Pedophilia and Marriage

In Civics we have been discussing some of the influences on the formation of the American Constitution, including classical republicanism (thanks, Dr. Rahe) and the standard Enlightenment thinkers. But in addition to these worthy matters current events also come up, by design as I require a weekly reading response to a recent op-ed in one of the major papers. Though some students dislike the task of browsing the weekend op-ed pages on the weekend and having to find something they are vaguely enough aware of to respond to, several find it an interesting exercise in engagement with current events and good conversation fodder. Our class, which is 4th period immediately before lunch, is always attracted to a good secondary conversation (This is the same class where J. raised his hand in 10th grade during a discussion of slavery and deliberately asked with a his lethal-smirking face "Mr. Fuller, what do you think about the N-word?"). Today the fodder was provided by H., who offered a great deal of concern and outrage at an op-ed noting how pedophilia is now being justified in some states with arguments similar to those used by the gay rights (and several other) movements.

Richard Dawkins recently made headlines asserting that "mild pedophila" is generally harmless, something quite verboten in our Puritanical culture of Miley Cyrus stripper poles and incessant flesh-filled advertisements, movies, books, and magazines. Given his understanding of the world, it is hard to disagree. Anthony Esolen recently noted that America's objection to pedophila "rests on sentiments and not on moral reasoning." We are proper to find it revolting; we are hypocrites to then consume and celebrate both high and pop cultures of sexual liberation and empty sexuality and then find ourselves shocked by the results. Esolen's essay is quite damning.

The moral structure of pedophilia is simply this: the welfare of children is subordinate to the sexual gratification of adults.

Inflamed by the warrior-poet Esolen I took passionate hold of the topic, and proceeded to launch a classic diatribe, (available against almost anything, it seems) that awkwardly ended when I called arguments over the age of consent "pious self-congratulating bulls---" before realizing exactly what I was saying to a classroom full of my students. A slightly stunned and highly amused laugh immediately filled the room, drowning out my quiet apology.

At least that was with the seniors, who tend to view me (for good or ill) as a close ally in the fight towards adulthood than a faculty member to be feared (except my history exam short IDs. Everyone still fears those).

Not one period later, I found myself discussing marriage and the much-disclaimed verse from Ephesians 5:22 "wives, submit to your husbands as to the LORD." I think the path there was the Hebrew's conception of man as in the image of God per Genesis, to woman being made from the Rib of Adam so which image was she, and then why did God make the Woman from out of the Man and how does that in itself justify the ideas that Dad's are suppose to be in charge?! Because if you look at it Mom's run things. I refrain from comment and proceed to construct a short theology of marriage, recalling the next verse as "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church." Ah, here is a pattern they can begin to recognize, a cosmic order of creation. Christ as the Head of the Church who gave Himself for her; Man as the Head of the Woman, suffering as responsible for her deception due to his place as her head;* and as the head of their family loving her as a foreshadowing of Christ's love for the church. We are now speaking the language of covenant, and the more catechized heads begin to nod. Further explanation; empathetic comment that it strikes me as a pretty terrifying calling from the man's perspective; discussion of the Assyrian Empire waylaid til tomorrow. Class over.

Fifteen minutes later I climb the stairs to sixth grade, plotting how to best teach a new motion for our history memory song.

* Another question raised: would we all be held guilty for Eve's sin if Adam didn't eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but just Eve did? Would the curse still be valid through the mother, or would Adam's (hopeful) righteousness have prevented Adam's fall, in which we all fall? I haven't the faintest clue, my dears, but you have three other teachers with M.Divs so go ask them. Seriously, this is #abovemypaygrade.