Amoris laetitia, Can a case be made for polygamists?

[Vico]

T…
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?

So this is not marriage at all because of defective consent which requires exclusiveness. Once the person becomes aware that this is a grave sin and repents of it, then the remaining issue is willingness to separate, even though not able to separate.

• No reception of communion in the state of mortal sin.
• No scandal can be given in the reception of communion.

 

[pnewton]

So this is not marriage at all because of defective consent which requires exclusiveness.

Good point, though I still can’t imagine how this will play out.

 

[Ron_Conte]

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.

I will expand your question because it is important.
Many Catholics commit objectively grave sins without going to Confession before Communion: use of contraception, sexual sins, etc. While the current controversy surrounds the divorced and remarried, whatever is decided must apply to every objectively grave sin, not only adultery, not only polygamy, but every grave sin.

Yes, the commission of an objective mortal sin is not also an actual mortal sin, unless full knowledge and full deliberation are also present (and that is difficult to judge). I suppose that at a bare minimum, only actual mortal sin prohibits one from Communion. But I would prefer a discipline that usually requires Confession before Communion for any objectively grave sin.

 

[JPUSC]

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.

You better brush up on your theology buddy .

One of the most common topics apologists at Catholic Answers are asked about concerns the Catholic understanding of marriage, divorce, and annulments. Some people question whether the Church’s teaching in this area can be supported scripturally. The fact is that Catholic teaching may be best understood by tracing the history of marriage through the Bible.

Shortly after God created humanity, he instituted marriage. This is evidenced in the second chapter of the Bible: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). From the beginning God intended marriage to be a lifelong commitment, and his displeasure with divorce was made clear: “For I hate divorce, says the Lord the God of Israel” (Mal. 2:16).

Even so, the Mosaic law allowed divorce and remarriage among the Israelites. The Israelites saw divorce as a way to dissolve a marriage and enable the spouses to remarry others. But, as we will see, Jesus taught that this is not what God intended.

The Pharisees questioned Jesus when he taught on the permanence of marriage:

Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” (Matt. 19:3–8; cf. Mark 10:2–9; Luke 16:18)

Thus, Jesus re-established the permanence of marriage among his followers. He raised Christian marriage to the level of a sacrament and taught that sacramental marriages cannot be dissolved through divorce. This was part of Jesus’ fulfillment (or perfection) of the Old Law of which he said, “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matt. 5:17).

catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/did-jesus-allow-divorce-0

 

[Vico]

You better brush up on your theology buddy .

One of the most common topics apologists at Catholic Answers are asked about concerns the Catholic understanding of marriage, divorce, and annulments. Some people question whether the Church’s teaching in this area can be supported scripturally. The fact is that Catholic teaching may be best understood by tracing the history of marriage through the Bible.

Shortly after God created humanity, he instituted marriage. This is evidenced in the second chapter of the Bible: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). From the beginning God intended marriage to be a lifelong commitment, and his displeasure with divorce was made clear: “For I hate divorce, says the Lord the God of Israel” (Mal. 2:16).

Even so, the Mosaic law allowed divorce and remarriage among the Israelites. The Israelites saw divorce as a way to dissolve a marriage and enable the spouses to remarry others. But, as we will see, Jesus taught that this is not what God intended.

The Pharisees questioned Jesus when he taught on the permanence of marriage:

Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” (Matt. 19:3–8; cf. Mark 10:2–9; Luke 16:18)

Thus, Jesus re-established the permanence of marriage among his followers. He raised Christian marriage to the level of a sacrament and taught that sacramental marriages cannot be dissolved through divorce. This was part of Jesus’ fulfillment (or perfection) of the Old Law of which he said, “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matt. 5:17).

catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/did-jesus-allow-divorce-0

Unconsummated sacramental marriages can be dissolved since they have not yet become one flesh in their sacramental marriage.

CIC
Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called* ratum tantum* if it has not been consummated; it is called* ratum et consummatum* if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.

Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.

 

[pnewton]

You better brush up on your theology buddy.

I admit my formal studies are decades past.

The fact is that Catholic teaching may be best understood by tracing the history of marriage through the Bible.

Why trace the biblical history of marriage if it is ignored? Nothing you said addressed the issue of the history of marriage in the Bible, outside of what Jesus said, which is one data point.

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?

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?

It almost sound like you are saying Moses gave the law to the people of Israel *contrary *to the will of God, like some rogue prophet, Mohammed, Jim Jones, etc.

 

[JPUSC]

I admit my formal studies are decades past.

Why trace the biblical history of marriage if it is ignored? Nothing you said addressed the issue of the history of marriage in the Bible, outside of what Jesus said, which is one data point.

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?

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?

It almost sound like you are saying Moses gave the law to the people of Israel *contrary *to the will of God, like some rogue prophet, Mohammed, Jim Jones, etc.

First of all, Moses didn’t command–he permitted.

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Matthew 19:8-9

Second of all, It is not I, but Catholic Answers who provided that answer.

As the article says, a Catholic believes that “this was part of Jesus’ fulfillment of the Old Law.”

Moses’ law was valid for the people of Israel, but from a Catholic theological standpoint, Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law.

Old Testament law, as such, is not binding on Christians. It never has been. In fact, it was only ever binding on those to whom it was delivered—the Jews (Israelites). That said, some of that law contains elements of a law that is binding on all people of every place and time. Jesus and Paul provide evidence of this in the New Testament.

catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-we-are-not-bound-by-everything-in-the-old-law

Likewise, the new Covenant began at a passover meal, a very special passover meal we refer to as the Last Supper. Jesus becoming the unblemished sacrifice that provides the
nourishment of the meal, and spilling His blood so that no longer would it be necessary for animals to be sacrificed to renew the covenant.

saintlukeslidell.org/news/old-versus-new-covenant

With the coming of Jesus, the story of God’s covenant plan reaches its conclusion.

Jesus “fulfills” the promises of each of the five covenants we have been studying in this course - the covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and David…

In telling His Apostles to “do this in memory of Me” (see Luke 22:19), Jesus was instituting the Eucharist as a “memorial” of a new “passing over” and a new covenant.

We who believe in Jesus are to remember our salvation in a ritual meal - just as the Israelites commemorated their salvation from Egypt.

stpaulcenter.com/studies/lesson/lesson-six-the-new-and-everlasting-covenant

As noted in the text, divorce was already allowed in some circumstance(s), though there was disagreement in this matter within Judaism as to grounds for divorce. The more conservative approach interpreted Moses to allow divorce ONLY for adultery (porneia), whereas a more liberal approach allowed a man to divorce his wife for any reason. Some commentators suggest that the test or trap of the Pharisees was to get Jesus to take a position, thereby alienating at least some Jews while siding with others. But Jesus avoids this trap and gives a new teaching. No longer can there be divorce and remarriage as previously allowed because of the sinful condition of man. If Jesus had allowed divorce and remarriage for adultery, He would have been simply repeating the conservative understanding of Moses. But clearly this was not the case, for look at the response of the disciples: “If such is the case, then better not to marry.” In other words, Jesus had gone far beyond what had been allowed, so that marriage was truly binding until death. And while we can debate this seeming exception, clearly it does not allow for what we would describe as sacramental divorce and subsequent remarriage, even in the case of adultery. And quite frankly, for many Christians who might want to argue this case because of a marriage gone bad, adultery is often (though certainly not always) a symptom of a marriage gone bad long before one or both partners acted out upon marital infidelity.

ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=346885&language=en

 

[pnewton]

First of all, Moses didn’t command–he permitted.

Right and Jesus did not say he was wrong for permitting it. Either after He was incarnate, or when the law was delivered. The rest of your post is Theology 101, but does nothing to address the questions I raised, or address those elements of a law that is binding on all people of every place and time.

So no, Catholic Answers did not provide an answer to either question I posed. If you think so, and I don’t, I guess we can leave it at that since both sides are here.

As to polygamy, such a thing was not permitted under the Mosaic Law, it is contrary to God’s plan for marriage. Yet God sure seems to have permitted it, and even forgave David, who though repentant, remained in the polygamous relationship. So, while it may not be prudent, how can it be doctrinally impossible to do what God did.

 

[JPUSC]

Right and Jesus did not say he was wrong for permitting it. Either after He was incarnate, or when the law was delivered. The rest of your post is Theology 101, but does nothing to address the questions I raised, or address those elements of a law that is binding on all people of every place and time.

So no, Catholic Answers did not provide an answer to either question I posed. If you think so, and I don’t, I guess we can leave it at that since both sides are here.

As to polygamy, such a thing was not permitted under the Mosaic Law, it is contrary to God’s plan for marriage. Yet God sure seems to have permitted it, and even forgave David, who though repentant, remained in the polygamous relationship. So, while it may not be prudent, how can it be doctrinally impossible to do what God did.

Here’s one opinion from a Christian forum:

The translation is not accurate. Original Greek says “is it lawful for a man to dismiss his wife?” Not divorce. The Pharisees would never ask “is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” as it is very clearly stated in Torah that it is (Deu. 24). Rather the question is about a man leaving his wife through separation alone. They ask Jesus why did Moses permit both divorce AND separation. Moses permitted separation, but Jesus reminded them that in separation you continue married and anything you do with another partner is considered adultery. The greek word in question is apoluo ap-ol-oo’-o from Strong’s G575 and G3089 meaning; to free fully, i.e. (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively, depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon or (specially) divorce. It is used many times throughout the New Testament such as when Pilate wanted to APOLUO Jesus (Luk. 23:20), meaning let him go, not divorce him. Or Acts 28:18 when Paul is talking about being let go by the Romans, not divorced by them. Apoluo is referring to being separated from, while bill of divorce refers to a legal divorce of marriage.

christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/40815/why-would-god-permit-divorce-because-of-israels-hardness-of-heart

 

[Sky_River]

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?

Does the Bible say a man having multiple wives is a sin?

 

[Reepicheep]

Does the Bible say a man having multiple wives is a sin?

The words of Jesus: “And they shall be two in one flesh.”

 

[Sky_River]

The words of Jesus: “And they shall be two in one flesh.”

What about people who say God gave David his wives?

 

[goout]

What about people who say God gave David his wives?

Jesus is the fulfillment of all things.
IOW, what he says is the Gospel truth and should be the answer to any questions.
In regard to marriage, Christ himself refers “to the beginning”.

 

[Reepicheep]

What about people who say God gave David his wives?

To what evidence do they point? The fact that David took many wives does not mean that God told him to, or even that God condoned his doing so.

 

[goout]

To what evidence do they point? The fact that David took many wives does not mean that God told him to, or even that God condoned his doing so.

Jesus is the fulfillment of all things.
IOW, what he says is the Gospel truth and should be the answer to any questions.
In regard to marriage, Christ himself refers “to the beginning”.

Yes.
You run into this issue repeatedly in regards to the OT. It pops up all the time also in regard to documented violence in the OT.
Fundamentalists cannot escape the book. If it is written down in the bible then it must be literally God’s active will.

That perspective leaves no room for Jesus Christ, who is the fulfillment of all things. Christ himself tells us what marriage is, from the beginning.
Marriage is the primordial sign of God’s Trinitarian love. Before anything else and more profoundly than anything else, marriage shows us who God is. That is true from the beginning. Even before Adam and Eve, love is fruitful and unitive in Trinitarian life.
Father loving Son in the Holy Spirit.
Adam and Eve are the sign, or sacrament, of that reality.

 

[Sky_River]

To what evidence do they point? The fact that David took many wives does not mean that God told him to, or even that God condoned his doing so.

What is your view on this article? False teachings? biblicalpolygamy.com/exegesis/god-said-he-gave-wives/

 

[pnewton]

To what evidence do they point? The fact that David took many wives does not mean that God told him to, or even that God condoned his doing so.

No, but God did forgive David without requiring him to separate from Bathsheba, and that is the one thing we can take away. David was not in a state of mortal sin, living as a polygamist. So, it is at least possible to be in a state of polygamy and not in a state of mortal sin.

If I am wrong, why?

 

[goout]

No, but God did forgive David without requiring him to separate from Bathsheba, and that is the one thing we can take away. David was not in a state of mortal sin, living as a polygamist. So, it is at least possible to be in a state of polygamy and not in a state of mortal sin.

If I am wrong, why?

That’s a whole lot of inference, with assumptions about scripture senses etc…

 

[pnewton]

That’s a whole lot of inference, with assumptions about scripture senses etc…

I asked why so are reason could be given for disagreement. What was wrong?

 

[Vico]

I admit my formal studies are decades past.

Why trace the biblical history of marriage if it is ignored? Nothing you said addressed the issue of the history of marriage in the Bible, outside of what Jesus said, which is one data point.

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?

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?

It almost sound like you are saying Moses gave the law to the people of Israel *contrary *to the will of God, like some rogue prophet, Mohammed, Jim Jones, etc.

While polygamy has prevailed among so many peoples and over so long a period of history as to suggest that it is in some sense natural, and while it does seem to furnish a means of satisfying the stronger and more frequently recurring desires of the male, it conflicts with the numerical equality of the sexes, with the jealousy, sense of proprietorship, equality, dignity and general welfare of the wife, and with the best interests of the offspring.

In all those regions in which polygamy has existed or still exists, the status of woman is extremely low; she is treated as man’s property, not as his companion; her life is invariably one of great hardship, while her moral, spiritual, and intellectual qualities are almost utterly neglected.

…

The verdict of experience and the voice of nature reinforce, consequently, the Christian teaching on the unity of marriage. Moreover, the progress of the race toward monogamy, as well as toward a purer monogamy, during the last two thousand years, owes more to the influence of Christianity than to all other forces combined. Christianity has not only abolished or diminished polyandry and polygamy among the savage and barbarous peoples which it has converted, but it has preserved Europe from the polygamous civilization of Mohammedanism, has kept before the eyes of the more enlightened peoples the ideal of an unadulterated monogamy, and has given to the world its highest conception of the equality that should exist between the two parties in the marriage relation. And its influence on behalf of monogamy has extended, and continues to extend, far beyond the confines of those countries that call themselves Christian.

Ryan, J.A. (1910). History of Marriage. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm