"I Still Have Many Things to Tell You, But You Cannot Bear them Now"


The little girl in the video above is 11-year old Nada Al-Ahdal.  See lives in Yemen, and her parents attempted to place her in an arranged marriage.  She fled the marriage, and in the video above she passionately and articulately defends her decision.  I am awe-inspired by her bravery.

The cheap move here is to chalk this up as more evidence of the backwardness of the Muslim world.  And that's what it is--a cheap move.  It's not as if Islam is the only religion and culture that has supported child brides.  Warren Jeffs and his FLDS were doing it as late as a few years ago here in the USA.  Age of consent in colonial America under the common law was 12, and the famous English legal commentator Sir Edward Coke noted that marriages often occurred earlier than that.  Gratian, basically the father of Catholic canon law, said that a child could "meaningfully consent" to marriage at the age of 7.
We have a tendency to point fingers at other cultures and ignore the history of our own.  Certainly, it is to our collective credit that we no longer tolerate marrying off women at very young ages against their consent.  But that's shouldn't stop us from asking the hard questions about the fact that such behavior  used to be tolerated.

But it's not just child brides.  Consider Abraham and Sarah, the first couple of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  On two separate occasions, Abraham basically pimps Sarah out to the locals in order to secure favorable treatment.  Perhaps even more tellingly, Abraham knew that telling the locals that Sarah was his sister would make it open season for the locals to have sex with Sarah, likely without her consent.  So, he basically sets her up to be raped, in order that he would get favorable treatment.  From the account we get in Genesis, God punishes the locals, not because they were rapists, but because they unknowingly had sex with a married woman.  Abraham gets no condemnation from God.

These are horrible stories.  But they are a challenge to those who identify with these traditions, and they leave us with three choices.  One, you can cast aside the moral and ethical notions we have and conclude that if Abraham did it, it must be OK.  Two, you can take the relativistic position, and say that what might be wrong for our culture might be OK for other cultures.

I cannot accept either of these two ideas.  So, we are are left with the third option--it is wrong now, and it was wrong then, regardless of what people thought at the time.  As wrong as what happened to Nada Al-Ahdal was, it was equally wrong when it occurred to Nada's nameless sisters back through the ages.  

Where does that leave us with regard to Abraham--and with the religions that revere him as their founder?  How do you rectify the at least tacit acceptance of these actions with our moral convictions?

I saw a video of a talk given by Gene Robinson, the former Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire best known for being the first openly gay bishop in the Anglican communion.  He talked about his scriptural justification for gay marriage and gay rights, and he pointed to Jesus's Last Supper discourse in the Gospel of John:

I still have many things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now.  When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you to all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

John 16:12-13 (NRSV).  [Edit: Link to talk here]

Put aside the question of gay rights--maybe some things that we see clearly as wrong were things that our forefathers could not bear to see.  Maybe the Spirit is working among us, allowing us to see what it means to be Nada and forced into a marriage at 11.  Maybe we should give thanks for that.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Jesus Doesn't Care if You Masturbate, and Other Provocations

Image
1.  A couple of weeks ago, I stumbled upon this post on the Patheos Catholic channel .  In it, a young woman named Marina S. Olsen began what she promised is a series of posts discussing sexual sins, and she begins with masturbation.  To call the post alarmist would not do it justice--even in the heyday of the drug scares in the 80s, an anti-drug ad that adopted this tone would be seen as over-the-top.   But something struck me in reading her post--Ms. Olsen believes, with an apparently unshakable conviction, that what the Catholic Church has to say about masturbation is true.  Actually, that's not quite right--she takes as a given  that what the Church says about masturbation is true.  It is noticeable that at no point does she try to do the Dr. Greg trick, which is to justify her opposition to masturbation on the basis of ostensibly neutral or scientific grounds .  No, her thesis is that people despair about masturbation because masturbation is going to result in those folks
Read more

Another Theology of the Body, Part VI--A Theological Exploration of the Clitoris

I was introduced to The Body's Grace by Frank from Letters to the Catholic Right in this post , where he quotes Williams saying: It puts the question which is also raised for some kinds of moralist by the existence of the clitoris in women; something whose function is joy. If the creator were quite so instrumentalist in ‘his’ attitude to sexuality, these hints of prodigality and redundancy in the way the whole thing works might cause us to worry about whether he was, after all, in full rational control of it. But if God made us for joy…? I want to talk about the first part of that quote here, regarding the clitoris.  I am not aware of any theology that has been done on the clitoris, but there should be.  As Williams alludes to, the existence and nature of the clitoris is a theological "problem," especially if you want to hold on to traditional Christian sexual morality.  It is especially problematic if you want to hold that sexuality needs to be understood through the
Read more

Holy Sex!--Part 3.3 Getting Down to Business, Part II

Chapter 12 is about foreplay.  Most everyone acknowledges that foreplay is good, and this chapter is no exception.  Popcak makes the interesting but seemingly effective choice to break foreplay down into the various senses.  So, for example, under seeing he discusses things like wearing lingerie, under smell he suggests to use scented candles, etc.  There is nothing revolutionary or earthshaking here, but the suggestions are solid and reasonable. He also provides an unambiguous defense of oral sex.  Some might be puzzled as to why oral sex needs defending, but the traditional position of the Church opposed oral sex--hence the reason it was traditionally grouped with anal sex under the heading of "sodomy."  So, Popcak is stepping out a bit on a limb here, and he deserves his kudos for that.  He also makes clear that oral sex goes both ways, subject only to the One Rule.  Good on him for recognizing the needs of the ladies in this realm. I could see how his constant use of
Read more