Rape to Marriage - IN THE BIBLE?

[followingtheway]

Hello everyone, my faith is shaken once again. Everybody’s all upset over Morocco’s “if she gets raped, she has to marry her rapist” law. But the thing is people have pointed out that that rule is the Bible too (Exodus 22:16–17 and Deuteronomy 22:25–30).

Any thoughts? Any rebuttals?

 

[severus68]

Hello everyone, my faith is shaken once again. Everybody’s all upset over Morocco’s “if she gets raped, she has to marry her rapist” law. But the thing is people have pointed out that that rule is the Bible too (Exodus 22:16–17 and Deuteronomy 22:25–30).

Any thoughts? Any rebuttals?

Firstly, right thinking Muslim Moroccons are protesting this horrible law. Why would a Catholic’s faith be shaken by such a heinous law?

Let us go to basics:

1. Forcing anyone to endure a sexual assault/rape is wrong and a crime under civil law in most countries. It is a sin to us;
2. Those two Biblical references are in respect of a time when women were considered possessions of fathers and then husbands. Christ taught us women are also made in the image of God, with full and equal dignity, no less than a man.

 

[fpt]

According to the Canon Law (Law of the Roman Catholic Church), for that the natural and sacramental wedding be (I mean a valid marriage in function of The Natural Law and the Divine Law - natural order wanted by the Creator, God (Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost) -, It is compulsary and that:

The Bride -The Fiancée and the futur wife - have to be totally free, a volition without pressures from families, friends, clans, groups, laws, States, administrations : See Can. 1103 “A marriage is invalid if entered into because of force or grave fear from without, even if unintentionally inflicted, so that a person is compelled to choose marriage in order to be free from it.” Violence and Fear have not to exist. It is a absolute prohibition.

In this case, there were for instance:

1. Pressure from the civil local law that is coming from the muslim religious law - a approach very far away from the natural law on the agreement about the wedding - This civil law is scandalous, unfair, wrong, illicit, bad and witout effect in the catholic meaning.
2. Pressure from her family, because in the islam, it is a great shame, a big issue for all the family. In addition, it is a shame for her and more yet for all the rest of the family (there is a superiority of the group, the individual rights are not so important, they are secundary; there is a primacy of collective rights). If no marriage, she could be, may be, I say perhaps killed by her brothers (see Rape and Honor killing in Muslim Society);

There was too, the age of the woman, she was a teenager, 16 year old, she is a girl in the muslim world: no freedom, no preparation for the wedding, how to agree with the rapist. That is against the nature of the marriage. The good sens does not exist.

And there were other impossibilities for that the natural marriage be. See The canon law of the catholic Church.

 

[Bookcat]

First off the first one is about a man who “suduces” a virgin…and even in the second it seems concerned there with his obligations towards the woman…for he has put her in a difficult spot in terms of her getting married to another (in that culture).

As to a general approach to certain passages in the Old Testament:

“42. In discussing the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments, the Synod also considered those passages in the Bible which, due to the violence and immorality they occasionally contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day. In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel. So it would be a mistake to neglect those passages of Scripture that strike us as problematic. Rather, we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.[140] I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.”

-Pope Benedict XVI Verbum Domini

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html#The_God_Who_Speaks

 

[Nate13]

Read those passages you posted and then ask yourself: Are these requirements based on moral concerns or cultural/customs? If its not based in a moral truth then it has no bearing on today’s world. The Church’s teaching today obviously shows it does not consider this requirement in Exodus to be based in a moral Truth the same as it does not hold the requirement not to touch a menstruating woman to be a moral Truth. This is based on the culture/custom beliefs of the time that are predicted in Genesis when God states:

16 To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

Because of the fall we have concupiscence which leads men to be inclined to dominate woman and woman to want to possess men. The fact that the Bible describes this occurrence should not surprise us.

 

[Corki]

Hello everyone, my faith is shaken once again. Everybody’s all upset over Morocco’s “if she gets raped, she has to marry her rapist” law. But the thing is people have pointed out that that rule is the Bible too (Exodus 22:16–17 and Deuteronomy 22:25–30).

Any thoughts? Any rebuttals?

You need to understand the cultural situation of the time. Virginity was highly regarded. A non-virgin was not likely to find a husband. A non-married woman was going to be without protection. The OT passage was not a punishment for the woman but rather a responsibility placed on the man. If he caused a woman to lose her virginity, he was going to have to be materially responsible for her. Not a perfect solution but better than leaving the woman to fend for herself.

It’s not too far off from the laws now that make biological fathers financially responsible for any children regardless of the circumstances of the conception. If a child is fathered from rape, the man can still be required to pay child support. That doesn’t mean he is worthy of being called a “father” but he still has the material obligation.

 

[Bookcat]

First off the first one is about a man who “suduces” a virgin…and even in the second it seems concerned there with his obligations towards the woman…

As to a general approach to certain passages in the Old Testament:

“42. In discussing the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments, the Synod also considered those passages in the Bible which, due to the violence and immorality they occasionally contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day. In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel. So it would be a mistake to neglect those passages of Scripture that strike us as problematic. Rather, we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.[140] I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.”

-Pope Benedict XVI Verbum Domini

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html#The_God_Who_Speaks

 

[tafan]

Hello everyone, my faith is shaken once again. Everybody’s all upset over Morocco’s “if she gets raped, she has to marry her rapist” law. But the thing is people have pointed out that that rule is the Bible too (Exodus 22:16–17 and Deuteronomy 22:25–30).

Any thoughts? Any rebuttals?

Rebuttal? Go read the two passages you quote; you will find them much more concerned with what the man has to do and they say nothing about what the woman has to do. The Jewish law was all about protecting the rights of the woman who was wronged.
Not rocket science, to understand the passages as defending the woman’s honor and rights; in light of that day’s customs.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Hello everyone, my faith is shaken once again. Everybody’s all upset over Morocco’s “if she gets raped, she has to marry her rapist” law. But the thing is people have pointed out that that rule is the Bible too (Exodus 22:16–17 and Deuteronomy 22:25–30).

Any thoughts? Any rebuttals?

"that rule is the Bible too ".
is? was!!!
That rule was valid 3000 years ago, not now.
Now? Only with Muslims…

 

[tafan]

"that rule is the Bible too ".
is? was!!!
That rule was valid 3000 years ago, not now.
Now? Only with Muslims…

It is not the rule that is in the Bible!!!

2) Those two Biblical references are in respect of a time when women were considered possessions of fathers and then husbands. Christ taught us women are also made in the image of God, with full and equal dignity, no less than a man.

I will take exception to this also. I do not believe that Jewish law/customs considered women possesions of fathers or husbands. It has been a while since I have read Deuterotomy, but this does not seem correct. A common myth, but not correct. Someone can correct me if I am wrong with a quote from the laws in Exodus or Deuterotomy. One thing about ancient Jewish laws, they are well documented, so we do not really need to speculate.

 

[ethereality]

I understand those passages (I haven’t read them just now, but I think I recall what they’re about) by putting them into what I understand of society at the time: Marrying the raped woman means providing for her, and so it was a matter of justice (imperfect as the society was) of giving the woman what was her due.

We must understand history within its own context and circumstances: We cannot understand it by asking ourselves, “What if that were to happen today?” because life is different today. Society, infrastructure, many things have changed. Definitions also change: What marriage was then was most likely different from what marriage is now. Perhaps she would live own her own property with her own children, the husband visiting infrequently, as sometimes happens in polygamous societies – rather than “now I’m trapped in the same house with that rapist”, for example. So we really must be careful about context and historical circumstance.

Theologically, we understand that God leads people over time to a fuller understanding of truth and justice, so what He sometimes commanded were ‘temporary laws’ rather than ones binding on all people for all time.

 

[severus68]

It is not the rule that is in the Bible!!!

I will take exception to this also. I do not believe that Jewish law/customs considered women possesions of fathers or husbands. It has been a while since I have read Deuterotomy, but this does not seem correct. A common myth, but not correct. Someone can correct me if I am wrong with a quote from the laws in Exodus or Deuterotomy. One thing about ancient Jewish laws, they are well documented, so we do not really need to speculate.

I am not sure why you would take exception. I do not see that even any right thinking Jew would accept and even try to follow those passages literally.
It is not about speculation. I would be interested in your posting Catholic commmentaries from JPII for instance, showing a contrary interpretation to mine.

 

[Rainaldo]

Hello everyone, my faith is shaken once again. Everybody’s all upset over Morocco’s “if she gets raped, she has to marry her rapist” law. But the thing is people have pointed out that that rule is the Bible too (Exodus 22:16–17 and Deuteronomy 22:25–30).

Any thoughts? Any rebuttals?

A deflowered woman is unmarryable - no man would want her and therefore she is condemned to a life of poverty and shame. Therefore if the rapist thinks he can get off scot free after having his way with her, he has another thing coming: he must financially support her for the rest of her life.

That’s why I support forcing the rapist to marry her. Plus think of the deterrent value.

 

[severus68]

First off the first one is about a man who “suduces” a virgin…and even in the second it seems concerned there with his obligations towards the woman…

 

[PumpkinSeed]

The bible also says that rapists should be stoned to death. So after she marries him, he will be killed and she will get all his belongings and money.

 

[vera_dicere]

A deflowered woman is unmarryable - no man would want her and therefore she is condemned to a life of poverty and shame. Therefore if the rapist thinks he can get off scot free after having his way with her, he has another thing coming: he must financially support her for the rest of her life.

That’s why I support forcing the rapist to marry her. Plus think of the deterrent value.

Never mind the emotional state of the woman, ay? Afterall, we all know women aren’t really people, they don’t have feelings, they don’t have minds of their owns. They’re just pleasure machines for men.

Ever been raped, Rainaldo? Would you want to spend teh rest of your life married to your rapist?

And there are plenty of men who would marry a rape victim, and those men are truely men indeed, not snivelling little cowards who can only get a woman by force.

 

[Rainaldo]

Ever been raped, Rainaldo?

Raw emotionalism as a substitute for the exercise of human reason will get you nowhere. PumpkinSeed is right.

 

[severus68]

A deflowered woman is unmarryable - no man would want her and therefore she is condemned to a life of poverty and shame. Therefore if the rapist thinks he can get off scot free after having his way with her, he has another thing coming: he must financially support her for the rest of her life.

Would the victim want that or rather would she prefer to scratch off his face in hate and anguish. This would be adding insult to injury for the victim.

 

[Walking_Home]

Rainaldo:

Quote:
A deflowered woman is unmarryable - no man would want her and therefore she is condemned to a life of poverty and shame. Therefore if the rapist thinks he can get off scot free after having his way with her, he has another thing coming: he must financially support her for the rest of her life.

I assume you are referring to historical facts.

Quote:

That’s why I support forcing the rapist to marry her. Plus think of the deterrent value.

Would the victim want that or rather would she prefer to scratch off his face in hate and anguish.** This would be adding insult to injury for the victim**.

---

Most certainly agree.

 

[severus68]

Never mind the emotional state of the woman, ay? Afterall, we all know women aren’t really people, they don’t have feelings, they don’t have minds of their owns. They’re just pleasure machines for men.

Ever been raped, Rainaldo? Would you want to spend teh rest of your life married to your rapist?

And there are plenty of men who would marry a rape victim, and those men are truely men indeed, not snivelling little cowards who can only get a woman by force.