N
nmoerbeek
Guest
From a legal point of view it should be determined by the body politic.
Woe onto any adult that harms a child from a religious point of view. That includes people who are mentally handicapped as children.
- Status
Woe onto any adult that harms a child from a religious point of view. That includes people who are mentally handicapped as children.
R
rwoehmke
Guest
It is very dependent on the times and the culture. A 12 year old in Colonial times may very well have been “adult” enough to marry and start a family. In countries and cultures with arranged marriages one does not talk about age of consent because it is not the bride or groom who consent.
In our country and culture in this 21st century a 12 year old is not usually mature enough or educated enough to perform as an adult.
The Church has set by canon law what the minimum age for consent to marriage is to be. Most states have similar laws. Usually a lot younger than I would have wanted any of my children to be married.
In our country and culture in this 21st century a 12 year old is not usually mature enough or educated enough to perform as an adult.
The Church has set by canon law what the minimum age for consent to marriage is to be. Most states have similar laws. Usually a lot younger than I would have wanted any of my children to be married.
S
survive
Guest
The ancient Jewish and Christian age of consent for both boys and girls ranged from 12 and a day (so as not to bother them on their birthday) to 12 and a half to 13 and a day. It was variable from one time and place to the next. But they consented to marriage only after the parents had presented them with the idea and they had gone through a long formal courtship process including extensive background-checking and job-interviewing on both sides. They didn’t need to be able to judge character with adult sophistication. They knew what to expect from each other. The consent was for at least a year’s and often two years’ engagement, during which time divorce was still possible, followed by a huge wedding where they made legally binding vows before witnesses. It wasn’t a courthouse shotgun wedding to a stranger. By then they were a minimum of 13, and most were in their mid-to-late teens. Then came a bundling time – they lived as sister and brother under parental watch, learning to get along. This was a month to a few years, depending on how long it took to get a home of their own. Then came a year-long honeymoon, supported by their elders, free of the draft, with about half a real adult’s share of domestic responsibilities, at the end of which the bride was expected to be with child. At that time she would be at least 14 years, a month and a day old. This is all based on the expectation that she would have her period before turning 13, and a boy would begin the change of voice before turning 15 – just like now.
They had such loose age limits because there was always the danger that if you didn’t marry someone when his father asked your father to talk to you about it, he would marry someone else by the year’s end and you would have only one or two choices, maybe bad choices, for several years before someone you liked came along or came of age. Most took that chance if they didn’t feel ready. Some, however, wanted to grab the first good offer. Remember that being alone was terrifying then, and it was common for a teenager to be orphaned.
In an individualistic society it makes no sense to allow engagement at 12 or 13 and marriage at 13 or 14. Those states where it is legal, though, rarely see it. Instead most women marry at about 25 regardless of the law.
I think the age of legal engagement should be 12 with a minimum 2-year engagement if the bride is pregnant and the groom is working – otherwise, add a few years to the lower limit to get engaged. The age of consent for casual sex or for elopement ought to be 21.
They had such loose age limits because there was always the danger that if you didn’t marry someone when his father asked your father to talk to you about it, he would marry someone else by the year’s end and you would have only one or two choices, maybe bad choices, for several years before someone you liked came along or came of age. Most took that chance if they didn’t feel ready. Some, however, wanted to grab the first good offer. Remember that being alone was terrifying then, and it was common for a teenager to be orphaned.
In an individualistic society it makes no sense to allow engagement at 12 or 13 and marriage at 13 or 14. Those states where it is legal, though, rarely see it. Instead most women marry at about 25 regardless of the law.
I think the age of legal engagement should be 12 with a minimum 2-year engagement if the bride is pregnant and the groom is working – otherwise, add a few years to the lower limit to get engaged. The age of consent for casual sex or for elopement ought to be 21.
R
RobHom
Guest
Frankly, so low that you would have to look up to see down!
D
Dale_M
Guest
There are a few, usually for boys. I guess the implications of pregnancy is the reason for the higher age of consent for girls.
Angola 12 & 15 (the second number is age of consent for girls)
Mexico 12-18 (depending upon which state you live in)
Philippines 12 ( or 18 if money is exchanged)
Zimbabwe 12 & 16 (the second number is for girls)
It is illegal for an American citizen or resident to have sex in another country with someone aged under 16, unless the age difference is less than 4 years, in which case the minimum age is 12.
8 additional countries set age of consent at 13.
avert.org/aofconsent.htm
R
RobHom
Guest
Before I answer that question, I have one for you:
Have you been fishing in that pond full of mud that is the internet…and read those WHOLLY UNSUBSTANTIATED claims that the age of consent in the Vatican City is 12?
Should like to make a case, please feel free, however, be aware that reliance on any, I repeat any documentation other than that provided by the Vatican itself is automatically refuted.
By the way…if you are basing your “facts” regarding any subject on “Wiki” or in some anti-Catholic forum or any forum for that matter…
By the way, I “backsearched” a few of those claims…and whats truly amusing is the sites they led to. Sick at best.
A
apromisemade
Guest
Whether or not it is legal, it happens. There are children here in the U.S, 12-13 years of age that are getting STDs. I know there are countries in Africa where there really is no limit on when a child can get married and/or have kids and girls as young as 10 are married off and start having babies.
It is easy to think “Dear Lord, what’s the world coming to.” But one has to remember there was a time, not even that long ago, where even in Christian society, 14-16 was considered to standard age for a girl to get married off. Go figure
.
It is easy to think “Dear Lord, what’s the world coming to.” But one has to remember there was a time, not even that long ago, where even in Christian society, 14-16 was considered to standard age for a girl to get married off. Go figure
.
D
Dale_M
Guest
I agree. Since all of the official residents of Vatican City are celibate, it stands to reason that there is no age of consent. If anything, sex is likely to be illegal.
Conclusive proof would be Vatican documents or, perhaps, a translation of the law which established the Vatican (assuming Italian law in the 1920s had an age of consent at 12).
Yep, I remember marveling at those laws when I was a teen (back in the 1970s). But I think they were carryovers from the age of shotgun marriages. The rise of birth control pills and ready access to abortion changed the need for such laws.
S
siamesecat
Guest
I agree a lot of it is cultural in that western modern teens are nowhere near mature enough to consent or handle such responsibilities. I find it hard to believe a twelve year old at any time could - but as Mary was 12, it just seems to me that the Church does not consider it wrong. Someone pointed out that society changed (lifespan etc) and I totally agree…but the Church teaches morality does not change based on society necessity…so I mean it’s not like the Church found it moral then and not now. I of course believe a twelve year old should not have sex wth a 30 year old, but obviously this was at one time considered normal, and is accepted by the Church (and if you believe the story of Mary, apparently by God or why would he not have had Jesus born to an older woman? Not lke 40, but at least late teens)
R
RobHom
Guest
Be that as it may… it is of little consequence as far as the OP is concerned.
Yes, in years gone by, where the average lifespan was generally in the low 30’s to the low 40’s, if that high… meant that if one was married in their 20’s, then they generally died before their children were 17 or 18.It is easy to think “Dear Lord, what’s the world coming to.” But one has to remember there was a time, not even that long ago, where even in Christian society, 14-16 was considered to standard age for a girl to get married off. Go figure
Yes the sexual activities and other wrongful activities of juveniles in this country is deplorable…
However, my response was intended and pointed to the OP, who seems to be up to something, and that something may well have been born from a sick mind.
R
RobHom
Guest
In actuality, I do not believe I have ever heard of anywhere that the “Catholic Church” has assigned an age to Mary. It has been presumed that she was at or beyond the age of marriage eligibility according to Jewish Laws in place at that time.
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Mary%2C_The_Blessed_Virgin
**Jewish maidens were considered marriageable at the age of twelve years and six months, though the actual age of the bride varied with circumstances. The marriage was preceded by the betrothal, after which the bride legally belonged to the bridegroom, though she did not live with him till about a year later, when the marriage used to be celebrated. All this well agrees with the language of the Evangelists. St. Luke (i, 27) calls Mary “a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph”; St. Matthew (i, 18) says, “when as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost”. As we know of no brother of Mary, we must suppose that she was an heiress, and was obliged by the law of Num., xxxvi, 6, to marry a member of her tribe. The Law itself prohibited marriage within certain degrees of relationship, so that the marriage of even an heiress was left more or less to choice. According to Jewish custom, the union between Joseph and Mary had to be arranged by the parents of St. Joseph. One might ask why Mary consented to her betrothal, though she was bound by her vow of virginity. As she had obeyed God’s inspiration in making her vow, so she obeyed God’s inspiration in becoming the affianced bride of Joseph. Besides, it would have been singular among the Jews to refuse betrothal or marriage; for all the Jewish maidens aspired after marriage as the accomplishment of a natural duty. Mary trusted the Divine guidance implicitly, and thus was certain that her vow would be kept even in her married state. **
Further: newadvent.org/cathen/01541c.htm
The opinion that Joseph at the time of the Annunciation was an aged widower* and Mary twelve or fifteen years of age,** is founded only upon apocryphal documents. The local tradition of Nazareth pretends that the angel met Mary and greeted her at the fountain, and when she fled from him in fear, he followed her into the house and there continued his message. (Buhl, Geogr. v. Palaest., 1896.) The year and day of the Annunciation cannot be determined as long as new material does not throw more light on the subject. The present date of the feast (25 March) depends upon the date of the older feast of Christmas.*
No-one really knows… though I have seen where it has been said that Mary was born in the year 20 BC, which would then make her 20 or 21 when Christ was born…
P
puzzleannie
Guest
the countries where this is a current issue–Britain being the most recent (let’s leave other centuries and other cultures out of the discussion) are debating specifically the issue of lowering the age of consent for homosexual relationships, the push is coming from the Gay lib lobby, most notably the notorious NAMLA.
R
RobHom
Guest
J
JimG
Guest
Certainly they will push for a lowering of the age of consent. Particularly if gay marriage is legalized, NAMBLA will argue that they ought to be able to marry their partners as well.Don’t you mean NAMBLA?
B
BlestOne
Guest
That makes perfect sense! No, really… If the age of consent laws were originally written not really to protect the girls… but the parents (from embarrassment or scandal) if their dd was pregnant at that age. (BTW… in 1910 in 40% of all marriages the girl/woman was pregnant at the time of the nuptials) So, if there is no way that there would be a pregnancy… as in homosexual relations… they could argue for a younger age of consent… and puzzleannie is correct… the only ones pushing for it are the ones that want to have sex with 12 yo’s… and personally… if anyone tried that with one of my kids at that age… well… let’s just say, I would probably be writting this from the jailhouse…
- Status