No Marriage (or sex) after the Resurrection

The teaching of our Lord:

{20:34} And so, Jesus said to them: “The children of this age marry and are given in marriage.
{20:35} Yet truly, those who shall be held worthy of that age, and of the resurrection from the dead, will neither be married, nor take wives.
{20:36} For they can no longer die. For they are equal to the Angels, and they are children of God, since they are children of the resurrection.

The children of this age are those who are in the fallen state. This age is the time from the fall of Adam and Eve to the very last day, when the general Resurrection occurs. Marriage and sexual union are of the fallen state. Adam and Eve did not have sexual relations until after the Fall. If they were, in some sense, married before the Fall, which I think is true, it was not the marriage of the fallen state. The marriage of Adam and Eve in Paradise was chaste far beyond our understanding. It is not what worldly persons would call marriage. Even so, Adam was the head of his wife, Eve. She was his helper. There was a difference in roles for Adam and Eve.

After the Fall, the difference in roles for men versus women continues, but of course it is badly affected by sin. The more sinful persons are, the worse the distortion. For the faithful of this fallen age, we should understand that God wills men and women to have different roles, behavior, manners of dress and grooming, etc. For both before the Fall and after the Resurrection, men and women remain in the state that God intended, with fundamental differences according to their difference in sex.

And Jesus confirms this difference when He says, first of this age, “marry and are given in marriage.” Why use two terms, one for men “marry” and one for women “given in marriage”? And note the passive connotation for women, “given in marriage”. The reason is that men and women are intended, in this fallen age, to accept and live the plan of God that men and women have different roles and behavior. Then this acceptance is expressed by differences in clothing and grooming. And this difference for men and women continues after the Resurrection, as indicated by the phrasing: “will neither be married, nor take wives.” The passive term for women is now stated first, indicating that women in the Resurrection are freed from whatever is disordered in male and female roles in the fallen state. But that there are two terms, passive and active, indicates that this difference based on sex continues after the Resurrection. It is not solely and entirely of sin or of the fallen state.

Now I have a complaint for certain conservative Catholic women, who are careful to adhere to the above teaching, by dressing and grooming themselves in a feminine manner, and they also often wear a chapel veil at Mass, which similarly expresses a difference between men and women in religious matters. But then their behavior is like that of a badly-behaved man. They lack respect for authority in the Church, opposing their parish pastor whenever they judge him to have erred. They rebel against Pope Francis. They take roles of teaching, authority, and leadership in the parish or diocese. They read the Scriptures at Mass and distribute Communion. They do not allow their husband to be the head of their married life. Sometimes they take the lead in the family; other times they are “backseat drivers”, so that the husband seems to be in charge, but they don’t allow him to do anything contrary to their own decisions.

Most Catholic conservative women do not show the above error; only some do. But then the other side of that error is that many conservative Catholic women utterly reject any difference between men and women in behavior, roles, or dress and grooming. They have a thoroughly worldly view on that topic.

It is difficult for conservative Catholic women to adhere to the plan of God for them as women. Society presses them strongly to reject such an idea. And few in the Church have a good understanding of this part of God’s plan. (Things will improve when the great Catholic monarch and the Angelic Shepherd are in charge.)

Since there is no marriage after the Resurrection, and there is also no sin in the children of the Resurrection, there is no sexual activity. The children of the Resurrection are like the holy Angels; they are like holy innocent children. They do not have sexual relations, not even marital relations, though they will be whole human persons: body and soul. And this is clearly one of the meaning of the talk that Jesus gave on marriage after the Resurrection. No marriage and no sin means no sex.

People will continue to marry and be given in marriage in this age, right up until the actual Resurrection occurs. It’s possible that some couples might marry just before the Resurrection, and end up with a marriage that lasts only a few weeks, or days, or hours, or minutes. That would be bad timing.

Ronald L. Conte Jr.

This entry was posted in marriage. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to No Marriage (or sex) after the Resurrection

  1. David says:

    Hello Mr. Conte. I have some questions related to this post, as I have been thinking about the subjects it addresses recently.

    1. Since it seems like Adam and Eve were expected to reproduce in some way before the Fall (“Increase and multiply,” Genesis 1:28) would it have been similar to how Ss. Joachim and Anne produced the Blessed Virgin? Bl. Anne Catherine says of her conception: “They embraced each other with holy joy, and each told the other their good tidings. They were in a state of ecstasy and enveloped in a cloud of light. … I understood that, as a result of the grace here given, the conception of Mary was as pure as all conceptions would have been but for the Fall.” Jacob Boehme also teaches: “Man’s present animal method of reproducing himself originated in his fall… If there had occurred no sin, man, being the living image of God, and therefore possessing the power to create, could have produced his equals out of his own self without the existence of severed sexes.” (He held to this for differing reasons though.)

    2. If sex is just a biological fact based on one’s reproductive function, and “gender” is taken to be a culturally based expression of that (i.e. blue for boys, pink for girls, trucks, dolls, etc), since how gender is expressed can change, how much should it influence Christian behavior? What I mean is: things concerning the Church seem to always be based in biological sex, not a gender expression (males only can be part of the priesthood, not that males who fulfill gender expressions only can be). So how sinful, if any, can it be for a male person to use make-up or other things, or a female person to refuse to use it, cuts her hair short and only wears shirts and jeans. Especially if it is not a denial of what biological sex they are. Essentially: how much can these cultural expressions be related to being male or female, and if they are socially constructed, how can one determine what is really “feminine” or “masculine”? I am sorry if this question is confused and unclear, I’ve been reading about these issues recently (gender essentialism vs. constructivism, etc) and am figuring it out myself.

    Thank you for your time, God bless you, and God bless you all.

    • Ron Conte says:

      1. I think Bl. Emmerich is right that Adam and Eve would have reproduced the way that Anna and Joachim did, which was in a manner virginal and miraculous.
      2. It is not intrinsically evil, nor is it generally sinful, for a woman to wear pants or to have short hair. But women should strive to cooperate with the plan of God, depending on the circumstances of their lives. Whether there is sin, or just imperfection, and the degree of sin depends on the circumstances.

      You will notice the progression in society from dressing the same, to acting the same, to taking the same roles, to being seen as interchangeable parts in society, to same-sex marriage, to changing gender at will. The lesser sin leads to the greater sins.

    • David says:

      This makes sense, thank you for responding.

  2. Matt Z. says:

    Here is a great talk by Fr.Chad Ripperger on Modesty in clothing. It answers a lot of Davids questions on the morality of actions of males and females and how males and females are to dress. Very interesting to think that babies could have came as Mary came in St.Anne’s womb:

    For.Ripperger on Modesty in Dress:

  3. MP says:


    In your reply to David, you imply that women “acting the same” and “taking the same roles” as men is sinful.

    Do you believe that it is immoral for men and women to have interests and exhibit personality traits that are not stereotypical for their sex (e.g. tomboys)? And what are some of the roles (other than religious ones) you think are sinful for women (or, for that matter, men) to hold?

    • Ron Conte says:

      There can be overlap in interests, behavior, clothing, etc. between men and women. And I don’t want to be the one to decide on each role or point what men and women should/should not do. This is a traditional Catholic belief, and not my own invention.

Comments are closed.