Development of Catholic Marital Doctrines? And Traditional Marriage History?

[Safia]

Hi all! In a class of mine today, the professor and the students discussed definitions of “conservative,” “liberal,” and “radical,” etc., and one of the definitions for “conservative” that came up was pro-traditional family, and that for many conservatives, this is a Christian POV based on Scripture.

The professor (though he calls himself a Christian, and is gay with children) had a few problems with this, and the many different possible interpretations possible for Abrahamic religions (Christianity/Judaism/Islam):

• Jews in the OT didn’t understand Genesis to mean that marriage is between “one man and one woman,” for they allowed multiple wives, etc. (Solomon, anyone?) (And is this the case with modern-day Jews?)
• Moses had two wives.
• St. Paul was pro-polygamy.
• The first recorded marital ceremony is actually pretty recent. (I don’t know if this is true.)
• In the U.S., marriage has a history of being economically-centered – i.e., in the 1800s, you’d marry for economic purposes, and the wife and children were treated as economic commodities.

Can someone help me defend the Church’s view of marriage? The argument in class is that, because times change, and because there are many cultural and political and social and economic forces at work at any particular moment, the state has an obligation of sorts to respond to the demands of the time.

What is the history of the Church’s teaching? When did marriage come to be understood in the way we understand it now? How do you respond to someone (who’s apparently pretty sola scriptura) that St. Paul doesn’t matter? (And how does the Church understand his pro-polygamy stance? And I think my prof mentioned there are also other NT references to polygamy.)

And what about the state of marriage as an economic agreement in the U.S.? We understand the Sacrament as a commitment, but apparently, that wasn’t the case culturally. I don’t think it denies the validity of the Church’s teaching whatsoever, but it makes it tougher to defend the CC having the right to support a particular worldview.

Help, with any of this? Thank you!

 

[SonCatcher]

He is incorrect. Moses had one wife who was alternately referred to as being a Kushite or being a Midianite. All that is known for certain is that she wasn’t Jewish.

St. Paul was not pro polygamy (where on earth could he have gotten that from? - demand references chapter and verse to his writings AND to the Church Fathers who understood him to be writing in support of polygamy). The only thing he wrote on the matter was that bishops and deacons should note have been polygamists previously (many converts in the early Church had been polygamists prior to conversion. They were required to give up all but one wife).

Since wedding ceremonies are mainly cultural, their recordings are largely irrelevant. However, marriage ceremonies are recorded in the Bible among the Patriarchs (Isaac, Jacob).

Marriage in the U.S. during that time was not for economy but to explode the population. People saw marrying and having large families as an integral part of the “Manifest Destiny.”

 

[Safia]

Can someone explain to me why the CC bases its current marital doctrine on Genesis (in part) – at least JPII’s analysis in THEOLOGY OF THE BODY was deeply embedded there – when there are other examples in the OT of marriages we wouldn’t support? Is the argument that they were unnatural? Are they ever said to be unnatural? Or is the argument that the creation of Adam + Eve in the Garden of Eden, entirely separate from the world of sin that follows, is our reference point?

Help!

Here’s the chart I’m looking at, for reference: gospelaccordingtohate.com/2011/10/biblical-marriage-traditional-christian.html.

 

[Warloff]

Can someone explain to me why the CC bases its current marital doctrine on Genesis (in part) – at least JPII’s analysis in THEOLOGY OF THE BODY was deeply embedded there – when there are other examples in the OT of marriages we wouldn’t support? Is the argument that they were unnatural? Are they ever said to be unnatural? Or is the argument that the creation of Adam + Eve in the Garden of Eden, entirely separate from the world of sin that follows, is our reference point?

Help!

Here’s the chart I’m looking at, for reference: gospelaccordingtohate.com/2011/10/biblical-marriage-traditional-christian.html.

John Paul II says we should strive for marriages as existed before the fall. Original sin distorted the nature of marriage and it would not be until Christ that marriage would be restored to it’s pre-fall state. As Christ notes the old testament allowed divorce because men’s hearts were hard, but he hence forbade it.

 

[SonCatcher]

Can someone explain to me why the CC bases its current marital doctrine on Genesis (in part) – at least JPII’s analysis in THEOLOGY OF THE BODY was deeply embedded there – when there are other examples in the OT of marriages we wouldn’t support? Is the argument that they were unnatural? Are they ever said to be unnatural? Or is the argument that the creation of Adam + Eve in the Garden of Eden, entirely separate from the world of sin that follows, is our reference point?

Help!

Here’s the chart I’m looking at, for reference: gospelaccordingtohate.com/2011/10/biblical-marriage-traditional-christian.html.

That website is designed to attack faith. It does not accurately represent Christian theology at all. Instead, it mocks faith based on a few perceived inconsistencies. The passages referred to in that chart are not referenced in Theology of the Body as models of proper marriage. Those regulations were actually to prevent further abuse (due to the “hardness of their hearts”) until the world was ready for the message of Jesus. When it was ready, He elevated the first marriage before the Fall as the example (excluding all the questionable regulations) and called everything else either adulterous or immoral.

The model of marriage Genesis is as it was before the Fall. One man and one woman, both of whom were perfectly ordered in their desires.

 

[vsedriver]

Help!

Here’s the chart I’m looking at, for reference: gospelaccordingtohate.com/2011/10/biblical-marriage-traditional-christian.html.

Jesus clears up the confusion in Matthew 19. He says that there were things permitted by Moses because of the hard hearts of the people. But it was never meant by God to be that way from the beginning. So Jesus then sets the record straight that two shall become one. That man can’t separate what God has joined together.

Therefore the Church teaches that marriage originated with Adam and Eve. One man and one woman become one flesh permanently.

 

[Safia]

And has this always been the teaching of the CC?

 

[SonCatcher]

And has this always been the teaching of the CC?

The Catholic Church, following the example of her founder, has always lifted up the first marriage as the model for all marriages. She has never strayed from this teaching. Even St. Paul taught the same.

 

[manualman]

Can someone explain to me why the CC bases its current marital doctrine on Genesis (in part) – at least JPII’s analysis in THEOLOGY OF THE BODY was deeply embedded there – when there are other examples in the OT of marriages we wouldn’t support?

Catholicism has never taken the position that everything and everything done by biblical figures is an example of morality and decency. If anything the polygamous patriarchs in the OT and their travails are examples of how we learned culturally just how innately harmful polygamy really is. Even in the OT, good things never came from it. Go read it if you doubt me. How’d it work out for Soloman? How did Jacob’s sons get along? Can you name a polygamous arrangement in the bible where the outcome is portrayed as positive? I can’t.

The bible isn’t a catechism, it is a library covering the story of man’s relationship with God. It includes tragedies, heros, villians and just about everybody in it is shown to be a fallen human being in need of a Savior.