Were Mary and Joseph really "married"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JohnStrachan

New member
I have a feeling I already know the answer to this one but… Did Mary and Joseph consummate their marriage?

If not, then were they actually married? and if they weren’t married how can they be considered a family?

Just asking. No arrows please.
 
Last edited:
My only arrow would point to the search function on this site. This topic has been well covered.
 
It my have been well covered, but if you are new to the site you might like to engage in some dialogue to better understand the subject. I’m relatively certain that almost every question related to Catholicism has ben asked here at some point.
 
Ok, just thought you wanted an answer to a question. The search function would give you that. If it’s a dialog you want, that’s cool too.
 
Is this what is known as/the origin of “Josephite marriage?”
 
The Catholic view of Mary and Joseph’s marriage is doctrine, not a matter of opinion. It takes about a minute to look up the Catechism of the Catholic Church and find that "The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.(http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1K.HTM#$J2) In fact, Christ’s birth "did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 and so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1K.HTM

(P.S. I’m not Catholic, and I do not believe that Mary remained virgin throughout her life. However, it’s very easy to find out what the Catholic church teaches about the matter.)
 
The Gospel of Luke calls Mary Joseph’s ‘betrothed’ when they are on their way to Bethlehem, just before Jesus’ birth. But, in the tradition of Jewish culture at this time, the betrothal was the actual, binding part of a marriage. In fact, Joseph is wondering whether to ‘divorce’ Mary, just before her Child’s divine origins were made known to him. One doesn’t have to divorce someone if they aren’t married yet. They were, and remained married. There are all sorts of speculation on the marriage’s consummation, but they have been discussed at length, on these forums.
 
Legend said:
There are all sorts of speculation on the marriage’s consummation, but they have been discussed at length, on these forums.
Click to expand...
There may be “speculation”, but the official teaching of the Catholic Church is that Mary and Joseph did not consummate their marriage, ever, as heidi_storage posted above.

And yes, you are correct that the “betrothal” was actual marriage under Jewish law in those days. It was not just an engagement as we think of “betrothal” today.
 
Last edited:
Non-consummation is grounds for annulment… only if one or both parties complains. If both parties are okay with it, it is a true marriage, even if totally without sex.

There have been times in Church history, and especially in times of persecution or danger, when this was a common form of lay religious life.

It was also a way to deal with forced marriage, as with the captured and enslaved St. Malchus. His master forced him to marry another enslaved Roman, who did not want to cheat on her husband back home, while Malchus did not want to cheat on his vows as a monk. So they lived as brother and sister, while allowing their master to believe they were going at it and making new slaves for him. When they eventually escaped and found out her husband had been dead all the time, they went to separate monasteries but continued to regard themselves as married persons, totally without any sex involved; and the monasteries allowed them frequent visits, so that they could keep looking after each other. Sex is important; but St. Malchus’ story is about marriage as a team composed of a non-related man and a woman who willingly take care of each other.

Similarly, it is possible to get civilly married by proxy in many legal systems, so that the bride and groom count as married although they were not physically in the same place. This was usually done to protect the rights of a couple in times of war or travel difficulties; they were really legally married despite being unable to consummate.

As long as both parties consent, and have no impediments in their background, there is a lot that is permissible.
 
Last edited:
Mintaka said:
Non-consummation is grounds for annulment…
Click to expand...
No, it isn’t.

An unconsummated marriage can, depending on circumstances, be dissolved by the Pope.
Mintaka said:
If both parties are okay with it, it is a true marriage, even if totally without sex.
Click to expand...
It is a true marriage whether a party seeks dissolution or not. Consent makes a valid marriage.
 
An unconsummated marriage is not exactly invalid, it is “ratum sed non consummatum.” It’s complicated. Apparently we can’t include links here, but if you google the term you will find the appropriate canon laws. Basically, a marriage that has been validly celebrated but not yet consummated is still a valid marriage, but not an indissoluble one. Since neither Mary nor Joseph ever sought to dissolve their marriage, they were validly married.

But here’s where I get lost.

If both parties enter into the marriage with the intent never to consummate it this would invalidate the marriage. Such a valid marriage requires to consent to marriage and all its essential elements, such a marriage marriage would not have been validly celebrated, and so it would not be “ratum” regardless of “consummatum”.

In other words, the marriage would be invalid not due to the lack of consummation, but rather due to the original intent against ever consummating it.

Annulments are granted all the time on the grounds that one or both of the parties to the marriage intended against one of the essential elements of marriage, such as intending against having children, intending against permanence or fidelity, etc.

For an invalid marriage, it does not matter whether or not either party ever seeks an annulment. An invalid marriage is an invalid marriage, regardless of whether or not an annulment is issued. Annulment does not dissolve a marriage, it simply recognizes the invalidity of the marriage from the get go.

While it has been discussed at length elsewhere, it still escapes me how Mary and Joseph’s marriage was valid, since presumably they entered into it with an intention to never consummate.
 
Last edited:
Mintaka said:
Non-consummation is grounds for annulment… only if one or both parties complains. If both parties are okay with it, it is a true marriage, even if totally without sex.
Click to expand...
This is not correct. An annulment recognizes the invalidity of a marriage, but it does not invalidate or dissolve it.

If neither party complains, no annulment will ever be issued, but that does not mean the marriage was valid. A marriage is either valid or invalid regardless of whether or not its validity is ever put before a tribunal. The marriage is what it is; whatever anyone ever says or doesn’t say anything about it.
 
Last edited:
Contrabonumprolis said:
If both parties enter into the marriage with the intent never to consummate it this would invalidate the marriage. Such a valid marriage requires to consent to marriage and all its essential elements, such a marriage marriage would not have been validly celebrated, and so it would not be “ratum” regardless of “consummatum”.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that consummation does not have to be intended but does have to be possible and if one spouse does want to consummate the other should be prepared to accomodate.
 
No … that would be an intention against children. An openness to procreation is essential to a valid catholic marriage. Intending never to have potentially procreative intercourse (whether an intention never to do so or an intention never to do so without contraception) is simulation contra bonus prolis.
 
Did nobody read my message?

“Grounds for annulment, dot dot dot,” draw out the sentence and the thought, “if.”

Look, I try to write in a lively style, but if we have to go all Dick and Jane easy readers, then fine.

Non-consummation is only grounds for annulment if one of the parties complains about it. There is all kinds of stuff about reasonable lengths of time, ages of the married parties, health, blah blah, blah. But that is what it boils down to.

If both parties are happy with non-consummation, nobody can force them to consummate or denigrate or end their marriage.

If there is a complaint by one of the parties, and the other party does not fulfil the marital debt of his or her own accord within a reasonable length of time (everything else being equal, and nothing serious hindering it happening), the marriage can be deemed never to have existed.

If both parties agree, they can consummate at any time. But consummation without consent is of course forbidden.

St. Therese’s parents initially planned to have a Josephite marriage; they were both considered too old for kids by their friends and thought they would just live a sort of religious life. But after fostering a kid for a year or so, and after discussing it with their priest (who thought they were not too old), they mutually decided to consummate the marriage. In middle age, they ended up having more than five kids.

And if you want to know more about the canon law legalities at various periods, there is quite a lot in the history of the crowned heads of Europe.

A marriage that is ratum sed non consummatum is considered sacramental and valid, unless and until somebody complains. It is not indissoluble because it is held together only by consent and goodwill, not by bodily unification.

This is not considered a refusal of children, since every married couple is entitled to not have sex as much as they want, if they mutually consent. Doing so for the purpose of prayer is Biblical; just ask St. Paul.

People physically incapable of having sex are generally not allowed to embark upon a Josephite marriage, however.

And now I have said a lot more on this subject than I ever wished to do.
 
Last edited:
Yes I read and understood your message. You seem not to have understood mine.

You are not distinguishing between something being grounds for annulment and something being used as grounds to obtain an annulment.

Defective consent is grounds for annulment. If neither party files for the annulment those grounds will never be used and no annulment will be granted. It’s still grounds. The marriage is never annulled but that does not make it valid. There are plenty of marriages that the church considers invalid that have never been annulled. That doesn’t make them valid.

You appear to be considering annulment to be something it is not. An annulment does not dissolve a marriage and an annulment does not make a marriage invalid. An annulment reviews the circumstances of the marriage and makes a finding that the marriage was invalid from the get go.

An invalid marriage is invalid whether or not an annulment is ever granted.

It is quite easy to come up with examples of marriages that everybody knows are invalid according to church teachings but which neither party is likely to ever put before a tribunal for annulment.

I did not have any difficulty reading and understanding your original message but I do appreciate your dumbing it down for me easy-reader style nonetheless. Hopefully what I have said here in response is sufficiently clear but if it is not I’ll do my best to return the favor.

If I am incorrect in any of the points I have made please specifically address and respond to the specific points. Or if I am not, just get frustrated and call me dumb; that’s always a good way to prove your point.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top