Age of Consent and History

[BioCatholic]

With the recent scandal of Rep Foley in the news, and the general increase in sexual contacts with minors, I have a real and genuine question.

Now, please don’t anyone think I am condoning adult/minor relationships, because I AM NOT.

So, 1000-2000 years ago, it was cool for a 25-35 yr old male to take a 12, 13, 14 yr old bride, correct? So lets say in 1478, a 30 yr old widower marries a 13 yr old Merchant’s daughter.

I’ll assume the Church gave its blessing, and performed the wedding ceremony, and performed the Holy Sacrament of Marriage.

1. God’s laws do not change, correct? So, if God was present at the Sacrament of this ancient wedding, it was OK right? The Church does not err in faith and morals, so when they performed the ceremony, all was good with God, correct?

Societies laws do change however, and today, this man would be put in prison for decades. He would be labeled as a horrible sinner and a predator.

****So, what makes it such an aggrevious sin in today’s world for such a thing to happen now, as opposed to 1000 yrs ago when the Church performed thousands of such weddings? I’m looking for a Theological answer, and NOT a Constitutional/Secular one.

If God’s laws do not change, and the Church does not err in faith and morals, then why does the Church now condemn such marriages and relationships in today’s society.

This is a Theological question. OK? Again, I’m not trying to give approval, I want a clear answer from the Theological perspective.

 

[porthos11]

With the recent scandal of Rep Foley in the news, and the general increase in sexual contacts with minors, I have a real and genuine question.

Now, please don’t anyone think I am condoning adult/minor relationships, because I AM NOT.

So, 1000-2000 years ago, it was cool for a 25-35 yr old male to take a 12, 13, 14 yr old bride, correct? So lets say in 1478, a 30 yr old widower marries a 13 yr old Merchant’s daughter.

Secular laws aside, this is permitted today, provided we bump up the bride’s age to 14.
1983 Code of Canon Law:

Can. 1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.

Restated positively, a woman can canonically consent to marriage when she turns 14.

I’ll assume the Church gave its blessing, and performed the wedding ceremony, and performed the Holy Sacrament of Marriage.

1. God’s laws do not change, correct? So, if God was present at the Sacrament of this ancient wedding, it was OK right? The Church does not err in faith and morals, so when they performed the ceremony, all was good with God, correct?

Yes, provided all ecclesiastical, moral, and sacramental principles were adhered to (age, absence of impediments, full consent).

Societies laws do change however, and today, this man would be put in prison for decades. He would be labeled as a horrible sinner and a predator.

****So, what makes it such an aggrevious sin in today’s world for such a thing to happen now, as opposed to 1000 yrs ago when the Church performed thousands of such weddings? I’m looking for a Theological answer, and NOT a Constitutional/Secular one.

Given today’s Canon Law and the history of the Church, it is not inherently sinful to marry young, even what would be considered “minor” by today’s secular law. Heck, our Lady was probably around 14 or 15 when she gave birth to our Lord.

If God’s laws do not change, and the Church does not err in faith and morals, then why does the Church now condemn such marriages and relationships in today’s society.

This is a Theological question. OK? Again, I’m not trying to give approval, I want a clear answer from the Theological perspective.

Again, given Canon Law, the Church obviously does not condemn such relationships. However, the Church does require the faithful to obey the legitimate secular authority for as far as the laws are just. The secular minimum age of consent is a just law, and as such, the Church frowns on those who break it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

With the recent scandal of Rep Foley in the news, and the general increase in sexual contacts with minors, I have a real and genuine question.

Now, please don’t anyone think I am condoning adult/minor relationships, because I AM NOT.

So, 1000-2000 years ago, it was cool for a 25-35 yr old male to take a 12, 13, 14 yr old bride, correct? So lets say in 1478, a 30 yr old widower marries a 13 yr old Merchant’s daughter.

I’ll assume the Church gave its blessing, and performed the wedding ceremony, and performed the Holy Sacrament of Marriage.

1. God’s laws do not change, correct? So, if God was present at the Sacrament of this ancient wedding, it was OK right? The Church does not err in faith and morals, so when they performed the ceremony, all was good with God, correct?

Societies laws do change however, and today, this man would be put in prison for decades. He would be labeled as a horrible sinner and a predator.

****So, what makes it such an aggrevious sin in today’s world for such a thing to happen now, as opposed to 1000 yrs ago when the Church performed thousands of such weddings? I’m looking for a Theological answer, and NOT a Constitutional/Secular one.

If God’s laws do not change, and the Church does not err in faith and morals, then why does the Church now condemn such marriages and relationships in today’s society.

This is a Theological question. OK? Again, I’m not trying to give approval, I want a clear answer from the Theological perspective.

From a theological perspective, “age of consent” is a red herring. It should not be licit for adults to fornicate. There is no such thing as a “consenting adult” – all adults are either 1) in a lifelong committment or 2) ineligible for sexual activity.

This is not to say that the penalty should be all that dire, not even that there have to be laws against it – fornication should be stigmatized, a stigma that encourages the development of the virtues.

Catholics don’t care about consent; we care about committment. If a man has (in history) married a 12-year-old girl, one must trust that he waited until she was mature to look upon her sexually. Otherwise, his committment to her well-being is false – he has violated her, and no “marriage vow” could ever make that anything less than rape.

“Consent” is a word used to limit what has already run amok: human sexuality. Let’s agree never to use it, as Catholics. We will obey the reasonable laws of our society (and the marital age law seems reasonable), but we will proclaim loudly that it is just as wrong for a man to exploit an 18-year-old as to exploit a 15-year-old.

Sexuality is about what we are responsible enough to give, not about what we are entitled to take.

 

[batteddy]

Yeah, once people reach puberty…there is nothing intrinsically wrong with people of disparate ages having sex.

Now. If it is fornication, it is of course wrong. But it is wrong whether the person is “underage” or not. It becomes no worse (except legally) just because the person is a “minor” (an arbitrary line)

And of course, there is the concern that people underage are being “taken advantage of” by the disparity in age or power…but taking advantage of someone is no worse just because the person taken advantage of is a “minor”. It would be just as bad to take advantage of someone in their thirties.

If a thirteen year-old girl and a 40 year-old man both consented to marriage (and if canon law still allowed it at 13) they could certainly be married.

 

[siamesecat]

With the recent scandal of Rep Foley in the news, and the general increase in sexual contacts with minors, I have a real and genuine question.

Now, please don’t anyone think I am condoning adult/minor relationships, because I AM NOT.

So, 1000-2000 years ago, it was cool for a 25-35 yr old male to take a 12, 13, 14 yr old bride, correct? So lets say in 1478, a 30 yr old widower marries a 13 yr old Merchant’s daughter.

I’ll assume the Church gave its blessing, and performed the wedding ceremony, and performed the Holy Sacrament of Marriage.

1. God’s laws do not change, correct? So, if God was present at the Sacrament of this ancient wedding, it was OK right? The Church does not err in faith and morals, so when they performed the ceremony, all was good with God, correct?

Societies laws do change however, and today, this man would be put in prison for decades. He would be labeled as a horrible sinner and a predator.

****So, what makes it such an aggrevious sin in today’s world for such a thing to happen now, as opposed to 1000 yrs ago when the Church performed thousands of such weddings? I’m looking for a Theological answer, and NOT a Constitutional/Secular one.

If God’s laws do not change, and the Church does not err in faith and morals, then why does the Church now condemn such marriages and relationships in today’s society.

This is a Theological question. OK? Again, I’m not trying to give approval, I want a clear answer from the Theological perspective.

I always wanted the religious explanation for this myself. While I think in our society teens are not as prepared emotionally as those living in that time were, I still fail to see why God’s law is that it’s horrific molestation now but a holy union before? I mean, look at Mary and Joseph.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So, 1000-2000 years ago, it was cool for a 25-35 yr old male to take a 12, 13, 14 yr old bride, correct? So lets say in 1478, a 30 yr old widower marries a 13 yr old Merchant’s daughter.

I’ll assume the Church gave its blessing, and performed the wedding ceremony, and performed the Holy Sacrament of Marriage.

1. God’s laws do not change, correct?

Depends upon what you mean by “God’s laws.” Divine Law is understood as that which is enacted by God and made known to man through revelation. For example, the Mosaic Law was revealed by God, and is therfore “Divine Law.” The Mosaic Law is commonly divided into civil, ceremonial, and moral precepts. The civil legislation regulated the relations of the people of God among themselves and with their neighbours; the ceremonial regulated matters of religion and the worship of God; the moral was a Divine code of ethics.

Divine Law of the Old Testament was inspired by God and imposed by Him on His people. Consequently, there is nothing in it that is immoral or wrong. Nonetheless, the Mosaic Law, even though it was authentically Divine, was imperfect when compared to the the higher morality of the New Law, and as such, not all Divine Laws are immutable. Divine as it was, some Divine laws are meant by God to be provisional.

Christ is the author of the New Law. The ceremonial laws of Moses were types and figures of the purer, more spiritual, and more efficacious sacrifice and sacraments of the New Law. Consequently, much of the civil and ceremonial elements of the New Law changed from the Old Law, even though the Old Law was just as much Divine Law as the New Law.

Nonetheless, the author of the New Law affirmed the immutable moral precepts of the Old Law. Christ expressly taught that the observance of these is necessary for salvation–“If thou wouldst enter into life keep the commandments,” which referred to those well-known moral commandments of the Old Law. Thus, of Divine Law in general, some elements are immutable, while other elements are not immutable, espeically with regard to civil and ceremonial elements, which can be provisional.

Yet, provisional laws are just as binding on the faithful as immutable laws.

Moreover, the Catholic Church by virtue of the commission given to her by Christ is the Divinely constituted interpreter of the Divine Law of both the Old and the New Testament.

The Church does not err in faith and morals, so when they performed the ceremony, all was good with God, correct?

Correct.

Societies laws do change however, and today, this man would be put in prison for decades…

Yes, and ecclesial laws change as well, insofar as they do not touch upon the immutable elements of Divine Law.

****So, what makes it such an aggrevious sin in today’s world for such a thing to happen now, as opposed to 1000 yrs ago

The Catholic Church maintains that Catholics are bound to submit to 1) immutable Divine Law, 2) non-immutable ecclesiastical law, and 3) non-immutable civil law (so long as civil laws do not demand a violation of Divine and ecclesiastical law).

Thus, violation of mere civil law is a sin, according to the Church, even if that civil law is not immutable.

 

[wjp984]

I could be wrong, but I think through emancipation or perhaps parental consent, one can get married before the age of consent and get around secular law even now. I could be wrong though.

 

[LilyM]

I could be wrong, but I think through emancipation or perhaps parental consent, one can get married before the age of consent and get around secular law even now. I could be wrong though.

Within limits of course - some attempts at marriage flat out wouldn’t be accepted, but then they’d pretty much be the ones that wouldn’t have been accepted back then either. Simply it’s a grey area, both on a theological and secular level, and is rightly treated as such.