Amoris laetitia, Can a case be made for polygamists?

[Ubenedictus]

I know the question is strange, but the African church does have a polygamy problem and since the time of the missionaries people practicing polygamy have been prevented from communion, the reasons are pretty similar to that of the divorced and remarried.

With the current discussions we know that grave matter doesnt equal mortal sin, can this reason be applied to allow polygamist receive communion?

An african bishop asked a similar question on twitter.

 

[goout]

I know the question is strange, but the African church does have a polygamy problem and since the time of the missionaries people practicing polygamy have been prevented from communion, the reasons are pretty similar to that of the divorced and remarried.

With the current discussions we know that grave matter doesnt equal mortal sin, can this reason be applied to allow polygamist receive communion?

An african bishop asked a similar question on twitter.

What does the Church teach about polygamy?

Conscience is always subject to Truth, not the other way around.

 

[pnewton]

I asked this question of an African priest once. It is not as cut and dry as we might think, at least occassionally it is dicey. One simply cannot kill of the extra wife, which would be kinder, or abandon her to starvation. The only answer I received is that it is a difficult issue in some situations.

I asked once before here (with no answer) if Rachel was the wife or Jacob. The Bible says she was. Also, why was David forgiven without having to separate from Bathsheba?

 

[Ubenedictus]

What does the Church teach about polygamy?

Conscience is always subject to Truth, not the other way around.

The church says polygamy is a sin, a grave one and polygamist in africa are barred from communion. After divorce the catechism says the following on polygamy:
“[Conjugal] communion is radically
contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact,
directly negates the plan of God which
was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive”.

Now if a case can be made that allows the remarried to receive communion why not also for the polygamist?

 

[pnewton]

From the catechism:

In the Old Testament the polygamy of patriarchs and kings is not yet explicitly rejected.

Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive.

Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage;

 

[Ubenedictus]

I asked this question of an African priest once. It is not as cut and dry as we might think, at least occassionally it is dicey. One simply cannot kill of the extra wife, which would be kinder, or abandon her to starvation. The only answer I received is that it is a difficult issue in some situations.

The practice in Africa is to make the man stop conjugal relations with all but one of his wives or he will not be allowed to receive communion

I asked once before here (with no answer) if Rachel was the wife or Jacob. The Bible says she was. Also, why was David forgiven without having to separate from Bathsheba?

That was under the old law AKA law of moses, the new law says monogamy.

 

[Ubenedictus]

From the catechism:

In the Old Testament the polygamy of patriarchs and kings is not yet explicitly rejected.

Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive.

Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage;

True, and divorce and remarriage is incompatible with the indissolubility of marriage. Now the remarried are told that it is possible that their grave sin isn’t really mortal sin and should not or may not prevent them from communion.

My question is simple, doesn’t this equally open the door for the polygamist? His grave sin may lack sufficient knowledge or/and consent and thus his practice of polygamy may actually be a venial sin and thus shouldn’t the polygamist be allowed communion?

 

[pnewton]

The practice in Africa is to make the man stop conjugal relations with all but one of his wives or he will not be allowed to receive communion

That was under the old law AKA law of moses, the new law says monogamy.

That is obvious. However, the point is, did God give Moses and immoral law? No. Did God forgive David even though he was in a state of mortal sin? No. Yet the answer to both of these questions would be have to be yes if both polygamy and divorce and remarriage are always objectively mortally sinful, wouldn’t they? Or, as another possibility, one that I hold, what is objectively mortally sinful is not as important as what is actually mortally sinful, at least to God.

I am actually more sympathetic to the polygamist who lives in a marriage culture closer to that of a time before Christ than I am the culture of the West that has allowed divorce to be “no-fault”.

If the point is to make a strong stance against polygamy, then mercy killing of the other spouses makes as much sense. After all, in other cultures God did ask for the extermination of innocents to protect the people of Israel from contamination. Or we could just acknowledge that Christianity isn’t for everyone and there is no Christ for people in such ignorance.

The Old Testament morality is very important, not because we should follow that law, but because it provides valuable data about what objective morality is, and what objective morality cannot be. Objective morality cannot contradict God, either today through His Church, or in the past when He spoke to Moses and the various prophets.

 

[e_c]

That is obvious. However, the point is, did God give Moses and immoral law? No. Did God forgive David even though he was in a state of mortal sin? No. Yet the answer to both of these questions would be have to be yes if both polygamy and divorce and remarriage are always objectively mortally sinful, wouldn’t they? Or, as another possibility, one that I hold, what is objectively mortally sinful is not as important as what is actually mortally sinful, at least to God.

I did not follow this at all.

Where is the polygamy law given to Moses?

What are we to think of this in light of Jesus’ characterization of at least part of the Mosaic marriage code as “given by Moses” rather than as “given by God”?

When did God not forgive David???

Is the distinction you are making between “objectively mortally sinful” and “actually mortally sinful” just grave matter - or even its public implication (such as in a civil remarriage) - and “mortal sin”?

The OP’s question - which is the Cardinal’s question - is an excellent one. It helps to show how gravely problematic Amoris is.

 

[pnewton]

I did not follow this at all.

Where is the polygamy law given to Moses?

What are we to think of this in light of Jesus’ characterization of at least part of the Mosaic marriage code as “given by Moses” rather than as “given by God”?

The Law was given through Moses, as was the Ten Commandments. If the legitimacy of any of the law is doubted (for the people, at that time), then all is in doubt and you prove the Decalogue a construct of Moses, not God.

When did God not forgive David???

He did, even though he was not required to separate in any way from Bathsheba. That’s kind of the point.

The OP’s question - which is the Cardinal’s question - is an excellent one. It helps to show how gravely problematic Amoris is.

All a matter of perspective. I think it shows how insightful and needed it is.

 

[Ubenedictus]

pnewton, I don’t really get your line of thought.

Jesus actually says that some laws were given by moses to placate the people, Jesus says from the begining God wanted one man to one wife, this is why a polygamist is supposed to take one wife only and leave the others.

The issue of staving a spouse doesn’t make any sense to me and I honestly dont know how staving a spouse to death helps anything.

The question still remains why should the explanation many are using to advocate communion for the remarried not apply for the polygamist?

 

[goout]

because of your hardheartedness, Moses allowed…
But (God says) from the beginning it was not so…

Words from the Master’s mouth.

 

[e_c]

The Law was given through Moses, as was the Ten Commandments. If the legitimacy of any of the law is doubted (for the people, at that time), then all is in doubt and you prove the Decalogue a construct of Moses, not God.

He did, even though he was not required to separate in any way from Bathsheba. That’s kind of the point.

All a matter of perspective. I think it shows how insightful and needed it is.

1. WHERE is the law about polygamy? “I’m from Missouri - you have to SHOW me.”
2. HOW is this adultery?
3. What is needed is clarity based on the constant teaching and discipline in the Church. Why can’t polygamists be accommodated? Why not rapists? Why not people in same-sex unions? Why not thieves? Why not people cohabitating?

Actually though, c. 915 does not publicly apply to the rapist, or the thief, or the one cohabitating… That’s c. 916.

 

[pnewton]

Words from the Master’s mouth.

Wow.
I do not know I have come across Catholics that do not believe the Old Testament is inspired. There is no contradiction between God giving the law to Moses for the people and what Jesus said. It makes much more sense that Moses going off the reservation and against the will of God.

If you do not think God spoke to Moses and delivered the law through him, I guess I will move on.

Some things do take study in theology though.

 

[pnewton]

1. WHERE is the law about polygamy? “I’m from Missouri - you have to SHOW me.”
   .

I never said there was polygamy in the law. I do not know where that idea came from. As to the other questions, I do not understand the relevance. I have no desire to chase straw men.

Perhaps the next year will shed light on this topic as Amoris Laetitia is being implemented worldwide, including Africa.

 

[Ubenedictus]

I never said there was polygamy in the law. I do not know where that idea came from. As to the other questions, I do not understand the relevance. I have no desire to chase straw men.

Perhaps the next year will shed light on this topic as Amoris Laetitia is being implemented worldwide, including Africa.

Actually the African bishops conferences aren’t saying anything about amoris laetitia until it can be understood, many conferences in europe are saying nothing in practice has changed, add american bishops to the mix of those waiting for clarification.

Only in argentina do we find a bishop claiming something changed… That is hardly what i’ll call worldwide implementation.

 

[Ubenedictus]

I never said there was polygamy in the law. I do not know where that idea came from. As to the other questions, I do not understand the relevance. I have no desire to chase straw men.

Perhaps the next year will shed light on this topic as Amoris Laetitia is being implemented worldwide, including Africa.

Wow.
I do not know I have come across Catholics that do not believe the Old Testament is inspired. There is no contradiction between God giving the law to Moses for the people and what Jesus said. It makes much more sense that Moses going off the reservation and against the will of God.

If you do not think God spoke to Moses and delivered the law through him, I guess I will move on.

Some things do take study in theology though.

no one has said the old testament is uninspired, what has been implied is that much of the old law has lost their judicial power and no longer binding on a christian, and that is actually doctrine.

 

[goout]

Wow.
I do not know I have come across Catholics that do not believe the Old Testament is inspired. There is no contradiction between God giving the law to Moses for the people and what Jesus said. It makes much more sense that Moses going off the reservation and against the will of God.

Straw man.
Where did I claim the OT is not inspired?
I observed, with Christ, that “Moses allowed divorce, but from the beginnig it was not so”.

 

[e_c]

Wow.
I do not know I have come across Catholics that do not believe the Old Testament is inspired. There is no contradiction between God giving the law to Moses for the people and what Jesus said. It makes much more sense that Moses going off the reservation and against the will of God.

If you do not think God spoke to Moses and delivered the law through him, I guess I will move on.

Some things do take study in theology though.

This is inappropriate.

I never said there was polygamy in the law. I do not know where that idea came from. As to the other questions, I do not understand the relevance. I have no desire to chase straw men.

Perhaps the next year will shed light on this topic as Amoris Laetitia is being implemented worldwide, including Africa.

I suppose I misunderstood your rhetorical question about God giving Moses an immoral law. It certainly seems that Jesus interprets Moses as having given that law himself, rather than as one coming from God directly. It is also relevant that law need not and often should not punish all evils, since the hard-hearted (!) would be likely to despair of it entirely.

I would not be so sure that AL is being “implemented” so much as it is affirming what bishops’ conferences, dioceses, and parishes have already been doing, or is simply contradicting what those persons have been doing. There is no change in law given, so what exactly is to be implemented? It is a dense and murky pastoral document (and the longest papal document EVER) full of confusing ideas, not a motu proprio.

 

[pnewton]

no one has said the old testament is uninspired, what has been implied is that much of the old law has lost their judicial power and no longer binding on a christian, and that is actually doctrine.

Straw man.
Where did I claim the OT is not inspired?
I observed, with Christ, that “Moses allowed divorce, but from the beginnig it was not so”.

Then I misunderstood you. Let me see if I can word this in a different way. Did Moses, in passing on the law that he claimed to have received for God for the people of Israel, truly pass on a law that he had received from God? Was that law gravely immoral?

I know it doesn’t apply today. Yet if it was legitimate for the people at that time, it limits (not just in marriage but everywhere) what the moral natural law, eternal, black and white, never changing, can and cannot be.

By the way, I have never heard, was truly surprised and at sea with the interpretation of Jesus speaking of Moses. I truly had never heard anyone who believed it to mean that Moses gave the law independent of God. Jesus himself did not criticize Moses, or criticize the writ of divorce, as it was used for the sojourning nation 2000 years prior. In fact, his reference to Moses giving it was only any echoing of the question, as it was the Pharisees that first mention Moses.

A similar question could be asked of Nathan. Was he a prophet of God? Did he speak for God when he told David his sin was forgiven, even though David did not ever separate from Bathsheba?