Why are Catholics monogamist?

[Meggie18]

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

 

[Monica4316]

It says in Scripture that a husband and wife become one flesh… this seems to suggest monogamy.

 

[Balian]

According to the Church as explained in the Catechism, para 2387, polygamy is not in accord with the moral law because it directly negates the plan of God as revealed from the beginning (e.g., marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman) and it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive. The last part makes the most sense to me. I can’t actually envision how a person could give himself or herself “with a love that is total” to multiple partners. Admittedly there are quite a few examples of the practice of polygamy in the Bible and no specific prohibitions against it for the most part, yet it is equally true that there is no explicit approval of it given. Perhaps like divorce it was tolerated but not viewed as acceptable.

I admit I too have watched a few episodes of the show you mentioned mostly because it is a bit fascinating in a bizarre sort of way. First, the cast of the show aren’t a part of any mainstream religion but are in my understanding followers of some part of the Mormon church. I have a close friend who is a mainstream Mormon who tells me that polygamy is not acceptable to Mormons in general. People often speak of Christ and pray yet as Christ noted, “they worship with their lips” but their hearts are far from him.

Without intending to be uncharitable, I think all those involved on the show all have some serious emotional issues. All of the “wives” seem to have self-esteem issues to one degree or another and personally I don’t think that fact is coincidental to the lifestyle they are involved in. In my own opinion the man is simply selfish and desires multiple sex partners and actively seeks a particular type of woman who can be convinced that polygamy is a good lifestyle. It seems strange that if they are just one big happy family that each of the wives needs to have their own separate house where the husband can visit them individually. I recall on one episode that they really made a big deal about the fact that they don’t indulge in group sexual relations as if that would be patently sinful while polygamy is fine.

In the final analysis I have to agree with the Church’s teaching regarding polygamy. It is impossible to imagine how living that lifestyle would make a person holy or more pleasing to God and yet quite easy to imagine how it could produce a multitude of sins.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

If monogamy is inferior to celibacy what is polygamy?

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

:harp:Hi Meggie, and welcome.
I agree with the other answers here and would only add that we, unlike the people in the Old Testament, live in a land where polygamy is (mostly, as far as I know) considered unlawful, and we are to obey the laws of the land. But more important than that, I agree with the poster here who reminds us of God’s original intent. Adam and Eve in the Garden were made one flesh. Catholics obey the Church, which teaches that we are to be monogamist. This is the wisdom of the Church, and I am grateful for it! Hope this helps!
Blessings,:hug1::heaven:
Kathryn Ann
:angel1:

 

[kmuestwin]

Hi Meggie, and welcome.
I agree with the other answers here and would only add that we, unlike the people in the Old Testament, live in a land where polygamy is (mostly, as far as I know) considered unlawful, and we are to obey the laws of the land. But more important than that, I agree with the poster here who reminds us of God’s original intent. Adam and Eve in the Garden were made one flesh. Catholics obey the Church, which teaches that we are to be monogamist. This is the wisdom of the Church, and I am grateful for it! Hope this helps!
Blessings,:hug1::heaven:
Kathryn Ann
:angel1:

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.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Interesting question.

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. To love multiple wives, or multiple husbands, ultimately leads to loving multiple gods. Let’s not forget that Abraham was originally a pagan. Let’s not forget that King Solomon’s downfall began when he started marrying multiple wives. If I am not mistaken, 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. Only time will tell if China will adhere to Weber’s beliefs or whether we will find a case of women marrying multiple men.

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).

 

[Julia_Mae]

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

1 Timothy 3:2, 12

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach. . . . Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.”

 

[Julia_Mae]

At times like this, you should resort to the Bible and not teachings of men…

…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.

 

[Spencerian]

Matthew 19 reveals God’s plan for marriage, as explained by Christ.

Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?” He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

In short, God was tolerant of our behavior, waiting for us to mature enough to accept that one wife and one husband was His final design.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

…said the atheist.

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

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

 

[jeff417]

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.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

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.

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…

 

[jeff417]

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.

sounds like a strawman to me…

How many posters here believe the Saints led sinless lives?
How many Catholics do you (Catholic posters) know who believe this “Catholic myth”?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

sounds like a strawman to me…

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.

 

[Julia_Mae]

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

It wasn’t either. Not intentionally. I apologize very sincerely if I hurt your feelings in any way. The remark was meant to point out that someone who believes there is nothing at stake is probably the last person to take advice from in religious or spiritual matters.

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

I have no idea what this means, how it relates to the topic, or what it could have to do with Tradition. But I don’t think it illustrates an understanding of the difference.

 

[Julia_Mae]

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…

This, BTW, is a myth.

 

[Andrew1983]

sounds like a strawman to me…

How many posters here believe the Saints led sinless lives?
How many Catholics do you (Catholic posters) know who believe this “Catholic myth”?

I never heard of this at all. Perhaps the Church focuses more on the positive that radiated from these men and women to be but forth as other examples of being able to attain virtue and holiness? Be Perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect? Just a thought.

I believe that the Saints were made perfect through Christ, but they certainly didn’t start out that way. Some may have been better than others initially, but yes, all fell from the mark as we all do.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

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.

:angel1:
May your day be blessed and thank you. Actually, my reasoning was not that at all. In Old Testament times, Polygamy was allowed by Abrahamic Law, which permitted a man to have more than one wife. Also, divorce was allowed, for example, but as Christ Himself later explained, only “due to the hardness of their hearts.” Our “nation” may be based on some semblance of Christian principles, but we fall short. We may dis-allow Polygamy, but sadly, our nation embraces civil divorce at at all time high.

After Christ came, He explained that in the beginning, the ideal was, (as with Adam and Eve), for there to be one wife per husband and that divorce was contrary to God’s loving ideal for us. Eventually, our nation adopted many laws over time, dis-allowing polygamy yet allowing divorce, something which Christ Himself spoke against. Our American government and “founding fathers” were actually predated by indigenous, noble Native Americans. We followed them and formed our current laws which are not fully as Christ intended, because even though *Polygamy was disallowed, divorce is allowed in civil law, under the exact same “Christian principles” *you mention, making it an imperfect system of justice.

We have seen how civil laws work, in our “Christian principled” founded nation, sometimes not fully adhering to Christ’s own stated, loving intent. Now that we are facing the demand, by some, for same- sex unions in different states, there will be discussions in this very same nation over what laws to pass in that regard.

Catholics strive for the ideal, and when we fail in marriage, we have recourse to Church annulments through Tribunals which address whether or not there was a “valid” marriage in the first place. Wherever we live, we are to be law -obeying citizens, but God holds us to a higher ideal. Thankfully, again, when we fail, His original Divine Intent and love for us allows us to approach the annulment Tribunal to inquire if a marriage was possibly not valid in the first place, in the eyes of The Church, for one or more grave reasons. My point here is that although we like to think that our nation was founded on Christian principles, we fall far short of the Church’s ideals and the compassion for which God’s Commandments were created.

Best wishes,
Kathryn Ann
**.

 

[kmuestwin]

:angel1:
May your day be blessed and thank you. Actually, my reasoning was not that at all. In Old Testament times, Polygamy was allowed by* Abrahamic Law,* which permitted a man to have more than one wife. Also, divorce was allowed, for example, but as Christ Himself later explained, only “due to the hardness of their hearts.” Our “nation” may be based on some semblance of Christian principles, but we fall short. We may dis-allow Polygamy, but sadly, our nation embraces civil divorce at at all time high.

After Christ came, He explained that in the beginning, the ideal was, (as with Adam and Eve), for there to be one wife per husband and that divorce was contrary to God’s loving ideal for us. Eventually, our nation adopted many laws over time, dis-allowing polygamy yet allowing divorce, something which Christ Himself spoke against. Our American government and “founding fathers” were actually predated by indigenous, noble Native Americans. We followed them and formed our current laws which are not fully as Christ intended, because even though *Polygamy was disallowed, divorce is allowed in civil law, under the exact same “Christian principles” *you mention, making it an imperfect system of justice.

We have seen how civil laws work, in our “Christian principled” founded nation, sometimes not fully adhering to Christ’s own stated, loving intent. Now that we are facing the demand, by some, for same- sex unions in different states, there will be discussions in this very same nation over what laws to pass in that regard.

Catholics strive for the ideal, and when we fail in marriage, we have recourse to Church annulments through Tribunals which address whether or not there was a “valid” marriage in the first place. Wherever we live, we are to be law -obeying citizens, but God holds us to a higher ideal. Thankfully, again, when we fail, His original Divine Intent and love for us allows us to approach the annulment Tribunal to inquire if a marriage was possibly not valid in the first place, in the eyes of The Church, for one or more grave reasons. My point here is that although we like to think that our nation was founded on Christian principles, we fall far short of the Church’s ideals and the compassion for which God’s Commandments were created.

Best wishes,
Kathryn Ann

Whoops. I guess I misunderstood you.