JamesR wrote:[...] In regards to marriage--polygamy vs. monogamy, this is another topic that is not as clearcut as we would like to believe. How come in our modern times, the Church condemns polygamy, but during its earliest period, it did not? St. Paul never condemned the practice, nor did any of the New Testament writers. The closest we see is that he developed the concept of marriage as a Sacrament in Christ, but never limited a marriage to only one man and one woman--except in the case of clergy. So why does the Church condemn polygamy? Another example of it trying to match secular society's Puritanical Victorian ethics, adding to the Apostolic Faith? Next up, how about fornication? [...]
Your statement is highly inaccurate as many things you posted in the message that seems to come directly from some Internet forums or sites. Regarding polygamy, as I stated in paradise, there were only one man and one woman. Saying the church did not condemn polygamy in its early period is clearly false. You claim to look for source in the old and new testaments, which is not wrong but reveals a protestant attitude as if these were the only sources of authority (so you should look at other sources and how they were interpreted), , but you did not even notice Saint Paul epistle to Corinthians (I Corinthians 7:1). "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." Note the singular!
There is another methodological problem in addtion to you solo scripturism. You don't what ths Church is. You say for example:
The Church's modern position is that it is wrong and evil, however, historically, that doesn't seem to be the case. How come then many monasteries hosted slave auctions for Gypsies and the Russian Church was the biggest supporter of Serfdom in Europe? Among the Fathers, most seemed to be silent on the issue of slavery. And the ones who did speak about it either condemned it entirely as evil (like St. John Chrysostom and one of the St. Gregories, can't remember which) or at least did not approve of it. That being said, why didn't the Church listen to the Fathers and why has it waited until now to finally condemn the practice? It didn't stop the Church in the past from indulging in the practice, and the Church never did anything about the issue. Once again, it seems like the Church just ignored the Fathers and went with the secular world until the secular world decided to condemn it. Have you ever noticed that the Church didn't officially condemn slavery until AFTER the secular world had abolished it for the most, relatively recently?
For you, when a father says something, it is not the church. So what is the church for you? An assembly of bishop making an official statement? If so, why not laymen too since they belong to the church, why not priests and monks, since they belong to the church. By the way, what is an official statement? Isn't a text by a father or a homily an official statement? Your accusation about the church not condemning slavery seems to come directly from anticatholic propaganda and is entirely and absolutely wrong.
873: pope John VIII who was orthodox writes a letter "Unum est" to a prince of Sardinia explaining he must free slaves
1435 : Sicut dudum by pope Eugen IV condems slavery and excommunicates those who practice it
1537 : Pastorale Officium of pope Paul III condems again slavery
I must add that historically speaking slavery was abolished in France not only in 1848 (abolition in the colonies) but by the King Louis X le Hutin in 1315. Before her, the Queen Saint Bathilda who is an orthoddox saint, greatly reduced it in the 7th century. If slavery disappeared from Western Europe, it was a christian influence.
You also ask "How come then many monasteries hosted slave auctions for Gypsies and the Russian Church was the biggest supporter of Serfdom in Europe?" So, I ask you "How come then you keep on sinning while you perfectly know such things you do are sins?"