I see that was covered already… sorry for the rehash!

It is difficult because it doesn't many any sense to me. You are saying that God changed his mind about whether or not something is sinful? Before original sin, polygamy and divorce was sinful. Then, after, it was not. Then, it became a sin again?

In the NT, Jesus teaches about divorce as being adultery. So, how can it be that it wasn't sinful up until he said this? He didn't change the law. He clarified the teaching, no?

Just to be clear... I am not arguing with you. I want to understand this. And, keep in mind that this is the Catholicism 101 forum.

Lisa

Let's talk about eating pork.

It was a sin to eat pork in the Old Testament.

Today, it is not a sin to eat pork.

God does not change His mind.

Some things will always be sinful, murder and adultery and idolatry and lying and contraception and homosexuality and abortion. Those things will always be sinful, God will never permit them.

Things like polygamy or marriage between siblings were permitted at one time, today for us they are sinful.

Clear as mud then.



Was it permitted before or after the 10 Commandments? Because I think the idea of progressive revelation of God's law makes fair enough sense.

Both before and after the 10 Commandments.

It was permitted until Our Lord raised marriage to the dignity of a Sacrament.

And there you have it, polygamy was permitted, even required in some cases, because the marriage was not sacramental. I think we can say that polygamy was never the ideal, the ideal was sacramental monogamy, but until the perfect was introduced, imperfection was allowed.

mmmmmmmmmmmmm...hash

Corned beef or roast beef?

I wonder sometimes whether polygamy is currently permissible for those who are not baptized. I'm not saying that it should be permissible or whether the State ought to allow it, just whether it might be permissible in a region of the world in which it is permitted by the State and where it is culturally acceptable.

That's one reason why I can't get up in arms about Mormon fundamentalists and plural marriage.

I feel the same way.

According to some fathers, before baptism such marriages are legal and valid.

But according to others, no. Augustine said that after Christ, polygamy was not allowed. So did St. Thomas. Just as divorce is not allowed even in natural marriages (save by the authority of the Church, when one party is baptised, in favor of the faith)

According to St. Thomas, polygamy is against the natural law in such a manner no human authority alone could sanction it, but only divine authority (via interior inspiration). Presumably, that permission is revoked and was only given to Israel (or so it appears from St. Thomas's argument).

I will look it up in some of my manuals (between 51 old moral theology manuals, some must have something!)

I would say 'no' because 'when the perfect arrives the imperfect passes away'

Kage, I feel the extreme opposite because essentially polygamy will never meet a womans fundamental need for intimacy in relationship. Males and females feel loved in different ways and polygamy is the great sacrifice that womankind has made to Gods plan over time.

We have the knowledge of Christs truth about marriage now and I think its our solemn duty to feel affront and actively pray and campaigne for our sisters who today still subjected unnecessarily to a sacrifice that serves misogyny rather than God.

The unity of matrimony or monogamy is the matrimonial bond between one man and one woman. On that account, in the definition of matrimony above we spoke in the singular, and not the plural, viz "the marital conjunction of a man and a woman." Simultaneous polygamy and polyandry is opposed to the unity of matrimony; however a second nuptial is not prevented after the death of one or the other spouse.

Simultaneous polyandry, which is the marital conjunction of one woman with two or more men, very rarely exists among nations and is not only against the precept of Sacred Writ, "They shall be two in one flesh," but also directly contrary to the natural law. For the primary end of matrimony is the bringing forth and bringing up of offspring. Furthermore, experience bears out that a woman, who is habitually having sex with many men, is infertile, as is clear in prostitutes. But even if, perhaps, offspring are begotten, their bringing up would hardly be possible, since no one would be certain of being the father and from hence the corporal and spiritual care of the offspring would be very difficult.

Simultaneous polygamy (polygyny) which is the marital conjunction of one man with two or more women acquired force before Christ not only among the gentiles, but also among the Israelites. And still in our time among the pagans, in truth, especially among Mohhamedans.

Simultaneous polygamy is certainly contrary to the primeval institution of matromony in paradise, but it was permitted to the patriarches in the Old Testament. That the primeval form of matrimony was not polygamy is sententia certa (certain teaching). For Adam exclaimed, after Eve was given him as a wife, "They will be two in one flesh." Innocent III, explaining this text, says, "He does not say three or many, but two not does he say he shall adhere to wives, but to a wife." Also from the words of Christ, "But from the beginning it was not so," it is clearly learned that polygamy was not the primeval form of matrimony. Lamech seems to have been the first, who had two wives.

There are some who teach that polygamy was never licit and hence the wives of the patriarches to have been called concubines; nevertheless the patriarches did not sin formally in having many wives, since they were in good faith. Which explanation is certainly not satisfying nor sufficiently proved. And indeed it seems absurd that very holy men as Abraham, Jacob, etc, who had miraculous divine revelations, erred in a matter of so great importance. In addition, David, while vehemently scolded and punished because of his adultery committed with Bethsaba, is never reprehended because of his other own wives, which he had. The book of Deuteronomy is seen to suppose the liceity of polygamy, establishing (21:15,16) "If a man shall have two wives, one beloved and the other hateful, and they bear children from him, and the son of the hateful one is the first born, he shall will his substance to be divided among his sons; he shall not make the son of the beloved first-born and prefer him to the son of the hateful one." The same is confimed by the levirate law, by which the wife of one deceased brother (without children) must be taken in matrimony by a surviving brother, although he was already married. But if women joined maritally to one man are called concubines in Holy Writ, it is still not yet permitted to conclude that they were not legitimate wives, who are not led into marriage with great solemnity. Thus Agar, Cethura, Bala, and Zelpha are called here wives and there concubines of Abraham in the book of Genesis. But the intrinsic reason, from whence simultaneous polygamy was able to be permitted in the old Testament, consists in this, that polygamy is not opposed to the primary end of matrimony, namely, to the generation and education of offspring. And indeed one man suffices for impregnating many women and educating the offspring begotten by them. Still, it must be confessed that some men in the Old Testament joined with an excessive number of wives, for it is understood with difficulty, while, for example Solomon, was able to have many hundreds of wives without a mention of intemperance.

Authors commonly teach that the dispensation for having many wives was not granted by God except after the Flood. Nothing of certain can be said about this matter. Whether the same dispensation was granted not only to the Jews, but even to other peoples, authors do not agree; but it does not seem to be a sufficient reason why a more severe displine should be established for pagans than form Jews; or even less, that the pagans inasmuch as they lacked the Mosaic law should be able to observe the more difficult unity of matrimony than the Jews. And hence Esther, a Jewess, is joined to Assuerus who already had many wives, which union Mardochaeus, her adopted father and a man fearing God, would not have advised nor approved, if it had been gravely illicit.

Simultaneous polygamy from the time of the New Law is illicit and in vain for all, just so that neither the faithful nor unbelievers have sufficient faculty for having many wives. For Christ led marriage back to its primeval unity and called him an adulter who would dismissing his first wife, took another. Therefore he is an adulterer a fortiori who retaining his first legitimate wife, takes another. Innocent III argues thus, also, in the celebrated chapter, [u]Gaudemus[/i], "If therefore dismissing a wife, one cannot take another de jure, even more so when the first is retained: through which is appears evident that plurality in either sex, since they are not judged unequally, is reprobated in marriage." But even if in the Council of Trent it is only defined "If anyone should say that it is permitted for Christians to have many wives at once, and that no divine law prohibits this, let him be anathema," still it is not allow to conclude that it is syill licit for unbelieves to have many wives. And indeed, a plurality of wives is against the primeval institution of matrimony, and the dispensation granted in ancient times is expressly revoked by Christ. Whence St. Thomas teaches "to have many wives is against the law of nature, to which even unbelieves are bound: and therefore it is not a true marriage of an unbelieve unless eith her, with whom he first joined."

Nay, the Holy Office in an Instruction to the apostolic vicar of France (March 20, 1860), says: "It is most certain that simultaneous polygamy is wholy illicit under the law of the Gospel, whence after Jesus Christ led marriage back to its pristine sanctity, unity and indissolubility, with the dignity of a sacrament added for the baptised, neither the faithful nor Jews nor any other mortal is able to join with many wives. Consequently monogamy was thus reinstituted by the divine power that it must be held unshakenly as a dogma of the faith that except one is joined to one only the cannot be a legitimate and valid marriage." But if some Emperors are considered to have had many wives, as e.g. Constantius, Valentinian, Lothar, Billuart responds correctly, "from iniqious deeds no right is established. Constantius was an Arian, Lothar with his mistress was excommunicated by Pope Nicholas I, Valentinian I, that he might avoid the shameful appearance of two spouses, iniquiously abolished this law.

(from Dominicus Prümmer, para. 659, 660. Vol. 3 Manuale Theologiae Moralis)

Yep.. clear as mud.


Lisa

Welcome to studying morals. If everything is clear, you have to be in error

Ethics is not about just absolutes, it is mostly about what is for the most part. People have a false conception of the natural law, that something either is always against the natural law or isn't is a misconception. The natural law is the commanded given by human reason based on human understanding of the order of things and our end. It is not an exact science. There are some things clear, most aren't, which is why the standard is always the virtuous man, the exemplar. Which is why virtue, which is negelected in modern discourse, including most Catholic discourse (it is absent from ToTB for example!!!), is so essential.

Frankly the polygamy thing is very clear. It was not a sin for Abraham, as it does not go against the primary end of marriage and only weakens the secondary end and was permitted by God. But because it goes against the secondary end, by tending against it, it goes against the natural law as something that is for the most part, but not always, against our end. Since human judgment is incapable of determining with moral certitude that such should be allowed, it belonged to God, as author of the natural law, to dispense.

With regard to many matters, natural law needs to be determined by human law. Natural law would demand that we drive on one side of the road for safety, but left or right? That is a matter of human determination of the natural law. Natural law says, no marriage between relations. But where is the cut off? Turn of the 19th/20th century it was 4th degree Germanic counting, in 1917 onwards 3rd degree Germanic, in 1983 4th degree Civil/"Roman" (which despite being 4th degree, since it is counted different, is extremely lax...basically only siblings, uncles/aunts and 1st cousins are off limits now. 2nd cousins are fine). Heck and the human authority can allow all of those, save siblings. Yet it is still a matter of the natural law.

Morals is more like the certitude of rhetoric than geometry

Rubbish.

There are many things wrong with the quote. And I am equally as frustrated with such arguments from people because they ignore basic concepts that we all utilize.

Here are the top 5 assumptions made by this quote...

1. "God changed the definition of marriage, so we can too."
2. "When things are changed once, this means that there really is no definition at all and it can therefore be changed numerous times."
3. "Polygamy was the norm." This is simply a false statement. I am not aware of polygamy being a norm... at least among common folk. Certainly it was practiced among that wealthy and politically influential, but I am not too sure about it being a "norm".
4. "Acceptable" is a tricky word. There are some things that are acceptable because they are necessary, and there are some things that are acceptably because they are ideal. I'm not too sure that God found polygamy ideal even if it was acceptable given the circumstances of the people He was dealing with.
5. "Polygamy is taboo." Not it isn't. It is simply impossible. At least for the baptized. Marriage was restricted to a monogamous relationship after Christ established the Sacrament. This doesn't make the former taboo, it simply makes it impossible. A restriction is not a change in substantial meaning. A man still may marry a woman. But, it stops there. In polygamy, he could repeat that process. But, there isn't a change in substance here. In both monogamy and polygamy there was a man marrying a woman. So, the comparison here is untenable. With polygamy to monogamy we are dealing with a restriction of how many times the action can be repeated. With heterosexual to homosexual we are dealing not with repetition, but with substantial change in meaning.

I could go on, but that is enough...

As to number 1, it is clearly false. If God changes something it is always to make it better. Before Sacramental marriage, there was only natural marriage. All that is being claimed here is that polygamy is allowed under Natural Law, but not under Sacramental Law. So, there is nothing to compare to gay marriage here.

As to number 2, I think that speaks for itself. We are not God. If God wants to change something (as he clearly did in the institution of marriage) it does not mean that we can then do the same. We restrict marriage to one because of a clear command of Christ. That is the authority. There is nothing about gay marriage. We cannot argue that "Christ changed it so we can as well."

As to number 3, I would simply like to see the evidence of that.

And I already responded to 4 and 5.

FJ

yes...

or maybe lebanese blond