what happens when polygamists convert?

[thebobkatie]

This is my first real post, so if I mess up, bear with me.

I was wondering recently what happens when someone from a polygamist religion, such as Islam, converts to Catholicism? Assuming they had children with each of their wives, would they be expected to leave all but one of them? Surely they would still have to support them and their children, but would they still be considered married to the first wife?

Just curious.

 

[SteveVH]

This is my first real post, so if I mess up, bear with me.

I was wondering recently what happens when someone from a polygamist religion, such as Islam, converts to Catholicism? Assuming they had children with each of their wives, would they be expected to leave all but one of them? Surely they would still have to support them and their children, but would they still be considered married to the first wife?

Just curious.

Welcome to the forum. Actually I think it is a very good question and I’m sure there is probably some case law right here in America concerning Mormons, from a civil perspective.

As for a Catholic perspective, I would imagine that the first marriage would be considered the valid marriage, although, out of charity, I would think that the husband would be obligated to support the other “wives” financially, and would certainly be responsible for the well being of any children. They would have to be treated as sisters, from a practical standpoint. No conjugal visits.

 

[Sister_Amy]

I wouldn’t really call Islam a polygamist religion.

If a man who had multiple wives apostated from Islam, and converted to another religion, his wives would probably divorce him, so it wouldn’t be an issue of having multiple wives, even if he had them before.

If a man coming from any religion has more than 4 wives and enters Islam, he is supposed to divorce them, as he’s not allowed more than four.

 

[Janet1983]

Welcome to the forum. Actually I think it is a very good question and I’m sure there is probably some case law right here in America concerning Mormons, from a civil perspective.

As for a Catholic perspective, I would imagine that the first marriage would be considered the valid marriage, although, out of charity, I would think that the husband would be obligated to support the other “wives” financially, and would certainly be responsible for the well being of any children. They would have to be treated as sisters, from a practical standpoint. No conjugal visits.

But if a marriage between two non-Catholics is valid, why then shouldn’t a marriage between a husband and his 2nd and 3rd wife be valid for the same reasons?

 

[SteveVH]

But if a marriage between two non-Catholics is valid, why then shouldn’t a marriage between a husband and his 2nd and 3rd wife be valid for the same reasons?

Because you can only enter into the marriage covenant with one person. That is what “the two shall become one flesh” means. Once you have become one flesh it cannot be divided. Human marriage is a foreshadowing of the heavenly marriage between Christ and His bride, the Church. Having more than one spouse is akin to worshiping other Gods. Read Jesus’ conversation with the woman at the well. He was speaking, typologically, of the lost tribes of Israel who mixed with the pagans and began worshiping other Gods.

 

[Reuben_J]

But if a marriage between two non-Catholics is valid, why then shouldn’t a marriage between a husband and his 2nd and 3rd wife be valid for the same reasons?

Polygamy is not valid.

Non-polygamous marriage for non-Catholics is considered valid but non-Sacramental. They are often called natural marriage. In any case the validity of any non-Catholic marriage is to be accessed by the Church to determine what actually it is because every marriage may not have the same background and situation.

Polygamy is not allowed by the Church and as explained by SteveVH in his post.

 

[Janet1983]

I was just asking because this question was making me kind of curious…
In the OT it doesn’t look like it was a problem:

Exodus 21:10
“If he takes an additional wife, he must not reduce the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.”

Deuteronomy 21:15-16
“If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved bear him sons, and if the unloved wife has the firstborn son,
when that man gives what he has to his sons as an inheritance, he is not to show favoritism to the son of the loved [wife] as his firstborn over the firstborn of the unloved wife.”

I was especially curious in the light that some people in the OT were actually polygamous…

David:
2 Samuel 5:13
“After he arrived from Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him.”

1 Chronicles 14:3
“David took more wives in Jerusalem, and he became the father of more sons and daughters.”

Solomon:
1 Kings 11:3
“He had 700 wives who were princesses and 300 concubines, and they turned his heart away [from the LORD].”

After all of that I wonder whether we should not just let the polygamists who become Christians stay with all of their wives, since Jesus did say the following:

Matthew 5:17-18
“Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished.”

If there had been a problem with becoming one flesh, then why wouldn’t there be a problem after the death of one spouse? It just doesn’t seem logical to me now that I think about it.
I mean if one woman can be one flesh with her first husband and can then remarry after her husband dies and be one flesh with the next and so on, why then wouldn’t it make sense to say that one person can be one flesh with more than just one person? (ref. Matthew 22:23-32)

 

[thebobkatie]

Wow, thanks for all the great responses.

I think the subject itself is really interesting, since it must have come up at least a few times in the early church. Jewish polygamy was still permitted at the time, so at least a few converts must have had multiple wives.

Interestingly enough, some Christian churches, like the Lutheran Church of Liberia and a few others, apparently do allow plural marriage or at least allow men to keep their wives after becoming Christian.

Personally, I think the main problem with Christianity and polygamy is that marriage is supposed to be a mirror of Christ’s relationship with the Church, and the Church is one. However, I may be oversimplifying things.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I wouldn’t really call Islam a polygamist religion.

If a man who had multiple wives apostated from Islam, and converted to another religion, his wives would probably divorce him, so it wouldn’t be an issue of having multiple wives, even if he had them before.

If a man coming from any religion has more than 4 wives and enters Islam, he is supposed to divorce them, as he’s not allowed more than four [wives].

Umm… What?

 

[Reuben_J]

I was just asking because this question was making me kind of curious…
In the OT it doesn’t look like it was a problem:

Exodus 21:10
“If he takes an additional wife, he must not reduce the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.”

Deuteronomy 21:15-16
“If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved bear him sons, and if the unloved wife has the firstborn son,
when that man gives what he has to his sons as an inheritance, he is not to show favoritism to the son of the loved [wife] as his firstborn over the firstborn of the unloved wife.”

I was especially curious in the light that some people in the OT were actually polygamous…

David:
2 Samuel 5:13
“After he arrived from Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him.”

1 Chronicles 14:3
“David took more wives in Jerusalem, and he became the father of more sons and daughters.”

Solomon:
1 Kings 11:3
“He had 700 wives who were princesses and 300 concubines, and they turned his heart away [from the LORD].”

After all of that I wonder whether we should not just let the polygamists who become Christians stay with all of their wives, since Jesus did say the following:

Matthew 5:17-18
“Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished.”

If there had been a problem with becoming one flesh, then why wouldn’t there be a problem after the death of one spouse? It just doesn’t seem logical to me now that I think about it.
I mean if one woman can be one flesh with her first husband and can then remarry after her husband dies and be one flesh with the next and so on, why then wouldn’t it make sense to say that one person can be one flesh with more than just one person? (ref. Matthew 22:23-32)

There is a bit of argument about polygamy in Exodus and Deut that you quoted. As for what David and Solomon did, they might not be necessarily right.

The answer is probably in Mt which you quoted. Jesus comes to fulfill the Law. What is meant here is the spirit of the Law. Moses law on divorce and marriage is not perfect. The imperfection came about because of the weaknesses of men. It was not like that in the beginning nor was it the original intention of God. Jesus simply brings into imperfection what is not perfect. Similarly in the law of killing and adultery, it is the spirit of the law that Jesus came to fulfill.

I have to think about your last question about the death of the spouse. I have my thought on it but I am not sure whether it will answer you.

 

[puzzleannie]

But if a marriage between two non-Catholics is valid, why then shouldn’t a marriage between a husband and his 2nd and 3rd wife be valid for the same reasons?

a marriage between two non CAtholics is valid only if they are otherwise free to marry and there are no natural law barriers (incest for instance would still be forbidden), so no a man with multiple wives is validly married to only the first. this is a definite issue in evangelizing in some countries such as Africa where this is still common practice and there are pastoral solutions already in place there to determine which is the valid marriage, to have the new Christian remain only with that spouse, and to insist on care for the material needs of the other women and children.

 

[dans0622]

Wow, thanks for all the great responses.

I think the subject itself is really interesting, since it must have come up at least a few times in the early church. Jewish polygamy was still permitted at the time, so at least a few converts must have had multiple wives.

Interestingly enough, some Christian churches, like the Lutheran Church of Liberia and a few others, apparently do allow plural marriage or at least allow men to keep their wives after becoming Christian.

Personally, I think the main problem with Christianity and polygamy is that marriage is supposed to be a mirror of Christ’s relationship with the Church, and the Church is one. However, I may be oversimplifying things.

Hi thebobkatie,

You are correct. This situation has been encountered many times over the years. The distillation of the practice of the Church is in the Code of Canon Law:

"Can. 1148 §1. When he receives baptism in the Catholic Church, a non-baptized man who has several non-baptized wives at the same time can retain one of them after the others have been dismissed, if it is hard for him to remain with the first one. The same is valid for a non-baptized woman who has several non-baptized husbands at the same time.

§2. In the cases mentioned in §1, marriage must be contracted in legitimate form after baptism has been received, and the prescripts about mixed marriages, if necessary, and other matters required by the law are to be observed.

§3. Keeping in mind the moral, social, and economic conditions of places and of persons, the local ordinary is to take care that the needs of the first wife and the others dismissed are sufficiently provided for according to the norms of justice, Christian charity, and natural equity."

Others have said the first wife would be the one the man would have to keep. But, that is not the case, “if it is hard for him to remain with” her.

Dan

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t know about the Catholic situation, but in the Anglican Church this is a real issue in parts of Africa. At the moment, I believe the policy is to allow new Christians to keep the multiple wives, because there is really no other way to manage it - they can’t encourage the men to abandon them. As far as living as brother and sister - that would be logical, but I don’t think they are finding it is that simple. It is a continuing pastoral issue and one where no one seems happy with any of the possible solutions.

I would guess that the Catholic Church faces similar issues in the same places.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The first marriage is the valid marriage. All other “marriages” are not real marriages. Unless the first can be proven to be invalid, then the next marriage will then be assumed valid, and so on in chronological order until a valid marriage can be proven or all marriages are annulled.

If there is legal acceptance of all the marriages, then the civil procedure of divorce would have to be done for the other marriages.

 

[Reuben_J]

If there had been a problem with becoming one flesh, then why wouldn’t there be a problem after the death of one spouse? It just doesn’t seem logical to me now that I think about it.
I mean if one woman can be one flesh with her first husband and can then remarry after her husband dies and be one flesh with the next and so on, why then wouldn’t it make sense to say that one person can be one flesh with more than just one person? (ref. Matthew 22:23-32)

I can’t think of anything else to answer this at this moment so here’s my take on it. My fellow Catholics can correct me if they have other thought on this.

I think the marriage vow which is said during a **Catholic marriage mass **may be able to give us an insight to this – **“… till death do us apart.” **This seems to say that the marriage covenant is only good as long as we live (no divorce) but the couple concerned will be released of this obligation after death because in heaven the souls do not marry. We are only judged for what we do while still alive.

**Lk 20:35-36 **but those who are judged worthy of a place in the other world and in the resurrection from the dead do not marry because they can longer die, for they are the same as the angels, and being children of the resurrection they are children of God.

Thus a widow or widower can remarry as they are released from the marriage vow of “one flesh and should not be separated”.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Umm… What?

Polygamy isn’t part of the religion. It’s allowed for a man to have up to four wives (with certain restrictions on that) but the word for that is polygyny, and even that, though it’s permissible, isn’t really part of the religion so I wouldn’t describe the religion with it. Technicalities, maybe, but it’s how I view the world.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Umm… What?

Yeah…I caught that too.

Polygamy = the practice of having more than one spouse.

4 > 1. Hence, polygamy.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Yeah…I caught that too.

Polygamy = the practice of having more than one spouse.

4 > 1. Hence, polygamy.

A technical point: Islam only allows multiple wives, which is called polygyny. Not multiple husbands (polyandry) so a more specific term than “polygamy” is appropriate. Technical point.

But the religion doesn’t require a man to have more than one wife so I don’t really see it as a part of the religion, personally. But like I said above… technicalities.

 

[KathleenGee]

I read a Muslim man can have up to 4 wives, and hundreds of years ago, that concubines were also part of the package…many of them slaves.

In fact the majority of those enslaved by Muslim men were women and used for sex.

 

[Sister_Amy]

I read a Muslim man can have up to 4 wives, and hundreds of years ago, that concubines were also part of the package…many of them slaves.

In fact the majority of those enslaved by Muslim men were women and used for sex.

Uh… ok. Where did you read that?

Because I never read anything about Islam allowing concubines. And this idea about women being used for sex? I’m convinced it’s a western fantasy. It’s true that there were women captives (prisoners of war, really, more than “slaves”) whom men were allowed to have intercourse with–provided they were taking care of them, by giving them proper food, clothing, shelter. In fact, the captives were supposed to eat as well as the family ate, to dress as well as the family dressed, and so on.

When Arab tribes fought, the losers were enslaved by the victors. Islam set in place a means through which captives (essentially, prisoners of war) would become free. But it’s not like men went around “enslaving” women to “use” them for sex.

Kind of a wacky distortion, if you ask me, though certainly not the majority.