Polygamy- infallible?

[royal_archer]

Obviously, the church declares that Polygamy is wrong / a sin but is this an absolute and infallible teaching or is it subject to change/ ammendment based on some circumstances such as the church practice of priests not being married.

(Don’t want to discuss the good or bad perceptions of polygamy, several threads on that already. Just want to address the church teachings, cannon law aspects.)

 

[bmullins]

The sacrament of marriage is founded on Sacred Scripture, in which scripture is fairly direct in saying that marriage is for one man and one woman to become ‘one’ unit. Polygamy is not just a canon law issue, but a violation of a sacrament. So yes, it would be infallible.

 

[1ke]

is this an absolute and infallible teaching

Yes.

 

[DexUK]

The concept of marriage between one man and one woman is absolutely, completely and irrevocably infallible.

Any other arrangement - including polygamy (alternatively described as bigamy) would not be ‘marriage’ in any way, shape or form, no matter what the temporal and secular law of the land might call it.

Possibly one of the simplest answers you can get!

 

[DesertSister62]

---

in·fal·li·ble   
adjective:

1. absolutely trustworthy or sure: an infallible rule.
2. unfailing in effectiveness or operation; certain: an infallible remedy.
3. not fallible; exempt from liability to error, as persons, their judgment, or pronouncements: an infallible principle.
4. Roman Catholic Church . immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to the Church.***

bmullins said;
Polygamy is not just a canon law issue, but a violation of a sacrament. So yes, it would be infallible.

Polygamy- infallible?

***If my understanding of the above meaning is correct, then Polygamy is NOT an infallible teaching… It is NOT immune from fallacy or error! You need to be careful as to how you word this or some people will misunderstand.

DesertSister62

---

 

[bmullins]

Let me clarify. Polgyamy is not a teaching of the church. I was in no way trying to imply that it was the teaching that Polygamy is ok. My statement was in response to his question:

Obviously, the church declares that Polygamy is wrong … is this an absolute and infallible teaching?

Polygamy is not just a canon law issue, but a violation of a sacrament. So yes, it would be infallible.

Context is everything.

 

[royal_archer]

The sacrament of marriage is founded on Sacred Scripture, in which scripture is fairly direct in saying that marriage is for one man and one woman to become ‘one’ unit. Polygamy is not just a canon law issue, but a violation of a sacrament. So yes, it would be infallible.

Thanks for the quick and clear replies.

The quotes from scripture are open to some misinterpretation. Several state one man and one woman as a given but could be misinterpreted as being nonspecific as it relates to number of spouses. (similar to the misinterpretation of “brother” with regard to Jesus’s brothers weren’t literally his brothers born of the same mother.)If the basis of the use of lines where a spouse is referred to in the singular is used as justification of a mandate for monogamy, use of the reference to spouses in the plural, complicates the prior argument. 1 Peter Chapter 3 states: 1* Likewise, you wives should be subordinate to your Husbands so that, even if some disobey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives’ conduct” The use of the term wives being plural.

The example in Titus of “For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, 6e on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious.” This appears to be directed only to church officials and not Christians at large. The need to clarify monogamy in this case, appears to acknowledge the converse of polygamy.

I have no disagreement with the church teaching on this matter, just trying to understand the paper trail of when the church interpretation was laid down infallibly. The catechism is clear but I didn’t think that something being in the catechism meant it was infallible by default. Would anyone happen to know of any official church documents which declare the infallibility of the interpretation that Polygamy by it’s very nature, is a sin under any circumstance?

 

[royal_archer]

***If my understanding of the above meaning is correct, then Polygamy is NOT an infallible teaching… It is NOT immune from fallacy or error! You need to be careful as to how you word this or some people will misunderstand.

DesertSister62

---

Sorry for confusion caused by the truncated title. I am not implying a discussion of the infallibility of the act of polygamy. As clarified in the post I am referring to the Infallibility of the Churches teaching on the act of polygamy. The longer description would not have worked well in the title block.

 

[bmullins]

Would anyone happen to know of any official church documents which declare the infallibility of the interpretation that Polygamy by it’s very nature, is a sin under any circumstance?

I don’t see scripture as being opened to interpretation. It is fairly clear that form the very beginning of creation, “a man shall leave his mother and father and cling to his wife, the two shall become one.” Not three become one, not four become one, but 2 become 1. With that being said, if you look at the council of Trent they wrote "“If any one shall say that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the Seven Sacraments of the Evangelical Law, instituted by Christ our Lord, but was invented in the Church by men, and does not confer grace, let him be anathema.” They did this in response to the fact the reformers were trying to declare marriage was not a sacrament.

The church has always taught it as dogma. The Council of Trent was not the first to say so either. It had already been said in relation to the Armenians: “The seventh sacrament is matrimony, which is a figure of the union of Christ, and the Church, according to the words of the Apostle: This is a great sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the Church.”

St Paul taught of the sacramental nature of marriage in Ephesians, and that it was a moment between two people become one. Jesus reaffirms it(not saying Jesus reaffirms Paul, I am saying Jesus reaffirms that the Law of Marriage is not changed, but rather confirms it still applies to us as a Sacrament). The first time it is mentioned is in Genesis! It is dogma.

See the following Scripture: ( Deut 24:1 ) ( Gen 1:26-28; 2:18-25; 3:12-21 ) ( 1 Cor 7:1-16,39 ) ( Mt 19:4-12 ) ( Mk 10:1-12 )

 

[Ana_v]

What about Abraham and Hagar?

Gen 16:1-4

"Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; so she said to Abram, “The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”

Abram agreed to what Sarai said. So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. He slept with Hagar, and she conceived."

The text (Genesis) is inspired. Furthermore, (in the text) there is no condemnation or disapproval expressed on God’s part against Abraham for having relations with Hagar. Not only that, Abraham is portrayed as righteous in God’s sight. What are we to conclude from this? Does this implicitly mean that what Abraham did was morally permissible?

Some options to consider:

• Hagar was not, objectively speaking (in God’s sight), Abraham’s wife. Abraham was not a polygamist

. - Abraham committed adultery, notwithstanding the lack of Scriptural characterization of his relationship with Hagar as being adulterous.

• Hagar was, objectively speaking, Abraham’s wife. Abraham was a polygamist.

• God did not approve of Abraham’s polygomy, notwithstanding his (God’s) silence in the text regarding the moral natural of this practice.
• God approved of Abraham’s polygamy, notwithstanding a lack of explicit approval of the practice or commandment to participate in it.

**I have a question, are the defintion of marriage “between one man and one woman” and polygamy, mutually exclusive? ****I realize this may come off as an utterly absurd question, but let me attempt to explain (using the Abraham example) what I mean. **

If Abraham was married to Sarah and Hagar, then, this can either be interpreted as one marriage contract, or two separate marriage contracts.

If the former, then yes, I see the traditional definition of marriage being violated.

If the latter, it is not obvious to me, how the traditional defintion of marriage is being violated.

**Abraham + Hagar + Sarah = One man and two women

vs

Abraham + Sarah = One man and one woman

Abraham + Hagar = One man and one woman **

Sorry, I’m having a hard time illustrating my thought process. Hopefully someone can percieve what I mean.

Anyways, no, I am not in support of polygamy (in case someone is wondering). I am simply trying to explore this issue in depth and contruct hypothetical objections, to then answer them (St. Thomas Aquinas?). Not that I can, at the moment, answer them.

 

[royal_archer]

I don’t see scripture as being opened to interpretation. It is fairly clear that form the very beginning of creation, “a man shall leave his mother and father and cling to his wife, the two shall become one.” Not three become one, not four become one, but 2 become 1. With that being said, if you look at the council of Trent they wrote "“If any one shall say that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the Seven Sacraments of the Evangelical Law, instituted by Christ our Lord, but was invented in the Church by men, and does not confer grace, let him be anathema.” They did this in response to the fact the reformers were trying to declare marriage was not a sacrament.

The church has always taught it as dogma. The Council of Trent was not the first to say so either. It had already been said in relation to the Armenians: “The seventh sacrament is matrimony, which is a figure of the union of Christ, and the Church, according to the words of the Apostle: This is a great sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the Church.”

St Paul taught of the sacramental nature of marriage in Ephesians, and that it was a moment between two people become one. Jesus reaffirms it(not saying Jesus reaffirms Paul, I am saying Jesus reaffirms that the Law of Marriage is not changed, but rather confirms it still applies to us as a Sacrament). The first time it is mentioned is in Genesis! It is dogma.

See the following Scripture: ( Deut 24:1 ) ( Gen 1:26-28; 2:18-25; 3:12-21 ) ( 1 Cor 7:1-16,39 ) ( Mt 19:4-12 ) ( Mk 10:1-12 )

Thank you for the scripture references. The reference I found most relevant was 1 Corinthians 7: “but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.” The inclusion of the term “should” complicates things. Some of the other references seem to talk more to in insolubility of marriage than to the issue of singularity.

No question on the sacramental issues, just looking for definitive statement on the infallibility as it relates to singularity which is independent of the sacramental nature.

I understand the interpretation of singularity in Genesis 2: m That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.*”, However in 2 Samuel: “8 I gave you your lord’s house and your lord’s wives for your own. I gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were not enough, I could count up for you still more.” God not only permitted David’s polygamy but gave him wives prior to the Bathsheba incident. This is in addition to several other incidents of polygamy in the old Testament. These references seem to undermine the interpretation that statement in Genisis 2 was a commandment of monogomy.

I am not challenging the interpretation that polygamy is wrong. Nor am I making these references to advocate in favor of polygamy. I just can’t make a complete case for the infallibility of the teaching against polygamy based solely on scripture and am looking for some additional proof references to the attribute of infallibility of the teaching. Do you know of any councils that made definitive statements to the singularity issue.

 

[royal_archer]

Anyways, no, I am not in support of polygamy. I am simply trying to explore this issue in depth, and contruct hypothetical objections, to then answer them. (St. Thomas Aquinas?)

2715 “Contemplation is a gaze of faith, fixed on Jesus. “I look at him and he looks at me”: this is what a certain peasant of Ars in the time of his holy curé used to say while praying before the tabernacle. This focus on Jesus is a renunciation of self. His gaze purifies our heart; the light of the countenance of Jesus illumines the eyes of our heart and teaches us to see everything in the light of his truth and his compassion for all men. Contemplation also turns its gaze on the mysteries of the life of Christ. Thus it learns the “interior knowledge of our Lord,” the more to love him and follow him.”

In addition to acceptance we need to seek fuller understanding. Even Mary sought answers from God on that which she did not understand.

 

[Castello]

Polygamy is not permitted by the Church. God DID permit it at one time, it does not completely violate the natural law.

 

[tafan]

Obviously, the church declares that Polygamy is wrong / a sin but is this an absolute and infallible teaching or is it subject to change/ ammendment based on some circumstances such as the church practice of priests not being married.

(Don’t want to discuss the good or bad perceptions of polygamy, several threads on that already. Just want to address the church teachings, cannon law aspects.)

The question is worded in a way that shows a misunderstanding of church teachin. Celibacy for priests is a discipline, not a teaching. Yes, there are slements of the ordinary magisterium, or chruch’s teachin, which are fallible. But they don’t change amply on circumstance.

As to the question, polygamy being wrong would be part of the extraordinary magisterium of the church; as it was condemned by councils in union with the pope: is infallible

 

[royal_archer]

The question is worded in a way that shows a misunderstanding of church teachin. Celibacy for priests is a discipline, not a teaching. Yes, there are slements of the ordinary magisterium, or chruch’s teachin, which are fallible. But they don’t change amply on circumstance.

As to the question, polygamy being wrong would be part of the extraordinary magisterium of the church; as it was condemned by councils in union with the pope: is infallible

The example of priestly celibacy was just an example of a church teaching that is binding today but subject to change.

Do you happen to have any refferences for where it was infallibly declared?

 

[royal_archer]

I believe the specific reference I am looking for may be “Trent’s teaching on the sacrament of Matrimony, in the second canon of the twenty fourth session of the council”

“CANON II.-If any one saith, that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by any divine law; let him be anathema.”
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct24.html

So if I understand this right, even if the human race mutates to the point where the natural birthrate between the sexes became dramatically and permanately skewed and the vast majority of the members of one gender could not find marital partners, the church could not allow polygamy. And if a bishop or priest said polygamy were permitted under such extreme conditions they should essentially be excomunicated, right?

 

[Hadrianus]

Yes, The Council of Trent in its 24th Session teaches that polygamy is condemned by Divine Law since Our Lord’s time. The Church has no power to alter Divine Law. As to what punishment should be meted out to a bishop or priest who taught otherwise, should I think be left up to the competent authorities.

 

[DaveBj]

Polygamy is not permitted by the Church. God DID permit it at one time, it does not completely violate the natural law.

In those days (3000-4000 years age), life was a lot harder on the males, and many of them died early, leaving a lot of marriageable women who would have no means of support, other than being taken as a second, third, etc., wife. Those social conditions do not exist today, both because the number of women is not now significantly greater than the number of men, and women today are fully empowered to support themselves.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the married man who finds himself with several daughters; I can imagine, in the same circumstances, bulding myself a man-cave equiped with estrogen-blockers. I can’t imagine actually being married to two (or more) women at once :bigyikes: