Fr. Jonathan Morris: A Jesus Wife Wouldn't Change Catholic Theology Or Church Practice
In the wake of the lame reporting about a 4th century swath of papyrus that mentions Jesus talking about a wife (which is no more proof of anything than if I were to write it today), we had ourselves a fun discussion here at Ricochet - not about whether Jesus had a wife (he didn’t) - but what it would mean to Christianity if it were discovered that he did.
I took the position that it wouldn’t change a thing about scriptural interpretation and therefore would be insignificant (from a Catholic point of view).
To my surprise, the opposition to my thesis was so rough I was accused of damaging the very dignity of Ricochet (proving the old adage that religion shouldn’t be discussed in polite company, I guess).
Father Jonathan Morris is a contributor to FoxNews.com and frequent guest on Fox News television shows. He is the network’s go-to Catholic priest. I had the pleasure of being a guest on a web show hosted by him (the web show is where Fox tries you out to see if they want to bump you up to TV. Not getting the invite to the big show, I assume they decided I have a face for radio).
It appears Father Morris has damaged the dignity of Fox News, as he penned a piece that holds a wife of Jesus would have no effect on Catholic interpretation of scripture:
Christians have no reason to be scandalized by the thought of a married Jesus because there is nothing in Christian theology that would eliminate the possibility. Jesus was pro-woman and pro-marriage. He attended weddings and even did his first miracle at a wedding feast by turning water into wine. When asked about marriage and about men who wanted to divorce their wives, Jesus defended the marriage bond with no equivocation: "what God has joined, men shall not divide."
If Jesus chose not to marry--and the body of evidence, beginning with all of the Gospels and two thousand years of tradition, points overwhelmingly in that direction--it was only because he chose to give up something wonderful for the sake of his divine mission.
Father Morris went even further than I, by opining that a wife of Jesus would not change Church practices either:
Furthermore, Christians would have no reason to be nervous because proof of a married Jesus wouldn't change the practice of the Church in any way. The Church has learned from Jesus to treat women as equals to men in dignity and worth. Jesus was unafraid to break social norms to make sure all cultures, of all times, would understand this truth. He involved women in his ministry. He traveled with them. He had female friends. He honored his mother publicly. He invited women to be his disciples. And on the day of his Resurrection from the dead, he chose to appear first to several women even before he appeared to his twelve male apostles.
Scandalous!
There is a great deal more to Father Morris’ article about the topic, which you can read here.
The very fact that I’m quoting Father Morris is proof that I’m over being jealous that he got bumped up to TV and I didn’t (I may have to go see him in the box Saturday morning about that last sentence).
- Comment (33)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '10
Re: Fr. Jonathan Morris: A Jesus Wife Wouldn't Change Catholic Theology Or Church Practice
The entire notion of the celibate priesthood, the idea that nuns are brides of Christ, the ideal of virginity. All these seem to be founded on Christ's own virginity. The fact that Fr. Morris, who I've never been all that enamored with, jumped on this nothing of a story which involves a feminist professor with an agenda is too bad. What is even more silly is that Fr. Morris used this to talk about how "pro-women" Jesus was, as if we should be giving into this "war on women" malarkey. Now on with my day. Jesus wasn't married; Homer was a single person not some amalgam; Shakespeare wasn't actually named Bacon.
Edited on September 22, 2012 at 9:33pmMar '11
Re: Fr. Jonathan Morris: A Jesus Wife Wouldn't Change Catholic Theology Or Church Practice
In fairness, I heard an interview with the Harvard professor who studied the document fragment, and she was very vocal about noting that a) the validity still remains to be confirmed by the general community, and b) just because the text mentions Jesus' wife does not at all mean he was actually married - the professor herself said she doesn't believe he was.
Apparently she is also letting any researcher who wants to examine the document themselves.
Jul '10
Re: Fr. Jonathan Morris: A Jesus Wife Wouldn't Change Catholic Theology Or Church Practice
Okay, so he's married. And we all know what that means, there is a job jar with his name on it. So what does one put into the Son's job jar? (C'mon, it's Saturday, work with me here. He has a sense of humor.)
Edited on September 22, 2012 at 10:36pmJun '10
Re: Fr. Jonathan Morris: A Jesus Wife Wouldn't Change Catholic Theology Or Church Practice
katievs.
One of the major themes of mystical theology (and the Gospels) is Jesus asBridegroom, and the culmination of the earthly journey of the Church is the heavenly banquet, the "Wedding Feast of the Lamb".
If I may play devil's advocate and prolong the discussion a bit:
If marriage is "until death do us part," than wouldn't any Earthly marriage that Jesus entered have ended with his death on the Cross? If so, is there an impediment to (re)marrying as heavenly Bridegroom?
Conversely, if Earthly marriage renders one inelligible for the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, then we best all remain single.
(ducks and heads for cover)
Dec '10
Re: Fr. Jonathan Morris: A Jesus Wife Wouldn't Change Catholic Theology Or Church Practice
Jesus has a wife, the Church, the Bride of Christ. It is improper to suggest that he is a bigamist.
Jun '10
Re: Fr. Jonathan Morris: A Jesus Wife Wouldn't Change Catholic Theology Or Church Practice
Does that apply to members of the Church as well? If we marry, does that make us bigamists too?
Mar '11
Re: Fr. Jonathan Morris: A Jesus Wife Wouldn't Change Catholic Theology Or Church Practice
In John 15:5, Jesus said "I am the vine, you are the branches."
Clearly, from this scrap of a fragment of a line on a piece of paper can be spun a headline: "Jesus was a plant!"
May '10
Re: Fr. Jonathan Morris: A Jesus Wife Wouldn't Change Catholic Theology Or Church Practice
Exactly right. He was actually named Edward de Vere, XVIIth Earl of Oxford.
Edited on September 23, 2012 at 6:06pmSep '10
Re: Fr. Jonathan Morris: A Jesus Wife Wouldn't Change Catholic Theology Or Church Practice
To wit:
Marriage, the mystery of faithful love, Dietrich von Hildebrand
Sep '10
Re: Fr. Jonathan Morris: A Jesus Wife Wouldn't Change Catholic Theology Or Church Practice
Pious Agnostic: In John 15:5, Jesus said "I am the vine, you are the branches."
Clearly, from this scrap of a fragment of a line on a piece of paper can be spun a headline: "Jesus was a plant!" · 3 hours ago
May we grow in faith and not be crab apples in the Garden of Eden.
Sep '12
Re: Fr. Jonathan Morris: A Jesus Wife Wouldn't Change Catholic Theology Or Church Practice
katievs.
One of the major themes of mystical theology (and the Gospels) is Jesus asBridegroom, and the culmination of the earthly journey of the Church is the heavenly banquet, the "Wedding Feast of the Lamb".
To understand the Catholic take on marriage, one must understand the Catholic take on "Sacrament" . . . Marriage, as all the sacraments, is meant to be a "pointer," a pre-figuration, and anticipatory experience of the reality to be experienced directly in heaven. In heaven, all of the sacraments will give way to the Reality. That Reality is the Marriage of all marriages - the Wedding Feast of the Lamb.
Perhaps Fr. Morris' problem was that in his attempt to downplay the parchment's importance, he unintentionally trivializes the significance of the Heavenly Marriage Feast.
May '10
Re: Fr. Jonathan Morris: A Jesus Wife Wouldn't Change Catholic Theology Or Church Practice
I was facetious earlier, being a convinced "Oxfordian" when it comes to Shakespeare. But, without opening that can of worms, I do want to challenge the comparison between those who doubt that Shakespeare is the glover's son from Avon and those who think a newly-discovered 4th century fragment of paper can obviate millennia of tradition and scholarship about Jesus' life. Three points.
1. The evidence in favor of the "traditional" authorship account (viz. that Shakespeare was the glover's son) is objectively scant, dubious and problematic. There is nothing scant, dubious or problematic in the Gospel accounts of Jesus.
2. The traditional authorship account bears no discernible relation to or significance for a literary appreciation of Shakespeare's work. The Gospel accounts of the historical Jesus are, on the other hand, the objective ground of Christian theology.
3. Most of those who hold or entertain "heretical" ideas about Shakespeare do so out of a deep love and appreciation for his works, and a desire to learn the truth about the author. Most of those who entertain the idea that Jesus was married are motivated by an anti-Christian animus.
Jun '10
Re: Fr. Jonathan Morris: A Jesus Wife Wouldn't Change Catholic Theology Or Church Practice
Lavaux: When would Jesus have found time for a wife? And how would a wife had fit into his mission?
...
18 missing years gives a young man a lot of time to get married and have children raised up to take care of themselves. People got married young in those days.
Regarding Jesus' concern for his widow -- what about all the apostles and disciples who left their families? No concern for these souls? Only his own?
I think KC's point about the teachings of the church preceding scripture to be a very important thing to contemplate. Traditional teaching is very important when thinking these things through. Really, I had never thought of this but it makes perfect sense.
Personally, I consider it very likely that Jesus had no carnal knowledge of any woman (and this is more to the point, isn't it?) and I love Joseph Stanko's very important reason for this:
Jesus, as the Christ, would certainly have lived during His short sojourn here, as an example, as He would for eternity.