Benedict Ashley, O.P., *Spiritual Direction in the Dominican Tradition* p. 50 claims: >Naturally speaking, the human species is divided equally into male and female, so that every human can find a partner and form a marriage, and if there had been no fall into sin, naturally all persons would have married. Is this true? Would've everyone married if there were no Original Sin? It seems not, as isn't celibacy equally natural as being married? What did Catholic fathers or doctors of the Church have to say about this?

One doctrine that has been consistently taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that, if people had accepted the gospel but didn't have the opportunity in this life, they will still be saved and be able to receive all the blessings of the gospel. This general idea goes back to at the latest Joseph Smith's vision of the celestial kingdom, where he was surprised to see his brother who died before the restoration of the church. D&C 137 > 5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my > brother Alvin, that has long since slept; > > 6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that > kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set > his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized > for the remission of sins. > > 7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died > without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they > had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom > of God; > > 8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who > would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that > kingdom; > > 9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, > according to the desire of their hearts. Now, the covenant of marriage is seen as vitally important to receive the highest blessings in the celestial kingdom (D&C 131 ). LDS perform proxy sealings in the temple for those who were married in life but not in the "new and everlasting covenant" that is eternal marriage. With regard to those that, for some reason or another, did not have the opportunity to marry in this life, no proxy marriages are (kind of obviously) performed. Yet it has been consistently taught since at least Lorenzo Snow that there will be opportunity for those eventually (in the millenium I suppose) to be married. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow/chapter-9-sacred-family-relationships?lang=eng&id=p8#p8 > People who have no opportunity of marrying in this life, if they die > in the Lord, will have means furnished them by which they can secure > all the blessings necessary for persons in the married condition. The > Lord is merciful and kind, and He is not unjust. There is no injustice > in Him; yet we could scarcely look upon it as being just when a woman > or a man dies without having had the opportunity of marrying if it > could not be remedied in the other life. There would be injustice in > that, and we know that the Lord is not an unjust being. My sister > Eliza R. Snow, I believe, was just as good a woman as any Latter-day > Saint woman that ever lived, and she lived in an unmarried state until > she was beyond the condition of raising a family. … I cannot for one > moment imagine that she will lose a single thing on that account. It > will be made up to her in the other life, and she will have just as > great a kingdom as she would have had if she had had the opportunity > in this life of raising a family. (Quote from 1899, shortly after becoming president of the church in 1898) Was Lorenzo Snow the first to formulate the doctrine this way? Surely all the building blocks were already there even in Joseph Smith's time. Please correct me if I am wrong in this, but I assume none of the standard works go into this topic, so what we have here is an example of doctrine defined by "the modern-day prophets consistently taught it".

Was the encounter of Yeshua (Jesus) with the Samaritan woman that had 5 husbands after any of the times that He talked about divorce and remarriage, like, for example, in the Sermon of the Mount? It is important to know whether His law of divorce and remarriage was already in place when He talked to her.

Was there ever a saint who, while living, convinced his or her spouse to enter religious life?

The Church has the authority over marriage (Council of Trent , sess. 24, can. 4 ), and Canon Law has established the diriment impediment : >Can. 1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage. But can, in addition to this, the Church say that the difference in ages between the man and woman marrying must not be more than, for example, 10 years? Have canonists deliberated on the question of marital age disparity? Is there a reason the Church does not (at least currently) have a law prohibiting marriages with large age disparities?

Hymn 22 of St. Ephrem's *Hymns on Virginity* gives his exegesis of Jesus's conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4 . McVey & Meyendorff *ibid.* p. 354 show that St. Ephrem argues that: >It is not the case that this woman has been divorced and remarried five times and is therefore reproached by Jesus for immorality. Instead she is the victim of a plight like that of Sarah before her marriage to Tobias (str. 4–5). Because the deaths of five successive husbands made all fearful of marrying her and yet to be unmarried subjected her to reproach, she had devised a false marriage for the sake of appearances. Far from being virtually a harlot, as others assume, Ephrem argues that her secret revealed by Jesus is that she is living chastely in her marriage (str. 12–13). This is evident on three grounds: 1) the confidence of her manner of argument (str. 5–9); 2) Jesus’ willingness to speak along with her (str. 5, 10–11); and 3) several typological precedents for her behavior for example, others, notably Elizabeth and Hannah were chagrined by their lack of husbands or children (str. 14–15); just as the unmasking of a deception by Abraham and Sarah about Sarah’s marital status led to the respect of a Gentile king for God, the unveiling of this woman’s deception led to the belief of a city of Gentiles (str. 16–18); just as Tamar disguised her marital status for the sake of continuing the messianic line so the deception of the Samaritan woman led to the revelation of the Messiah to her people (str 19–20). What other Church Fathers, besides St. Ephrem, thought that the Samaritan woman in John 4:17-18 was in a lawful (or virginal?) marriage with her husband?

The Old Testament records many instances of men having concubines or many wives. Why did having concubines not fall under the sin of adultery? 2 Samuel 5:13 - "After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him." Genesis 25:6 - "But while he was still living, he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines and sent them away from his son Isaac to the land of the east." (Abraham) I suppose the issue here must've been consent between all parties.

Adam and Eve were never shown to have had a marriage ceremony, yet [God commanded them to multiply](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/gen.1.28) . What is the basis for the idea that God requires a ceremony to be performed for marriage, rather than being a spiritual commitment made by the husband and wife?

I admit the question is a bit broad, so let me explain: In many cultures around the world, marriage of first cousins is common. However, the Catholic Church disallows marriage of first cousins (in absence of a special dispensation), and according to Wikipedia , this canon rule has a bit of a convoluted history. On the Protestant side, Luther and Calvin rejected this rule of the Catholic Church on the grounds that it is not Biblically based. However, I have met many Protestants who are anti-cousin marriage, and the general sentiment in American culture is that cousin marriage is morally wrong. I'm curious what the basis of forbidding or being morally opposed to cousin marriage is, within Christian traditions (though opposition to cousin marriage is obviously not universal). How did this idea originate, and is the same logic still applied?

The basis for this question comes from a conversation I had with a friend. She said to me 'The only reason that two people should get together and get married is because they can do more for the Kingdom of God together than they can do apart.' On the face of it, this viewpoint makes sense and is not without some positive aspects, and it is certainly one that I have heard in the church for years. But I don't believe that there is a specific biblical passage that would support this viewpoint. This led me to ask myself, and to ask here, what reasons does the Bible give for getting married? Is the notion that married people can do more for the Kingdom a Biblical one, or is there another reason given for getting married?

There is a similar question asking for the Catholic viewpoint: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/63452/117426 . The accepted [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/63458/117426) states the following about marriage specifically: > # Complete hermaphrodites cannot validly marry. > > Dom Augustine wrote on 1917 Can. 1068 (= 1983 Canon > 1084 ), which deals with sexual impotence, an impediment to the > valid reception of the sacrament of marriage: > > >As to *hermaphrodites*, or such persons as have the sexual characteristics of both sexes, whether it be *androgynia* or > *gynandria* or *hermaphroditismus neuter*, the testimony of physicians is required [to determine whether they are sexually impotent or not]. > No *hermaphroditus neuter* can possibly be called capable of marrying > because the sex is not sufficiently determined. > > *androgynia* = hermaphroditic with male aspect predominant
> *gynandria* = hermaphroditic with female aspect predominant
> *hermaphroditus neuter* = a complete hermaphrodite (equal male and female aspects) > > > > There are no other canons explicitly forbidding hermaphrodites *qua* > hermaphrodites from receiving the other sacraments (Confirmation, > Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction). Do Protestants hold the same position? Are intersex individuals generally advised—or even required—to remain celibate for life? How are alternatives, such as self-pleasure, regarded in this context? What if an intersex individual experiences a strong sex drive? In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul encourages marriage as a remedy for those who "burn with passion." But does this counsel apply equally to intersex individuals?

I am a Russian Orthodox Christian, and I know other Russian Orthodox Christians who consider a woman's menses to be impure. As a woman, this monthly bleeding is not saying that I am evil or bad during that time. I am simply not pure. Here is a good explanation of this. However, I know we Orthodox Christians plan our weddings around the bride's menstruation cycle, because she should be completely pure at that time. Do other Christian denominations do this too?

On Catholic call-in-shows and even on this website, there are innumerable questions about the scandal caused by attending the weddings of people who aren't perfect angelic prototypical Catholics. One or both parties can be: 1. divorced 2. not-Catholic 3. fallen-away Catholics 4. didn't even realize one of the parties was baptized Catholic 4. living together 5. have children out of wedlock 6. currently pregnant 7. a known sinner Which of these should disturb a Catholic's conscience enough to prevent them from attending a marriage and how does proximity to the couple (maybe they're cousins that you don't know so well) affect the decision?

### The Background A baptized and confirmed Catholic married a Protestant in a Protestant church without permission. About the marriage: - The marriage covenant was made with the full understanding of what a Christian marriage meant in the eyes of God (*cf*. CCC 1601-1620): a solemn covenant between two baptized Christians, with full consent (*cf*. CCC 1625-1632), for life, for the purpose of procreation, etc. - The celebration of marriage was similar to CCC 1621-1624 and similar to the canonical form, except: - officiated by a valid Protestant minister instead of a Catholic priest/deacon - CCC 1621: instead of in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it's made in the presence of Christ in the Protestant ceremony - CCC 1622: instead of receiving the sacrament of penance, the couple confess sin to one another in Christ - The couple has lived honoring the marriage bond and obligations like a Catholic marriage should be (even without contraception), thus realizing The Effects of the Sacrament of Matrimony (*cf*. CCC 1638-1642), The Goods and Requirements of Conjugal Love (*cf*. CCC 1643-1654), and The Domestic Church (*cf*. CCC 1655-1658). - The couple is raising the kids as Protestants although in a denomination that is not hostile to the Catholic Church. The couple is also attending a conservative Protestant church regularly and bring up their kids there as good Christians who love the Lord. Let's say it's [ACNA](https://anglicanchurch.net/) , a more conservative Anglican denomination than the Church of England. **Now the Catholic has second thoughts** and wants to go back to being in a state of grace and receive the Catholic sacraments. But the spouse wants to remain in the Protestant church and does not allow the kids to attend the Catholic church, although the spouse gives full freedom for the Catholic to practice the faith EXCEPT to teach the kids one or two Catholic doctrines that the spouse doesn't agree, such as praying to Mary. **THIS IS TRULY A TESTAMENT TO THE WARNING GIVEN IN [CCC 1634](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1634.htm).** Therefore, although the spouse is more ecumenical than a typical Protestant, the Catholic cannot fully discharge the obligation spelled out in Can. 1125 §1 but made the best effort: > the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church; For sure, the Catholic has to receive absolutions for the following: - Have been away from the Catholic church - Have contracted a mixed marriage outside the church without exemption But I was taken aback at [Geremia's answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/90364/10672) that **fornication** needs to be repented. Is this true when the marriage is lived as described above? ### The Question Given the limitation that the spouse is not willing to convert and to raise the kids fully within the Catholic church (although she is not hostile to most of the teachings), **according to the Catholic Church**, what else does this Catholic need to do beyond confessing the two sins above and continue raising the kids in the Lord as Catholic as possible? Three related questions: 1. [CCC 1623](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1623.htm) says that > 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. ... Although the "Church" here is a [Protestant ecclesial community](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/pope-says-other-churches-not-churches-in-proper-sense-1.949220) , it appears that this Catholic can remain in this Protestant marriage (as described above) without committing fornication, or is this not true? 2. It DOES appear that the [marriage has to be convalidated](https://archden.org/marriage/marriage-convalidation/) since the Catholic married in a non-Catholic ceremony without an exemption from the Catholic church. But is the Protestant spouse consent / presence needed for the convalidation? A [*Catholic Answers* article](https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-can-i-do-about-my-invalid-marriage) suggests that this require radical sanation (Can. 1161 § 1) and in some cases the non-Catholic does not need to know (although it's preferable that the non-Catholic knows). But can radical sanation still be obtained even though the Catholic cannot perform Can. 1125 §1 to the full extent because of the spouse's opposition? 3. Modifying the case study a little, let's say the case is between a Protestant couple in which one wants to become Catholic but the other wants to remain Protestant and the kids need to be raised in the Protestant church. Is it an impediment for the would-be-Catholic to receive communion? Is marriage convalidation necessary / possible in this case? Is fornication committed without convalidation? ### Motivation for this question I believe there are many who are in this situation: who through Catholic evangelization effort now want to go back practicing Catholic but have a difficulty introduced by the Protestant spouse. Ultimately, this is an ecumenical question as all mainline denominations try to reconcile as much as they can without losing their distinctiveness.

I figured in heaven it’s a totally different reality than the life we have here on earth. So, I believe in heaven race, color, creed, nationality, and ethnicity will not exist in heaven. Plus, it’s heaven—-paradise—-a place of bliss for believers of Christ. Plus, we get new heavenly, immortal bodies. I don’t want them to be subject to race and color or nationality again in heaven. God forbid. So I am hoping that in heaven I will not be black ever again. Don’t ask why I just want this. I know marriage isn’t in heaven, but if romantic love or divine love for people in heaven which includes romantic love is in heaven then I am all for it. I want to see my crush in heaven with me even if he did marry in this earth. I know in heaven he will love me too. I just hope heaven won’t be disappointing lol. Other than that I hope I won’t be black in heaven, because it just doesn’t define me as a soul or person.

I am of the understanding that generally, the Catholic Church recognizes non-Catholic marriages as valid marriages. So in general, if a non-Catholic couple converts to Catholicism, they will not have to re-certify their marriage (or even if just one of the two becomes Catholic). I'm wondering under what circumstances one might not be able to transfer his/her marriage in this way, i.e. when would a converting person's marriage *not* be considered valid by the Church. For instance (and these things may be common in some cultures): * The person could be a remarried divorcee, * The couple may be first cousins, * One or both may have been underage at the time of the marriage, or still underage at the present time, * The marriage may have been conducted without consent of one or both parties, * The person may be a polygamist. Which situations which would definitely never be considered a valid marriage? If some are considered on a case-by-case basis, how are cases determined?

According to Catholic theologians, when does sexual attraction become lust? By "sexual attraction", I mean the pleasure those of the opposite sex feel in one another's presence. By "lust", I mean "seeking venereal pleasure (*delectatione venerea*) not in accordance with right reason" (St. Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologiæ* II-II q. 154 a. 1 co.).

Did St. Augustine think sexual pleasure and concupiscence are identical? If not, why do some people seem to think this? Concupiscence is simply a disorder in which the body rebels against the rational soul; this is something completely different from pleasure.

Is committing adultery the same thing as having a concubine? Is having a concubine a form of adultery?

St. Josemaria Escriva, the founder of *Opus Dei*, once said "God in his providence has two ways of blessing marriages: one by giving them children; and the other, sometimes, because he loves them so much, by not giving them children. I don’t know which is the better blessing." One [web article](https://surprisedbymarriage.com/2020/09/08/to-the-small-catholic-families-god-loves-you-too/) quotes this. I also read somewhere that Scott Hahn was quoting St. Josemaria Escriva saying this in his book on his journey with *Opus Dei*, which I put on hold at my local library, but don't have in my hands yet. I am trying to track down the origin of this quote. Was it something the Saint wrote and published? Was it part of a speech or homily? Was it something he just said off the cuff that someone happened to write down? If no one here knows, I will answer the question once I get Hahn's book in my hands and can track the source down.