To be more specific, the Catholic Church has issued a lengthy document denouncing polygamy. It is titled Una Caro (One Flesh) and you can download it free of charge from the Vatican … in Italian. Google will cue you for an English translation, which comes out sounding a little clunky. The lengthy and often convoluted sentences used in the original document seem to be more than Google can handle. With 156 numbered paragraphs and 256 footnotes, this is truly an exhaustive and detailed repudiation of polygamy. That is something LDS leaders will not and cannot do, for the obvious reasons.
There are a couple of good summaries in news reports. One is at the Salt Lake Tribune, by way of the Religion News Service. From the story:
“Polygamy is in opposition with moral law,” the document states in Italian. “It radically contradicts conjugal communion.”
That’s certainly how it feels to most moderns in the West, Mormon or not. Remember, taking that second wife into an LDS marriage/sealing wasn’t expanding the marriage from two to three. It was creating a second independent marriage, albeit with the same husband. Polygamy doesn’t expand the original “conjugal communion,” it diminishes it by parceling part of it out to a second relationship, a third relationship, and so on.
Another quote from the SL Trib story:
A theme woven throughout the document is that monogamy protects the equality and dignity of women.
Again, that is almost self-evident. Read the whole article for more info. By the way, the Deseret News has no story on the Vatican denunciation of polygamy.
Another story is at the Vatican News. Here’s their one-line summary of Una Caro:
It explains that only two people can give themselves fully and completely to one another; otherwise, the gift becomes partial and fails to respect the other’s dignity.
The Vatican News story makes interesting reading for a Mormon. The Catholic doctrine or model of marriage invokes theological reflections that are alien to the rather utilitarian Mormon doctrine or model of marriage. It’s also worth noting (and correct me if I am wrong on this) that most or all of the prelates and church officials drafting and approving Una Caro are themselves unmarried and have no direct experience with “conjugal communion.”
I’ll close with a quote from Una Caro itself, or at least the English text of the document (as translated by Google), paragraph 3:
Monogamy is not simply the opposite of polygamy. It is much more, and its deepening allows us to conceive marriage in all its wealth and fecundity. The question is intimately linked to the unitive purpose of sexuality, which is not reduced to guaranteeing procreation, but helps the enrichment and strengthening of the single and exclusive union and the feeling of mutual belonging.
So what do you think?
- Here we have a long and detailed discussion and rejection of polygamy by a Christian church with no reference to Mormon polygamy in the entire document (that I could find with a quick word search, anyway).
- It’s odd to see such a celebration of monogamy when the entire clerical cadre, as well as tens of thousands of those in various orders, reject or are barred from entering monogamy.
- The discussion of “communion” and “dignity” are not generally encountered in an LDS polygamy discussion, but they probably should be.
- Another reflection: The entire Catholic discussion focuses on marriage in this life, in the here and now. Contrast that with the LDS focus on the next life, the Celestial Kingdom, and having one’s family, maybe with a few extra wives, in the hereafter.
- And finally, what exactly is the opposite of polygamy? Monogamy? Polyandry? Singleness, whether temporary or permanent?
Wheat & Tares 
You got my hopes up. But in the end I knew there had to be a catch. Thanks for the post and your insights!
The LDS Church is always trying to buck the trend. Monogamy vs. polygamy. Hetrosexual-only vs gay marriage. But if you’re going to define marriage for the rest of us it helps if you are consistent.
I need to think about this some more, but my initial gut reaction is quite ambivalent:
1. On the one hand, I am troubled by a religion defining the “right” and “wrong” forms of marriage. I’m very sensitive to this given Mormonism’s history with polygamy and gay marriage. It seems like religions might want to back off to a position of, “well, if everyone in marriage is happy and equal, then you’re welcome to come to our church”. Note that the “happy and equal” requirement would, definitely, disallow Mormonisms past form of polygamy (and even the way it still practices it today) even though I’m sure many priesthood leaders (and, yes, their polygamous wives) would (and did) bear public testimony of how happy and equal their polygamous unions were. Since religions are so bad (the historical evidence is overwhelming) at dealing with social issues, perhaps this is an issue that they should stay out of.
2. On the other hand, polygamy generally seems to cause problems. I’m sure there are exceptions where all the participants in polygamous unions felt equal and happier than they would have been in monogamous relationships, but this seems quite rare to me. Also, people have a funny ability to be able to make themselves feel they are equal and happy in relationships (polygamous or otherwise), when they really would be happier if they weren’t in that relationship in the first place. I am skeptical that it is very common to maximize equality and happiness in polygamous marriages. Since polygamy isn’t likely to result in optimal marriages, then maybe it really is best for religion to take a stand against it.
On the “communion” characterization, the current state of affairs in terms of intimate relations has been characterized as a sacrament by Elder Holland – but, not polygamy itself. Rather, the act of conjugation as a sacrament. “Human intimacy is a sacrament, a very special kind of symbol.”
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/jeffrey-r-holland/souls-symbols-sacraments/
Adam F,
Jeff Holland was a university president at that time, not an apostle.
I am going to agree with Mountainclimber’s ambivlence about marriage and attempts to control other people’s marriage. I really hate religions putting out moral judgements on marriage because religious people just cannot resist making their preference into law for everybody else, and they seldom stick with polygamy, but want to outlaw gay marriage, transgender existence, and 14 other things too.
I think religious people should keep their morals to themselves and stop trying to control those not of their religion.
However, and it is a big however, for polygamy I am fine with them passing laws because it isn’t just the adults involved. There have been several studies and the outcome for children is not as good. They do not get as much parental time and attention and this makes a huge difference in their school success. I really would not care if polygamy was made legal except for the early child development of the children who have an essentially single mother who keeps on having more babies. See, polygamy forces a mother to work as well as the father visiting rather than being a full time dad. Kids really need one full time parent, only our economy doesn’t allow that. Polygamy just makes it that much worse because instead of the father taking the kids for the weekend and giving the mother some child free time, the father is a visitor who divides his time among several wives. The wives get no time away from kids, but the kids still only see him part time. So, worse than divorced mothers raising their kids alone.
And as an aside, I think we should do a lot more to help single mothers even with polygamy being illegal by #1 premarital counseling and classes to prevent so much divorce. #2 direct services to single mothers, plus higher child support for uninvolved fathers. #3 figure out some way of encouraging people to actually get married if they are going to be making babies. I don’t have brilliant ideas as it seems everything but executing fathers has been tried.
My only reason for thinking polygamy should be illegal is the damage to children from one man having to divide up his time and not giving individual time to each child. If polygamists didn’t have any children, then I would have no problem making it legal.
Anna,
I agree that polygamy should be legalized if polygamist husbands agreed not to have children, and there is a non- reversible procedure which assures that. Unfortunately, that procedure would not be popular with men, as it would likely make marital relations for men impossible as well.
I didn’t see any effort to control “other peoples” marriages. Isn’t the document written for Catholics, who presumably follow the Church’s teachings? Isn’t marriage one of the sacraments of the Catholic Church? Is it inappropriate for the Church to explain its teachings in this regard? Also the articles I’ve read said that the document was prepared ,at least In part, at the request of African bishops, who may have needed direction as polygamy is widely practiced in parts of Afric. The Church has historically opposed polygamy, which is not surprising given the Graeco-Roman culture in which the early Church grew.
Two unrelated comments:
First: Men taking on multiple wives is a large part of human history. It was likely a thing in early Christian times because Paul had to suggest, in 1 Timothy 3:2, that “a bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach.”
We all are aware that there remains a number of places today that still allowed men to take multiple wives. This statement, put out by the Catholic church, reminds us that such arrangements are almost always to the disadvantage of the women involved.
Some have argued otherwise about polygamy in our LDS tradition. But any reading of section 132, and other cultural references makes it clear (at least to me) that women, in these relationships, are seen as property; as belonging to men; as agents to be acted on and not agents to act. So yes: polygamy, or any other arrangement of men marrying multiple women, are not good for women, for men, and are also bad for children. We should shed no tears in leaving it behind.
Second: I don’t understand how we can be expected to take the Deseret News seriously. From this post: “By the way, the Deseret News has no story on the Vatican denunciation of polygamy.”
Really? I did a quick search of the DN from my laptop and found no mention of this particular topic. Our church leaders continue to apparently believe that if we are very careful, and never mention it, talk about it, preaching about it, or publish articles about it, that eventually people will forget that we once were champions of polygamy. But this will never happen. I can imagine some version of an encyclopedia, written in 100,000 or 200,000 years. If there are still humans around to read it, or if there are some more intelligent beings running things then, that in such a reference there will be an entry on “Mormons”. It will be something like this: “The Mormons, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints refers to a religious movement in the United States from approximately 1820 until…, that encouraged members to enter into multiple partner relationships.” Yes, we will never live this down. Never. Got it? Never! And we look so stupid when we deny its existence.
There could be many interesting things said about this Catholic document. Interesting and possibly faith promoting things could be said by, say, a faculty at BYU, or by a church historian elsewhere. The DN could acknowledge the document and discuss how it might be read by members of our church. A church historian could review the significance of the document. Our church and tradition, more than ANY OTHER in the US could have some significant things to say about it.
But nothing. I can’t take the Deseret News seriously. Our church is the second most significant organization in Utah (after the Utah State government.) It affects the daily lives of members and nonmembers. And yet the DN cannot, and worse isn’t expected to, explore topics in ways that no one else can.
I agree with vajra2. From what have read, polygamy, as traditionally practiced in many communities in Africa has apparently become a cause for concern, so several bishops asked for clarification from the pope. I’m not sure what changed recently to prompt this concern, because as far as I know, the Vatican had taken a hands-off approach to this and many other unique cultural practices among global church. Unless several stakes in Utah county suddenly decide to bring back polygamy, I wouldn’t expect to hear a peep about the subject from the LDS church.
This part: “The question is intimately linked to the unitive purpose of sexuality, which is not reduced to guaranteeing procreation, but helps the enrichment and strengthening of the single and exclusive union and the feeling of mutual belonging.”
Do you see the words rejecting Mormon polygamy? Sex “is not reduced to guaranteeing procreation.” One of the Mormon reasons for polygamy is so a man can father as many children as possible. That’s right in the Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:30, when Jacob says sometimes many wives and concubines are fine if the Lord commands it, in order “to raise up seed unto me.”
Marriage is NOT a breeding program. The Catholic Church acknowledges that sex is part of a relationship separate and apart from procreating. Sex is about “enrichment and strengthening” and for a “feeling of mutual belonging.” That rejects Mormon polygamy. And Mormon marriage doctrine, if we want to go there. There isn’t a word in the temple sealing ceremony about feelings. It’s all about power and glory.
A challenge the LDS Church faces in its “happy family” doctrine is that its original marriage doctrine had nothing to do with happiness or fulfilling relationships. Polygamy was a breeding program. The temple sealing ceremony is about power and glory. The idea of happiness or love is missing from the actual text of the early LDS revelations about marriage or family. The Proclamation on the Family doesn’t square with D&C 132 or with the temple sealing ceremony.
The Catholic Church’s acknowledgment that sex isn’t solely for procreation, and that the feelings of the husband and wife truly matter, rejects LDS polygamy in its entirety.
I didn’t read the full document. I wonder how the Catholic Church handled OT polygamy, and if it said anything about God wants just one man and one woman in a marriage. LDS polygamy relies heavily on those OT polygamous relationship, and I wonder what the Catholic Church said about them.
Really interesting post, Dave B!