The Prodigal Sheep

The Hebrew patriarchs had a propensity for numerous wives. God commanded the Hebrews to be 'fruitful and multiply'; this commandment of course could only be heeded by allowing adult males to take the maximum number of wives and concubines. This was not simply tolerated by God, but encouraged and in some cases explicitly commanded. Of course, God (or his spokespersons) did not seem as favorably inclined to women having multiple husbands; this was strictly a male privilege. And things did get out of hand a little with some of the later monarchs counting their wives in the hundreds...

David, a polygamist, reserved his greatest ardor not for one of his wives but for Saul's son, Jonathon. Jonathon's love, he said, was exceedingly great and surpassed that of women. Marriage in those times was for producing offspring (Harry's 'openness to welcoming new life') but also for establishing and nurturing tribal and political alliances. Close friendships (and in David's case, passionate ardor) were generally between men of equal status.

God commanded Hosea to marry Gomer, an adulterous woman, in order to prove a point to the Hebrew nation. She bore several children but was scorned by Hosea (I guess she would know how Hillary felt). This is what I would call a marriage of religious convenience (or inconvenience if you were Gomer). Kind of like 'ex-gays' marrying women in order to prove their straightness or obedience to God.

Jesus was too busy spreading the good news of God's love to give much thought to marriage. When he did speak on the subject, his emphasis was on a husband's obligation to the woman. He did say that there would be no marriage in the kingdom of heaven, and certainly his life with the disciples reflected such a viewpoint. He was less interested in 'protecting' marriage than he was in protecting those unfortunate people (adulteresses, widows, orphans) who lacked the protections afforded by marriage. Maybe he viewed marriage as he did the Sabbath--that it was made for man, and not the other way around.

Paul was more direct. Marriage was an inconvenience and a burden that was fine for unbelievers, but to be avoided by Christians if at all possible. He accepted it as a necessary evil for those folk who couldn't contain their passions. 'Better to marry than to burn,' he said. Divorce was allowed if one partner was an unbeliever and this prevented the Christian partner from carrying out their ministry. Certainly no 'lifelong union' rhetoric here. Paul would have found preposterous the idea of Christian bishops wasting their time trying to impose marriage guidelines on the state.

I'm less familiar with Catholic tradition, but would point out that polygamy and divorce were tolerated in the early church, as were priests, bishops and popes marrying (in some cases multiple times). The church eventually became more dogmatic about the 'one man, one woman' principle. But there was often a huge gap between theology and practice. And modern civil marriage (and its corollary, civil divorce) were unknown until the ascendance of the nation-state and the gradual disestablishment of Christendom in the last two to three centuries.

So Harry, if God intended things so precisely, why wasn't he clearer about it in the first place? Why did God so often bless those that did not conform to the so-called 'ideal'. Or did God evolve in his thinking just as we have? State your own preferences and prejudices for sure, but state up front that what you are saying reflects modern Catholic dogma and not the once-and-forever revealed 'intentions' of the Divine. You have a responsibility not to spread arrant nonsense among your flock that you, as an educated man, know has no biblical or historical basis.