Pope Gregory II and his "permission" for poligamy

[pedrofln]

Hi folks,

First, my intention in this post is not to provoke some kind of polemic. I truly saw this supposed letter of Pope Gregory II and it really made me think about the issue and how incompatible it sounds to modern catholicism. What do you think about this ? I would like to hear opinions from forum members.

“Pope Gregory II in a decretal in 726 said “when a man has a sick wife who cannot discharge the marital function, he may take a second one, provided he looks after the first one.” Later, Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate. In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives.”

Source: (Removed as per Banned Topics policy)

So, this thing, if true, implies in many other issues: First, sex would not be viewed just for procreation at that time. Second, church permitted mistresses for the priests openly. This is truly a scandal nowadays.

 

[pedrofln]

I found a more reliable source, and the quote sounds a little different, but the message is still the same: it is allowed for a married man to take a second wife if he cannot be in continence.

Pope Gregory II Replies to Questions Put by Boniface (November 22, 726)
“Your devout messenger Denual has brought us the welcome news that you are well and that, by the help of God, you are making progress in the work for which you were sent. He also delivered to us letters from you reporting that the field of the Lord which had long lain fallow and was overgrown with the weeds of pagan customs has now been ploughed up and sown with the truth of the Gospel, producing an abundant harvest of souls…”

“… As to what a man shall do if his wife is unable through illness to allow him his marital rights, it would be better if he remained apart and practised continence. But since this is practicable only in the case of men of high ideals, the best course if he is unable to be continent would be for him to marry. Nevertheless, he should continue to support the woman who is sick, unless she has contracted the disease through her own fault.”

Source: saints.sqpn.com/pope-gregory-ii-replies-to-questions-put-by-boniface-22-november-726/

PS: This is not my case and I am not starting this thread because I want to do such thing. It simply disturbed me to KNOW the content of the pope’s letter, a pope who is recognized as a saint in the church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hi folks,

First, my intention in this post is not to provoke some kind of polemic. I truly saw this supposed letter of Pope Gregory II and it really made me think about the issue and how incompatible it sounds to modern catholicism. What do you think about this ? I would like to hear opinions from forum members.

“Pope Gregory II in a decretal in 726 said “when a man has a sick wife who cannot discharge the marital function, he may take a second one, provided he looks after the first one.” Later, Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate. In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives.”

Source: patriarchywebsite.com/monogamy/mono-history.htm

So, this thing, if true, implies in many other issues: First, sex would not be viewed just for procreation at that time. Second, church permitted mistresses for the priests openly. This is truly a scandal nowadays.

So if the priest divorced the wife, what happens to the woman? Kind of a cruel faith, eh? By Catholic standards she cannot marry until the priest ex-husband dies. Why would a Pope subject a woman to such a cruel fate?

 

[dans0622]

…

“Pope Gregory II in a decretal in 726 said “when a man has a sick wife who cannot discharge the marital function, he may take a second one, provided he looks after the first one.” Later, Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate. In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives.” …

So, this thing, if true, implies in many other issues: First, sex would not be viewed just for procreation at that time. Second, church permitted mistresses for the priests openly. This is truly a scandal nowadays.

Hello,

It seems we need a little more context to know the precise situation and what the Pope was addressing. For example, were these cases of non-consummated marriages which the Pope was effectively dissolving? Were they cases of female impotence? Or, were they cases of consummated marriages? If the latter, then yes, that is a problem. Again, though, we’d need to know more about the context to make a fair judgment.

Regarding the regulations concerning priests: there were many prior condemnations of sinful priests. There were already many laws made stating that priests were not allowed to marry. The statements you refer to were reiterations of those laws and condemnations or were applications of the law on misbehaving priests.

Dan

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi folks,

First, my intention in this post is not to provoke some kind of polemic. I truly saw this supposed letter of Pope Gregory II and it really made me think about the issue and how incompatible it sounds to modern catholicism. What do you think about this ? I would like to hear opinions from forum members.

“Pope Gregory II in a decretal in 726 said “when a man has a sick wife who cannot discharge the marital function, he may take a second one, provided he looks after the first one.” Later, Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate. In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives.”

Source: (Removed as per Banned Topics policy)

So, this thing, if true, implies in many other issues: First, sex would not be viewed just for procreation at that time. Second, church permitted mistresses for the priests openly. This is truly a scandal nowadays.

Nonesense, this is a non-Catholic web site. Who knows where they got that, porbably out of hot air. Gregory the II is a Saint and a Doctor of the Church. If he had ever issued such a " decretal " he would never have been declared a Saint and a Doctor of the Church.

:bigyikes::bigyikes::banghead::banghead:

 

[lerapt78]

Even the popes have been capable of making errors in judgment regarding social mores

Just a minor correction, OP - “polygamy” refers to a marriage of one person to two or more partners, but it is not gender-specific. What you refer to is polygyny, wherein a man has more than one wife. The reverse situation is polyandry, in which a woman has more than one husband.

Edit: I didn’t catch your post in time, Linusthe2nd…is it correct that there is question regarding the authenticity of this letter?

 

[jumpfrog]

I am interested in hearing a good explanation for this as well.

In the very same letter we can also find the following:

You ask further: If a father or mother gives a child during its early years to a monastery to be brought up in monastic discipline, is it lawful for that child, after reaching the age of puberty, to leave the cloister and enter into matrimony? This we strictly forbid, for it is an impious thing to allow children who have been offered to God by their parents to follow their baser instincts for pleasure.

This is an unusual take on a monastic vocation to say the very least. Since when can parents discern a vocation for their child against the will of the child?

This is straight from a pope, so what gives? If he was pope, how could he be so very mistaken about these points? There is NOTHING in scripture to back up these points of advice, in fact we can see direct contradiction to these points from scripture. It does not inspire much confidence in papal judgements, if they ignore scripture when making their pronouncements.

 

[Elizium23]

Sex has never been viewed “just for procreation”. The Church teaches that marital sex has two aspects: procreative and unitive. The procreative aspect is to be fertile and have children. The unitive aspect brings couples together in conjugal love through their sexual complementarity.

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157

 

[jumpfrog]

Sex has never been viewed “just for procreation”. The Church teaches that marital sex has two aspects: procreative and unitive. The procreative aspect is to be fertile and have children. The unitive aspect brings couples together in conjugal love through their sexual complementarity.

So…that means a man can take another wife if his first wife is too incapacitated for sex???

I think you need to read through the thread more carefully, this comment doesn’t really match the topic.

 

[Elizium23]

So…that means a man can take another wife if his first wife is too incapacitated for sex???

I think you need to read through the thread more carefully, this comment doesn’t really match the topic.

I read the OP, and I was not addressing his core questions, but rather a misconception he had about conjugal love, and I meant to imply nothing about the liceity of taking another wife.

 

[pedrofln]

I read the OP, and I was not addressing his core questions, but rather a misconception he had about conjugal love, and I meant to imply nothing about the liceity of taking another wife.

Elizium, I did not have a misconception about conjugal love. I knew the church always taught that marriage has two purposes, but, the pope’s letter opens a possibility that today sounds impossible for a true catholic view on the matter: sex as a pure biological need. That’s what the pope meant when he liberated the man for taking another wife, since his first one was sick and incapable of paying her duties to her husband. Is it allowed today ? No, not at all. It caused me surprise to know that the question was viewed in a different manner at that time. Let us not forget that this pope is a saint. His letter has some serious implications.

I thought twice before posting this. But I had to share it with someone.

 

[LJN21]

Make sure you read the whole letter. Quotes out of context are never good.

saints.sqpn.com/pope-gregory-ii-replies-to-questions-put-by-boniface-22-november-726/

It appears he is strictly speaking to St. Boniface about some question he had in his mission, which based on history, looks to be converting the Germans from paganism.

Gregory II
newadvent.org/cathen/06787a.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_II
Boniface
newadvent.org/cathen/02656a.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boniface

Typically speaking these kind of letters are only speaking to the person they were addressed and it not uncommon of for popes to make discipline allowances (St. Frances Xavier had a number of them) to help easy a people in to the Church.

 

[LJN21]

Later, Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate. In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives."

On this point, I can’t find any place making these claim that show any source material. I know Wikipedia isn’t the best source in the world, but if it was some kind of scandal the Church is just glossing over I’m sure it would be there.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_%28Catholic_Church%29

Note the two counsels this says dealt with celibacy were in 305 and 390. Gregory II papacy was 715-731.

 

[pedrofln]

On this point, I can’t find any place making these claim that show any source material. I know Wikipedia isn’t the best source in the world, but if it was some kind of scandal the Church is just glossing over I’m sure it would be there.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_%28Catholic_Church%29

Note the two counsels this says dealt with celibacy were in 305 and 390. Gregory II papacy was 715-731.

Look, this part of the post is taken from a web site that has anti-catholic ideas (Removed as per Banned Topics policy) and you can see the whole article in this link here (Removed as per Banned Topics policy) - if you can’t find, search when the page opens).

But my attention was not focused primarely on this known anti-catholic site, but from the content of the pope’s letter, which seams to be genuine and can be seen here (“CatholicSaints.Info » Blog Archive » Pope Gregory II Replies to Questions Put by Boniface, 22 November 726”). The question that is left - I’m not concerned about some acusations made by the (Removed as per Banned Topics policy) page (by the way, the other accusations found in the first post have nothing to do with pope Gregory II), but about the conclusion to be taken from pope Gregory II answer to saint Boniface. Some have argued here that he was making discipline allowances to help people getting into the Church. It may be a valid point, but this is still a supposition.

PS: sorry if I commit any english error. English is not my primary language.

 

[LJN21]

Look, this part of the post is taken from a web site that has anti-catholic ideas (Removed as per Banned Topics policy) and you can see the whole article in this link here (Removed as per Banned Topics policy).

Oh I read that, and many other sites looking for a source to where they found there information.

But my attention was not focused primarely on this known anti-catholic site, but from the content of the pope’s letter, which seams to be genuine and can be seen here (“CatholicSaints.Info » Blog Archive » Pope Gregory II Replies to Questions Put by Boniface, 22 November 726”). The question that is left - I’m not concerned about some acusations made by the (Removed as per Banned Topics policy) (by the way, the other accusations found in the first post have nothing to do with pope Gregory II), but about the conclusion to be taken from pope Gregory II answer to saint Boniface. Some have argued here that he was making discipline allowances to help people getting into the Church. It may be a valid point, but this is still a supposition.

PS: sorry if I commit any english error. English is not my primary language.

I don’t think there is any other way to address those letters. It is very obvious he is only talking to St. Boniface and NOT the church at large.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Even the popes have been capable of making errors in judgment regarding social mores

Just a minor correction, OP - “polygamy” refers to a marriage of one person to two or more partners, but it is not gender-specific. What you refer to is polygyny, wherein a man has more than one wife. The reverse situation is polyandry, in which a woman has more than one husband.

Edit: I didn’t catch your post in time, Linusthe2nd…is it correct that there is question regarding the authenticity of this letter?

Absolutely. First of all the group that put it out is a Media group with supposed " Catholic " board members and dedicated to " Evangelization " and is located in Netherlands. We know absolutle nothing about these people, we don’t even know whether or not they are Catholic, and if they are Catholic, the fact that they are from the Netherlands is a big strike against them since the Church in the Netherlands is dead for all practical purposes. It started dying a long time ago.

I tell you this smells to high heaven. Leave it alone.