First Forty Minutes where Scholastic Answers at least partly Misjudges the Case of Jake Brancatella

First Forty Minutes where Scholastic Answers at least partly Misjudges the Case of Jake Brancatella · Ten More Minutes · Trudging on in a Quagmired Video: Five More Minutes

Jake Brancatella is WRONG... (Ft. SIIIG)
Scholastic Answers | 24.VIII.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWyTTmrc5IM

2:46 As neither Muhammed nor Aisha were baptised, sacramental validity would be irrelevant.

It seems noteworthy that Medieval Christians weren't critiquing Muhammed for Aisha's age, more like for polygamy.

3:42 "it's usually someone who's a creep and a weirdo"

Is that so when Sweden has 15 and UK 18 as age of consent and this contradicts even the canon law of 1917, not to speak of the canon law prior to that?

6:19 "mature"

If St. Thomas differred between Sentences commentary and Summa, we can treat the statement in the Summa (for instance, creation days as actual days, compared to his earlier preference for one moment creation) as more mature, as it is his final word.

This doesn't mean we can dismiss his judgement in Sentences Commentary or presumably even earlier (if genuine) Postilla in Libros Geneseos as immature, generally speaking.

If his last word on a topic is from the Commentary, and then this was reused in the Supplementum, this was his last word, the last word of the doctor of the Church.

If his last word (if any) was even earlier (like Postilla mentioning the Tower of Genesis 11 could be a militarised skyline rather than a skyscraper), that was his last word and should also not be dismissed, even if he was still among the Benedictines of Roccasecca.

Yes, I know I might be a minority of one in preferring to see Postilla as genuinely Thomasic.

7:31 Validity is not just a question of sacramental validity but also contractual validity, and therefore falls under the category of capacity for contracting a contract.

11:45 Let's be real.

Medieval dates of specific people are often irretrievable when it comes to exact dates.

In seven female* lineages, the dates I could find on wiki, the birth year would be given with a "c." meaning at least the two neighbouring AD years are possible, and the year of marriage would furthermore often not give exact dates, so there is a third year of variability depending on whether the woman was married before or after her birthday that year.

The median age for female marriage was therefore variable between 14 and 17 depending on accuracy or otherwise of the sources.

But, even on the idea of taking every age at the top of variability (i e median = 17), there were 32 % married before 15. That's not late teens, that's early teens. St. Bridget was married at 13, and the marriage was consumed at 14.

Couples of equal age certainly existed, but so did couples where the husband was ten or sometimes even 20 years older. For the parents of St. Francis of Sales, the husband was significantly older than the 14 year old bride, and the saint was born the year after the marriage, so there was no long delay in consuming it. The saint's father of the same name (sometimes with addition "de Thonon") was old enough to recall when Calvinism didn't exist.

The saint was born in 1567.

His father would have been at least sth like 14 years old when Calvin in 1535 went to Basel. So, at latest born 1521.

67 - 21 = 45, at 44 (at youngest) he was married to a 14 year old.

* Seven Female Lineages, Seventyone Women, High or Classic Middle Ages
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2024/07/seven-female-lineages-seventyone-women.html

22:55 Would a marriage while in mortal sin be sacrilegious, if the mortal sin was one one was combatting by marriage?

27:33 It must be kept in mind, there was one impediment of age, and that one nullifying.

There was not another impediment of age when it came to liceity.

It must also be kept in mind that St. Thomas is defending papal legislation. Canon law is an even higher authority than St. Thomas, at least when it comes to precepts.

I'm not sure how recent the papal legislation was, but it could have come as a reaction against John Lackland's daughter being married off at 11 to the King of Scotland, being forced to consume the marriage and suffering a miscarriage. Her brother brought her back to England.

I am however sure that marriages that were rata tantum were being done as low age as 9 in the lineages we are talking about.

32:03 "this is fourteen" — in males.

Supplementum Q 58 A 5, corpus:

I answer that, Since marriage is effected by way of a contract, it comes under the ordinance of positive law like other contracts. Consequently according to law (cap. Tua, De sponsal. impub.) it is determined that marriage may not be contracted before the age of discretion when each party is capable of sufficient deliberation about marriage, and of mutual fulfilment of the marriage debt, and that marriages otherwise contracted are void. Now for the most part this age is the fourteenth year in males and the twelfth year in women: but since the ordinances of positive law are consequent upon what happens in the majority of cases, if anyone reach the required perfection before the aforesaid age, so that nature and reason are sufficiently developed to supply the lack of age, the marriage is not annulled. Wherefore if the parties who marry before the age of puberty have marital intercourse before the aforesaid age, their marriage is none the less perpetually indissoluble.

33:03 "things that are outside him"' = like running a family business.

Marriage specifically is about deliberating oneself about the own person.

You would be highly dishonest to argue from age requirements of running your own business or administrating your own heritage to the same requirements being applicable for liceity or prudence of a marriage, except perhaps in the hsuband, insofar as he's the breadwinner.

However, since it's now common for breadwinners to be simple employees, who are not obliged to deliberate about the company, even that is not quite applicable.

Marriage is both valid and morally licit from the age of 14 / 12, except perhaps if the 1917 code raised it to 16 / 14.

33:35 It would stand to reason that husbands aged 14 are typically either royalty / nobles or shepherds, in which cases someone else definitely is governing the larger household (court or village) in which they live.

It could also occur among employees if the employer provided household facilities.

But procreating children being the natural end of marriage is a thing which definitely does not require this mature a judgement. This is a thing to which nature most pushes, and therefore does not require all that much deliberation, because there is not much room for uncertainty.

As to educating children, let's distinguish babies and schoolboys.

With a teen mother of 13 at the birth, she'll be 18 (towards the end of the third seven) when the boy or girl is even five, let alone 7 (school starting age in Sweden) when she'll be 20.

While chosing a school requires mature deliberation, changing diapers doesn't. Or breastfeeding. "I'll feed from my right breast because I consulted the horoscope" (which back then would have been a case of deliberation!) is definitely over the top. Feeding from the right or the left breast is not all that important.

And being chatty (like telephone bills of unmarried teen girls tend to suggest) is if anything a huge asset in teaching the infants to talk as they become toddlers.

34:16 No, this is not going to be the mere ratification.

St. Thomas very clearly speaks of marriage ratum ET consummatum.

Why? Because a ratum marriage is contracted by verba de praesenti, which means that it's meant to be consumed usually pretty straight off.

A longer waiting period was actual weird cases with nobles who could pull off a marriage that was ratum at an age which is more suitable for betrothal. Like, yes it occurs, at 9.

34:38 Age 25 implies the capacity of giving orders to beings with their own will, not a requirement to take care of toddlers or even 5 year olds.

Obviously, if a man is winning his bread as master of a trade in which mere journeymen are unmarried (and the journeymen who never become masters remain unmarried), very obviously such a man is not a breadwinner until 25, the age at which he can be master.

Unlike a shepherd (who could be doing this for the village since he was 7) or unlike a royalty or noble who's position is winning his bread.

35:12 Who says nobles are "weird cases"?

In the case of townspeople, being master of the trade was often required of the husband, as a breadwinner.

But in the case of villeines, in the time of St. Thomas it was far from a weird case if the lord of the manor decided to cut down some woods and create a new village and the first owners of land would be young couples.

Confer the US in 1860. Teen marriages would be much more common on the West, among new settlers, than one the East Coast in old towns or cities. That's available census data.

35:26 "this was spoken against during this time"

For clergy, I believe you.

For marriage, I would like an example. A source. I don't think you can get one as authoritative as Canon law or even as authoritative as St. Thomas.

37:07 When St. Thomas spoke of positive law, he pretty certainly meant Church law.

It's well into Modern Ages when states begin to have marital laws distinct from it.

When it comes to 21, in Austria before the World War, a man or a woman could marry at 21, but a woman as low as 14 with parental consent.

Obviously, that rule was not from the Babenberg era or early Habsburg era of Austria.*

France had 14 / 12 as law up to Napoleon who changed it to 18 / 15.

* St. Thomas lived in Paris basically during the time between the Babenberg and Habsburg rules in Austria.

Als Österreichisches Interregnum bezeichnet man die Zeit zwischen 1246 und 1256 bzw. 1278 oder 1282. Das ist jener Zeitraum, in dem in Österreich die Babenberger ausstarben und die Habsburger an die Macht kamen.

37:18, Gregory IX, thank you.

So between 1227 and 1241.

38:15 St. Thomas is saying that if a girl actually consumes marriage at 10, even though that is below the age requirement 12 (later on a Pope would to a Pole specify such wavering could only go down to 11 and a half), this consummation proves the maturity, so the marriage is not dissolved. Or if a boy consumes it at 13 or even 12.

The dissolution would only be of marriages just ratified but not consumed, but the non-dissolution would be typically of marriages consumed as the consummation proves the bodily maturity.

38:27 If they do not have the bodily maturity to perform a coitus, how could they even attempt to consume the marriage?

39:07 Yes, here St. Thomas outright said that the actual coitus is more important than whether one has reached the "age of" puberty. The 14 / 12 limit.

How many times does he have to repeat it and you still miss the point?

Citing St. Thomas:

"if someone should arrive at the required maturity before the time established, such that the strength of his nature and his reason should supply the defect of age, the marriage is no dissolved, and therefore of the parties contracting before the age of puberty were joined sexually before the age established the marriage would nevertheless stand as indissolvable."

Citing you, beginning a bit before 38:23

"before this bodily maturity is reached, they attempt to consummate the marriage, that would be not a consummation"

If the man had neither rise nor ejaculation, sure.

Citing you again, 39:19 "but if bodily maturity [occurs] before this age, it would be dissolvable, because it would be merely ratified, not consummated"

You are contradicting St. Thomas.

40:43 "this is canonical minors"

No, under 25 is minors in the laws of the EMPERORS. Not in the laws of the POPES.

Original video of Jake Brancatella, with my answer to the title and description:

Why Jay Dyer Dodged This Question...
Jake Brancatella | 23.VIII.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gL4eIebZ2s

No, he's not.

He was asexual. More specifically, he prayed for asexuality and got it.

He also never advocated for coitus before the physical occurrence of puberty, meaning he is not pedophile by proxy either.

He put the age limits a but higher up than Mohammed did.

1:16 The only criticism I know that St. Thomas made about your prophet's marriages is, polygamy.

3:49 Correct definition of paedophilia is, sexual attraction, exclusive or predominant, to beings who have not yet bled in the case of girls, not yet had an ejaculation, in the case of boys.

Certain other definitions come from feminism and from communism.

It's a bad day when Christians accept such incorrect definitions.

4:30 I don't share your view of Samuel Shamoun, but I will give you a point for consistence.

The attack on Muslims you describe doesn't come from Christianity, but from Soviets and Putinism.

5:16 It's not just about St. Thomas Aquinas, it's about a Church law by Pope Gregory IX.

We cannot be so advanced in science that we can restrospectively say that discipline of Apostles or legitimate successors (like that Pope) and that over centuries (so, not a temporary fad) is restrospectively wrong.

“Good and evil have not changed since yesteryear, nor are they one thing among Elves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.”

-Aragorn to Eomer

5:33 In fact, since St. Thomas was canonised, in Avignon by John XXII, in 1323, he is at least for certain types of persons (monks, friars, theologians etc) an example for all remaining times up to doomsday.

6:50 Jay Dyer is like Orthodox?

I think it was Czar Nicolas II who raised the age from 14 / 12 to 15 / 13.

It was Vladimir Lenin who raised it to 18 / 18.

Are Jay Dyer's holier relics in a Cathedral or a Mausoleum?