Polygamy

[dairygirl4u2c]

What would be the Catholic Church's position if a substantial number of Americans whated to legalize polygamous marriage? Would the Catholic Church find it moral to allow for their rights? (By allow I don't mean just let happen. I mean, proactively deem it moral to consider and allow their belief.)


If no would the Catholic Church argue natural law even when most animals follow polygamy? By the way, I am aware we are not animals. I just would like to know how you'd argue that they are not necessarily right. Is there evidence that cavemen were monogomous their whole lives? (more than just perhaps awhile)

If no would the Catholic Church argue faith based morality?

Is it possible the Catholic Church would say yes?

Edited July 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Colleen]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jul 21 2004, 10:44 PM']What would be the Catholic Church's position if a substantial number of Americans whated to legalize polygamous marriage? Would the Catholic Church find it moral to allow for their rights? (By allow I don't mean just let happen. I mean, proactively deem it moral to consider and allow their belief.)[/quote]
To quote John Paul II, "The truth is not always the same as the majority decision."

And from the Catechism 1605:

[quote]Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone."92 The woman, "flesh of his flesh," his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; she thus represents God from whom comes our help.93 "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."94 The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been "in the beginning": "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."95 [/quote]

And CCC 1646:

[quote] By its very nature conjugal love requires the inviolable fidelity of the spouses. This is the consequence of the gift of themselves which they make to each other. Love seeks to be definitive; it cannot be an arrangement "until further notice." The "intimate union of marriage, as a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of the children, demand total fidelity from the spouses and require an unbreakable union between them."155 [/quote]

In marriage, two become one flesh. Three or four can't become one flesh.

So, no, the Church wouldn't allow it.

[ironmonk]

The Catholic Church has already spoken on the matter.


Polygamy is a sin.


Think of this... How can a married man, be faithful to his wife, if he is courting another woman. THE VERY VOW of marriage forbids this.

'If anyone look with lust at a woman, he has already before God committed adultery in his heart.’ If your married and your seeking another women to marry... it is not a holy thing... you will be commiting adultery.

"Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18; cf. Mark 10:11–12).

IF you marry a woman while your married you commit adultery.

"Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. . . . Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive" (Rom. 7:2–3).

Eph. 5:22-32 - union of man and wife = image of Christ and the Church - they are inseparable. Marriage is a covenant. Christ will have one bride, the One True Church

Rev. 19:9 - marital union of man and woman reflect Christ's union with the Church at the heavenly marriage supper. One Bride.



[b]Justin Martyr[/b]

"In regard ,to chastity, [Jesus] has this to say: ‘If anyone look with lust at a woman, he has already before God committed adultery in his heart.’ And, ‘Whoever marries a woman who has been divorced from another husband, commits adultery.’ According to our Teacher, just as they are sinners who contract a second marriage, even though it be in accord with human law, so also are they sinners who look with lustful desire at a woman. He repudiates not only one who actually commits adultery, but even one who wishes to do so; for not only our actions are manifest to God, but even our thoughts" (First Apology 15 [A.D. 151]).


[b]Tertullian [/b]
On monogamy
CHAP. IV.--WAIVING ALLUSION TO THE PARACLETE, TERTULLIAN COMES TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE ANCIENT SCRIPTURES, AND THEIR TESTIMONY ON THE SUBJECT IN HAND.
Waiving, now, the mention of the Paraclete, as of some authority of our own, evolve we the common instruments of the primitive Scriptures. This very thing is demonstrable by us: that the rule of monogamy is neither novel nor strange, nay rather, is both ancient, and proper to Christians; so that you may be sensible that the Paraclete is rather its restitutor than institutor. As for what pertains to antiquity, what more ancient formal type can be brought forward, than the very original fount of the human race? One female did God fashion for the male, culling one rib of his, and (of course) (one) out of a plurality. But, moreover, in the introductory speech which preceded the work itself, He said, "It is not good for the man that he be alone; let us make an help-meet for him." For He would have said "helpers" if He had destined him to have more wives (than one). He added, too, a law concerning the future; if, that is, (the words) "And two shall be (made) into one flesh"--not three, nor more; else they would be no more "two" if (there were) more--were prophetically uttered. The law stood (firm). In short, the unity of marriage lasted to the very end in the case of the authors of our race; not because there were no other women, but because the reason why there were none was that the first-fruits of the race might not be contaminated by a double marriage. Otherwise, had God willed, there could withal have been (others); at all events, he might have taken from the abundance of his own daughters--having no less an Eve (taken) out of his own bones and flesh--if piety had allowed it to be done. But where the first crime (is found)homicide, inaugurated in fratricide--no crime was so worthy of the second place as a double marriage. For it makes no difference whether a man have had two wives singly, or whether individuals (taken) at the same time have made two. The number of (the individuals) conjoined and separate is the same. Still, God's institution, after once for all suffering violence through Lamech, remained firm to the very end of that race. Second Lamech there arose none, in the way of being husband to two wives. What Scripture does not note, it denies. Other iniquities provoke the deluge: (iniquities) once for all avenged, whatever was their nature; not, however, "seventy-seven times," which (is the vengeance which) double marriages have deserved.
But again: the reformation of the second human race is traced from monogamy as its mother. Once more, "two (joined) into one flesh" undertake (the duty of) "growing and multiplying,"--Noah, (namely), and his wife, and their sons, in single marriage. Even in the very animals monogamy is recognised, for fear that even beasts should be born of adultery. "Out of all beasts," said (God), "out of all flesh, two shall thou lead into the ark, that they may live with thee, male and female: they shall be (taken) from all flying animals according to (their) kind, and from all creepers of the earth according to their kind; two out of all shall enter unto thee, male and female." In the same formula, too, He.orders sets of sevens, made up of pairs, to be gathered to him, consisting of male and female--one male and one female What more shall I say? Even unclean birds were not allowed to enter with two females each.





That's just the tip of the iceburg. Do a little study. Polygamy is not acceptable.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Cure of Ars]

[quote][b]The third of the seven arguments for monogamy offered in the text of St. Thomas is based on characteristics which human beings share with other animals. It is an interesting case study for "moral law derived from biological facts." In the species of animals in which the father has no concern for raising his offspring, St. Thomas notes, both males and females tend to have promiscuous relations. "This is so among dogs, chickens and the like." By contrast, in the species in which the father does have concern for his offspring, relations tend to be monogamous. [/b]St. Thomas finds this tendency reasonable since one male would not be able to offer enough assistance to bring up the offspring of several females. He then applies the point to the rational animal: "Since, of all animals, the male in the human species has the greatest concern for offspring, it is obviously natural for man that one male should have only one wife, and conversely." If the male among some beasts shows a strong attachment to one female and her offspring, one would suspect that a strong desire of similar sort arises in human fathers, similar to and connected with sexual desire.

In the fourth and the fifth arguments, St. Thomas turns to a characteristic that distinguishes human beings from beasts. The characteristic he chooses to focus on in both arguments is the friendship between husband and wife in marriage. The fourth argument turns on equality as a necessary aspect of such friendship. If women could not have many husbands (which is taken as established by arguments one and two), but men could have many wives, women could not be truly friends of their husbands. They would be reduced to a servile role. St. Thomas adds, "And this argument is corroborated by experience, for among husbands having plural wives the wives have a status like that of servants."[/quote]

[url="http://www.theuniversityconcourse.com/II,2,10-2-1996/Waldstein.htm"]http://www.theuniversityconcourse.com/II,2...6/Waldstein.htm[/url]

If your are interested to wade through St. Thomas’s answer go here;

Whether it is against the natural law to have several wives?

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/506501.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/506501.htm[/url]

Whether it was ever lawful to have several wives?

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/506502.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/506502.htm[/url]

Edited July 22, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[God Conquers]

The Church would speak out against any such attack against the sanctity of marriage.

PS Colleen: "Truth is not decided by a majority vote" is a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger, not JPII

But your context is correct.

[Guest JeffCR07]

It should also be pointed out that Marriage is in its very nature aimed towards a temporal imitation of the Trinity. The Father limitlessly loves the Son, and the Son ceaselessly returns that love to the Father. That infinite Love between the two is the Holy Spirit. In the same way, the object of Marriage is for the husband to unconditionally love the wife and for the wife to unconditionally love the husband and that love between the two takes its form in their child. Thus marriage is oriented at all times towards the Trinity. If, however, one considers polygamy, it is clear that this likeness ceases to exist.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[dairygirl4u2c]

Thanks for the input. But, I'm not asking about whether polygamous marriage is moral or not; for the sake of effectiveness, let's say I'm against polygamy. What I am asking is whether or not it is moral according to the Catholic Church to allow for other's morals in a society. (I did not say democracy because we'll get side tracked debating what a democracy is instead of my point.)

Personally I think allowing others the freedom to choose their own morals is the moral thing to do. Can I get someone to verify these statements; if they need adjustment, then adjust them, but I want a clear answer on this:

"According to the Catholic Church, in social matters, allowing some minorities some freedom to choose morals, in cases such as polygamy, is immoral."

"Since the Catholic Church don't allow for other's morals when they are in the minority, RC's must smell of elderberries it up when they are in the minority in order to be fair."

Edited July 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

morality should not be defined by the majority. morality should not be defined by the minority. there is one absolute morality. Catholics are called to work to make Catholic Morality recognized and enforced by the state. This is known as evangelization.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I thought evangelization was trying to get others to come to your faith. I realize that if you think you shouldn't allow for others morals, you shouldn't sell out, but it's ironic that you say not allow minorities rights is evangelization when minorities are going to be upset at you.

Also, I would still like someone to verify those statements.

Edited July 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

I can do nothing but completely throw out those two statements and put this in its place: The Church should never stand up for erring morality, it should work to correct it. If it is in the minority, it should work to change the majority. If it is in the majority, it should work to change the minority. It should always work to make true morality recognized by the state because that is a tool for changing society.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Those are nice euphemisms but it sounds like you are verifying the statements. You can add to them, but the point still remains that they must smell of elderberries it up in order to be fair and that allowing for others morals is immoral according to the Catholic Church.

Edited July 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

Nope. No one has the right to impose an erring morality upon a society. We should not smell of elderberries it up, it doesn't matter if that's not "fair".

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]You can add to them[/quote]

Just thought I should clarify that. You can add to the two statements that Catholics must smell of elderberries it up when they are in the minority, but should work to change the majority.

Unless you are implying that Catholics should take military action to get its morals officially recognized by society?


And the first statement still is true that it is immoral to consider others morals in society right?

Edited July 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

taking any action not necesarily military action is different than sucking it up. we should work to change any law that imposes immorality upon the country.

Catholics should not follow any law that contradicts their morality. like, in Canada, Catholics are still called to speak out against homosexuality even if they're gonna get arrested for hate speech. Catholics are not obliged to adhere to immoral laws.

Simply, we should not just "smell of elderberries it up"

Military action would be required under certain circumstances. I'll find it for you in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church. h/o a sec

and I guess the first statement is right, erring morals should not be supported by the state.

Edited July 22, 2004 by Aloysius

[dairygirl4u2c]

All I was trying to say by "smell of elderberries it up" is that since Catholics don't allow for minorities rights, they should not expect that the majority will allow Catholics rights when Catholics are in the minority. Unless Catholics think the fair thing is a double standard?

I wasn't implying that they should do nothing to change the majority. Just add to the statement if you want. And if you want to change "smell of elderberries it up", that's fine, but I think you can verify the second one too.

Edited July 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c