Confirmation and Betrothal

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1027279' date='Jul 19 2006, 03:20 PM']
so I think that, since confirmation is the absolute most important decision anyone ever makes in their life, they should not get to choose it until they have made their second most important decision in life-- their vocation.

here's my plan.. tell me if you think it's ok...

I require my kids to, upon their confirmation, also either have a betrothal, be accepted into a seminary, or be accepted into a religious order, or make a vow to remain single their entire life. it doesn't matter how old it takes them to settle this, but it would make sense.

now the confirmation has to predate each one of these things, but upon confirmation one of these things should be planned... maybe to even occur on the same day (speaking of betrothal ceremonies, of course)

what say you? i think it makes sense, and would make confirmation more of a big deal.
[/quote]
Al, you're a great guy, I respect you, and I love you like a brother, but here I just think you're flat-out wrong. Of course, what you do with your kids your own business, but I think it's best to stick with the rules and time-honored wisdom of the Church here, rather than setting up your own extraneous standards. This idea only seems like a formula for disaster to me (but I'm sure you will have already changed your mind on this by the time your kids are old enough to be confirmed).

I've heard your ideas about early marriage, betrothal, etc., so there's no need to rehash that whole debate. However, the fact remains that in reality most people in their early-mid teens are not ready to make a permanent decision about their life's vocation, and it would be foolish to try to force them to do so before receiving the sacrament of Confirmation.
I know you'll say that kids should have made that decision at this time, but the reality does not always work out that way. And since you note in a later post that these things are "get-outable," then this whole issue becomes silly. There's no point in rushing into a "betrothal" or applying to a convent or seminary simply as part of some "coming of age" ceremony. These things are serious life decisions, and should not be rushed into prematurely and without proper seriousness. While I know you'll disagree, most 14-16 year olds (even in responsible Catholic households) are in no position to make sound choices about a marriage partner, or their life's vocation. And such things should not be forced on them by parents either. (Though I realize you may disagree with this also.)

And this is not to say that everyone should wait until 30 or 40 to decide on their vocation. But having decided on one's vocation should not be equated with being able to live one's faith as a mature Catholic. Some people (including some saints) have found their vocation late in life, for whatever reason. This does not always mean they are deliberately postponing it. Circumstances vary from person to person. However, I think it would be foolish to deny adult Catholics who have not "found their vocation" the sacrament of Confirmation.

At the risk of this becoming personal, I myself and still single and am no longer young. Sure, in an ideal world, I'd already be married or something, but for whatever reason, things haven't worked out that way (I guess whether this is the fault of myself, the ladies, society, God, or whatever, can be debated). I don't currently feel called to priesthood, and I do not want to make some vow of perpetual "single-hood" as I am still open to the possibility of marriage with the right woman. Yet I am glad to have the grace of confirmation to help me live and defend the Faith.
And simply rushing into a "betrothal" with the nearest available girl (who would unlikely even be interested) or applying to a seminary when I had no serious interest in being a priest simply to get confirmed would be moronic.

I'd agree that Confirmation and its preparation should be taken more seriously by most Catholics (for many, it has become regarded as simply a social ceremony, after which many kids stop going to church).
And lengthy postponement of marriage, etc., may also be a problem in society, but these issues need to be delt with in other ways.
Using Confirmation as a "reward" for (premature) "discernment" of vocation, or denying this sacrament to those who have not formally decided on their life's vocation, is simply a bad idea, and ultimately cheapens and distorts the meaning of that Sacrament.

However, I do believe the Church is wise and right to keep the Sacrament of Confirmation a separate package from those of Matrimony and Holy Orders.

Edited July 20, 2006 by Socrates

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1027424' date='Jul 19 2006, 11:16 PM']
Can a parent decide when to have them confirmed? I thought that was governed by the diocese. I know in the East they confirm at Baptism.


[/quote]
I would ask the bishop's permission of course, but I know of other families who have ask (and received) permission from the bishop to Confirm their children immediately following their baptism. This is one aspect I think the Eastern rites are a bit closer to the intention of the Sacrament.


Al,

Even in the Roman rite, it doesn't seem we're doing things the way they were intended. Reading the Catechism sounds like they expect one to be Confirmed before receiving the Eucharist. If we were to properly put the Sacraments back "in order" [i]and [/i] push back Confirmation to an age where the child can "decide for himself", we would also be withholding the Eucharist for quite a while. It just seems we ought to err on the side of grace rather than setting it aside until one ready to make a personal choice. Grace aids discernment.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='1027411' date='Jul 19 2006, 07:26 PM']
I disagree... I dislike the notion that Confirmation "makes one an adult" in the faith. This is false and completely beside the point of the Sacrament itself--which is the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In my opinion, we ought to be Confirming kids before we welcome them to the Lord's Table in their First Communion. (most of the kids (7th graders) I teach for CCD definitely need the grace of Confirmation before they enter High School)

I also dislike the notion that Confirmation is somehow a proclamation of the child's personal acceptance of the faith their parent's claimed for them in their baptism. While this may also be true for those who are Confirmed and can make the decision for themselves; this seems to be an anti-Catholic view of the Sacraments. God's grace is not dependent upon our understanding-- it is not dependent upon anything we can 'do', but freely flows through His Sacraments. The point of the Sacrament is not public ceramony/confession, but grace and the Gifts of the Spirit.

If/When I get married and have children, they will Confirmed shortly after Baptism. God knows they'll need the grace of Confirmation a heck of a lot earlier than 13 or 14.
[/quote]
Are you Eastern Rite?
The Latin Rite tradition is that Confirmation is received before people become adults in the Faith, and serves as a kind of intiation rite, and helps show the purpose of this sacrament.
In Eastern Rites, the sacrament is received after Baptism.
Of course, none of this changes the power of the sacramental graces themselves. It is imply a difference in the traditional place of the sacrament. Receiving Confirmation when Catholics are ready to be "adults in the Faith" does NOT reflect an "anti-Catholic view of the Sacraments." To say so is slanderous of the whole Latin Rite of the Church.
The Sacrament of the Eucharist does not depend on the understanding of those receiving the Eucharist, yet the Latin Rite Church only allows those to receive who have some understanding of what takes place in this sacrament and Who they are receiving. Same idea.

Edited July 20, 2006 by Socrates

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1027441' date='Jul 19 2006, 11:49 PM']
Are you Eastern Rite?
The Latin Rite tradition is that Confirmation is received before people become adults in the Faith, and serves as a kind of intiation rite, and helps show the purpose of this sacrament.
In Eastern Rites, the sacrament is received after Baptism.
Of course, none of this changes the power of the sacramental graces themselves. It is imply a difference in the traditional place of the sacrament. Receiving Confirmation when Catholics are ready to be "adults in the Faith" does NOT reflect an "anti-Catholic view of the Sacraments." To say so is slanderous of the whole Latin Rite of the Church.
The Sacrament of the Eucharist does not depend on the understanding of those receiving the Eucharist, yet the Latin Rite Church only allows those to receive who have some understanding of what takes place in this sacrament and Who they are receiving. Same idea.
[/quote]
No, I'm a Roman Catholic. Reading the Catechism on Confirmation gives one a very different view than "becoming an adult in the faith". See CCC 1298 "Confirmation follows Baptism", etc. Confirmation is a perfecting of Baptism.

Even in the RCIA process, candidates are baptized, confirmed, and THEN welcomed to receive Our Lord in the Eucharist. There should be a unity between these initiation Sacraments, as the Catechism stresses over and over. Even though the Catechism does make note of the difference in practice between East and West-- if we restrict Communion to the "age of reason" then children at the "age of reason" should well be able to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. Confirmation ought to be before First Communion. But we shouldn't be pushing back the Sacraments so far as to deprive children of necessary grace.

Edited July 20, 2006 by Fides_et_Ratio

[Aloysius]

socrates, note in my first post; i put no age limit on any of this. this is half push-confirmation-back until one is ready to make the decision and half move-marriage-forward closer to where the natural law indicates marriage (mid to late teens, as I have stated in previous posts, though I generally like to begin at the minimum age listed in canon law and go from there to late teens, it's still about mid teens, between 14 for girls 16 for guys and 20ish for both; ideally)

I understand the sacrament works either way, but the Latin Tradition views confirmation with another dimension and I fail to see any assumption that confirmation has occured before the eucharist in any document. confirmation is not out of order in the latin rite, it is exactly where it's supposed to be for our culture.

the whole point is that this is the most important decision any Catholic will ever make... if they're ready to make that decision then they're ready to make a major decision about their vocation. it's a get-out-able decision, yes, but it's still a serious decision which has come as the result of prayer and guidance and completely on their own initiative.

they may still only come to a final decision about their vocation late in life. the point is that based upon the dimension of the sacrament the western rite sees as choosing the Faith for oneself, which is a permanent life decision, one should make that decision at the same time as beginning to make other permanent life decisions.

I don't see how it's just silly if it can be gotten out of... it's purpose was still served-- the decision for the faith and the decision to seirously pursue discernment of a particular vocation occured at the times when they were supposed to.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

BUT

Confirmation is an "initiation" Sacrament, closely bound with Baptism and the Eucharist MORESO than Holy Orders or Marriage. If we're going to associate Confirmation with Sacraments, it ought to be with the rest of the "initiation" Sacraments. Eastern or Western theology.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='1027455' date='Jul 19 2006, 11:34 PM']
No, I'm a Roman Catholic. Reading the Catechism on Confirmation gives one a very different view than "becoming an adult in the faith". See CCC 1298 "Confirmation follows Baptism", etc. Confirmation is a perfecting of Baptism.

Even in the RCIA process, candidates are baptized, confirmed, and THEN welcomed to the receive Our Lord in the Eucharist. There should be a unity between these initiation Sacraments, as the Catechism stresses over and over. Even though the Catechism does make note of the difference in practice between East and West-- if we restrict Communion to the "age of reason" then children at the "age of reason" should well be able to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. Confirmation ought to be before First Communion. But we shouldn't be pushing back the Sacraments so far as to deprive children of necessary grace.
[/quote]
because the nature of the sacrament is not 'becoming an adult in the faith', that is a specific aspect of roman ritual surrounding it. confirmation is a perfecting of baptism, that does not mean it must come immediately after baptism. the tradition of the roman rite which includes as part of the ritual surrounding confirmation a choice made directly by the one being confirmed to accept the graces of his baptism is a great ritual illustrating just how it perfects baptism.

the graces of baptism sustain a child through their childhood. the graces of confirmation are needed by the time a child is no longer under the direct care and protection of his parents/baptismal sponsors. it does not need to be offered asap.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Fair enough, but Confirmation still ought to be received before reception of First Holy Communion. AND associated with the other initiation Sacraments, not vocational choices.

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='1027411' date='Jul 19 2006, 08:26 PM']
I disagree... I dislike the notion that Confirmation "makes one an adult" in the faith. This is false and completely beside the point of the Sacrament itself--which is the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In my opinion, we ought to be Confirming kids before we welcome them to the Lord's Table in their First Communion. (most of the kids (7th graders) I teach for CCD definitely need the grace of Confirmation before they enter High School)

I also dislike the notion that Confirmation is somehow a proclamation of the child's personal acceptance of the faith their parent's claimed for them in their baptism. While this may also be true for those who are Confirmed and can make the decision for themselves; this seems to be an anti-Catholic view of the Sacraments. God's grace is not dependent upon our understanding-- it is not dependent upon anything we can 'do', but freely flows through His Sacraments. The point of the Sacrament is not public ceramony/confession, but grace and the Gifts of the Spirit.
[/quote]

What Fides said!

But seriously Al. I'm familiar with a lot of your ideas, but I think you're seriously misled here. As some have noted in RCIA and RCIC(Children) Conf. preceededs eucharist regardless of the age of the confirmandi.

I fail to see how confirmation is the most serious decision a Catholic makes. It's not a decision like marriage or holy orders, its' a part of the sacraments of initiation. Bah, I'm tired and I'm not thinking clearly or able to explain what I'm getting at.

It seems like your understanding of "personal acceptance" of the faith through confirmation is similar to Protestants who don't baptize infants because it's too important of a choice and they should make it for themselves when they get older.

Our teens (and even pre-teens for that matter) need the grace of the sacrament to discern their vocation and better understand the mystery of faith, but tying it to the discernment of one's vocation just doesn't seem right for the reasons others have much more eloquently explained than I.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1027457' date='Jul 19 2006, 09:36 PM']
socrates, note in my first post; i put no age limit on any of this. this is half push-confirmation-back until one is ready to make the decision and half move-marriage-forward closer to where the natural law indicates marriage (mid to late teens, as I have stated in previous posts, though I generally like to begin at the minimum age listed in canon law and go from there to late teens, it's still about mid teens, between 14 for girls 16 for guys and 20ish for both; ideally)

I understand the sacrament works either way, but the Latin Tradition views confirmation with another dimension and I fail to see any assumption that confirmation has occured before the eucharist in any document. confirmation is not out of order in the latin rite, it is exactly where it's supposed to be for our culture.

the whole point is that this is the most important decision any Catholic will ever make... if they're ready to make that decision then they're ready to make a major decision about their vocation. it's a get-out-able decision, yes, but it's still a serious decision which has come as the result of prayer and guidance and completely on their own initiative.

they may still only come to a final decision about their vocation late in life. the point is that based upon the dimension of the sacrament the western rite sees as choosing the Faith for oneself, which is a permanent life decision, one should make that decision at the same time as beginning to make other permanent life decisions.

I don't see how it's just silly if it can be gotten out of... it's purpose was still served-- the decision for the faith and the decision to seirously pursue discernment of a particular vocation occured at the times when they were supposed to.
[/quote]
I know there's no age-limit, but since this would concern your children while they are still under your care and authority, this would presumably be before the age of eighteen or so.
And I disagree with you about marriage being appropriate for most teenagers, but we'll save that for the debate table.

I think it would be quite foolish and wrong to try to force teenagers into either being engaged, or else join a convent or seminary, or make a vow of perpetual chastity - or else be denied Confirmation.
It would be absurd to tell 16-17-year-olds that unless they have found a spouse at this time, they must make a vow of perpetual virginity, or else be denied this sacrament.

(However, I really don't think there's much point in arguing this further, as I'm sure by the time you actually have teenage children, you'll see things in a very different light.)

The bottom line is that I do not think it right for the Sacrament of Confirmation to be dependent on having formally chosen a permanent vocation.
Choosing to live the Faith as an adult Catholic is not necessarily the same thing as making a permanent decision on one's vocation, and should not be officially treated as such.

You asked what we think . . . Well that's my $.02.

Edited July 21, 2006 by Socrates

[Aloysius]

yep.

and it's not that I'd "see things in a different light", this little idea was just that; a little idea. I'm defending that idea for no other reason than it's an idea I put out there. I do appreciate your .02, that is exactly what I asked for, but I figured I'd continue to defend the idea so long as there was something more to be said about it. what I finally decide to do or not do is irrelevant... and in fact most discussions I get in on phatmass are like this: I need to see the argument play out so I remain on one side until I think it has been a fruitful discussion...doesn't usually affect my regular life one way or the other.

I'm reminded of something funny one of the few people in phatmass history ever to meet me said to me: "im sure you wouldn't like that type of silly humor, you seem like more of the serious intellectual type"... haha people don't have any clue how I am in real life and i love it that way!

but anyway, back to this discussion with this in mind and the understanding that my future kids' wellbeing is not hanging in the balance (we all know I'll just finally end up doing everything exactly like my parents did and then they'll be telling me they wish I had betrothed them from birth).. as far as I'm concerned it would make perfect sense for babies to be betrothed.. even before they are born... I have a very old fashioned view of marriage. I think that's why this little idea of mine seems so much less of a big deal than it does to the folks who consider "choosing a spouse" to be absolutely necessarily done by the individual rather than a big family event.

I'll always stand by the obvious historical evidence: when priests entered seminaries young and children married young, we had better priests and better marriages. Say what you will about the causes, but both of those things changed simultaneously and that indicates a causal relationship to me.

[Guest Rick777]

hmm...I'd sure like to be one of Al's kids. I sorta think this is an alright idea.....

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1028301' date='Jul 21 2006, 11:20 AM']
yep.

and it's not that I'd "see things in a different light", this little idea was just that; a little idea. I'm defending that idea for no other reason than it's an idea I put out there. I do appreciate your .02, that is exactly what I asked for, but I figured I'd continue to defend the idea so long as there was something more to be said about it. what I finally decide to do or not do is irrelevant... and in fact most discussions I get in on phatmass are like this: I need to see the argument play out so I remain on one side until I think it has been a fruitful discussion...doesn't usually affect my regular life one way or the other.

I'm reminded of something funny one of the few people in phatmass history ever to meet me said to me: "im sure you wouldn't like that type of silly humor, you seem like more of the serious intellectual type"... haha people don't have any clue how I am in real life and i love it that way!

but anyway, back to this discussion with this in mind and the understanding that my future kids' wellbeing is not hanging in the balance (we all know I'll just finally end up doing everything exactly like my parents did and then they'll be telling me they wish I had betrothed them from birth).. as far as I'm concerned it would make perfect sense for babies to be betrothed.. even before they are born... I have a very old fashioned view of marriage. I think that's why this little idea of mine seems so much less of a big deal than it does to the folks who consider "choosing a spouse" to be absolutely necessarily done by the individual rather than a big family event.

I'll always stand by the obvious historical evidence: when priests entered seminaries young and children married young, we had better priests and better marriages. Say what you will about the causes, but both of those things changed simultaneously and that indicates a causal relationship to me.
[/quote]
Hey, no worries. Discussing ideas (including strange ones) is part of the joy of Phatmass, even if I disagree.
(and btw, you've never really struck me as a humorless sort!)

I know there's not supposed to be debating on here, but I thought I'd add a few points.
1) While I don't think it's necessarily wrong in principle, I really don't get "nostalgic" for a return to arranged marriages. Most of these (as in certain third-world countries, and among European nobility/royalty) were made largely for political and/or economic reasons (sealing political alliances or treaties or as part of a pay-off of one family to another). (As in "we'll give you 100 head of cattle in exchange for your daughter's marriage to my son.") I don't like the idea of the sacrament of Matrimony being used as a tool of politics or economics. And let's face it: who would want to be forced to marry someone they absolutely could not stand to satisfy some deal of their parents?
And arranged marriages in eastern cultures sometimes lead to such things as infants being betrothed to older men, not to mention the problems that eventually resulted from inbreeding among the European royal families.

[quote]I'll always stand by the obvious historical evidence: when priests entered seminaries young and children married young, we had better priests and better marriages. Say what you will about the causes, but both of those things changed simultaneously and that indicates a causal relationship to me.[/quote]
2) The historical evidence is actually not obvious at all, nor is there a clear causual relationship. Every survey made on marriages shows that [b]statistically teenage marriages are significantly less likely to last that other marriages.[/b] If the problem of divorce was [i]caused[/i] by people marrying too old, this would not be the case.
The reason marriages tended to be more permanent in the past was that people (young and old) took marriage much more seriously than they do now.
There are many other things that changed that would effect the deterioriation of marriage - most importantly and obviously the immoral "sexual revolution" and the contraceptive mentality (which [i]preceded[/i], rather than followed the raising of average marriage age).
Of course, excessive postponement of marriage is a symptom, rather than a cause, of the societal/moral crisis (people spending their youth in promiscuous sex and unmarried "relationships," before finally "settling down" later in life, and feminism, with women postponing marriage to pursue careers.)
A return to true Catholic moral standards and taking marriage seriously will be the key to restoring the permanence of marriage. Rushing kids to get married at 16 will in itself do nothing to improve the situation.

Likewise with the priesthood. The problem is the heterodox and immoral people who run many seminaries, not the age of the seminarians.

I'm not saying people marrying younger than many do now is necessarily a bad thing; I am just pointing out that your supposed evidence for a causal relation between young marriages and more permanent marriages is seriously flawed.

[Aloysius]

no one's rushing kids to get married at sixteen. ideal age for marriage, in my view, begins at 14/16 for girls/boys and ends around 20 or very early twenties... ideal.

the marriage age began to be postponed prior to the sexual revolution. ergo, postponement of the marriage age is not a symptom. I see it as a cause. first you tell them they cannot have sex until they get married, then you tell them they cannot get married until at least their mid-20's due to educational and economic reasons. then they start to have sex before marriage. doesn't excuse their sins, but humanity is plagued with the perils of concupiscence and only few are called to the extra-ordinary vocation and grace to abstain from all sexual intercourse even when their bodies tell them to. you take away the moral way to have sex from people developing strong sex drives and they will have sex immorally.

I believe we can all agree that the way people treat marriage now is different than the way they treated it back then. Therefore, any age statistic showing young marriages not working out is tainted by the fact that that age statistic is taken during an age when most marriages don't work out.

young marriages don't work out because of the culture of the sexual revolution... see above for how the sexual revolution started (postponing marriage).

as regards priests... entering young can preserve them from being tainted by sins in this world. contrary to the opinion of psychological-heavy vocational directors nowadays, sewing wild oats does not get things out of your system it makes you more likely to continue with them and living out in the world doesn't prepare you from a life seperated from the world, it makes it harder to separate from it.

the stuff about arranged marriages: that life and society used to revolve around kindship and family relationships is not something bad. mismatched ages in many cases were something bad. but that a marriage develops not because of some elected decision but because of a family arrangement which took into account politics and economics, all of which were revolving around kinship at the time, I do not think is all that horrible. I stand by my belief that any two people can have a successful and loving marriage by the grace of God and Christian virtue, they needn't hunt down the "best match" to have a good marriage and a good family.

anyway, I do not hold an absolute necessity of young vocations; I just think they are ideal and the situations that lead to them ought to be encouraged as best as possible. that's the idea here.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1028563' date='Jul 21 2006, 08:17 PM']
the marriage age began to be postponed prior to the sexual revolution. ergo, postponement of the marriage age is not a symptom. I see it as a cause.
[/quote]
Actually, you're mistaken here.
The 1950s had the lowest median age of first marriage on any decade in the twentieth century. (And was much lower than in the 1890s)
"The pill" was introduced to the market in 1960, and this was followed by the "sexual revolution" of the '60s, and a subsequent rise in divorce.
The average age of marriage did not really begin to rise significantly until the 70s/80s.

Here's U.S. Census Bureau's Estimated average age of first marriages in the U.S. 1890-2003.

[quote]
Year --- Men --- Women

2003 --- 27.1 --- 25.3
2002 --- 26.9 --- 25.3
2001 --- 26.9 --- 25.1
2000 --- 26.8 --- 25.1
1999 --- 26.9 --- 25.1
1998 --- 26.7 --- 25.0
1997 --- 26.8 --- 25.0
1996 --- 27.1 --- 24.8
1995 --- 26.9 --- 24.5
1994 --- 26.7 --- 24.5
1993 --- 26.5 --- 24.5
1992 --- 26.5 --- 24.4
1991 --- 26.3 --- 24.1
1990 --- 26.1 --- 23.9

1989 --- 26.2 --- 23.8
1988 --- 25.9 --- 23.6
1987 --- 25.8 --- 23.6
1986 --- 25.7 --- 23.1
1985 --- 25.5 --- 23.3
1984 --- 25.4 --- 23.0
1983 --- 25.4 --- 22.8
1982 --- 25.2 --- 22.5
1981 --- 24.8 --- 22.3
1980 --- 24.7 --- 22.0

1979 --- 24.4 --- 22.1
1978 --- 24.2 --- 21.8
1977 --- 24.0 --- 21.6
1976 --- 23.8 --- 21.3
1975 --- 23.5 --- 21.1
1974 --- 23.1 --- 21.1
1973 --- 23.2 --- 21.0
1972 --- 23.3 --- 20.9
1971 --- 23.1 --- 20.9
1970 --- 23.2 --- 20.8

1969 --- 23.2 --- 20.8
1968 --- 23.1 --- 20.8
1967 --- 23.1 --- 20.6
1966 --- 22.8 --- 20.5
1965 --- 22.8 --- 20.6
1964 --- 23.1 --- 20.5
1963 --- 22.8 --- 20.5
1962 --- 22.7 --- 20.3
1961 --- 22.8 --- 20.3
1960 --- 22.8 --- 20.3

1959 --- 22.5 --- 20.2
1958 --- 22.6 --- 20.2
1957 --- 22.6 --- 20.3
1956 --- 22.5 --- 20.1
1955 --- 22.6 --- 20.2
1954 --- 23.0 --- 20.3
1953 --- 22.8 --- 20.2
1952 --- 23.0 --- 20.2
1951 --- 22.9 --- 20.4
1950 --- 22.8 --- 20.3

1949 --- 22.7 --- 20.3
1948 --- 23.3 --- 20.4
1947 --- 23.7 --- 20.5
1940 --- 24.3 --- 21.5

1930 --- 24.3 --- 21.3

1920 --- 24.6 --- 21.2

1910 --- 25.1 --- 21.6

1900 --- 25.9 --- 21.9

1890 --- 26.1 --- 22.0
[/quote]
(Note that the average age of men upon marriage was significantly higher 100 years ago, when divorce wa almost unheard of than in the 1960s, when divorce began to sky-rocket.)