thing that brings them about. But is that actually the reasoning?

It is harder to square that with the following. From the cathechism (accessed from the Vatican website):

“1652 By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”

and

“1664 Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. … the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its “supreme gift,” the child”

Any light you or others can shed would be appreciated.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Non-consummation is only grounds for annulment if one of the parties complains about it.

Actually, “non consummation” allows for a marriage to be dissolved.

 

[1ke]

I do see the technicality that you could technically decide to be celibate within a marriage, understanding that celibacy rules out procreating, but that not being the *motivation" for the abstinence, and therefore not necessarily being an intention against children.

Exactly.

But that’s a heck of a needle to thread. It seems quite a stretch to say you are “open to children” while scrupulously avoiding the thing that brings them about. But is that actually the reasoning?

I wouldn’t say scrupulously.

I would say with discernment. St. Therese’s parents certainly did this for several years before discerning they should abandon Josephite marriage.

“1652 By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”

and

“1664 Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. … the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its “supreme gift,” the child”

A couple living in continence through discernment has not in any way disordered marriage or the marital act.

 

[Contrabonumprolis]

A couple living in continence through discernment has not in any way disordered marriage or the marital act.

That’s where you’re still losing me. The quotes I cited above this comment are not from me, or from some random internet site. They are from the Catechism. While they do not use the specific English word “disordered”, what they say is very clear.

“By the very nature the institution of marriage … is ordered to procreation.”
“The refusal of fertility turns married life away from it’s “supreme gift.””

I do not see any interpretation of those quotes that is consistent with a celibate marriage, your assertion otherwise notwithstanding. That doesn’t mean there isn’t one, only that I do not see any way to thread that needle.

 

[Contrabonumprolis]

Second question in follow up.

What about a marriage between two asexual people, who wish to be married in every sense except for the sexual aspect?

On the one hand, they would not be abstaining for any spiritual reasons; they just would be abstaining because it’s not something either one has any inclination to do.

However, their reasons for abstaining would also not be a specific intention against procreation.

If I am understanding correctly, though, I think this would be an invalid marriage, in the same way that a marriage that is never consummated due to impotence is. It is not, however, clearly the same, since asexual people are generally fully capable of having sexual relations.

 

[1ke]

“By the very nature the institution of marriage … is ordered to procreation.”

objectively, yes. Not every marriage results subjectively in procreation.

“The refusal of fertility turns married life away from it’s “supreme gift.””

The couple has not refused fertility. The couple has done nothing to sterilize themselves or a marital act.

(and both of those quotes in the Catechism come from Gaudium et Spes).

I do not see any interpretation of those quotes that is consistent with a celibate marriage, your assertion otherwise notwithstanding.

You are trying to make the statements mean something they don’t. While conjugal relations are the norm, if a couple discerns a spiritual good to place above conjugal life under spiritual direction they have NOT refused fertility. Paragraph 1664 is turning to sins against the three properties of marriage: unity, indissolubility, and fecundy by parallelling with-- polygamy, divorce, and contraception/sterilization (i.e. refusal of fertility).

You have to read the Catechism (and GS) in context, not pull out selective quotes.

 

[1ke]

What about a marriage between two asexual people, who wish to be married in every sense except for the sexual aspect?

Now you are getting in to a situation where someone has a physical or mental defect impacting their sexuality.

These would be case by case discussions with a priest. Some may be able to enter a valid marriage, while others may not.

If I am understanding correctly, though, I think this would be an invalid marriage, in the same way that a marriage that is never consummated due to impotence is.

Not at all.

Mutual agreement not to consummate and inability to consummate are not the same at all.

It is not, however, clearly the same, since asexual people are generally fully capable of having sexual relations.

And if either requested their conjugal rights, the other would need to comply.

 

[1ke]

How is that not simulation contra bonum prolis?

I think we can simplify this down to whether the couple excludes the right to conjugal relations or merely does not exercise that right, for a time or indefinitely.

There is a difference.

 

[Contrabonumprolis]

<<You are trying to make the statements mean something they don’t. >>

I am doing nothing of the kind.

I am trying to understand statements that apparently mean something other than their common sense obvious meaning. If I were an expert in this material and in the context that apparently makes things mean other than their apparent meaning I wouldn’t be here asking questions.

I appreciate your comments, they have been quite instructive. Thank you.

 

[Viki63]

This seems unnecessarily complicated.
Mary and Joseph were married, it was heaven’s decision to give Mary the protection of Joseph. They had a child, so we can’t say they weren’t open to children.
They were not under the regulations of the Catholic church, as there wasn’t one yet.