|
Objection 1: It would seem that there was no true marriage between
Mary and Joseph. For Jerome says against Helvidius that Joseph
"was Mary's guardian rather than her husband." But if this was a
true marriage, Joseph was truly her husband. Therefore there was no
true marriage between Mary and Joseph.
Objection 2: Further, on Mt. 1:16: "Jacob begot Joseph
the husband of Mary," Jerome says: "When thou readest 'husband'
suspect not a marriage; but remember that Scripture is wont to speak
of those who are betrothed as husband and wife." But a true marriage
is not effected by the betrothal, but by the wedding. Therefore,
there was no true marriage between the Blessed Virgin and Joseph.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (Mt. 1:19):
"Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing to take her
away, i.e. to take her to his home in order to cohabit with her, was
minded to put her away privately, i.e. to postpone the wedding," as
Remigius [Catena Aurea in Matth.] expounds. Therefore, it
seems that, as the wedding was not yet solemnized, there was no true
marriage: especially since, after the marriage contract, no one can
lawfully put his wife away.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii): "It
cannot be allowed that the evangelist thought that Joseph ought to
sever his union with Mary" (since he said that Joseph was Mary's
husband) "on the ground that in giving birth to Christ, she had not
conceived of him, but remained a virgin. For by this example the
faithful are taught that if after marriage they remain continent by
mutual consent, their union is still and is rightly called marriage,
even without intercourse of the sexes."
I answer that, Marriage or wedlock is said to be true by reason of
its attaining its perfection. Now perfection of anything is twofold;
first, and second. The first perfection of a thing consists in its
very form, from which it receives its species; while the second
perfection of a thing consists in its operation, by which in some way a
thing attains its end. Now the form of matrimony consists in a certain
inseparable union of souls, by which husband and wife are pledged by a
bond of mutual affection that cannot be sundered. And the end of
matrimony is the begetting and upbringing of children: the first of
which is attained by conjugal intercourse; the second by the other
duties of husband and wife, by which they help one another in rearing
their offspring.
Thus we may say, as to the first perfection, that the marriage of the
Virgin Mother of God and Joseph was absolutely true: because both
consented to the nuptial bond, but not expressly to the bond of the
flesh, save on the condition that it was pleasing to God. For this
reason the angel calls Mary the wife of Joseph, saying to him (Mt.
1:20): "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife": on which
words Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "She is called
his wife from the first promise of her espousals, whom he had not known
nor ever was to know by carnal intercourse."
But as to the second perfection which is attained by the marriage act,
if this be referred to carnal intercourse, by which children are
begotten; thus this marriage was not consummated. Wherefore Ambrose
says on Lk. 1:26,27: "Be not surprised that Scripture calls
Mary a wife. The fact of her marriage is declared, not to insinuate
the loss of virginity, but to witness to the reality of the union."
Nevertheless, this marriage had the second perfection, as to
upbringing of the child. Thus Augustine says (De Nup. et
Concup. i): "All the nuptial blessings are fulfilled in the
marriage of Christ's parents, offspring, faith and sacrament. The
offspring we know to have been the Lord Jesus; faith, for there was
no adultery: sacrament, since there was no divorce. Carnal
intercourse alone there was none."
Reply to Objection 1: Jerome uses the term "husband" in reference
to marriage consummated.
Reply to Objection 2: By marriage Jerome means the nuptial
intercourse.
Reply to Objection 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. i super Matth.
[Opus Imperfectum]) the Blessed Virgin was so espoused to Joseph
that she dwelt in his home: "for just as she who conceives in her
husband's house is understood to have conceived of him, so she who
conceives elsewhere is suspect." Consequently sufficient precaution
would not have been taken to safeguard the fair fame of the Blessed
Virgin, if she had not the entry of her husband's house. Wherefore
the words, "not willing to take her away" are better rendered as
meaning, "not willing publicly to expose her," than understood of
taking her to his house. Hence the evangelist adds that "he was
minded to put her away privately." But although she had the entry of
Joseph's house by reason of her first promise of espousals, yet the
time had not yet come for the solemnizing of the wedding; for which
reason they had not yet consummated the marriage. Therefore, as
Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.): "The evangelist does not
say, 'before she was taken to the house of her husband,' because she
was already in the house. For it was the custom among the ancients for
espoused maidens to enter frequently the houses of them to whom they
were betrothed." Therefore the angel also said to Joseph: "Fear
not to take unto thee Mary thy wife"; that is: "Fear not to
solemnize your marriage with her." Others, however, say that she
was not yet admitted to his house, but only betrothed to him. But the
first is more in keeping with the Gospel narrative.
|
|