Mary's Marriage with Joseph
Roman Catholicism insists that the Virgin Mary married Joseph but never had sex
with him. How could this marriage be a real union?
If a man and woman who wed need to have sex to consummate their marriage and
confirm/complete it then it follows Mary and Joseph were not fully married.
You are either married or not so they were just living together.
The Church says that Mary and Joseph were not celibates for they were married.
They are really saying, "A celibate is an unmarried person. Mary and Joseph were
not celibates therefore they were married." But that is a circular argument. It
assumes the marriage even though its the thing that needs to be proven. It is
begging the question.
The honest view is that Mary and Joseph were celibates who only had the outward
appearance of marriage. The Church admits that this would be deceptive and
hypocritical. So the Church has to use tricks to stop us seeing that.
For the pair to be truly married, it would need to be argued that consummation
is not required for a valid marriage and that only the ability to consummate is
required. If the Church accepted that, it would have to admit that there is no
evidence that Joseph and Mary's marriage was real. Maybe Joseph was gay or had
erectile problems. And maybe Mary had a phobia about sex that made having sex
with her impossible.
Most people regard a non-consummated marriage as real but incomplete. If they
are right, non-consummated marriage is valid. The Church is clear though that
consummated marriage is permanent and a sacrament and it cannot be dissolved.
Divorce cannot truly end the legal bond.
It follows then that if Mary and Joseph had divorced it would not have been a
sin! The Church deceives us about what fine role models they are when they would
have in their hearts intended, "I will stick with this if it works. Divorce is
an option if it goes all wrong."
Some Catholic theologians say, "Mary and Joseph were married before the Catholic
Church and canon law which requires consummation for a real marriage. So by the
rules of the time they were really married." But that is really saying that
marriage is not a commitment for life. It is saying that whatever laws say about
what makes a marriage is all that matters. If the law was that only marriages
contracted at the full moon were real it would become so. That would be grossly
over-legalistic. The theologians are contradicting the Catholic definition of
marriage which implies it must be full commitment and so it has to involve
sexual activity. Mary holding back implies that she has serious doubts about her
relationship with Joseph. It is interesting how in its hypocrisy how the Church
tries to stop the state redefining marriage as being between two people no
matter what sex they are. Recognising Mary's sexless marriage as real infers a
bigger redefinition of marriage than what the state is doing.
Another try, "Mary and Joseph lived under Jewish law. There was nothing in the
Jewish law that required consummation of marriage for it to be valid and legal.
Under the religious laws of their time Mary and Joseph were truly married."
That is a lie as the Bible says that man leaves his father and mother and clings
to his wife, so they become one flesh (Genesis 2:24) referring to marriage being
a commitment forged by sexual union. Jesus reinforced this teaching.
Mary did not consent to the marriage - in those days only the man took vows for
the woman was regarded as his possession. Such a marriage is degrading and
cannot be valid.
Mary was too young for marriage. Like other girls who wed, she was in her early
teens. Celebrating her marriage only celebrates paedophilia at least in
principle if not in practice. And if it is not bad in principle then why worry
about people practicing it? The apostle Paul who spoke with Christ's
authority says sex is owed by one spouse to the other in marriage in 1
Corinthians 7:3-5. It is hard to believe that Mary and Joseph really had a
sexless marriage by choice. No it is impossible and as marriages between men and
female children were the norm in Paul's time he was advocating the rape of a
child bride.
Jewish girls were married as soon as they reached puberty or started to
menstruate (page 13, 30, Son of Joseph). They were betrothed which was a kind of
marriage that took place shortly before full marriage, at about 12 years of age
(page 35, Putting Away Childish Things, Uta Ranke-Heinmann, HarperSanFrancisco,
1992). There was no concern for the girl being mature enough or ready for
marriage. Girls of that age would have been more innocent and inexperienced and
easily taken advantage of than girls today. We are talking about a serious abuse
of young girls here. They were used by men and by religion. Rape is not too
strong a word to describe what was done to them on the wedding night. The
marriage was their lot whether they wanted it or not. The psychological pressure
must have been intense. The man who rapes by pressuring a woman is as much a
rapist as one who holds the woman down. In fact he is more hateful.
And the New Testament comes out and sanctions this behaviour when it says that
God gave Mary a baby before the wedding. It was bad enough after the wedding but
before it meaning she was a younger mother than usual. The New Testament gives
divine approval for the abuse of children. It is bad enough to have sex with a
child but to make one pregnant is a hundredfold worse. But Christians are
strangely appalled at the idea that Mary might have had sex or come close to it
and conceived that way and delighted at the idea that she conceived without sex
or a man well below what anybody in their right mind would consider a decent
age. So illicit sex is worse than an illicit pregnancy! This is another
manifestation of the majority Christian belief that pain is good and pleasure is
bad.
Whoever says that the girls were not underage in those days so that their
getting married at 12 or at the start of puberty is not a problem is one sick
individual. First of all, the point is that they were emotionally and mentally
and physically unprepared for sex. Second, they had no sex education. Third,
they are implying that the only thing wrong with abusing children is that the
law says they are underage and the fact that they are not ready doesn't matter!
This is silly for the law is only about regulation. The law saying something
doesn't automatically make it right.
Jesus was asked if any man could divorce his wife. Jesus said no and if he did
he was making her commit adultery. He was recognising the validity of the
underage marriages based on abuse and degradation of the female. He was
approving of paedophilia. He was even forcing them to stay married - such was
the strength of his pro-paedophilia stance.
1 Peter 3 goes,
3 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any
of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the
behaviour of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your
lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate
hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewellery or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it
should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet
spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy
women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They
submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and
called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not
give way to fear.
COMMENT: Sarah was far from an ideal example and plus she was an incestuous wife
to Abraham. She is a desperate example. That Jesus' mother is not a model here
as a wife or as chaste is incredible. And Peter was writing for Christians not
avid Bible readers. Christians say Mary was not married long enough to Joseph
and not enough was known of her marriage for her to be an example. If people are
good by nature or mostly good, then you cannot win anybody to your religion by
being good for everybody in every religion is as impressive as you. The
implication is that other religions are bad and Christians should be an
improvement on other religionists and thus be able to draw in converts by living
a good life even if they don't verbally evangelise
Mary and Joseph were not married at all. If they gave themselves to each other
in marriage, they turned their marriage into a lie by refusing to have sex. That
refusal was a refusal of full commitment.
Thinking about their example leads to the notion that as long as you don't have
sex with your spouse you can marry and divorce every day in the year! Catholic
teaching has to allow for that which shows the cruel hypocrisy of the Church's
ban on divorce.
BOOKS CONSULTED
ALL ROADS LEAD TO ROME, Michael de Semlyen, Dorchester House Publications,
Bucks, 1993
BORN FUNDAMENTALIST, BORN-AGAIN CATHOLIC, David B Currie, Ignatius Press, San
Francisco, 1996
COUNTERFEIT MIRACLES Benjamin B Warfield, Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1995
FROM FASTING SAINTS TO ANOREXIC GIRLS, Walter Vandereycken and Ron van Deth,
Athlone Press, London, 1996
MAKING SAINTS, Kenneth K Woodward, Chatto & Windus, London, 1991
OBJECTIONS TO ROMAN CATHOLICISM, Ed by Michael de la Bedoyere, Constable,
London, 1964
PAPAL SIN, STRUCTURES OF DECEIT, Garry Wills, Darton Longman and Todd, London,
2000
PURGATORY, Rev W E Kenny BD, Church of Ireland Printing, Co Dublin, 1939
SERMONS OF ST ALPHONSUS LIGUORI, Tan Books, Illinois, 1982
THE BANNER OF THE TRUTH IN IRELAND, Winter 1997, Irish Church Missions, Dublin
THE GREAT MEANS OF SALVATION AND PERFECTION, St Alphonsus De Ligouri,
Redemptorist Fathers, Brooklyn, 1988
THE LEGENDS OF THE SAINTS, by Hippolyde Delehaye, Four Courts Press, Dublin,
1998
THE MISSIONARY POSITION, Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, Christopher
Hitchens, Verso, London, 1995
THE PRIMITIVE FAITH AND ROMAN CATHOLIC DEVELOPMENTS, Rev John A F Gregg, BD,
APCK, Dublin, 1928
THE VIRGIN, Geoffrey Ashe, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. London, 1976
VICARS OF CHRIST, Peter de Rosa, Corgi, London, 1995
WHY I AM NOT A ROMAN CATHOLIC, Rev Canon McCormick DD, Protestant Truth Society,
London, 1968
YOU CAN LEAD ROMAN CATHOLICS TO CHRIST, Wilson Ewin, New England Mission, Nashua
1980