polygamy

[atassina]

Why should the civil law not allow polygyny? If marriage in not between one man and one woman, then why cannot a Muslim man marry 4 woman? It could be 4 separate marriages. It is religious freedom. If the state cannot impose the one man-one woman restriction, they why should it deny a woman who wants to marry an (already married) man? If there is no compulsion, then what is the problem? After all, I think science can prove that men are, by nature, are inclined to be polygamous.

The original poster is dead on correct: Why should CIVIL law not allow for polygamy, polyandry, man-animal, woman-animal, human-thing (a thing like carpet or toothpicks) marriage. The CIVIL law is not the moral law. In this string we are discussing the moral law of God and the the civil laws of humans. This world is passing away (maybe not today, maybe 75,000 years from now) and we must remember that we are children of the light. Conform ourselves to the love of God and not the mind of this world.

 

[eichenb2]

I think the problem with polygamy from a Christian perspective is in the equality of men and women that comes through Christ. “In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free, Male nor Female.” No racism, No classism, No sexism. Jesus came to bring about a new covenant in His blood. It moved from a law based, oppressive religion, to one that liberates. Its hard for us to wrap our minds around it because we are so inclined toward patriarchy. I would even say that Paul tends to be instinctively patriarchal, but battles with it through his letters. Paul writes his letters to churches being formed in patriarchal communities, to people who have only functioned in patriarchy - for them and for us, it is difficult to get beyond the oppression of patriarchy. Jesus does not favor men over women. Jesus was beyond patriarchy - He considered women to be valuable in a way that no other men seemed to - Jesus taught women and clearly in the early church, women were hungry to learn and through the teachings of Christ they were given a freedom they had never had before.

With this in mind, as far as Jesus is concerned, women and men are not far different from each other and may be different, but seem to be equal.

That said, If a man wants to have more than one wife, he must also accept a woman who wants to have more than one husband.

Personally, I’m not comfortable with that idea. I don’t want to share my wife with another man. I don’t think its just socially built into my thinking - I don’t think of that as appealing, the idea of sharing my wife as a sexual partner with another man… that just seems vile… buh!!

I personally think that God wants us to be monogamous. As we imitate Christ (who is loyal to his church - the only way to God) we should be loyal to only one spouse.

As far as what Jesus says about marriage, he only talks about monogamy, seemingly dismissing any need to discuss polygamy, as though it isn’t even an option.

Incidentally, according to orthodox Sunni Islam, “God wants us to be monogamous”. Islamic jurisprudence, though, acknowledges that the not all social situations are the same. For example, there are wars that deplete the male population and left woman without a social support system; particularly in the 7th century. Remember, the social security system was the family. Once the “Social Security System” fails in the US, where will we turn? Especially, since, we have aborted or avoided our following generations, through acts like abortion, homosexuality, and fornication. This concept of family structure as a social net is also the reason why polygyny is normally permitted and not other forms of polyandry. Equality is NOT sameness. I believe that men are naturally protectors and maintainers of women. I recognize this is a very UN-politically correct. Fortunately, political incorrectness has never been a vice of mine . If a man thinks that men and women are the same, he should say to his wife (in the context of an attempted break-in of their house), “Darling, I dare say that I think someone is attempting gain entry to our home. Please go and investigate this matter, whilst I lie here”.

It is unanimous, across theistic religions, that monogamy is preferable, though. I wonder though, if conclusive evidence were found that polygyny was permitted in the early church. What would you think???

 

[eichenb2]

Heh, heh I like that…

I pointed out in another post however, that St. Thomas stated that polyandry (marriage of one woman to many husbands) is never permissible and explains why. I have the link above.

That aside, the Church may posess powers it may never choose to excercise. In the case of Paraguay, for example, the overall dearth of men meant the population had been endangered and in this case the Church granted a dispensation due to the circumstances. This was unusual, and in this case, the primary end of marriage (rearing of children) was, to the bishops of Paraguay, endangered. So pastoral provision was made to a very exceptional case. It had to be a broadspread threat in order to merit this type of dispensation, however, and would not have been applied to individuals alone.

As noted earlier, this is similar to the discipline of priestly celibacy. Just as it is good for a priest to be celibate. so too is it good for there to be only one man and one wife.

By the way, I think you are correct, I do not think the Holy Father would find your case exceptional enough to dispense to ordinary form.

Very Nicely Articulated

 

[swplan76]

Incidentally, according to orthodox Sunni Islam, “God wants us to be monogamous”. Islamic jurisprudence, though, acknowledges that the not all social situations are the same. For example, there are wars that deplete the male population and left woman without a social support system; particularly in the 7th century. Remember, the social security system was the family. Once the “Social Security System” fails in the US, where will we turn? Especially, since, we have aborted or avoided our following generations, through acts like abortion, homosexuality, and fornication. This concept of family structure as a social net is also the reason why polygyny is normally permitted and not other forms of polyandry. Equality is NOT sameness. I believe that men are naturally protectors and maintainers of women. I recognize this is a very UN-politically correct. Fortunately, political incorrectness has never been a vice of mine . If a man thinks that men and women are the same, he should say to his wife (in the context of an attempted break-in of their house), “Darling, I dare say that I think someone is attempting gain entry to our home. Please go and investigate this matter, whilst I lie here”.

It is unanimous, across theistic religions, that monogamy is preferable, though. I wonder though, if conclusive evidence were found that polygyny was permitted in the early church. What would you think???

Hello Eichen,

Islam has a very different standard for things than Christianity. I believe that Muslims are God’s children as are all people. I know many Muslims who are great people…, but I do not believe that the Qur’an comes from God. I do not believe that Mohammed was a good man, or even a prophet. I sometimes wonder if the angel he met in the cave was Satan “masquerading as an angel of light.” This does not mean that I believe Muslims are evil. Muslims are people, just like any other people - we have access to destructive ideas that sometimes leads us into serious pain and suffering which spills out into the lives of others around us.

I believe that God did something and does something unique through Jesus. The church has not always followed His Way, but when we do, we experience life, freedom, liberation our potential and our identity in Him. Jesus is the only way this happens.

Islam says one thing, but has done another. You are talking about Islamic law, but how did Mohammed live? Mohammed had multiple wives and encouraged others to do the same and, on top of that, he encouraged them to have sex with their slave girls who were mostly taken as slaves through wars that Muslims fought in the name of Allah, right in the first years of Islam’s birth. Sex with slave girls means treating them like property and forcing them to join sexually with a man they are not married to… in most places in the world we call this rape… Mohammed encouraged rape
Mohammed encouraged polygamy.

I don’t claim that the US has the Way figured out - I actually don’t think they do, though I think revival could happen and people could return to the Way in droves and the world could change in amazing ways because of how much wealth and resources people have in the US. I think you are making a good point - Where will they turn?

Just so I’m clear, I think true Islam is the way of the sword. If a Muslim is going to be a true Muslim, they have to live the way Mohammed lived. He betrayed the trust of his protectors. He dug trenches and lined up 900 Jews in one setting and had their heads cut off. He married a child. He delivered the Qur’an which tells followers to kill people who Muslims have found problems with leaving them with only the escape of claiming Allah as God and Mohammed His prophet - Making converts through the threat of death… but it also says to “lay in wait for them, kill them everywhere…” unless they say that Allah is… If the US turns to Islam, the US will become a barbaric nation that invades everyone that disagrees with it. They have occupied Iraq and Afganistan, but they won’t stop there, they will push the envelope further,… that is if they follow the model of Mohammed and become a Muslim nation. Islam would irradicate every culture outside of its own making the world a very bland and flavorless place. Its scary for me to imagine. The world filled with people dressed in Muslim gear doing what they do because they know that they don’t really have any other options unless they want to be murdered for having turned their back on Islam - even murdered by their own family. The US might not have it figured out, but they are not as twisted as Islam would make them.

I agree, men and women are different and men have typically been protectors of women… Like I said before, we are different, but Jesus points us toward some level of equality. This is seen in how He interacts with women (non-traditional, non-patriarchal) and through the way the early church seems to function.

I have never come across anything that points to polygamy being practiced in the NT. Anyone else see it?

Thanks,
SW

 

[manualman]

Citations from St. Thomas are interesting, but not necessary proof of ‘de fide’ principles.

Eve seems to be arguing that restrictions on polygamy are nothing more serious than restrictions against married priests. I think this is deadly error, whether or not the good doctor agrees or not.

Priestly celibacy is a mere discipline, not a moral issue. Just like restrictions on catholics eating meat on a lenten Friday. A catholic who purposely eats a hamburger on Friday commits a sin of defiance. Eating the meat isn’t the sin, the defiance is the sin. This is NOT the same as polygamy. JPII wrote extensively on this matter in his theology of the body discourses. The family is an image, a pointer towards God himself. Polygamy makes a mockery of this. It produces a polytheistic image of God himself.

Whether the Church permitted it or not in earlier periods is also not relevant. The Church took time to make moral determinations on a number of issues. Surely nobody here argues that slavery is a morally OK practice? Yet it took centuries for the Church to use reason and revelation to definitively rule that slavery is incompatible with human dignity. Just like polygamy.

 

[GraceDK]

Hello Eichen,

… Like I said before, we are different, but Jesus points us toward some level of equality.

SW

Eh?
Some level?
your hand slipped?
There is equality among men and women in Christianity, okay? Get that one right. There is not “some level” but there is equality.
What you meant to say, I hope was: there is total equality and yet the teachings of Christ promotes the true nature of men and women as they are, not the same, but different roles.

 

[swplan76]

Eh?
Some level?
your hand slipped?
There is equality among men and women in Christianity, okay? Get that one right. There is not “some level” but there is equality.
What you meant to say, I hope was: there is total equality and yet the teachings of Christ promotes the true nature of men and women as they are, not the same, but different roles.

Hey Grace,

    :D   Yeah, that's what I meant!  :D   I think what was being said by the previous poster was that men and women are not equal, that men have different roles which make women... He didn't say, inferior to men, but now that I think about it, that might have been the subtle message he was trying to send...  I would say that in Christ there is no inferiority between the sexes.  We do have different physiology (undeniable :D ) and we tend to gravitate toward different roles - this might just be sociological.  If we believe in patterns that emerge in scripture, it seems that men and women have always had different roles.  In the NT the pattern begins to break down.  Along with Jesus comes a shift from the typical patriarchy...  Its been argued that its still a patriarchy (that someone has to lead), but the kind of leader required by God is the kind who is a servant, not someone who dominates and oppresses, but someone who liberates and lives humbly.  From both of of the sexes, God wants servants who can become His children.  In our relationship with God, He desires the same response from both sexes.  In His eyes, we are equal... and that is the only perspective that matters ultimately.

    There are certain freedoms women have that men can't have.  For example, I am not free to be pregnant.  Most women are not free to grow a beard.  Men are not free to have a menstrual cycle.  Women are not free to...  there are obvious differences between us that do really make a difference in the way we operate in the world.  Maternity leave and allowances for fatigue in the work place for pregnant women... Clearly there are differences between us.  Men and women live in a complex relationship with each other that cannot be best described as equal... sometimes it seems that women have more rights to be 'equal' than men.  I'm not complaining - I enjoy the complexity of our relationship (most of the time).

 

[GraceDK]

Hey Grace,

    :D   Yeah, that's what I meant!  :D   I think what was being said by the previous poster was that men and women are not equal, that men have different roles which make women... He didn't say, inferior to men, but now that I think about it, that might have been the subtle message he was trying to send...  I would say that in Christ there is no inferiority between the sexes.  We do have different physiology (undeniable :D ) and we tend to gravitate toward different roles - this might just be sociological.  If we believe in patterns that emerge in scripture, it seems that men and women have always had different roles.  In the NT the pattern begins to break down.  Along with Jesus comes a shift from the typical patriarchy...  Its been argued that its still a patriarchy (that someone has to lead), but the kind of leader required by God is the kind who is a servant, not someone who dominates and oppresses, but someone who liberates and lives humbly.  From both of of the sexes, God wants servants who can become His children.  In our relationship with God, He desires the same response from both sexes.  In His eyes, we are equal... and that is the only perspective that matters ultimately.

    There are certain freedoms women have that men can't have.  For example, I am not free to be pregnant.  Most women are not free to grow a beard.  Men are not free to have a menstrual cycle.  Women are not free to...  there are obvious differences between us that do really make a difference in the way we operate in the world.  Maternity leave and allowances for fatigue in the work place for pregnant women... Clearly there are differences between us.  Men and women live in a complex relationship with each other that cannot be best described as equal... sometimes it seems that women have more rights to be 'equal' than men.  I'm not complaining - I enjoy the complexity of our relationship (most of the time).

Amen Nice post… cute
I think most people in history have been more or less confused about what men and women were… their roles, the best expressions of these roles, also because within the gender there is a huge difference between one character and another. We can say one thing though: Jesus has shown us the dignity of women and men and made love the perspective and goal of all things. Love does not ask: “How can I dominate, how can I do this or that at the expense of another human being”, etc… Actaully I find the world DOMINATE to be a very striking word to describe the sickness that still grips so many individuals and cultures today.

Peace to you.

 

[swplan76]

Amen Nice post… cute
We can say one thing though: Jesus has shown us the dignity of women and men and made love the perspective and goal of all things. Love does not ask: “How can I dominate, how can I do this or that at the expense of another human being”, etc… Actaully I find the world DOMINATE to be a very striking word to describe the sickness that still grips so many individuals and cultures today.

Peace to you.

Wouldn’t it be great if we all REALLY understood this? I understand this in theory… The way of Jesus is Love - and I agree with it… but if I believed it in my bones, then I would never argue with anyone. I would be the person setting the pace in the world around me, refusing to conform with agression and anger in moments of tension… I guess if I really knew, beyond any shadow of a doubt that what you’ve presented is true, I would have very few moments of tension… because I would see how ridiculous it is.

 

[eichenb2]

Citations from St. Thomas are interesting, but not necessary proof of ‘de fide’ principles.

Eve seems to be arguing that restrictions on polygamy are nothing more serious than restrictions against married priests. I think this is deadly error, whether or not the good doctor agrees or not.

Priestly celibacy is a mere discipline, not a moral issue. Just like restrictions on catholics eating meat on a lenten Friday. A catholic who purposely eats a hamburger on Friday commits a sin of defiance. Eating the meat isn’t the sin, the defiance is the sin. This is NOT the same as polygamy. JPII wrote extensively on this matter in his theology of the body discourses. The family is an image, a pointer towards God himself. Polygamy makes a mockery of this. It produces a polytheistic image of God himself.

Whether the Church permitted it or not in earlier periods is also not relevant. The Church took time to make moral determinations on a number of issues. Surely nobody here argues that slavery is a morally OK practice? Yet it took centuries for the Church to use reason and revelation to definitively rule that slavery is incompatible with human dignity. Just like polygamy.

Congratulations! You are a true believer. Your mind is convinced of the simplicity of this issue. I will try not to confuse you with nuance. The bottom line is that Catholics, in my opinion, are hypocritical to support “gay rights” (whatever that means) and denounce polygyny with such ferocity. They are simply not thinking the issue though and, therefore, take simplistic approaches. This is similar to the abortion debate. Many Catholics seem to be blind to the fact that whether or not to abort is only the last portion of a series of poor decisions. They need to think the issue through and start by asking questions like the following.
What are the social, economic, and psychological circumstances of most abortions?
What factors led to the perceived “unwanted” pregnancies?
How did the lack of adhaerance to the pragmatic Christian social teaching about pre-marital sex contribute to the pregnancy?
I believe that if these type of questions were thought through, most Catholics would see that they should start by living Catholic teaching completely and consistently. For example, Catholic parents would make it clear to their children that pre-marital sex is harmful and mortal sin. With that I am going to bow out of this discussion with one suggestion…BE CONSISTENT! Polygamy, homosexual sex, and fornication are all grave matter and, potentially, mortal sin. Don’t emphasize or deemphasize grave matter because it is politically expedient.

 

[swplan76]

…The bottom line is that Catholics, in my opinion, are hypocritical to support “gay rights” (whatever that means) and denounce polygyny with such ferocity. They are simply not thinking the issue though and, therefore, take simplistic approaches. This is similar to the abortion debate. Many Catholics seem to be blind to the fact that whether or not to abort is only the last portion of a series of poor decisions. They need to think the issue through and start by asking questions like the following.
What are the social, economic, and psychological circumstances of most abortions?
What factors led to the perceived “unwanted” pregnancies?
How did the lack of adhaerance to the pragmatic Christian social teaching about pre-marital sex contribute to the pregnancy?
I believe that if these type of questions were thought through, most Catholics would see that they should start by living Catholic teaching completely and consistently. For example, Catholic parents would make it clear to their children that pre-marital sex is harmful and mortal sin. With that I am going to bow out of this discussion with one suggestion…BE CONSISTENT! Polygamy, homosexual sex, and fornication are all grave matter and, potentially, mortal sin. Don’t emphasize or deemphasize grave matter because it is politically expedient.

Homosexuality and polygamy are lumped together here as examples of sexuality that is alternative to the norm.

I think its interesting because the issue that always seems to come up with homosexuality is whether or not it is a choice, or the way a person is wired. Many people would say that it is not a choice. It may be that many people have a tendency toward or a preference for homosexuality and so maybe it is part of their nature and so the question is then asked: “Why should that desire be denied?”

Can the same thinking be applied to polygamy? Someone might have a tendency toward or a preference for polygamy… we can call it controlled promiscuity. The person desires to diversify their sexual selection. Many are asking, why should that desire be denied?

Clearly they are very different issues. Homosexuality is one that a person struggles/deals with alone initially. Polygamy is an issue that affects a larger number of people and the issue that is really at play behind polygamy is loyalty.

Tendency… we all have tendencies toward various things, but do we give in to all our tendencies?

I think, once a person realizes that they have made a mistake, and they want to turn things in a different direction, how should the church respond?

I have to leave it here - I have to run!

Have a great weekend!

 

[GraceDK]

Wouldn’t it be great if we all REALLY understood this? I understand this in theory… The way of Jesus is Love - and I agree with it… but if I believed it in my bones, then I would never argue with anyone. I would be the person setting the pace in the world around me, refusing to conform with agression and anger in moments of tension… I guess if I really knew, beyond any shadow of a doubt that what you’ve presented is true, I would have very few moments of tension… because I would see how ridiculous it is.

I don’t agree with you.
Tension and even anger are human responses. They are not intrincically evil, but they must be directed in fruitful ways. A person who cannot feel anger when injustice is screeming him in the face, is less than the person God created him to be.
Jesus was and is LOVE incarnate. Yet He was angry in the temple when He saw the defamation of His Fathers House… that means, there is a right place, in love, for anger… so too for tension. Tension is part of being in the world God has created, its part of being in a fellowship or even having dreams and hopes. We will stop having tensions the day we die, of course (hopefully but for now its not a sign of misunderstanding, but a sign of our human life., that we contain human traits.
Hope this makes sense.
I have met people, indeed, I was like that myself once, who thought they had to smile all the time in order to prove they were pious. This is a ridiculous notion… In a movie of Padre Pio he is quoted for saying: “You come to me looking for peace, but I have had no peace since the day I was born”. Was Pio not a pious man? Of couse he was.
In Christinity there is no dualism. Humanity and Spirit is one and joined… verything in you must become “baptised”… but baptism does not mean to become a passive or ever happy zombie.

 

[swplan76]

I don’t agree with you.
Tension and even anger are human responses. They are not intrincically evil, but they must be directed in fruitful ways. A person who cannot feel anger when injustice is screeming him in the face, is less than the person God created him to be.
Jesus was and is LOVE incarnate. Yet He was angry in the temple when He saw the defamation of His Fathers House… that means, there is a right place, in love, for anger… so too for tension. Tension is part of being in the world God has created, its part of being in a fellowship or even having dreams and hopes. We will stop having tensions the day we die, of course (hopefully but for now its not a sign of misunderstanding, but a sign of our human life., that we contain human traits.
Hope this makes sense.
I have met people, indeed, I was like that myself once, who thought they had to smile all the time in order to prove they were pious. This is a ridiculous notion… In a movie of Padre Pio he is quoted for saying: “You come to me looking for peace, but I have had no peace since the day I was born”. Was Pio not a pious man? Of couse he was.
In Christinity there is no dualism. Humanity and Spirit is one and joined… verything in you must become “baptised”… but baptism does not mean to become a passive or ever happy zombie.

I agree with you that there is a place for anger amidst love in our lives. I like that you used the example of Jesus in the temple (the only example). He was angry because of how Israel had disrespected God’s holiness, or maybe how ignorant the people were who were trying to make money off of God… There are many other examples where Jesus is confronted with situations where we might respond with anger and he doesn’t. There are many times when Jesus is in situations where the people closest to Him are confused? To paraphrase, they respond, “Why aren’t you more like us?” Jesus’ response to various things is seen as abnormal to most people.

Maybe I wasn’t clear on what I mean by tension. “…do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?” (Matt. 6). If I believe this, why would I worry? I think God wants us to “knock on the door and it will be opened…” I think He wants us to provide opportunity for Him to reveal Himself to us and as we seek those moments, God provides the way for us… and if I believe that, then I don’t need to worry. I’ve heard someone say, "When I allow stress and worry to build up in me, its as if I am saying to God, “I don’t trust you. In fact, God, I think I can do your job better than you.” They said that when we stress and worry its as though we are living in such a way that we believe God will only give us the short end of the stick and whatever He might bring will either be too late, or insufficient for our needs; we think we can do better.

Matthew 6 concludes by saying,
**31 “So don’t worry about these things, saying, ‘What will we eat? What will we drink? What will we wear?’ 32 These things dominate the thoughts of unbelievers, but your heavenly Father already knows all your needs. 33 Seek the Kingdom of God[d] above all else, and live righteously, and he will give you everything you need. 34 “So don’t worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its own worries. Today’s trouble is enough for today. **

A paraphrase called 'The Message says this:
**"…but you know both God and how he works. Steep your life in God-reality, God-initiative, God-provisions. Don’t worry about missing out. You’ll find all your everyday human concerns will be met. 34"Give your entire attention to what God is doing right now, and don’t get worked up about what may or may not happen tomorrow. God will help you deal with whatever hard things come up when the time comes." **

Years ago my father had invited a woman to church. The woman came and I guess she went home and told her husband all about it. I was an infant, but my sister remembers the man foaming at the mouth and really laying into my dad about it. The man used all kinds of words and threats of violence. My dad just listened. My dad let the man say his peace and then asked, “Are you finished?” The man went on another rant. My dad asked again, “Are you done?” My dad set the pace and refused to be drawn into a verbal conflict that could have easily escalated into violence (at least from my sister’s perspective). My dad did not let the man control Him. My dad slowed things down. I think it was because my father had a vision of the larger perspective. He wasn’t ruled by his emotions. I’m sure my dad appeared to be very abnormal to the angry man. My dad did not allow the man to dominate him, but he did not respond by, in turn, dominating the man.

SW

 

[swplan76]

A person who cannot feel anger when injustice is screeming him in the face, is less than the person God created him to be.

I think its important to know what we mean by ‘anger.’ For some people anger is very much partnered with hatred. For others, anger is a desire to see things set right and is removed from hatred. It may be that my dad was angry, but my dad did not play the blame game and choose to see the man guilty of swearing, threatening and cursing my father in the presence of his 6 or 7 year old daughter. My dad may have felt angry, but he did not let it direct Him. I think my dad was far more ‘the person God created him to be’ in that moment because he did not give in to a desire to set the man right. It may be that my dad was above the pettiness of that desire. It may be that my dad had been walking with God long enough to know that a violent response would only make things worse in the long run.

I’ve read C.S.Lewis’ ‘The Great Divorce’ recently. In it Lewis suggests that none of us will get our rights in heaven. We won’t get what we deserve - we get something better. It says that sin makes us less human because it diminishes the “image of God” in each of us. Conversely, walking with God makes us more human/more the people God intended us to be. In Heaven our humanity is expanded or consummated. While in Hell our humanity is diminished to the point that we are no longer human at all, but just the sin that we allowed to drag us away from God through the course of our lives.

but for now its not a sign of misunderstanding, but a sign of our human life., that we contain human traits.

I’m not sure about this one… I’ve heard people excuse all kinds of behavior by saying, “I’m human! What do you expect?” or “Boys will be boys!” Lewis seems to present the idea that our humanity is good because God created it. Other people present the idea that being human means that we sin and it is who we are and should not deny that desire. It seems that might be suggesting that we should be at home with our shortcomings because it is proof of our humanity. Hey, “I’m only human!” so I can go behave in all kind of inappropriate ways and its alright? I don’t think we can allow hostile anger or other sin to guide our behavior. We have to rise above it so that we can be wise in how we behave.

I was like that myself once, who thought they had to smile all the time in order to prove they were pious. This is a ridiculous notion

I agree, attempting to prove to people that you are pious is a ridiculous notion. …but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Seeking joy… choosing joy over bitterness is very much a scriptural idea. Living in expectation that God can and does lead us into freedom is what we are called to.

To God’s elect, strangers in the world, …
Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
Praise to God for a Living Hope
3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you, 5who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. 6In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. 7These have come so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. 8Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, 9for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

Must go!

Thanks for your thoughts!

Have a great day!

 

[GraceDK]

Congratulations! You are a true believer. Your mind is convinced of the simplicity of this issue. I will try not to confuse you with nuance. The bottom line is that Catholics, in my opinion, are hypocritical to support “gay rights” (whatever that means) and denounce polygyny with such ferocity. They are simply not thinking the issue though and, therefore, take simplistic approaches. This is similar to the abortion debate. Many Catholics seem to be blind to the fact that whether or not to abort is only the last portion of a series of poor decisions. They need to think the issue through and start by asking questions like the following.
What are the social, economic, and psychological circumstances of most abortions?
What factors led to the perceived “unwanted” pregnancies?
How did the lack of adhaerance to the pragmatic Christian social teaching about pre-marital sex contribute to the pregnancy?
I believe that if these type of questions were thought through, most Catholics would see that they should start by living Catholic teaching completely and consistently. For example, Catholic parents would make it clear to their children that pre-marital sex is harmful and mortal sin. With that I am going to bow out of this discussion with one suggestion…BE CONSISTENT! Polygamy, homosexual sex, and fornication are all grave matter and, potentially, mortal sin. Don’t emphasize or deemphasize grave matter because it is politically expedient.

Are you by any chance getting at the point where we should make sexual sin punishable like it is in Muslim cultures, where sin is instead swept under the rug and where, when its discovered, sharia will be carried out by hypocrites… I hope you read the many stories of pharisees who had no mercy with fellow sinners, although their own hearts were like graves. At my stay in Palestine eg. I noticed most the young Muslim men went out and had pre marital sex while the Muslim women were dominated to stay at home, and woe to her if she was seen with a man somewhere… it could ruin her reputation.
In such cultures there is no real justice either… no real purity out of the only worthy motive, namely love. A man who had travelled to Syria or Jordan said: in the big cities there are secret bars where homosexual men meet each other. They have not been recognized as homosexuals in their culture, so they have a wife and children at home, and they they go and fornicate at some smug bar… Is that supressive culture better, where homosexuality is a disease that you must not talk about? Sorry, but I prefer the western system, where adults can choose for themselves how they want to live, as long as that does not make victims out of others.
In Christianity we teach that sins are sins… but we do not deny that human beings are weak and flawed. I do believe I and many others are consistent, and then there are many who are not. This is true for Muslims too… some Muslims eg. focus extremely much on the loss of a womans virginity but not on lying, deceiving and violence and cruelty.
I believe abortion should be illegal, because its taking another persons life. But if someone wants to choose sin over God for their own life, then they will do so. Any society that seeks to be pure of all sin, are those who become dictatorships and where people are forced to lie and be secret police… there is no freedom in such countries and areas. You might be the one who falls into sin tomorrow… and you will hide it, maybe you will lie about it to your family, your imam, your wife. The woman who is pregnant can not hide she has fallen into sin…
Just some thoughts for you.
You will never make Christianity into Islamic law… Christ came to set us free from such slavery that only makes people remain slaves… cut of their hand, torture them, whip them and kill them… and you will never have them be children, but only scared slaves that follow out of fear. This is not what God wants from us… and not what a good society wants from its democratic population.

 

[swplan76]

…Christ came to set us free from such slavery that only makes people remain slaves… cut of their hand, torture them, whip them and kill them… and you will never have them be children, but only scared slaves that follow out of fear. This is not what God wants from us… and not what a good society wants from its democratic population.

Well put!

I’m glad to hear some others speak honestly about what Islam is and does. I’m not interested in an Islam bashing session, but I am tired of hearing Christians defending what they don’t understand.

I think I’ve been pretty clear about what I think of Islam in previous posts. Its important to me that Muslims understand that when I am talking about Islam, I am not talking about them, but the religion. As far as the religion goes, I believe it is toxic, but that does not mean that all people who identify as Muslims have been infected by the evil Islam promotes. God created us all and loves us all. I think He does a lot to protect us from ourselves and from influences that would destroy us.

The logic of the Qur’an and the Hadiths would say that if someone is not a Muslim and they say that Islam is evil, they should be killed.

The logic of the New Testament would say that if someone is not a Christian and they say that Christianity is evil, they should be treated with love - God is leading us - He is in control - He may yet lead that person to Himself. Christians have no place killing people in response disagreement of beliefs.

(There are times when I believe that Christians have no place in warfare. Other times I think it makes sense to defend yourself. If someone were to break into my house and try to kill my family, I would likely do my best to defend them and exterminate the threat they pose. I also believe that, as we call out to God, He will step in and provide a 3rd way to the two obvious extremes we often choose (run vs. fight).).

 

[swplan76]

Homosexuality and polygamy are lumped together here as examples of sexuality that is alternative to the norm.

I think its interesting because the issue that always seems to come up with homosexuality is whether or not it is a choice, or the way a person is wired. Many people would say that it is not a choice. It may be that many people have a tendency toward or a preference for homosexuality and so maybe it is part of their nature and so the question is then asked: “Why should that desire be denied?”

Can the same thinking be applied to polygamy? Someone might have a tendency toward or a preference for polygamy… we can call it controlled promiscuity. The person desires to diversify their sexual selection. Many are asking, why should that desire be denied?

Clearly they are very different issues. Homosexuality is one that a person struggles/deals with alone initially. Polygamy is an issue that affects a larger number of people and the issue that is really at play behind polygamy is loyalty.

Tendency… we all have tendencies toward various things, but do we give in to all our tendencies?

I think, once a person realizes that they have made a mistake, and they want to turn things in a different direction, how should the church respond?

With homosexuality, I think its important that we separate the sin from the sinner and respond in love. Homosexuals will not experience God’s love through the church unless we respond to them in love.

With Polygamy, lets imagine that a polygamous family were to turn to the church and say, ‘We made a mistake! I married 4 women and had children with all of them. In all I have 14 kids. I am able to support all of them, but I’ve been studying scripture and have concluded that I was wrong - I was misled!’
Lets imagine that the family asks the church, ‘Now, how can we make things right?’ What would the churches’ response be? What should the churches’ response be.
Do we break up their family leaving 3 wives to live as widows, separating children from their father and the 3 women they have been calling mother along with their biological mother?

I don’t agree with polygamy, but I don’t see any easy solution to it once its been established in a family and children are involved.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Citations from St. Thomas are interesting, but not necessary proof of ‘de fide’ principles.

Eve seems to be arguing that restrictions on polygamy are nothing more serious than restrictions against married priests. I think this is deadly error, whether or not the good doctor agrees or not.

Priestly celibacy is a mere discipline, not a moral issue. Just like restrictions on catholics eating meat on a lenten Friday. A catholic who purposely eats a hamburger on Friday commits a sin of defiance. Eating the meat isn’t the sin, the defiance is the sin. This is NOT the same as polygamy. JPII wrote extensively on this matter in his theology of the body discourses. The family is an image, a pointer towards God himself. Polygamy makes a mockery of this. It produces a polytheistic image of God himself.

Whether the Church permitted it or not in earlier periods is also not relevant. The Church took time to make moral determinations on a number of issues. Surely nobody here argues that slavery is a morally OK practice? Yet it took centuries for the Church to use reason and revelation to definitively rule that slavery is incompatible with human dignity. Just like polygamy.

It appears that more is being made of my argument than intended.

The polygamy issue in my view, is twofold.

1. Polygamy does not effectively convey the sign of the sacrament, and does not have an expressly Christian foundation to its mandate (being more compatable to pagans). Therefore, its innability to effectively and consistantly sustain Christian marriage principals makes it a hinderance, and not a help in the interior life. We may say then that it is of grave moral matter, since the purely naturalistic aims of polygamy can be a threat to the intrior life and the soul. It therefore does play the same role as priestly celibacy, but with a difference in gravity. For, while the marriage of a priest may jeapordize his ability to fulfill his priestly duties fully, polygamy jeapordizes the very fabric of Christian family life, and even the family itself, and therefore is not a permissible practice for Christians.
2. That being said, we cannot likewise state that polygamy is intrinsically sinful, since it has been with us always and was exceptionally practiced by the Fathers of Old. With the coming of the New Law, even this exception was not acceptable to Christian life and our higher calling necessitates our abandoning it. This corresponds to other practices no longer followed in the New Law, such as dietary laws, ritual cleansing (such as mikvah), etc. These practices were not intrinsically evil, but they could no longer be a means of enhancing Christian life through grace.

Is it possible for Catholic polygamy to validly exist? Yes. Has this and should this be a regular, permissible means of grace? No. The Church in Her wisdom recognizes the limits of certain practices, and polygamy is one. Natural law and even Church teaching may in theory permit it, but for the good of souls it cannot be done, without the insitution itself being intrinsically affected.

We cannot condemn a practice more strongly than the Church. Since St. Thomas is the Universal and Angelic Doctor, I believe his word on the matter is sufficient for the conscience of any Catholic. What more confidence can we have than in he whom the Church said is the foundation of our theology?

 

[GraceDK]

It appears that more is being made of my argument than intended.

The polygamy issue in my view, is twofold.

1. Polygamy does not effectively convey the sign of the sacrament, and does not have an expressly Christian foundation to its mandate (being more compatable to pagans). Therefore, its innability to effectively and consistantly sustain Christian marriage principals makes it a hinderance, and not a help in the interior life. We may say then that it is of grave moral matter, since the purely naturalistic aims of polygamy can be a threat to the intrior life and the soul. It therefore does play the same role as priestly celibacy, but with a difference in gravity. For, while the marriage of a priest may jeapordize his ability to fulfill his priestly duties fully, polygamy jeapordizes the very fabric of Christian family life, and even the family itself, and therefore is not a permissible practice for Christians.
2. That being said, we cannot likewise state that polygamy is intrinsically sinful, since it has been with us always and was exceptionally practiced by the Fathers of Old. With the coming of the New Law, even this exception was not acceptable to Christian life and our higher calling necessitates our abandoning it. This corresponds to other practices no longer followed in the New Law, such as dietary laws, ritual cleansing (such as mikvah), etc. These practices were not intrinsically evil, but they could no longer be a means of enhancing Christian life through grace.

Is it possible for Catholic polygamy to validly exist? Yes. Has this and should this be a regular, permissible means of grace? No. The Church in Her wisdom recognizes the limits of certain practices, and polygamy is one. Natural law and even Church teaching may in theory permit it, but for the good of souls it cannot be done, without the insitution itself being intrinsically affected.

We cannot condemn a practice more strongly than the Church. Since St. Thomas is the Universal and Angelic Doctor, I believe his word on the matter is sufficient for the conscience of any Catholic. What more confidence can we have than in he whom the Church said is the foundation of our theology?

Maybe its a mater of taste and style, but I like St. Pauls approach more… It’s more clear and simple. I think actually Paul would not say: “maybe such and so” and he would not make a grand philosophy… when you look at the writings of Paul, its clear he would never tolerate polygamy. I go with Paul. This sentence sounds totally wrong: “Church teaching may in theory permit it, but for the good of souls it cannot be done…” Some people have critisised scolasticism for complicating matters and saying it was a bunch of scholars that lost them self so much in theoretic detail that they lost sight of what theology really should be. I don’t know if you quote Thomas but even if you do, I still think such your reasoning is nonsense.
One other thing I noticed… I dont think priestly celibacy should be brought into this diiscussion. You say that marriage might jeopardize the priest’s ability to function to the utmost as a priest. This is saying too much. Peter was married. We have eastern rite priests and orthodox priests that are married and lets not assume they are less holy or less given in their ministry than those who live celibately. Celibacy is a disciplin, not a rule that cannot be altered. According to the catechism polygami cannot be said to be good and that will not be altered, because it goes against the dignity of both spouses and marriage…

 

[EnchantedEve]

Maybe its a mater of taste and style, but I like St. Pauls approach more… It’s more clear and simple. I think actually Paul would not say: “maybe such and so” and he would not make a grand philosophy… when you look at the writings of Paul, its clear he would never tolerate polygamy. I go with Paul. This sentence sounds totally wrong: “Church teaching may in theory permit it, but for the good of souls it cannot be done…” Some people have critisised scolasticism for complicating matters and saying it was a bunch of scholars that lost them self so much in theoretic detail that they lost sight of what theology really should be. I don’t know if you quote Thomas but even if you do, I still think such your reasoning is nonsense.
One other thing I noticed… I dont think priestly celibacy should be brought into this diiscussion. You say that marriage might jeopardize the priest’s ability to function to the utmost as a priest. This is saying too much. Peter was married. We have eastern rite priests and orthodox priests that are married and lets not assume they are less holy or less given in their ministry than those who live celibately. Celibacy is a disciplin, not a rule that cannot be altered. According to the catechism polygami cannot be said to be good and that will not be altered, because it goes against the dignity of both spouses and marriage…

Your opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas and scholasticism, whatever it may appear to be, has no bearing on the weight of his opinion in Catholic theology. There appears to be an attempt being made on this post that I am imposing my personal opinion, which is not the case. I am conveying Catholic theology and teaching as it currently stands. Pope Leo XIII in Aeterni Patris (On Philosophy) quotes Pope Sixtus V on St, Thomas,

"For, the noble endowments which make the Scholastic theology so formidable to the enemies of truth-to wit, as the same Pontiff adds, “that ready and close coherence of cause and effect, that order and array as of a disciplined army in battle, those clear definitions and distinctions, that strength of argument and those keen discussions, by which light is distinguished from darkness, the true from the false, expose and strip naked, as it were, the falsehoods of heretics wrapped around by a cloud of subterfuges and fallacies”

Pope Leo goes on to say:

“And as he also used this philosophic method in the refutation of error, he won this title (Angelic Doctor) to distinction for himself: that, single-handed, he victoriously combated the errors of former times, and supplied invincible arms to put those to rout which might in after-times spring up. Again, clearly distinguishing, as is fitting, reason from faith, while happily associating the one with the other, he both preserved the rights and had regard for the dignity of each; so much so, indeed, that reason, borne on the wings of Thomas to its human height, can scarcely rise higher, while faith could scarcely expect more or stronger aids from reason than those which she has already obtained through Thomas.”

From Pope Innocent VI
“His teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.”

And finally from Pope Leo again:

“A last triumph was reserved for this incomparable man-namely, to compel the homage, praise, and admiration of even the very enemies of the Catholic name. For it has come to light that there were not lacking among the leaders of heretical sects some who openly declared that, if the teaching of Thomas Aquinas were only taken away, they could easily battle with all Catholic teachers, gain the victory, and abolish the Church.”

Therefore, to cast aside St. Thomas on this matter would be to do him an injustice and it must be acknowledged that his views are generally held by the Church to be Her own. So the reasoning is not “mine” but that of the Church. Since St. Paul, however vernerable his views, did not remark on this matter directly, I am not clear what purpose he serves here. Nothing in the Catechism refutes what I have shared on this post.

I will continue on next post.