Grace And Marriage And Sex

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
7/21 - St. Praxides
[quote name='kateri05' post='1335499' date='Jul 20 2007, 01:17 AM']although, techinically, since its the matter for the sacrament of matrimony, wouldn't conjugal union be "sacramental" in the sense that it is part of the sacrament of marriage?[/quote]
You know, I keep hearing this...and to be blunt, I don't know who popularized this idea. I've only heard this proposal from Christopher West and his crowd, but never from a professional sacramental theologian. From the [i]Decree on Union with the Armenians[/i] at the Council of Florence...
[quote]The efficient cause of matrimony is usually mutual consent expressed in words about the present.[/quote]
The consent of the spouses to be married [i]as expressed in words [/i]is both the matter and the form of the sacrament. And "usually" shouldn't throw us off, as there are ways for those who can't speak to express consent that would have the same force as spoken words (ie., signing a document, nodding in agreements, etc.).

Just making sure we're all clear on this.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
7/21 - St. Praxides

It just occurred to me to say this...

Every time a priest says Mass, it strengthens his vocation and, in some sense, re-affirms his promises at ordination. Maybe this is the way in which we can say that sexual intercourse renews the vows of the spouses?

I have no argument or justification for the statement just made, but I'll think of one.

[kateri05]

hmmm. i guess i was taught that the form is the vows, and those vows (and the consent implied) is thus expressed in the matter of conjugal union. you're saying the [i]vows[/i] are actually the matter [i]and[/i] the form. but that, intercourse is a physical renewal of those vows.


i'll take it! thanks father

[Didacus]

Been married 7 years.

Very interesting thread. Everyday I'm reminded that I have much to learn, and often that reminder comes from those much younger than myself.

Now for my 2 cents (and canadien cents are worth essentially as much as US cents these days! - *smirk*);


The act of sexual intercourse with your spouse depends greatly upon the state of being of each person. Sex within a couple can be a stepping stone bringing you closer to each other and God, but it can also be sacriligeous. The intent and disposition of each person entering in this act is a major determinant in which path this may take (for example a married couple using contraception automatically deny one of the deepest facets of marital relations).

That being said, your initial statement LilRed makes perfect sense. Sin is an attrition of ones ability to fully give one's self to the other in the purpose of God's plan. But I do admit this is simply put.



May every day, the love I hold for my wife be a reminder to me of the love of God Himself.
Same with my children who form the family we founded.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
7/22 - Sixteenth Sunday
[quote name='kateri05' post='1336705' date='Jul 21 2007, 05:54 PM']i'll take it! thanks father [/quote]
Not quite yet a priest - still got about two more years. Pray me through seminary!

I hope I didn't come off too strong. Reading back, it looks like I was pretty aggressive in my post. Sorry if I sounded like a jerk! :

[kateri05]

i've totally thought you were a priest this whole time. where are those group icons!!??

[tojo]

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1335659' date='Jul 20 2007, 09:10 AM']okay, how does this relate to when one spouse is Catholic and the other isn't?[/quote]
[quote name='The Little Way' post='1335765' date='Jul 20 2007, 01:10 PM']Hmmm, that's a good question. I'm not sure. I do think it's different in one way though. I hope this won't come off as offensive so bear with me as I try to talk it through.

It would seem that the difference is this.

In a marriage where one spouse is not Catholic there is a built in separation in regards to the Eucharist so in such a marriage that is somewhat the "norm" so to speak. Whereas in a marriage of two Catholics the "norm" is unity in the Eucharistic sense and so the position of one spouse being in mortal sin is a deviation from that norm.

Of course how that applies to the sacramentality of sex I'm not sure. There is the natural marital bond in any true marriage. Perhaps it makes sense to say that there is an additional sacramental bond in a marriage where both parties are Catholic? Or is it baptismal status that would make the bond sacramental? So if both parties are Christian the sexual union is sacramental in that sense.

Does that make any sense? Mind you, I'm no theologian so I'm just thinking this through with my little pea brain! [/quote]
no offense taken. i would just like to explore this aspect further.

[Lil Red]

bump

[Snowcatpa]

[color="purple"][quote name='Pio Nono' post='1336506' date='Jul 21 2007, 01:00 PM']The consent of the spouses to be married [i]as expressed in words [/i]is both the matter and the form of the sacrament. And "usually" shouldn't throw us off, as there are ways for those who can't speak to express consent that would have the same force as spoken words (ie., signing a document, nodding in agreements, etc.).[/quote]

That helps me understand Mary and Joseph's "marriage" a whole lot more! I always knew they didn't have to have to consummate the marriage for theirs to be valid, but I didn't fully understand why. Looking at other explanations, the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09699a.htm] explains:

[quote]There might be a sinful agreement between those contracting marriage which likewise nullifies their marriage — e.g., not to have more than one or two children, or not to have any children at all, until, in the judgment of the contracting parties, circumstances shall enable them to be provided for; or to divorce and marry someone else whenever they grow tired of each other. Such an agreement or condition denies the perpetual duties of matrimony, limits matrimonial rights, suspends the duty consequent on the use and exercise of those rights; if really made a sine qua non of marriage, it necessarily annuls it; the parties would wish to enjoy connubial intercourse, but evade its consequences.

The agreement to abstain from the use of conjugal rights is, however, quite different, and does not nullify the marriage contract. [b]The parties to the marriage fully consent to transfer to each other the conjugal rights, but, by agreement or vow, oblige themselves to abstain from the actual use of those rights.[/b] Now, if, contrary to their agreement or vow, either party should demand the actual use of his or her right, it would not be fornication, though a breach of promise or vow. Such a condition, though possible, is not frequent nor even permissible except in cases of rare virtue.[/quote]

So consummation may be a right of marriage and a renewal of marital vows, but it does not effect any part of the sacrament. Yay explanations. [/color]

[Era Might]

[quote name='Pio Nono' post='1336506' date='Jul 21 2007, 12:00 PM']The consent of the spouses to be married [i]as expressed in words [/i]is both the matter and the form of the sacrament.[/quote]
But can't the Church dissolve a marriage if it is not consummated? Wouldn't that mean that it is the first act of consummation itself which effects the actual Sacrament, while the spouses have a natural marriage until consummation?

If that were the case (and I don't know that it is - edit: see below, the catechism seems to say that that is NOT the case), I think only that first act of consummation would be "Sacramental" in the sense of bringing about the Sacrament, because the Sacrament of marriage can only be contracted once (just as you can't confect the Eucharistic host "again" after it is confected). The subsequent conjugal life of the spouses would be a means to draw from the grace of the Sacrament rather than a Sacrament itself, similar to when we cross ourselves with holy water and renew our baptismal vows.

[Snowcatpa]

[color="purple"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on Divorce explains that "Christian marriage before consummation can be dissolved by solemn profession in a religious order, or by an act of papal authority". This was solemnly defined at the Council of Trent, but the article explains more the historical development of this than theologically why it's possible to negate the marriage.

The pope's authority to dissolve Christian marriage not yet consummated apparently comes from Christ's words to Peter in Matthew 16:19 "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven". So I guess he can loose marriage contracts too? It also comes from the tradition even early on that it was permission to dissolve an unconsummated marriage if one party wanted to enter a religious profession.

My little brain is still trying to figure out where this long period of unconsummated marriage in order to discern religious vocation comes from! I don't know about you all, but I'm pretty sure most people don't wait more than a day or two to exercise their new-found conjugal rights. So the cases had to have been (and appear to be) pretty rare. The marriages in these cases are fully annulled so people can then validly and sacramentally marry another.

This doesn't answer the question about why exactly the consummated vs. non-consummated matters. The church still teaches that even unconsummated marriages are fully "sacramental" (not just "natural")- they're only virtually indissoluable as compared to completely indissoluable. So consummation does something at least to make the already fully sacramental marriage truly complete.

In that sense, does that mean Mary and Joseph had a sacramental marriage just not a "full" one? That fits with common sense. Any thoughts?[/color]

[Era Might]

[quote name='Snowcatpa' post='1348714' date='Aug 3 2007, 04:17 PM'][color="purple"]This doesn't answer the question about why exactly the consummated vs. non-consummated matters. The church still teaches that even unconsummated marriages are fully "sacramental" (not just "natural")- they're only virtually indissoluable as compared to completely indissoluable. So consummation does something at least to make the already fully sacramental marriage truly complete.

In that sense, does that mean Mary and Joseph had a sacramental marriage just not a "full" one? That fits with common sense. Any thoughts?[/color][/quote]
I think you're right, that the marriage is Sacramental even before consummation. That seems to be what the Catechism says:

[quote]1623 According to Latin tradition, the spouses, as ministers of Christ's grace, mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church.[/quote]

The marriage of Joseph and Mary is another matter. They were married before the Sacraments were even instituted, so I don't think their marriage was Sacramental, unless they were given a special privilege of having a Sacramental marriage before the Sacraments were instituted.

[stbernardLT]

Because the marital act is a partaking in the divine image of God and likeness, because we acknowledge our creativity in total self giving love. It points to something beyond itself, something supernatural when done morally and with total self-giving intentions. It points to an openess to life. And everytime the marriage vows are renewed by a couple in a state of grace it creates life. If not natural (a kid) then supernatural with an increase in sanctifying grace and the spirit of God within us. This in itself is not only an acknowledging of the divine but a participation in the trinity, in the most intimate way.

I can't imagine another part of the sacrament of marriage that points more towards holiness than us obeying the first commandment given to mankind."Be fruitful and multiply." which christ transformed to something not only natural, but supernatural through the institution of the sacramnet of matrimony. I always learned that because unity was one of the ends of marriage and increased sanctifying grace within us, that it was sacramental.

On the question of Mary. Mary was "full of grace"; therefore an increase in grace in her was not possible, because she already contained the life of God totally with in her. And Joseph being part of a family that had God and his sinless mother as members had enough other oppurtunities for grace that the marital act was not necessary. And Mary's virginty was the greater good anyway.

[Era Might]

[quote name='stbernardLT' post='1348815' date='Aug 3 2007, 06:10 PM']I always learned that because unity was one of the ends of marriage and increased sanctifying grace within us, that it was sacramental.[/quote]
I think it can be said to be "sacramental" only in the sense, for example, that the Church refers to "sacramental communion." The act of receiving Holy Communion by the laity is not a Sacrament, but it is intimately related to the Sacrament. When the laity receive Holy Communion, they are not performing a Sacrament, but they are participating in the Sacrament which has already been brought about. In the same way, I would say that when spouses have conjugal relations, they are not performing a Sacrament, because the Sacrament of marriage is contracted only once. You can't perform the Sacrament every time you have marital relations anymore than you can offer Mass with a consecrated host. When it's done once, it's done. But because conjugal union is intimately related to the Sacramental bond which already exists, then it is "sacramental" in the sense that it draws grace from that sacramental bond, just as the faithful draw grace from the Eucharist, which is itself the Sacrament.