Posted on 09/16/2014 2:12:12 PM PDT by NYer
And then there is always serial polygamy as practiced in Hollywood.
And then there is this side of the argument (sarc)
Woman dropped out of Cambridge to enter polygamous marriage to a muslim
My Atomic Physics prof told a little joke, which I shall attempt to relate ...
He reminded us that due to the presence of 14C, 40K, and similar unstable isotopes in our bodies, we're all somewhat radioactive. Not much, but measurably so. From this we may conclude that sleeping with one woman does not pose a great hazard, but sleeping with two women can be extremely dangerous ...
Radiological hazards aside, my lovely bride has been a boon companion these many years. I wouldn't have it any other way ... two women would screw it all up.
Matthew 19:
4 [Jesus] answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 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’? 6 So they are no longer two but one.[b] What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
I told my wife to pick out my next wife. Does that count?
Yes, and that’s the problem with “divorced and remarried.”
People should be aware that this publication, Crux, is new and is backed by the Boston Globe, of all things, and has writers who are self-appointed Popes and disagree with the Church on just about everything. Weirdly enough, the person who writes the Q&A column isn’t even Catholic (she’s a liberal Jew).
I have always thought John Allen was duplicitous: that is, he tries to pose as objective, but is basically a liberal without the rhetoric who is almost more dangerous because he sort of slips things in and quotes very selectively.
“... in July 2007, Cardinal John Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria, said that on polygamy, “the Catholic Church is particularly firm and consistent, giving no room whatsoever for doubts and exceptions.”
Actually, Cardinal Onaiyekan, the Catholic Church made an exception in the 12th century but everyone has forgotten about that. I see nothing wrong with following that same practice today when necessary.
Oy. Depravity.
I’m curious. What was that 12th century exception?
yes, me too.
Unfortunately, those of us with the good sense God gave a mule seem to be a shrinking breed these days.
“I’m curious. What was that 12th century exception?”
The pope (I believe it was Alexander III in 1169) responded to a request from missionaries in the Baltic region to allow polygamous unions already formed to continue for one generation among recent converts. This was deemed necessary because the splitting up of these unions would have caused a huge humanitarian crisis and potential converts might have put off converting because of affections of the heart and very real needs to care for their children from polygamous unions. The text of the actual letter or decree from Alexander (or whichever pope it was) is in Migne’s Pat. Lat. but I forget which volume (there are 221 volumes in that series so it’s easy to forget). I read it years ago when I was in graduate school. It is an excellent example of the pragmatic nature of missionary work in the Middle Ages.
See post #31.
see post 31
I knew the "Dark Ages" weren't so dark. I find it interesting that there were still missionary fields in Europe so late in history.
“I find it interesting that there were still missionary fields in Europe so late in history.”
Right up to 1386 - Lithuania converted that year. And in the Middle Ages they had their own version of the ‘New Evangelization’ too!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.