Mary And Joseph And Marriage

[prose]

I found an old thread about this, but since it came up in my courses yesterday, I wanted to discuss.

Did Mary and Joseph have a valid marriage since it was not consummated?

If not, what was their (and other couples who abstain from sex) marriage?

[Tantum Ergo]

Their marriage was completely valid since consent makes the marriage. A marriage does not need to be consummated in order to be valid. Consummation simply makes the marriage unbreakable, since the two are now "one flesh." A marriage that is valid but unconsummated can still technically be dissolved by the Pope.

[prose]

This doesn't seem to be the case. For instance, if a couple gets married and does not have sex, it is considered invalid.

From the previous thread on this topic:
Seems as though Mary and Joseph and other non-sexual couples have a non-valid marriage as a requirement for marriage is sex.
“Non-consummated marriages can be dissolved even if valid, which would add practical application to the view that a non-consummated marriage is "incomplete". It might only be able to be dissolved by the Pope.”… read this somewhere (I think on that thread)

About Mary and Joseph: “That's actually debated in Theology, I believe. If they were actually formally married or just remained betrothed, which is quite different than our engagements. The betrothal back then required a bill of divorce of some type from a Rabbi, I believe, in order for it to be nullified. I believe a formal marriage in the Jewish tradition during that period of time began with a betrothal and became a marriage when the two became one..”

[prose]

From Jimmy Aiken: “If the parties are not both baptized (as was the case with Mary and Joseph) then the marriage is a non-sacramental one, but nonetheless valid.

If both parties are baptized then the marriage is a sacramental one.

If the marriage is sacramental and the parties then consummate it, it becomes indissoluble by anything except death. Otherwise, it is at least potentially dissoluble.

[b]Consummation thus changes the status of certain marriages (sacramental ones) but it is not necessary for marriage to be valid. Consequently, it was not necessary for Mary and Joseph's marriage to be valid.”[/b]

[Nihil Obstat]

I read something recently saying that a marriage is valid without consummation, but when it is consummated it is ratified, or something along those lines. I do not remember the precise terminology, nor do I remember who said this. I had thought it was Jaime in a Q&A thread, but a quick check of that sub did not jog my memory.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[PhuturePriest]

It was valid because our ways of having a valid marriage are not the same exact ways the Jews had because they had a different set of rules, or this is what I read, anyway.

[truthfinder]

Yes, marriages are valid without consummation, but consummation makes an already valid marriage indissolvable [sic].

[Egidio]

[quote name='prose' timestamp='1346958823' post='2479447']
From Jimmy Aiken: “If the parties are not both baptized (as was the case with Mary and Joseph) then the marriage is a non-sacramental one, but nonetheless valid.

If both parties are baptized then the marriage is a sacramental one.

If the marriage is sacramental and the parties then consummate it, it becomes indissoluble by anything except death. Otherwise, it is at least potentially dissoluble.

[b]Consummation thus changes the status of certain marriages (sacramental ones) but it is not necessary for marriage to be valid. Consequently, it was not necessary for Mary and Joseph's marriage to be valid.”[/b]
[/quote]

We need clarification of terms, otherwise confusion will reign!

A marriage IS valid by means of the consent of the two parties.

This VALID marriage is merely RATIFIED by the conjugal act - the marriage is not VALIDATED by the conjugal act!

[b]Ca[/b][i][b]n. 1057 §1. T[/b]he consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons quali-fied by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.[/i]

[i]§2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage.[/i]

[i][b]Can. 1061 §1. [/b]A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.[/i]
[i] [/i]
[u][b]The Marriage of Mary and Joseph was most certainly valid![/b][/u]

[i]AVE MARIA![/i]

[Tantum Ergo]

I hope Egidio's post cleared it up for you, Prose.

As stated in the Catechism:

[b]CCC 1626 [/b][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage."[/size][/font][/color][sup]127[/sup][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3] If consent is lacking there is no marriage.[/size][/font][/color]

Clearly, the consent is what "makes the marriage." Sex does not "make the marriage." Sex is simply a right that each spouse confers to the other as part of their consent. The spouses can choose not to use that right.

To use an analogy, let's say you go to Bestbuy and buy a TV for $375. You put the TV in your basement, but never use the TV or even open the box. Does the TV really belong to you?
Yes, because you exchanged money in return for the TV, it is truly yours. You do not need to [i]use[/i] the TV in order to have true ownership of it.
In the same way, consent, in the form of exchange of vows, makes the marriage. Sex is simply a right that is given with that consent. You do not have to use the right of sex in order to have a valid marriage.

Mary and Joseph's marriage was not incomplete; it was perfectly valid because of their consent. Their consent made a covenant sealed by God Himself. As the Catechism states:

[b]CCC 1639[/b][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3] The consent by which the spouses mutually give and receive one another is sealed by God himself.[/size][/font][/color][sup]143[/sup][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3] From their covenant arises "an institution, confirmed by the divine law, . . . even in the eyes of society."[/size][/font][/color][sup]144[/sup][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3] The covenant between the spouses is integrated into God's covenant with man: "Authentic married love is caught up into divine love."[/size][/font][/color][sup]145[/sup]

Thus, we can see that Mary and Joseph's marriage was not incomplete or "left hanging" because it was not physically consummated. They gave themselves to one another through their consent, and this created a covenant sealed by God. When you consider the fact that Mary was sinless, and Joseph was a holy saint, with Christ himself as their child, you can imagine what an inseparable bond of love bound them.

[Nihil Obstat]

For that matter, in terms of the form matter and intent of the sacrament, consummation isn't a direct part of the question.

[Papist]

But this Canon Law did not exist in the time of Mary and Joseph. So they were not bound by it.

[Egidio]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1347057712' post='2480060']
But this Canon Law did not exist in the time of Mary and Joseph. So they were not bound by it.
[/quote]

.. ....I wonder if you are joking.

Marriage, before it is a sacrament, is a natural institution. For example, a marriage between a baptized and an unbaptized person is not a sacramental marriage, but it can still be a valid marriage.

It is important that we read this canon carefully, keeping in mind that marriage is a natural institution and right. [b]Ca[/b][i][b]n. 1057 §1. T[/b]he consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons quali-fied by law, makes marriage; [u]no human power is able to supply this consent.[/u][/i]


BTW, Canon law is based both on divine and natural law.

AVE MARIA!!

[tinytherese]

"A man and a woman are truly married as soon as they commit themselves to each other by vow before God—not when the marriage is consummated. In a Christian context, a sacramental marriage becomes indissoluble when the marriage is consummated, but the marriage itself exists from the time the vows are said. Joseph and Mary were married under the Old Covenant and so their marriage wasn’t the Christian sacrament, and wouldn’t have been truly indissoluble in any case. But because they were pledged by oath to one another, their marriage was a true and valid one."

source [url="http://www.devthrone.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/St.%20Joseph"]http://www.devthrone.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/St.%20Joseph[/url]

[Papist]

[quote name='Egidio' timestamp='1347074995' post='2480156']
.. ....I wonder if you are joking.

Marriage, before it is a sacrament, is a natural institution. For example, a marriage between a baptized and an unbaptized person is not a sacramental marriage, but it can still be a valid marriage.

It is important that we read this canon carefully, keeping in mind that marriage is a natural institution and right. [b]Ca[/b][i][b]n. 1057 §1. T[/b]he consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons quali-fied by law, makes marriage; [u]no human power is able to supply this consent.[/u][/i]


BTW, Canon law is based both on divine and natural law.

AVE MARIA!!
[/quote]
Regarding Mary and Joseph's marriage, I just find it odd applying Canon Law, which the Church gave us, and the Church wasn't founded yet.

[TheUbiquitous]

Canon Law applies only to Catholics living at the time.