Anything in the OT that bans polygamy?

[goout]

And yet we regularly disagree with some OT verses as Judaism itself interprets them.
They should know better than us according to your hermeneutic principle above.

He’s not saying that. It’s not a dichotomy “better than”. The text needs to be understood in original context, that’s all. That doesn’t mean that specific contextual reading dictates Catholic theology.

But then you will say we or Peter have some monopoly on the Holy Spirit etc etc.

Inspiration is not something that is monopolized. The Holy Spirit breathes through the Church for all people.

Not that any infallible statement has ever been made re whether the OT condemned Polygamy as you assert.

This issue has nothing to do with infallible statements. The morality of an act can be determined without an infallible statement.
And morality is not about determining condemnation, it’s about determining what is good, and actions are evaluated morally in reference to that. I touched on that above.

But we may have to conclude that polygamy, while currently prohibited by the Church, is not strictly speaking in contradiction of Natural Law but only of well standing derived principles.

I am trying to think of a way that Polygamy is not in violation of natural law.
And I’m not sure what “standing derived principles” are in morality.
Again, morality refers to objective good. So if morality is derived from anything, it is derived from evaluating actions as they refer to that good.

The good does not change. The quality of human evaluations and acts may come and go.

 

[FatherSebastian]

Thank you for your very charitable words. From your response it is hard to
imagine you actually listened to what I said in the bible study. So where
did you do your PhD in Biblical Studies? I did mine at Catholic University
of America. I would imagine from your title it was at a seriously academic
Franciscan University possibly?

 

[littlebird]

Polygamy is not a healthy lifestyle.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

So where

did you do your PhD in Biblical Studies?

What’s your view on the importance (or not) of fluency in the various original languages of the bible?

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

Polygamy is not a healthy lifestyle

It’s the most frequently occurring form of marriage across the various cultures the world has know. I think it’s an ignorant statement to dismiss it so easily, you wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for the ancestors that navigated a far more dangerous world and got us here.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I am not convinced of your conclusion that the ‘men of Sodom’ were women. Either way, to relate this back to polygamy, I can agree with you on one point. It would be tactically smart for the Church to push for or even not resist efforts to allow adult consensual polygamy. My reasons for thinking this are that LGBT would no longer be as hot of a topic since the topic/acceptance of polygamy would be new and naturally take up some of the dialogue. Besides, wouldn’t Christians want their kids to learn about a form of marriage practiced in the Bible rather than learning about one that’s condemned (same-sex marriages AND assuming legalized polygamy stories would infiltrate children’s books as a way to push for tolerance?)

 

[Gorgias]

‘Hermeneutic’ from the god Hermes, the messenger and the trickster…

To be fair, well, umm… no.

“Hermeneutic” doesn’t come from “Hermes”, but rather, from the Greek word for “interpret”. The name ‘Hermes’ might also come from that root… but you’re getting the etymology wrong if you say that “hermeneutics” spring from Hermes…

 

[Gorgias]

What’s your view on the importance (or not) of fluency in the various original languages of the bible?

Fluency for whom? Scripture scholars? Theologians? Ordained ministers? Laity?

Fluency to what degree? An understanding of the language as a whole, or of particular words/phrases/sentences/passages with respect to particular Church teachings?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

When you speak about morality, fundamentally you identify what is good and then evaluate acts in reference to that good.

Then, does the particular act you are evaluating contribute to that good? Is it ordered to that good? Or, does it detract from that good?

If you elaborated on what you meant by good or what marriage was good for, then I’m sure you and I would have differences. I assume that your source for all of the good characteristics that marriages should have comes from the Catechism. To me, a marriage at bare minimum should involve love and raising kids - something which is very possible in polygamy given the right type of people involved…

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I’ve debated some of those who claim to be scholars. I’ve also found that some of them actually accept polygamy or are agnostic on the issue. I always present two lines of evidence for polygamy and not one of the anti-polygamy crowd have been able to refute it. So I’d like to see how you or any others in your line of thinking can logically refute the following:

Evidence 1:
Genesis 29:30-33 Shows God wanting a man to love two women and impregnate them. These are clearly functions of ‘polygamy’. All that God does and “wants” are morally good. Therefore, ONE man loving TWO women and impregnating them (i.e. polygamy) is moral!

Evidence 2:
The very definition of biblical ‘adultery’ is a man that sleeps with another man’s wife. This does not restrict a man from taking multiple woman just as long as they don’t belong to another man, whereas a married woman is always a mans’ wife so she’s always stuck to ONE man. What would be the role of such unequal terms for adultery if not to support polygyny?!

 

[Benadam]

Catholic thought on polygamy as I understand, its not the ideal form only permissable under conditions that would be rare. A lopsided ratio of men to women for example

 

[BlackFriar]

Not only have you not really grasped my observations but nor have you read Aquinas. So my apologies if I dont pursue your reflections on observations I was really putting to another.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Catholic thought on polygamy as I understand, its not the ideal form only permissable under conditions that would be rare. A lopsided ratio of men to women for example

This view amounts to some form of dispensationalism. The problem that I find with this view is that there tends to be a lack of evidence behind why a divinely appointed period of time exists, if it can even be proven that something was supposed to exist for a period of time in the first place.

Lets take polygamy, for example. I’ve run across different reasons, like polygamy being allowed because of hardness of hearts, or because of God wanting to let the culture play out for some time, or to boost the population, etc. Well, which is it? Any way to prove any explanation so that we can prevent people from just coming up with anything?

Secondly, I find that this Catholic view reduces morality to being circumstantial rather than absolute. In other words, under certain circumstances, God possibly could allow murder (movie: The Purge), allow stealing, allow to gays to love each other, etc. In that case, what’s the point of natural law?

I find it very convenient that God no longer allows certain moral rules to be broken with impunity since the closing of the Bible canon. If God gave someone a message that gays can now marry, I highly doubt the Catholic Church would ever acknowledge it.

 

[BlackFriar]

Thank you for your very charitable words.

FS my words were neither charitable nor uncharitable because I was critiquing the views you espouse above not your person I hope.

From your response it is hard to imagine you actually listened to what I said in the bible study.

As has already been observed nobody on a forum is going to listen to all 50 mins of the personal views of an anonymous CAF member’s audio to find the 5 min pith even if you have also done a few years Biblical studies. If you had a reputation like R. Brown or JMOconnor maybe. If you cannot summarise it here in a few sentences or give the hh:mm its a case of a tree falling in the forest but nobody was there to hear it. There are so many, nobody stops to listen to them all except the tall ones.

So where did you do your PhD in Biblical Studies? I did mine at Catholic University of America.

I have never seen great value in arguing from authority when doing apologetics and we are no longer preaching to the choir (or shouldnt be). I prefer to judge the authority of a persons arguments from their depth of life experience, common sense, analogy from secular parallels, breadth of learning and use of reason as well in a sort of weighted average approach. “How high…” p***ing contests do seem a little Wizard of Oz for me.

It would be more helpful if you chased the ball…and maybe had some observations on Aquinas’s approach.
Or why you think God wanted Amos to take a harlot for a 2nd wife etc.

 

[BlackFriar]

Agreed, context is everything.
Given the conditions of the times it may have been a very suc cessful means for upcoming powerful men to secure more power and influence quickly for their legacy.
God obviously wasnt above allowing same for the Patriachs to achieve his purposes.
I think even the medieval theologians respected this excuse for their tolerated polygamy.

 

[BlackFriar]

Lets take polygamy, for example. I’ve run across different reasons, like polygamy being allowed because of hardness of hearts, or because of God wanting to let the culture play out for some time, or to boost the population, etc. Well, which is it?

Well if Jesus used it re indisolubility of marriage its a very strong analogical and consistent parallel.
But the point is noone has to come up with an argument for it because it was clearly practised by the Patriachs and even a prophet or two. Who knows why it petered out…perhaps the fall of chauvenism. Anyways the problem, as the author of the thread actually asks, is therefore why no polygamy now?
Probably because Christians shaped European history. And Jesus clearly said it was spiritually immature.

Secondly, I find that this Catholic view reduces morality to being circumstantial rather than absolute

Exactly so it is an acceptable Catholic view. Just read Aquinas and others of his time.

God possibly could allow murder…

Indeed, this is also in the OT, only when God commands this its not called murder but rather sacrifice or punishment of captured enemies, or divine command (genocide of the Canaanites to possess their land given to the Hebrews allegedly by God).
See the recent thread on why God killed babies.

I dont go along with this relativist medieval view myself.
Biblical criticism has come a long way since then as apologies to Galileo recently show. Catholics no longer have to believe God actually commanded all these things, rather its a literary device or, in Galileo’s case, not literally true that the sun rises and the earth is the centre of the cosmos. Belief in the supremacy of Man in God’s eyes does not hinge on the arrangement of the planets, even if the Bible was scientifically true.

 

[Benadam]

Lets take polygamy, for example. I’ve run across different reasons, like polygamy being allowed because of hardness of hearts, or because of God wanting to let the culture play out for some time, or to boost the population, etc. Well, which is it? Any way to prove any explanation so that we can prevent people from just coming up with anything?

Hardness of heart was why Moses allowed divorce. Not a condition that stands to reason for polygamy. Don’t know what is meant by letting a culture play out. Generating a population with two lines from one generator to increase population is speculation, but, I think that can stand to reason, but it is speculation only.

I think you confuse the condition I mentioned with the ones you’ve heard before.
Most of the polygamy I remember in the OT resulted in problems. Abraham wasn’t exactly rewarded for taking Hagar as a concubine. Sarah’s reason for it was lack of faith. Polygamy is not explicitly condemned but it isn’t approved either. No one can say that God approved polygamy in the OT. The permissions are speculation. Maybe God did, there is reason to think it possible. Maybe He didn’t.

You mentioned morals relative to circumstance. They most definitely are. There are circumstances an act is moral and others it is not.

As it pertains to polygamy here is an example of a circumstance that may permit polygamy as a solution.

If a society was forced into defending it’self, and lost 50% of it’s males. If polygamy is not permitted half the women in this society will have an urge to reproduce that will not be satisfied unless they sin.The living conditions of this society has been changed by war. It has become an environment that scandalizes the women who will not become wives but want to. This circumstance presents an inherent evil The consequences of a society that half the women are unwed but want to be is an unknown evil. If it were determined that the consequences of the unknown evil was greater than the evil of polygamy, in this circumstance polygamy would be permissible…

 

[BlackFriar]

Not a condition that stands to reason for polygamy.

Do you have a reason for being so confident?

Agree that polygamy is not against primary Natural Law.

I don’t really believe God ever desired it of anyone in the OT, even if Amos? believed God was asking him to take a second wife to give a lesson to the people.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

Theology isn’t my strong point but certainly from a historical / sociological stand point then polygamy made a lot of sense in OT times and not much sense now.

 

[Benadam]

Yes, If it were, Moses would have allowed it too. If it were reasonable to treat an evil that is in the heart that pertains to the marital bond by permitting polygamy, I think we would see it permitted. we don’t.