PSYCHODYNAMICS

LOVE AND FAITHFULNESS

Love and faithfulness meet together; righteousness and peace kiss each other. (Psalm 85:10)

As a Judge I have officiated hundreds of marriages and I always underscore the importance of performing the basic obligations Love and faithfulness meet together; righteousness and peace kiss each other. (Psalm 85:10)

As a Judge I have officiated hundreds of marriages and I always underscore the importance of performing the basic obligations of marriage to the couple who would present themselves to be married.

The two major pillars of marriage, among others, are love and faithfulness. The failure to love and be faithful would inevitably lead to a failed marriage. These are marital obligations which cannot be compromised.

The Psalmist has a graphic way of describing love and faithfulness: they meet together. 

And so does righteousness and peace. They kiss each other. 

It is not hard to see that when love and faithfulness prevails in a marriage, there is righteousness and peace.    

of marriage to the couple who would present themselves to be married.

The two major pillars of marriage, among others, are love and faithfulness. The failure to love and be faithful would inevitably lead to a failed marriage. These are marital obligations which cannot be compromised.

The Psalmist has a graphic way of describing love and faithfulness: they meet together. 

And so does righteousness and peace. They kiss each other. 

It is not hard to see that when love and faithfulness prevails in a marriage, there is righteousness and peace.    

The Righteousness Of Joseph: Rising Above Legalism

The Righteousness Of Joseph: Rising Above Legalism

I am fascinated by  Joseph, the earthly human father of Jesus Christ. Here is a man who broke away from the legal conventions of Jewish law pertaining to marriage.

To clearly appreciate why the Holy Scripture describes Joseph as a righteous man, we have to take a closer look at the Jewish system of marriage. Jewish law like any legal system governing marriages has remarkably strict formal requisites. This was the legal milieu in which our Savior was conceived, and born, from a humble couple of Jewish ancestry of the lineage of King David, admittedly the greatest king of Israel.

The virgin birth of our Lord and the blessedness of Mary His mother have been the focus of the spotlight in this tableau that Joseph has so far been overshadowed. 

The Bible declares Joseph was a righteous man. With this affirmation it may be well to shift the spotlight and see what kind of a man was Joseph, the husband of Mary. I mentioned the Jewish custom on marriage at the outset because this is the mirror where we begin to see  up close the face of this man,  husband and father.

We are told that the angel came to a virgin named Mary, the favored one. The virginity of Mary is affirmed in Scripture.  She was sexually pure, signifying that the human agency whom God chose to bring His Son into this world was a pure vessel.

Now Mary the virgin was already betrothed to Joseph when the angel delivered the news that she was with child by the Holy Spirit. This news was shocking. Obviously Mary did not tell Joseph that she was pregnant. But sooner the discovery became inevitable, as Joseph was kept in the dark. His virgin bride, was pregnant a terribly scandalous situation.

To fully appreciate the impact of this unexplained pregnancy of Mary upon Joseph, we need to look into  the basic formalities of Jewish marriage in those days.

In those days marriage consists of two stages: First stage is the betrothal. Second stage is the Marriage Proper which happens one year later from betrothal.

In the betrothal stage,   the engagement is formalized by an agreement. This is initiated usually by the father of the groom, and the respective parents of the bride and the groom meet and negotiate the marriage settlement. When the agreement is done, the Qiddushin or formal betrothal takes place.  This formal betrothal is as binding as marriage itself, although there is no marriage ceremony that takes place yet.

The betrothal agreement, however, is as binding as marriage itself, since the only way to get out of this relationship is by divorce.  If Joseph had died between the betrothal and the marriage, Mary would have been his legal widow.

It was at this stage of formal engagement between Joseph and Mary, that Mary became pregnant with child, as announced by the angel. They had to wait for a year for the marriage ceremony to take place. The binding effect  of Jewish marriage already applies in the betrothal stage. The wedding celebration or ceremony which would come later after a year, is only a recognition of the formal agreement already established in the engagement.  

This is the reason why in Matthew, we read that “Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 1:18),  and in the succeeding verse Joseph is described as Mary’s “husband” which seems to contradict the previous statement that they were only “pledged to be married.”  

There is no contradiction here because Jewish law already considers them as husband and wife even at the betrothal stage. This is the reason why Joseph had the perfect right to travel with Mary to Bethlehem. They were considered as husband and wife, but the only prohibition was that they should refrain from sexual relations until the second stage of the marriage is completed, that is, the marriage ceremony.

The pregnancy of Mary at this  stage, was highly scandalous more so with Joseph who surely knew that he was not the human agency who caused the pregnancy of his wife. This is not only scandalous but evidence of adultery.   This was indeed a shocking revelation to Joseph. The only thing he knew about the child Mary was carrying was he did not sire the child. And the only humanly possible  conclusion that could be drawn from this situation was that Mary committed adultery. Jewish law at that time provided for the harshest  penalty for adultery that is death by stoning. It is also a ground for divorce.

As we focus the spotlight on Joseph what did he do to merit the Biblical declaration that he was righteous?  

Let’s read  Matthew, “Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, Joseph  son of David do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife because what is conceived in  her is from the Holy Spirit.”

Here we see that even before the angel appeared to Joseph and explained everything to him, his thought and action revealed his merciful heart,  overflowing with kindness and forgiveness.  He did not want to expose Mary if Mary had really done such a thing to defile their marital union. Joseph was a merciful, forgiving, and compassionate man. He did not want to humiliate Mary. He did not want to expose her publicly and condemn her even at the risk of placing her under indictment for adultery. He did not want to accuse her of a grievous sin. He did not want to hurt her, nor avenge the dishonor.   He chose not to exercise the full extent of his  legal rights, and instead suffered to be wronged.

Here is a man who stands out for his kindness, compassion, forgiving spirit, and love. A man of rare qualities  shining like a gem in this unforgiving  world, where we frequently  see  condemnation, hatred, and indecency.

  

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS OF LIVE IN PARTNERS

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS OF LIVE IN PARTNERS

When it comes to marriage and family life, the Philippines stands out, among other nations, to be firmly conservative. The prevailing State policy is fiercely protective of marriage, that divorce, has not gain a foothold to find its way in the statute books.

State policy declares marriage as an institution which is sacrosanct. Getting married is not as easy as one thinks. The first step is getting a license, and there are formal and legal requisites. Marriage provides for rights and obligations affecting family relations.  

Philippine law, defines family relations as one which includes the husband and the wife, parents and children, ascendants and descendants, brothers and sisters. These are relations within  the nucleus of marriage.

Studies reveal that while a majority men and women prefer to be bound in marriage through church-civil rites, the number of couples simply cohabiting outside the bond of marriage is increasing. The “live in” arrangement has gained a wide acceptance among adults of this generation. Many are hardly aware of the legal effects of their non-marital union.

The most frequently asked questions by live in partners who commit to a non-marital union are concerning the status of their children and their property relations.

The Family Code identifies two types of non-marital union between a man and a woman.

The first type is the cohabitation of a man and a woman, who are both in a legal position to freely marry each other, because they possess the legal capacity to enter into marriage, but they chose not to. They just live together like husband and wife, cohabiting exclusively, without benefit of marriage.

The second type is the cohabitation of a man and a woman, who, either or both, have no legal capacity to marry each other. In this situation they cannot freely marry each other even if they wanted to, because of an existing legal impediment or legal incapacity. One example would be a married man living with a woman not his wife, though the cohabitation is not exclusive.

The children born in these types of non-marital union are illegitimate. As illegitimate children they only have the rights of an illegitimate child under the law. They may establish their illegitimate filiation.

When properties are acquired, in a non-marital union, the rule which would govern the property relations of the partners would depend on which type of non-marital union they would fall.

In the first type of non-marital union where the parties live together outside the bond of marriage, though they have the legal capacity to marry each other, the rule on full co-ownership would apply in their property relations. The co-ownership would cover their wages and salaries, and the properties they acquire through their work or industry.

In the second type of non-marital union where the couple has no legal capacity to marry each other, the rule on limited co-ownership would apply in their property relations.

In this case the limited co-ownership would cover only their actual joint contribution of money; actual joint contribution of property; and actual joint contribution of industry. The salaries and wages are excluded, since only their actual and joint contribution of money, or property, or industry are included.

The situation may becomes a little  complicated when the partners decide to terminate or dissolve the relationship. This raises questions as to how the parent and child attachment relationship would be preserved, or resolved.  

The termination of the relationship would further entail the dissolution of the  of  the co-ownership of the partners’ properties. Again the question boils down to the determination of the extent of their acquisition and their respective shares in the partition.