१७ नोव्हेंबर, २०२१
"I had never heard of a Josephite marriage, a union inspired by the relationship between Joseph and the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus."
"And to this day, I am astonished that my parents undertook a similar path with the blessing of the Roman Catholic Church.... My father was a worldly 32 and my mother a winsome 19 when they met.... He was agnostic, though his parents were Presbyterian. She was Catholic.... [A] brush with death prompted him to convert to Catholicism.... Not long thereafter, my three siblings and I noticed that our parents’ double bed was replaced by twin beds.... What we didn’t know was that my father had been married before meeting my mother. His first marriage lasted about two years, and because the church refused to recognize the divorce and end of that union, my parents could not receive the sacrament of matrimony. During my father’s immersion into Catholicism, it was pointed out that without the sacrament of matrimony performed by a priest, my parents were technically living in sin. Mortal sin.... Mom and Dad, with the bishop’s permission, and after taking a solemn vow, could leave the marital bed and replace it with chaste cohabitation.... 'No one is to know of the brother-sister relationship except the Advocate Father O’Brien, the Pastor, the Tribunal, and the confessors of the parties,' the tribunal’s letter said.... [N]ine years after my father’s heart attack and their decision to have a celibate marriage, his first wife died. On an ordinary Tuesday evening in 1970, Mom and Dad were married in secrecy at our parish church...."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
५० टिप्पण्या:
That was before online porn.
A fairy tale marriage.
I don't believe this. Just another attack by the NYT on Catholics and religion.
Maybe find a different religion.
See most people don’t follow the faith when it’s difficult.
They could’ve done it this way, or they could’ve lived together “as brother and sister” as they say without the private/secret marriage vows. Still would have been fine, still could’ve taken communion.
Heck, we had a gay couple in our parish that lived together, supposedly celibate, to conform to the teachings.
This world, this day and age, everyone wants everything they want whenever they want it…
Too bad he wasn't a Kennedy...he could have gotten an annulment.
There are always loopholes within the church...
Didn't Jesus have a not so immaculately conceived brother?
Not long thereafter, my three siblings and I noticed that our parents’ double bed was replaced by twin beds.
So more like the Ricardo's or the Mertz's sleeping arrangements than Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Q. Christ?
…but I can only imagine how the NYTimes and it’s readers/commenters will view this lifestyle.
Chacun à son goût, as they say.
I would have thought the problem was the original marriage--because his first marriage was never sanctified by the church, they would consider that to have been living in sin. With the result that he would merely need absolution for this sin in order to be properly married to his second, Catholic, wife. I don't see why the rules of the church would be applied to actions he took prior to his conversion.
"Wince said...
Didn't Jesus have a not so immaculately conceived brother?"
Not necessarily. Biblical passages that refer to Jesus's brothers and sisters can be interpreted in multiple ways - that Bible though...
"There are three possibilities.
There were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus, hence His younger brothers and sisters (natural half-brothers and sisters).
They were children of Joseph from a previous marriage (step-brothers and sisters). Epiphanius - a fourth century defender of the perpetual virginity of Mary, held this view. It was also the view held by the ancient scholar Jerome. Modern defenders of this view include the great scholar Joseph Barber Lightfoot.
They were cousins of Jesus not actual brothers and sisters. They were the sons of Cleopas who was supposedly a brother or brother-in-law of Joseph.
The reason some believe that they were not children of Joseph and Mary is due to the way they are designated. In Mark 6:3 Jesus is called the "Son of Mary" and is distinguished separately from the brothers who are named as well as the sisters.
The Account In The Upper Room
In the upper room were "Mary the mother of Jesus, and . . . his brothers" (Acts 1:14). Here they were called His brothers not her sons. This has led some to speculate that they were sons of Joseph from a previous marriage."
It's always something.
"Just another attack by the NYT on Catholics and religion."
It may have been meant as an attack but it's actually rather beautiful. Imagine a time when belief was coupled (no pun intended) with commitment and honor. Like a fable from our past.
Headline as presented : From "One Chaste Marriage, Four Kids, and the Catholic Church/A son reflects on his parents’ commitment, endorsed by the Catholic church, to cohabit chastely like 'brother and sister' to avoid mortal sin"
-----
from the sequence of events headline should have been rearranged to
"Four Kids, and the Catholic Church and One Chaste Marriage,/A son reflects on his parents’ commitment, endorsed by the Catholic church, to cohabit chastely like 'brother and sister' to avoid mortal sin"
AlbertAnonymous: "See most people don’t follow the faith when it’s difficult."
+1
I'd bet there are many "Josephite" marriages throughout the land, without those in them even knowing there is a name for and doctrinal basis behind such unions.
"Didn't Jesus have a not so immaculately conceived brother?"
Depends on whether you ask a Catholic or a Protestant.
Shorter NYT - "There are people who think there are things more important than sex. How quaint. Let's make a mockery of them using hearsay and second hand reports."
There's a movement afoot now to legitimize incest, to the end that anyone could be brother and sister and live together as though they were married.
Who the fuck writes this stuff?? What a tormented twit!!
The double bed turned into a twin bed because the preacher said so??? Yeah.....that never happened.
I am not a Catholic but I am truly inspired by the faith these two had to follow the Church's teachings. If you really believe, you have to follow through.
This definitely applies today to many believers.
In their hearts the couple did the right thing. It may seem weird to us but having that kind of strength of you convictions is commendable. Very few people seem to value their faith anymore.
My wife's oldest brother (half-brother, to ne precise) is the only one in her family who still wants to be a Catholic.
He had five kids by his first, Catholic, wife, but they separated and eventually divorced. He met a younger Catholic woman and got his first marriage annulled after some years and a lot of $$$.
Money talks in Rome, too.
Catholicism is a corruption and in many ways the antithesis of what Jesus was trying to accomplish.
The institution itself is terrible.
The poor bastards!
I can't read the whole article but I don't think they had a true Josephite marriage since the Church did not consider them married in the first place. They lived as brother and sister until they were free to marry.
Maybe next we can see the NYT article on the rise of Levirite marriage among America's political elite.
Wince,
Didn't Jesus have a not so immaculately conceived brother?
Not to be picky, but "immaculate conception" doesn't mean what you think it does. The one immaculately conceived was Mary, not Jesus. Ave Maria, gratia plena -- how can Mary be "full of grace" unless she was never stained by original sin?
I am with those above who find this story inspiring and touching, not "weird" or "corrupt" or the act of a "tormented twit." These two people obviously loved one another very much, and they worked out a way to fulfill that love without compromising their faith. We should all hope to do as much.
That said, I agree that annulments, as currently used in the Catholic Church, are disgraceful. There is a place for them -- forced marriages, for example -- but . . . well, read Sheila Rauch Kennedy's Shattered Faith for an illustration of what's wrong.
I'm with Michelle @ 11:38 AM on this. I also find it inspiring, but then, I'm Catholic and this is discussed in traditional blogs on occasion.
The only other example of this with which I am most familiar was St. Edward the Confessor and his wife, Editha.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05322a.htm
Blogger TheOne Who Is Not Obeyed said...
Maybe next we can see the NYT article on the rise of Levirite marriage among America's political elite.
Hunter was sort of in a way on the right track but then he derailed.
The one immaculately conceived was Mary, not Jesus.
Then who impregnated Mary to conceive Jesus?
"There are three possibilities.
“There were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus, hence His younger brothers and sisters (natural half-brothers and sisters).”
Too logical for Catholics.
“They were children of Joseph from a previous marriage (step-brothers and sisters). Epiphanius - a fourth century defender of the perpetual virginity of Mary, held this view. It was also the view held by the ancient scholar Jerome. Modern defenders of this view include the great scholar Joseph Barber Lightfoot.”
That would make them older brothers and sisters, deferring in all things to their youngest brother. That wasn’t the way things worked back then in Jewish families.
“They were cousins of Jesus not actual brothers and sisters. They were the sons of Cleopas who was supposedly a brother or brother-in-law of Joseph.”
Huh? They are different words in the Aramaic in which the Gospels were written.
It was pointed out many years ago by a Jewish girlfriend that a lot of esp the Roman Catholic story of Jesus doesn’t make sense from a Jewish point of view. Why didn’t he ever get married? At the time, any younger brothers couldn’t get married, until he did. Besides, for a carpenter like Joseph, it is likely that all of his kids would have had arranged marriages. One theory is that he started his ministries after having been widowed (and what did he do during the time between his majority and his ministry?) Another is that he was married, possibly to Mary Magdalene, and the accepted scriptures intentionally wrote her out, for political reasons. In any case, her point was that the fact that there were never any questions about any of this strongly suggests that the Jews at the time did not see Jesus (and his parents) deviating very much from Jewish norms of the time.
One of the Protestant complaints against esp Roman Catholicism is that Marian worship is, at best, minimally supported by the established and accepted scriptures. To us (Protestants), it appears to be Roman mother goddess worship grafted later on top of the Christianity of the early Church.
As a side note on chaste marriages, I'd like to point out that, in cases unlike this one, where the partners are sacramentally married, the couple can mutually agree to live lives of celibacy within marriage. The operative word here is mutually.
Within a Catholic marriage, one partner cannot just decide to live a life of chastity and deny the other partner sexual relations. Marriage by definition involves sexual relations between the partners, and that agreement once entered into cannot be unilaterally abrogated by either husband or wife.
In the days of the early-ish church, when bishops were chosen by acclamation, the priest so chosen often had a wife. Since bishops by tradition were celibate, the wife generally entered a monastery. How these wives felt about this arrangement is lost to history. The Eastern Churches later resolved this issue by only picking bishops from the celibate monastic clergy & the Western Church by making the entire clergy celibate.
Four kids; the fifth was the child of the second marriage.
My Opa and Oma had separate beds when I was growing up. High-standing dark wood four-poster singles. They produced a son and daughter in the 1920s but I obviously don't know their sleeping arrangements back then.
I always thought of them while watching Rob and Laura Petrie in their bedroom, though that was the entirety of the similarity.
I ought to have added that in Orson Scott Card's fiction, there is a religious order -- Filhos da Mente de Cristo -- which requires its members to be married, but not to sleep together; their children are their thoughts.
Wince,
Then who impregnated Mary to conceive Jesus?
The Holy Ghost. You do remember that much?
Die Heilige Geist soll ueber dich kommen,
Und das Hoechsten wird dich ueberschatten
[quoting at random from the text of a motet by Matthias Weckmann, 17th c., about the Annunciation; it goes on to Mary singing "Ich bin des Herren Magd" -- "I am the handmaiden of the Lord" -- and then the two, Mary and the angel Gabriel, sing a joint Alleluia.]
Stupid is as stupid does.
How quaint.
I don't believe this. Just another attack by the NYT on Catholics and religion.
I thought this was an edifying story: as someone who lives celibately in order to conform to the Church's teachings it is rare enough these days that writers in the secular media treat such decisions with respect and sympathy. Even in much of the Catholic media, the attitude of many is evidently that shared by the priest at Mrs Leavenworth's requiem: 'I can't explain what weird s--t happened in the Church fifty years ago'. (I call that ignorance, probably informed by heterodox notions of authentic Christian morality, but who knows.)
"That would make them older brothers and sisters, deferring in all things to their youngest brother. That wasn’t the way things worked back then in Jewish families."
Jacob and Esau would like a word with you.
"Stupid is as stupid does."
This movie line is irrational. Stupid people do most human things, so by the converse, most things are stupid? Poetically it seems to mean that if you don't act stupid you are not stupid, in the sense that not stupid is as not stupid does. This neglects that stupidity can be experienced internally independent of action.
"Jacob and Esau would like a word with you."
Or the first Joseph (of Egypt) who ruled his older brothers.
To be clear, Opa had no religion that I ever knew about, and Oma had been raised "Lootrun" in Germany.
Was Jacob the hairy one, or was that Esau?
Every time. EVERY time, we get a parade of prideful ignorance and bigotry. Not just from the usual suspects, but from those who should know better.
In a time before sex became a form of idol worship, before people reduced their humanity to the level of dogs humping someone's leg, chastity in marriage would have made sense.
By the way, it should be pointed out that the pure fullness of spousal love that Mary had/has for Joseph and the pure fullness of spousal love that Joseph had/has for Mary -- each loving God before loving the other -- was/is more unitive and more fruitful than any other marital union in history.
Moreover, their marriage prefigures Jesus' marital union with His Bride and with eternal life in the resurrection of the body.
Joseph B. Sure, but action is what counts. The whole "not of this world" pride of faith is what stupid does.
Let’s face it, Mary and Joseph got on like rabbits after God’s spawn popped out.
At least someone knows the difference betweenn "chaste" and "celibate"
Was Jacob the hairy one, or was that Esau?
"My brother Esau is an hairy man, but I, I am a smooth one." I think I can paraphrase this.
“He was agnostic, though his parents were Presbyterian”
Though? I will also point out that twin beds is very Presbyterian.
Do you think Joseph and Mary were a little disappointed with the other kids?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा