Why are Catholics monogamist?

[bmonk]

If monogamy is inferior to celibacy what is polygamy?

Of course, there’s nothing that says monogamy is inferior to celibacy. God calls us to chastity–which is possible both in marriage (monogamy) and in the single life (which may include vowed or permanent celibacy).

I’d say that the reason for getting away from polygamy is the difficulty of being committed properly to more than one spouse. And then there is the recognition of marriage as an image of Christ and the Church, from Ephesians 5. Christ has only one spouse, the Church; similarly we are called to have no more than one spouse.

 

[Bezant]

Hi everyone!

Recently, I’ve been watching the show Sister Wives on TLC. (For those of you who don’t know, it’s about the life of a polygamist family living in Las Vegas). I was surprised to learn that they believe in Jesus Christ and that they frequently pray together. On the last episode that I watched, the husband mentioned that Abraham and Moses both had multiples wives. Knowing that, I don’t understand why God gave them huge tasks to accomplish and why we regard them as prophets if they actually had more than one wife. I am very confused at the moment. That lead me to ask myself that question: why are Catholics monogamist?

Thank you for your answers,

Meggie

Because monogamy was always framed as the ideal, in contrast to polygamy, in Scripture.

It’s also a lot better financially and legally speaking.

 

[jcrichton]

Hi everyone!

Recently, I’ve been watching the show Sister Wives on TLC. (For those of you who don’t know, it’s about the life of a polygamist family living in Las Vegas). I was surprised to learn that they believe in Jesus Christ and that they frequently pray together. On the last episode that I watched, the husband mentioned that Abraham and Moses both had multiples wives. Knowing that, I don’t understand why God gave them huge tasks to accomplish and why we regard them as prophets if they actually had more than one wife. I am very confused at the moment. That lead me to ask myself that question: why are Catholics monogamist?

Thank you for your answers,

Meggie

There are two economies in Scriptures: the Old Covenant (Old Testament) and the New Covenant (the New Testament); the Law (Mosaic Laws) and the Prophets were to guide Israel to Jesus’ arrival (the Word becomes flesh–St. John 1:1-14); there could have been an extra measure of patience on the part of Yahweh God since Israel (as well as the rest of the world) was in its infancy (both in respect to number and knowledge)… regardless of the reason, at the appointed time God sent forth His Son and He introduced a new Covenant… one that did not depend so much on the temporal values as the Spiritual; interestingly enough when the issue of divorce is brought up Christ does not fault anyone in particular (Moses or Israel) but reaquaintences them with the Truth: in the beginning it was not so: one man and one woman in God!

Mormons and others who prescribe to the Old Testament poligamy do so fully aware that they are being selective about the things to keep and the things to reject… do those poligamists go to the Temple, in Israel, to make animal, oil, and grain sacrifice? Do they gather on the Sabbath in their local synagogues? Are they subscribing to the various Mosaic Laws (I think there’s over 600/900 of them)? Do their males get circumscised on the 8th day after birth? Do they reject the New Testament?

…as with the Jehovah Witnesses, they are very selective in what they believe about Christ–using the Name of Christ as a means to temporal acquisitions!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

If monogamy is inferior to celibacy what is polygamy?

…you cannot compare all three in that fashion… celibacy is a distinct level since those who practice it (I understand that some other religious groups also practice it) have made a vow to serve God in a chaste manner where they will not seek a conjugal partner, other then the Church; monogamy is a state where a man and a woman join in the Sacrament of Matrimony (man, woman, God) and they vow to love and support each other and serve God in this particular capacity–the major difference between those who are celibate and those who live in monogamy is that the first can employ more time for God since he/she does not have a spouse and natural offsprings for which to care; polygamy denies Christ’s Sacramental Union of one man and one woman in God!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

While I agree with your post, I disagree with your reasoning. Polygamy isn’t Christian because it is the law of the land. It is the law of the land because this nation was founded on Christian principles.

I cuncur!!!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

(sorry, I cut my response and I must edit your text due to limits)

The monogamous, traditional family unit is a proof of the Trinity. As one saint remarked, in any relationship, “there is a lover, a loved person and a fountain of love”. In short, a relationship is perfect communion. That is what the Trinity is - perfect communion between God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. This explains why the monogamous traditional family unit is sometimes referred to as the “Church in miniature”, and even since Old Testament times, foreshadowed the Church’s existence that was to emerge in the New Testament. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were made in “God’s image” (cf. Genesis 1:26). This not only meant that Adam and Eve had a soul, but also that their relationship was indicative of God’s existence, to which they are instructed to “be fruitful and increase in number” (Genesis 1:28).

It doesn’t work this way with a polygamous family unit… multiple wives, or multiple husbands, ultimately leads to loving multiple gods… Abraham was originally a pagan… King Solomon’s downfall began when he started marrying multiple wives… Max Weber, who is regarded by many as the founder of the field of sociology, referred to polygamy as an essential feature of barbaric civilizations. It is not something you find in more advanced societies. It is certainly a statement interesting in light of China’s economic growth and their huge male-female ratio gap…

Back to the point, God gave Abraham and Moses huge tasks because they were sinners. Yes, sinners. It is an implicit Catholic myth that God only gives huge tasks to those who are perfect. That is not true and is clearly anti-biblical. In fact, those who are perfect tend to be overlooked, indeed - " “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick” (Luke 5:31) and "there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent" (Luke 15:7). The reason God gives sinners such huge tasks is because when they accomplish said task, they give glory to God. If a perfect person was to accomplish the task, he/she would attribute it to his/her own talents. This explains why God gave Gideon the duty of fighting the Midianites, even though he was the youngest and least important in his family. This explains why God gave David the duty to fight Goliath, even though Goliath outsized him by an unimaginable factor. This explains why God’s own beloved son, Jesus, was born in a manger, and not even his own people recognized him: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand” (cf. Isaiah 42:20; Matthew 13:13). Peter wavered in his faith all the time, yet he was the first Pope and was given the keys of Heaven.

It’s easy to get sidetracked into the sins Abraham and Moses committed because Catholic spirituality of the saints indirectly asserts “you need to be perfect to be noticed by God”, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. Those who were perfect in the Bible were overlooked. None of them were important, and none of them are remembered for any contribution they made in biblical history. At times like this, you should resort to the Bible and not teachings of men : “But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7).

…and here I was about to think that you were Catholic in spite of your claims to atheism… you are incorrect in spousing the Church with perfection!

…hollowood influence on society has convinced many of irrational thoughts (it takes evil to do good, etc.); the fact that man sins does not preclude man from being used by God to accomplish His Salvific Plan… and the fact that men chosen by Yahweh God do tend to fail in matters of discipline, morality and avarice speaks not against God but rather for God since He Decreed that there’s not one who is just (righteous) not even one–which also attests to Christ’s Divinity: the Just One); and the fact that God has been patient with us also is proof that He is Willing to encourage us to freely return to Him: “I place life and death in front of you, chose life so that you may live…”

God’s Mercy (Ezekiel 18 and Isaiah 1:16-21); the Church Teaches that Christ came to offer all of mankind Salvation and that the Holy Spirit, the other Paraclete, ushers us into a conversion: the new man in Christ!

Christ Himself Command us to “be perfect for God is perfect.” …this perfection into which we are called is not that of mere temporal values (aesthetic) but of spiritual origin:

16 Instead, I tell you, be guided by the Spirit, and you will no longer yield to self-indulgence… 18 But when you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 When self-indulgence is at work the results are obvious: sexual vice, impurity, and sensuality, 20 the worship of false gods and sorcery; antagonisms and rivalry, jealousy, bad temper and quarrels, disagreements, 21 factions and malice, drunkenness, orgies and all such things. And about these, I tell you now as I have told you in the past, that people who behave in these ways will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 On the other hand the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control; no law can touch such things as these. 24 All who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified self with all its passions and its desires. 25 Since we are living by the Spirit, let our behaviour be guided by the Spirit 26 and let us not be conceited or provocative and envious of one another.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Early Christians probably did have more than one wife quite often or this wouldn’t be necessary:

…or it could well be an admonishion to keep them from emulating the pagan customs… it could also be a warning to pagan converts that they must clean house in order to become Christians.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

…said the atheist.

You know, Bohm, there were no Bibles for common folk to “resort to” for 80% of Christian history. Scripture does not trump Tradition.

…glad you caught that…
…in a round about way, it may seem as a call to separate from the Church!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Not sure what my religion (or lack thereof) has to do with this, unless of course this is just a nasty and crude remark.

You don’t need to educate me on the distinction between Tradition and Scripture. I already know what the distinction is, and where the distinction lies. It is a “teaching of man” (i.e. one not found in Church teaching but is made implicitly amongst the faithful) to suggest that saints - during their time on Earth - were perfect. This is not true and flies right in the face of “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Saints were just as imperfect as any human being, unless of course you are now suggesting that they are demi-gods

… really don’t know where you get that… are you aware that even the Pope frequents the Sacrament of Confession?

The difference between the Believer and non-Believer is that Believers know that they are sinners and turn to Christ’s Sacrament of Reconciliation… the non-Believers ignores sin and even relishes in it!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Just wondering where, exactly, is that Catholic teaching that the saints were perfect? I missed that one.

I thought that the Church taught that the saints simply died in the state of grace. Having died without any unrepentant mortal sin on one’s soul is different than being perfect. Silly me.

…it is understandable that a non-Catholic cannot distinguish between Catholic Doctrine and hollowood spirituality… I think that the lack of familiarity with the Sacraments is also a hinderance in understanding Church Doctrine…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Read my post again carefully ,

I never said the Church taught that saints were perfect. I said that it’s faithful (i.e. followers, i.e. teachings of men) tend to purport this lie that the saints were perfect throughout their lives. If you look at the biography of St. Padre Pio, for instance, his life history is muddled up with all kinds of rumours, hearsay and sometimes even lies. Many of the things attributed to St. Padre Pio are not historically accurate. I have investigated his life history extensively, and there is little evidence to suggest he genuinely bilocated. There is little evidence to suggest he prophecized that Karol Wojtyla would be a future Pope (Pope John Paul II). He did have the stigmata, but the credible miracles don’t go much further than that.

I think some users just want to pick a debate for the sake of picking debate. Probably makes them feel smarter than they are…

…sorry… I too thought that you were speaking from a different perspective… thank you for clarifying–the distinction makes quite a different read/take!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

It isn’t a strawman. For example, if we really want to be technical, the rosary is not part of the Church in a theological sense. It is a private devotion that emerged from private revelation. But to make such claim is incredibly ignorant of Church history. If we take both theory and reality into account, it is more appropriate to say that the rosary is indeed a part of the Church (as evident by it’s popularity amongst the faithful, the saints and various popes) even though it may not officially be a part of the deposit of faith.

In the same way, it is commonly purported in Catholic spirituality (either directly or indirectly) that the saints led perfect lives, that they never sinned and walked on thin air lol. But when you actually study the lives of the saints (and I mean really study), they lived normal lives like every human being. Yes, they were noble, but many of them weren’t outwardly peculiar apart from a few. St. Padre Pio lost his temper on a number of occasions

*Edit: Anyway, I’m done with this thread. I believe my first post answered this thread. Thanks to one poster who picked out 1 line out of several paragraphs , this thread is on the verge of being derailed.

I don’t want to keep responding to accusations because I fear the OP may not understand what’s going on (English isn’t her first language). If you have an issue, you are free to PM me. I don’t bite.

…again, that’s your personal observation… do you actually purport to have the resources to do in-depth investigation on the lives of people who have died decades and centuries ago?

…and as far as the deposit of the Faith… you are so far away… the deposit of the Faith does not mean what has been set in Scritptural text… neither does it mean what transpired during the lives of the Apostles… the deposit of the Faith means all of the Church history, which includes the Sacred Traditions and the Sacred Scriptures–but does not exclude the writings of the Popes, Bishops and Doctors of the Faith.

The Church is organic and Doctrinal Teaching has been expanding from the days of the Apostles!

If you do not want to respond to “accusations” you should check and recheck your claims before you make them… having an open mind to accept the corrections to your erreneous assumptions is also an integral part of open exchange!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Crumpy]

this is a pretty hot thread, back and forth.

I read and/or glanced through it all, and I didn’t seem to recall what I think is most important about marriage, in that it is an institution set up right from the beginning (according to Genesis) from God, for people, like God, to continue with the act of creation (like God).

And, I’ve always held that it symbolizes the relationship of God to His people and Christ to “His bride” – the Church, in NT language. It’s one of the things that makes marriage so sacred – a covenant, no less.

There are other threads on all the aspects of civil marriage, and its implications.

Same-sex marriage is only one of the aberrations of marriage. I think polygamy may not be far off, in the future. Another moderation aberrations that has just come up, is the country that is allowing temporary marriages (Russia, maybe?). I don’t think we’ve seen everything, yet.