Grace And Marriage And Sex

[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.

[Aloysius]

Prior to consummation, the marriage is sacramental; not until consummation is the marriage a fully natural marriage, however. Mary and Joseph's marriage was exclusively super-natural; whereas all other sacramental marriages are both supernatural and fully natural.

The sacramental contract can be dissolved by papal authority because whilst it is sacramental and supernatural, those things make the natural marriage permanent and thus need not necessarily be permanent if natural marriage is not fulfilled; but only in extremely rare circumstances should the natural act not follow the supernatural vows.

At least this is my understanding.

This topic is very very intriguing to me... it's the type of topic I could see myself asking along the same lines as my thread on the Domestic Church version of confession/reconciliation; I'd be very interested in the idea of a couple agreeing to something like this as part of their understanding of the expression of the sacrament through the sex act; but I would not say that sex cannot be good whilst one or both of the spouses are in mortal sin... it doesn't have anything to do with the price of tea in china... ie you might as well say eating, as a reaffirmation of your baptismal life by sustinence, becomes sinful whilst in mortal sin. sex as a reaffirmation of your married life does not become sinful whilst in mortal sin (save, perhaps, if the mortal sin was sexual in nature, in which case it is a near occasion of sin to continue the sex act until sacramental grace has straightened you out... perhaps, depending on the situation)

but it might be a very beautiful thing for a couple to treat the marital act in the domestic church with the same type of reverence they approach the sacraments in the Church itself, and not present themselves for it, as it were, if they are in a state of mortal sin, because mortal sin breaks communions, and it would be an expression of how you broke your communion with your spouse by sinning mortally.

[kateri05]

[quote]but it might be a very beautiful thing for a couple to treat the marital act in the domestic church with the same type of reverence they approach the sacraments in the Church itself, and not present themselves for it, as it were, if they are in a state of mortal sin, because mortal sin breaks communions, and it would be an expression of how you broke your communion with your spouse by sinning mortally.[/quote]

i think thats a very beautiful thing

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
hmm, sometimes i surprise myself

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+

[CatherineM]

I was just thinking about this the other day. When parents get to a certain age, they seem to want to talk to you about sexual things that you really don't want to hear coming out of your mom or dad's mouths, and I'm not talking about birds and bees discussions. My father in law recently told my husband that their marriage wasn't consummated for 5 years. My MIL refused him. When no kids were being produced, his grandparents started asking questions, and my FIL was advised to get a divorce/annulment. He took her to Italy instead, and apparently praying at Assisi did the trick.

I heard many times in my practice about marriages that weren't consummated for a few days for illness or stress or just fatigue from the wedding, but 5 years. I already thought my FIL was a saint, and now am just baffled. I'm trying to sort out if they just weren't married yet for those 5 years or what. I'm clueless as to why she married him. Not surprisingly, their marriage has been a mess. They celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary a couple of years ago, but I was trying to figure out what they were celebrating. It's been the equivalent of staying at a job you hate for 50 years.

I gain strength from my marriage, and have trouble visualizing why other people don't.

[pan!c139]

[quote name='StColette' post='1334944' date='Jul 19 2007, 12:37 PM'] hmmm

I would say that sexual intercourse is part of the Sacrament of Marriage not necessarily a sacrament in itself. So I guess in a way it is sacramental since it is an expression of the Institution of Marriage

Not speaking from personal experience, because I'm not married...yet! lol I would say that if either partner were in the state of mortal sin then it could put a strain on the graces that flow during the sexual union. I would not say that it keeps the graces from the spouse who is not in mortal sin because they are in a state of grace and acting out part of the sacrament of marriage. However, since sex is tied to a sacrament I would say that the one who is in the state of mortal sin may not be receiving the graces that come with the marital union.

Interesting questions though... I'll keep thinking on this[/quote]

Wow! I never thought of that, but that really makes sense!


[quote name='Carson Weber' post='1335075' date='Jul 19 2007, 03:01 PM']The term [i]sacrament[/i] comes from the Latin [i]sacramentum[/i], which means [i]oath[/i]. You enter into and renew a covenant by swearing an [i]oath[/i]. Dr. Scott Hahn wrote extensively about this in his very well-written book titled [u]Swear to God[/u].

The reason why the conjugal act is sacramental is that it is the oath-action by which you renew your marital covenant. Each time you engage in that act, you are renewing your wedding vows by physically enacting what you said in those vows. It's a consummation of those vows.

When in a state of mortal sin, you cannot grow in sanctifying grace (which is what actually makes us in the image of the eternal Son of God) because you aren't in a state of grace. Think of sanctifying grace as a plant. It grows and forms you. If it's dead, it's dead. No amount of water or sun will revive it. It needs a resurrection, and that happens in Confession.[/quote]

Amazing!

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' post='1336266' date='Jul 21 2007, 12:16 AM']Wow, this is one of the most fascinating topics I've ever read on phatmass. And reading about the Church's approach to sex takes the term "making love" to a whole new level.

[/quote]

I agree with that comment! I was thinking the same thing!!!


[quote name='stbernardLT' post='1348815' date='Aug 3 2007, 03:10 PM']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.[/quote]

Again, wow. Thanks for that explanation!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1865220' date='May 12 2009, 12:59 PM']I was just thinking about this the other day. When parents get to a certain age, they seem to want to talk to you about sexual things that you really don't want to hear coming out of your mom or dad's mouths, and I'm not talking about birds and bees discussions. My father in law recently told my husband that their marriage wasn't consummated for 5 years. My MIL refused him. When no kids were being produced, his grandparents started asking questions, and my FIL was advised to get a divorce/annulment. He took her to Italy instead, and apparently praying at Assisi did the trick.[/quote]

Arranged marriage?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

By the way, having now completed my degree and been married for over a year, I definitely stand by the earlier answer to this thread. The spouse in mortal sin cannot receive grace (sanctifying grace) through the sacramental renewal of the marriage covenant through sexual intercourse, but can only receive the actual grace of conversion (for instance, that the spouse in mortal sin may be touched by the act in such a way as to encourage repentance).

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1865396' date='May 12 2009, 02:33 PM']Arranged marriage?[/quote]

That's what I thought at first, but apparently she was an old maid for that age, prominent family, lots of money. I'm sure she was pressured in some way. He just wanted to make a proper Catholic marriage and have kids. He's one of 10 kids. He did say though that he assumed there would be a sizable dowry or at least a nice inheritance. They got neither. She's so unpleasant that no one in the family ever wanted to be around her, and later became such an embarrassment that she was disinherited. I can't imagine spending my entire life angry and bitter and trying to make everyone around me miserable. It's really quite sad.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1865414' date='May 12 2009, 03:50 PM']That's what I thought at first, but apparently she was an old maid for that age, prominent family, lots of money. I'm sure she was pressured in some way. He just wanted to make a proper Catholic marriage and have kids. He's one of 10 kids. He did say though that he assumed there would be a sizable dowry or at least a nice inheritance. They got neither. She's so unpleasant that no one in the family ever wanted to be around her, and later became such an embarrassment that she was disinherited. I can't imagine spending my entire life angry and bitter and trying to make everyone around me miserable. It's really quite sad.[/quote]

That is sad. I wonder if she ever felt loved by her husband or just felt used for her money (whether or not that was what he was doing, perhaps she was suspicious of it).