Open to Life


#1

How do I explain to a non-catholic, when he hears talks on contraception and marriage needing to be open to life, Why Mary and Joseph’s marriage wasn’t open to life. Do you know of any articles written on it? He’s a big Jimmy Akin fan.


#2

Mary and St Joseph’s marriage was virginal, not contraceptive. There is a big difference between a married couple who chooses not to exercise their sexual rights as opposed to engaging in a sexual relationship but frustrating the results of this act. It is essentially the difference between NFP and AC. There is no fuller expression of openness to life than Mary’s “Let it be done to me according to your word.”


#3

So, can we get married and never intend to have relations. (playing devil’s advocate here)


#4

Not under the current Canon Law. Please remember, Mary and Joseph were Jews married according to Jewish Law and the Church law of today did not exist at that time.

Joseph and Mary had a **singular **vocation of raising the Son of God. Joseph was Mary’s protector and Jesus’s foster father. Their vocation was totally dedicated to God in a specific way.

There is no contradiction in Mary and Joseph’s marriage and the moral law regarding contraception. Keep in mind, the actual teaching is that each act of intercourse must be unitive and procreative.


#5

Only if it is part of God’s plan, (such as you are going to give birth to God.)

If we use the same logic of special circumstances and apply it to everyday life then I would be trying to die for the sins of everyone. Not just be martyred but have the intent to be offered up as the sacrifice for mans sins, claim I would rise in 3 days and expect it.

But since I am not Jesus I can only follow Him not exactly try to emulate His actions as some actions are reserved for the circumstances which were part of His plan for Jesus. :slight_smile:

In Christ
Scylla

We can certainly remain celibate all our lives in imitation of Christ and the Apostle Paul, who recommended it for those of us who can handle it.


#6

I recall Rosalind Moss (Jewish convert to Catholicism) speaking on Mary’s virginity within marriage. The gist of it was that no way would Joseph have had relations with Mary. He knew she was with child **by the Holy Spirit **- therefore she was the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Can’t remember her words exactly, but sort of like, - to Joseph, a holy Jew, to have had relations with Mary would have been to have relations with someone else’s wife/spouse - the Holy Spirit’s.

(Sort of a sacriligeous adultery. These are my words, not Rosalind’s)

Nita


#7

Not under the current Canon Law. Please remember, Mary and Joseph were Jews married according to Jewish Law and the Church law of today did not exist at that time…
[/quote]

Irrevocably intend going into marriage, no. Actually live out a marriage without exercising the right to sexual relations, yes.

While the previous respondent is correct that Sacrament of Matrimony may not be considered consumated before the husband and wife seal it through sexual intercourse and spouses in a Catholic marriage may not enter marriage with an intention to deny each other the right to sexual intercourse, there is no time that the husband and wife are ever required to exercise this right if both choose not to. As long as the occasions and frequency of their participation in the marriage act are agreeable to each of them and every occasion remains open to life, any schedule is allowable for sex in a Catholic marriage.

This means spouses in a Catholic marriage may enjoy sex daily, weekly, monthly, occasionally… or never, if this is agreeable to both of them. Both spouses still enjoy the right to sex with each other, though, and even if both decide not to exercise this right up to any point, either may change his or her mind at any time afterward. But as long as such a decision not to exercise this right is agreeable to both, whether for a day or a lifetime, the Church will not interfere and insist that they get on with it.


#8

There is no contradiction in Mary and Joseph’s marriage and the moral law regarding contraception. Keep in mind, the actual teaching is that each act of intercourse must be unitive and procreative.

We know this of course because of the other children they had.


#9

…yeah, okay… :ehh:


#10

Not according to the Word of God…

If Jesus had had blood siblings, Under Jewish custom of the day, they would have been responsible for the care of His mother, yet, in spite of the case you would make, He went out of His way to see to her care by giving her to St. John as one of his last acts from the cross.

Also, it was virtually criminal for a younger sibling to mock or rebuke the first born son, and yet the word of God shows that this happened to Our Lord.

With historical documents that suggest that Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children, your assertions fails.
'Brethren of the Lord’
Mary: Ever Virgin (Fathers)

Even all three of the “pillars of the reformation” wrote in support of it.
My thanks to San Juan Catholic Seminars for publishing this in their Beginning Apologetics # 5 booklet.
**
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary:**

Martin Luther: “ It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin… Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” ( Works of Luther, Vol. 11, pages 319-320; Vol. 6, page 510.)

John Calvin: “ There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And beside this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25. Published in 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” ( Zwingli Opera, Vol. 1, page 424.)


#11

#12

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.