Ten More Minutes

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

Same video.

41:24 No, no.

The marriage would not be immoral, provided neither was already married or in consecrated celibacy.

And consummating it would also not be immoral.

41:29 "Disposing the affairs of others" does not refer to marriage.

You are basically stating that St. Thomas argued a man could marry a girl of twelve when both of them were in puberty, but still had to wait till she was 25.

Idiocy. 13 years of unconsummated marriage is inhuman, if both are physically capable of coitus.

When a child is procreated, the spouses are disposing of themselves, it is God who is disposing about the child.

The boy has reached the age to dispose of himself at 14, the girl supposedly due to lesser perfection overall reaches that perfection at 12, a little before the end of the second seven years.

This is, note it well, still today the medium age of puberty, 12 plus some month for girls, 14 plus some months for boys.

And pretending from "25, age of disposing of others" that it would be immoral to consummate marriage at this age is tantamount to making God, as creator of our organisms, the originator of temptation.

Disposing of others doesn't in this context even mean one's own children. They are nearly strictly one's own affair. If one isn't very clearly with very good proof convicted of incest or of murder with one's children, Medieval justice has no intereference with your children, oh, one more, if they are baptised and you are not Catholic (like if you have fallen into heresy or sth like the Mortara case).

If you are a master and you are not paying your journeymen, or lord of the manor and overcharge the villeines in labour days, they can sue you.

But if you are someone's child, you can even to this day not sue your parents for not giving you the usual amount (in your school) of pocket money.

This fact alone should dispose of the idiotic argument that "disposing of others" would include having children.

The wife of St. Lewis IX was 12 or 13 when they married in 1234, and even if their oldest daughter was born 8 years later in 1241, the waiting was not mandatory. Rather, they had pretty different characters.

St. Bridget was 13, she married in 1316, and her oldest child was born in 1319. Are you saying she was sinning since neither she nor her husband had reached 25?

41:40 "you wouldn't be able to dispose of your household"

A wife of 12 would indeed not have been able to sell a house or even rent out a hut without consulting her husband.

But 25 does not refer to raising children. "Pueri naturaliter sunt aliquid parentis" ... they are not the kind of other party that could sue you.

42:23 "the governance of family and provisions in the twenty-fifth"

Meaning, not that a husband between 14 and 25 had no right to make children, just that he was still under a tutor.

43:24 I think you may be reading from CIC 1917.

It was raised that year.

Or not. I e you are not reading from it.

"For the custom of a country is the best interpreter of the natural law in matters of this kind"

NEITHER in 1917 canon 1067 NOR in 1983 canon 1083.

If you are reading from a comment, say so.

Canon 1067
§ 1. A man before completing the sixteenth year of age, and a woman before completing the fourteenth year of age, cannot enter into valid marriage.
§ 2. Although marriage can be validly contracted above the ages, nevertheless, let pastors take care to discourage youth from entering into marriage before that age that, accordng to the accepted manner of the region, they are wont to enter marriage.

Canon 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.
§ 2. The conference of bishops is free to establish a higher age for the licit celebration of marriage.

Here is another writing, which is a comment:

Too young to marry
from: Edward Peters, "Too young to marry", America (22-29 Jun 1996) 14-16.
https://www.canonlaw.info/a_tooyoung.htm

"New annulment petitions are assigned by our judicial vicar to the tribunal judges on the first day of the month. Retrieving mine from the shelf, I know before cracking a file that at least one-fourth of my cases will involve a teenage petitioner or respondent. In many months that percentage will exceed one-third, and in a significant number of all cases both the petitioner and respondent will have been teenagers at the time of their wedding. That teenage marriages are markedly prone to failure is not surprising. That modern canon law still considers a 14-year-old ready for marriage is."

So, the guy commenting is in the business of too generous annulments.

Next paragraph says:

"Until 1917, canon law had basically considered anyone above the age of 12 capable of marriage. Thus, when the 1917 Code raised the minimum age for marriage in the church to 14 for girls and 16 for boys (1917 CIC 1067), the change was greeted as an improvement that recognized that something beyond mere reproductive ability was required for Christian marriage."

In other words, Edward Peters, a canonist (that's the only kind of people who deal with annulment petitions!) says that canon law prior to 1917 allowed girls (and according to his words even boys) to marry from age 12.

Now, the problem is not how many annulment petitions come from teen marriages. The real problem is how many teen marriages lead to annulment petitions.

Or, even more basically, how many of them lead to actual annulments. Edward Peters again:

"The idea of children hardly into their adolescent years being allowed to marry is a little embarrassing, and canonists queried on the topic usually reply that very few 14-year-olds get married anymore. Canon law, we add, was meant to apply in a wide variety of cultures, including those in which 14-year-olds marry happily (just where that land is we leave to anthropologists to determine), and in any case, we note, boys cannot marry until they are 16. Obviously, not all questioners are satisfied with these replies."

Anthropologists or historians. Pre-modern times generally. And for that matter, even in the 1980, Christians in Syria could marry from age 14, as that was the marriage age in Syria. In Spain that had changed some time between the beginning and the end of the now past century. If Franco was involved in the change, that would be one more point in his disfavour (I started out adult life as since my teens very pro-Franco).

44:25 Every canon involving validity of marriage is applicable not just to "ratum tantum" but to "ratum et consummatum".

You are not making up the "ratum tantum" category, but you are inventing when you pretend ages 14 to 25 would have only this but no licit "ratum et consummatum" ...

A person aged 9 would not validly enter a ratum tantum marriage, unless very precocious, because not yet able to make it a consummatum marriage.

46:36 "inducing thereby the impediment of public decorum"

Does NOT mean they are invalid, it does mean they are considered only betrothals up to when consummated.

The impediment of public decorum refers to this being an impediment against marrying someone else not of this being an impediment to that marriage itself as soon as it can be naturally consummated.

You have probably read lots more sources than I have, but you have not learned to read them.

46:47 "The marriageable age in France, Italy, Belgium, and Roumania, is eighteen for men, and fifteen for women (France requires also, under penalty of nullity, the consent of parents)."

France changed the parental consent clause earlier, but the age limit as such stood up to 2006, having been lifted from 14 / 12 by Napoleon Bonaparte.

In pre-revolutionary marriages in the families of Lafayette and his wife, women married at 12 and men at 14 existed.

The requirement of parental consent was, both in kingdom and under Code Napoléon, a heritage from pre-Trent local custom as part of the council was not promulgated in France. Jesuits, as we see from "Place Royale" by Corneille (the square is now known as "Place des Vosges") were circumvening the requirement by marrying young people anyway, and the marriages were then defended, as divorcing them would be a sacrilege.

France 1900 is not equal to France 1200—1300 when St. Thomas was writing. The question you responded to was not whether Napoleon was a pedophile, but whether St. Thomas was one.

48:04 Jake very much did read the material correctly, since these episcopal conferences adapting to secular legislation are adapting to norms that were put into place centuries AFTER St. Thomas Aquinas.

48:48 Again, you are referring to modern conditions.

Leo XIII in Arcanum Divinae makes it clear that secular legislation is basically meant to reflect canon law.

49:29 I'm glad ScholasticZoomer has some sense.

And again, 25 as per governing of household is not so much a fact of canon law as of civil law at the time.

The correct age for marriage as per St. Thomas is 14 / 12. Minimum age, that is.

50:01 As said, 25 was legislation of emperors, 21 was the opinion of Aristotle.

And if you are a girl married at 12 and giving birth at or close to 13 that's when your first child is 8. Especially as your spouse is 14 at marriage and 21 when the child is 6, if he also married at minimum age.

So, no, marriages contracted and consumed at 12 are not problematic this way.

Not even if "governing rational beings" had involved own children, which it actually didn't, legally speaking.