"In his testimony, Justin argued that polygamy is the foundation of faith in Africa and warned about the risk of alienation should the Catholic Church insist on monogamy.
“Belief is a religion; religion on the other hand is culture, and our culture here in Africa is polygamy,” the father of 12 said, and added, “As Africans, we believe that polygamy is wealth and a source of blessings.” "
I'm sure that the Aztecs would have said that human sacrifice is a "source of blessings," too, and that slave holders in the Ante Bellum south would have said slaves are a source of "wealth."
And the Romans and Greeks would have definitely said that men having sexual access to anything they could claim ownership was their "culture."
If being a Christian means being counter-cultural, I know what the obvious Christian reaction to polygamy is.
They might. Men who can afford to have more wives are generally wealthier than those who can only afford one. If the cultural expectation is polygamy, they might not think it problematic, or have anything to compare to. Especially if they were raised with polygamous parents.
How many women in the west feel happy to have a good husband, even though he looks at porn?
It also sounds like there's some polyandry in Africa as well.
Look I’m sure there are exceptions but it doesn’t Matter if it’s culturally normative. Humans aren’t good at sharing. Especially when it’s one way sharing.
Jealousy among wives when polygamy exists is a known thing. Competition for whose kids get what and also the awful horrible emotional consequences of other women being sexually accessible to your husband. I’m just telling you money only buys so much happiness and how “blessed” these polygamous marriages are is a selling point on the husbands 🙄
Your porn addicted western husbands is a great comparison - MANY of those wives, Christian or not, are super hurt and damaged by this and are NOT happy.
The two shall become ONE flesh is written into our very bones.
It is. As I understand it, porn usage is a major contributor to divorce, unhappy marriages that don't lead to divorce (including where both spouses think and say they're happy), and I suspect it is also a major contributor to women avoiding marriage. Becoming one with someone who will blithely and regularly hurt you that badly is not appealing.
But our ability to lie to ourselves about our happiness (and to anyone who asks, perhaps especially the polygamous husband) is truly impressive. There are also many women in the West who watch porn with their husbands and consider it a good thing. There are others who advocate for "open" marriages, orgies, etc. The West doesn't have a monopoly on self-deception. African wives are just as capable.
I find this particular statement of Cdl. Ambongo's especially interesting:
“However, affirming the doctrinal elements is not enough,” he said. “Pastoral accompaniment for polygamists is urgently needed.”
Replace 'polygamists' with 'LGBT people' or 'divorced and remarried people' and you get a statement that could easily come from Cdl. McElroy or Cdl. Cupich. I don't venture to claim an equivalency between Cdl. Ambongo and his American brethren, but the similarity in language is fascinating.
Polygamy (fundamentalist Mormon sects notwithstanding) is not really a problem in the West. The concept of having multiple legal spouses is pretty weird to us—in part because people that want multiple sexual partners often also want at-will commitment and no kids. The idea of 'pastorally accompanying' polygamists would seem both weird and unnecessary, and polygamy itself, with our individualist culture and obsession with sexual autonomy, would probably strike many as 'icky', to say the least. On the other hand, homosexuality and divorce are extremely common, which tends to make even people who disagree with it more habituated to its existence, and puts many people in the position of knowing or caring for someone in such a situation.
I think the situation is reversed in many parts of Africa, at least from Cdl. Ambongo's perspective. Homosexuality is less common and 'ickier' than polygamy, because polygamy is culturally established, and many African Catholics are likely to know someone in a polygamous relationship. Suddenly, pastoral accompaniment for such people seems wise and necessary, but no quarter should be given to those weird corrupting Western vices like homosexuality.
I don't mean to draw an exact equivalency here between Ambongo and McElroy or Cupich, nor between homosexuality, divorce, and polygamy. However, I think it's worthwhile to note the ways in which our responses to particular vices and issues can be as heavily conditioned by familiarity and gut response as by Church teaching.
Sometimes people have to break a relationship in order to get right with the Church and with God. If breaking that relationship means that a woman no longer has a place to live, then yes, some kind of accompaniment is needed (maybe supported by people at the parish). It is *comparatively* easy for me to leave a relationship because I have money and I am a first-class citizen of my country and have a job and so on, so all I had to do was rent a new place to live and move there (and, if appropriate, get a lawyer to make sure I get my legal rights whatever they are) and take precautions for my personal safety knowing that the law will protect me and that the local law enforcement is on my side. I don't know the details of what it is like for a second or third wife with kids in a country that I'm not familiar with (I don't know the details of what it is like there for women, full stop, and that would factor into it.) When I say comparatively easy it was still quite hard and without any backup or guidance it takes a long time to get from "I am in an immoral situation and need to get out of it" to "I am willing to do whatever is necessary". Like, a step by step playbook of "Exiting an Immoral Situation For Dummies" with local contacts for each step (someone who has done it or someone who can help) would be interesting maybe.
This is a fantastic example of the limited equivalency here. Leaving a polygamous relationship in an African country is likelier to involve many more difficulties than leaving any kind of immoral relationship in the US, especially for women. This is not to say that doing so in the States *isn't* difficult (especially where one partner supports the other, or kids are involved, or property, to say nothing of good old emotions)—but it sure is going to be more difficult for most women in Africa, so there's much more need for accompaniment, especially of wives. Thanks for bringing up these points, as I hadn't considered them when writing my earlier comment.
I think that is why 1983 canon law specifically requires the man to support all his former "wives", while only being married to one. It undoubtedly has a lot of other complexity, but it's probably a safe assumption that men with 2-12 wives probably have a bit more wealth to handle the situation there.
Probably also a safe bet that they don't want to spend more money for a lower standard of living, less social standing, and less sex, while probably making ALL their "wives" mad at them, and a good chunk of their children feel second class.
Here’s the rub with polygamy where it does require pastoral accompaniment, in the same way a gay couple with a kid needs accompaniment… if you’ve got multiple wives and children, which wife is your ‘real’ wife upon converting to Catholicism? What if your wives are not converting with you? How the heck are you supposed to pick? First in best undressed? Are you supposed to keep supporting each wife and children as before but only have marital relations with one?
I don’t envy any poor pastor that has to sort that mess out and it boggles the mind that there hasn’t been an formal guides for this age old problem.
The guide was: it's your first wife. If you don't remember who was first, take your pick.
I'm not sure it's possible to set up a flow chart for this kind of decision-making. You really have to form peoples' consciences right, know all the many moral principles that go into it, have the intention of doing God's will, and then work the problem. Different circumstances will weight different principles differently.
I don’t think you need to go down the flow chart route, but if you ‘can’t remember’ (how do you forget that frankly?) who you married first, or there’s no formal record of it or there’s a dispute about who married first… I think you do need to have more specific ‘policy’ for guiding some of these situations, or at least a robust forum for pastors and bishops to provide advice or guidance with specific situations.
The other thought… are the ex-wives free to marry someone else if they’re not picked? (Gosh could you imagine the interpersonal drama?? It could make Mean Girls look like angels..)
I think that rule was put together at a time when most of the polygamists being encountered did not have calendars (American Indians and such). But I was rather astonished at someone not being able to remember marrying their first wife as well.
I would think the others would be free to marry. Their original marriages were invalid, due to the other person already being married. I'm less confident that it would be a good idea. Besides the interpersonal drama, kids tend to do better (in non-polygamous, invalid and annulled marriages) if their parents do not remarry. It's not like there's much difference between an annulment & remarriage, and a divorce & remarriage, in how it *feels* to a kid.
I think the advice and guidance might have to develop out of practice with specific circumstances. Which means they're going to have to start getting out of polygamous marriages, in order to find out how to get out of polygamous marriages.
Well... the innocent always suffer from adult's stupidity. The concern that I do have, is that monogamous marriage, (and in part why monogamy has been so effective as a social institution in the Christian influence sphere) is really important frontline social safety net for women and children, especially in countries where there is no other social safety net provided by a functioning state, or by a robust civil society aid. It may be unjust to deny both those extra wives and children the opportunity for stable family formation and the social and economic benefits, and, if it goes well... can be healing. I can't imagine that a biological father of a huge number of children has much time to spend with any of them, let alone invest in them, once the numbers get beyond a dozen.
The man is required to support all the women and children. By natural law, men have an obligation to all the children they father, regardless of who the mother is.
But yes, it is entirely possible to get yourself into a situation where the demands of justice are not achievable. Think of the guys who donate sperm here, or fornicate until they have kids by 5 different women, who live in different states. The Church's job in such cases is to provide advice on how to get the situation as right as possible, and to mitigate all the damage they've done as much as possible. Which is complicated and depends a lot on the particular social situation.
"The concept of having multiple legal spouses is pretty weird to us..." It is entirely routine to us. If you are Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Tom Cruise, etc it is just serial polygamy.
With the collapse of sexual morality in Western countries, we have seen any number of informal polygamous relationships emerging. And we have Muslim polygamy in England, funded by the ever luckless taxpayer.
And we have Karen Matthews in Yorkshire with her polyandrous lifestyle and X children by Y men funded by the ever luckless taxpayer. Though arranging the kidnapping of her own child was her moneymaking scheme.
One lesson from both these very extreme examples seems to be that these arrangements are hideously bad for children and taxpayers. But they are the last people to be considered by clergy or sexual revolutionaries.
The liberal commentariat obviously have a terrible job trying to defend or ignore any of these arrangements, because the only "law" they uphold is Alastair Crowley's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". And they dare not say anything against indigenous cultural practices, however much they oppress women.
The form of pastoral accompaniment envisaged by Cardinal Ambongo is probably not one that western "Catholic" feminists have hailed as desirable. It is usually the blokes who get the best part of any one-to-many relationships.
After Fiducia Supplicans, which does not apply in Africa, the DDF is probably going to have a document on polygamy which applies only in Africa. Or maybe multiple documents which each apply only in one region of Africa. Yet another step towards the disintegration of the Church into national fragments.
“After Fiducia Supplicans, which does not apply in Africa”
Interestingly, a few days after SECAM assented to Fiducia Supplicans in doctrine but not in practice in its “No Blessings” document, the Conference of Bishops of the Northern Region of Africa (CERNA) and the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference (SACBC) broke from SECAM, saying that they would bless persons in irregular situations.
So the situation even in Africa on FS isn’t necessarily in lockstep against it.
That is incorrect. Fiducia supplicans does in fact apply in Africa, Francis just reinterpreted what was required to be believed in Africa. That was the whole point of Ambongo going to Rome and making both Francis and Fernandez kiss his ring for a change.
It was also obvious it was going to happen a week after it was released, so I do not understand for the life of me why so many otherwise smart people went to the mattresses to defend something Rome was making clear they were already retreating on.
I think the difference is that Cardinal Ambogno has at least proven he actually believes Church teaching on these matters. Whereas McElroy, Cupich et al almost certainly do not. Or, like womens ordination, they take the Cardinal O'Malley approach: they disagree with the decision personally but respect the Church's authority when it says it cannot.
And in the West, homosexuality is not actually normative either. In Catholic circles while it certainly exists, it is not in fact what you would call commonplace. It's rarer than in secular circles, and in secular circles it's already only about 5% of the population. I don't know the numbers on polygamy, but wouldn't be surprised if its more pressing.
I think the need for accompaniment is obvious - whenever you have a person living in a state of grave sin, they need to move from where they are to where they ought to be, they could use some assistance, and the process will take time. Another obvious statement: they will not enjoy many aspects of the process.
Cardinal Cupich has said he's in favor of allowing the divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion. That could be called accompaniment, but to where?
I don't think Cardinal Ambongo is falling into this trap (he affirms the need to provide accurate teaching regarding polygamy) but if a guy with 12 wives is a catechist and sees nothing contrary to Catholicism in having 12 wives, there are probably some clergy in Africa who have. The "icky" factor is a big deal, because a lot of people make moral decisions according to a conscience formed by their culture, not by the Church.
The case of polygamy is similar to divorce and remarriage, especially with children. Couples have moral obligations to each other, and parents have moral obligations to their children, irrespective of how those relations came to be. The challenge (described as pastoral accompaniment) is to find an arrangement that reconciles those moral obligations with the moral obligations of true marriage, and to support all persons involved as they live out that (almost always socially unusual) arrangement.
It is understandable that when missionaries first arrive, they may find the people living in unusual marriage situations and have to work with them to establish the Church in the area. However, when the Church has been operating in an area for over a century and we are three or more generations down the line, the descendants should not be expecting to continue poly marriages because their grands did it. I am glad this is being addressed.
Sounds a lot to me like this is a practice that the Church would have to accommodate for a generation and then be able to stamp out. That it's 3rd generation folks saying that the Church has been letting polygamists be active leaders in the Church for 100 years speaks to something breaking in catechesis 60 or 70 years ago.
If you accommodate for a generation, the next generation(s) figures it wasn't such a bad thing, since it could be accommodated. Actions are catechesis too.
If you don't fix the problem where it's at, you're really just kicking the can down the road.
Why not establish Catholic teams to go to parishes to teach chastity and how to maintain celibacy, whether you are African, Asian or a Westerner; whether your weakness is pornography, homosexuality, masturbation, erotomania, polyandry or polygamy, fornication or adultery etc?
A chastity counter-revolution is long overdue, surely?
Sacrament of Penance, used frequently must be emphasised.
The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Why not start such a team yourself?
Jason Evert does this in the US, primarily going to schools. He has worked very hard to educate *himself* on the typical US problems, including transgenderism. There are a few others out there, and I expect they'd appreciate assistance. Many do podcasting to extend their reach, to counteract the fewness of their numbers.
I think this is the crux of the issue:
"In his testimony, Justin argued that polygamy is the foundation of faith in Africa and warned about the risk of alienation should the Catholic Church insist on monogamy.
“Belief is a religion; religion on the other hand is culture, and our culture here in Africa is polygamy,” the father of 12 said, and added, “As Africans, we believe that polygamy is wealth and a source of blessings.” "
I'm sure that the Aztecs would have said that human sacrifice is a "source of blessings," too, and that slave holders in the Ante Bellum south would have said slaves are a source of "wealth."
And the Romans and Greeks would have definitely said that men having sexual access to anything they could claim ownership was their "culture."
If being a Christian means being counter-cultural, I know what the obvious Christian reaction to polygamy is.
Also I’d be curious to hear from the wives about whether they feel wealthy and blessed 😒
They might. Men who can afford to have more wives are generally wealthier than those who can only afford one. If the cultural expectation is polygamy, they might not think it problematic, or have anything to compare to. Especially if they were raised with polygamous parents.
How many women in the west feel happy to have a good husband, even though he looks at porn?
It also sounds like there's some polyandry in Africa as well.
Look I’m sure there are exceptions but it doesn’t Matter if it’s culturally normative. Humans aren’t good at sharing. Especially when it’s one way sharing.
Jealousy among wives when polygamy exists is a known thing. Competition for whose kids get what and also the awful horrible emotional consequences of other women being sexually accessible to your husband. I’m just telling you money only buys so much happiness and how “blessed” these polygamous marriages are is a selling point on the husbands 🙄
Your porn addicted western husbands is a great comparison - MANY of those wives, Christian or not, are super hurt and damaged by this and are NOT happy.
The two shall become ONE flesh is written into our very bones.
It is. As I understand it, porn usage is a major contributor to divorce, unhappy marriages that don't lead to divorce (including where both spouses think and say they're happy), and I suspect it is also a major contributor to women avoiding marriage. Becoming one with someone who will blithely and regularly hurt you that badly is not appealing.
But our ability to lie to ourselves about our happiness (and to anyone who asks, perhaps especially the polygamous husband) is truly impressive. There are also many women in the West who watch porn with their husbands and consider it a good thing. There are others who advocate for "open" marriages, orgies, etc. The West doesn't have a monopoly on self-deception. African wives are just as capable.
I find this particular statement of Cdl. Ambongo's especially interesting:
“However, affirming the doctrinal elements is not enough,” he said. “Pastoral accompaniment for polygamists is urgently needed.”
Replace 'polygamists' with 'LGBT people' or 'divorced and remarried people' and you get a statement that could easily come from Cdl. McElroy or Cdl. Cupich. I don't venture to claim an equivalency between Cdl. Ambongo and his American brethren, but the similarity in language is fascinating.
Polygamy (fundamentalist Mormon sects notwithstanding) is not really a problem in the West. The concept of having multiple legal spouses is pretty weird to us—in part because people that want multiple sexual partners often also want at-will commitment and no kids. The idea of 'pastorally accompanying' polygamists would seem both weird and unnecessary, and polygamy itself, with our individualist culture and obsession with sexual autonomy, would probably strike many as 'icky', to say the least. On the other hand, homosexuality and divorce are extremely common, which tends to make even people who disagree with it more habituated to its existence, and puts many people in the position of knowing or caring for someone in such a situation.
I think the situation is reversed in many parts of Africa, at least from Cdl. Ambongo's perspective. Homosexuality is less common and 'ickier' than polygamy, because polygamy is culturally established, and many African Catholics are likely to know someone in a polygamous relationship. Suddenly, pastoral accompaniment for such people seems wise and necessary, but no quarter should be given to those weird corrupting Western vices like homosexuality.
I don't mean to draw an exact equivalency here between Ambongo and McElroy or Cupich, nor between homosexuality, divorce, and polygamy. However, I think it's worthwhile to note the ways in which our responses to particular vices and issues can be as heavily conditioned by familiarity and gut response as by Church teaching.
Sometimes people have to break a relationship in order to get right with the Church and with God. If breaking that relationship means that a woman no longer has a place to live, then yes, some kind of accompaniment is needed (maybe supported by people at the parish). It is *comparatively* easy for me to leave a relationship because I have money and I am a first-class citizen of my country and have a job and so on, so all I had to do was rent a new place to live and move there (and, if appropriate, get a lawyer to make sure I get my legal rights whatever they are) and take precautions for my personal safety knowing that the law will protect me and that the local law enforcement is on my side. I don't know the details of what it is like for a second or third wife with kids in a country that I'm not familiar with (I don't know the details of what it is like there for women, full stop, and that would factor into it.) When I say comparatively easy it was still quite hard and without any backup or guidance it takes a long time to get from "I am in an immoral situation and need to get out of it" to "I am willing to do whatever is necessary". Like, a step by step playbook of "Exiting an Immoral Situation For Dummies" with local contacts for each step (someone who has done it or someone who can help) would be interesting maybe.
This is a fantastic example of the limited equivalency here. Leaving a polygamous relationship in an African country is likelier to involve many more difficulties than leaving any kind of immoral relationship in the US, especially for women. This is not to say that doing so in the States *isn't* difficult (especially where one partner supports the other, or kids are involved, or property, to say nothing of good old emotions)—but it sure is going to be more difficult for most women in Africa, so there's much more need for accompaniment, especially of wives. Thanks for bringing up these points, as I hadn't considered them when writing my earlier comment.
I think that is why 1983 canon law specifically requires the man to support all his former "wives", while only being married to one. It undoubtedly has a lot of other complexity, but it's probably a safe assumption that men with 2-12 wives probably have a bit more wealth to handle the situation there.
Probably also a safe bet that they don't want to spend more money for a lower standard of living, less social standing, and less sex, while probably making ALL their "wives" mad at them, and a good chunk of their children feel second class.
Here’s the rub with polygamy where it does require pastoral accompaniment, in the same way a gay couple with a kid needs accompaniment… if you’ve got multiple wives and children, which wife is your ‘real’ wife upon converting to Catholicism? What if your wives are not converting with you? How the heck are you supposed to pick? First in best undressed? Are you supposed to keep supporting each wife and children as before but only have marital relations with one?
I don’t envy any poor pastor that has to sort that mess out and it boggles the mind that there hasn’t been an formal guides for this age old problem.
I believe canon law requires the continual support of former extra wives and those children in charity and justice as much as is allowed.
The guide was: it's your first wife. If you don't remember who was first, take your pick.
I'm not sure it's possible to set up a flow chart for this kind of decision-making. You really have to form peoples' consciences right, know all the many moral principles that go into it, have the intention of doing God's will, and then work the problem. Different circumstances will weight different principles differently.
I don’t think you need to go down the flow chart route, but if you ‘can’t remember’ (how do you forget that frankly?) who you married first, or there’s no formal record of it or there’s a dispute about who married first… I think you do need to have more specific ‘policy’ for guiding some of these situations, or at least a robust forum for pastors and bishops to provide advice or guidance with specific situations.
The other thought… are the ex-wives free to marry someone else if they’re not picked? (Gosh could you imagine the interpersonal drama?? It could make Mean Girls look like angels..)
I think that rule was put together at a time when most of the polygamists being encountered did not have calendars (American Indians and such). But I was rather astonished at someone not being able to remember marrying their first wife as well.
I would think the others would be free to marry. Their original marriages were invalid, due to the other person already being married. I'm less confident that it would be a good idea. Besides the interpersonal drama, kids tend to do better (in non-polygamous, invalid and annulled marriages) if their parents do not remarry. It's not like there's much difference between an annulment & remarriage, and a divorce & remarriage, in how it *feels* to a kid.
I think the advice and guidance might have to develop out of practice with specific circumstances. Which means they're going to have to start getting out of polygamous marriages, in order to find out how to get out of polygamous marriages.
Well... the innocent always suffer from adult's stupidity. The concern that I do have, is that monogamous marriage, (and in part why monogamy has been so effective as a social institution in the Christian influence sphere) is really important frontline social safety net for women and children, especially in countries where there is no other social safety net provided by a functioning state, or by a robust civil society aid. It may be unjust to deny both those extra wives and children the opportunity for stable family formation and the social and economic benefits, and, if it goes well... can be healing. I can't imagine that a biological father of a huge number of children has much time to spend with any of them, let alone invest in them, once the numbers get beyond a dozen.
The man is required to support all the women and children. By natural law, men have an obligation to all the children they father, regardless of who the mother is.
But yes, it is entirely possible to get yourself into a situation where the demands of justice are not achievable. Think of the guys who donate sperm here, or fornicate until they have kids by 5 different women, who live in different states. The Church's job in such cases is to provide advice on how to get the situation as right as possible, and to mitigate all the damage they've done as much as possible. Which is complicated and depends a lot on the particular social situation.
"The concept of having multiple legal spouses is pretty weird to us..." It is entirely routine to us. If you are Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Tom Cruise, etc it is just serial polygamy.
With the collapse of sexual morality in Western countries, we have seen any number of informal polygamous relationships emerging. And we have Muslim polygamy in England, funded by the ever luckless taxpayer.
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-UK-allow-Muslim-men-to-have-multiple-wives-on-British-soil
And we get Mick Philpott in the English midland city of Derby with his polygynous lifestyle funded by the ever luckless taxpayer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Philpott#:~:text=Michael%20S.,funded%20lifestyle%20and%20polygynous%20relationships.
And we have Karen Matthews in Yorkshire with her polyandrous lifestyle and X children by Y men funded by the ever luckless taxpayer. Though arranging the kidnapping of her own child was her moneymaking scheme.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Shannon_Matthews
One lesson from both these very extreme examples seems to be that these arrangements are hideously bad for children and taxpayers. But they are the last people to be considered by clergy or sexual revolutionaries.
The liberal commentariat obviously have a terrible job trying to defend or ignore any of these arrangements, because the only "law" they uphold is Alastair Crowley's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". And they dare not say anything against indigenous cultural practices, however much they oppress women.
The form of pastoral accompaniment envisaged by Cardinal Ambongo is probably not one that western "Catholic" feminists have hailed as desirable. It is usually the blokes who get the best part of any one-to-many relationships.
After Fiducia Supplicans, which does not apply in Africa, the DDF is probably going to have a document on polygamy which applies only in Africa. Or maybe multiple documents which each apply only in one region of Africa. Yet another step towards the disintegration of the Church into national fragments.
“After Fiducia Supplicans, which does not apply in Africa”
Interestingly, a few days after SECAM assented to Fiducia Supplicans in doctrine but not in practice in its “No Blessings” document, the Conference of Bishops of the Northern Region of Africa (CERNA) and the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference (SACBC) broke from SECAM, saying that they would bless persons in irregular situations.
So the situation even in Africa on FS isn’t necessarily in lockstep against it.
That is incorrect. Fiducia supplicans does in fact apply in Africa, Francis just reinterpreted what was required to be believed in Africa. That was the whole point of Ambongo going to Rome and making both Francis and Fernandez kiss his ring for a change.
It was also obvious it was going to happen a week after it was released, so I do not understand for the life of me why so many otherwise smart people went to the mattresses to defend something Rome was making clear they were already retreating on.
I think you mean to call the sad state of high profile marriages as “serial monogamy”… they only marry one person at a time, however brief.
I think the difference is that Cardinal Ambogno has at least proven he actually believes Church teaching on these matters. Whereas McElroy, Cupich et al almost certainly do not. Or, like womens ordination, they take the Cardinal O'Malley approach: they disagree with the decision personally but respect the Church's authority when it says it cannot.
And in the West, homosexuality is not actually normative either. In Catholic circles while it certainly exists, it is not in fact what you would call commonplace. It's rarer than in secular circles, and in secular circles it's already only about 5% of the population. I don't know the numbers on polygamy, but wouldn't be surprised if its more pressing.
I think the need for accompaniment is obvious - whenever you have a person living in a state of grave sin, they need to move from where they are to where they ought to be, they could use some assistance, and the process will take time. Another obvious statement: they will not enjoy many aspects of the process.
Cardinal Cupich has said he's in favor of allowing the divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion. That could be called accompaniment, but to where?
I don't think Cardinal Ambongo is falling into this trap (he affirms the need to provide accurate teaching regarding polygamy) but if a guy with 12 wives is a catechist and sees nothing contrary to Catholicism in having 12 wives, there are probably some clergy in Africa who have. The "icky" factor is a big deal, because a lot of people make moral decisions according to a conscience formed by their culture, not by the Church.
The case of polygamy is similar to divorce and remarriage, especially with children. Couples have moral obligations to each other, and parents have moral obligations to their children, irrespective of how those relations came to be. The challenge (described as pastoral accompaniment) is to find an arrangement that reconciles those moral obligations with the moral obligations of true marriage, and to support all persons involved as they live out that (almost always socially unusual) arrangement.
It is understandable that when missionaries first arrive, they may find the people living in unusual marriage situations and have to work with them to establish the Church in the area. However, when the Church has been operating in an area for over a century and we are three or more generations down the line, the descendants should not be expecting to continue poly marriages because their grands did it. I am glad this is being addressed.
Sounds a lot to me like this is a practice that the Church would have to accommodate for a generation and then be able to stamp out. That it's 3rd generation folks saying that the Church has been letting polygamists be active leaders in the Church for 100 years speaks to something breaking in catechesis 60 or 70 years ago.
If you accommodate for a generation, the next generation(s) figures it wasn't such a bad thing, since it could be accommodated. Actions are catechesis too.
If you don't fix the problem where it's at, you're really just kicking the can down the road.
He's just trolling western bishops, right?
Why not establish Catholic teams to go to parishes to teach chastity and how to maintain celibacy, whether you are African, Asian or a Westerner; whether your weakness is pornography, homosexuality, masturbation, erotomania, polyandry or polygamy, fornication or adultery etc?
A chastity counter-revolution is long overdue, surely?
Sacrament of Penance, used frequently must be emphasised.
The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Why not start such a team yourself?
Jason Evert does this in the US, primarily going to schools. He has worked very hard to educate *himself* on the typical US problems, including transgenderism. There are a few others out there, and I expect they'd appreciate assistance. Many do podcasting to extend their reach, to counteract the fewness of their numbers.