I reada book about royal marriages, both successful and unsuccessful. Several items stand out in these mini marital biographies.
First, most of these marriages were of dynastic and territorial importance. The spouses often did not meet until the day they were married, their mutual attraction being an entirely secondary issue to their kingdoms and their progeny.
Second, adultery was a common event, hardly surprising when a couple were wed for non-personal reasons. Although an accepted behavior on the part of kings, to the point of a king being thought odd if he did not have a mistress, adultery was cause for banishment or death on the part of the queen. Despite the expectation of male royal adultery, their wives met this behavior with reactions ranging from indifference to despair, jealousy and rage. Clearly, despite official sanction, there is something about human dignity and/or expectations in marriage that renders even official adultery troublesome.
Most interesting to me are the uses of religion in clearing the path for both marriage and divorce. Passages in Leviticus prohibiting sex with a relative’s wife or widow were used as a convenient excuse for divorce. Consanguinity, a common issue since a few royal and noble families accounted for most of the crowns of Europe, was another issue readily manipulated. Marriages that obtained a papal dispensation for consanguinity were annulled on the same basis without blinking an eye (sounds like a religious cloak for modern political flip-flopping to me).
This has echoes of a troubling aspect of the Bible for me. Favored individuals who break religious law are said to have their behavior ‘accounted as righteousness’. This is particularly true with David, who did all sorts of illegal things. This, and the histories I am reading, made me wonder: what exactly is sin in the eyes of God?
This issue comes up in a contrast liberals like to toss at conservatives. Conservative Christians are commonly strongly opposed to abortion, but favor the death penalty. If killing is against the 10 commandments, why is one type of killing acceptable and another not? Why is one sexual union lustful and wrong and another of apparent same type acceptable?
I feel the answer is in intent. Killing fetuses is a decision taken against a living, or at least potentially living, thing that has done no wrong. Killing a violent criminal is a matter of fleshly justice. This may or may not coincide with divine justice, but certainly can be condoned considering the safety of all of society.
Raping people is not acceptable. It is a violent imposition, and incest is not acceptable either. Consanguinity gets messier when families are closely related, and again intent becomes important, as well as the personal feelings of the participants.
God does not judge as Man judges we are told. Perhaps all these acts are the same in the eyes of God. Perhaps, on the other hand, God sees and judges motive in human actions, thus rendering illegal acts righteous when done for the right reasons.
It is a dangerous thing to flex morality in believing righteousness is being done. This degenerates too easily into ‘the ends justify the means’. More often, I think, we muddle through as best as we can, trying to do right, caught in Hobsonian choices and pulled by our desires.
What I feel is wrong is the compromise of values to deliberately injure another person, or to gain advantage socially or monetarily. We either live the values we espouse or we are frauds. Failure without such intent strikes me as less of a crime, and more of a weakness of need, situation or carnality, and therefore conceivably meriting God’s patience and forgiveness.
I hope so, because there are so many examples of such failings that if none of them can be forgiven, most of us are doomed.
Ted
First, most of these marriages were of dynastic and territorial importance. The spouses often did not meet until the day they were married, their mutual attraction being an entirely secondary issue to their kingdoms and their progeny.
Second, adultery was a common event, hardly surprising when a couple were wed for non-personal reasons. Although an accepted behavior on the part of kings, to the point of a king being thought odd if he did not have a mistress, adultery was cause for banishment or death on the part of the queen. Despite the expectation of male royal adultery, their wives met this behavior with reactions ranging from indifference to despair, jealousy and rage. Clearly, despite official sanction, there is something about human dignity and/or expectations in marriage that renders even official adultery troublesome.
Most interesting to me are the uses of religion in clearing the path for both marriage and divorce. Passages in Leviticus prohibiting sex with a relative’s wife or widow were used as a convenient excuse for divorce. Consanguinity, a common issue since a few royal and noble families accounted for most of the crowns of Europe, was another issue readily manipulated. Marriages that obtained a papal dispensation for consanguinity were annulled on the same basis without blinking an eye (sounds like a religious cloak for modern political flip-flopping to me).
This has echoes of a troubling aspect of the Bible for me. Favored individuals who break religious law are said to have their behavior ‘accounted as righteousness’. This is particularly true with David, who did all sorts of illegal things. This, and the histories I am reading, made me wonder: what exactly is sin in the eyes of God?
This issue comes up in a contrast liberals like to toss at conservatives. Conservative Christians are commonly strongly opposed to abortion, but favor the death penalty. If killing is against the 10 commandments, why is one type of killing acceptable and another not? Why is one sexual union lustful and wrong and another of apparent same type acceptable?
I feel the answer is in intent. Killing fetuses is a decision taken against a living, or at least potentially living, thing that has done no wrong. Killing a violent criminal is a matter of fleshly justice. This may or may not coincide with divine justice, but certainly can be condoned considering the safety of all of society.
Raping people is not acceptable. It is a violent imposition, and incest is not acceptable either. Consanguinity gets messier when families are closely related, and again intent becomes important, as well as the personal feelings of the participants.
God does not judge as Man judges we are told. Perhaps all these acts are the same in the eyes of God. Perhaps, on the other hand, God sees and judges motive in human actions, thus rendering illegal acts righteous when done for the right reasons.
It is a dangerous thing to flex morality in believing righteousness is being done. This degenerates too easily into ‘the ends justify the means’. More often, I think, we muddle through as best as we can, trying to do right, caught in Hobsonian choices and pulled by our desires.
What I feel is wrong is the compromise of values to deliberately injure another person, or to gain advantage socially or monetarily. We either live the values we espouse or we are frauds. Failure without such intent strikes me as less of a crime, and more of a weakness of need, situation or carnality, and therefore conceivably meriting God’s patience and forgiveness.
I hope so, because there are so many examples of such failings that if none of them can be forgiven, most of us are doomed.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment