Query:

I have read some of what you have written about natural moral law.  In one of your books, you mention the moral superiority of monogamy to polygamy.  You write that although it is not part of the “core” of the natural law – the things we “can’t not know” -- it is true and demonstrable by reason.  Could you write a few sentences of explanation?

My family believes it is selfish and prideful of me to want to be married to one man exclusively, and that I should accept the way that God designed the man.  They also say God did not condemn polygamy, and that the Bible does not teach monogamy.

But the thought that I would not be enough for my husband, or that my entire individual personhood would not be adequate for the male nature, seems incredibly painful to me.  It seems deeply integral to my womanhood that I should be “fit for him.”

Reply:

My dear, your attitude is entirely right, and you should not be ashamed.  According to the classical natural law tradition, marriage serves two great natural goods.  One is procreation, the other is the unity of the procreative partners.   The problem with polygamy is that it seriously damages both of them –- and that is only the beginning of the difficulties it brings about.

Polygamy is bad for children because it attenuates the bond between father and child and turns the children of different wives into rivals for his affection.  It is bad for poor men because by producing a shortage of marriageable females, it causes hardship among males who do not belong to the privileged strata.  It is bad for rich men because it encourages the form of sexual selfishness in which they satisfy the fallen desire for mere variety in place of the creational design of mutual, complete, and exclusive union.  It is bad for women because it turns them into social inferiors, increases their vulnerability, and kindles jealousy among different wives of the same man.

Finally, polygamy undermines spousal intimacy.  The marital union is a mutual and complete gift of self between the husband and wife, and a husband cannot give himself completely to more than one wife.  At best he gives some of himself to one, and some of himself to another.  That is not the same thing at all.

Of course the thought that you might not be enough for your husband is painful to you.  Polygamy cannot satisfy a woman’s heart; it cannot even really satisfy a man’s heart.  Aren't love poems all over the world addressed from the Lover to the Beloved?  A lyric “to my darlings, Mary, Ellen, Susan, Penelope, Martha, Hortense, and Gwen” would be recognized everywhere as farce.  You were made to give yourself completely to a husband who gives himself completely to you.  He was made in turn to give himself completely to you.

If a woman refuses to be reduced to a tool of a man’s desire for sexual variety, it is not she who is proud and selfish for refusing it, but he who is proud and selfish for demanding it.  The desire for many women is not an expression of how God created the man, but an expression of how the creational design has been disordered by the Fall.

Besides natural law, you mention Scripture.  As St. Paul wrote in Ephesians 5, a Christian husband must lay himself down for his wife as Christ laid himself down for the Church.  He did not mean that a man should say to a succession of women, “lay down.”

In Old Testament days, polygamy was tolerated for a time.  Yet even in those days, Scripture warned against it.  We read in Deuteronomy 17:14-17, for example, “When you come to the land which the Lord your God gives you, and you possess it and dwell in it, and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me'; you may indeed set as king over you him whom the Lord your God will choose.  One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.  Only he must not multiply horses for himself, or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to multiply horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ And he shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply for himself silver and gold.

Notice that the passage regards the multiplication of wives as a form of greed, like multiplying silver and gold.  Notice too that the multiplication of wives did turn the hearts of the kings from God, as in the case of Solomon, who despite his celebrated wisdom was led by his many wives to give reverence to their many false gods.

Christ said, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 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’?  So they are no longer two but one.”  (Matthew 19:4-6, RSV.)

This is the reason why so deep in your womanhood you want to give yourself to one man alone, who gives himself to you alone.  I hope I have encouraged you to hold out and not give in.

Unitarian minister Robert Fulghum wrote in his book From Beginning to End that although “we wrestled with [the idea of Holy Communion] in the church I served for many years,” still, “my congregation was open to experiencing some similar act of community in a religious setting."

His response?  To pass out bits of tangerine.

“So how did it go?  I wish I could say it was overwhelmingly successful and ever since that day the congregation observes a tangerine communion.  But not so.  Why?  Well, it's hard to say exactly .... there wasn't a groundswell of enthusiasm for that particular act of community ....

"The experimentation continued.  Wanting to stay on a level the children could understand, we used animal crackers one Sunday ....

“Good idea.  But when the crackers were passed in baskets, some small children got worked up over not having their choice of animals.  The wail went up from more than one child.  ‘I want a gorilla.  How come he gets a gorilla, and I don’t?’  Even more unhappy were those who got a maimed animal or just a part.  ‘I don't want a leg -- I want a whole zebra!’  An entire basket of animal crackers was spilled when two children tried sorting through the cookies at the same time ....

"I don't give up easily.

"We tried Gummi Bears, jelly beans, and M&Ms (which do, too, melt in your hands, especially in church).  The all-time lulu was something called Pop Rocks -- a grape candy loaded with carbon dioxide that sort of exploded in your mouth when you bit down on it, producing a lavender froth around the lips and a purple stain on tongues that lasted a couple of days ....”

Fulghum’s conclusion?  Here it is:

"Reformation is never simple, never easy, never quick."

In recent centuries the novel idea has entered the thought of many religious people that natural law is a Western pagan invention, unsupported by Scripture or by Christian tradition.  To illustrate how far this notion falsifies history, I offer the following remark about Scripture from an unimpeachable traditional authority, one of the greatest Eastern Fathers of the Church, John Chrysostom, contained in his Homily 12, section 9.  The translation is in the public domain.

“When God formed man, he implanted within him from the beginning a natural law.  And what then was this natural law?  He gave utterance to conscience within us; and made the knowledge of good things, and of those which are the contrary, to be self taught.  For we have no need to learn that fornication is an evil thing, and that chastity is a good thing, but we know this from the first.  And that you may learn that we know this from the first, the Lawgiver, when He afterwards gave laws, and said, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ did not add, ‘since murder is an evil thing,’ but simply said, ‘Thou shall not kill;’ for He merely prohibited the sin, without teaching.  How was it then when He said, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ that He did not add, ‘because murder is a wicked thing’?  The reason was, that conscience had taught this beforehand; and He speaks thus, as to those who know and understand the point.  Wherefore when He speaks to us of another commandment, not known to us by the dictate of consciences He not only prohibits, but adds the reason.  When, for instance, He gave commandment respecting the Sabbath; ‘On the seventh day thou shalt do no work;’ He subjoined also the reason for this cessation.  What was this?  Because ‘on the seventh day God rested from all His works which He had begun to make.’  And again; ‘Because thou wert a servant in the land of Egypt.’  For what purpose then I ask did He add a reason respecting the Sabbath, but did no such thing in regard to murder?  Because this commandment was not one of the leading ones.  It was not one of those which were accurately defined of our conscience, but a kind of partial and temporary one; and for this reason it was abolished afterwards.  But those which are necessary and uphold our life, are the following; ‘Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not steal.’  On this account then He adds no reason in this case, nor enters into any instruction on the matter, but is content with the bare prohibition.”

The following story was passed on to me by a friend, who was quoting from a letter from his brother, a Japanese linguistics professor who had received it from his own friend, an American linguistics professor.  The “he” in the anecdote is the American.

“He was invited to give lectures at Loyola, his alma mater.  Having explained Chomsky's theory of linguistic universals, which, to put it simply, claims that all human languages have the same fundamental ‘grammar,’ he opened the floor for questions and comments.  One of the students objected that the theory was obviously ‘racist.’  When my friend, somewhat taken aback, asked what might suggest this, the student said it was an imperialistic denial of language differences, of multi-culturalism. My friend tried to explain that Chomsky's theory is, in fact, anti-racist.  No one, he said, is denying the richness of language diversity, but the deeper point is that all human languages (plural) are a manifestation of, well, human language (singular).

“'No,’ grumbled the student, ‘it's still racist.’

“‘But against whom,’ my friend protested, bewildered but also exasperated.

“‘Against the dolphins!’ came the reply.”

“The tests put upon candidates for the [Druidical] priesthood are immensely severe.  For example, there is a test of poetical composition.  The candidate must lie naked all night in a coffin-like box, only his nostrils protruding above the icy water with which it is filled, and with heavy stones laid on his chest.  In this position he must compose a poem of considerable length in the most difficult of the many difficult bardic metres, on a subject which is given him as he is placed in the box.  On his emergence next morning he must be able to chant this poem to a melody which he has been simultaneously composing, and accompany himself on the harp.  Another test is to stand before the whole body of Druids and be asked verse-questions in riddling form which must be answered in further riddles, also in verse.  These riddles all refer to obscure incidents in the sacred poems with which the candidate is supposed to be familiar.  Besides all this he must be able to raise magic mists and winds and perform all sorts of conjuring tricks.”  --  Robert Graves,Claudius the God